A black swan in Thailand?

By thaiblackswan gmail

His image is everywhere, from billboards to pendants, dangling from a taxi’s rear-view mirror,
pinned high above the haphazard piles of goods in a shophouse. Thais love their king. Thais adore
the royal family and always will without question.

There is much to substantiate this view. Thailand is a conservative country, where change is slow
and progress seemingly slower. Its people, despite the smiles and easy manner, are somewhat
introverted and a little apprehensive of what lies beyond the kingdom.

The king is continuity, a source of strength and inspiration, a font of virtue to balance the sins of
those below him. While he reigns people can rest easy, debacle and disaster will not visit the
country.

But what if the view is off the mark, can a people seen as docile or pliant change?

There is evidence from around Asia of societies putting aside their monarchies for something else
in the blink of an eye after an eon of what seemed perpetuity.

A century ago the emperor of the Middle Kingdom was pushed aside and his throne consigned to
history after service of 5,000 years. Revolution forged the Republic of China which was torn
asunder by wealthy warlords and their cliques who had conspired to junk the imperium. Just forty
years later another revolution saw power move into the hands, nominally at least, of the people
under the communists.

Thirty years ago communist insurgents were active across the northeast, much of the north and
parts of the south of Thailand. The insurgency was not defeated by force of arms, however.

Deng Xiaoping took the helm of China in 1978. Shortly thereafter, China stopped exporting ideas,
guns and grenades and turned to exporting toys, textiles and gadgets. This change of tack turns
out to have been a far better strategy for increasing China’s wealth which today underwrites its
growing diplomatic clout.

China’s support for communists in Burma and Thailand evaporated. Bangkok offered an amnesty
along with money to the guerrillas. There ended insurgency.

However there was a salutary lesson of what might have come to pass from neighbouring Laos
where the communists seized power in 1975 and banished the king and queen, whose distant
relatives sat in Bangkok, to mountain gulags from where they were not to return.

While the threat of communist takeover disappeared from the nightmares of Thailand’s rulers it
was stirring in the remote and poverty-stricken villages of Nepal, another Buddhist kingdom
under the rule of an absolute monarchy. In 1990, Nepal introduced democracy. Before the decade
was out a Maoist insurgency was on the march.

A march which led the Maoists into power, via the ballot box, in 2008 and saw the monarchy, in no
small part thanks to its own efforts, dissolved after 240 years heading the country. Nepal is now a
republic.

And what of Thais, are their minds locked, their thoughts set in stone for evermore as if bewitched
by a genie?
Certainly, there is a strong, seemingly heartfelt, current of adoration for what some Thai
newspapers now refer to as the ‘high institution’.

But to bank on this being always so would be to suggest as Europeans once thought that because
we can only see white swans there will never be black swans.

History however tells a different tale, littered with such instances of what were held up to be great
surprises, outliers not worthy of a second’s rational thought, yet in hindsight could have been
considered possibilities, from the discovery of the black swan (used as a cipher for shock events
which turn to be common and not beyond imagination by Nicholas Nassim Taleb) to credit
crunches.

And so it is with Thais.

Take something as prosaic food, for example, over which Thais rapture. Even in the 1990s many
were of the opinion Thais would not take to foreign food, so attuned were the palates to their spicy
and almost infinite cuisine.

A glance around a Bangkok shopping mall or along the shelves of 7-Eleven, which have settled on
every street spelling hard times for the local family provisions shop, tells a rather different story.
Thais have taken to pizza, pasta, sandwiches, burgers, fried chicken and even coffee with gusto.

Choice has multiplied in almost every sphere of a Thai’s life.

In 1988 there were a handful of supermarkets in Bangkok. Today hypermarkets abound brimming
with choice for the common man. And so it goes with cars and motorcycles.

The media, as in many developing countries, has over the last decade burst into bloom. The range
of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television channels, not to mention the impact of
mobile phones and the internet on the flow of information and ideas, is almost as great as seen on
the shelves in London or New York.

Even in matters of the heart Thais are free as they have never been to choose their partners. They
now commonly hold hands in public, a rare sight even in the early 1990s, they even steal quick
kisses, something that if their parents knew would leave many in shock even rage.

Thais have become used to choice and expressing their power to determine what they consume,
what they listen to, who they talk to when, and even who they kiss. Can choice be limited just to
the shelves of a hypermarket or stay within the infinite realms of cyberspace?

This runs counter to the society’s hierarchical structure built on age and social status, where orders
flow down from the top, drawing in return unquestioning obedience. Not that age and social
status are no longer important factors, far from it, but that they are not the only factors shaping
people’s responses, feelings, desires.

The advance of choice has breached politics in the brave new world of one-man, one-vote, single-
member constituencies introduced by the 1997 ‘people’s constitution’. The charter was a
revolution, sovereignty shifted decisively to the voters. It changed the game of politics in Thailand
and perhaps owes parliament’s assent to the country’s plunge into economic depression (another
black swan).
But can a revolution be without a revolutionary? This individual appeared with immense wealth
and a tactful group of erudite advisers led by Pansak Vinyaratn, a man at home in the shadows.
This individual’s name is Thaksin Shinawatra.

Shinawatra and his associate tycoons spent heavily on the election in 2000, winning a resounding
victory. He scored landslide victory in 2005. He was the first elected prime minister to serve a full
term and win the following election. His party Thai Rak Thai was everywhere, its posters adorned
billboards and lamp posts, stickers blanketed noodle shops and farmers’ stores across the country.
His face along with a catchy slogan was never more than a glance away.

His barami, something like charisma, grew to be immense, and still is.1 He rose to such heights of
popularity earned by delivering on election promises made in a simple policy manifesto. This had
never happened before in Thailand. The revolution of politics was complete.

Among ordinary voters adoration has not been dented by accusations and charges of corruption,
mostly levelled by rivals, the military junta which ended his office in September 2006, and the
courts which appear to be bastions of the conservatives.

Shinawatra is to be sure no angel. But his corruption is the rule rather than the exception among
Thai politicians. Three thousand killed, apparently by state death squads, in a war on ‘drug
dealers’ is abhorrent. But to focus on the man is to miss the point.

He is the offspring of an elite society which preferred to use power to feather their own particular
nests, an act in which they were so absorbed they neglected to do much about developing the
nation they claim to cherish so deeply.

Yet had they acted truly with the national interest in mind rather than spent their time squabbling
and stealing while pursuing self-interest under the guise of national interest Thailand might look a
lot more like South Korea today, than say the Philippines or Indonesia. South Korea, also has had a
lot of corruption and such like, yet its elites chose policies which took the country from being
behind Thailand in 1960 to today being a major industrial power.

The elites have failed to address such matters for decades. Voters, however, might with time.
Democracies, are among other things, exercises in learning and experience. This takes time,
machines can be made in a day, minds take years.

Thai Rak Thai mounted the first modern political campaign in Thailand’s history, one suited to the
new rules of the game and the massive expansion in communications through the media and
mobile phones.

In a country of regional polities, Thai Rak Thai built the first political machine with a sustained
and truly national political presence. The only other national entity was not elected and was,
officially at least, above politics. History tells a different story however.

In its way the party was reaching out directly to voters, scotching the infamous canvasser who had
risen in power and structure on the boom in vote-buying in the 1980s ad 1990s.

1This article is typical of many: Michael Sullivan "Deposed Thai Premier Maintains Rural Popularity"
National Public Radio (United States) 12th March 2008
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132209
Trouble was vote-buying costs were rising while the returns, in terms of guaranteed results were
falling. It’s not unusual for voters to take money from a few candidates’ canvassers then vote just
as they please inside the curtained privacy of the voting booth. The costs were also outstripping
what might be earned under the table while in power, or at least a seat in parliament.

Going direct, using the techniques of Madison Avenue to get voters hearts instead of their wallets,
was potentially cheaper and more effective. This is a new era.

In the 1980s and 1990s image, the smiling face of the party leader or constituency candidate, often
from a wealthy and prominent local family, dominated hamstrung electoral politics. During the
2000s, image has been joined by policy, indeed it may even be in the process of being displaced by
policy in drawing voters. The strongest evidence of this is the election in 2006, in which most
parties proclaimed their manifestos on campaign posters.

What was most striking was the lack of originality, their policies copied almost word for word
from Thai Rak Thai. Little surprise voters solidly backed People’s Power, the party widely seen as
inheriting the brand equity of Thai Rak Thai.

With time, if elections continue under the current system, parties may come to see their chances
lying with offering an alternative to what has been put forward by Thai Rak Thai and People’s
Power, something genuinely different to titillate voters. The day may even come when parties
come to represent a distinct and recognizable political creed, such as socialism or conservatism.

These developments in political choice along with the advance of choice in other spheres have had
two consequences, among others.

First, Thais increasingly see that their votes can make a difference if they pick a party which makes
good on its promises. Political choice, as in other fields, has its benefits. What poor farmer or
factory hand wouldn’t want, among other things, affordable healthcare and access to credit at
affordable rates for the first time instead of from the loan shark?

While the quality of what has been provided may be in doubt it didn’t really matter because there
was so little on offer before. Populism it may be, but given the chronic failure of successive Thai
governments to concern themselves with the issues facing the majority it was better than nothing.

Are the majority of Thai voters who backed People’s Power and Thai Rak Thai going to accept the
imposition of political system, such as that proposed by the conservatives’ neo-fascist People’s
Alliance for Democracy, PAD, in which votes will not count for much because power will rest with
appointed members of the legislature?

Second, the era ushered in by the 1997 constitution has created an opportunity in which
individuals can earn immense popularity, adoration even, through their policies and actions. In
the 2005 election Thaksin appeared in some election posters striking a regal pose. It was now
possible for a politician to draw instead of disdain widespread adoration.

Coincidentally as the popularity, or barami, of Shinawatra soared, images of the king became more
common in public spaces, on billboards, public transport stations and in the media. The national
anthem was heard more frequently. Campaigns were launched to encourage public adoration.
People donned yellow shirts and wore orange wristbands. To not to risked questions over one’s
character and loyalty.
Acting in defence of king has become something of a license to break the law with impunity.
Witness the thuggery of PAD, including brandishing and using firearms, all in the name of the
king. Or the good citizens in a cinema who assaulted Chotisak Onsoong, a businessman and
political activist, after he and his girlfriend refused to stand for the national anthem during which
the screen is filled with images of the king.2

Onsoong was charged with lese majeste at a police station in April 2008. A host on Manager Radio,
owned by PAD founder Sonthi Limthongkul, urged listeners to attack Onsoong. A charge was
filed with police against websites of SameSky and Prachatai for allowing comments on their
websites from people who did not support the monarchy.3

Shinawatra was charged by some critics with being a closet republican. Others said he
disrespected the king. Indeed the king during a birthday speech chastised Shinawatra for
arrogance.

Limthongkul, once a media lapdog of Shinawatra who turned to bite the hand that fed once the
feeding stopped. Limthongkul became particularly hot under the collar after questions were raised
by Shinawatra’s respected finance minister over loans and write-offs he had received from state-
owned Krung Thai Bank, at the time run by Limthongkul’s friend.4

If adoration is strong for the throne, why was there an increase in the display of his image and the
promotion of campaigns to draw (or enforce) feelings in public, alongside a whisper campaign by
tools of the conservative elites supporting the status quo?

Anecdotal experience suggests more people are beginning to question the status quo, the reflexive
deference. Occasionally, one will come across a taxi driver who will express disdain instead of
adoration. A farmer in Thailand’s poor northeast, where 20 million live or rather survive,
explained to a Japanese news service Yomiuri in September 2007 why for farmers Thaksin was
among all others now tops.5

Such instances might be aberrations, echoes of thoughts and ideas running across the paddies and
through the orchards during the 1970s of the guerrillas. Or they might be like the gnarled knot
protruding from a hefty log bobbing below the calm of a languid tropical river. How big the log
may be is hard to see hidden as it is by the muddy water.

2Richard Lloyd Parry "Filmgoer faces jail in Thailand for sitting during the national anthem" The Times 24th
April 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3803939.ece

Michael Sullivan "Thai Man Charged with Insulting King" National Public Radio (United States) 29th April
2008 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90024852

3"Same Sky Books and Prachatai websites charged for allowing comments about Chotisak’s ‘not standing’"
Prachatai 29th April 2008 http://www.prachatai.com/english/printversion.php?id=620

"Chotisak no show at forum due to threats from Manager Radio" Prachatai 5th May 2008
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=623

4A summary drawn from public sources is available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonthi_Limthongkul#Origins_of_the_Anti-Thaksin_Period

5 http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20070906TDY05005.htm
What thoughts lie deep beneath the surface of Thai minds are hard to probe, not only because of
the loyalty which is instilled from the first day of school, but also because of the fear that goes
along with speaking out, specifically the world’s harshest laws on lese majeste.

There has in recent years been an upsurge in lese majeste, often against social commentators, left-
wing academics, as well as by politicians attacking their rivals.

If the adoration is truly genuine, spontaneous and from the heart, where the soul of a Thai is said
to reside, then why are such laws necessary unless that which they are designed to protect is a
rather weaker notion then appearances might suggest? Were a house built on shallow foundations
sunk into sand few would expect it to stand forever.

The king called for such casual application of these laws to stop. Like many of his often
commonsense exhortations for better behaviour to his subjects it has been ignored. If respect is so
great and so genuine why are his calls, such as for an end to corruption, so widely ignored?

It might be said Thais inhabit two worlds simultaneously. One is an ideality, which is where the
king sits, a pure and perfect place of unending beauty where everything is just right. The other is
reality, the ideality’s mirror where one does as one pleases, living simply in the now, the
immediate moment without regard for the moment before or that to come. Can an ideality persist
in the face of great change in the reality?

Thais and their society are changing. Values and beliefs are shifting. Expectations and desires are
evolving. Reconciling the old with the new may not be possible, certainly as the old and new are
now constructed. Trying to do this may cause something to snap.

Why else would there be a conservative backlash of such intensity, suggesting desperation and
willingness to sink the economy if needs be, if the threat was not real, the possibility high that the
future will not be as the past was, that society is tipping, and perhaps is not so far from the point of
no return as might commonly be imagined?

Thailand may yet see a black swan.