New Mandala

52 responses so far ↓

• 1 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:29 am

  I would prefer the King stay out of politics, but perhaps a speech about humility, integrity and compromise would be timely.

• 2 Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  Thanks Nganadeeleg,

  The point we are making is that the king’s royal brand is in the thick of the current dispute. He should, in our view, withdraw the royal brand from the PAD, not get further involved.

  Best wishes to all.

• 3 kaseu // Sep 3, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  I call for a new book entitled “The King Never Talks” and being all about the people who have talked ‘for’ and ‘on behalf of’ the king throughout modern Thai history.

• 4 Chayanin // Sep 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  If we considers the history of him and all his speeches, his silence at the moment really says something. I think it would be really good if the king comes out and say something indirectly, as usual, about using him as a brand. This bases on he acted before. Of course if he never said something before, saying something this time is political. But if he spoke on previous disputes and not this one, it can be implied which side he is on.

  Still, I’d say not saying something might be good. Especially if not any anti-govt after this. At least, if we want less intervention from him, asking him to intervene is not a good start at all.

• 5 kaseu // Sep 3, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  It would say something if he never talked but had a wry smile on his face.

• 6 R. N. England // Sep 3, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  It can be argued that the King has allowed the extreme right to call the shots because it is the only tactic available to prevent a blood bath, the prospect of which concerns him above all. While this has worked reasonably well so far, refusing to condemn the PAD’s tactics of causing serious disruption to the country may not work in the longer term. The PAD is setting a dangerous precedent for political behaviour: if you don’t get the government you want, tear the country apart! If nothing is done, the other side can and will use these tactics when their turn comes. It’s happening already. Perhaps when a few hundred more bus-loads of country people come to town and demand their equal “right” to occupy Government House, he will call both sides off in harsh terms. By condemning them both, he could stop this rot without alienating too much of his own motley power base.

• 7 In Bangkok // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Over 80 years old and we want him to solve all our problems.

  So if the King steps in now, tells people to go home, what exactly does that solve? The bad feelings between all involved parties will still exist. Perhaps people will just wait till he is no longer “around” and come out once again.

  The King has always hoped that these issues would resolve itself without his intervention. No doubt, if all else fails, then yes, he would step in.

  Personally, I do not think an election that was bought provides anyone with an “election mandate”.

• 8 HRK // Sep 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  It would be great, if the current problems could be solved by saying magic words. The current conflict is part of a longer process that became public three years ago. Even though it seems as if it is basically a conflict between a few persons like Sondhi, Thaksin, Chamlong and Samak that it lasts so long already and that no usual measures are taken indicates that it is part of a far wider process. For me it seems that the economic and political elites of Thailand are fragmented, which probably dates back to the Asia crisis and the economic shifts that resulted from it. S o far no group could establish itself as dominant. Usually such a situation of a plurality of diverse elites is fruitful for democratic processes, as long as a consensus exists on how to bargain out compromises. As all of these elite fractions are highly authoritarian, such procedures are not accepted and the conflict drags on and on. Thus, a magic word might reduce the presure and tension of the current situation, but it will certainly re-occur rather soon.
  Obviously, Thailand is currently facing a process of transformation of its political system. In such processes magic usually plays a minor role.

• 9 kaseu // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:25 pm

  The real magic is in the silence. Royal intent becomes ‘rumour’. Anyone and everyone can claim a direct connection to “divine will” and say that the silent one is keeping silent for this reason or that reason. They can claim to be speaking in his name like spirit mediums. “The king told me to” is the new magic phrase giving power to the divine mob.

• 10 Andy // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  While it is great to have a moral instance like the King, what really worries me is the fact that in every crisis lately it needs a royal advice to get the different parties working out a solution. Politics should be done by adults able to talk and compromise, not like Kindergarten kids who always need their teacher to solve their fights. What will happen when the King cannot step in anymore, and a successor did not earn the respect needed to make everyone listen? Maybe His Majesty tries to prepare the country for these times by waiting and hoping that the combatants can find a compromise on their own, yet I am not much optimistic with the current cast on either side.

• 11 Ian // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  Perhaps the only way to express dissatisfaction with the PAD actions is to boycott the economic interests 0f those at the top of the PAD. Does anyone have a list of the companies controlled by the PAD leaders?

• 12 WS // Sep 3, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  tha khun yang mai kwao jai nai panha kwam khat yaeng nie. tham mai phra chao yue hua thung mai sadaeng kwam hen . sadaeng wa khun yang mai kwao jai sangkom thai yang thae jeng. plake jai mak wa ma suksa sangkom thai nan tae yang kwao mai thung kwam subson nai kongsang baeb muang thai.

  kan mai pood kue kan pood. bang the mee palang kwa kan pood. And the king cannot said anything right now.

• 13 Dog Lover // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:03 pm

  WS: khun kaojai chat jaen khon diaow, chai mai?

• 14 Land of Snarls // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm

  There is a story going around Bangkok at present, that, having listened to Samak’s speech in Hua Hin last weekend, HMK asked, “Are you finished?” Samak is said to have replied in the affirmative, whereupon HMK rose and left without a word.

  Of course this is gossip, but IMHO, if it’s true there is a pretty clear message in it: ‘You were elected to govern - get out & govern!’

  It could be that at this end of a long and frustrating reign, HMK is now resolved to let his people take full responsibility for their actions & bear the consequences.

  Of course, that’s only one interpretation of the aforesaid gossip. Others could be more forceful. Was he saying, ‘cut the bullshit’? (Is PAD really responsible for the airport closures? Who placed the bomb at Government House? Was the murder of an anti-PAD protester really perpetrated by a PAD supporter? )

  Your “…King Bhumipol gives regular speeeches…,” while semantically correct (every 5th Dec.), might be taken to imply that he speaks often. In fact he speaks to the nation rarely. The April 2006 speech to which you refer did not instruct the judiciary how to vote. It reminded them that whichever way they chose to vote, the finding would be unpopular, so they might as well vote according to their best interpretation of the law. They appear to have done so, and have been criticized for it ever since, but it could be argued that the judiciary has been showing signs of increased independence and transparency ever since.

  Personally I don’t like him, but I agree with you that Samak has acted with restraint, and this is to his credit. I’m sure nobody wants piles of corpses of bourgeois old ladies, retired gentlemen, and teenage students further clogging up the traffic around Ratchadamnoen.

• 15 Dog Lover // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 pm

  Obviously Land of Snarls is not an avid viewer of Thai TV. The king is regularly shown making speeches and is more regularly heard making speeches. During June and July there were quite a few.

• 16 Amata // Sep 4, 2008 at 12:17 am

  For those who wanted the King to come out and say something, be careful what you wished for. History shows that the outcome of his intervention is not necessarily on the side of democracy and its rules of the game.

  His silence can be interpreted in many ways, e.g. that he did not want to interfere in politics (the line which many have used to defend his inaction), that he did not feel his intervention was needed (the PAD and the judiciary have been doing a good job in keeping the (corrupt/proxy) politicians in check), or that he thought the way the situation was playing out was not threatening to the monarchy, etc.

  I disagree strongly with PAD’s actions and its uncompromising demands. I was even more furious with the double standard being applied to PAD by the media (how many days did the BKK Post keep the wrongly reported article of the death of a PAD supporter on its website?) and the supporters of the old establishment (sorry for the lack of a better word). In my view, their prejudice is a major obstacle to the institutionalization of democracy in Thailand. I have been disappointed with the King’s position with regard to Thai democracy. I think his silence in this recent turn of events said it all and do not wish to see him intervene. At least right now the government still has the legitimacy to deal with the ever more showing insanity of PAD. Let’s not see this political struggle ends with yet again a royal intervention.

• 17 saay // Sep 4, 2008 at 12:23 am

  If this rumour is true, one could interpret that HMK really meant: “Go and face the mess the PAD is making in my name. If you abandon me to follow Thaksin here’s what you get. You should know by now that I prefer to support coup makers who tear up the constitution, and sometimes courts if they wipe out the remnants of the first broadly popular elected government in decades, but never elected governments. Me and my military friends enjoy watching the demise of democracy, since this proves once again that we are indispensable. This is Thailand, stupid! Don’t expect me to defend institutions - other than mine - people could put their trust in if they were only allowed to blossom in this country without interference from my followers within the military and the Bangkok elite. Democracy will never reign in Thailand. Never! Never!”

  Meanwhile, one of the king’s men is jumping the ship: FM Tej Bunnag.

• 18 TEFL/TESOL Trash // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

  IAN
  “Perhaps the only way to express dissatisfaction with the PAD actions is to boycott the economic interests 0f those at the top of the PAD. Does anyone have a list of the companies controlled by the PAD leaders?”

  Well if you were to boycott all the oppressive organizations here such as the PAD, PPP and CPB, you would very soon run out of anyone to do business with. That said, I would definitely opt for a bit of good clean healthy socialist right0nism. It can’t be any worse than the current bunch of incompetent buffoons who have nothing better to do all day except send out their programmed drones to do battle for them.

• 19 hrk // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:21 am

  There is a slight tendency here, as well as in some other blogs, towards personalization. Is it really that just a few selected strong (rather old) men shape the fate of Thailand and Thai-politics? Even though history is made by humans, what they do, even the most powerful, depends on established structures and power-differentials. In other words, the power a person has has little to do with this persons characteristics, but a lot with those structures that define the person as powerful. Even though the tendency is to olook for charismatic leaders, one should keep in mind that charisma is a social relation, not something a person owns! Thus, what are the structures and relations by which Sondhi, Thaksin, Samak etc. seem to become charismatic?

• 20 Krid // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:37 am

  HMK has openly endorsed Samak a few times now. This means he has dissociated the monarchy from the PAD and their protests and it also means that Pa Prem is not pulling the strings in the background and thus the PAD can’t claim backing from the highest institutions. This means that the PAD has hijacked the monarchy elitist vs. civilian populist divide to further their own agenda. This agenda remains obscure regarding the source of its backing/financing and its political objectives. Seriously, what do Sonthi and Chamlong want, really?
  The fragmentation of the “Bangkok elites” might mean that there is some positioning going on for the time after the eventual succession but who is pulling the PAD strings unclear. Is it Prachai?
  Anyway, the biggest failure in all of this is, as usual, the Democrats, who could have offered a sound political middle ground for moderate voices to gather, and a moral guidance against lawlessness and violence in the fierce division. Reminiscient of their performance against TRT, the Democrats are a spineless, pathetic, tragic failure!

• 21 Ed Norton // Sep 4, 2008 at 7:00 am

  Maybe the silence has ended with Tej Bunnag’s resignation. Samak to follow.

• 22 saay // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:28 am

  hrk

  A very good point, although I would stress that it’s always individuals who act on - and influence - the basis of those structures you are mentioning. Both are mutually dependent: in a society in which individual power holders are still highly respected (also due to structural and historical factors) and thus have a relatively free hand to influence history and structures, it is IMO justified to focus on these elite actors, their personal characters and morals.

• 23 ratisee rumruay // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  Maybe HMK feels now that he would be better off staying in Switzerland.

• 24 R. N. England // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  The very important implication of the original Walker & Farrelly post, is that just by saying nothing, the King is revealing his political alignment. It is the same as that of the police and Gen. Anupong, who have done nothing when they could have set up a cordon around Government House cutting off food and water, only letting people out. Unless the cordon was attacked by the mob, the place could have been cleared peacefully in a couple of days. They are all aligned against the government.

• 25 Sidh S. // Sep 4, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  Personally, I am glad HMK has chosen to stay out of this. Even if current events seem to say otherwise, I trust Thai society has finally come of age to resolve this without HMK’s intervention - and it is certainly about time (ever optimistic as usual, I am stating this more out of hope than confidence).

  This is conflict amongst the arrogant Bangkok and urban-based elites (lovely ideal, “Rural Constitution” - but the products leave much to be desired - a series of urban-based capitalist mafias through the decades) - each with very clear visions and agenda on how they’d like Thailand to be run. The key players who will either resolve this or make matters worse are PMSamak, PMThaksin, various factions of the PPP, Sonthi, Chamlong and the PAD, Gen Anupong - products of the Rural Constitution; Middle-class anger/arrogance/impatience; and the military respectively.

  The military has interestingly decided that this is a “political issue” and will not intervene either way (break up PAD or stage another coup). As, in this situation, they are still the most powerful group, that can be seen as progress in itself (especially in the context of past history/practices). Gen Anupong has clearly defined and limited the army’s role to keeping the PAD and UDD apart… Clearly in the cooler-head Thai Phuyai mold, he has consistently maintained his neutrality. (How a decision made a over a year ago, by other cool-head Thai Phuyais, made the difference! IF PAD’s choice, GenSaprang held the reigns, Thailand would already be operating in the undemocratic 70:30 mode!!)

  So it is more or less up to two parties. PAD will not bulge until PMSamak steps down. PMSamak will not bulge until PAD leaves.

  In many ways I feel sorry for PMSamak. All he wants, and very badly, is his four years in office and to retire gracefully - unfortunately he signed a pact with the devil and repayment is due with high interests. He fooled PMThaksin, who picked him as his nominee for his take-no-prisoner divisive style - thinking PMSamak will quickly pass constitution amendments and dissolve parliament to pave way for his return, by popular demand ofcourse, to power. Having shook off PMThaksin and, yet, maintaining PMThaksin’s tacit support (a civil war almost broke out in PPP when PMThaksin’s and KYPotjaman’s arrest warrant was issued countrywide after they fleed), he now faces PAD, hell-bent on bringing him down. PMThaksin through FMNoppadol essentially fed PAD the ammunition to bring PMSamak down (all PMSamak’s cabinet had to do with KhaoPhraVihear was to heed advice from the responsible agencies, seek a co-application with Cambodia for WH listing - or at least put the question to the parliament and the public first! Now PPPwants a referendum - only when it suits!).

  He is essentially already a lame-duck PM with little support base in the party (how many cabinet ministers did he actually picked?). The police are ineffectual and the military are playing referee. The only thing keeping him in power is essentially his house dissolution card. No MPs want an election now (despite Aphisit’s call for dissolution as a temporal solution), especially without PMThaksin’s funding and the mega-projects not starting yet (gotta have their 15-25% cut first to line their pockets and fund the election). A refendum, ofcourse, would be cheaper than an all out general election…

  Without the house dissolution card, I suspect PMSamak would have already been replaced as PM. I read in BangkokPost yesterday TycoonSonthi saying that he might be willing to talk if Suebpong Suebwonglee or Somchai Wongsawat is PM in Samak’s place (although stating that his views does not represent all the PAD’s leadership). If true, then a resolution is in the offing (over PMSamak’s dead body it seems!).

  And I think this is consistent with the message (at least my interpretation of it) from the palace and the military is for the Bangkok and urban-based elites to sit, talk and resolve this amongst themselves like responsible PhuYais. Thais have been disappointed many times before and used to it, but it should be the least we can expect in this day and age.

  My analysis of the PAD leadership is that most are actually willing to compromise. I am not sure of MajGenChamlong - who many seem to give too little credit (who, with his military background, is behind PAD’s strategies and disciplined defences). I dare say we owe both the 1997 Constitution and PMThaksin to his uncompromising stances that led to the bloodshed in 1992. Oh, don’t forget he also bought PMThaksin into politics - and now we have a historical case study of the mentor trying to kill off his best student for good! I really wonder what is in his head right now???

• 26 David Brown // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:44 am

  I saw a throw away line in the comments… “Personally, I do not think an election that was bought provides anyone with an “election mandate”.

  this is a line pushed by the PAD… and I think it can be refuted

  sure there was some money thrown around… a friend of mine suggested maybe 100MBaht, I just saw an interview with Somsak, one of the PAD leaders who said 30MBaht… also someone on a forum said votes go for about 400Baht (in esaan, note the regional sneer)

  I dont know whether any particular numbers can be verified, but one can do some numbers and say someone paid 250,000 people to change their votes…. there are about 40M voters in Thailand and the winning margin overall was in the millions

  and someone suggested that the Thai rural people are smart enough to take the money and, in a secret ballot, vote for who they really want

  so, enough of this crap about buying elections

  I think in the old days before lots of TV, radio and internet) the bangkok elite controlled everything (loudspeakers in the streets every morning in every village, control of the provincial and village officials…) so they cant realise that those days have now gone

  four democratic free and fair elections won because the party politics promised and then delivered real benefits for Thai people, especially around the country….

  I just think the PAD and their backers and the opposition democrat party are slow learners

• 27 David Brown // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:46 am

  Sidh….

  I suggest you check wikipaedia for Sondhi L…

  then tell me he is a man willing to compromise

• 28 nganadeeleg // Sep 5, 2008 at 9:28 am

  Welcome back Sidh. Where’s Teth?

• 29 R. N. England // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  The relationship between the PAD and the Thai monarchy recalls the uneasy and temporary alliances between the fascists and the monarchies of Spain and Italy early last century. The monarchies lost out in both countries: to the general in Spain, and to the rabble-rouser in Italy. Spain survived for many years as a moribund, Burma-style dictatorship. Italy was devasted by the war brought on it by fascism. The European monarchies that survived or revived were the ones that ceded political power to democratically elected government.

• 30 David Brown // Sep 5, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  R N England …. good and possibly salutary comment

  about fascists and the monarchy…

  but the Thai monarchy seems to studiously stay uninvolved in any political or power plays

  perhaps because he knows this history also and thinks its better to maintain the royal place in society despite everything else…

  selfish but maybe the thai people would prefer it that way

• 31 Sidh S. // Sep 5, 2008 at 7:27 pm

  David Brown, it’s only my analysis and maybe totally inaccurate - especially in times like these. I see it this way - PMSamak has everything to lose (the premiership and, most critically, his face, his saksee - “the world is watching” he recently said). MajGenChamlong, on the other hand, has nothing to lose… Both are rather well known for their inflexibility. That’s why I think, when push comes to shove, it’s down to these two men…

  It’s good to be back for this Nganadeeleg. Maybe Teth is finishing up his thesis or something?

• 32 R. N. England // Sep 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  I think it is about time we faced the fact that this is a conflict between the Monarchy, Thailand’s traditional and dominant system of patriarchy, and a new system of patriarchy, probably still headed by Thaksin, that has arisen from Thailand’s democratic institutions. The Thaksin patriarchy has many unattractive aspects, but it is one that people can vote out peacefully.
  The Monarchy is a vast institution that is much more than the King. He is its titular head, but the extent to which it controls him or he controls it, is the outcome of a battle of wits that a very old man cannot possibly hope to win. In any case, the rule of one man is largely a myth propagated by the institution of monarchy, in order to bring the population under its control. Only a few monarchs in the history of the world have managed to exert much personal control. Rama V, an enthusiast for the culture of western Europe, may have been one. The most fascinating European examples were the immensely talented and hard-working micromanager Frederick the Great, and the shrewd but self-indulgent Louis XIV.
  The present Thai King has been a highly successful front man for the monarchy, more because of his attractive character than outstanding ability. He is morally upright, and has resisted the temptations of the hordes of fawning young women that have distracted kings and princes throughout human history. This example to Thai husbands to treat their wives with more respect is probably a very great contribution to the improvement of Thai society.
  None of this has prevented his reign ending in failure. The failure is a mainly a constitutional one. The yawning gap between the democratic and the monarchical institutions has split the country. The most poisonous institution of all is the unelected Privy Council, and the King should probably share some blame for encouraging it. The Privy Council and the Cabinet appointed by Parliament should be one in the same. Thailand would do well to follow the example of more stable countries. In Australia, for example, executive power resides in the Governor General (the Queen of Australia’s representative) acting only on the advice of the Cabinet, who must be Members of Parliament, appointed by the Parliament. This unites the monarchical and democratic institutions and prevents the kind of split that is afflicting Thailand.

• 33 Sidh S. // Sep 6, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  An interesting analysis, intellectual exercise from RN England - but I suspect it is probably very wrong or he is just way ahead of his time. Unless PMThaksin, PMSamak, the UDD openly calls for the abolishment of the monarchy NOW, then there are no evidences to support this analysis. The future of the Thai monarchy will be decided by actions taken by future kings and queens - not by present events.

  I agree with GenAnupong’s analyis of the event - this is a “political conflict” between two group of Bangkok/urban-based elites - one advocating ‘business’ as usual while another wanting radical, even if undemocratic, clean politics. I began to focus on MajGenChamlong because of this moralistic overtones of PAD’s protest - against the worse excesses of Thai electoral democracy. Another similarly wild speculation (comparable to RN England’s) from me is that if there is any deep conflict in Thai society (apart from those concerning one man, PMThaksin), maybe it is a fundamental conflict in Thai Buddhism. I am seeing mainstream Mahanikai capitalist Buddhism (Dhammakaya as an example of its worse manifestation) Vs Santi Asoke (militant and ascetic), of which Chamlong represents (or is the civilian head).

  Contrary to what many in NM claim (and I urge you to follow Thai developments more closely), HMK has publicly spoken in support of PMSamak on many occasions reported by most Thai dailies. Tej Bunnag, known to be close to the palace, joining the Samak cabinet is also another clear evidence of DIRECT support. FMTej only quit after UDD’s attack on PAD. If there’s any signal, it is that the palace does not approve of violent means (which was already formally conveyed to PMSamak - again widely reported in Thai dailies). GenAnupong actions are consistent with that signal and he has limited the army’s role to keep the UDD and PAD protests separated.

  There are still many other mechanisms to be utilized. Recently, the Senate president has volunteered to be the intermediary between the two sides. Or maybe it has to go to the referendum favored by the PPP government - and even the general election, favored by the Democrats…

  The judiciary are already doing their job (another very positive development) - and on that note I personally feel that PAD should take that step back from the brink. I don’t really see PMSamak softening (esp backed by Newin Chidchob, another underestimated figure in NM, not following Thai developments closely - but Thai political analyst know he is a very prominent player) - unless someone finds him a graceful exit…

• 34 David Brown // Sep 6, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  RN England, thanks for your insightful discussion of the “broad” Thai monarchy and especially the Privy Council

  very helpful… it explains the seeming aura surrounding Prem and even more recently the remarks about Tej the recent foreign minister…

  it raises the question whether another hidden side to this may be the succession and whether the possible successors may be already securing their position.

  perhaps they see that they will have less scope under a government that has the direct authority of the Thai citizens and more scope with a government that is secured by their influence on the Thai people

• 35 David Brown // Sep 7, 2008 at 12:36 am

  Sidh….

  I am a bit surprised at your categorisation of the PAD-government clash as between two bangkok/urban elites…

  of course the government MPs are all educated (Bachelor degree required) and at least middle class, many would not have too close links into business per se.

  Rather i think they believe Taksin had a great broad policy agenda, encompassing major infrastructure, education, health through to regional and village strategies.

  While taksin was a major business figure the current PM Samak lives moderately, has moderate assets and his main claim to fame is his term as governor of Bangkok where he engaged in some significant developments and improvements.

  I think the government represents a continuation of the grand experiment (for Thailand) of fully representative democracy, including even the previously controlled and sunservient rural poor that actually provide the rice bowl and other agricultural productivity that is the backbone of Thailand’s internal and external economy.

  just a comment about the courts and justice… many of the personalities and some of the structures now in play in that arena (and the EC) were put there by the military junta, explicitly to ensure that “taksin would not escape justice”. So, agreed they are operating and hopefully have not been too distorted from their objective role.

  it seems the courts (admin and civil) have been willing to issue the obvious arrest warrants for nine of the PAD leaders for insurrection plus a string of lesser charges and an order for the PAD to vacate the government compound. the police and the (civil) court have also had the strength to arrest, charge and hold without bail 82 of the PAD “guards” who invaded and damaged the NBT government TV station.

  in response to an appeal from PAD the admin court has (weakly) amended its order to vacate the premise immediately to await the result of hearing of the appeal.

• 36 R. N. England // Sep 7, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  Sidh S. Neither Thaksin nor Samak, nor anybody in his or her right mind wants to abolish the Thai monarchy. They want to reform it so it is no longer a focus for anti-democratic interests. But if things continue to get worse, the monarchy could be a casualty of the madness of civil war.

• 37 Jim Taylor // Sep 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm

  Everyone, including Andrew have missed an important point: The king is not as autonomous or powerful as people/scholars make him out to be. His power is symbolic and that symbols can be used by whoever for whatever purpose…Hence the various interpretations of what the king said (or did not say). His public presentations (other than ceremonial events) are stage managed by close Privy Councillors especially and importantly Puppet Master Prem. In fact, Prem asked the king to come out in 1992 and mediate between Chamlong and Suchinda. He is certainly not going to arrange for him coming out now in the likelihood that intervention would see PAD fail- something that Prem and his conservative lackeys aligned with the Democrats do not want to happen at any cost…

• 38 jonfernquest // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm

  Sidh: “I agree with GenAnupong’s analyis of the event - this is a “political conflict” between two group of Bangkok/urban-based elites - one advocating ‘business’ as usual while another wanting radical, even if undemocratic, clean politics.”

  Thank you, Sidh, for that insightful analysis.

  As usual it cuts through the reams of the usual predictable one-sided preconceived notions of foreign public opinion, whether expressed through op-ed pieces, academic comment, or blog entries.

  Take for instance Duncan McCargo’s “Network Monarchy” article which is always invoked in a negative fashion to criticise the monarchy (finally got ahold of a copy at the Siam Society).

  The article completely ignores economics and the positive goods of Thailand’s stability and development under the rule of the present king, in short the ways in which the institution was effective. Instead the article takes little close to meaningless negative pot-shots at the institution of monarchy.

  All politics is networked. So why point out the obvious? The title itself “Network Monarchy” amounts to a bit of personal branding on the part of the author himself.

  Thaksin used elections to weaken this institution. PAD is using non-electoral means to strengthen it once again (and in that respect, it most likely has support from the military). Calling it “fascist” as some do simply misses the point.

• 39 R. N. England // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  Some more candid observations on the Thai monarchy.

  Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State which has a monarch as its front man. In rare cases he exerts real personal power.

  The personal probity of the present King of Thailand is beyond doubt. It is like perfume that wafts through the institutions of the Predatory State, disguising the stink of the carnivores that lurk in them. It creates the illusion that these shadowy figures are more upright than the politicians with a democratic power base.

  The Thaksin phenomenon has two main aspects: (i) the rise of democracy, and (ii) the emergence of a new, alternative, Predatory State. Both of these challenge the incumbent powers, and their desperate response is an attempt to crush both, which could lead to civil war.

  Nobody takes the laws of Thailand very seriously. Whether they are enforced or not depends on circumstances of power. An important job of judges in the Predatory State is to prosecute its enemies but give free reign to its supporters (such as the PAD). Judges enthusiastically enforce laws made by the Predatory State to frustrate democracy and persecute the people’s representatives. They have even upset the good relations with one of Thailand’s neighbours, acting in contempt of the International Court of Justice, and helping to bring the country to the brink of pointless war.

  The Thai education system exists mainly to serve the interests of the Predatory State, and unfortunately it has done this quite successfully. Students learn much less than they need in order to earn a decent living later. Teachers are mostly wooden-headed propagandists, and Thai academia is the most reactionary in the world. This explains the regular assassinations of schoolteachers in the South better than alternatives such as the conflict between Islam and the Enlightenment. Last year a school was burnt down in NE Thailand.

  Monarchy is not all bad. Since the days of Hume, observers have noted that the subjects of monarchies are usually more charming, polite, and generous than the citizens of republics. They have noted that the Arts tend to thrive in monarchies and languish in republics. All this rings true of Thailand, and there is reason to hope that the best of Thailand’s national character would be preserved in a genuinely democratic constitutional monarchy. It is my hope that in a reformed monarchy, the main function of the monarch would be as the principal patron of the national arts of Thailand with a very large budget for that purpose. He or she would, as a matter of duty, cultivate a strong relationship with all elected politicians without taking sides. The monarch would exercise a civilising influence on them, helping them to love their country by teaching them about the best of its culture. The special relationship of the military with the Crown would be ended, and the command structure firmly anchored in the Ministry of Defence. The Privy Council would be abolished, and a Constitution enacted that for ever protected the monarch from becoming a focus for anti-democratic interests.

• 40 jonfernquest // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  “Thailand is essentially an absolute monarchy with a democratic facade, put up to smooth its relations with the outside world. The absolutists kick away the facade whenever it becomes a serious encumbrance to them. An absolute monarchy is a variety of Predatory State…”

  What a load of drivel.

  Thailand is (or was) until self-styled Genghis Khan aka Thaksin got ahold of it, a well-functioning state.

  If you want to learn about real “predatory states” such as Zaire read Peter Evans “Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation.”

  http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5690.html

• 41 jonfernquest // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  Just because there is rent-seeking in a state does not make a state a “predatory state.”

  Read “Rents and rent-seeking in the Thaksin era” in Pasuk and Baker’s recent Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis for a description of the realignment of rent-seeking that went on. Mentions the populist programmes in passing also, but not much detail.

  Rent seeking relations are non-transparent and networked, business networks that Anek Laothomatas wrote about without having to create a personal academic brand and put-down phrase such as “Network Monarchy” that I have only seen people use in a purely negative sense.

• 42 karmablues // Sep 9, 2008 at 4:50 am

  Re: Neither Thaksin nor Samak, nor anybody in his or her right mind wants to abolish the Thai monarchy. They want to reform it so it is no longer a focus for anti-democratic interests.

  Is this the “reform” you are talking about? :

  1. Prof McCargo: “Thaksin set about systematically to dismantle the political networks loyal to Prem in a wide range of sectors, aiming to replace them with his own supporters, associates and relatives. Thaksin was seeking to subvert network monarchy, and to replace it with a political economy network of the kind described by Cartier Bresson (1997): a network based on insider dealing and structural corruption. …. demonstrating his determination to create a new super-network, centered entirely on himself, and characterized by a more hierarchical structure.”

  2. Prof McCargo: “The core struggle of the 1990s was one between conservatives associated with the military and bureaucracy, and liberal reformers [notably Prawase and Anand] seeking to strengthen civil society and political institutions [which the liberal reformists eventually won resulting in the 1997 people's constitution]. But Thaksin, the policeman turned tycoon turned prime minister, was playing according to completely different rules and ideas , favouring a toxic mode of leadership which left little space for rival players (Lipman-Blumen 2005).”

  3. Let me add from wikipedia, what is said about Prof. Lipman-Blumen’s concept of a toxic leader: “For Lipman-Blumen “toxic leadership” designates an extremely bad sort of leader. Toxic leadership is not about incompetence, lack of foresight, or run-of-the-mill mismanagement, rather leaders as predatory sociopaths ….these are the people for whom no malevolent act is out of bounds in the name of gaining and holding power ; who sell access to the highest bidders; who pursue policies that abjectly favor the investment class while maintaining a populist rhetoric…” Toxic leaders first charm and play on the people’s insecurities and self-esteem, but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than when they found them.

  So, are we talking about reform of the monarchy by “toxic leader” Thaksin through the creation of his “super-network” which was “based on insider trading and structural corruption”, “centered entirely” on the toxic leader himself and “characterized by a more hierarchical structure”? And this toxic reform project’s effect on Thailand’s democracy? Baker and Pasuk concluded in no uncertain terms that: “Thaksin Shinawatra has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development.”

  In conclusion: Reforming the monarchy is a highly important task for Thailand and its democratic development but Thaksin is simply not the right man for the job.

• 43 nganadeeleg // Sep 9, 2008 at 9:32 am

  The above post by Karma Blues summarises brilliantly why the PAD have so much support, and also why the current conflict is at a stalemate.

  The Thaksin/TRT/PPP agenda has forced reasonable people to behave unreasonably.

  Samak would be doing a great service to himself and the country if he could ignore that agenda, and instead set up a new consultative process to formulate a new peoples constitution.

  PS - I hope he is not kicked out on a cooking show ambiguity/technicality - that would be a travesty after walking the tightrope for so long now!

• 44 jonfernquest // Sep 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  “I hope he is not kicked out on a cooking show ambiguity / technicality - that would be a travesty after walking the tightrope for so long now!”

  Same with me. It would sound kind of ridiculous, even if it was technically correct, but being technically correct is what the law is about. Legal decisions are not about public opinion, although some powerful politician I guess could quickly rewrite all the laws based on the mandate of the rural masses and feel fully justified, although this seems ipso facto proof why Bangkok should be in full control of the country and not the two demographically strong rural swing regions of the north and northeast, as is the case now.

  The appeal on the two year jail term that Samak currently faces (and was facing when he was elected) will be decided on September 25th. Supporting the sentence wouldn’t be unreasonable and would provide a clear message to people who consider themselves above the law because they are VIPs.

• 45 matty // Sep 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  That was a very good post from ‘karmablues’. It helps to explain why every single TRT/PPP party members pledge undying allegiance to their Beloved Leader Thaksin Shinawatra or his designated proxy Samak Sundaravej.

  The uneducated and the constipated rural people would have no way of comprehending what toxic leadership from Thaksin Shinawatra and proxy Samak Sundaravej means. They can only remember the ‘goodies’ or handouts from Thaksin, but would have no way of understanding the dangers of toxic leadership.

  Jim Taylor seems to be an educated man . . . seems to be because Jim Taylor can bloviate endlesslessly in defense of Thaksin’s toxic leadership.

• 46 jonfernquest // Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  Thanks for those quotes karmablue. Seems like McCargo is pretty even handed with both sides in his argument. it’s too bad that people have turned the phrase “network monarchy” into a negative thing since in many ways it seems that this network is what held Thailand together and made it strong and prosperous for all those years. Thaksin was wrong to displace it as he did in the name of “democracy.”

  Anyway, who’s going to be the next Prime Minister?
  The court just ruled against Samak.

• 47 Sidh S. // Sep 10, 2008 at 12:47 am

  Thanks Karmablues - and I naively thought “Toxic” was a play on “Thaksin” all along while it is an actual concept. Yes, the country was generally functioning fine, as Jonfernquest said - with gradual improvements - post-Black May up until the first couple of years of PMThaksin’s leadership when his greed, power-hungry and monopolizing tendencies clearly took over.

  He gave democracy a very bad name and left a very bad taste for many in the Thai middleclass. In 1992 the urban-based middleclass FOUGHT THE MILITARY AND DIED for DEMOCRATIC RULE. In 2008, they support the PAD AGAINST AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT although the PAD leadership advocated an undemocratic clean politics - even if many personally do not support the 70:30 system. Something clearly went very wrong along the way and it is definitely not the monarchy, who certainly thought they can ‘retire’ with the passage of the 1997 Constitution and that the various independent bodies can keep check on the elected politician’s excesses and mitigate conflicts between the state and the citizen.

  Many in NM seem to see PMThaksin (and now PMSamak) as a democratic hero - they forget that it is the Thai middleclass that fought for and define “Thai democracy” through their urban-based violent experiences in 1932, 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 and now 2008. New Mandala has listened closely to the rural population (and I am deeply thankful for that) and formulated the idealistic “Rural Constitution”. I urge NM to exercise more impartiality and listen to the urban-based middleclass (old and young) too - believe me, they look at the quality of politicians in developed democracies, say in Australia’s (whether Liberal-National or Labor) with envy…

• 48 matty // Sep 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  Thaksin, proxy Samak and their TRT/PPP cohorts were certain ‘ethical lapses’ could NOT be possibly comprehended by gullible villagers. After all millions of these villagers think there is nothing wrong with accepting money from politicians in exchange for their votes. And when Thaksin or Samak tell them that ‘corruption is normal’ in Thailand to explain those many corruption allegations and legal cases against Thaksin and Samak and a whole bunch of TRT executives, those villagers were only very quick to nod agreement.

  Is that rural constitution or rural constipation?

  Democracy and the spirit of democracy fail in Thailand BECAUSE OF unethical, morally bankrupt and criminally inclined political leaders in the mold of Thaksin Shinawatra or his proxy Samak Sundaravej.

• 49 Strong words from the ICG // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:42 am

  [...] nice to those “senior establishment figures” getting a mention. As we have argued on New Mandala, one senior establishment figure in particular has made no attempt to withdraw his [...]

• 50 Portman // Oct 12, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  Whatever one may think of them and however flakey their leaders, I personally I think referring to the PAD as “the extreme right”, as R.N. England did is an oversimplification. They represent the city dwellers who are fed up with being governed by corrupt polititicians and big businessmen who are elected by the rural voters. This is a reasonable gripe. Equally PPP certainly doesn’t represent anything approaching a left wing. That doesn’t exist in Thailand where overly powerful and persuasive labor leaders and social activists are regularly murdered and disappear with minimal investigations from the authorities. PPP exists solely to provide material benefits to its politicians. These largely represent the Thai-Chinese middleman class upcountry, e.g. rice millers and money lenders, and big business in the capital. They have no vested interest in sustainably improving the lot of rural voters, any more than the PAD has a vested interest in supporting owners of capital over workers.

  The problem is that educating the rural masses is anethema to both sides. Educated rural voters would no longer vote for corrupt PPP politicians and middle class city people fear that educated rural people would no longer settle for poor wages and working conditions. Nevertheless, upgrading the almost worthless public education system upcountry, instead of regarding the Education Ministr as a piggy bank to be plundered at will, is the only long-term solution to Thailand’s social, political and economic woes. Ultimately with a better educated work force Thailand would be better able to compete in highly value added industries and there would be more pie for all to share.

• 51 foreign correspondent // Oct 13, 2008 at 1:01 am

  Middle-class battlers for democracy? Hmm. James Ockey in ‘Making Democracy’ describes how many Thais who died in 1992 - led by Chamlong, of course - were poor foot soldiers of the movement. The middle class participated, yes, but here as elsewhere the lives sacrificed to ‘revolution’ in whatever form are usually the workers’.

  Not to belittle anyone on the barricades, just a factual point.

• 52 Ed Norton // Oct 14, 2008 at 1:30 am

  Seems like the silence has been erased: http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/13/politics/politics_30085941.php
  Reminds me of 1976 and the run-up to the massacre on 6 Oct.

Leave a Comment