ePaper_2nd Edition_October 19, 2016

Opinion 21
Thailand as we knew it is finished
With King Bhumibol’s passing, Thailand will never be the same again
DT
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2016
Bhumibol wasn’t just a leader, he was truly loved
• Thitinan Pongsudhirak
When it comes to
public readership,
I was taught, more
than 30 years ago,
to write invariably in the third
person. The time has come for
change, and exception because
there is no better way for me to
describe what has just happened
in Thailand. What was once
unimaginable when I was a
schoolboy eventually became
inevitable, and now is undeniable
in my midlife.
After an extraordinary reign,
Thailand is without King Bhumibol
Adulyadej for the first time that
almost anyone can remember. His
passing means the Thailand that
many Thais and I have known has
come to an end. That Thailand is
now at risk of being assessed on its
most recent decade or two rather
than in its entirety of 70 years.
Although we are incentivised
to think that the here and now
and our immediate era are more
important than what came before,
putting Thailand in perspective
requires a long look back and view
the conditions and circumstances
that prevailed at the time.
A retrospect, in turn, can
lay the basis for the viable and
optimal prospects ahead. Indeed,
some knives are already out just
hours after the end of the reign.
Sceptics, critics, detractors, and
those with dissenting voices
who previously suffered under
Thailand’s entrenched monarchycentred
socio-political hierarchy,
are up and about, ready to go on
the march.
Some of their qualms and
critiques will be fair, but many
will sound like they’re grinding
axes, biased and bent on
vindictiveness and retribution
for the shortcomings of what
transpired, and decidedly ignorant
of alternatives that could have
been worse.
Global media competition to get
the long-awaited Thai story out
and to nab the juiciest scoops in
the fastest fashion will intensify
international scrutiny on Thailand
under a tentative new reign.
Because the Thai authorities,
led by men in uniform, are illequipped
to handle foreigners’
prying and probing eyes, it is likely
that we will see tension between
Thai stake-holders at home and
the world outside.
Nevertheless, the outside world
REUTERS
should know that King Bhumibol’s
passing is a once-in-a-lifetime and
intensely personal experience for
most Thais. It is somewhat akin to
John F Kennedy’s untimely death
in 1963 that brought an end to a
Camelot-like era for Americans
when they felt good about
themselves, their country, and its
place in the world.
It also may be similar to the
demise of other father-like
figures such as the Soviet Union’s
Vladimir Lenin in 1924 and China’s
Mao Zedong in 1976, or even South
Africa’s Nelson Mandela and
Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew more
recently.
Yet, the Thais’ passionate
regard for their late monarch can
come across as the deity worship
characteristic of born-again
evangelicals in America, or the
enforced adoration common in
North Korea.
To be sure, in the Thai
kingdom, the late monarch
enjoyed reverence and respect that
was organic and bottom-up.
It was during the Cold War
that King Bhumibol made his
mark, when Thailand had to
make its way in a treacherous
neighbourhood, at once
challenged by the threat of
communist expansionism.
Understanding the Cold
War context and conditions
and Thailand’s place in them
is necessary to appreciate how
and why Thais have a deep
affection for and bonding with
their late King. At the time, the
pillars of the Thai state -- nation,
religion, and monarchy -- struck
a collective chord. The resulting
unity and stability enabled
economic development and kept
communism at bay.
Challenges to the established
order, with the military-monarchybureaucracy
triangulation as its
anchor, were put down, including
the left-leaning student-led
movement in the mid-1970s. In
that long period, Thai schoolchildren
sang martial songs each
morning in addition to the national
anthem, an orderly time when we
The Thais’ passionate regard for their late monarch can come across as
the deity worship characteristic of born-again evangelicals in America
or the enforced adoration common in North Korea. To be sure, the late
monarch enjoyed reverence and respect that was organic
knew what to expect and where
our place in the Thai socio-political
hierarchy was reinforced by
socialisation and indoctrination in
classrooms and living rooms where
only state-run media could enter.
Back then, running water was
limited to certain hours, electricity
blackouts were common, and
television was available only
during weekday primetimes and
weekends.
It was a lonely and foreboding,
yet clear-cut, time when we saw
Indochina being engulfed by
communism and Myanmar turning
inward. Apart from the defence
treaty alliance with the Americans,
we had nobody to turn to but
ourselves.
At that time, when Thailand
needed strong and steady state
institutions, and Thais were in
need of national guidance, King
Bhumibol became the individual
uniquely fit for the task.
He went all over the country to
promote education, health care,
water management, infrastructure
development, and many projects
for public welfare.
Such a role would not have
been so important had it not been
desperately needed. And any
other individual put in that role
may not have worked so hard,
simply because he did not need
to, and because there were more
comfortable and convenient
choices to choose from.
But King Bhumibol did it
anyway.
People saw and have
appreciated it since. After having
done so much for so long, the late
king earned and accumulated so
much moral authority that the
Thai people placed him at the apex
of society.
There will be views and
arguments in the coming months
and years that the political order
set up around the late king on the
back of the military-monarchybureaucracy
axis has impeded
democratic development and
stunted democratic institutions,
that economic development
over the long reign was unfairly
distributed, that Thailand is left
with a military dictatorship and a
much weaker monarchy to carry
itself forward.
These points are not invalid,
and will be the grist for historians
in the months and years to come.
But how Thailand has been should
be viewed in comparative terms.
By the standards of its
neighbourhood, Thailand has not
fared so badly.
Turbulence and tumult are
not uncommon when a country
transitions out of a 70-year-old
political order. Having weathered
imperialist times, two world
wars, and the Cold War, Thailand
now stands as a 70-millionstrong
market with a $400 billion
economy, with gifted geography as
the centre of mainland Southeast
Asia to boot.
It has so much going for it now
that derives from the Cold War
years.
The late monarch’s lasting
legacy may well be the critical
mass that has accrued over his
reign, where there are too many
stakeholders and vested interests
in Thailand’s viability and survival
for it to fail. •
Reprinted by special arrangement.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is Associate
Professor and Director of the
Institute of Security and International
Studies, Faculty of Political Science,
Chulalongkorn University. This article
previously appeared in the Bangkok Post.