เหตุการณ์การเมืองไทยหลังการเลือกตั้ง ...
1. กษัตริย์ไม่สนับสนุนระบอบประชาธิปไตย
THE KING DOES NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRACY
2. ราขวงค์ไม่ได้อยู่เหนือการเมือง
THE ROYALS ARE NOT " ABOVE POLITIC "
3. ระบอบกษัตริย์ไม่สมามารถรวมประเทศเป็นหนึ่งเดียวได้
THE MONARCHY CANNOT UNIFY THAILAND
4. กษัตริย์และทหารไม่เคยทำให้ประเทศกลับเข้าสู่ระบอบประชาธิปไตย
THE MONARCHY AND MILITARY WILL NEVER BRING DEMOCRACY TO THAILAND
Andrew MacGregor Marshall
1. THE KING DOES NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRACY
It has long been clear that King Vajiralongkorn is not a supporter of
Thai democracy. He is obsessed with order and reverence for the
monarchy. Notoriously, in April 2017 he ordered the removal of a
historic plaque in Royal Plaza commemorating the revolution of 1932 that
ended the absolute monarchy in Thailand. It was replaced by another
plaque inscribed with royalist propaganda. [https://goo.gl/432h43
]
However, many supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, particularly in the Red
Shirt movement, believe that Vajiralongkorn is an ally of Thaksin. This
may have been true once, but it is not true now.
From the end of
the 1990s, before he had become prime minister, Thaksin actively
invested some of his plentiful wealth on an important long-term project —
buying his way into the favour of the royal family. Being an astute
businessman, he saw the wisdom of focusing his generosity on the crown
prince, who had perennial problems finding the cash to support his
lifestyle.
As Paul Handley wrote in his book The King Never
Smiles: "Many well-informed Bangkokians talked of Thaksin having taken
on many of the prince's larger expenditures, including the refurbishment
of the old palace of Rama VII, which the prince wanted to move into."
In 2001, the government and palace threatened reporters and editors at
the Far Eastern Economic Review with lèse majesté after they hinted at
dubious financial links between Thaksin and the prince. With
Vajiralongkorn increasingly reliant on Thaksin’s largesse, U.S.
ambassador Ralph "Skip" Boyce wrote in leaked cable 05BANGKOK2219 in
2005 that Thaksin had bought his way into Vajiralongkorn's favour:
"The King will not be around forever, and Thaksin long ago invested in Crown Prince futures." [https://goo.gl/NeLvWx
]
In 2006, before the coup, royalist bureaucrat Buwornsak Uwanno told
Boyce of an alleged audio recording in which Thaksin boasted of his
influence over the prince:
"The entire Privy Council was against
Thaksin, he asserted, adding that Privy Councilor Surayud Chulanont had a
tape recording that featured the Prime Minister talking to members of
his entourage about how to “neutralize” (politically) the King, Thaksin
asserting also that he exerted significant influence over Crown Prince
Vajiralongkorn. (In an aside, Borwornsak also complained that Thaksin
had spoken of the Crown Prince and written letters to him in a manner
that appeared disrespectful of the Crown Prince's royal heritage.)" [https://goo.gl/AhpxSA
]
Around the time of the 2006 coup, the relationship between Thaksin and
Vajirangkorn soured. In 2007, as he was leaving Thailand, Boyce paid a
farewell call on the crown prince:
"Despite Thailand's long
history of coups and its many constitutions, the Crown Prince said, the
Thai people loved democracy and individual freedoms. He said he found it
ironic that Prime Minister Thaksin had essentially been able to act as a
dictator, although coming to power through elections. (Comment: Early
in Thaksin's administration, Thaksin seemed to invest heavily in
cultivating close ties to the Crown Prince. The two men later had a
spectacular falling-out, prompting the Crown Prince to abandon the
Nonthaburi Palace that Thaksin had purchased and outfitted for him,
moving to the Sukhothai Palace downtown. Stories vary about a meeting
between Thaksin and the Crown Prince in London earlier this year; the
version we assess as most likely is that Thaksin sought an audience with
the Crown Prince, and, when this was not granted, he inserted himself
into the reception line at the Crown Prince's hotel and had a 45-second
discussion devoid of substance. End Comment.)" [https://goo.gl/n3DDQ1
]
The story of Thaksin’s desperate effort to get some face time with
Vajiralongkorn in London is told more fully in an earlier leaked 2007
cable, after a meeting between Boyce and 2006/7 junta Secretary General
Winai Phattiyakul:
"Thaksin also had contacted the Thai
Ambassador in London to try to arrange an audience with Crown Prince
Vajiralongkorn during the Crown Prince's April visit to the United
Kingdom. Winai said that when the Thai Ambassador denied this request,
Thaksin waited in the lobby of the Crown Prince's hotel, inserting
himself into the receiving line of hotel staff. On arrival, according to
Winai, the Crown Prince had a very brief exchange with Thaksin in this
public setting. But when Winai later told unspecified figures from
Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party that the deposed PM was acting
inappropriately, Winai's TRT interlocutor claimed that the Crown Prince
had summoned Thaksin for a lengthy audience. Winai claimed this story
illustrated an unacceptable effort by Thaksin to force himself upon the
royal family — and then misrepresent his interactions." [https://goo.gl/PAeigf
] In 2008, Thaksin told new U.S. ambassador Eric John that he had a good relationship with Vajiralongkorn:
"Thaksin added that he believed that he still had a good relationship
with Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn. The Crown Prince, however, had
explained to Thaksin (at an unspecified time post-coup) that he would be
unable to meet with Thaksin for an extended period of time, because of
Queen Sirikit's antipathy toward the former Prime Minister." [https://goo.gl/42Rt59
]
Vajiralongkorn has long been hated by Thai royalists who revered the
former King Bhumibol. Because of this, Red Shirts who realised that
Bhumibol never supported democracy came to believe that Vajiralongkorn
was on their side.
In January 2010, the elderly royalist
powerbroker Prem Tinsulandona told the U.S. ambassador that he suspected
that Thaksin had re-established some ties with Vajiralongkorn:
"Prem acknowledged Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn probably maintained some
sort of relationship with fugitive former PM Thaksin, 'seeing him from
time to time.' Prem, clearly no fan of either man, cautioned that
Thaksin ran the risk of self-delusion if he thought that the Crown
Prince would act as his friend/supporter in the future merely because of
Thaksin’s monetary support; 'he does not enjoy that sort of
relationship.' When Ambassador asked where the Crown Prince was
currently, in Thailand or Europe, Prem replied dismissively: 'You know
his social life, how he is.' (Note: a presumed reference to
Vajiralongkorn’s preference to spend time based out of Munich with his
main mistress, rather than in Thailand with his wife and son)." [https://goo.gl/2xv1Ny
]
During the violence in Bangkok in 2010, and the ultra-royalist PDRC
protests of 2013/4, rumours spread among the Red Shirts that
Vajiralongkorn was on their side. These rumours were encouraged and
spread by some senior Red Shirt leaders.
Yet all of
Vajiralongkorn's actions over past decades, and particularly since the
death of King Bhumibol, show that he is not a supporter of the Red
Shirts and not a supporter of democracy. On the contrary, he has
repeatedly shown his contempt for democracy, and his desire to revive
royal autocracy in Thailand.
One useful lesson from the events of
last week is that finally the Red Shirts will have to let go of the
dream that the king is secretly on their side.
2. THE ROYALS ARE NOT "ABOVE POLITICS"
One of Thailand's biggest myths is that the monarchy is not involved in politics.
The revolution of 1932 was intended to end royal involvement in
politics. But many royalist Thais refused to accept this, and one of the
main reasons for the political conflict of the 21st century is that the
monarchy and military refuse to stop meddling in politics.
As Paul Handley explained meticulously in The King Never Smiles, and as I also explained in my books #thaistory
and A Kingdom in Crisis, the Thai monarchy has continued to intervene
repeatedly in politics throughout Thailand's modern history. [https://goo.gl/k1f3rq
]
King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit made numerous interventions. Prime
ministers Tanin Kraivixien in the 1970s, Prem Tinsulanonda in the 1980s
and Anand Panyarachun in the 1990s were all political puppets of the
palace.
Bhumibol made an effort to pretend he was not political.
Vajiralongkorn doesn't even bother to pretend. In 2017 he directly
intervened to change the junta's new constitution even after it had been
approved by a national referendum. He has taken direct control of the
royal fortune of more than $50 billion. The junta and elite do what he
tells them to do.
The events of last week should have shown Thais that it's nonsense that the monarchy is not political.
3. THE MONARCHY CANNOT UNIFY THAILAND
Thai royalists claim the monarchy is a unifying force that maintains stability in Thailand.
In fact, the reverse is true. The monarchy has always been riven by
vicious infighting, and its constant meddling in politics has
destabilised the country throughout Thailand's modern history.
The marriage of King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit collapsed during the
1980s, and the rival royal circles fought each other incessantly. There
was also chronic conflict among the royals over whether Vajiralongkorn
was suitable to be king.
This story is told in detail by Handley
in The King Never Smiles, by me in my books, and summarised in the
leaked secret U.S. cable 09BANGKOK 2967.
As the cable explains:
"Prior to mid-2008, the King and Queen had lived most of the past 20
years largely apart, joint public appearances excepted. This
unpublicized reality started after the Queen disappeared from public
view in 1986 for about six months to recover from emotional exhaustion,
in the wake of the King dismissing her favorite military aide de camp.
Their social circles diverged sharply from then on, with very few
figures spanning both camps."
"For many years, Queen Sirikit
actively promoted Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn's interests and was seen
as his greatest backer in the face of widespread public opposition and
open preference for Princess Sirindhorn... The mother-son relationship
suddenly changed in 2007 for two reasons: the appearance of video and
still photos of Vajiralongkorn's wife Srirasmi in the nude on the
internet/CDs then widely available in Bangkok; and a noisy row over the
amount of time the Crown Prince was spending outside Thailand. In 2008,
the Queen and the Crown Prince had a shouting match at a hospital
during the Queen's brief hospitalization, with the Crown Prince angrily
berating her in front of ladies-in-waiting. Relations were further
strained in late 2009 over the Police Chief struggle, with the Queen,
supporting Acting Police Chief Pratheep, telling the Crown Prince to
back off his support of GEN Chumpol, and he defiantly refusing to do so.
Several of the key ladies-in-waiting reportedly now refuse to be
present when the Crown Prince visits the Queen." [https://goo.gl/3dB9nN
]
The damaging rift between Vajiralongkorn and Ubolratana is just the
latest example of the chronic divisions within the royal family. A
divided and meddling royal family can never be a force for stability.
4. THE MONARCHY AND MILITARY WILL NEVER BRING DEMOCRACY TO THAILAND
The palace and Thai royalists have long claimed that they are the true
democrats in Thailand, in contrast to corrupt elected politicians. The
army also continues to pretend it supports democracy, despite having
launched more coups over the past century than any other military on
earth.
It should be obvious that no country can ever become
democratic if its military and monarchy continually meddle in politics.
The whole basis of democracy is that everybody has an equal voice and an
equal vote. This is the opposite of the royalist belief that some
people are special just because they were born royal.
But many Thais have continued to believe the propaganda that the military and monarchy support democracy.
The events of last week should have destroyed this myth forever.
Thailand will never be free until the military and the monarchy stop
trying to overrule the will of the people.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar