"..the provision will ensure that, as soon as the monarch endorses a coup or an overthrow of the constitution, it will violate the constitution and thus cease to be a constitutional monarch.."
How's that supposed to work? The King would just cease to be a monarch because of constitutional provisions?
A non-starter, no Thai constitution will ever allow to do that to the King, ever.
Besides, you can't just elevate the constitution to this kind of power without people accepting it as such.
At the moment we have a whole movement completely rejecting the constitution altogether, ready to redo it in any way they want, bulldozing over any objections and not even trying to seek any consensus.
You are trying to confine Thai monarchy to European conventions and you goal is to prove that the cat is out of the bag, nothing else, and it's boring and repetitive.
You might try to remember the cat has never been in your kind of bag in the first place.
Back to the proposal - it might put the monarch in a situation where he is confronted by coupmakers who hold all actual power in their hands and the King would be forced to either confront them singlehandedly or sign off the coup and thus render himself in breach of constitution and lose his status.
The idiocy of the proposal is that neither of these actions would stop the coup anyway.
Maybe it's not that idiotic, though, if you consider that it presents a backdoor opportunity to legally remove the monarch from power.
I suppose you are not the only one who's thinking of a new coup to restore "democracy", and here comes this mouthwatering proposal. Could turn into a nice conspiracy.
Although, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you object to sensible efforts to try to stop future coups and to have institutions come under (and protect) the constitution, because you are already such an ardent supporter of the last military coup and the ongoing judicial interventions to suppress democracy.
Can I ask what is your purpose in such objections? (honesty would be a nice change:)
It is heartening to see that despite the concerted efforts by the usual suspects (and you), the eye-opening is continuing;)
It is an effort to prevent future coups but it's far from sensible.
It's confusing enough to open a backdoor to removing the monarchy. Whether it will ever be exploited or not is not really an issue - it shouldn't exist in the first place.
When I say shouldn't I mean this is what Thai people want - to preserve their highest institution.
I honestly don't get your "eye opening" remarks. To me people like you look as if they are obsessed madmen running around, with eyes wide open, trying to convert the rest of the world.
Madmen because they've lost the ability of objective analysis and are unaware of their own, huge shortcomings.
The starting point - don't try to convert anyone, with attitude like this no one will ever take you, and the red movement, seriously. More likely people would suspect you have hidden agendas.
Wrong again - it's people like you and the ones you stridently defend that are trying to stifle free speech (and free thought).
I have no agenda other than I prefer transparency over myth building propaganda, and democracy over whatever you call the system that your heroes are happy to see people killed over to protect.
btw, Trying to coup-proof the constitution has nothing to do with removing the monarchy, and you must be infected with yellow fever paranoia to even think that. (but you should ask yourself what good is a monarchy that cannot uphold the constitution and democracy?)
Or here's another speculation - the first thing the coup makers do is abolish the constitution. Whatever the King does afterwards is not unconstitutional anymore. All you can say that the monarch has broken the abolished constitution.
What's the point? To get at the monarch? Anything else?
Btw, in case of a successful coup no one would be allowed to appear on TV and publicly denounce it. It's not a question anyone's personal of bravery, it's a question of the coupmakers' competence.
So what? The King, and vast numbers of Thais, too, accepted the coup outcome.
What's new?
Nothing, that's all boring and repetitive, and you, while apparently looking for fresh solutions, are sliding back into the endless pro/anti coup arguments.
The only new development is that now you'd endorse a new coup if it restored 1997 constitution, and you divide 2006 coup makers into bad and good, even deserving to lead the self-professed anti-coup movement.
As I said earlier, you don't even appear to realize the fallacy of this line of thinking.
I'm not sure what you propose is better. As an ideal, maybe, in the real world, however, the change is spearheaded by the likes of Chalerm, Chavalit, and Thaksin, and on the ground supported by dudes wearing Mao style caps with red stars on them, spouting all kinds of nonsense.
That's why I've been calling your ideas faith-based - one need a lot of blind faith to hope this brand of revolutionaries would change anything for the better.
Really - are you out of your mind to pin your hopes on them? Not only you, of course - the entire red movement has been shut out and dismissed by the mainstream society as a brain dead cult, however ambitious and powerful.
It's not about putting faith in idividuals - that's how Thailand got in this mess (and I don't mean Thaksin:)
I'd rather put may faith in the people (the electorate) - I cannot see things improving until they are allowed to elect and remove their politicians (instead of the military and a compromised judiciary doing it)
The redshirts are not the problem, and I'm not pinning my faith in anyone, but they are the only group remotely interested in democracy, so might help bring about the solution.
You still have not answered why you are so against democracy, and transparency of the institutions?
"I'd rather put may faith in the people.." - strictly speaking you put your faith in blind electoral democracy, hoping that it will magically, against all evidence, "improve" things.
That requires a lot of faith indeed.
In the meantime the individuals, who you believe do not matter at all, dominate the politics and the electoral process, too, and wreck havoc on the country, and they laugh all the way to the bank.
It's as if while the house is being robbed you pontificate security arrangements instead of trying to catch the burglars who carry out stuff right under your nose.
You could wake up the father or someone and ask them to chase away the thieves but that would be "putting faith in individuals" instead of a system.
btw, StanG, you still have not explained how your being against transparency and democracy helps make things better? (or can I take it you are happy with the status quo?)
The military budget here is only about 2%, they can't possibly be your biggest worry when it comes to robbing the country.
You know very well that I meant politicians and their sponsors.
Your question - why do you want me to explain myself regarding something I haven't said in the first place?
Transparency - where did you dig that up from? And while you at it - you can't seriously propose that reds with their black shirts, secret funding, mysterious phone calls and unquestionable belief in their leaders propaganda are going to bring transparency to the country.
The defender of military coups and 18 year jail sentences for (truthful) political speech, has now moved to defending military corruption - and I wondered how low you could go!
Waiting for your defences of Somkid's promotion and the latest harrassment of Prachatai's webmaster - I need a good laugh:)
Hypothetical: Democracy Reset Key Tool: the Army Key-holders: someone/s above politics, the King, maybe a revered monk? a celebrity who has shunned all politics for 60 yrs but has universal respect? Conditions: *No violence, unless armed militia is preventing their resetting the democratic engine as per their role *Must vacate all government buildings and general elections called within 30 days. (the more elections you have, the more educated Thais will be politically right? the more expensive vote-buying becomes right? Why not have elections every year? What's the last 5 years of governance delivered (aside from Abhisit, ignore him, he's not normal - yall wont see a guy like that in politics often) *Cannot act under their own volition, they are but a humble key turned at the hand of this humble guardian of Thai democracy when you need to CTRL-ALT-DEL Thai politics.
They move in, reset the engine, and get out. Crude. Not a long-term solution. But a last-gasp measure that would prevent... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
Sometimes I wonder how many people are aware of the precedent that has been set. Where any few thousand pissed off chaps can have a pretty good crack at dissolving parliament or getting ridiculous undemocratic concessions as easy as selfishly hijacking the airport, or Central World, or the CBD or Parliament house?
Do yall understand mathematics? In a country of 70,000,000 people, do you know how often you will find a few thousand pissed off guys at the same time? If it's < 99.9% of the time, I'll eat your hat.
The insanity will continue 100% until someone brings in some checks and balances that prevent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
And the world rolling their eyes as if Thailand is a comedic failed state. Which it seems like it could well be if some have their way. It should be one of Asia's shining lights, and a military / economic leader in SE Asia, a model to replicate rather than a punchline, a laughingstock where leaders commit shocking crimes, but simply pardon each other "just in case". You want to be the Philippines?
Seriously like? You have no idea how silly you look when you pardon convicted former executives / politicians. And the precedent - the stupid precedent it sets. You can't do that crap, and hope to avoid geopolitical ridicule. What has gotten into you?
Waxing lyrical about the illegal nature of the 06 coup, when the generals went in, reset the democratic button, got out fast without any real damage beyond perceived "no. coup bad", which disappears the second the generals call an election. And you're still waxing lyrical.
Hey, is this constitutionally legal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
You know what hurt Thailand more in the eyes of the world? The 06 bloodless coup and handover - or - turning Bangkok CBD into a bloody battle ground and destroying CentralWorld after spending a month marinating it in petrol?
Have a guess.
What gives? What's with the double standards and hypocrisy? Isn't that what you're supposed to be fighting against?
Can't you get a figurehead that wouldn't kinda make every objective commentator in the world's Top Ten Worst Politicians Lists? Can't you get a guy to rally around, who inspires rather than divides, unites rather than incites? One you can be proud of, that doesn't instantly make sane people laugh when you attempt to claim the moral high ground? You don't call a rushing play for the moral in-zone, when your running-back has Thaksin S on his uniform. It's like a really bad B-grade drama that you try to take seriously, but you just end up laughing. It's just too ridiculous.
How do you: a) keep a straight face when attempting a serious debate? b) sleep at night?
:)
ps. my democracy reset key idea is actually really good.
You do know who is the richest in Thailand by far dont you? ;)
Let's totally not have a discussion about this okay :) - I not disagreeing or agreeing or even doing anything but pointing out a perception skew created by...accounting lol.
Let's discuss the Swedish Royal Family actually. :) - I've seen the numbers and lines like your one thrown around a lot when my friends talk about the Swedish King, and even if my some miracle whomever was estimating the numbers valued everything correctly...you know it's not really a legitimate figure right?
Let's pull a purely hypothetical intentionally low number to work with. 10 million.
Out of 10 million, and I'm obviously talking out of my ass, but there might be 7 or 8 mil which is not really wealth one can...liquidate. Or run credit lines at Barclays using it as collateral. The figure for these things are always a misnomer. I mean, I'm yet to see what exactly these random cannot-possibly-be-well-informed assessors at Forbes or w/e have tabulated to come up with their figures, but the few times I do look at the lists, they're always ludicrous. I'm sure a huge majority of every monarch's wealth in Forbes would be Crown land which they're not going to be listing in Craigslist.
lol. I swear on my life pure coincidence. I thought I'd double-check I wasn't embarrassing myself as I've had some *x < 14 drinks. With zero knowledge regarding the Thai assessors for Forbes, on my life, first Google hit:
It said the Crown Property Bureau is an institution "which essentially belongs to all Thais" that owns and manages the assets of the monarchy, and the assets are not the personal wealth of the king, The Nation newspaper said.
I was trying to say what they said. Basically, those Forbes morons are idiots who dribble out random numbers because they know they can't ever be proven wrong, and if they could, they never would be. They have free license to be morans. And they use it.
This is not to say if the King forgot his wallet at home and asked me to spot him, I would feel pretty comfortable giving him >100% of my net worth - I'm sure he's doing fine...just those Forbes numbers are always ludicrous. ok I'm going to bed now...I had fun on this blog, it's Red but you're a smarter Red than the norm - I'll be back later if I'm welcome...
"Under the current law, put into effect by the royalist Khuang government in 1948, the King has FULL power of use, disposal, management of the CPB assets. NO RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER. He is TOTALLY FREE to do anything with them AS HE PLEASE. “ตามพระราชอัธยาศัย ไม่ว่ากรณีใดๆ” – this is the exact wording of the law. Moreover, there is, BY LAW, NO EXTERNAL CHECK on the CPB, i.e. no one, not the governement, not the Parliament, let alone the public, have any right to investigate, to submit it to scrutiny, to punish any wrongs, etc. Given all these conditions, should we regard the CPB assets as HMK’s PERSONAL wealth? ABSOLUTELY!"
Unfortunately (and probably intentionally) the Lese Majeste laws make it impossible to get to the truth of the extent of royal wealth in Thailand
Does he expect people to take him at his word. He's posting on a ludicrous propaganda ragloild.
Why would you quote that?
nb. I have zero knowledge regarding it, I just can't believe I've been quoted a reference-less post. lol I know where you learned that trick though :)
That's in the old dog Amsterdam's playbook. Quote a suspicion, printed in a paper, presented as something nearing fact. I asked my Red Friend how close it was to a Fact...he said 96 repeats.
Jonny: Sorry, but if you don't know who Ajarn Somsak J is, then I think we are both wasting out time here. With respect, I advise you get yourself up to speed, and come back later when you have a more rounded knowledge base. If you want to take some shortcuts, and presuming you dont read Thai, I would recommend the following for starters 'Thailand Unhinged' by Federico Ferrara, and 'The King Never Smiles' by Paul Handley. (hope you don't get arrested reading the last on if you are in Thailand:)
Jonny, who New Mandala readers are well aware thinks everyone else's blog should be his personal echo chamber, dismisses Ajarn Somsak as 'that idiot.' Yet anyone who follows Ajarn Somsak's work is aware that there is probably no one, anywhere, who has done more prodigious research and writing on aspects of the Thai monarchy. All of which contains more, specific references than Jonny could possibly even dream of. As New Mandala readers know, Jonny is a breezy writer who sometimes slips into incomprehensible hysteria, and who shows no awareness that his rants and attacks say much more about his sadly closed mind than about the subject at hand.
Hold on, I think I know who Ajarn Somsak is but I don't accept everything he has ever said at at the face value, let alone build new theories out of it.
The stated fact that the King has legal power over CPB doesn't mean he exercises it in CPB day to day activities and doesn't imply that he uses CPB to make himself richer and richer while playing out sufficiency model for the public.
That's a conjecture that serves ideological purposes rather than stands on its own.
Hi StanG: I've never understood why the monarchy's defenders can't just accept its wealth and move on. Hobby merely alluded to the fact that by conventional yardsticks, the big guy is Thailand's wealthiest.
Legal responsibility is precisely how this wealth would be measured, not whether it is used for good or ill or luxurious baubles.
This is pretty well-established, not just by media precedent, but by tax law. Sure you can knock off a few bucks on your payments for your charity donations, but in the end it doesn't matter at all if you have put down a cheap linoleum floor rather than shag carpeting, and you watch over-the-air TV on a 19-inch set you bought in 1990, and your wife gives out brownies to the neighborhood kids.
And needless to say, most seriously rich people have fund managers and don't exercise day to day control over all their assets.
36 comments:
"..the provision will ensure that, as soon as the monarch endorses a coup or an overthrow of the constitution, it will violate the constitution and thus cease to be a constitutional monarch.."
How's that supposed to work? The King would just cease to be a monarch because of constitutional provisions?
A non-starter, no Thai constitution will ever allow to do that to the King, ever.
Besides, you can't just elevate the constitution to this kind of power without people accepting it as such.
At the moment we have a whole movement completely rejecting the constitution altogether, ready to redo it in any way they want, bulldozing over any objections and not even trying to seek any consensus.
At least then the cat would be out of the bag - he would not be a constitutional monarch - would be no other way to spin it:)
You are trying to confine Thai monarchy to European conventions and you goal is to prove that the cat is out of the bag, nothing else, and it's boring and repetitive.
You might try to remember the cat has never been in your kind of bag in the first place.
Back to the proposal - it might put the monarch in a situation where he is confronted by coupmakers who hold all actual power in their hands and the King would be forced to either confront them singlehandedly or sign off the coup and thus render himself in breach of constitution and lose his status.
The idiocy of the proposal is that neither of these actions would stop the coup anyway.
Maybe it's not that idiotic, though, if you consider that it presents a backdoor opportunity to legally remove the monarch from power.
I suppose you are not the only one who's thinking of a new coup to restore "democracy", and here comes this mouthwatering proposal. Could turn into a nice conspiracy.
How far are you prepared to go StanG?
Although, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you object to sensible efforts to try to stop future coups and to have institutions come under (and protect) the constitution, because you are already such an ardent supporter of the last military coup and the ongoing judicial interventions to suppress democracy.
Can I ask what is your purpose in such objections?
(honesty would be a nice change:)
It is heartening to see that despite the concerted efforts by the usual suspects (and you), the eye-opening is continuing;)
It is an effort to prevent future coups but it's far from sensible.
It's confusing enough to open a backdoor to removing the monarchy. Whether it will ever be exploited or not is not really an issue - it shouldn't exist in the first place.
When I say shouldn't I mean this is what Thai people want - to preserve their highest institution.
I honestly don't get your "eye opening" remarks. To me people like you look as if they are obsessed madmen running around, with eyes wide open, trying to convert the rest of the world.
Madmen because they've lost the ability of objective analysis and are unaware of their own, huge shortcomings.
The starting point - don't try to convert anyone, with attitude like this no one will ever take you, and the red movement, seriously. More likely people would suspect you have hidden agendas.
Wrong again - it's people like you and the ones you stridently defend that are trying to stifle free speech (and free thought).
I have no agenda other than I prefer transparency over myth building propaganda, and democracy over whatever you call the system that your heroes are happy to see people killed over to protect.
btw, Trying to coup-proof the constitution has nothing to do with removing the monarchy, and you must be infected with yellow fever paranoia to even think that.
(but you should ask yourself what good is a monarchy that cannot uphold the constitution and democracy?)
How's that going to prevent a coup?
The coup makers take the power, abolish the constitution and present themselves to the monarch.
What are the choices a monarch can make here?
Agree, and so cease to be a constitutional monarch according to this proposal.
Disagree and do what?
Or here's another speculation - the first thing the coup makers do is abolish the constitution. Whatever the King does afterwards is not unconstitutional anymore. All you can say that the monarch has broken the abolished constitution.
What's the point? To get at the monarch? Anything else?
Agree or disagree? I suppose it depends on the integrity of the monarch, but this guy set a good example.
No Thai constitution would ever put a monarch in such situation - confront coupmakers all by yourself or surrender your position.
That will never be an option. Period.
Looks like we back to the 'Weak, or part of it' discussion we had on your blog ages ago:)
Btw, in case of a successful coup no one would be allowed to appear on TV and publicly denounce it. It's not a question anyone's personal of bravery, it's a question of the coupmakers' competence.
I'm sure this scene was also on television.
I'm only linking to the picture - please disregard the other stuff on that site.
So what? The King, and vast numbers of Thais, too, accepted the coup outcome.
What's new?
Nothing, that's all boring and repetitive, and you, while apparently looking for fresh solutions, are sliding back into the endless pro/anti coup arguments.
The only new development is that now you'd endorse a new coup if it restored 1997 constitution, and you divide 2006 coup makers into bad and good, even deserving to lead the self-professed anti-coup movement.
As I said earlier, you don't even appear to realize the fallacy of this line of thinking.
You can keep on defending the status quo - I happen to think the majority of Thai's deserve better.
I'm not sure what you propose is better. As an ideal, maybe, in the real world, however, the change is spearheaded by the likes of Chalerm, Chavalit, and Thaksin, and on the ground supported by dudes wearing Mao style caps with red stars on them, spouting all kinds of nonsense.
That's why I've been calling your ideas faith-based - one need a lot of blind faith to hope this brand of revolutionaries would change anything for the better.
Really - are you out of your mind to pin your hopes on them? Not only you, of course - the entire red movement has been shut out and dismissed by the mainstream society as a brain dead cult, however ambitious and powerful.
It's not about putting faith in idividuals - that's how Thailand got in this mess (and I don't mean Thaksin:)
I'd rather put may faith in the people (the electorate) - I cannot see things improving until they are allowed to elect and remove their politicians (instead of the military and a compromised judiciary doing it)
The redshirts are not the problem, and I'm not pinning my faith in anyone, but they are the only group remotely interested in democracy, so might help bring about the solution.
You still have not answered why you are so against democracy, and transparency of the institutions?
"I'd rather put may faith in the people.." - strictly speaking you put your faith in blind electoral democracy, hoping that it will magically, against all evidence, "improve" things.
That requires a lot of faith indeed.
In the meantime the individuals, who you believe do not matter at all, dominate the politics and the electoral process, too, and wreck havoc on the country, and they laugh all the way to the bank.
It's as if while the house is being robbed you pontificate security arrangements instead of trying to catch the burglars who carry out stuff right under your nose.
You could wake up the father or someone and ask them to chase away the thieves but that would be "putting faith in individuals" instead of a system.
Nice analogy Stang, but whay happens when the burglars not only get in the house, but become the judge, jury and executioner?
Anyway its good that you at last seem to agree that the military (burglars) should get out of politics.
btw, StanG, you still have not explained how your being against transparency and democracy helps make things better?
(or can I take it you are happy with the status quo?)
The military budget here is only about 2%, they can't possibly be your biggest worry when it comes to robbing the country.
You know very well that I meant politicians and their sponsors.
Your question - why do you want me to explain myself regarding something I haven't said in the first place?
Transparency - where did you dig that up from? And while you at it - you can't seriously propose that reds with their black shirts, secret funding, mysterious phone calls and unquestionable belief in their leaders propaganda are going to bring transparency to the country.
2% is how many billions?
(also don't forget they are also involved in many business ventures, tv stations etc)
Lets get this straight: Are you in favour of transparency and democracy or not?
I'm for transparancy regarding all the players, including reds, yellows, ASTV/Manager, political parties, the military, and the monarchy.
You do know who is the richest in Thailand by far dont you? ;)
I know someone who doesn't drive Porshe to Starbucks to celebrate but lives in a hospital instead of a "palace".
Have you ever been inside Chitlada? I haven't, but reportedly it doesn't even qualify as a palace, it's mostly a farm project + school.
2% of about a quarter of the GDP. Half a percent of all economic activity. Even if they get 50% out of the budget for themselves it's still peanuts.
Makes a good scarecrow for the faithful, though. Sorry, I shouldn't have told you the numbers. Keep your blindfolds on.
The defender of military coups and 18 year jail sentences for (truthful) political speech, has now moved to defending military corruption - and I wondered how low you could go!
Waiting for your defences of Somkid's promotion and the latest harrassment of Prachatai's webmaster - I need a good laugh:)
Hypothetical:
Democracy Reset Key
Tool: the Army
Key-holders: someone/s above politics, the King, maybe a revered monk? a celebrity who has shunned all politics for 60 yrs but has universal respect?
Conditions:
*No violence, unless armed militia is preventing their resetting the democratic engine as per their role
*Must vacate all government buildings and general elections called within 30 days. (the more elections you have, the more educated Thais will be politically right? the more expensive vote-buying becomes right? Why not have elections every year? What's the last 5 years of governance delivered (aside from Abhisit, ignore him, he's not normal - yall wont see a guy like that in politics often)
*Cannot act under their own volition, they are but a humble key turned at the hand of this humble guardian of Thai democracy when you need to CTRL-ALT-DEL Thai politics.
They move in, reset the engine, and get out. Crude. Not a long-term solution. But a last-gasp measure that would prevent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
Sometimes I wonder how many people are aware of the precedent that has been set. Where any few thousand pissed off chaps can have a pretty good crack at dissolving parliament or getting ridiculous undemocratic concessions as easy as selfishly hijacking the airport, or Central World, or the CBD or Parliament house?
Do yall understand mathematics? In a country of 70,000,000 people, do you know how often you will find a few thousand pissed off guys at the same time? If it's < 99.9% of the time, I'll eat your hat.
The insanity will continue 100% until someone brings in some checks and balances that prevent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
And the world rolling their eyes as if Thailand is a comedic failed state. Which it seems like it could well be if some have their way. It should be one of Asia's shining lights, and a military / economic leader in SE Asia, a model to replicate rather than a punchline, a laughingstock where leaders commit shocking crimes, but simply pardon each other "just in case". You want to be the Philippines?
Seriously like? You have no idea how silly you look when you pardon convicted former executives / politicians. And the precedent - the stupid precedent it sets. You can't do that crap, and hope to avoid geopolitical ridicule. What has gotten into you?
Waxing lyrical about the illegal nature of the 06 coup, when the generals went in, reset the democratic button, got out fast without any real damage beyond perceived "no. coup bad", which disappears the second the generals call an election. And you're still waxing lyrical.
Hey, is this constitutionally legal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
You know what hurt Thailand more in the eyes of the world? The 06 bloodless coup and handover - or - turning Bangkok CBD into a bloody battle ground and destroying CentralWorld after spending a month marinating it in petrol?
Have a guess.
What gives? What's with the double standards and hypocrisy? Isn't that what you're supposed to be fighting against?
Can't you get a figurehead that wouldn't kinda make every objective commentator in the world's Top Ten Worst Politicians Lists? Can't you get a guy to rally around, who inspires rather than divides, unites rather than incites? One you can be proud of, that doesn't instantly make sane people laugh when you attempt to claim the moral high ground? You don't call a rushing play for the moral in-zone, when your running-back has Thaksin S on his uniform. It's like a really bad B-grade drama that you try to take seriously, but you just end up laughing. It's just too ridiculous.
How do you:
a) keep a straight face when attempting a serious debate?
b) sleep at night?
:)
ps. my democracy reset key idea is actually really good.
You do know who is the richest in Thailand by far dont you? ;)
Let's totally not have a discussion about this okay :) - I not disagreeing or agreeing or even doing anything but pointing out a perception skew created by...accounting lol.
Let's discuss the Swedish Royal Family actually. :) - I've seen the numbers and lines like your one thrown around a lot when my friends talk about the Swedish King, and even if my some miracle whomever was estimating the numbers valued everything correctly...you know it's not really a legitimate figure right?
Let's pull a purely hypothetical intentionally low number to work with. 10 million.
Out of 10 million, and I'm obviously talking out of my ass, but there might be 7 or 8 mil which is not really wealth one can...liquidate. Or run credit lines at Barclays using it as collateral. The figure for these things are always a misnomer. I mean, I'm yet to see what exactly these random cannot-possibly-be-well-informed assessors at Forbes or w/e have tabulated to come up with their figures, but the few times I do look at the lists, they're always ludicrous. I'm sure a huge majority of every monarch's wealth in Forbes would be Crown land which they're not going to be listing in Craigslist.
lol. I swear on my life pure coincidence. I thought I'd double-check I wasn't embarrassing myself as I've had some *x < 14 drinks. With zero knowledge regarding the Thai assessors for Forbes, on my life, first Google hit:
It said the Crown Property Bureau is an institution "which essentially belongs to all Thais" that owns and manages the assets of the monarchy, and the assets are not the personal wealth of the king, The Nation newspaper said.
I was trying to say what they said. Basically, those Forbes morons are idiots who dribble out random numbers because they know they can't ever be proven wrong, and if they could, they never would be. They have free license to be morans. And they use it.
This is not to say if the King forgot his wallet at home and asked me to spot him, I would feel pretty comfortable giving him >100% of my net worth - I'm sure he's doing fine...just those Forbes numbers are always ludicrous. ok I'm going to bed now...I had fun on this blog, it's Red but you're a smarter Red than the norm - I'll be back later if I'm welcome...
A quote from Ajarn Somsak J over at NM:
"Under the current law, put into effect by the royalist Khuang government in 1948, the King has FULL power of use, disposal, management of the CPB assets. NO RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER. He is TOTALLY FREE to do anything with them AS HE PLEASE. “ตามพระราชอัธยาศัย ไม่ว่ากรณีใดๆ” – this is the exact wording of the law. Moreover, there is, BY LAW, NO EXTERNAL CHECK on the CPB, i.e. no one, not the governement, not the Parliament, let alone the public, have any right to investigate, to submit it to scrutiny, to punish any wrongs, etc.
Given all these conditions, should we regard the CPB assets as HMK’s PERSONAL wealth? ABSOLUTELY!"
Unfortunately (and probably intentionally) the Lese Majeste laws make it impossible to get to the truth of the extent of royal wealth in Thailand
Regarding the 'democracy reset' argument, I used to believe that too (see my posts on New Mandala from late 2006 till mid 2009:)
If you are interested to see why I changed my mind, please go back and read this blog from mid 2009 onwards.
Who is Ajarn Somsak J?
Does he not understand how to reference?
Does he expect people to take him at his word. He's posting on a ludicrous propaganda ragloild.
Why would you quote that?
nb. I have zero knowledge regarding it, I just can't believe I've been quoted a reference-less post. lol I know where you learned that trick though :)
That's in the old dog Amsterdam's playbook. Quote a suspicion, printed in a paper, presented as something nearing fact. I asked my Red Friend how close it was to a Fact...he said 96 repeats.
I have no idea what he means?
Regarding the 'democracy reset' argument, I used to believe that too
Wait what. I thought I invented this. Someone invented this before me?
Bastards.
What went wrong with it? Synopsis for why it failed?
lol I just read that idiot's rant. I thought you were quoting me some kind of lawyer who'd forgotten to reference some legal whatever...
He's just ranting about his (incorrect) opinion.
ABSOLUTELY. Fail.
Jonny: Sorry, but if you don't know who Ajarn Somsak J is, then I think we are both wasting out time here.
With respect, I advise you get yourself up to speed, and come back later when you have a more rounded knowledge base.
If you want to take some shortcuts, and presuming you dont read Thai, I would recommend the following for starters 'Thailand Unhinged' by Federico Ferrara, and 'The King Never Smiles' by Paul Handley.
(hope you don't get arrested reading the last on if you are in Thailand:)
Jonny, who New Mandala readers are well aware thinks everyone else's blog should be his personal echo chamber, dismisses Ajarn Somsak as 'that idiot.' Yet anyone who follows Ajarn Somsak's work is aware that there is probably no one, anywhere, who has done more prodigious research and writing on aspects of the Thai monarchy. All of which contains more, specific references than Jonny could possibly even dream of. As New Mandala readers know, Jonny is a breezy writer who sometimes slips into incomprehensible hysteria, and who shows no awareness that his rants and attacks say much more about his sadly closed mind than about the subject at hand.
Hold on, I think I know who Ajarn Somsak is but I don't accept everything he has ever said at at the face value, let alone build new theories out of it.
The stated fact that the King has legal power over CPB doesn't mean he exercises it in CPB day to day activities and doesn't imply that he uses CPB to make himself richer and richer while playing out sufficiency model for the public.
That's a conjecture that serves ideological purposes rather than stands on its own.
Transparency & accountability would be a way to reduce conjecture.
Hi StanG: I've never understood why the monarchy's defenders can't just accept its wealth and move on. Hobby merely alluded to the fact that by conventional yardsticks, the big guy is Thailand's wealthiest.
Legal responsibility is precisely how this wealth would be measured, not whether it is used for good or ill or luxurious baubles.
This is pretty well-established, not just by media precedent, but by tax law. Sure you can knock off a few bucks on your payments for your charity donations, but in the end it doesn't matter at all if you have put down a cheap linoleum floor rather than shag carpeting, and you watch over-the-air TV on a 19-inch set you bought in 1990, and your wife gives out brownies to the neighborhood kids.
And needless to say, most seriously rich people have fund managers and don't exercise day to day control over all their assets.
Post a Comment