On May 2, a public forum was held at Thammasat University to address the controversial issue of the refusal of Chotisak Onsoong and his girlfriend to stand for the royal anthem. The panelists included social critic Sulak Sivarak, historian Suthachai Yimprasert, and reporter Pravit Rojanapreuk, with Thammasat lecturer Kasem Penpinan as the moderator.

The organizers, including the Santi Pracha Dharma Institute and Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky) magazine, started the forum with an audio clip recorded from a radio programme ‘Metro Life’ which belongs to the Manager Group, the driving force of the anti-Thaksin, royalist People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). The radio programme was broadcast on the night of April 30 at FM 97.75, or Manager Radio, during which the hosts incited listeners to come to the forum to attack Chotisak and disrupt the event.

(Note: since the evening of May 2, the audio files of the programme for April 29 and 30 have been removed from www.managerradio.com, but can be downloaded here (29) and here (30).)

The organizers therefore informed participants that Chotisak would not join the panel at the forum for safety reasons.

Suthachai Yimprasert, history lecturer from Chulalongkorn University, said that in the old days in Thailand, the way to pay respect to the king was to prostrate oneself on the ground, and to stand before the king was considered rebellious. Not until the reign of King Rama V with the influence of western traditions were nobles allowed to sit on chairs or stand, and prostration then seemed old-fashioned. So to stand to pay respect to the king is a new idea.

The royal anthem was first introduced in the reign of King Rama V, around 1887, with shorter lyrics than that of the current version. The anthem was played at specific royal occasions such as the arrival and departure of the king. So the royal anthem was exclusively used for royal activities, and had nothing to do with commoners, as in the Absolute Monarchy commoners were far apart from the monarchy.

After the popular uprising on Oct 14, 1973, anxiety grew over the communist threat to the monarchy, so the Thai elite forced loyalty from the people. During the dictatorial Thanin Kraivixien administration, 1976-77, the royal anthem, which was previously played after a film, was shifted to before to avoid people rushing out of the cinema once the movie finished.

Suthachai said that the Chotisak case had become a political tool for slandering the government, and it was ridiculous because Chotisak has nothing to do with the government. The Manager Group became the equivalent of the Dao Siam newspaper which was instrumental in exacerbating the situation resulting in the massacre at Thammasat on Oct 6, 1976. And the Democrat Party was also becoming an equivalent of Samak Sundaravej’s old party, Prachakorn Thai, as it adopted the same right-wing stance to attack Samak and Thaksin for disloyalty.

It was scary that Manager columnists equated the act of not standing with a plot to establish a republican Thailand, said Suthachai.

With the recent example of the Nepalese monarchy, the ‘ultra-royalists’ are panicked about the security of the monarchy. Suthachai said it was similar to 1975 when the Lao monarchy was overthrown. The ultra-royalists believe that Thailand is unique for its monarchy. A republic threatens not only the monarchy, but also the virtue and uniqueness of Thai society.

Instead of attacking the government for its mismanagement or bad policies, an approach which would have served the interests of the people, the Manager and the PAD chose this ultra-rightist approach of political slander, exploiting cases of Chotisak and Charnvit, who was alleged to have defamed the Privy Council President, to score points.

Suthachai believed that they wished this could eventually lead to another coup.

He said that after the revolution in 1932 that overthrew the Absolute Monarchy, there was an attempt to abolish the Sakdina or Thai feudal culture, but royalism revived after a coup in 1947. The Sakdina culture, according to him, makes the idea of equality among humans impossible, and undermines the development of Thai democracy, as people are made to believe that power belongs to the king. This Sakdina mentality also goes against the idea of a modern nation state where the country belongs to all people, as it sees the people as subjects of a kingdom. And Thai people are able to perceive only the good side of the monarchy.

Pravit Rojanapruek, reporter from the Nation, said that he was not there representing the Nation newspaper. He said the Chotisak case emerged while the monarchy was being exploited for political gain by the PAD and the Manager media.

The Manager media outlets including its newspaper, website, radio and ASTV tried to mischievously link Chotisak to the pro-Thaksin anti-coup Nor Por Kor, and incite its audience to attack Chotisak.

What had happened during the past week showed the difficulty or even the failure of Thai society in discussing the monarchy. Most Thai mainstream media, including the Nation, chose to censor themselves on this topic, and they turned a blind eye to the PAD’s attempt to call for suppression.

The hatred and vengeful feelings that had been aroused among the people towards Chotisak showed the dark side of the Thai patronage system. Many comments on web-boards condemned Chotisak as un-Thai, and called for him to be banished to another country. And many dehumanized Chotisak as an animal that should be beaten.

Pravit said that reminded him of the Oct 6 massacre in 1976 or the witch-hunts in medieval Europe.

Sulak Sivarak said that besides the Manager Group, The Nation was also bad, but its editor-director Sutthichai Yun had just received the Sri Burapa Award. The late Sri Burapa was the last Thai journalist who upheld human rights and democracy, and stood for the poor, but Sutthichai had none of these attributes. And neither did the Matichon newspaper whose owner Kanchai Bunpan had forbidden news reports on Sulak.

Sulak, who was twice prosecuted for lèse majesté offences, said that in order to survive, the monarchy needs to be open, transparent and accountable, like other institutions, including the media. The monarch needs to be a human being like all people, a virtual god but not a god.

Thai people are suppressed with fear about the monarchy. On the contrary, the monarchy will thrive on criticism, he said.

The monarchy has been exploited to destroy enemies and suppress different opinions. Even the Rector of Thammasat University Suraphol Nitikraipoj ordered the closure of the room to prevent this forum. According to the Rector, Thai democracy has grown under royal patronage, Sulak said.

The monarchy needs to be kept to serve the interests of the people, not the other way around, said Sulak.

(Read full version on Sulak's article) 

Related news:

Thai Traditions: Lèse majesté in Thailand

Same Sky Books and Prachatai websites charged for allowing comments about Chotisak’s ‘not standing’

Academic Says Standing for Royal Anthem Copied British Practice, and was Dropped There Long Ago

Punishments for not standing during the royal anthem

News not fit for printing at the Nation: the incident of Chotisak Oonsoong

Thai Couple Not Standing for Royal Anthem in Cinema Hear Lèse Majesté Charges and Launch ‘Not Standing is No Crime’ Campaign

Activist denies charge of lèse majesté (Bangkok Post)

Sit down protest lands Thai in royal trouble (Reuters)

Interview with Man Facing Lèse Majesté Charges for Refusing to Stand for Royal Anthem in Cinema

Thai couple faces lèse majesté charges for not standing for royal anthem in cinema