As reported by Khun Chutimas of chut|bloc, Prawes Wasi has recently come out to call for a government of national unity (รัฐบาลแห่งชาติ) of sorts. He observes that when the PPP gets the majority and forms a government, people are unhappy and protest; and even if the Democrats are in power, pro-PPP people will protest too. The way out of confrontation, when it’s gets more escalated, is for all parties to form a national government.

Who is to head it? Prawes is silent on that, but Matichon (via chut|bloc) speculates that a neutral statesman (in the mould of Anand Panyarachun, who incidentally went on record as saying Parliament had failed to function properly) would have to head it.

Sigh… with everything these days, there’s a sense of deja vu. I hope they still remember that even under this constitution, the PM still has to be elected. Article 7, anyone? Khun Chutima has a funny guide to (royal?) artificial rain-making.

Nothing surprising about this though, pressure has been on the PPP since it was clear that they will form a government. Its two coalition partners are under threat of dissolution from the courts, and Chart Thai seems to be losing its nerve to be part of the PPP government. Thai-style check and balances?

Update: Bangkok Pundit asks if the eel is jumping ship…

I’m trying to ease myself back into this whole blogging business, which I must admit is a bit hard with all the things that have gone on in Thailand during my hiatus. There are a great many things I want to write about, but at this point it seems my thoughts are in the process of swirling around in my head. At some point they will take solid form in a blog post.

I thought a good start would be to take Bookish to its roots (of sorts) and see what I have been reading. In the spare time that I have, I’ve basically been trolling the one-and-a-half shelf our university library devotes to Thai history and reading what I can. While I first checked out much referenced texts, like Chaianan and Morell’s Political Conflict in Thailand or Thak’s Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism, probably the book I enjoyed most was Duncan McCargo’s Chamlong Srimuang and the New Thai Politics.

The ‘new politics’ of the title is now a bit old, but I found this political biography of the Young Turk soldier turned politician, turned democracy activist very engaging. For my generation which grew up with the image of Chamlong as a hunger-striking protester or as an ascetic who bathes with one kun of water a day, it’s easy to forget that Chamlong was deeply involved in behind the scenes politics (supposedly the 6 October events and subsequent coups) early in his military career. I thought the retelling of the events between 6 October and the Prem government quite gripping and gave me new insights to that period of history.

The Chamlong that emerges from the book is very different from my initial impressions — still not someone that I admire, but a complex individual of sometimes conflicting motivations. And to think that he was the one who gave Thaksin Shinawatra his first taste of politics…

I found this funny, revealing and ultimately kinda sad: our ICT minister doesn’t use the web or even email…

From: Suthichai Yoon’s blog

เพิ่งฟัง​​ ​​รมต​​. ​​ไอซีทีสิทธิชัย​​ ​​โภไคยอุดม​​​ให้​​​สัมภาษณ์ทางวิทยุ​​​เมื่อสักครู่​​…​​ยืนยันว่า​​​เป็น​​​คน​​ “​ตกรุ่น​” ​​และ​​​ไม่​​​เคยอ่านเว็บเลย​​…”​ดัง​​​นั้น​​​ถ้า​​​ใคร​​​จะ​​​ให้​​​ผมอ่านเว็บ​​​ใน​​​อินเตอร์​​​เน็ทเมื่อฟัง​​​ความ​​​เห็นของ​​​เขา​​​ก็ลืมเสียเถิด​​ ​​เพราะ​​​ผมแก่​​​แล้ว​​…​​ไม่​​​อ่านเว็บ​​..”

คุณสิทธิชัยยอมรับ​​​กับ​​​นักข่าวก่อนหน้านี้ว่า​​​ไม่​​​ติดต่อ​​​กับ​​​ใครผ่านอี​​​เมล์​​​เหมือน​​​กัน​​ ​”​​เพราะ​​​ผมแก่​​​แล้ว​”

Just listened to ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom giving an interview on radio a bit earlier… [He] insists that he’s “old-fashioned” and has never used the web. [He said,] “therefore if anyone wants me to read their opinions on the web, forget about it. Because I’m too old… don’t use the web…”

Mr. Sitthichai admitted to reporters earlier that he does not interact with anyone via email either. “Because I’m too old.”

What can I say except… sigh.

Update: The full story from the Nation is available (via 2bangkok.com).

He does use the web for a few sites it seems. Interesting quotes:

He said he had “not even glanced” at most of the five sites he was responsible for closing.

He sets his own criteria. To criticise the Privy Council president is a threat to national security, he said.

Sigh… (again).

YouTube, Pantip.com and now… a film by award-winning Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul. As reported on Chalermthai, Pantip.com’s entertainment webboard, the censors mandated that 4 key scenes be cut for it to be allowed in Thai theaters. The director decided to pull the movie, slated to open on April 19, from distribution rather than have the cut version shown.

Film censorship isn’t new in Thailand, but from what I gather in this case, our moral guardians seem to be extra sensitive due to perhaps the current political situation. I’m guessing (from stills of scenes that were said to be censored and the synopsis) that the censors objected to the portrayal of two respected vocations in the film: monks and doctors.

I like the way thaiindie.com describes it (see their site for accompanying pictures) - the censors are said to have requested cuts for scenes in which the following rules were violated:

1. The monk should not play guitar
2. The doctor should not drink liquor
3. The doctor hard on scene [Doctor gets a bit excited after kissing his girlfriend]
4. The monk should not play something like this [a Frisbee]

Sigh…

In a way, the case is symptomatic of where Thailand is right now as a country. A group of unaccountable people deciding what people can see, hear or say. Different standards in law applied arbitrarily without transparency.

Further reading:
- Manager Online article (seems the censor board is holding the print of the film hostage) - http://manager.co.th/Entertainment/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000042073
- A review of the movie: hhttp://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931429.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

I wonder how the Americans will react… Gen. Saprang in response to rumors of a counter-coup:

แต่ผมคิดว่าการปฏิวัติ​จะ​เกิดขึ้นเสมอ​ ​ถ้า​มี​เหตุ​ให้​เกิด​ ​ประชาธิปไตยที่อเมริกายิ่ง​ใหญ่​ ​แต่ทำ​ไมปล่อยท่านเบอร์ริส​ ​เยลซิน​ ​อดีตประธานาธิบดีรัสเซีย​ ​เอาปืน​ใหญ่​ยิง​ใส่​อาคารรัฐสภา​ ทำ​ไมปล่อยปากีสถานปฏิวัติ​ ​โดย​นายเปเวส​ ​มูชาราฟ​ ​แล้ว​ยัง​มี​ความ​นับถือ​กัน​อยู่​ ​เพราะ​ผลประ​โยชน์ของชาติสำ​คัญกว่า

But I think a coup could always happen, if there’s a [legitimate?] reason for it. Democracy is acclaimed in America, but why did they let Boris Yeltsin storm parliament with artillery? Why let Pervez Musharraf overthrow the government in Pakistan and still be respected? Because national interest is paramount…

Indeed, how could they let the generals in Thailand… oh wait, that’s me!

But seriously, is General Saprang increasingly becoming a liability to the junta? With the controversy arising from his AOT study trip to Europe and his increasingly frequent off-the-cuff public statements, he may have less chance to succeed Gen. Sonthi as commander-in-chief of the army.

I think the problem has a lot to do with the image Saprang seems to be projecting - one of slight arrogance. Our military rulers , perhaps taking their cue from Prem, have tried to project an image of benevolent “good soldiers,” responding to criticism in kindly, civil tones and imploring all to care about Thailand’s unity. From what I’ve read, Saprang has consistently been the combative one in answering criticisms of the junta with barbs of his own. It just doesn’t fit the mold of a senior statesman, General.

Update: In the same interview (well, one of those ambushes that the Thai press, with their mics and voice recorders, make on newsmakers), the general lets it slip what he thinks is the public perception of himself - heroic?:

ชี้​แจง​อยู่​แล้ว​ ​แต่​ไม่​จำ​เป็น​ต้อง​ทำ​เป็น​หนังสือ​ ​เพราะ​ไม่​ใช่​จำ​เลย​ ​เราวีรบุรุษ

Of course I will clarify, but there’s no need to do it in writing. Because [we're] not the defendant here, we [are] heroes.

To the two or three people who still read this blog after my long absence: the reason I’m been away for so long is that I have just moved to the US and started some graduate work somewhere in Washingto, DC. So far it’s been overwhelming, to say the least.

The coup in Thailand was what is bringing me back here for this short post. Thaksin is not my dream PM, but the way this event unfolded shock, angered, disappointed and saddened me at the same time. Haven’t quite collected my thoughts even though it’s been quite a while, but I’d like to recommend you read Thongchai Winichakul’s piece here (via Bangkok Pundit).

In Thailand, mass circulation newspapers are called ‘hua sii” or “color heading” papers because of their distinctively toned logos and layout (Thai Rath is green and Daily News is a pinkish red, for example). Manager Daily maybe joining the club with its all yellow, royalist heading:

As covered by 2bangkok.com and BangkokPundit, the controversial biography of the King, Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles made the front page of Manager Daily with the accusation that the Thaksin administration has done nothing to stop the release of book. Sigh… I hope the Sondhi gang find a better outlet for their energy and newsprint.

What of the actually content of the book? So far a few other people have reviewed the (no Thais in the list, not surprisingly):

• FriskoDude has an early review which calls the book “largely complimentary to the Thai king.”
• Matthew Hunt says “Handley’s book is unique in that it does not blindly accept the conventional, uncritical public viewpoint: it challenges the accepted view of Bhumibol’s reign.”
• Another expat-blogger has just started the book and quotes Handley as being “aware of the risks going in” in writing the book.
• The only review in print I’ve seen was in the Wall Street Journal Asia (I’ve scanned the article here). Ironically the reviewer is the author of another biography of the King that was banned, William Stevenson. He has some pretty harsh words saying in summary that Handley “had largely turn Bhumipol’s story into a political screed to suit the prejudices of those with a stake in sidelining the monarch.”

As much as I respect the King and his contributions to Thai society, I don’t think the official biography, which is endlessly repeated on Thai television and glosses over some of the conflicts he has had to overcome, truly honors his achievements. Hopefully I’ll get hold of the book and be able to give a Thai perspective on it.

Mean while I’ve been reading another book on the Thai monarchy: Kings, Country and Constitutions: Thailand’s Poltical Development 1932-2000 by Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian.

It’s a detailed (see if you can keep track of all the royal Princes mentioned), but no- too-academic study of how the constitutional monarchy in Thailand developed since the reign of Rama VII. I like the middle part of the book (after skipping the ‘constitutions’ chapter) which analyses the circumstances leading the end of absolute monarchy. Kobkua argues that the royalist version of history, which sees King Prajadhipok “as a ruler on the brink of presenting his people with a democratic Constitution” but was pre-empted was the impatient Promoters of the 1932 revolution, is not entirely accurate.

The bulk of the last half of the book outlines the current King’s “royal climb to the pinnicle of the nation” which will serve as a good counter point to the Handley book. It devotes a lot of time to explain how the unique position of the monarchy in Thailand’s democratic system developed, from the ‘partnership with the military junta’ during the Sarit period to to more recent very public influence the King had during the Prem years.

Though the tone of the book is extremely deferential to the King, Kobkua faithfully includes many facts and analyses that maybe considered as critical to the monarchy. A section called ‘Royal Liabilities’ includes a frank discussion of the succession and the crown prince.

At the end of an early chapter, Kobkua asks some prescient questions:

Many Thais have regarded the supreme authority of the Throne over the affairs of the nation as stemming mainly from the political retardation of democracy in the country. Would the principle of constitutional monarchy as practice by King Bhumibol be fundamentally affected by a people’s Parliament? Would there be a clash of soverign will, the Throne’s and Parliament’s? Would the monarchy retreat behind the official facade of pomp and ceremony? The answers to these intriguing questions are unclear.

And it’s still unclear today.

Update: The Economist has a review of the Handley book in their July 29th issue, a relatively positive one.

King Bhumibol’s only other English biography, “The Revolutionary King” by William Stevenson, argues that his interventions have been effective precisely because they have been guarded and infrequent. But Mr Handley has another explanation for the rarity of the king’s democratic sorties: that Bhumibol has little faith in democracy, and sees the monarchy, abetted by authoritarian rulers, as a better guardian of the people’s welfare.

That argument is quite persuasive. The king does, after all, surround himself with soldiers and bureaucrats, but gives politicians and activists a wide berth. His dream of a “sufficiency economy”, where people seek only to cater to their basic needs, seems far removed from the brute materialism of Thai politics.

Strong words, but I’d guess will have to read the book myself to see if Handley’s point is ‘persuasive’ or not.

This just in - the Nation reports:

The Criminal Court Tuesday convicted the three election commissioners in malfeasance and sentenced them to four years in jail, causing their status to be in queston.

The details are a bit sketchy right now, but I have a feeling that the court ruling will be appealed as it seems to be built on somewhat shaky ground:

Thavorn alleged the three with violating the Criminal Code and MPs and Senators Election Act.

The court ruled that Thavorn had no authority to file the criminal charges citing the Criminal Code but the three EC commissioners were found guilty of violating the MPs and Senators Election Act.

With the verdict, it seems the commissioners are going to get kicked out of office, according to section 141 of the constitution.

Section 141. In addition to the vacation of office upon the
termination of the term, an Election Commissioner vacates office upon:
(1) death;
(2) resignation;
(3) being disqualified or being under any of the prohibitions under
section 137 or section 139;
(4) having been imprisoned by a final judgment to a term of
imprisonment except for an offence committed through negligence or a petty
offence;
(5) the Senate passing a resolution under section 307 removing him
or her from office.

Not sure if ‘final’ judgement includes the right to appeal to the supreme court or not. And it leaves us in a strange situation - the Senate is tasked with selecting the members of the EC, but since the last election the EC hasn’t certified the all members of the Senate yet. The caretaker senate (whose term already ran out), the same people who chose this current group of EC commissioners, will be the ones who have to choose new commissioners again?

The impasse is not over yet it looks like.

I ran across the poem below by Seamus Heaney from a collection of his poems, and thought it somehow apt for the political stalemate in Thailand today. Enjoy!

PS: I read the premise for Jose Saramago’s new book and so want to get my paws on it.

In Nobel Prize–winner Saramogo’s best known novel, Blindness, an unnamed capital city experiences a devastating (although transient) epidemic of blindness that mysteriously spares one woman, an eye doctor’s wife, who helps a blinded group survive until their sight returns. His new novel, set in the same capital city four years later, depicts a legal “revolution,” when 83% of its citizens cast blank ballots in a national election. The president declares a state of siege, but even though soldiers cordon off the city, nothing affects the city’s maddening cheerfulness. The president receives an anonymous letter revealing the case of the eye doctor’s wife (she and the group she helped had kept her support secret), and the minister in charge of internal security sends undercover policemen to investigate her connection to the “blank” revolution.

*********************

From the Republic of Conscience

I

When I landed in the republic of conscience
it was so noiseless when the engine stopped
I could hear a curlew high above the runway.

At immigration, the clerk was an old man
who produced a wallet from his homespun coat
and showed me a photograph of my grandfather.

The woman at customs asked me to declare
the words of our traditional cures and charms
to heal dumbness and avert the evil eye

No porters. No interpreter. No taxi.
You carried your own burden and very soon
your symptons of creeping privilege disappeared.

II

Fog is a dreaded omen there but lightning
spells universal good and parents hang
swaddled infants in trees during thunderstorms.

Salt is their precious mineral. And seashells
are held to the ear during births and funerals.
The base of all inks and pigments is seawater.

Their sacred symbol is a stylized boat.
The sail is an ear, the mast a sloping pen,
The hull a mouth-shape, the keel an open eye.

At their inauguration, public leaders
must swear to uphold an unwritten law and weep
to atone for their presumption to hold office –

and to affirm their faith that all life sprang
from salt in the tears which the sky-god wept
after he dreamt his solitude was endless.

III

I came back from that frugal republic
with my two arms the one length, the customs woman
having insisted my allowance was myself.

The old man rose and gazed into my face
and said that was official recognition
that I was now a dual citizen.

He therefore desired me when I got home
to consider myself a representative
and to speak in their behalf in my own tongue.

Their embassies, he said, were everywhere
but operated independently
and no embassador would ever be relieved.