Silk and shaky royal power I

Readers may have noticed a recent article in the Bangkok Post regarding the regime “promoting Thai silk as part of its efforts to make Thailand’s soft power conquer the world…”. That’s according to the execrable Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam who for some unexplained reason is “chair of the committee organising the 11th Celebration of Silk, Thai Silk Road to the World…”, which seems to plagiarize Chinese jargon.

Interestingly, the effort is a state-royalist effort, with a “Thai silk fair” held at the Royal Thai Navy Convention Hall in Bangkok, and meant to “honour … Queen Sirikit the Queen Mother for her dedication to the development of Thai silk and the promotion of silk products at an international level.”

Part of the “fair” is a “Big Silk Designer Contest” which “showcases Thai culture and heritage attached to Thai silk” and is meant to “attract … young Thais interested in traditional fabrics and encourages them to incorporate Thai silk into modern fashion design.” Culture Minister Itthiphol Kunplome described this as “a new area of Thailand soft power…”.

From Wikipedia

So important is this state-royalist effort that “the permanent secretaries of all 10 ministries displayed on the catwalk Thai silk collections designed and produced in recent months.” Presumably permanent secretaries don’t allocate time from presumably busy schedules unless there is some kind of incentive or directive. In this case, we presume it is the royal dimension.

In reading this “report,” we were reminded of a recent post at Fulcrum by Alexandra Dalferro: “Princess Sirivannavari’s Textile Initiative and Royal Power: Will Thai People Take the Hook?” (we suggest ignoring the sub-heading which does not appear to reflect the article). This article explains yet another state-royalist effort to promote the princess (previously promoted as a talented scholar, talented national badminton player, talented equestrian, talented entrepreneur, talented, designer, etc.). It also recounts the opposition to the “use of taxpayer money (to the tune of 13 million baht) to market her brand abroad.”

As it was under the Sirikit “brand,” the Sirivannavari “brand” is not so much about Thai “soft power,” but royal “soft power,” using buckets of taxpayer funds to promote the monarchy. For Sirivannavari, it is also an effort to make the often ridiculed princess appear more “likeable” and more popular.

The article at Fulcrum concludes:

Many producers relate that they are willing to make the pattern to earn money, but they are unwilling to wear it, explaining that it has no source. To them, the pattern has not been shared across generations and is not related to locally meaningful motifs; it exists only for civil servants to wear to fulfil their mandates. ‘They are forced to wear it because they have no freedom,’ one weaver from Northeast Thailand emphasised in a recent conversation with the author. Many Thai people are refusing the lure of the S hook by keeping it away from their bodies, a decision that is also a challenge to entrenched but now shaky royal power.