Thaksin Had Clashed With King - AP

Thailand's Thaksin Had Clashed With King - AP
Muslim Insurgency, and a Clash With Revered King, Seen As Catalysts for Thai Premier's Ouster
By JOCELYN GECKER
The Associated Press
BANGKOK, Thailand - For many in Thailand, it was a clash between two images: an arrogant prime minister who hates to lose, and a humble king who always wins.

Simply by endorsing the general who has seized power, revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej has essentially given his blessing to the bloodless Tuesday night coup that ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The 78-year-old monarch has shown that despite age, frailty and constitutional powerlessness, he remains the most powerful man in Thailand.

The coup is also a response to the Islamic insurgency raging in southern Thailand, and public displeasure with Thaksin's strong-arm tactics. Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, the army commander who led the coup, had advocated a peaceful solution. As a Muslim, he was long seen as a force for healing whose hands were tied by Thaksin's policies.

It remains unclear what role, if any, the king played in removing Thaksin. What is clear, however, is the chain of events that led to Thaksin's ouster a series of missteps that prompted accusations he was challenging the king's authority, an unpardonable act by Thai standards.

Thaksin had taken a defiant stance under mounting pressure from street protests and demands for him to resign amid allegations of corruption, election violations and mishandling the southern insurgency.

In April, the king made a rare TV appearance, prodding the courts to intervene to resolve a political deadlock that had left the kingdom with a caretaker government and no working legislature.

The judges duly ruled, paving the way for new elections. But Thaksin angered many by refusing to bow out.

"The anti-Thaksin forces in the top levels of government and perhaps in the palace realized that Thaksin could still be prime minister after the new election and there was no way out, and they were fed up," said Paul Handley, author of "The King Never Smiles," a biography that portrays Bhumibol as a major player in Thai political developments over the decades.

Many say the palace was infuriated by Thaksin's apparent attempt to steal the spotlight during the lavish June celebrations of Bhumibol's 60 years on the throne. By greeting visiting royals before they got to meet the Thai royal family, 57-year-old Thaksin was seen as having committed a crowning and highly public act of insolence.

Then there was the insurgency, which has killed more than 1,700 people in the past two years.

Thaksin flooded the south, the only Muslim-dominated area of the Buddhist country, with 20,000 troops and imposed a state of emergency that empowered authorities to detain suspects without charge, tap telephones, ban public gatherings and suppress publications deemed inflammatory.

Thaksin was also accused of stifling Thai media, once regarded as among the freest in Asia, and of allowing his cronies to reap enormous gains from corrupt policies.

Chief among Thaksin's flaws, in the eyes of the palace and many Thais, was his personality. Critics called him self-centered and arrogant. The tycoon-turned-politician proved to be ambitious, conservative and strong-willed, refusing to correct himself when his policies backfired particularly regarding the insurgency.

Sondhi, who is thought to be close to the king, said the coup he led was needed to end the political crisis and restore "harmony among the people." He put Thailand under martial law and installed a provisional authority loyal to the king. He pledged elections would be held by October next year.

The coup was denounced by the Bush administration and the European Union as a setback for the thriving democracy that has taken root in a country once prone to violent coups. But the royal statement read on television said the king had appointed Sondhi as head of the provisional council "in order to create peace in the country."

While the palace insists it was not involved in the coup, many political and monarchy experts see another example of the monarch's behind-the-scenes power, which he has exercised sparingly but effectively over six decades.

"If the king didn't give a nod, this never would have been possible," said Sulak Siwalak, an author of books on the Thai monarchy.

The king is venerated for his Buddhist principles and his common touch, manifested in decades of tireless face-to-face work among the rural poor. He rarely enters the political arena, but when he does, everyone listens and obeys something Thaksin was seen as reluctant to do.

"Thaksin failed to realize that the king has been on the throne for 60 years and he's no fool," said Sulak. "The man is old and Thaksin thought he could play around with him and it was a dangerous game."

Jocelyn Gecker is an AP correspondent based in Bangkok.

[llz]

One of the best analysis I read on the coup...
You could read another one from the International Tribune website at
www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/20/news/edbowring.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/20/news/edbowring.php)

If you want to even BEGIN to understand what happened in this coup, you really ought to read
THE KING NEVER SMILES
It will really open your eyes about Thai culture and politics. And, it is true, you will never see the King the same way, and you will know more than most Thais ...

"Thaksin was also accused of stifling Thai media, once regarded as among the freest in Asia"


best joke i`ve heard all week!

If you want to even BEGIN to understand what happened in this coup, you really ought to read
THE KING NEVER SMILES
It will really open your eyes about Thai culture and politics. And, it is true, you will never see the King the same way, and you will know more than most Thais ...

The book got terrible write ups, not only because it was a simplistic American's point of view on democracy and the King's relationship to his people, but because Handley displays such little understanding of the Thais themselves. Anyway there was a thread about the book awhile ago. Suffice to say the supercilious title of the book says it all. Handley thinks all public figure should adopt the contrived American politicians way, and walk around with a smile plastered on their faces. If they don't then according to Mr Hadley they must have sinister and untrustworthy intentions.

The book aside, it emerges that that the King never liked Thaksin anyway, no great surprise, a lot of people had had enough of him, even if they didn't see through him in the first election. But the true reason for the coup has in fact got very little to do with the King. It has all to do with Thaksin himself, and his ambitions.
Things may have continued indefinitely had Mr Thaksin not decided to try and divide the army. After more or less already having divided the Kingdom, it seemed he was also eager to have a little military power, but as it turned out he was having some trouble convincing the army of this. Not least because of his bad handling of the crisis in the South of the country, but also because the army tends to prefer to show allegiance to the King and people before a prime minister. The people having already petitioned the King to have Thaksin removed, and the army growing more and more suspicious as to Thaksins true motives, decided to also approach the King.

All the signs were on the wall,but being a divisive and foolish man, Thaksin none the less went ahead and started currying favour with various people in the army, to what extent he did or did not waste his time and money is not yet fully known, but believing it was as successful as he would have liked , led to the promotion of his next move. This was to try and reorganise the army in his favour. This proved to be the final straw,and the idiot almost lost his head never mind the hand. And the rest is history.

I ask myself, would a Thailand under a Thaksin dictatorship backed by half the military and supported by only half the country, have been worse than what Thailand has right now, today, and would it have been safer? And I have to say yes it would have been, certainly as far as democracy goes, it would have been very, very much worse and no the country would have been plagued by civil and military unrest.
All that has past between Thailand and the military through the years, has left a few people suspicious of the militaries present motive, and this is understandable and perplexing to the Americans to say the least, however I believe it is different this time, and most people know this to be true. The army has taken it's cue not from itself, but from the people this time.

As for Mr Thaksin, it would appear that money and power got the better of him in the end, leading him to think he had become invincible, and that he could meddle with anything he so desired.

If you are seriously interested in Thailand, READ THIS BOOK!
I know you can't get it in Thailand. Why is that?

Cedric, how idiotic!
You have no idea what you are talking about regarding the book.
The King Never Smiles is descriptive of a reality, NOT a judgement. You basically just MADE UP your ridiculous comment about what the author thinks politicians should do. There is no such comment or implication of the kind in the book. Only ignorant people atttack a book they have not read.

You are free to live in IGNORANCE but stop suggesting others do the same.

The book is published by Yale University Press and is the most scholarly work available about the King. How obnoxious to attack the book based on the American nationality of the author. The King is a major historical figure and there will be other books in the fullness of time that will no doubt be even better, but for farangs who want something other than royal propoganda, this is your best shot at the beginning of an understanding of the mysteries of Thai modern history and politics. If you don't agree, NAME another source.

And yes, Thaksin is to blame for his dramatic demise. He had every opportunity to exit with dignity, but his power mad ego got in the way. Thailand is not a democracy and the King stepped in (undemocratically) again. One of SEVENTEEN coups in modern Thai history. I personally am very hopeful about the wisdom of this particular coup. That doesn't mean things will turn out great, its just there didn't seem to be any other reasonable choice.

Here are some of those bad writeups, you anti-intellectual, anti-American, pro censorship JAGOFF:
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/revi ... 0300106823 (http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/reviews.asp?isbn=0300106823)


Paul Handley is a professional journalist who worked for the Far Eastern Economic Review for over a decade, and he lived in Bangkok for 12 years, so he's got the credibility on Thai issues, despite the rather lame comments posted on the Amazon site. He compliments the king, then brings him down a few notches, then compliments him again, etc. etc. It's a well balanced look at the royal court, but his main message is that the royal family may be seriously endangered, what with V. and his image problem.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend Thaquila. The book is hardly contentious, and got crap reviews. I don't give a fcuk who published it, it is still riddled with ethnocentric, opinionated gossipy nonsense. Handley is obviously not a very good biographer and an even worse observer. Perhaps at the risk of offending you again, just a bit too much of his own American rationality shows through.

[TrongpaiExpat]

I bet Cedric did book reports in high school without acutally reading the book.

But then, Thaiquila was never at a loss of words for a certain cheese burger that he never actually tasted.

[lonelywombat]

Homitern first posted reference to this book

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... ght=#87760 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87760&highlight=#87760)

I am amazed that a non resident of Thailand [master Cedric] is so well informed re the political situation here
and so young as well. Ah well he was not even half right with his announcement of the new Prime Minister.

Homitern first posted reference to this book

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... ght=#87760 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87760&highlight=#87760)

I am amazed that a non resident of Thailand [master Cedric] is so well informed re the political situation here
and so young as well. Ah well he was not even half right with his announcement of the new Prime Minister.

I never announced the new prime minister, I was quoting directly from The nation. They didn't always get it right, there was coup on you know. Just to put your mind at ease Thaquilia, a little excerpt from a review other than my own.


Inevitable chapters on various members of the royal household...most of which is pure gossip.... most claims prefaced by "it is said" so numerous that they eventually completely crowd out the known facts, in the manner of the tabloid press, rather than the Yale University Press........ e.t.c
Grant Evans, book reviews, Far Eastern Economic Review vol 169 no.7

Seems like the Yale press is not above a bit of good old fashioned muck, maybe it never was.

Cedric, thanks for citing that review OUT OF CONTEXT. It is a LONG BOOK. The book is excellent, not perfect, but the best thing you are going to find to inform you on modern Thai politics and Kingship with an excellent historical context. But you clearly aren't interested in being informed.

Another comment on the book. I thought some of the historical material and background on Bhuddism and the Thai Kingship traditions would be dry and boring. Not so. In the capable hands of the excellent author, anyone interested in Thai history and culture will be riveted.

And yes, even some thoughtful Thais see the great value of this book. If you can get a copy of this book and you are going to live in Thailand and or are living in Thailand, you do yourself a service to be better informed, and this book is the ticket:


New Perspective, September 13, 2006
Reviewer: Saraburian (Bangkok) - See all my reviews
As someone who spent my childhood in upcountry Thailand, went to state schools there and later in Bangkok and had an advance degree from a US University, I thought i would share with my countrymen how we perceive the King. My conversations with friends, colleagues, and most of the comments here by Thai readers/reviewers say I was totally wrong.

The book hits the nail in its head when it says that most thai my generation (I was born in the turbulent year 1976, when the right-wing government crushed student protestors and the King declared the event "the saddest day in Thai history") have always seen the King in the best of lights - and it was not something that wasn't well-planned by someone. In retrospect, I agree with the author about how the palace has orchestrated all their efforts on setting the royals in the best of lights, i.e. making all the royal projects look far more important and successful than their real worths by downplaying efforts by governments, presenting the royals in the way of super-human, in every aspect possible. When I was a young adult, I did not have a second thought about what the media was protraying the king and the royal family, i accepted it as truths and I don't have any reason to believe that most of my countrymen would see things otherwise - everything was so grand, so well orchestrated and thus so believeable.

One notable point that I think Handley sums up the sentiment of many Thai very nicely is when he briefly discussed another biography on King Bhumibol "The Revolutionary King" (which I also read several years back) that it was probably for the consumption of a small group of educated Thais who tend to be more ready to accept what's written in English than those written in Thai (for several reasons, for one, they believe the author can escape the lesse majeste by saying negative things about the King in English) My view about the King has always been similar to the one protrayed in "The Revolutionary King", which puts the King as a very capable person though with some minor flaws - which make it easier to swallow than "The Perfect One" image that the Palace media has always been projecting. Deep down, I believe, many Thais think of the King as human, yet a very respectable one (though many choose to live with the fairy tale that he is a true semi-god), so when we hear negative minor points about him, we think it could all be possible and make him even more humane yet more likable. This could be the original purpose of the "Revolutionary King" - reinforcing the King's image to the elite Thai lot. The book was written by the person who wrote "The Man called Intreprid" which was translated by the King himself.

Overall, Handley convincingly argue his case that things could be looked at in a very different perspective. He backs up his arguements with well-researched evidence many anecdotes the average Thai would have heard of. For me I haven't heard of just about half (probably more for even younger people), the others are totally new to me.

This book is recommended to any Thai who wants to understand the country and the monarchy better, in a more objective way. This book doesn't make me love the country and the King less. It makes me understand the King better on a more realistic term.

For a book of 500 pages and for a non-native speaker, I finished it in only three sittings and couldn't put it down. I give it a 4-star.

I also recommend an academic piece by McCargo "Network Monarchy" if you find this book interesting.

The book got terrible write ups.I must have missed that edition of the TLS. Could you perhaps provide some links or other references than FEER? Interestingly the review cited by Young Master Cedric was published in the self-same magazine that employed Handley for a number of years as their Bangkok correspondent. Here's a link to one chapter about the 1992 coup - http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=34 (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=34) and here are some other reviews (admittedly on the publisher's Web site, but to suggest as Young Master Cedric does that the book was universally panned is simply not true

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/revi ... 0300106823 (http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/reviews.asp?isbn=0300106823)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf ... 0300106823 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&ItemId=0300106823)
http://www.matthewhunt.com/blog/2006/07 ... miles.html (http://www.matthewhunt.com/blog/2006/07/king-never-smiles.html)
http://www.coreypein.com/ (quoting a negative review - I'm trying to be even-handed here)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world ... nd&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/asia/25thailand.html?ex=1316836800&en=9ec541100bc97d1f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
etc. etc.

Again, it is a most excellent book.
Read it or stay in the dark.
If all you know about the King is the propoganda in the Thai press, you know nothing.

And thanks for the NEW YORK TIMES article. SPOT ON!
Great book. A MUST READ for farang Thaiphiles. Too bad Thais are banned from this truth telling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world ... nd&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/asia/25thailand.html?ex=1316836800&en=9ec541100bc97d1f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

What a load of balderdash. Yes the Americans found it riveting, typicaly for all the wrong reasons. The number of bad reviews are legendary, but it would be boring to cut and paste them all here, I just chose one particularly good one. Unfortunately homintern you need to be a fully paid up member to access the FEEC Review site. Someone must think my education needs fostering as it arrives here by post, probably my Dad. Yes I left that wide open for you Thaquillia. However...

There remains serious doubt about this book, whether it is a well researched and independent work, and as such will not be used as a reference by any number of major academic institutions. So biased is Mr Handley against the Thai Monarchy that many have suggested he was in the employ of Mr Thaksin, could this be a little example of why Handleys services are no longer required by the Far Easter Economic Review?

To put my quote into good company for Thaquillia, somewhat less biased than the Yale press I would say.


Mr Handley spends 450 pages trying unsuccessfully to document what he sees as the underhand attempts by the reigning "unsmiling" Thai King to establish himself as a modern absolute monarchy, a devaraja.



Mr Handleys hostility to the Thai monarchy is plain throughout the book and particularly jaundiced...... no evidence


The book pivots on a long academicaly discredited polarity between the "rational" West and the "mystical" East and for that matter the true function of any living functioning monarchy today


Mr Handleys presentation of the kings childhood influences are confusing to say the least. He seems to want to make the reader believe that the then future king is not really Thai because of his love of Europe and ability to speak several European languages, however most of us rather applaud his cosmopolitanism



Mr Handley leaves insinuations dangling in the air, on almost every occasion



Handley unsuccessfully strains to compress each manoeuvre by the king into his own simplistic model of the deveraga.


Typically Mr Handley overestimates the political power of the monarchy


Mr Handley seems to realise that his prejudices have got the better of him when at last, after criticising the quality of the kings innocent attempts at paintings and jass music he says, the point is not to be uncharitable but to rather critise palace "Hype", though the reader rightly, is hardly aware that any palace hype exists at all.


And finally,


Mr Handley is right only in his one argument, that the King's vision is a state ruled by Buddhist principles "If one is moderate in one's desires, one will take less advantage-of others. If all nations hold this concept... without being extreme or insatiable in one's desires, the world will be a happier place"-

The King sounds more like a humble forest monk than a devaraja, never mind also being the true King of all Thailand.

G Evens, FEER

What a garbage REVIEW!


Typically Mr Handley overestimates the political power of the monarchy
Uh huh, have you READ the CURRENT NEWS?
Would there be PEACE in Thailand RIGHT NOW without the massive power of THIS King?
The book is excellent. Many will be surprised at the King's support for murderous radical extremist right wing groups during the Vietnam era. As well as long runs of military dictators. The rationale is given, to protect the Thai monarchy at all costs. Overall, the book is objective and presents both good and bad points about the King. Of course, that is forbidden in Thai society because of the power of the monarchy, but we as westerners do not have to be so blind, if we do not wish to, as fools like Cedric (the virulent anti-everything American) do.

If this WONDERFUL ENLIGHTENING book represents the TRUTH telling, FREEDOM of speech and thought, and OPENNESS of the best aspects of the best ideals of AMERICANISM, let me sing a proud tune of YANKEE DOODLE!
Not FOX News, but the NEW YORK TIMES and the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, and the poetic traditions of the likes of Allen Ginsburg.

Down with CENSORSHIP. Down with IGNORANCE. Down with virulent knee jerk anti-Americanism!

[Aunty]

It does seem to me that given that there have been over a dozen coups during the current Kings reign, yet none of these were to depose him тАУ what coups typically do in Kingdoms тАУ this tells me that the King is absolutely the most powerful and enduring institution of authority in Thailand. And it may well be that many of these coupsтАЩ were staged with either the full support of, or at the behest of, the King, whenever he felt that his power was under direct threat, e.g. from he who would be king, Thaksin.

An absolute monarch though, well I wouldnтАЩt go so far as to say that, but I think of all the monarchs that exist in the world today, after the KingsтАЩ of Tonga and Swaziland and some of the Gulf States, he comes pretty close.

So sorry, Cedric, but I would have to agree with Mr HandleyтАЩs basic thesis. ItтАЩs what ThailandтАЩs realpolitik is saying.

If this WONDERFUL ENLIGHTENING book represents the TRUTH telling, FREEDOM of speech and thought, and OPENNESS of the best aspects of the best ideals of AMERICANISM, let me sing a proud tune of YANKEE DOODLE!


I believe you get my point then Thaquillia. :cheers:

If this WONDERFUL ENLIGHTENING book represents the TRUTH telling, FREEDOM of speech and thought, and OPENNESS of the best aspects of the best ideals of AMERICANISM, let me sing a proud tune of YANKEE DOODLE!


I believe you get my point then Thaquillia. :cheers:
Actually, C, I didn't get your point at all.
What are you saying exactly?

Peace in Thailand my ass! Bombings and bloodshed continue unabated in the South, and four schools in Kamphaengphet have already been torched in a believed display of anti-coup sentiment.

[Aunty]

If this WONDERFUL ENLIGHTENING book represents the TRUTH telling, FREEDOM of speech and thought, and OPENNESS of the best aspects of the best ideals of AMERICANISM


Well those of course are not Americanisms. They are ideals that formed principally during the age of the Enlightenment in Europe (and also before) and, quite naturally since it was a European colony situated on the North American continent, heavily influenced the thought of the Europeans living there.

They were ideals that came to find particularly fertile ground in the minds of those whose identities, with time, a series of political events, and birth during the 1760тАЩs -1770тАЩs, began to evolve away from an identity that saw themselves as Englishmen, into one that saw themselves of this place, American.

Sorry I know this is completely off-topic, but I do get tied of this peculiarly modern American conceit.

It does seem to me that given that there have been over a dozen coups during the current Kings reign, yet none of these were to depose him тАУ what coups typically do in Kingdoms тАУ this tells me that the King is absolutely the most powerful and enduring institution of authority in Thailand. And it may well be that many of these coupsтАЩ were staged with either the full support of, or at the behest of, the King, whenever he felt that his power was under direct threat, e.g. from he who would be king, Thaksin.

An absolute monarch though, well I wouldnтАЩt go so far as to say that, but I think of all the monarchs that exist in the world today, after the KingsтАЩ of Tonga and Swaziland and some of the Gulf States, he comes pretty close.

So sorry, Cedric, but I would have to agree with Mr HandleyтАЩs basic thesis. ItтАЩs what ThailandтАЩs realpolitik is saying.

But why should you think that endurance equals absolute authority? It can mean any number of good things, what about admiration, love, respect and wisdom? Are these not good reasons for the enduring institution of monarchy in Thailand rather than absolute authority. We will never know what is said when the King grants an audience and by whom. It is useless to even speculate, but one thing is for sure he does far more listening than talking.
I think the analogy with the King and a humble monk is the most credible one.

[Aunty]

But why should you think that endurance equals absolute authority? It can mean any number of good things, what about admiration, love, respect and wisdom?

Do admiration, love, respect and wisdom preclude absolute monarchy? I don't think so. An absolute monarch doesnтАЩt mandate a despot. A much loved King can still rule absolutely, and even justly.

He doesn't rule absolutely.

[Aunty]

He doesn't rule absolutely.

How do you know?

I am sure his good queen has a fair amount to say in the matter, as do the generals and prime ministers, anyone for that matter that is not hell bent on destroying Thailand for their own gain that is. The King is just a benign mediator, a peoples king. My lips are zipped. Are we still allowed to mention you know who?

I can't believe, isn't it nice to see elephant spike back at the helm. Welcome back Mr Spikes.

I think it is quite clear that he is NEITHER of these things:

He rules absolutely.
The King is just a benign mediator.

BTW, I think he is a great King, maybe the greatest. The question the Thais have to eventually be asking is if they want to remain a monarchy, because the decency of a monarchy depends on the decency of the SPECIFIC King. King B has strengthened the power of the monarchy greatly and it is secure ... for now.

The King is just a benign mediator, a peoples kingBelieve that and I guess you'll believe anything. That's just palace propaganda

The King is just a benign mediator, a peoples kingBelieve that and I guess you'll believe anything. That's just palace propaganda
Exactly.
And that is just how he likes it.
Otherwise, he might be influenced by "American" thinking.

There is no palace propaganda. Perhaps it is this quietness that frightens your American sensibilities.

There is no palace propaganda. Perhaps it is this quietness that frightens your American sensibilities.
Made me laugh. You REALLY are ignorant. And a BIGOT.
Your stereotyping and hatred of Americans qualifies you for that label.

There is no palace propagandaBelieve that and you'll believe anything (including, apparently, that I'm American)