I am deeply dismayed by The Economist’s narrow views and condescending attitude. In trying to justify pre-supposed contentions, your double pieces ("The king and them" and "A right royal mess", 4 December 2008) choose to give credence to writing by one American journalist about the King of Thailand and interpret events to suit his unfounded conspiracy-prone speculations, while discarding important facts that prove otherwise. More fundamentally, the articles ignores the very fact that each country evolves from background specific to itself, and that the bonds between Thai people and their kings are deeply rooted in the kingdom’s centuries-long history.
Throughout his reign, the King has clearly demonstrated that he is above and not involved in politics, strictly adhering to the roles prescribed by law. His steadfast political neutrality adds to the weight of his words – his moral authority, not political power. His intervention has been few and, when made, was meant to prevent further bloodsheds among Thais as in 1992, not to side with any groups. Nevertheless, political groups and analysts alike seem to have taken pains to get him involved. Prior to the military intervention on 19 September 2006, when Thailand’s political system seemed to have grinded to a halt, a call was made for a royally conferred government. The King, in his address to the judges in April that year, refused and said clearly that the problems must be resolved democratically and through constitutional means. Had he no faith in democracy, he could have done otherwise and Thais would have obliged.
There is no need, as there never has been, for any behind-the-scene intrigue, as alleged. The affection and reverence that Thais feel towards him is genuine and shown voluntarily, stemming as much from their appreciation for his lifelong devotion and hard work for the well-being of all Thais as for his commitment to democracy. Yet, due to this, some groups have sought to make claims of royal support or interpret his action or silence for their own political ends. Indeed, the King said in 2005 that he is not beyond criticism.
But his position as being above politics does not allow him to respond to any political claims or allegations against him (unfortunately, including those made by the Economist) – thus the raison d etre for Thais to call for the so-called lese-majeste law to protect their King. Here is another omitted fact: in Thailand as in other democracies, laws are enacted by parliamentarians who respond to the will of the people they represent. By neglecting facts and simple logics like these, your articles blatantly make wrongful accusations regarding the Thai King and inexcusably offend Thais. They deserve our protest in strongest terms.
Tharit Charungvat
Director-General, Department of Information and
Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand
Foreign media coverage of our crisis is distorted By Thanong Khanthong The Nation Published on December 12, 2008
One man's sin has turned into the Kingdom's woes. We still have to learn a lot about Thaksin Shinawatra's lobbying and PR power on the local and global level. Still, it is quite incredible that The Economist, the International Herald Tribune, and other international media have agreed to turn themselves into parrots.
They are now putting the blame for the Thai crisis on the monarchy. They are painting a simplistic picture of a very complicated situation and alleging that the monarchy has got involved in politics to protect its interests and privileges while all the time seeking shelter under the lese majeste law.
Much worse, they are suggesting that it is time for Thailand to embrace popular democracy, as Thaksin Shinawatra claimed to have championed, and do away with constitutional monarchy. At the moment, between the constitutional monarchy and Western style liberal democracy, the Thai people still have more trust in the 70-plus year-old system. This system is likely to remain until the majority of the Thai people trust their elected leaders to put the country's interest over their own vested interests. Notice every time there is a major crisis, who steps in and saves the day?
The international media deliberately ignore the root of the current political crisis, which originates from gross corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Instead, they focused only on the simple fact that Thaksin had got more votes than anybody.
They seems to forget that Thaksin had wrecked our institutions, put his family and friends in key positions and carried out bloody initiatives that resulted in questionable death of nearly 3,000 people in the name of drug war. Would you like to have him as your premier?
Subsequently we have witnessed social and political clashes that at times gone out of control, pitting Thais against Thais.
If you have read The Economist' s Dec 4 edition, you may be wondering whether this UK magazine really knows what it is writing.
What kind of lese majeste taboo is The Economist talking about? It is all in the perception rather than reality. His Majesty the King does not prohibit people to criticise him or the Monarchy if they do so in an honest way.
Since 1932 no person has been sentenced to jail under the lese majeste law for criticising the Monarchy. Even King Rama VI, the King's uncle, did not put people to jail for criticising the Monarchy. In the old Ayutthaya period, the Siamese subjects also criticised the Monarchy when they had bad kings. But they all respected Monarchy as an institution first and the Kings as an individual second.
One has to differentiate criticism against the Monarchy from slanting, libelling or vandalising the Monarchy. Thaksin has sued a lot of people for libelling him. If you libel against the Monarchy, you also stand to get into trouble too.
If you have your doubt about the lese majeste law, just ask sharp-tongue social critic Sulak Srivalaksa. He has charged 15 times time with lese majeste and never once did he serve jail sentence. It was consistently ruled that Suluck had criticised the Monarchy rather than libelling it.
The problem we have is the exploitation for political gains by individual Thais and foreigners. All opposing forces in Thailand carry HM portraits.
The problem we have with the Econmists is that the publication ignored the fact that the Monarchy embodied a much more broader dimension of Thai society that include the Thai culture, tradition and statehood.
The international media also have suggested that the King was instrumental behind the 2006 coup. But they cannot provide evidence to back up this claim. Against this is slanting.
The King, from my understanding, does not like a coup because the sovereign power returns to him alone. He commands moral persuasion, but he does not have the power to tell the military what to do or not what to do. When the military took power in 2006 to pre-empt the clash between the Thaksin government and the protesters, the King had no choice but to endorse it later on. If he had not endorsed the coup, Thaksin would be forming a government in exile and at home the divided military would be shooting against each other, with the yellow-shirt protesters and red shirt supporters taking side. A civil war would ensue, just like what we have just seen in recent months.
In 1991 when Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon staged a coup, the King did not approve it but he had no power to stop the generals and his clique. If he had not endorsed the coup, which had already been staged, the country would be plunged into a state of vacuum, which was every more dangerous.
If you do a public opinion survey on the King's popularity, the approval of his kingship would be - I guess -- 98 per cent. There is no crisis of the Monarchy at the moment because the Thai people are not staging an uprising against him. The Red Shirt people support Thaksin but if you ask them to go against the Monarchy, very few of them would be willing to do so. The campaign of the Red Shirt people is that "we support the Monarchy but they do not support military dictatorship."
6 comments:
As this baby was not born naturally,he is going to die within 6 months. Prepare the yellow grave and book the pagada and monks for him.
Sir:
I am deeply dismayed by The Economist’s narrow views and condescending attitude. In trying to justify pre-supposed contentions, your double pieces ("The king and them" and "A right royal mess", 4 December 2008) choose to give credence to writing by one American journalist about the King of Thailand and interpret events to suit his unfounded conspiracy-prone speculations, while discarding important facts that prove otherwise. More fundamentally, the articles ignores the very fact that each country evolves from background specific to itself, and that the bonds between Thai people and their kings are deeply rooted in the kingdom’s centuries-long history.
Throughout his reign, the King has clearly demonstrated that he is above and not involved in politics, strictly adhering to the roles prescribed by law. His steadfast political neutrality adds to the weight of his words – his moral authority, not political power. His intervention has been few and, when made, was meant to prevent further bloodsheds among Thais as in 1992, not to side with any groups. Nevertheless, political groups and analysts alike seem to have taken pains to get him involved. Prior to the military intervention on 19 September 2006, when Thailand’s political system seemed to have grinded to a halt, a call was made for a royally conferred government. The King, in his address to the judges in April that year, refused and said clearly that the problems must be resolved democratically and through constitutional means. Had he no faith in democracy, he could have done otherwise and Thais would have obliged.
There is no need, as there never has been, for any behind-the-scene intrigue, as alleged. The affection and reverence that Thais feel towards him is genuine and shown voluntarily, stemming as much from their appreciation for his lifelong devotion and hard work for the well-being of all Thais as for his commitment to democracy. Yet, due to this, some groups have sought to make claims of royal support or interpret his action or silence for their own political ends. Indeed, the King said in 2005 that he is not beyond criticism.
But his position as being above politics does not allow him to respond to any political claims or allegations against him (unfortunately, including those made by the Economist) – thus the raison d etre for Thais to call for the so-called lese-majeste law to protect their King. Here is another omitted fact: in Thailand as in other democracies, laws are enacted by parliamentarians who respond to the will of the people they represent. By neglecting facts and simple logics like these, your articles blatantly make wrongful accusations regarding the Thai King and inexcusably offend Thais. They deserve our protest in strongest terms.
Tharit Charungvat
Director-General, Department of Information and
Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand
Now everyone can see who is behind the Thai military robbing Khmer lands and Khmer temples at the border.
Foreign media coverage of our crisis is distorted
By Thanong Khanthong
The Nation
Published on December 12, 2008
One man's sin has turned into the Kingdom's woes. We still have to learn a lot about Thaksin Shinawatra's lobbying and PR power on the local and global level. Still, it is quite incredible that The Economist, the International Herald Tribune, and other international media have agreed to turn themselves into parrots.
They are now putting the blame for the Thai crisis on the monarchy. They are painting a simplistic picture of a very complicated situation and alleging that the monarchy has got involved in politics to protect its interests and privileges while all the time seeking shelter under the lese majeste law.
Much worse, they are suggesting that it is time for Thailand to embrace popular democracy, as Thaksin Shinawatra claimed to have championed, and do away with constitutional monarchy. At the moment, between the constitutional monarchy and Western style liberal democracy, the Thai people still have more trust in the 70-plus year-old system. This system is likely to remain until the majority of the Thai people trust their elected leaders to put the country's interest over their own vested interests. Notice every time there is a major crisis, who steps in and saves the day?
The international media deliberately ignore the root of the current political crisis, which originates from gross corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Instead, they focused only on the simple fact that Thaksin had got more votes than anybody.
They seems to forget that Thaksin had wrecked our institutions, put his family and friends in key positions and carried out bloody initiatives that resulted in questionable death of nearly 3,000 people in the name of drug war. Would you like to have him as your premier?
Subsequently we have witnessed social and political clashes that at times gone out of control, pitting Thais against Thais.
If you have read The Economist' s Dec 4 edition, you may be wondering whether this UK magazine really knows what it is writing.
What kind of lese majeste taboo is The Economist talking about? It is all in the perception rather than reality. His Majesty the King does not prohibit people to criticise him or the Monarchy if they do so in an honest way.
Since 1932 no person has been sentenced to jail under the lese majeste law for criticising the Monarchy. Even King Rama VI, the King's uncle, did not put people to jail for criticising the Monarchy. In the old Ayutthaya period, the Siamese subjects also criticised the Monarchy when they had bad kings. But they all respected Monarchy as an institution first and the Kings as an individual second.
One has to differentiate criticism against the Monarchy from slanting, libelling or vandalising the Monarchy. Thaksin has sued a lot of people for libelling him. If you libel against the Monarchy, you also stand to get into trouble too.
If you have your doubt about the lese majeste law, just ask sharp-tongue social critic Sulak Srivalaksa. He has charged 15 times time with lese majeste and never once did he serve jail sentence. It was consistently ruled that Suluck had criticised the Monarchy rather than libelling it.
The problem we have is the exploitation for political gains by individual Thais and foreigners. All opposing forces in Thailand carry HM portraits.
The problem we have with the Econmists is that the publication ignored the fact that the Monarchy embodied a much more broader dimension of Thai society that include the Thai culture, tradition and statehood.
The international media also have suggested that the King was instrumental behind the 2006 coup. But they cannot provide evidence to back up this claim. Against this is slanting.
The King, from my understanding, does not like a coup because the sovereign power returns to him alone. He commands moral persuasion, but he does not have the power to tell the military what to do or not what to do. When the military took power in 2006 to pre-empt the clash between the Thaksin government and the protesters, the King had no choice but to endorse it later on. If he had not endorsed the coup, Thaksin would be forming a government in exile and at home the divided military would be shooting against each other, with the yellow-shirt protesters and red shirt supporters taking side. A civil war would ensue, just like what we have just seen in recent months.
In 1991 when Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon staged a coup, the King did not approve it but he had no power to stop the generals and his clique. If he had not endorsed the coup, which had already been staged, the country would be plunged into a state of vacuum, which was every more dangerous.
If you do a public opinion survey on the King's popularity, the approval of his kingship would be - I guess -- 98 per cent. There is no crisis of the Monarchy at the moment because the Thai people are not staging an uprising against him. The Red Shirt people support Thaksin but if you ask them to go against the Monarchy, very few of them would be willing to do so. The campaign of the Red Shirt people is that "we support the Monarchy but they do not support military dictatorship."
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/12/opinion/opinion_30090774.php
thai king is the man who always behide coup . this is facts in thailand but thai people can not talk about this.
ทำไมมึงไม่วาดการ์ตูนกษัตริย์ของพวกมึงที่ฆ่าสังหารพวกบัณฑิตพวกนักวิชาการมั่งล่ะ ดีแต่ทำมาวาดการ์ตูนล้อเลียนประเทศอื่น แต่ประเทศของตัวเองไม่กล้าล้อเลียนกษัตริย์ของมึงกลับกลัว
Post a Comment