Tuesday, December 09, 2008 The king and them [-This article is banned in Thailand]
Thailand's monarchy
Dec 4th 2008 From The Economist print edition
The untold story of the palace’s role behind the collapse of Thai democracy
THAILAND’S tourism business, its export industries and its reputation have been wrecked by recent events. Crowds of royalists have occupied the government’s offices for months and then seized Bangkok’s airports. The police refused to evict them. The army refused to help. This week the siege was ended after the courts disbanded three parties in the ruling coalition. But the parties plan to re-form under new names and continue governing, so fresh strife threatens. It is as if a thin veneer of modernity, applied during the boom of the 1980s and early 1990s, has peeled away. Until recently a beacon of Asian pluralism, Thailand is sliding into anarchy.
The conflict began three years ago as peaceful rallies against corruption and abuse of power in the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. The protesters, wearing royal-yellow shirts and accusing Mr Thaksin of being a closet republican, got their way when royalist generals removed him in the coup of 2006. But on democracy’s restoration last year, Thais elected a coalition led by Mr Thaksin’s allies. The yellow-shirts of the inaptly named People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) revived their protests and adopted increasingly thuggish tactics, prompting Mr Thaksin’s supporters to don red shirts and fight back.
Speak it not
Throughout this conflict, the great unmentionable, not just for the Thai press but also for most foreign reporters, has been the role of King Bhumibol, his family and their closest courtiers. The world’s most ferociously enforced law against lèse-majesté (offending the crown) prevents even the mildest discussion of the palace’s role in Thai public life. Such laws are mostly in disuse elsewhere, but Thailand’s was harshened in the 1970s. Absurdly, anyone can bring a lèse-majesté suit. The police have to take seriously the most trivial complaints. All this makes the law a useful tool for politicians and others seeking a way to damage their foes. Often, the press is not allowed to explain the nature of any supposed offence against the crown, so Thais have no way to tell whether it really was so disrespectful.
The lèse-majesté law is an outrage in itself. It should not be enforced in any country with democratic pretensions. Worse is that the law hides from Thais some of the reasons for their chronic political woes. For what the king himself calls the “mess” Thailand is in stems in many ways from his own meddling in politics during his 62-year reign (see article). In part, the strife also reflects jockeying for power ahead of the succession. With the king celebrating his 81st birthday on December 5th, that event looms ever larger.
Much of the story of how the king’s actions have hurt his country’s politics is unfamiliar because Thais have not been allowed to hear it. Some may find our criticisms upsetting, but we do not make them gratuitously. Thailand needs open debate if it is to prepare for the time when a less revered monarch ascends the throne. It cannot be good for a country to subscribe to a fairy-tale version of its own history in which the king never does wrong, stays above politics and only ever intervenes on the side of democracy. None of that is true.
The official version of Thai history dwells on episodes such as the events of 1992, when Bhumibol forced the resignation of a bloodstained dictator and set his country on course for democracy. But many less creditable royal interventions have gone underreported and are seldom discussed. In 1976, paranoid about the communist threat, the king appeared to condone the growth of the right-wing vigilante movement whose members later took part in the slaughter of unarmed student protesters. In the cold war America saw Bhumibol as a staunch ally and helped finance his image-making machine. This long-standing alliance and the fierce lèse-majesté law have led Western diplomats, academics and journalists to bite their tongues and refrain from criticism.
After the 2006 coup, the 15th in Bhumibol’s reign, officials tried to tell foreigners that protocol obliged the king to accept the generals’ seizure of power. Thais got the opposite message. The king quickly granted the coupmakers an audience, and newspapers splashed pictures of it, sending Thais the message that he approved of them. In truth the king has always been capable of showing his displeasure at coups when it suited him, by rallying troops or by dragging his feet in accepting their outcome. And he exerts power in other ways. Since 2006, when he told judges to take action on the political crisis, the courts seem to have interpreted his wishes by pushing through cases against Mr Thaksin and his allies—most recently with this week’s banning of the parties in the government.
No fairy-tale future
In the imagination of Thai royalists their country is like Bhutan, whose charismatic new king is adored by a tiny population that prefers royal rule to democracy. In reality, with public anger at the queen’s support for the thuggish PAD and the unsuitability of Bhumibol’s heir simmering, Thailand risks the recent fate of Nepal, which has suffered a bitter civil war and whose meddling king is now a commoner in a republic. The PAD was nurtured by the palace and now threatens to engulf it. An enduring image of the past few days is that of PAD toughs shooting at government supporters while holding up the king’s portrait. The monarchy is now, more clearly than ever, part of the problem. It sits at the apex of a horrendously hierarchical and unequal society. You do not have to be a republican to agree that this needs to be discussed.
As The Economist went to press, on the eve of the king's birthday, he was reported to be unwell, and unable to deliver his usual annual speech to the nation. So he had still not repudiated the yellow-shirts' claims to be acting in his name. His long silence has done great damage to the rule of law in Thailand. He could still help, by demanding, as no one else can, the abolition of the archaic lèse-majesté law and the language in the current charter that supports it, and so enable Thais to have a proper debate about their future. He made a half-hearted stab at this in 2005, saying he should not be above criticism. But nothing short of the law’s complete repeal will do. Thailand’s friends should tell it so.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008 "The Economist" banned over critical article on Thai king [-So much for democracy in Thailand!]
9 December 2008 SEAPA (Southeast Asian Press Alliance)
The Thai distributor of "The Economist" banned the 6-10 December issue of the magazine because it contained an article critical of the country's monarch, news reports said.
The Agence France Presse (AFP) Bangkok bureau quoted bookseller and distributor Asia Books as saying it decided not to import this week's issue because the story on King Bhumibol Adulyadej's alleged role in politics "risks insulting the monarchy".
Under Thailand's lese majeste law, anyone who insults the king or the royal family faces a jail term of up to 15 years.
"We received excerpts of the magazine beforehand and we considered that it's sensitive and not appropriate, and also risks insulting the monarchy. So we decided not to import that edition," an Asia Books staff member told AFP.
The article, which is also available online, questioned the alleged involvement of the monarchy in the country's political affairs and its support for military interventions, the latest of which was the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra.
Thai police said the importer had agreed to a self-imposed ban on the story because of its critical stance on the monarchy.
"Police have talked to importers and distributors who agreed not to import the issue of December 6-10 because an article in the magazine criticised the monarchy," said Lieutenant General Thiradet Rodphothong, commander of Special Branch Police. "Therefore the police do not have to officially ban the magazine," he said.
"The Economist" website, which features the article, continues to be accessible and has not been blocked, according to Reuters.
The incident came on the heels of the latest political turmoil in Thailand which led to the shutdown by anti-government protesters of Bangkok's international airport for a week, paralyzing the country's economy, stranding tens of thousands of passengers, and hurting Thailand's biggest dollar earner—tourism. AddThis
This article reflects the way people on the other side have been behaving in responding or rather reacting to the cartoon in question and others supporting it. So, this is how the Thai royalists behave! Well done guys and congratulations on your intelectual deficits. Next time try to be patient and more reasonable in reacting to issues and public debates.
The patrilineal tradition of the Chakri dynasty is unlikely to be broken. And the prominent role played by the crown prince in Princess Galyani’s cremation removed any doubts about whether he was the chosen heir, says a Thai academic. Even so, many Thais, a superstitious people, will remember an old prophecy that the dynasty would last for only nine generations—Bhumibol is the ninth Chakri king—and that a tenth would be a disaster.
8 comments:
เอ่อ
เบื่อหว่ะ
บอร์ดนี้
มีแต่พวก(เขมร)สวะ
เลิกเม้นเหอะ
มันจะพูดเหี้ยไรก้อพูดไป
ก้อแค่หมาเห่าใบตองแห้ง
ถ้าเรายิ่งไปเม้นมัน มันก้อจะยิ่งพาดพิงถึงในหลวงมากขึ้น
ช่างมันเหอะ
อีคนวาดก้อเปงแค่พวกอพยพ
แผ่นดินตัวเองยังไม่มีปัญญากลับไปเหยีบเรย
แล้วยังเสร่อทำมาเป็นวิพากวิจารการเมือง
มึงเก่งตายห่าหล่ะ
น่าสมเพสหว่ะ
ว่างๆก้อหัดส่องกระจกดูเงาหัวตัวเองบ้างก้อได้นะ
ถ้ามึงไม่มีปัญญาซื้อจะใช้กะลาตักน้ำส่องดูก้อได้
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
The king and them [-This article is banned in Thailand]
Thailand's monarchy
Dec 4th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The untold story of the palace’s role behind the collapse of Thai democracy
THAILAND’S tourism business, its export industries and its reputation have been wrecked by recent events. Crowds of royalists have occupied the government’s offices for months and then seized Bangkok’s airports. The police refused to evict them. The army refused to help. This week the siege was ended after the courts disbanded three parties in the ruling coalition. But the parties plan to re-form under new names and continue governing, so fresh strife threatens. It is as if a thin veneer of modernity, applied during the boom of the 1980s and early 1990s, has peeled away. Until recently a beacon of Asian pluralism, Thailand is sliding into anarchy.
The conflict began three years ago as peaceful rallies against corruption and abuse of power in the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. The protesters, wearing royal-yellow shirts and accusing Mr Thaksin of being a closet republican, got their way when royalist generals removed him in the coup of 2006. But on democracy’s restoration last year, Thais elected a coalition led by Mr Thaksin’s allies. The yellow-shirts of the inaptly named People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) revived their protests and adopted increasingly thuggish tactics, prompting Mr Thaksin’s supporters to don red shirts and fight back.
Speak it not
Throughout this conflict, the great unmentionable, not just for the Thai press but also for most foreign reporters, has been the role of King Bhumibol, his family and their closest courtiers. The world’s most ferociously enforced law against lèse-majesté (offending the crown) prevents even the mildest discussion of the palace’s role in Thai public life. Such laws are mostly in disuse elsewhere, but Thailand’s was harshened in the 1970s. Absurdly, anyone can bring a lèse-majesté suit. The police have to take seriously the most trivial complaints. All this makes the law a useful tool for politicians and others seeking a way to damage their foes. Often, the press is not allowed to explain the nature of any supposed offence against the crown, so Thais have no way to tell whether it really was so disrespectful.
The lèse-majesté law is an outrage in itself. It should not be enforced in any country with democratic pretensions. Worse is that the law hides from Thais some of the reasons for their chronic political woes. For what the king himself calls the “mess” Thailand is in stems in many ways from his own meddling in politics during his 62-year reign (see article). In part, the strife also reflects jockeying for power ahead of the succession. With the king celebrating his 81st birthday on December 5th, that event looms ever larger.
Much of the story of how the king’s actions have hurt his country’s politics is unfamiliar because Thais have not been allowed to hear it. Some may find our criticisms upsetting, but we do not make them gratuitously. Thailand needs open debate if it is to prepare for the time when a less revered monarch ascends the throne. It cannot be good for a country to subscribe to a fairy-tale version of its own history in which the king never does wrong, stays above politics and only ever intervenes on the side of democracy. None of that is true.
The official version of Thai history dwells on episodes such as the events of 1992, when Bhumibol forced the resignation of a bloodstained dictator and set his country on course for democracy. But many less creditable royal interventions have gone underreported and are seldom discussed. In 1976, paranoid about the communist threat, the king appeared to condone the growth of the right-wing vigilante movement whose members later took part in the slaughter of unarmed student protesters. In the cold war America saw Bhumibol as a staunch ally and helped finance his image-making machine. This long-standing alliance and the fierce lèse-majesté law have led Western diplomats, academics and journalists to bite their tongues and refrain from criticism.
After the 2006 coup, the 15th in Bhumibol’s reign, officials tried to tell foreigners that protocol obliged the king to accept the generals’ seizure of power. Thais got the opposite message. The king quickly granted the coupmakers an audience, and newspapers splashed pictures of it, sending Thais the message that he approved of them. In truth the king has always been capable of showing his displeasure at coups when it suited him, by rallying troops or by dragging his feet in accepting their outcome. And he exerts power in other ways. Since 2006, when he told judges to take action on the political crisis, the courts seem to have interpreted his wishes by pushing through cases against Mr Thaksin and his allies—most recently with this week’s banning of the parties in the government.
No fairy-tale future
In the imagination of Thai royalists their country is like Bhutan, whose charismatic new king is adored by a tiny population that prefers royal rule to democracy. In reality, with public anger at the queen’s support for the thuggish PAD and the unsuitability of Bhumibol’s heir simmering, Thailand risks the recent fate of Nepal, which has suffered a bitter civil war and whose meddling king is now a commoner in a republic. The PAD was nurtured by the palace and now threatens to engulf it. An enduring image of the past few days is that of PAD toughs shooting at government supporters while holding up the king’s portrait. The monarchy is now, more clearly than ever, part of the problem. It sits at the apex of a horrendously hierarchical and unequal society. You do not have to be a republican to agree that this needs to be discussed.
As The Economist went to press, on the eve of the king's birthday, he was reported to be unwell, and unable to deliver his usual annual speech to the nation. So he had still not repudiated the yellow-shirts' claims to be acting in his name. His long silence has done great damage to the rule of law in Thailand. He could still help, by demanding, as no one else can, the abolition of the archaic lèse-majesté law and the language in the current charter that supports it, and so enable Thais to have a proper debate about their future. He made a half-hearted stab at this in 2005, saying he should not be above criticism. But nothing short of the law’s complete repeal will do. Thailand’s friends should tell it so.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
"The Economist" banned over critical article on Thai king [-So much for democracy in Thailand!]
9 December 2008
SEAPA (Southeast Asian Press Alliance)
The Thai distributor of "The Economist" banned the 6-10 December issue of the magazine because it contained an article critical of the country's monarch, news reports said.
The Agence France Presse (AFP) Bangkok bureau quoted bookseller and distributor Asia Books as saying it decided not to import this week's issue because the story on King Bhumibol Adulyadej's alleged role in politics "risks insulting the monarchy".
Under Thailand's lese majeste law, anyone who insults the king or the royal family faces a jail term of up to 15 years.
"We received excerpts of the magazine beforehand and we considered that it's sensitive and not appropriate, and also risks insulting the monarchy. So we decided not to import that edition," an Asia Books staff member told AFP.
The article, which is also available online, questioned the alleged involvement of the monarchy in the country's political affairs and its support for military interventions, the latest of which was the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra.
Thai police said the importer had agreed to a self-imposed ban on the story because of its critical stance on the monarchy.
"Police have talked to importers and distributors who agreed not to import the issue of December 6-10 because an article in the magazine criticised the monarchy," said Lieutenant General Thiradet Rodphothong, commander of Special Branch Police. "Therefore the police do not have to officially ban the magazine," he said.
"The Economist" website, which features the article, continues to be accessible and has not been blocked, according to Reuters.
The incident came on the heels of the latest political turmoil in Thailand which led to the shutdown by anti-government protesters of Bangkok's international airport for a week, paralyzing the country's economy, stranding tens of thousands of passengers, and hurting Thailand's biggest dollar earner—tourism.
AddThis
It's so true! Lok Heang,
Congratulations!
This article reflects the way people on the other side have been behaving in responding or rather reacting to the cartoon in question and others supporting it. So, this is how the Thai royalists behave! Well done guys and congratulations on your intelectual deficits. Next time try to be patient and more reasonable in reacting to issues and public debates.
cheers and the best of luck!
Concerned...
อีพวกขอมหน้าหนังหมา (หมาวัดด้วย)
เมิงคิดว่าบ้านเมืองตัวเองดีนักเหรอออ
ถ้าแน่จิงๆเมิงไม่ออกมาโต้งๆเลยว่ะสัส
อิพวกเขมรแดงง มีปัญญาได้แค่ทำของใส่ชาวบ้านเค้าเท่านั้นล่ะ
แค่ประเทศกูอยู่ใกล้เมิงงงง
พวกกูก็เอียนจนจะตายอยู่แล้ววว
ประเทศเมิงต่ำขนาดไหนเมิงไม่เคยจะรู้ตัวเลยรึไง
เสือกกระแดะทำให้ประเทศตัวเองต่ำยิ่งกว่าเดิมอิกนะ
โง่ ไอ่ชาติโง่
กูอยากรุ้เหลือเกินว่าเมิงอ่านภาษาไทยออกรึป่าวววววว
ถ้าออกก็แสดงว่าเมิงก็เรียนภาษาไทย ในเมื่อเมิงเรียนภาษาไทย
เมิงจะมาด่าประทศกูห่าเตี่ยเมิงรึไง
The patrilineal tradition of the Chakri dynasty is unlikely to be broken. And the prominent role played by the crown prince in Princess Galyani’s cremation removed any doubts about whether he was the chosen heir, says a Thai academic. Even so, many Thais, a superstitious people, will remember an old prophecy that the dynasty would last for only nine generations—Bhumibol is the ninth Chakri king—and that a tenth would be a disaster.
ចោសៀមមិនចេះខ្មាស់ប្រើអក្សខ្មែរ លេខខ្មែរ
ហើយមកសរសេរនៅកន្លែងខ្មែរទៀត។
ស្តេចខ្មែរនៅគ្រាន់បើរជាងស្តេចសៀមបានជួយពួក
សៀមអោយប្រើអក្សខ្មែរនិងលេខខ្មែរ។
ចោសៀមខំដួរពីតៃទៅសៀមនីងពីសៀមទៅថៃ
ព្រោះចោសៀមមិនចង់មានឈ្មោះថាខ្មែរជាអ្នកជួយ
ចោសៀមទេ។ចោសៀមភ្លេចគិតថាអក្សនិងលេខ
ដែលចោសៀមប្រើសព្វថ្ងៃគឺជាខ្មែរ។
Post a Comment