Religious Dimension in the Minds of Thai Ultra-Royalists
Recently on one Facebook account (called ‘IUV’), a picture showing crowd formation that appears similar to one popular photograph of HM the King holding and talking on a walkie talkie attracted over 66,000 ‘like’. Last week, a red-shirt woman who ‘defamed’ a portrait of the King by her foot was later confronted with a group of ultra-royalist protesters as she was trying to leave Suvarnabhumi Airport for New Zealand where she resides. One of the protest placards read: ‘blasphemy’.
These are but some of the newer manifestations of the increasingly religious dimension of how some ultra-royalist Thais regard the monarchy institution, especially HM the King.
In a country where politicians are often regarded as corrupt and evil, many royalists feel there is a need to inject a sacred dimension into society as opposed to the supposedly evil and profane corrupt and self-serving politicians. The monarchy institution, and particularly the current HM the King, is thus regarded by ultra-royalists as ‘sacred’.
Many ultra-royalists think you cannot criticize God and laws such as the lese majeste and Computer Crimes Act will ensure that few will challenge the discourse of the King being purely good and benevolent.
Today, the King is semi-divine or almost God-like in ultra-royalists’ eyes and Thaksin Shinawatra is evil personified - it’s the vision of the sacred versus the profane.
The debate about freedom of expression often gets conflated with the religious belief in virtuous and morally divine person. When someone suggests that the monarchy institution should no longer be above criticism (that is currently guaranteed through the lese majeste law and Computer Crimes Act), ultra-royalists would typically reply: Why do you want to criticize a good and benevolent person like HM the King?
Their ‘logic’ is that some very good and special people should not be criticized because they are believed to be very good if not saint-like.
To them, people who are supposedly ‘virtuous’ or ‘good’ ought to have this special privilege from being scrutinized or criticized. This is also linked to the belief in the notion of good karma (boon) and reserved power (baramee).
The notion of good and virtuous person is hierarchical, as it stands in opposition (and above) that of bad as well as ordinary people. Besides, the notion of a good person often depends on given social context. A good person in a capitalist world is unlikely to be a good person in a communist society. A good poultry farmer is unlikely to be a good person in the eyes of people who are vegetarian for religious reason.
Calling for freedom of expression, although ideologically driven, is based on the notion of equality under the law, and not on hierarchy and exceptionalism.
The clash of two fundamentally different values is conflated and confusing to many and in a way, it is like comparing an apple to an orange. They are fundamentally different - one based on hierarchy, another, on equality. The belief in a benevolent or divine person ought to be a personal matter, while the struggle for equal rights to freedom of expression, is essentially a public issue.
The clash between those who hold near religious belief in the inviolable nature of the ‘sacred’ monarch and that of belief that is embedded in freedom of speech to criticize the monarchy will unlikely go away anytime soon, however. Both sides will continue to speak in almost different language to the other. The former will defend their ‘surrogate’ religion fastidiously to the end while the latter will unlikely to stop calling for genuine freedom of expression in Thailand.
Nevertheless, if I have to choose between living with ‘benevolence or goodness’ that cannot be scrutinized or criticized or living with ‘evil’ that can be criticized and opposed, I would not hesitate to pick the latter.
Print version
Send by email
Comments
Their ‘logic’ is that some
I think you have it backwards. Some people setup 'very good if not saint-like special people' in order to have something that defies criticism of any sort. The people who 'set up' such 'very good if not saint-like special people' do so because they know that their plans favor their own minority and disfavor the majority, the rest of us, to such an extent that without 'quasi-divine' sanction and protection they would never be able to attempt, let alone accomplish, their brutally unjust aims.
And in fact they need not only their self-defined sacrilege to enforce their 'no criticism' with respect to their minority regime, but also the accompanying lese majeste Inquisition and, when even that fails, the torture, snipers, and tanks of the Royal Thai Army to do so.
That's when the "unThainess" of the general population is so essential. It enables the Royalist minority to imprison and murder their political opposition with ... in their own eyes ... impunity.
For those they so mistreat and kill are not truly and fully 'human'. Not like their 'very good if not saint-like selves'.
Perhaps you are confusing the
Perhaps you are confusing the blind loyalists to those who use royalist propaganda to justify what they do? I would put them in two separate categories . . . although some characters might fit both . . .
I don't think they think this way. I think they believe you-know-who is so flawless and perfect that they feel offended when others don't feel this way. A challenge to you-know-who is a challenge to their own fundamental core beliefs.
Well ... belief. Some beliefs
Well ... belief. Some beliefs are so "convenient" that they are never questioned. They are accepted ... as known 'facts' by those who profit from them.
'Facts' like "Red Indians are savages", or "The Black Race was meant to serve".
While it's true that some folks "sincerely" believe(d) these sort of facts, the sincerity of their belief hardly qualifies as validation of the view, does it?
And I think the "shared belief" is really a form of complicity, a sort of "license" given by each "believer" to his or her partners to continue with what to other, ordinary people are crimes. With shared impunity.
I've been thinking about this
I've been thinking about this recently too.
Basically, concluded, most of the ruling class know it's bullshit. Guys like Suthep, Prayuth, Abhisit, they know there is no true divine order, and it is all a ridiculous fairy tale. They just keep it going because they benefit from it.
I think it's mainly in the middle to upper-middle class that actually believe it. These are people who are not necessarily using it as a tool to get what they want, but people who use it as an image that they think represents themselves. They want to believe in a divine pyramid of social structure, because this puts them relatively high up, regardless of the truth of their insignificance they want to hide from. This also makes them very dangerous people, because then ciriticism of the monarchy becomes criticism of them, their image, and their sense of order, and they often become violent to protect this image and thus their own insecurity - under all of which they are actually very fragile people, which is why they use this fantasy to support themselves.
As for the poor, well, half of them don't care, as for the other half - propaganda works.
In my experience, when people
In my experience, when people say that others should vest their trust and reliance in 'good people'. they usually count themselves among the number of the 'good people'. Its no different in Thailand, where those in and close to the palace try to extend 60 years of propaganda by claiming that their super-hero of choice is in fact a demi-god whose every utterance should be blindly and obediently followed. Its just Thai the usual Kool-Aid, so drink it down like good little pi's and nongs.
The history of humanity shows that however crazy a doctrine is, and however blatantly untrue it might be there will always be a few dim folk happy to believe it and put their money where their stupidity and gullibility are. Also, there will always be a few people happy support it in order to profit from it,. 37 billion US dollars is a pretty good motivation for the brainwashing of a population dontcha fink? That and the retention of a strategic and pliable ally in SE Asia - eh Obama?
Their ought to be a whole section devoted to Thais in the World Book of Blithering Idiots.
"Calling for freedom of
"Calling for freedom of expression, although ideologically driven, is based on the notion of equality under the law, and not on hierarchy and exceptionalism."
Yet strangely this "equality" is something Pravit barely understands himself.
Only a few weeks ago Pravit was suggesting that a massive hate campaign launched by a large media company against a single, young woman from a modest background was equivalent to that woman holding up a single placard at a protest and that both, therefore, needed protecting as "freedom of expression".
Yet these two things are not "equivalent" nor even "equal".
One has access to all kinds of power and one doesn't. One has huge financial muscle and one doesn't. etc etc
So how does a society therefore create an "equality" in such a situation?
Should they wait until they can be educated abroad, as Pravit has, in the rarefied atmosphere of some noble academic institution where the correct kind of moral discernment is acquired?
Or how about just legislating to protect the less powerful from the more powerful? Surely that is what Thailand needs above all else? Would that help create more equality or less? Or are we into the kind of "survival of the fittest" (or those with the poshest overseas education) scenario beloved of the libertarian neo-cons?
Personally, given the complete lack of understanding of the concept he's expressed before, when I read Pravit pontificating (quite badly as it goes) about "equality" I reach for my sick bag.
Ordinary Thais need to be released from the turgid ill-informed moralising of fake liberals like elite-boy Pravit as much as they need to be released from any other imposed hierarchy.
Ultimately Pravit buys into that "I am a good, moral Thai person so am superior in my judgements" as any nutty PAD-type. That he comes from the elite class that have benefited most the extremism of the PAD (while taking pay cheques from the PAD's biggest cheerleaders - The Nation) is no real surprise.
Give it a rest ....please
Give it a rest ....please Andrew, you've made your point more than enough times now.
(it diminishes all your other good work, and you of all people should know stalking is not cool)
Peace.
Please critique the message,
Please critique the message, not attack the messenger.
So what is your background,
So what is your background, "Andrew"? Where were you educated and what "class" of society are you from? And how much is your monthly salary?
Thomas Harrington - a
Thomas Harrington - a professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut - observes similarities between the Spaniards of the Inquisition and twenty-first century Western neoliberalism.
Aggressive Cluelessness: Then and Now
Do you think that his hypothetical Inquisitors would be great admirers here as well, were they able to visit Bangkok today?
PPT refers to Thongchai's
PPT refers to Thongchai's Toppling Democracy and to Thongchai Winichakul: Hyper-royalism: Its spells and Its Magic in this same context.
Royalists who hold the view
Royalists who hold the view that the institution is beyond reproach and subsequently punish those who dare blaspheme, are themselves vulnerable. They should realise that it's hard to maintain the "divine image" of any individual when he is being mocked and criticised by non-believers.