Royalist calls for capitalists to be overthrown

Royalist Amorn Chantarasomboon, a former secretary-general of the Council of State, seems the wrong person to be calling for capitalists to be ousted. And yet he has been consistent in blaming capitalism for Thailand’s ills, including its political crisis.

Of course, while his call may sound radical, it is actually based on a deep conservatism. What they want is not some form of socialism but a monarchy presiding over commoners working away in sufficiency economy villages where people are kept well away from political decision-making.

Back in 2009, Amorn joined with a gaggle of royalists and People’s Alliance for Democracy-aligned sham academics to call for “comprehensive political reform. This was a “call for [the] removal of root causes of problem haunting the country” and to reassert that Thaksin Shinawatra is “funding unrest.” At that gathering of royalists, Amorn declared the political system “a dictatorship by capitalists…”.

Amorn, like many royalists, stated that “political reform should be undertaken by politicians, because they had a conflict of interest…”.

Nothing much has changed for Amorn, and at the Bangkok Post he now declares that the “courts of justice are facing mounting pressure from political parties that wield dominance over parliament…”. He referred to a “parliamentary dictatorship” of “parties which in turn are controlled by financiers.”

Here Amorn is being careful to denote a particular type of capitalists, but if “financiers” is the term used, we wonder if there are flutters of concern at the major financial institutions such as the Bangkok Bank and the Crown Property Bureau-controlled Siam Commercial Bank?

We doubt it, as these are royalist banks are unlikely to be included in Amorn’s attack on renewed attack on Thaksin. But it is interesting that the attack on capitalists – and Amorn is only one of the yellow extremists making this call – ignores the largest capitalist conglomerate in the country that is the CPB. That’s because Amorn has long called for royal powers to be increased. But then Amorn’s convoluted logic also includes a call for “the judiciary to … ensure their verdicts can benefit people and protect the private sector.”

Amorn had a role in the drafting of the 1997 constitution, and PPT has to wonder why Amorn is so unhappy with the 2007 constitution, which the military junta ensured that the judiciary had more power and an vastly expanded political role. Did their “fixing” of the constitution not go far enough or did they screw up?

As far as we can tell, the answer for Amorn is that any constitution that allows an electorate to choose their politicians is a problem. Amorn has been unable to believe that an electorate can consistently elect pro-Thaksin parties if they are not stupid, duped or paid.

The thing that motivates the diehard royalists is a political position that is based on a desire for rule by a few. They can’t abide any notion that the ruled should count, for they believe there are great and good ones who know best how a country should be administered. Amorn would have felt at home in the nineteenth century, and his pocket watch seems broken at about midnight on 23 July 1932.

Royalist hypocrisy

This story at the Bangkok Post appeared a few days ago and we are late getting to it. However, it does tell us a good deal about the thinking of some of the elite think about the issues of the day and manage a schizophrenic logic.

Kasem Wattanachai is a former minister in the first Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet, but fell out and was quickly sucked up into the Privy Council and was publicly critical of Thaksin.

The first thing to note is that Kasem appears to accept a report by a law lecturer at the National Institute of Development Administration and sponsored by the Ombudsman’s Office, that claims foreigners “own vast amounts of land in Thailand via local nominees.” In fact, the report claimed that “up to one third of land in Thailand is owned by foreigners.”

This claim is complete nonsense and this doesn’t require much brain power to work out. The idea that “foreigners” now “own” about 170,000 km² of the country boggles the mind. Even if this area was restricted to arable land and land in urban areas, the claim remains unbelievable.

So we have a privy councilor who chooses to believe an unbelievable and outlandish claim.

He then proceeds to lectures “people” should “not let ‘greed’ draw them into cooperating with these foreigners because farmland should be reserved for Thai farmers as their place of work and for their livelihood.”

And while the claim is of “foreigners,” Kasem chooses to single out “rice fields are being sold and rented to investors from the Middle East.” He warned Thais “against helping foreigners acquire land” and urges these farmers to defend their land. As might be expected, he tells them to follow the king’s advice and keep farming and “love” their land.

Ignoring the inherent racism and the royalist banter, it strikes us that the statements are hypocritical.

First, a representative of the richest conglomerate in the country, with extensive foreign joint ventures and large international investments, is telling poor farmers what’s best for them.

Second, as far as we can tell, the Crown Property Bureau’s international investments include landholdings. For example, the Kempinski Hotels group, majority owned by the CPB, with “an international portfolio of 62 hotels” and a “further 43 hotels … under final development or construction in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia” would wonder about being prevented from buying or renting property.

Third, in its early years, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the CPB played a critical role in facilitating the investments of Chinese business people, many of who were recent migrants to the country, and rented and sold plenty of land to them. Post-1957, the CPB also played a direct and pivotal role  in joint ventures with foreign investors. So too did its Siam Commercial Bank (and all the other commercial banks). In addition, the monarchy itself went out and “sold” Thailand to foreign investors.

Were they being greedy too? Is nationalism only for the poor?: if they have no rice, let them eat nationalism and sufficiency “economics”!

As a footnote, it is noted that the CPB  is probably the largest land owner in the country, and owns vast tracts of rural land, and we know little about how the CPB uses that land. A Forbes report the CPB has “vast land holdings that Forbes used as the basis of its estimate: “In central Bangkok, the king owns 3,320 acres; town and country holdings stretch to 13,200″ acres.

Updated: Costs of monarchy

For as long as PPT has been around, we have been pointing out that the monarchy in Thailand, while fabulously wealthy, is largely funded in its activities by the state and, hence, the taxpayer.

As recently as a couple of days ago, PPT posted on a funeral for a little-known royal that is sucking up a few million dollars. In another recent post, we pointed to a Forbes article that revealed that the state and taxpayer fork out a huge amount each year to “maintain” the monarchy.

The report claimed that in 2011, taxpayers ladled over $84 million to the Bureau of the Royal Household alone, and that isn’t the bulk of state funds poured into the monarchy:

once security costs are factored in, the government spends around $194 million a year on the royal family and its courtiers. This is in addition to the CPB’s income (minus its costs). This implies that … the Thai crown [annually] burns through half a billion dollars.

Forbes compares this to other royal families and says it is huge. For example, the far more transparent British monarchy “gets nearly $50 million” from taxpayers “but remits most of its crown property income to the treasury.”

In other words, the smaller Thai monarchy in a poorer country, takes about seven times more from the public purse.

Now, thanks to Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (our third post from FACT this week!), an academic paper by David Streckfuss is available. In it, Streckfuss makes comparisons between the Thai monarchy and other monarchies on cost to the taxpayer and, separately, the “cost” to democracy. PPT has only had a quick look, but it looks fantastic.

On the hot question of the monarchy making an oath to protect the constitution, the academic says:

The first metric examines the position of the monarchy within the constitutional order in Europe. Including all but one, monarchs make a public oath to respect the constitution.

On cost, this table really says it all (and note that the figure for Thailand is lower than the Forbes guesstimate:

Germany is included as a comparison with heads of state who aren’t monarchs. Swaziland is small in terms of population and a “banana monarchy” if ever there was one, so it is a ridiculous outlier. After that, the Thai monarchy is more than twice as expensive in terms of tax burden than tiny Luxembourg.

Read the whole paper.

Update: The paper is now available as a PDF.

Royalist fundamentalism

Sumet Tantivejkul spent a good part of his working life at the National Economic and Social Development Board, the body responsible for setting the direction of the Thai economy since the early 1960s. Following that, he became a sidekick for the king, as  secretary-general of the Chaipattana Foundation.

In recent years, Sumet has been a staunch defender of his boss, sometimes speaking of the king as if he considered him saintly or god-like. He has been highly defensive of the king and his great wealth, lambasting “foreigners” for writing of the Crown Property Bureau and claiming that Thais should ignore this news as it just messed up their brains. In other words, critical knowledge of the monarchy wasn’t necessary, and Thais just had to believe the king and love him. More recently, Sumet has been outspoken against the reform of the lese majeste law. In fact, his opposition is a pretty good indication of palace thinking on the law: they want it.

Sumet was one of the first to speak publicly of a great fear amongst royalists that red shirts were about bringing down the monarchy. In fact that speech in 2009, is essentially recycled in a report at the Bangkok Post.

In this most recent report, he is reported as saying that “Thai people have to study His Majesty the King’s teachings and ideas and not just express their love for him…”.  He goes on:

We see the King but we don’t often look at him. We want to see him because he brings us happiness but we have never asked ourselves about all the things he has done.

This is another royalist claim that the people don’t appreciate the “gift” they have and do not heed him as they should heed a real saint. Nor do they understand his work and thinking well enough. It is royalist fundamentalism.

Like a fundamentalist religious believer, Sumet admonishes the silly children: “We would not be suffering today if we followed his ideas, trust me…”.

Sumet claimed the king “fully understood the social landscape of the country,” and like a tent preacher, claimed “[p]eople will find peace and be free from suffering if they follow the King’s virtues. Nothing is too difficult to do if our intention is strong…”. Hallelujah.

Like other yellow-hued speakers of recent days, Sumet, once a planner of Thailand’s rapid industrialization, now criticizes the “liberal system” for its rampant consumptionism. He thinks “excessive consumption” is a cause of global crises. Like the king, he talks of “greed.” Remember that this is a man who is taken about in light yellow luxury cars and serves a monarchy that has $37 billion and more in its coffers and takes hundreds of millions a year from the public purse. He’s talking about “greed.”

The king has all answers, because like a Buddha incarnate, he “teaches dharma, which is to be moderate. Each individual, organisation and country has to know one’s own ability or strength and find the middle path for oneself.” In other words, sufficiency economy under the sufficiency monarchy that has used its fabulous wealth “moderately.”

Sumet explains that: “No matter how wealthy we are, we cannot carry on if we don’t have ethics. It’s not important whether you’re rich or not but what is important is to ensure that every baht spent will bring about benefits and happiness…”. See, the sufficiency monarchy exists! And, of course, the sufficiency monarchy cannot be corrupt like all the plebeians.

The monarchy will save all. Believing in the king is presented as the Thai version of salvation. The saving of Thailand is in truly understanding the monarchy. This is royalist fundamentalism.

Fumbling on Forbes

About a month ago, Forbes published an update on the Crown Property Bureau. PPT commented on that article here. The Thai government, in the form of Arjaree Sriratanaban, Minister-Counselor at the Royal Thai Embassy in Washington D.C., has replied. That reply is reproduced below, with PPT’s comments included:

Dear Editor,

With reference to Mr. Simon Montlake’s 20 January 2012 article “In Thailand, A Rare Peek At His Majesty’s Balance Sheet,” I wish to stress the following points:

First, the Crown Property Bureau (CPB) was established under the Royal Assets Structuring Act of 1936, 1941 and 1948, which separate the royal assets into three categories, namely “His Majesty’s personal assets”, “crown property” and “public property.”  The Act also provides the legal framework for clearly differentiating the three categories of the royal assets.  It, for instance, states that the crown property and public property are eligible for tax exemption whereas His Majesty’s personal assets are not.

While the above it, as far as we are aware, is accurate, as far as it goes. The implication is that the king has no personal control over the CPB. Of course, this implied separation is simply a misrepresentation of the real situation. As has been shown previously, the king has great personal control. The best account of this is here.

Secondly, according to the Act, a Crown Property Board was set up, to be chaired by ex officio by the Finance Minister.  The Board is responsible for the overall supervision of the activities of the CPB, whose status has been elevated to a juristic person since 1948.  The CPB is responsible for protecting and managing the royal assets and property as well as supporting other activities for the benefits of Thai subjects and society based on sufficiency principle and in a sustainable manner.

Again, the implication is to suggest that there is no royal control over the CPB. That is dismissed in the last link above. Importantly, the notion that the CPB works for the “benefits of Thai subjects and society based in sufficiency principle” is a new invention.  As we recently noted, the sufficiency economy notion was largely an invention in 1997.

Thirdly, with regard to the estimation of the Thai monarch’s net wealth at more than $30 billion, there is still a lack of clear methodology or explanation on how Forbes has come to this conclusion.  Forbes seems to once again include assets belonging to the CPB, which are held in trust for the nation, into its calculation of the King’s personal wealth.  Meanwhile, a report “The World’s richest 200” of the Sunday Times on 29 May 2011 seems to recognize this inaccuracy. In that report, the first three wealthiest royals/heads of states are from other countries.

This claim is based on the implied denials in the first two points, which are disingenuous, and on a nonsensical failure to note the source for the new Forbes calculation of $37 billion. The Forbes article was based entirely on the (limited) new information or revised calculations released in the semi-official King Bhumibol Adulyadej, A Life’s Work: Thailand’s Monarchy in Perspective. The data there came from the CPB itself.

Lastly, in contrast to an ultra-rich image that Forbes has tried to portray of the Thai monarch, anyone who knows Thailand and has driven by Chitralada Palace in Bangkok can clearly see the agricultural research station His Majesty has built upon the palace grounds.  The laboratory serves as an incubator for ideas of over 4,000 Royal Development Projects in communities throughout the country.  His Majesty’s palace is probably the only monarch’s residence in the world to be adorned with demonstration rice fields, fish ponds, a cattle barn, a rice mill and several small factories.

This claim has been made previously. Mentioning Chitralada palace where only a small proportion of land is given over to such activities, most of them dating to the 1960s is a red herring. As far as PPT knows, when he was premier, General Prem Tinsulanonda, now president of the privy council, took almost all of the royal projects onto the state budget. In addition, there are now many royal palaces, used by various members of the royal family.

I hope you will publish this letter in order to provide your readers with a more comprehensive and fact-based perspective on Thailand and its monarchy.

Well, it was, but for anyone knowing anything about the monarchy, the fumbling and fudging is all too clear. If there were a real separation between personal royal wealth and the CPB, perhaps then there might really be some transparent information on both. We don’t think the monarchy would be willing to tell the world just how fabulously wealthy it really is.

Advancing royalism

Every so often, especially when they feel somehow threatened or they feel the need to promote royalism, officials, royalists and various posterior polishers sit around and ask, “What can we do to remind the plebians about how great they have to think the monarch is?”

Often the answer is to reinvigorate the promotion of the homily called sufficiency economy. This time, however, the parroting of sufficiency economy comes at a time when ultra-royalists are reinventing “Thai-style democracy” as “sufficiency democracy.”

Of course, wiser heads than us at PPT have always cautioned that hyphens and prefixes linked to democracy usually mean no democracy at all. That’s very true in this case.

At the Bangkok Post, the most recent effort to put a bit of spit on the sufficiency economy claptrap and buff it is reported. This time the posterior shiners wheeled out are a mix of aged royal knee-walkers, an yellow-shirted senator and the star of the show is former Democrat Party politician Supachai Panitchpakdi.

Supachai is remarkable for being boss of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), an organization that was once exceptional but has fallen into virtual oblivion under his uninspired leadership and bureaucratic style. He’s usually brought to Thailand when the Democrat Party is thinking about a new leader.

The Post begins its account with a remarkable bit of nonsense that poses sufficiency economy as an alternative “system that can replace a capitalist democracy…”. This is attributed to Supachai who seems to see sufficiency economy as addressing “imbalances include economic inequalities, global warming and food security.”

Recall that the place most likely to be interested in this “theory” is Thailand, with the highest inequality in Asia and relatively high levels of greenhouse gases, along with agriculture that has long struggled to improve productivity.

Supachai was speaking at a two-day “international conference” on “The Meaning of the Sufficiency Economy”. If they don’t know by now….

He came up with unremarkable notions about “shifting the emphasis to a household perspective, the informal economy and personal values such as a a sense of self-support, compassion and community spirit.” Along with “prudence” and “moderation,” the latter values are common to most of the world’s religions, so nothing definitive for sufficiency economy there. Thailand’s informal sector is huge, and that’s one reason why incomes are relatively low and inequality is high.

Then Supachai forgets himself and the wrap he is meant to be giving sufficiency economy and speaks of a “new ideology which values global trade and investment, allowing a flourishing middle class and is more accommodating to the masses, is also in the making…”. We wonder if he means social democracy? That would have little to do with the anti-democratic ideas about sufficiency economy and sufficiency democracy.

Other polishers of the royal “theory” included none other than the president of the fabulously rich Crown Property Bureau, Chirayu Isarangkun, who spoke of the “value of moderation has to be upheld.” We guess that having $37 billion in the CPB kitty speaks to that.

Another participant was privy councilor General Surayud Chulanont, who has large collections of houses, millionaire watches and a penchant for expensive  cars. Also there was Paiboon Wattanasiritham, a minister in the junta-appointed government of aged men in 2006 and the yellow-hued Rosana Tositrakul.

The last time sufficiency economy was in the news and paired with sufficiency democracy was when Abhisit Vejjajiva bleated about it at the U.N. That soon faded from memory and we assume that this current effort will follow the same path.

Updated: Bhumibol’s business

Forbes have taken the opportunity provided by the publication of King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work, which they describe as a “semi-official biography,” to reassess the king’s wealth.

The article points out that Forbes has previously listed the king as the world’s richest monarchy “by a comfortable margin,”  and last year estimated his net wealth in excess of $30 billion. Forbes observes that

Bhumibol’s top ranking is controversial in Thailand, to say the least. Republicans grumble that the monarchy is wasteful and inefficient. Others are horrified that foreigners have the gall to turn a lens on their deified ruler. Royal courtiers insist that Forbes has it all wrong, that the billions on the balance sheet belong to the crown, not the man. They also contest the property valuations on which much of our estimate is based. Yes, they say, the monarchy is sitting on prime tracts of land in Bangkok and central Thailand. But it leases land and rent properties at subsidized rents that no commercial agency would tolerate. So the king isn’t loaded, just landed….

The article then turns to “the royal money machine” as set out in a chapter in the new book that discusses the Crown Property Bureau (CPB).

It first notes that the chapter “confirms the vast land holdings that Forbes used as the basis of its estimate: “In central Bangkok, the king owns 3,320 acres; town and country holdings stretch to 13,200″ acres.

Forbes, however, disputes the “CPB’s line” that the combined value of all this land and property “is less than a third” of the Forbes estimate for the Bangkok holdings. Even so, it is revealed that the  “CPB says it has 40,000 rental contracts, of which 17,000 are in Bangkok.” The CPB claims it doesn’t get a lot in rental income.

As is well known, the CPB holdings include substantial holdings in corporate giants: “a 23% stake in Siam Commercial Bank” and a 32% stake in the Siam Cement Group. Forbes says:

Add those together and you have stock worth $7 billion. In 2010, these companies paid $184 million in dividends to the bureau. In fact, according to the book’s authors, the CPB’s total revenues have averaged 9-11 billion baht a year since 2008. So even when times were hard (Thailand’s economy stalled in 2009), the crown collected a cool $290 million.

It is added that the chapter “doesn’t mention that the CPB also has a majority holding in German hotel group Kempinski AG. Another unit is Bangkok-based Deves Insurance. In 2008, this and other holdings were valued at $600 million.”

Forbes says that “Bhumibol’s biographers are at pains to point out that the CPB isn’t his personal piggybank (a separate agency handles the royal family’s private assets) and so it’s incorrect to label him as ultra-rich.”

Of course, this is royalist double-speak, for the the wealth

is in Bhumibol’s hands. His anointed successor, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, will inherit the keys to the safe. In other words, it’s a family enterprise in which the assets are gifted to the next generation.

The article asks: “what exactly is the CPB?” The book chapter’s answer is:  “It is not part of the palace administration, nor is it a government agency, nor is it a private firm. It is a unique institution.”But unique what? A special arrangement for managing the royal wealth without paying much tax:

the bureau pays no business tax, and nor does Thailand have a land tax. Its tax-exempt status is enshrined in law. Yet it’s not a charity or a public agency (or a sovereign wealth fund). It’s not obliged to issue an annual report. It answers only to the king, whose investment strategy isn’t up for public debate.

That’s not to say that firms like Siam Cement and the Siam Commercial Bank don’t pay tax. They do, but the CPB itself is exempt.

In addition, the state and taxpayer fork out a huge amount each year to “maintain” the monarchy.

Whereas the CPB is claimed to hand over “9-11 billion baht from the portfolio of assets managed” to the expenses of the monarchy, in 2011, taxpayers ladled over $84 million to the Bureau of the Royal Household, and that isn’t the bulk of state funds poured into the monarchy. The new book comments on this:

once security costs are factored in, the government spends around $194 million a year on the royal family and its courtiers. This is in addition to the CPB’s income (minus its costs). This implies that in an average year, the Thai crown burns through half a billion dollars.

Forbes compares this to other royal families and says this is huge. For example, the far more transparent British monarchy “gets nearly $50 million” from taxpayers “but remits most of its crown property income to the treasury.”

In other words, even ignoring the British monarchy’s contributions to public funds, the smaller Thai monarchy in a poorer country, takes about seven times more from the public purse.

The new book doesn’t attempt to justify this except that the whole book is a grand justification exercise for the monarchy.

We imagine that even with the book being published, the Forbes article will not be welcomed.

Update: A reader points out that we stupidly forgot to include the now current estimate of the CPB’s brimming coffers: it is US$37 billion.

Another reader calculates the yearly cost of the estimated $500 million for keeping the monarchy show on the road: it is about $8 or 240 baht for every man, woman and child in Thailand. It is 500,000,000 cheap bowls of noodles at a sidewalk vendor. It is 50,000,000 days of the proposed 300 baht a day minimum wage. It is 0.15% of Thailand’s total GDP. As long time readers will know, PPT doesn’t include any mathematics wizards, so we won’t dare vouch for the figures. What we do know is that it costs a lot to keep the royals safe and (presumably) happy.

Updated: The king as Forrest Gump

For those who haven’t yet seen it, at New Mandala, journalist and author of The King Never Smiles, Paul Handley has reviewed King Bhumibol Adulyadej, A Life’s Work: Thailand’s Monarchy in Perspective. PPT posted on an earlier, long, but still incomplete review of the same book.

Handley

We won’t detail Handley’s “measured and restrained review” (we are quoting a commentator at NM). Rather, we just highlight a few points from it.

We were particularly struck by Handley’s use of the comparison of the potted history in the new book and Forrest Gump. Handley compares the book’s depiction of the king in the course of the last six decades of Thai political history as being Forrest Gump-like, watching all of the most defining events but seldom participating in a purposeful manner.

We doubt the collective authorship/editorship wanted that portrayal but they were very keen to show that the king doesn’t intervene in politics that they end up leaving the king looking Gumpish.

There are some odd choices made. For example, the portrayal of the king, on 6-7 October 1976, going jogging as hundreds were massacred by people claiming to be monarchists seems quite bizarre.

Handley’s general conclusion that while the book tries to recapture the discourse of the monarchy in the 21st century, it is “a jumble” and it is “hampered by excessive caution and some glaring equivocation, [the authors/editors] fall short of where they need to be for the institution’s sake.”

When Handley discusses the more meaty bits of the book – presumably authored by the 2-3 scholars invited into the royalist magic circle of writers – he writes of increased transparency. Here, we assume that he means by those who put together these royal-approved books, for not much of the content is particularly new.

Again, though, there are some significant contortions required. For example, when it assesses “allegations that privy councillors were involved in the 2006 coup,” the book

does not deny this, but says that, if so, privy councillors would have been “acting in a private capacity” (p. 323).  Prem’s well publicised talks to military units ahead of the coup “were not made in his capacity as Privy Council president” (p. 323).

That would seem disingenuous at best.

At the same time, it is gratifying that it is admitted that the Crown Property Bureau belongs “to the monarchy as an institution.” It is clear that competing claims that the CPB is somehow “public” is nonsense.

The final point to highlight is, not surprisingly, related to lese majeste. Handley points out that the book makes a clear statement that the law must be maintained as there is a real and present threat to the monarchy. As Handley quotes from the book:

There is no question that a significantly increased number of premeditated attacks have been made against the king, members of the royal family and the royal institution on the internet and in public speeches – much of which are grounds for seeking legal redress. (p. 308)

As Handley adds, “Exactly what the threat is, and from whom it comes, we are not told.” However, and this does seem new to PPT, the Abhisit Vejjajiva appointed committee looking at lese majeste is cited:

The Abhisit government’s Advisory Committee on the Security of the Kingdom examined how the law’s application might be damaging the country and the monarchy. But its key conclusions were that “The lèse majesté law is still justified for those intentionally conspiring to overthrow the monarchy” and “the committee contemplates no changes to lèse majesté law since there is a real threat to the institution that cannot be ignored” (p. 312).

It is clear the palace wants the law in place.

Update: As Handley’s review appeared, The Nation has also published a review by Manote Tripathi. It is entitled “Light in the shadows.” Unfortunately, the review leaves almost everything in the shadows and tells us of no light. A critical reader relying on this review would simply let the book go by and not bother opening it as the review tells a story that suggests another heavy tome of the usual palace propaganda.

Wikileaks: Pansak on palace opposition to Thaksin

On 5 September 2006, U.S. Ambassador Ralph Boyce met with Pansak Vinyaratn, described as “one of Thaksin’s closest advisors and political strategists.” This Wikileaks cable describes the meeting.

Pansak (from Wikipedia Commons)

Pansak is reported as saying that:

Thaksin’s enemies — and specifically Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda — hoped for his ouster in September. Prem and his allies hoped to get rid not only of Thaksin, but also Thailand’s democratic system, Pansak asserted. The royalist oligarchy wanted to return to a prior era in which the Palace, not democratically elected politicians, would reign supreme.

See Pansak’s earlier comment on this here.

Pansak also claimed that Thaksin’s enemies:

“… want to assassinate him.” They envisioned that this act would force the King to intervene in politics and prompt a restructuring of the current system of governance.

Pansak further claimed that:

Prem had signaled his intentions and intimidated two cabinet members (Cabinet Secretary Borwornsak Uwanno and Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam) into resigning in June. Pansak claimed that Prem had sent a clear signal by asking their view on whether constitutional provisions allowing the King to take on a political role might be invoked in the event of Thaksin’s death.

It seems that Pansak reckoned that the “machinations” out of the palace were odd in that “Thaksin had consistently shown respect for the royal court and had defended the King’s interests.”

Interestingly, the first example Pansak draws on is the publication of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles:

Thaksin had sought to protect the King’s reputation when an American author recently published a tell-all book about the royal family.

More importantly, Pansak adds,

Thaksin had taken steps to promote and protect the assets of the Crown Property Bureau (CPB). Thaksin had substantial assets of his own with Siam Commercial Bank (SCB), in which the CPB was a major stakeholder — and an SCB figure who was also a relative of the Queen (NFI) had even represented Thaksin in negotiating the highly controversial sale of Shin Corp to Singapore’s Temasek Holdings.

Pansak reckoned that royalists “feared that Thaksin’s policies, which benefited and empowered the rural majority, would erode their own standing.” He added that they “were against democracy…”.

In a later reported comment, Pansak laments that:

Tragically, while the royalists and oligarchs were undermining Thaksin, the political landscape was bereft of credible alternative leaders. Given the King’s age, it was imperative for the Thai population to begin preparing psychologically for the King’s passing and for a transition to a system increasingly reliant on democratic structures rather than royal authority. The current crisis forestalled such preparation, however.

He reportedly added: “It’s all about Prem becoming Regent…”.

Turning to the military, Pansak gives an indication of why it was that Thaksin was prepared to travel overseas in September, despite all of the ongoing rumors of a pending coup. He is reported to have

acknowledged the military was split along political lines, and this lack of unity would prevent a move by Army Commander Sonthi Boonyaratglin against Thaksin.

How wrong he was! But this is also contextualized in Boyce’s comment that, despite “a defiant tone,” Pansak “seemed resigned to the eventual triumph of those whom he considers to represent Thailand’s old order.”

With a major update: New book on the current reign II

A day or so ago, PPT posted on a new book on the monarchy. That book, “King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work,”  overseen by former prime minister and ardent royalist Anand Panyarachun.

In that post we pointed out that Anand promised “deep, previously unknown insights into King’s life and the monarchy with ‘no attempts to hide the truth or run away from debates’.” He said it is “not a sugar-coated description of the world’s longest-reigning monarch and the work in English was written by a group of experts with knowledge and long experience in Thailand.”

Now the first review is out, by Usnisa Sukhsvasti, at the Bangkok Post. As a reader points out to PPT, it is doubtful that any book on the king can get a good, critical review in Thailand. As if to prove that, Usnisa produces a syrupy, press-release like “review” that seems to say that nothing has changed. By relying on this review, a reader could only conclude that this book is nothing more than a bit of palace propaganda.

If Anand reckons this really is a “new” and “different” book, then Anand should be livid about such an old-style and hagiographical review.

The only effort that is made in the review is to “sell” the book as “credible.” We learn almost nothing about what is actually in it.

Update: The Sydney Morning Herald has something of a review of the book, claiming that “book has lifted a veil of secrecy surrounding Thailand’s monarchy…”. This seems to refer to wealth: “he book also documents for the first time that a unique and little known institution, the Crown Property Bureau, is one of the largest investors in Thailand, controlling assets valued at $US6.7 billion.”

The claim that it is the “first” to detail the CPB is wrong. This data is largely updated from Porphant Ouyyanont’s 2008 article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia.

Even so, the updated figures are of interest: “The bureau owns 8400 hectares of land in Bangkok, mainly in the historic part of the city, worth an estimated $US33 billion at 2010 prices. Across the country the bureau has 40,000 rental properties, about 17,000 in Bangkok, including government offices, slum communities, shops, markets and prime sites occupied by hotels, office blocks and shopping centres, the book says. Outside the capital the bureau owns a total of 33,400 hectares of land, it says.” Some of these numbers are new.

The book is then quoted as purveying a new palace line that “the assets belong to the monarchy as an institution which continues from reign to reign, not to the king in his private capacity.” As the king has the sole right to appoint and administer the CPB, this is like saying that any inheritance belongs to a family rather than a billionaire patriarch. It is dissembling.

The SMH is clear in reporting another manipulations of truth: that the king “has been a critic of the harsh lese-majeste laws” – this is a nonsense based on his 2005 speech. Since that speech, lese majeste charges and convictions have abounded.

The other rather eye-opening claim is that the “book details the mysterious death in June 1946 of King Bhumibol’s brother, Ananda Mahidol…”. It is stated that the cited “evidence” is that “the death was an assassination and discusses various possible suspects or conspirators, including three royal staff members, a Swiss girlfriend of King Ananda and a Japanese spy allegedly hiding in Bangkok at the time. The book lays out the facts of the death but makes no conclusion as to the cause.”

We doubt that it provides any new details on this and simply repeats the work of others, some of it bizarre. The palace certainly knows the truth but continues to hide it.