STRAIGHT TO THE POINT
Is the military really protecting our monarchy?
- Published: 18/05/2011 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: News
A recent article in New Mandala about King Chulalongkorn's abolishing the practice of prostration before the king in 1873, has been the subject of online discussions. A similar article in Asia Sentinel is blocked by at least one internet service provider and replaced by a blank page bearing the familiar address .
It seems that our ever-zealous internet censors don't want the Thai public to ponder over the enlightened act of Thailand's most highly-regarded king and ask why his act of reform was undone over 80 years later.
In the New Mandala article, Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a research fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, translates excerpts from the Royal Gazette of 1873 in which King Chulalongkorn is quoted as saying, "The practice of prostration in Siam is severely oppressive. The subordinates have been forced to prostrate in order to elevate the dignity of the phuyai. I do not see how the practice of prostration will render any benefit to Siam."
The Royal Gazette announced that the practice of prostration was to be replaced by bowing and standing res-pectfully before the king. The fact that King Chulalongkorn abolished prostration is mentioned among many of his reforms in Thai history textbooks. However, the significance of this act and the reasons given by the king are not discussed.
Naturally, the online discussions of the New Mandala article led to the question: Why is this "oppressive" practice still carried out today, 138 years later?
The answer can be found in an article by Wat Walyangkurn in Khao Sod dated Oct 24, 2010 . Wat describes how the military coup of Sept 16, 1957 which brought Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat to power, ended an era of relative cultural freedom in which democracy, human rights and social equality were common topics in literature and popular songs.
After the coup, many cultural reforms carried out since the times of King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn were reversed, including the reinstatement of prostration before the king, in efforts to re-establish the sacredness, power and mystique of the ruling elite as a means of silencing opposition and reinforcing the legitimacy of the military regime.
It has always been the military that has been keen to enforce absolute reverence towards the monarchy, and all military coups in recent history have cited alleged threats to the monarchy as justification for military rule.
It is the kings themselves who, from time to time, have made attempts to reform the monarchy to be more in line with democratic society.
On the one hand, the maximum prison sentence for lese majeste was increased from SEVEN to 15 years after the military coup of 1976; while on the other hand our present king is on record in his birthday speech of 2005 as requesting that lese majeste be used judiciously and that criticism of the king should be allowed.
So how should we regard recent developments in which the military establishment led by Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha vowed to protect the monarchy and filed charges of lese majeste against a number of red-shirt leaders and against historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul, who has been demanding abolition of the lese majeste law? As Warangkana Chomchuen says in her excellent NBC News article entitled "Will Thailand's military allow free elections?" : "Thailand's military has a long history of meddling in politics."
The present actions of the military are clearly intended to influence the results of the elections by once again implying that a threat to the monarchy is involved. In their actions, they have moved the boundaries of lese majeste accusations to an extreme never reached before at a time when demands for reform of lese majeste law are reaching a peak.
This is a very tense and explosive situation which, as history clearly tells us, cannot possibly be beneficial to the monarchy. It is a situation in which Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has acted as a bystander, either helpless or unwilling to make any positive intervention to lower the political confrontation.
For years, critical comments among academics and intellectuals on the monarchy as an institution have been tolerated. This is why Sulak Sivaraksa has never gone to prison for his consistently outspoken observations. Now, there seems to be no refuge left.
The unfairness of the lese majeste law is that anyone can file a complaint and there are no guidelines as to the interpretation of the law. What did the people charged by the military actually say to earn them the charge? The media is not allowed to let us know. Is it considered lese majeste to advocate the abolishment of the lese majeste law, or to criticise institutions under royal patronage? No one knows the boundaries of interpretation.
The only peaceful solution to the political explosion that is building up as more and more people are charged and sentenced under Article 112 of the Criminal Code, is to reform the lese majeste law and the monarchy as an institution in line with democratic principles.
I'm sure that there are many politicians on both sides of the political divide who recognise the dangers and would like to introduce political reforms to ease the situation.
The reason why they don't dare to do anything about it, however, is that they are afraid of reprisals from the royalist movements such as the People's Alliance for Democracy, the multi-coloured shirt activists and, in particular, the military establishment.
It is the avowed protectors of the monarchy who are actually destabilising the monarchy and preventing the reforms badly needed to sustain the monarchy. Will the military establishment recognise this fact in time and learn to stop meddling in Thailand's political affairs?
Jon Ungphakorn is a human rights and social activist, winner of the 2005 Magsaysay Award and a former elected senator for Bangkok.
No comments:
Post a Comment