Along with the whitewashing of the new king’s notorious past, the fawning over the dead king continues.
Much of this treacly nonsense is a simple repetition of decades of palace propaganda. Some of it is a deliberate set of manufactured stories that beggar belief for anyone who thinks.
We guess some of it is constructed under threat. By this we mean that when normally sensible people come up with errant nonsense, we assume that they say what they do for fear of sanction.
There’s an example of this at The Nation, where law professor Parinya Thaewanarumitkul is reported to have recycled a history that suits royalists and palace propaganda: that the late king was some kind of paragon as a constitutional monarch.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In a public lecture on the late king and democracy, Prinya declares that the late king “remained a constitutional monarch despite doubts about his role in the appointment of ‘royally appointed’ prime ministers…”. At least it is admitted that the appointments of Sanya Dharmasakti and Anand Panyarachun were “controversial.”
They were also loyal royalists close to the palace.
Prinya does not mention – at least not in the reporting at The Nation – the rightist Thanin Kraivixien or the dozen or so military coups that the palace generally supported. The king was always keen to support his military friends and “protectors.” He doesn’t mention the trampling to dust of constitutions that the king was happy to go along with.
In line with the usual propaganda, “Parinya said that the late monarch had played a crucial role in bringing the country together and getting it through times of crisis.”
He is referring to 1973 and 1992. In both cases, the king can be seen as intervening when the military was in trouble and to prevent any serious reform.
Prinya also mentions the “recent crisis that followed the coup in 2006, for instance, resulted in people appealing to the King, asking for a royally appointed prime minister as a means to end the turmoil…”.
We assume he means before the 2006 coup for he goes on to “explain” that the king was properly constitutional in his response.
Not quite right. He told a gaggle of judges to “fix” things for him. The coup soon followed.
His claim that the king “could not just appoint anyone by his preference. He only endorsed as he was asked to” is simply a manipulation of the facts.
His claim that the late king “never exercised it [his power] undemocratically” is untrue.
No serious academic researcher could draw such conclusions. Only a blind royalist or one under threat. There’s better stuff here.