Search results

This article examines royal governance under King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X) for the light it sheds on Thailand's recent political development. It is argued that the existence of "fear" defines Vajiralongkorn's relationship with the people. For members of the ruling class, fear keeps them in check. Within the palace, promotion and demotion are vital for control. The Royal Gazette (Rachakitjanubeksa) has become a platform for public humiliation that operates to inculcate fear. For the public, fear proliferates through a variety of means, including employing laws to punish critics of the monarchy, particularly the exploitation of lèse-majesté law, with the state's keen cooperation. But the 2020 protests, which demanded immediate monarchical reform, seriously challenged Vajiralongkorn's fear-based royal governance. The Thai case demonstrates that fear, a centuries-old form of governance used by many rulers to control their subjects, is no longer an effective tool of governance in modern, middle-class-driven, capitalist societies, like Thailand. Fear has a tendency to backfire on a sovereign if overused. (JCSA/GIGA)

Even if the electoral success of the Move Forward Party does not end at triumph in parliament, the people of Thailand, and particularly the youth, have spoken. The Monarchy may continue to exist, but its foundations are thinning out.

"The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Thailand is a timely survey and assessment of the state of contemporary Thailand. While Thailand has changed much in the past decades, this handbook proposes that many of its problems have remained intact or even persistent, particularly problems related to domestic politics. It underlines emerging issues at this critical juncture in the kingdom and focuses on the history, politics, economy, society, culture, religion and international relations of the country. A multidisciplinary approach, with chapters written by experts on Thailand, this handbook is divided into the following sections: History, Political and Economic Landscape, Social Development, International Relations. Designed for academics, students, libraries, policy makers, as well as general readers, in the field of Asian Studies, political science, economics and sociology, this invaluable reference work provides an up-to-date account of Thailand and initiates new discussion for future research activities"--

What did the 2006 military coup show us? It demonstrated that the crux of the Thai crisis is far more serious and much wider in scope than had previously been thought. The monarchy is surely not a victim in the protracted conflict, but the root cause and continuing factor that has eroded Thai politics. The coup set in motion more prejudicial uses of the lèse-majesté law, and in the process, has led to more political prisoners. It has also shredded the military into several segments, turning g

This article reinterprets the Thai discourse of bamboo diplomacy. In a normative study of Thai foreign policy, bamboo diplomacy has been readily taken as a self-explanatory approach behind the resilience of Thailand's position through bending with the prevailing wind of international politics for its survival. However, the oversimplification of this view of bamboo diplomacy belittles the reality in which the making of Thai foreign policy demands careful calculations and even sacrifices from the political elites. Proposing a reinterpretation of Thai diplomacy, the article argues that Thai bamboo diplomacy has been shaped by the interplay between interests and values as a basis of the shift of Thai positions and alliances throughout the country's history. A main research question is: Under which condition is a values-based Thai foreign policy formulated and implemented? While the interests-driven approach has remained central to Thai foreign policy, Thailand has demonstrated some resilience in its shift towards a values-based foreign policy if dictated by domestic and international factors. Under this circumstance, values are vital as a legitimisation mechanism for the shift of foreign policy and alliances for the ultimate attainment of national interests.

This article examines royal governance under King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X) for the light it sheds on Thailand's recent political development. It is argued that the existence of "fear" defines Vajiralongkorn's relationship with the people. For members of the ruling class, fear keeps them in check. Within the palace, promotion and demotion are vital for control. The Royal Gazette (Rachakitjanubeksa) has become a platform for public humiliation that operates to inculcate fear. For the public, fear proliferates through a variety of means, including employing laws to punish critics of the monarchy, particularly the exploitation of lèse-majesté law, with the state's keen cooperation. But the 2020 protests, which demanded immediate monarchical reform, seriously challenged Vajiralongkorn's fear-based royal governance. The Thai case demonstrates that fear, a centuries-old form of governance used by many rulers to control their subjects, is no longer an effective tool of governance in modern, middle-class-driven, capitalist societies, like Thailand. Fear has a tendency to backfire on a sovereign if overused.

This article examines royal governance under King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X) for the light it sheds on Thailand's recent political development. It is argued that the existence of "fear" defines Vajiralongkorn's relationship with the people. For members of the ruling class, fear keeps them in check. Within the palace, promotion and demotion are vital for control. The Royal Gazette (Rachakitjanubeksa) has become a platform for public humiliation that operates to inculcate fear. For the public, fear proliferates through a variety of means, including employing laws to punish critics of the monarchy, particularly the exploitation of lèse-majesté law, with the state's keen cooperation. But the 2020 protests, which demanded immediate monarchical reform, seriously challenged Vajiralongkorn's fear-based royal governance. The Thai case demonstrates that fear, a centuries-old form of governance used by many rulers to control their subjects, is no longer an effective tool of governance in modern, middle-class-driven, capitalist societies, like Thailand. Fear has a tendency to backfire on a sovereign if overused.