Wikileaks cables show the Thai Monarchy to be weak and feeble
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Wikileaks cables show the Thai Monarchy to be weak and feeble
Wikileaks cables often say what we already know, but have not heard top officials actually admit. That is certainly the case about Pumipon and Sirikit’s dysfunctional family and dysfunctional families are common among royalty all over the world, partly because of the fantasy lives that they all live.
Ex-Reuters journalist Andrew Marshall is in the process of putting together some of the cables from the U.S. Embassy in Thailand and he also adds his own interpretations. What he is doing is certainly useful in exposing the lies and hypocrisy around the Thai Royal Family. But we can interpret the cables in different ways. This is my interpretation.
For me, what is interesting is what the top Thai elites say about the Royal Family to U.S. officials in private and how the U.S. officials analyse their information.
I have long argued that the King, and also the Queen, do not have any real power and that power lies in the hands of the Military, top officials, politicians and business people. These powerful people use the Monarchy to claim legitimacy for all that they do and the King goes along with it. He has never shown courage to lead, take responsibility or make tough decisions. Yet the elites, who manoeuvre themselves around the Palace for their own ends, like to create the image among Thais that the King or other members of the Royal Family give orders and are powerful demi-gods. The lèse majesté law is in place to prop up this absurd circus.
In general, the Thai elites are a bunch of lying ruthless crooks competing for power. They are happy to create the image of loyal obedient subjects to the Monarchy, while scheming and sniping about them behind their backs.
The Queen
The Queen is a self-obsessed right-wing political extremist. Politically she is not at all bright, having made some serious political blunders concerning the civil war in the South and the present “red-yellow” political crisis. The Thai military and civilian elites know that she is not very bright and they seem to regard her with contempt. This is totally opposite to what they say in public and is very different from some of the Red Shirt conspiracy theories regarding the “powerful scheming Queen”, who is said to control key army units.
Look at these cables on the Queen’s inflammatory nationalist speech about the South….
“Commenting on HM Queen Sirikit’s speech in November 2004, where she spoke about the plight of Buddhist villagers in the South, (Privy Councillor and future junta Prime Minister) Surayud said that he had suggested to the Queen before the speech not to go into too much detail about the South.”[05BANGKOK1233]…. In other words, she should not shoot her mouth off in a damaging manner…. Because…..“On November 10, Privy Counselor Surayud... briefed the Ambassador and DAS John on the situation in the South. ….Surayud admitted that the Queen had shown a lack of understanding about the South in the past.” [05BANGKOK7091] ….. In other words, Privy Councillor Surayud thought that the Queen made inflammatory speeches about things of which she knew very little. Surayud does not seem to be very scared of the Queen. He certainly shows her little respect. The idea that any top ranking military officer, who was in control of troops and weapons, would take orders from such a buffoon as the Queen is quite ridiculous.
The U.S. Ambassador Eric John comments that “A 1994 Puma helicopter crash tragically robbed Sirikit of her most valued and respected advisers who could steer her away from trouble. The ladies-in-waiting who are left, the closest of which are Thanphuying Charungjit Teekara, head of the Queen's Support Foundation, and Thanphuying Chatkaew Nandhabiwat, appear to reinforce the Queen's tendency to be more nationalistic than the King. Those sentiments have led her astray in forays into political issues in recent years, both her attitudes towards the Malay Muslim deep south/promotion of Buddhism as the constitutionally- enshrined state religion in 2006-07, and the 2008 People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) yellow-shirt protests. The latter culminated in her disastrous decision to attend the October 13, 2008 funeral of a young female PAD supporter killed by a police tear-gas grenade, a move universally seen as dragging the monarchy, which is supposed to remain above politics, into the partisan fray.” [09BANGKOK2967]
The Crown Prince and his dog Foo Foo
We are all aware of the unsuitable behaviour of the Thai Crown Prince. But what is interesting is that at least one Privy Councillor wishes that he was dead and said so to the U.S. Ambassador…
“Siddhi stated that succession would be a difficult transition time for Thailand. According to Palace Law, the Crown Prince would succeed his father, but added after a pause, almost hopefully: “if the Crown Prince were to die, anything could happen, and maybe Prathep (Sirindhorn) could succeed.” [10BANGKOK192]
The classic dinner party trick by the Prince’s dog, Air Chief Marshall Foo Foo, described by the U.S. Ambassador, might help to explain some of the Thai elite’s misgivings… (not to mention the pornographic videos and photos..)
“Foo Foo was present at the event, dressed in formal evening attire complete with paw mitts, and at one point during the band's second number, he jumped up onto the head table and began lapping from the guests' water glasses, including my own. The Air Chief Marshal's antics drew the full attention of the 600-plus audience members, and remains the talk of the town to this day”. [07BANGKOK5839]
But the elite are stuck in a hole. The Thai Monarchy is surrounded by myths about them being semi-gods and myths about long ancient traditions, where power is transferred from father to son. To install his sister or even his hated and despised mother as the next Monarch after Pumipon’s death would seriously destroy the magic of the Monarchy.
Can the King give orders?
Ambassador Eric John writes about the PAD protests in 2008 that… “In late October 2008, the King directed two of his proxies to carry his water for him, Sumet Tantivejakul, the Secretary-General of the King's Chai Pattana Foundation, and Disathorn Wathcharothai, Chair of the Rajanukhrao Foundation. Speaking October 26 before a group of academics closely associated with the yellow shirt movement laying siege to Thailand at the time, supposedly in defense of the monarchy, Sumet called on protesters to "stop violence and secure peace via dialogue."
Disathorn was even more direct three days later, on October 29 at a seminar in Chumphol. "No matter whether the PAD or UDD, I wish to say that if we love the King, please don't go farming at Government House. Don't go to show forces anywhere....If you love the King, go back home. Showing your power over there makes no benefit at all. Worse, it just creates disunity. I dare to say it here because I am a real man and a real voice. I carry the King's message." [09BANGKOK2167]
“Inner circle proximity to the King may ultimately mean little when it comes to influence/impact...In the late 2008 political crisis caused by the occupation of Government House, and ultimately Bangkok's airports, by the yellow-shirt PAD activists claiming to be defending the monarchy, both Sumete and Disathorn joined Princess Sirindhorn in October 2008 in publicly stating that the King did not consider the yellow-shirts to be acting on his behalf. Disathorn went so far as to tell a seminar: “if you love the King, go home.” Instead, PAD leader Sondhi Lim denounced both men from the PAD stage with curses; Sondhi repeated his criticism of Disathorn at the November 15 PAD rally.” [09BANGKOK2967]
So the King tried to get the PAD to call off their protests, but the PAD leader ignored him and cursed his messengers. If the King was all powerful, he would have then ordered the army to shoot down the PAD and stop the occupation of the airports and government house. But of course he couldn’t. It was the Military who were really calling the shots.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn