The panel speakers (from left to right): Chaiyan Rajchagool, Rawee Siri-issaranant (Wad Rawee), Pichit Likitkijsomboon, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk and Phiengkham Pradabkhwam

The conference had Assoc. Prof. Chaiyan Rajchagool, Faculty of Law, Chiang Mai University; Assoc. Prof. Anusorn Unno, Dean of the Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University; Rawee Siri-issaranant (Wad Rawee), writer and owner of the Shine Publishing House; Assoc. Prof. Pichit Likitkijsomboon, Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University; and Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, core member of the 24 June Democracy Group, executive editor of Voice of Taksin magazine; with Phiengkham Pradabkhwam as a resource person.

 I - The place of the monarchy in the new system

A challenge in economics, politics and status of the monarchy that Khana Ratsadon failed to meet

Pichit stated that what was lacking when talking about the 1932 revolution is an assessment of Khana Ratsadon (People’s Party) and the 24 June incident from the perspective of Khana Ratsadon and its allies, as an interpretation by the royalist side. During the time that Khana Ratsadon was in power to the end of their power due to Sarit’s coup d’état in 1957, a total of 25 years under Khana Ratsadon’s unstable administration, how well did they answer the problem posed on 24 June?

Pichit assessed the problem of the Khana Ratsadon to be the Six Principles they established, which are a social contract that Khana Ratsadon made with the people. Today we will analyse the response to the principles.

Pichit stated that in 1921, Siam had a population of 14 million people, of which 6.8 million or 68% were illiterate. In 1960, the population had increased to 26 million and the literacy rate to 70%. During that time, the Khana Ratsadon government announced a new law in 1926, enforcing compulsory education to year 4 of primary school. In 1960 when the Khana Ratsadon era ended, compulsory education was 7 years. In the 25 years when Khana Ratsadon was in power, compulsory education made considerable progress, even if there are still people who can’t read or write.

The economic principle which was the intention of Khana Ratsadon was that the people would not starve to death. After announcing the constitution on 24 Dec 1932, Pridi Banomyong, a member of Khana Ratsadon, drafted his economic framework which was violently opposed. It was accused of being communist, especially in King Rama VII’s claim that it was like Stalin’s economic plan in the Soviet Union. It became the starting point of the first anti-communist wave even before the establishment of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT).

It raised the spectre of communism which led to the enactment of the first Communist Prevention Act that was enforced even before the CPT was established. That economic framework was not brought into use again since that time and no one has studied the issue of it never being used. However, due to the failure of the framework, Khana Ratsadon had to find another economic framework as a replacement to create legitimacy for their administration. In the end, Khana Ratsadon’s economic approach turned right, i.e. into nationalism.

During P. Phibunsongkhram’s term as Prime Minister, a right-wing nationalist economic system was created. The government controlled the economic activities of the private sector with hundreds of state enterprises. This led to many economic problems. The economic structure we see these days is partly the fruit of failure of the framework in the beginning when Pridi’s approach could not be used.

When one reads the economic framework, one will find that it has the characteristics of a socialist economy. All people are under the control of the state. The framework stated that all citizens are government officials. The state will establish various types of cooperatives and have the people be in them, with the government paying their salary and collecting tax. The people in the cooperatives will work and receive rewards according to the work they do. It aims to create a self-reliant economy.

There will be as little trade as possible with other countries. Personal assets exist as land for habitation. The state is the owner of the land as an economic factor. Machinery is also the state’s, with the reason that private ownership of factories will create conflict between employers and employees, but private professions still exist.

However the framework emphasised in various places that this economic system is not communist, because the state is not taking away the people’s rights of ownership. There is an alternative for the people to sell their assets to the state with the state issuing a loan certificate, a bond, and the people can take the interest. At that time it was thought a progressive method.

The land reform when the US took over Japan after World War II to destroy the former landlord system and the land reform in Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek also used this same method. It can be seen as a method used also by non-communist governments.

Another result Khana Ratsadon failed to deliver is the role and status of the monarchy in a democratic system. We are talking about the institution that is an organ of the state, with a political and governmental position where the head of state is an institution with legal and traditional power. The many revolutions around the world achieve complete success when they can answer the question of what the role, status and legal and traditional power should be, how much, and with what restrictions.

But in their 25 years, Khana Ratsadon did not answer this question clearly even when the Boworadet rebellion occurred. However, in the end this vagueness meant there was no pressure or challenge prompting Khana Ratsadon to clearly define where the monarchy should be under the constitutional system. There was none because King Rama VIII ascended the throne while still young and stayed overseas until the end of World War II before returning to Thailand.

During that time there had to be a regent and the regents at that time cooperated well with Khana Ratsadon, so there was no conflict. The conflict over legal and traditional power therefore was not clearly resolved because there were no clashes.

In addition, there was the arrest of political prisoners. These were a pro-monarchy group during P. Phibunsongkhram’s term who were placed on Ko Tarutao. After World War II ended, it was clear that Khana Ratsadon’s military faction lost because they had allied themselves with Japan while the pro-monarchy group were still the political prisoners that were arrested earlier, so only the civilian faction, which is Pridi, was left. He desired national reconciliation; solutions, not vengeance.

After being occupied by Japan for 3-4 years, we changed from a country that lost the war to one that won through diplomatic methods, so all political prisoners and prisoners of war were amnestied. The monarchists and former prisoners of war joined hands to seize power from Pridi in 1947. Eventually, only the monarchists, P. Phibunsongkhram and the Democrat Party established by the monarchists were left.

By 1957, a new generation of soldiers, who had grown up under a military system, a true warrior system, with no influence from the ideas of Khana Ratsadon, led a revival of royal traditions and royal power. The role and status of the monarchical prestige has lasted from then on.

Article 112: hiding the sky with one’s hands: creating a thought vacuum

Wad stated that the main theme he would speak on was what resulted from seizing power from the king, and how did it end. The change in the system of government in 1932 did not happen in a few days or a few months, but there was continuous opposition from the monarchist side until the eventual amnesty and reconciliation; the monarchist side returned to power and overthrew Khana Ratsadon.

However a topic that is not often spoken of was that Khana Ratsadon lacked unity. It was divided into factions between P. Phibunsongkhram and Pridi. This situation appeared since the time of World War II when P. Phibunsongkhram lost power after Japan lost the war, causing the Pridi faction, which was the Free Thai movement, that was allied to the monarchists, to side with the Allied Powers and take power.

This is equivalent to the monarchist faction becoming stronger. After the death of King Rama VIII, the monarchist faction turned to attack Pridi until he had to flee the country, so P. Phibunsongkhram’s faction was able to come back into power again. P. Phibunsongkhram fought the monarchists until he was overthrown in 1957. All of this took 25 years since the coup in 1932 and the scene ended with the defeat of Khana Ratsadon.

Before this the topic of Khana Ratsadon has never come back as a topic in Thai politics, whether at the time of the 14 Oct incident, the 6 Oct incident or May 91-92. There was the revival of the importance of Khana Ratsadon aiming to restore Pridi’s honour, but it was done in a way that did not conflict with the royal institution.

Wad continued saying that in the early stages when Khana Ratsadon argued with King Rama VII, the two sides directly argued on the issues; their approach to the argument was the same, and they each knew what the other was thinking. The issue was how to deal with the power of the monarchy in the constitution. When we cut back to the situation before the crisis during Thaksin’s term, the political situation then did not have any concepts about the monarchy.

The focus of politics was on the military, police and politicians. Nobody saw the royal institution in the political system; nobody saw that they were related. There were words of Thaksin from long ago in an interview with foreign reporters that the king in his idea was like a god, not a person. The monarchy was not something with power in the political system, but was floating outside the system.

After the political crisis in 2006-2010, political paradigms that Thai people had recognized changed. People started to see a truth that they cannot go back and not see, no matter if they are conservatives or progressives. They can no longer look at politics and not see the issue of the monarchy any more. This is the issue that is a problem, because this is the difference from the time when Khana Ratsadon argued openly. Before the political crisis, they could not see, but once the crisis happened, they could see but could not express their thoughts.

Wad thought that the important returning issue of Khana Ratsadon was the problem of the power of the monarchy, where not only Article 112 of the Criminal Code violates human rights but the problem is that silencing people by using the law cannot change people’s thinking back to when they could not see this issue.

If there is no obstruction, the people who see the phenomenon will express themselves differently and when the reaction is apparent, a point is reached where their perception will change. They see the expression of opinion of other people, and arguments will occur and perception will be adjusted. This shows people the boundaries of the issue, without being confused about what the issue is about.

But when there are efforts to change people’s perceptions, political management with the power of the monarchy as its centre becomes impossible. Each person keeps their thoughts inside their heads and it becomes a case of guessing what each person, each side is thinking. When thoughts are imprisoned, thoughts do not get established, turmoil arises from being prohibited.

But prohibition can’t be complete because thoughts spread in the era of the internet. But there are people who cannot access the internet who listen only to the NCPO at home. Therefore a vacuum is caused in society by obstruction, there is a lack of common ideas, and consensus in society is not created. Consensus cannot be created if people cannot express the ideas in their heads. The solution is to adjust people’s perceptions so that they are at the same level.

 II - The revolution ends but the fight does not

Fruits of the 1932 revolution

Somyot stated that today he came with a police car leading him. He considered it was a great honour for the police officers show respect to him by asking him for details and asking about certain matters that are inappropriate to be speaking about. The issue they asked him to not talk about was the disappearance of the Khana Ratsadon plaque. He himself was afraid of offending and scared. He personally didn’t know about this matter because when the plaque disappeared he was in the Bangkok Remand Prison so he probably wouldn’t be able to talk as much as the other speakers.

Somyot continued saying that the 1932 revolution brought about a new era of civilisation to Thai society with, for example, compulsory education and Thammasat University which later on became an institution that produced politicians. It is a shame that these politicians did not inherit the intentions of 1932, so there are politicians who betrayed the democratic system. The people also have freedom where they could open their eyes and mouths at times even if freedom was decaying. The lèse majesté law was changed from 7 years’ imprisonment to 15 years. The sentence was increased when people were slaughtered on 6 Oct 1976. Nevertheless, the 1932 revolution gave the people freedom and the people are still fighting for freedom to this day.

Somyot said that there were some mistakes in the 1932 revolution. One of the mistakes was that Khana Ratsadon was able to create change at the level of power mechanisms by transferring power from the absolute monarchy to Khana Ratsadon, but they did not have a new ideology to replace the absolute monarchy and did not fully exterminate the entire system, so conservatism still persists today. The weeds of dictatorship are still present and have been developed to blossom today. At the same time, the branches of Khana Ratsadon were pruned until there were none left when Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat took power, and in that period the Thai National Day was changed from the original 24 June to 5 December.

The former editor of Voice of Taksin stated that at present there are still descendants of Khana Ratsadon. When news of the missing plaque came out, there was also news that the descendants of Khana Ratsadon went to ask about it. It’s clear that blood relations have disappeared since many descendants did not inherit Khana Ratsadon’s intentions but history isn’t discontinued or erased so easily. The 1932 revolution did not happen in isolation, but was the result of previous efforts to revolutionise Thailand, or what was called the rebellion of 130 Rattanakosin Era during King Rama VI’s reign when a group of military soldiers were ready to overthrow the government into a republican system but it wasn’t successful as their secret was leaked. King Rama VI suppressed the rebels; some instigators were sentenced to death, some were imprisoned, but in the end those people were released when the 1932 revolution occurred.

Somyot said that the disappearance of the plaque is nothing new because there have always been attempts to destroy the symbols of the 1932 revolution all the time, including the misrepresentation of the history of 1932 as premature where the revolution went ahead even though King Rama VII was getting ready to bestow democracy. The historical perception of the 1932 revolution has been limited. The date of the national day has been changed and Khana Ratsadon architecture. such as the Supreme Court building, has been destroyed. The Khana Ratsadon plaque is only one of the memories of the 1932 revolution but the phenomenon we see in the present is that the more that is destroyed, the more appears – people who want an election appear.

“I really feel sorry for Thailand because we shouldn’t be talking about an outsider Prime Minister for a long time already, because of Black May when people fought each other and were injured and died protesting against an outsider Primer Minister. What hurts is that they still want a Prime Minister with a … brain like Prayuth, I don’t understand what in history they are confused about. We lost lives on 14 Oct, in Black May, and we still need people who want an election like Bow, Rome, Niw, to speak of one right one vote, equality, elections. We shouldn’t be talking about this anymore, we should have gone further than this, but it can be considered as some colour for politics that doesn’t allow our country to be governed only by someone like Prayuth,” Somyot said.

Somyot also added that the next 10 years should be a period of excitement since he found that there are components that will cause a great political change, because the economy is very bad. The situation is that poverty and debt are rampant, and milking taxes by the Prayuth government, which does not really know how to work, is not able to develop the economy but instead uses money lavishly.

Not long ago, the 24 June group made three requests to Government House. One, to oppose the use of oil excise tax which is one of the factors that makes oil more expensive than in all our neighbouring countries. Two, to oppose the increase in VAT which could become 9%. And three, to cancel the extravagant use of money on weapons, munitions and increased salaries for their cronies.

As for the missing plaque, Somyot said that its disappearance today is alright. When one day we have democracy, and a government, we can install a new one. At least it can be an ideological symbol of democracy and Khana Ratsadon.

1932 revolution through past and present lenses

Chaiyan said that 4 years after the 2014 coup d’état there is one advantage. In the past, the side that obstructs democracy will talk in their homes or inside the military but this time they came out into the streets. This is the first phenomenon in Thai society that shows us which side doesn’t want democracy.

Many people criticise the 1932 revolution. Chaiyan doesn’t agree with the idea of failure, giving the analogy with football, where there is no one who wins and always continues to win. The other side needs to carry on the fight. The political game is something that continues on forever. Khana Ratsadon scored a goal in 1932 but has been counterattacked continuously. The important thing isn’t that the other side can counterattack and it does not mean they will win all the time either.

Chaiyan also indicated that understanding the 1932 revolution must stem from understanding both the past and present. One must suppose that the 1932 revolution is placed in the centre and go back and forward for 86 years before giving a meaning to the 1932 revolution. For example, if someone who dislikes politicians looks at the 1932 revolution, they would say it was the starting point of bad politicians, and view Khana Ratsadon as those who interrupted living conditions that they think were once good.

When King Rama VII abdicated the throne, His Majesty wrote “I am willing to surrender the powers I formerly exercised to the people as a whole, but I am not willing to turn them all over to any individual or any group, especially to use them in an autocratic manner and without heeding the real voice of the people” (Source: nationtv). Think about it. If we rewind from the 1932 revolution for 80 years, i.e. 1852-1932, which starts in the reign of King Rama IV, and asked if there were any governing system that truly listens to the voice of the people, there would be none. This means King Rama VII speaking like this is to make something that has never existed into a new normal (an abnormal normal).

The words new normal are something important if one were to speak about 1932 since it is a great change in thinking. It places the topic of democracy on the table, establishes democracy in our heads. When we see it we cannot return to not seeing it again. Even a dictator or someone who doesn’t want to have an election still speaks of democracy. Having the law, a state of law and the rule of law is considered as marking a new point for people’s thinking.

The issue that Khana Ratsadon brought up is that they wanted to change the people running the state, change the paradigm and importantly, the direction. This was the question and great effort to change. Some historians and some activists after 14 Oct still attack 1932, attack Khana Ratsadon, which they can criticise, and we should criticise Khana Ratsadon, but the point is whether we have continued what Khana Ratsadon started or not. Soon after 14 Oct, Pridi was invited to speak at Thai student associations in various countries. There is one book in which Pridi wrote ‘protect democracy’. At that time Chaiyan didn’t understand the words ‘protect democracy’, but later on understood them when 6 Oct occurred. That is, when you win, also keep it safe.

---