Sacrava's Political Cartoon: Tale of Two Kings

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogpot.com)

Psst, want to know how much the Thai king owns? Read it here...

Image by AFP via @daylife

In Thailand, A Rare Peek At His Majesty's Balance Sheet

1/20/2012
Simon Montlake, Forbes Staff

Thailand’s King Bhumibol, who turned 84 last December, is the world’s longest serving ruler. He is also the richest – by a comfortable margin. Last year Forbes estimated his net wealth in excess of $30 billion, beating oil-rich Brunei’s Sultan Bolkiah into second place. A gaggle of Gulf potentates and European royals round out our list. Bhumibol’s top ranking is controversial in Thailand, to say the least. Republicans grumble that the monarchy is wasteful and inefficient. Others are horrified that foreigners have the gall to turn a lens on their deified ruler. Royal courtiers insist that Forbes has it all wrong, that the billions on the balance sheet belong to the crown, not the man. They also contest the property valuations on which much of our estimate is based. Yes, they say, the monarchy is sitting on prime tracts of land in Bangkok and central Thailand. But it leases land and rent properties at subsidized rents that no commercial agency would tolerate. So the king isn’t loaded, just landed (and a value investor, as we’ll see).

A new, semi-official biography, entitled ‘King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work’, provides a peek into the royal money machine. A chapter in the book zeroes in on the Crown Property Bureau (CPB), which manages the crown’s property and investments. It confirms the vast land holdings that Forbes used as the basis of its estimate (drawing on a 2005 Thai academic study). In central Bangkok, the king owns 3,320 acres; town and country holdings stretch to 13,200. However, the book sticks to the CPB’s line that the combined value is less than a third of our estimate for the Bangkok land (which is much simpler to assess). “The value of the crown property is considerable, but putting an exact figure on it is difficult,” it concludes.

Royal Ramayana tribute [in Thailand]

30/11/2011
Bangkok Post

Traditional artists from seven Asian countries are to join forces with their Thai counterparts in performing the Ramayana mask dance as a tribute to His Majesty the King on his 84th birthday anniversary.

Organised by the Culture Ministry, the shows, to be presented by mask dance troupes from Burma, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, are scheduled for Dec 6, 7 and 9. The programme, to take place at the National Theatre, is to be heralded on Dec 5 with a dance of benediction by each individual country.

The eight troupes are divided into two groups, performing on Dec 6 and 7, at 7pm.

Bhumibol, don't forget to take your aging neighbor (across the border) with you!

In this Dec. 5, 2010 file photo released by the Thai Royal Household, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej delivers his annual birthday speech as part of his 83rd birthday celebration at the Amarindhara throne hall inside the Grand Palace in Bangkok, Thailand. The daughter of Thailand's 83-year-old king has revealed that her father recently had a health problem that caused him to temporarily lose consciousness. Princess Chulabhorn said Friday Nov. 11, 2011 during a visit to flood victims north of Bangkok that King Bhumibol Adulyadej went into shock and lost consciousness after suffering abdominal bleeding and a sharp drop in his blood pressure. (AP Photo/Thai Royal Household, File)

Thai princess: King temporarily lost consciousness

Saturday, November 12, 2011

BANGKOK (AP) — Thailand's ailing king — the world's longest-reigning monarch — recently suffered a health problem that caused him to temporarily lose consciousness, his daughter revealed, linking the incident to stress over the country's flood crisis.

News that the health of 83-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej took what Princess Chulabhorn described as a brief turn for the worse comes as floods have inundated much of Thailand, including parts of Bangkok and its suburbs. More than 500 people have died, damage is estimated at several billion dollars and central Bangkok remains threatened.

Chulabhorn, the king's youngest daughter, said Friday during a visit to flood victims in Nonthaburi province north of Bangkok that King Bhumibol had gone into shock and lost consciousness after suffering abdominal bleeding and a sharp drop in his blood pressure. She said that about 800 cc of blood had been found in his bowel movements.

Bangkok is flooded, what is on the Thai King's mind? - A Public Relation lesson for the Khmer King?

King worried about people, not palaces, Army chief says

October 27, 2011
The Nation

What Does the Khmer King Do? King Norodom Sihamoni’s Donation to Flood-Affected Victims in Kandal Province

AKP Phnom Penh, October 26, 2011 –

His Majesty Norodom Sihamoni, King of Cambodia, gave donation to flood-affected victims in Kandal province on Oct. 24.

The donation was made through by Deputy Prime Minister H.E. Kong Sam Ol, Minister of the Royal Palace and high representative of King Sihamoni.

As many as 350 families who received the donation are from Dang Kom village, Kampong Os commune, Ponhea Leu district.

The donation included rice, rice seed, noodle, drinking water, can fish, scarves, sarongs, pants, etc. and some money.

Article in Khmer by CHEY Phum Pul
Article in English by Théng

His Majesty the King does not want the government to be overly concerned about the Royal Palace because he believes the water should flow "naturally", according to Army chief Prayuth Chanocha.

Prayuth, who has been in liaison with palace authorities on how to defend royal residence which is high on the government's antiflood plan, said the message from His Majesty was that the monarch did not want "anything special" to be done regarding the palace.

"His Majesty is very worried about the Thai people. He always has been and always will be. That's him. He doesn't want anything special, and he said the water must be allowed to flow naturally," the Army chief said.

New Thai govt vows crackdown on insulting royals

Thai "DEMI-GOD" King Bhumibol Adulyadej (AFP/File, Pornchai Kittiwongsakul)

Friday, August 26, 2011
AFP

BANGKOK — Thailand's new government on Friday vowed to crack down on what it described as online insults against the revered monarchy, despite widespread criticism of the country's strict lese majeste rules.

Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung said insulting Thailand's royals was "unacceptable" and identified an online campaign as an immediate priority.

"The first thing I must tackle as a matter of urgency are those lese majeste websites. They are not allowed during this government," he told reporters in comments that come within weeks of the new Thai government's taking power.

WikiLeaks cables reveal scandal and disease in Thai royal family

June 24, 2011
The Times

THE full extent of the crisis in Thailand's royal family has been revealed in leaked US embassy cables, which report that the revered king is suffering from Parkinson's disease and depression, and that his heir, the crown prince, may be HIV-positive.

According to the secret documents -- written over six years by US diplomats, including ambassadors to Bangkok -- Thailand will face a "moment of truth" after the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, whose son, Maha Vajiralongkorn, is regarded as his most likely successor. "It is hard to underestimate the political impact of the uncertainty surrounding the inevitable succession crisis which will be touched off once King Bhumibol passes," reads one cable from 2009, by James Entwistle, the US charge d'affaires.

Others discuss the possibility that the death of the 83-year-old king will be followed by a military coup or a succession crisis in which the prince's claim to the throne is challenged by the queen or his older sister, Princess Sirindhorn.

WikiLeaks Depicts a Weak Thai King

Anupong: Coup? No coup here!!

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2011
Written by Our Correspondent
Asia Sentinel

The royalty's role in the tumultuous events of 2008

With Thailand's government in the hands of an ally of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2008, ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej explicitly told the country's army commander not to launch another coup, an advisor to Queen Sirikit told US Ambassador Eric John, according to a Nov. 4, 2008 State Department cable made available on the WikiLeaks Web site.

A coup in September 2006 ousted Thaksin, who was later convicted of corruption and fled the country. The palace has been implicated in supporting that coup by numerous sources.

In 2008, Army Commander Anupong Paochinda said publicly that there would be no further coups. However, it is believed that the military came close to moving against the government and subsequent events showed that even the King's nominal allies paid scant attention to his wishes for calm.

"What can I say?" said a well-placed source in response to the leaked cable. "The monarchy was directly involved in Thai politics and continues to do so. As much as the king has intervened in politics himself, some of his close aides often claim to act on his behalf even when the King knows nothing about it.

Sacrava's Thai Toon: The Bumpy Road Map

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Click on the cartoon to zoom in

Bangkok's savage conflict may be a mere dress rehearsal

A Redshirt in Bangkok: both sides have used violence Photo: Getty Images

Thailand is torn between two rival camps, best characterised as competing patronage networks.

19 May 2010
By Duncan McCargo
Telegraph (UK)

Since March 12, tens of thousands of red-shirted demonstrators have occupied central areas of Bangkok, demanding the resignation of the Oxford-educated prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the dissolution of parliament. The violence peaked on April 10 – when more than 20 people were killed – and has flared up again, as the military have tried to clear out the Redshirts' encampment.

At times, the security forces have fought pitched battles with protesters. The fatalities have included a Japanese cameraman, and several foreigners have been injured, including a Canadian journalist. In recent days, snipers have been shooting people from high buildings.

This has been portrayed as a struggle between poor farmers from the countryside and an undemocratic Bangkok elite. Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic "pro-democracy" struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit.

At the last election in December 2007, the ruling Democrat Party took 39.63 per cent of the party list vote – almost exactly the same as the 39.60 per cent of the People's Power Party, from which the Redshirts are largely drawn. Neither side has had a monopoly on popular support; both have some valid arguments and positions; and neither has been playing by the rules.

Amnesty International has condemned the shooting of at least 35 unarmed protesters in the past few days, either by uniformed soldiers, or unidentified forces apparently working on behalf of the state. But at the same time, elements of the Redshirt movement have used heavy weapons against a range of government and civilian targets, including the luxury Dusit Thani Hotel, and at one point they stormed Chulalongkorn University Hospital.

The central problem is that Thailand is torn between two rival camps, each led and directed by rich and powerful factions. Though ostensibly divided by ideological differences, in reality the anti-government Redshirts and the pro-government Yellowshirts are best characterised as competing patronage networks, bound together primarily by personal loyalties and emotional attachments. Supporters on both sides have been mobilised by intermediaries playing on local and family ties.

The figureheads for each side are prime minister Abhisit and Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister who was deposed in 2006 in the latest in a series of military coups. The former Manchester City owner certainly remains deeply linked to the protests; if he were to call for the Redshirts to step back from the brink, his words would be extremely influential. But many among the fractious, essentially ad hoc coalition are indifferent to, or even critical of, Thaksin. While some are indeed farmers from his strongholds in the north and north-east, the military recently estimated that 70 per cent of the protesters come from Bangkok and its provinces.

Across Thailand, the Yellow-Red divide cuts through households: married couples, parents and children, and lifelong friends have been torn asunder. Even though swaths of the country north of Bangkok have become virtual no-go areas for government ministers, this is much bigger than a simple class or regional divide.

The Redshirts argue that Thaksin was removed from power by an illegitimate military coup, that a majority of voters remain loyal to pro-Thaksin parties, and that the present Democrat government came to power as a result of dodgy backroom manoeuvres.

It is true that the Abhisit government took office after a previously pro-Thaksin faction switched sides, rather as if the Lib Dems decided to defect from their alliance with the Tories and put Labour back into Downing Street. The Redshirts also complain, with some justification, that the government has done nothing to punish the "terrorist" transgressions of the yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy in 2008, which included occupying Government House for more than three months and seizing Bangkok's airports; they also lament that their side has been harshly treated in landmark court cases.

Abhisit's supporters point out that for all Thaksin's grandiose rhetoric, he was no great supporter of democracy or human rights in his five years in office, during which he practised "CEO government" and staunchly opposed any form of decentralisation. They are appalled by the thuggish tactics of the Redshirts, and their distasteful alliance with hit squads informally headed by Major General Khattiya Sawasdipol, a rogue army officer who was killed last week by a mysterious sniper. Government supporters are also deeply frustrated by the failure of the police – whose ranks are packed with Thaksin supporters – to maintain order, and the inability or unwillingness of the armed forces to carry out a decisive crackdown.

Underlying the mistrust and paranoia on both sides is a set of larger fears about the future of the country. King Bhumibol, for many a symbol of unity and stability, is 82 and in poor health. Whatever their political orientation, most Thais can hardly imagine a future without him. On one level, Thailand's political crisis is an expression of collective anxiety about the succession. If the sides cannot negotiate a settlement before then, the recent spate of protests may be dress rehearsals for an even more dramatic, and more damaging, confrontation.

Duncan McCargo is Professor of South-East Asian politics at the University of Leeds

Thailand unravelling

Red shirts' anger has its roots in deep-seated inequalities

May 19, 2010
By ERIK MARTINEZ KUHONTA, Freelance
Montreal Gazette (Quebec, Canada)

Despite some 18 coups in its contemporary history, Thailand has long been a bastion of stability in Southeast Asia. It has avoided bouts of mass violence that have marred regional neighbours like Indonesia and Cambodia, and has become a major destination for tourists and an economic dynamo in Asia.

However, the current crisis that has parts of Bangkok looking like Beirut has the potential to unhinge Thailand from its stable moorings. Since the first clashes erupted in April, 67 people have been killed, and more than 1,700 have been injured. This degree of violence is unprecedented in Thailand.

At its core, this crisis has its roots in deep-seated inequalities between the rural sector and the ruling institutions and social groups based in Bangkok. The conflict between the Red Shirts and the Thai government stems from the September 2006 coup that ousted former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The Red Shirts, primarily rural people from the poorer areas of Thailand in the north and northeast, are avid supporters of Thaksin.

Incensed by the coup as well as by recent court rulings and backroom deals that eliminated governments led by Thaksin allies, the Red Shirts have been pushing to force out the current government of the Democrat Party, which took charge of government in 2008 when a number of Thaksin's parliamentary allies switched sides to give the Democrats a majority. That shady deal and repeated efforts to oust Thaksin and his allies are what so enrage the Red Shirts.

At a deeper level, the Red Shirts' support for Thaksin and visceral opposition to the Democrat-led government is a result of Thaksin's pro-poor policies. These policies, often called populist, included a universal health-care program known as the 30-Baht (75-cent) policy, a debt-moratorium program for farmers, and a Village Fund scheme that would have given every village in the country 1 million baht ($25,000) to jumpstart small-scale entrepreneurial projects.

The record of these policies in alleviating poverty has been mixed, although the health-care scheme has been the most successful. But the actual success of these policies is less important than their political effect. The policies have created a powerful social base for Thaskin's party and a devoted following for his leadership. Unlike any prime minister in Thailand's history, Thaksin has successfully created a bond with the rural poor, established a track record of policy innovation in favor of the rural sector, and mobilized them to political action. This has created a major challenge for elites in Bangkok.

The Bangkok elite - the aristocratic class, the military, and large parts of the middle class - remain deeply opposed to Thaksin and the Red Shirts, especially because they view Thaksin as a corrupt prime minister who used his public office to protect and advance his capitalist interests.

But opposition to Thaksin is also due to his attempts to challenge King Bhumipol Adulyadej's traditional role as supreme leader of the nation. Since his accession to the throne in 1946, 82-year-old Bhumipol has been one of the most successful and unifying monarchs in Thailand. But the monarchy has also shown little tolerance for politicians who could displace its position as patron and builder of the nation. This is exactly what Thaksin sought to do through the force of his charisma, as much as through his pro-poor policies.

Thailand now finds itself on the brink of civil war. In the past, when Thai politics appeared to have reached a point of no return, Bhumipol was able to step in and bring the conflict to an end. This is no longer possible because the conflict involves the monarchy's role in the polity, but also because the king has been ailing for much of the past year. A recent effort by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to negotiate was rejected by the Red Shirts, pushing the government to use military force to dislodge the protesters. But a military strategy will only inflame rural discontent in the long-run. Both sides need to submit to an impartial negotiator, whether from within Thailand or from abroad, so that negotiations can be credible and earnest.

Once the violence subsides, the larger issue that Thailand needs to confront is the deep marginalization of the rural poor. The Bangkok elite has long ruled on the assumption that the rural poor would accept their fate and would never pose a serious challenge to the state and to society's conservative norms.

This is no longer the case and puts the burden on the elite to change its thinking if it wishes to remain relevant in the midst of political and social change.

Erik Martinez Kuhonta teaches political science at McGill University.

Thailand protests may prove royal words are no longer be enough

There are calls for King Bhumibol Adulyadej, pictured with Queen Sirikit, to intervene in the current bloody standoff in Bangkok. Photograph: Sakchai Lalit/AP

King's intervention over May 1992 demonstrations matched the public mood – 18 years on there is no such common grounds

Monday 17 May 2010
Duncan McCargo
guardian.co.uk

For many observers, Thai politics is defined by a compelling but misleading image: the then prime minister, Suchinda Kraprayoon, and protest leader, Chamlong Srimuang, sitting on the floor on 20 May 1992, while King Bhumibol Adulvadej admonishes the two former generals to settle their differences amicably. Prior to this royal intervention, scores of people, mainly unarmed demonstrators, had been killed in street protests against a government widely perceived as illegitimate. Four days later, Suchinda, the former army commander and 1991 coup maker, resigned.

As the king declared prophetically, "There will only be losers." Suchinda's career was over: I saw him a few years ago getting off a Thai Airways flight in London, a broken man in a crumpled suit. The once feverishly popular Chamlong, an ascetic "half-man half-monk", found his own route to the premiership permanently blocked.

Given the terrible violence of recent weeks, and a death toll now matching that of May 1992, why does the king not intervene again?

The idea that public royal reprimands are a standard Thai operating procedure is not really correct. A royal dressing-down is a last resort, one which relies on those who are summoned to submit meekly and go home quietly. Such interventions are a losing proposition for the political system, and potentially also for the royal institution itself, since the stakes are extremely high. At present, it is an open question how the redshirt leadership would respond to any summons.

In practice, most royal moves take place behind the scenes, and are carried out not by members of the royal family at all, but by "network monarchy" – a loose alliance of courtiers, establishment insiders and freelancers who have no actual hotline to the palace, but are believed to be (or believe themselves to be) acting in the interests of the monarchy. In April 2006, responding to earlier public demands for monarchical intervention, the king made a major speech, in which he declined to act directly, and instead urged the judiciary to resolve the country's political crisis.

Since then, Thailand has experienced a striking judicialisation of politics: the courts have annulled an election, abolished political parties, and given more than a hundred politicians five-year bans from office.

The only alternative to judicial interventions has been the rather disastrous military coup of September 2006, which completely failed in its real aim of reducing former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's remarkable popularity. Instead, the coup left a legacy of bitter colour-coded division between pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin forces.In recent years, the task of intervention has been delegated to other elements of the state. Whereas in 1992 the king's words matched an emerging consensus that Suchinda had to go – and that Chamlong had gone too far – 18 years later there is no such common ground. Between redshirted Thaksinites and yellowshirted royalists run bloody scars that cut right through Thai society; and these are not wounds that any words of wisdom could easily heal.

Duncan McCargo is professor of Southeast Asian Politics at the University of Leeds and author of Tearing Apart the Land: Islam and Legitimacy in Southern Thailand (Cornell University Press), which won the inaugural 2009 Bernard Schwartz prize from the Asia Society

Thailand’s King Sees His Influence Fading

King Bhumibol Adulyadej returned to a hospital after marking the anniversary of his coronation in Bangkok on May 5. (Andrees Latif/Reuters)

May 15, 2010
By SETH MYDANS and THOMAS FULLER
The New York Times

BANGKOK — A battle over Thailand’s future is raging, but the one man who has been able to resolve such intractable conflicts in the past has been notably silent: King Bhumibol Adulyadej, long a unifying father figure for his nation.

Thailand is convulsed by a bitter struggle between the nation’s elite and its disenfranchised poor, played out in protests that have paralyzed Bangkok for weeks and now threaten to expand. The ailing 82-year-old king finds his power to sway events ebbing as the fight continues over the shape of a post-Bhumibol Thailand.

“It’s much bigger than the issue of succession,” said Charles Keyes, an expert on Thailand at the University of Washington in Seattle. “It’s a collapse of the political consensus that the monarchy has helped maintain.”

As his country suffers through its worst political crisis in decades, the king has disappointed many Thais by saying nothing that might calm the turmoil, as he did in 1973 and 1992 when with a few quiet words he halted eruptions of political bloodletting.

For more than two months now, demonstrators known as the red shirts, who represent in part the aspirations of the rural and urban poor, have occupied parts of Bangkok, forcing major malls and hotels to close as they demand that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva dissolve Parliament and hold a new election. Soldiers and protesters continued battling Saturday.

After taking the throne nearly 64 years ago, King Bhumibol expanded his role as a constitutional monarch without political power into an enormous moral force, earned through his civic work and political astuteness. He has also presided over an expansion of the royal family’s now vast business holdings. With the monarchy at its heart, an elite royalist class grew up including the bureaucracy, the military and entrenched business interests. A palace Privy Council has exerted power during the current crisis.

It is this elite class that the protesters are now challenging.

Those who seek to maintain the status quo have proclaimed themselves loyal to the king and have accused the red shirts of trying to destroy the monarchy as they seek changes in Thai society. For their part, most red shirts say they respect the king but want changes in the system he helped create.

The politicization of the king’s name “has ensured that the monarchy cannot play a central conciliatory role any more,” said Chris Baker, a British historian of Thailand.

More broadly, the divisions in society may have become too deep and the anger too hot to reconcile for years to come. Many analysts say a lasting class conflict has been ignited between the country’s awakening rural masses and its elite hierarchy. With the king confined to a hospital since September with lung inflammation and other ailments, concern about the future has sharpened. The heir apparent to the throne, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, has not inherited his father’s popularity.

But discussion about the succession and about the future role of the monarchy are constricted to whispers and forbidden Internet sites by a severe lèse-majesté law. A 15-year penalty for anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, the heir apparent or the regent” has been broadly interpreted in cases brought against writers, academics, activists, and both foreign and local journalists.

Though it is the protesters who are pressing for change, including some who may see a republican form of government in the future, it is a leading member of the establishment party that now rules Thailand who put the issue into its plainest terms.

“We should be brave enough to go through all of this and even talk about the taboo subject of monarchy,” said Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, in a speech last month that he gave, significantly, outside Thailand at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. “I think we have to talk about the institution of the monarchy, how would it have to reform itself to the modern globalized world.”

He spoke of Britain and the Netherlands as models, with constitutional monarchs who play a largely symbolic role.

On paper at least, those models are not so very different from the system now in place in Thailand. What sets King Bhumibol apart is the aura that surrounds him and the faith among many people that when things are really bad, he will step forward to save them from themselves.

In a way, what some Thais are saying now is simply that it is time for the king’s “children” to grow up and solve their problems themselves.

“There might still be people in Thai society that want to see the king play a role in resolving the crisis,” said Jon Ungpakorn, a former senator and one of the nation’s most vocal advocates for democracy.

“But on the other side, a large section of society realizes that we should not depend on the monarchy for resolving crises,” he said. “If we are to be a democratic system, we must learn to deal with our problems ourselves.”

During weeks of street demonstrations, protesters have assiduously asserted their patriotism. But unlike other protests in the city, there has been a conspicuous absence of portraits of the king. Among both residents of the northeast, the country’s rural heartland, and the red-shirt protesters in Bangkok — many of whom have traveled back and forth in shifts — a new, less reverent tone has quietly crept into conversations.

Krasae Chanawongse, a medical doctor and former government minister in the northeast who is a strong monarchist, laments that “many people are talking about destroying the monarchy.”

But protest leaders insist that they are not challenging the king but the system that is built around him.

“Real democracy would have the king at the top, with no elite class to interfere,” said a protest leader, Nattawut Saikua, in an interview.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had built an electoral base among the country’s poor majority, who also form the base of the red-shirt protesters, threatening the traditional supremacy of the old guard. A coup in 2006 that ousted Mr. Thaksin is believed to have had at least the tacit approval of the Privy Council and other elites who saw the prime minister and his base as a challenge to their power. The red shirts have demanded a new election that could bring back Mr. Thaksin, now abroad fleeing a prison sentence for corruption.

Whoever succeeds King Bhumibol, the veneration and the place the king holds at the heart of Thai society are unlikely to survive him.

“In private discussions people say to each other, ‘What will we do without him?’ ” said a prominent poet who, like many people speaking about the monarchy, insisted on anonymity. “They get disappointed and upset and even scared about the change in the future.”

As he has grown older, concerns have risen about divisions and disputes in society that might erupt once he is gone. It appears now, with the king no longer playing the role he has in the past, that those conflicts are already under way.

Sacrava's Political Cartoon: Long live our beloved King!

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Sacrava's Thailand Political Cartoon: Long Life the King

Click on the cartoon to zoom in

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Australian documentary on Thai royals sparks outrage

This 2007 picture released by the Thai Royal Bureau shows His Majesty the King waving to the crowds during his 80th birthday celebrations at the Grand Palace in Bangkok. Thailand has protested to the Australian government over the airing of a documentary critical of the Thai royal family and warned that the broadcast could affect ties between the nations.

16/04/2010
AFP News agency

Thailand has protested to the Australian government over the airing of a documentary critical of the Thai royal family and warned that the broadcast could affect ties between the nations.

A senior representative from the Thai embassy met with officials from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs on Thursday to express his concern at the programme aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

"The concern is that it might affect the good relations between Thailand and Australia, especially the people to people relations," Saksee Phromyothi, minister-counsellor at the Royal Thai Embassy, said.

"We consider this an issue matter of national security... because the royal family, the monarchy, in our constitution is above politics."

Thailand's ambassador designate Kriangsak Kittichaisaree has also written to ABC managing director Mark Scott to complain about the programme which could breach Thailand's lese-majeste laws which prohibit criticism of the royals.

"I regret that an organisation of the ABC's stature has lowered its own standard by airing the said documentary which is presented in a manner no different from tabloid journalism," he wrote.

The programme, which aired late Tuesday, was broadcast on the state-funded station only in Australia and cannot be viewed over the Internet outside the country.

But Thailand's diplomatic missions in Australia say they have received complaints about the programme on the monarchy -- which Kittichaisaree said was "the soul" of the nation and cherished by Thais from all walks of life.

"I presume that once you have decided to put this hyper-sensitive programme on air, a protest letter like mine, which I hope you will seriously heed, should come as no surprise," Kittichaisaree wrote to Scott.

"I strongly express both resentment and disappointment with the poor decision you have made."

The ABC could not immediately be reached for comment. But a report in the Australian newspaper said the ABC had effectively shut down its Bangkok office, sending its local staff home until further notice.

A spokesman for Australia's Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed that Thai embassy officials had complained about the ABC programme and noted that the Thai monarchy was a much revered institution.

"However, the Australian government does not and cannot control content run by Australian media organisations," he told AFP.

Breaking Thailand's rules on the monarchy have seen prison sentences of up to 18 years handed down, and Australian writer Harry Nicolaides was in 2009 sentenced to three years in jail under the law over a self-published novel.

Sacrava's Political Cartoon: The Landlord

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Click here to read related article

Sacrava's Thai Political Cartoon: The Assets

Click on the cartoon to zoom in

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

Thai king leaves hospital for 4 hours

Sunday, February 28, 2010
AP

BANGKOK — Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej briefly left the hospital where he has been treated for the past five months to make a late-night visit to his palace, an official said Sunday.

It was the first time the 82-year-old monarch has left Siriraj Hospital since he was hospitalized Sept. 19 with fatigue and loss of appetite.

Bhumibol left for Chitralada Palace at about 9 p.m. Saturday night on "personal" business and returned to the hospital at 1 a.m. Sunday, a palace official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to release information, did not explain the nature of the personal business.

She said there would be no official announcement because the visit was regarded as part of the king's personal affairs. Hospital officials said they could not comment.

The king's health is a matter of immense public concern, both because he is widely admired and because he is regarded as a unifying figure in times of political crisis.
The palace has said he is recovering from a lung inflammation.

He has made a handful of public appearances at the hospital, but this is the first time he has left its premises.

Required reading for the sons and daughters of Cambodia's "Nouveaux Riches"?

King Bhumibol and HRH princess Sirindhorn as a young teenager

A letter from HM the King to HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn

Monday , January 4 , 2010
By krajog The Nation

The [above] text in Thai is a letter HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn received from His Majesty the King dated Oct. 6, 2004. HRH Princess Sirindhorn has granted her permission for the public viewing.

As the content of the letter reflects His Majesty the King’s thought on doing good deeds and the sense of kindness and compassion for other people, I think this essence of the letter is worth a reading to my blog readers. I have translated it for those who are not familiar with the Thai writing as follows.

The following is my translation.

My dear daughter,

In this world, everything has at least two sides. There are darkness and brightness, goodness and evilness. If we can choose what we like, we all would want to have brightness and goodness. But what we want would become real only when we have a method to get it, the brightness or goodness.

The path towards goodness is the love for other people. This is because love for other people can solve every problem. If we want the world to be a place of happiness and peacefulness, the love for other people must be real.

I would like to tell you as follows.

1. Seeing other people as friends in terms of birth, getting old, falling into illness and death, without any exception, no matter who they were in the past, at present or in the future.

2. Seeing the world in an optimistic way but it would be better if you see the world in a realistic perspective, which is the right and appropriate way to solve any problem.

3. Have a sense of Santosa-

…This means having contentment as a basic principle in your mind. Always satisfied with what have come to you without clinging to anything. And always think that having something is good enough while having nothing is not a problem at all. It also means being content with our personal power or ability. Be happy with what we got no matter how small it is.

…Not become the same as an overblown toad, it will bring to us nothing but troubles afterwards.

…Be relatively satisfied with the job you are doing.

…Make a living that suits your status.

4. Having mental stability. This means seeing the negative effects of laziness while realizing the benefits of being persistent. If an undesirable thing happens, pray this mantra:

“Having good fortune and status, happiness and sadness might follow.

It’s the same with praises and criticism. Losing a fortune or status is so natural.

Don’t stay being sad but keep saying “let it be, let it be.”

Your Dad 6/10/2547 (6/Oct/2004)

HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn has made her comment for readers of this HM the King’s letter as follows:

”I hope this teaching of my Dad I have collected would be useful to everyone as well as sons and daughters who are the loved ones of their fathers who have the chance to read this letter.”

I LOVE MY DAD SO VERY MUCH.