It blows my mind that someone could reign from just after WWII until this year.
I hope that Thailand will stay stable. Support of the King has been key to successful military coups and transitions. The Crown Prince is much less admired, and quite odd:
"The 63-year-old crown prince, Vajiralongkorn (pictured), is spoilt and demanding, and—to put it mildly—widely loathed. Three times divorced, he spends a lot of time abroad, often in Germany. In 2007 leaked video footage showed him and his then-consort, who was wearing nothing but a G-string and heels, holding a lavish royal party. The only guest appeared to be Foo Foo, his poodle, which before dying in 2015 enjoyed the rank of air chief marshal."
Unsurprisingly there is no byline on that article.
For those unaware, it has been illegal to defame or insult the monarchy for the last 100 years or so under the country's Lèse majesté law, widely used to silence critics.
Some notable cases from Wikipedia [1]:
2008, Harry Nicolaides from Melbourne, Australia - Wrote an offending passage in his self-published book Verisimilitude. The book, which sold a mere 7 copies, mentioned the "romantic entanglements and intrigues" of royalty. He was arrested upon arriving at Bangkok's international airport[56] and charged with lèse majesté. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail but then pardoned by the king after spending a month in jail, released, and deported.
2012, Ampon Tangnoppakul, He was accused of sending four Short Message Service (SMS) messages from his cell phones. The messages were deemed offensive to the King and Queen of Thailand. He had been denied bail on 8 occasions and died in a prison hospital at the age of 61 while serving a 20–year prison sentence.
2013, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk - Sentenced to ten years in prison, convicted of publishing two articles under a pseudonym that made negative references to the crown in his now-defunct magazine Voice of Taksin.
2015, Thanakorn Siripaiboon, Thai factory worker - He had been detained on 8 December 2015 and had been kept in an undisclosed location prompting fears of his forced disappearance. He faces multiple charges including that of insulting the king's adopted dog Tongdaeng. Thai military junta did not detail the precise insult made towards the animal. He faced up to 37 years in prison. He was granted bail on 8 March 2016; the bail was set at half a million baht
Not being Thai, I won't comment on his effectiveness and I mourn anyone's passing. But it would seem like it's a lot easier to be 'widely loved' when you make it illegal to feel or communicate anything negative.
Laws preventing criticism don't generally motivate people to hang pictures of the king in their homes.
A more plausible cynical position would argue that the widespread development projects funded by revenue from the king's vast royal fortune bought the affection.
But the Thai people seem to generally respect, even revere King Bhumibol, feeling that he sincerely cared for the well-being of his people.
And that may be. My point is that a lack of access to a free, balanced-on-net press can influence opinion heavily. Which is why seizing the radio / television station is always a Day 1 priority for any successful coup.
>Laws preventing criticism don't generally motivate people to hang pictures of the king in their homes.
obviously you never been/read about central Europe during Soviet occupation (1949-1991), Stalin pictures/busts everywhere, people cried on the streets when he died. In Poland we had _mandatory_ 'work holiday' celebrations on 1 of may. People would march on the streets holding Stalin pictures and chanting "Stalin! Peace! Party! Comecon (Eastern Bloc version of EU) makes us stronger!" and other nonsense while being observed by secret police and party monitors.
Stalin picture was a standard wall ornament in every living room and classroom.
Double-posting a comment from farther down: The Crown Prince isn't nearly as popular, despite the same lèse-majesté laws applying to discussion of him.
The reverence that Thai people have for this King is no joking matter. They take their monarch deadly seriously and it seems fair to let them honor the King as they see fit without a lot of outsiders casually weighing in with half-baked opinions.
Many of us don't limit ourselves based on how seriously others take things, and we don't really have or need a reason. It's just as fair as considering royalty to be sacred.
I don't have a high regard for monarchies in general. I'll talk all day about what an insulting waste of time and money the U.K. monarchy is. It's not about your freedom to say what you want -- it's about respecting the views of others and acknowledging that your casual opinion might be very hurtful to other people who are free to hold their own views.
I'm American and there are people from all over the world casually weighing in about America on HN. That's totally OK. Let's not have a double standard and let's be free to have opinions about other peoples' royals.
False equivalence. The Thai monarchy and lèse-majesté have far less impact on the global scene than most of the things about the US about which people are weighing in. Someone being prosecuted for stepping on Thai currency is small potatoes compared to ... say, a Trump White House. Or, you know, invasions under false pretenses.
Please do both of us a favor and never reply to me again. Given every exchange we've ever had, it's clear we see the world from such fundamentally incompatible premises that dialog is not possible. That being the case, any further engagement is clearly meant to antagonize.
I'm not overfond of ill-considered opinions about the US expressed by those who know little of our country. But I also recognize the reality that the actions of the US are a matter of considerable concern for people who live elsewhere, because we tend to act in ways that reverberate across the planet. The same isn't really true of Thailand, so I don't think the concept of "double standard" applies here.
No. We need to mind our business and not everyone else's. Part of that is not talking nonsense about the system of rule employed by a sovereign nation other than our own - a system of rule with which we have no experience, of which we have no understanding, and against which our national mythos gives us by default to hold a certain degree of prejudice which hampers understanding instead of aiding it.
No one is curtailing your right to say what you want. My original point was to educate people about how deeply Thai people feel about their King. It's not just the threat of prison time at work--it's serious business in that part of the world and if you're not a troll, you may want to play nice with people.
To frame things in a UK context, which seems more similar to the Thailand situation then the USA.
The monarchy is (almost) completely separate from the political system. While many people might debate the pros and cons of the Conservatives versus Labour, UKIP or liberal democrats, very few question the role of Queen Elizabeth II.
In the UK, the monarch has the the right to veto legislation passed through the parliament but this right is rarely exercised. This is quite different to the US system where the president is ultimately in charge and has to fight for re-election every few years.
It sounds like the monarchy in Thailand has strived to maintain stability for the people in spite of an unstable political environment. This might explain why the people continue to believe in the monarchy in Thailand in a way which seems alien to anyone in the USA.
Not insulting the king while in Thailand or on Thai sites sounds fair enough, but it shouldn't apply to those of us in the rest of the world. Just as US laws and norms shouldn't apply outside of the US, Thai norms and laws should not apply outside of Thailand.
Now, there's nobody with moral authority to mediate between clashing factions.
Previously, the king could just say "Guys, stop killing each other and cut it out" and they'd actually listen. The crown prince has no such power and influence over the country. Will be interesting to see who rushes in to grab influence.
According to the FT ("King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, 1927-2016"):
"Bhumibol Adulyadej ... chose not to condemn the 1976 massacre at Bangkok's Thammasat University of dozens of pro-democracy protesters ..."
Time Magazine: "Thailand Bids Farewell to Beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej", regarding said events:
In early October of that year, demonstrations convulsed Bangkok in response to the arrest of prominent student activists. The crowd swelled to around 400,000, including many members of the public, owing to the military’s heavy-handed response that resulted in at least 100 civilian deaths. Bhumibol intervened, ordering the doors of Chitrlada Palace opened to provide the students refuge, and persuaded Thanom and his cohorts to go into temporary exile.
In September 1976, Bhumibol allowed Thanom to return to Thailand, even visiting him with Sirikit in Wat Bovornives — the Chakri dynasty’s personal temple — where he had ordained as a monk. Thousands of furious students gathered inside Thammasat University to oppose Thanom’s return. On Oct. 5, spurred on by radio broadcasts accusing the students of threatening the crown prince and communism, thousands of royalist paramilitaries massed outside the campus.
The killing began the following dawn. First, a rocket-propelled bomb was fired into the throng of students, reportedly killing four and injuring dozens. Military weapons wreaked a heavy toll until around 9 a.m., and at least two students were dragged out, tortured and lynched. Three others were seen dumped on tires, drenched in petrol and burned alive. A junta headed by the Defense Minister, Admiral Sa-ngad Chaloryu, seized power immediately after the massacre. Another flirtation with democracy had been crushed.
"New photos of 6 Oct 1976 massacre emerge" (NSFW, but apparently safe enough for the U.S. to consider Thailand among its staunchest asian allies for the past several decades):
Thailand has cycled between elected government and military dictatorship something like 15 times while he was King, the miracle is he didn't have an outright civil war during his reign. If you've ever visited Thailand, you'd know that compared to surrounding countries (with the exception of Malysia perhaps) the level of infrastructure and standard of living is much higher in Thailand, things generally work there whereas in neighbouring countries like Cambodia/Laos/Burma they generally don't, or at least they haven't until very recently.
To at least my outside perspective, The King seems to have been a stabilising force which prevented Thailand from descending into outright civil war.
And I can't help but feel that somehow insinuating that America shouldn't consider Thailand an ally after the events you listed is a bit ridiculous considering the year before they occured the US was still in Vietnam fighting a war with allies who were torturing and killing a damned site more people than what was happening in Thailand around the same time.
Cambodia had a monarchy and stability (relative to its neighbors), but Sihanouk refused US requests to get involved in the Vietnam war, so the US began a campaign to destabilize the country, eventually replacing Sihanouk with a puppet government under Lon Nol when Sihanouk was out of the country.
I'm coming from a country where the military don't fire on the population at all, and are never called in to keep the peace... so the comparison is not so far different as you might think. Even if our military were called in to keep the peace, firing into the air to scare protesters (a college student protest at that!) into submission is something that would be abhorrent here.
So yes, Kent State was a mistake born from confusion, but there's still similarities in using the military and live rounds to control the population.
Or perhaps a different moral standpoint: in the same era, look at how the US military treated the very Vietnamese civilians that they were explicitly there to protect. I'm not saying the US is an autocratic junta, I'm just saying the glass houses/stones thing - how can the US be a staunch ally of such a place? Well, because the US is often A-OK with those kind of actions.
N.B. gov.uk has updated its official travel advice (it's always useful check this before travelling, especially if you're UK-based) [1]
"...there is now an official period of mourning of one year from 14 October 2016; you should respect the feelings and sensitivities of the Thai people at this time; access to entertainment, including restaurants, bars, and shopping areas may be restricted and you should behave respectfully when in public areas; if possible, wear sombre and respectful clothing when in public; check local media regularly and follow the advice of the local authorities"
RIP. His daughter became the patron of the World Sanskrit Conference, when the Indian state itself considered Sanskrit far too dead to be worth funding.
(The whole new-age wave in the West seems to have brought a change of heart to "wannabe Brittania".Indic languages are generally entropically dead to be fair.)
His daughter dated my roommate in college. I always thought he was just making it up. She was a very attractive, nice, intelligent woman (they met in Physics class at MIT), but I never believed that she was from the ruling family of Thailand. She never mentioned that her father was a king and never acted any different than the rest of us commoners.
One summer, I read about their wedding in the paper. He wasn't BSing me after all!
It's relatively easy to be considered nice when there are strict laws forbidding anyone from saying anything to the contrary.
Given media control in Thailand, there's no doubt plenty of incentive leading those in the media to go out of their way to praise the royal family (deserved or not).
Sure, just like the rest of the commoners - except for vast wealth (King's wealth est. at $30 billion in 2011, by Forbes) - and except for some hilarious and ridiculous lese majeste laws that they love to enforce:
Indeed. I did some sailboat cruising there this past February and it is a fabulous place (at least the coast is). As I met and talked to the locals I was surprised at how much people loved their king. When I would ask if their king was fair or their government responsive, not only would they answer positively but their faces would light up. They seemed to be genuinely happy with their government.
Then I found out about these laws. I'm no terrific judge of phoniness, but it seems to me that they are either well practiced at these responses or they are pretty happy with things.
My SO spent a decent amount of time studying in Chiang Mai (she was in Bangkok at the start of the most recent coup), but take this with a a healthy amount of skepticism.
She said many of the Thai people she met wouldn't say negative things about the government (and especially the king) out of fear, likely due to lèse majesté laws.
She said she also noticed strong peer pressure to maintain that status quo. You don't want your neighbor thinking you don't love the king do you?
I have no doubt that many or most do actually love their former king.
The problem is that it's probably not well-founded, given the laws you mentioned ensure virtually all media coverage of the king & royals is never less than glowing.
(Analogy coming to mind is North Koreans shedding true tears for their former leader.)
There's a pretty substantial difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional one (which Thailand is). Just ask the Dutch how they feel about it, for example.
Monarchies are not necessarily bad, and the kind of shallow, absolutist thinking displayed here contributes nothing to the discussion.
What do you mean by constitutional? The are two types: Inherited monarchy and "elected". In the last, the election is from a specific group of people and the monarch is not chosen by Public vote. Nobody should have privileges above others and the power to constitutionally influence their lives just because they happened to be born in a "royal family".
Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down voted.
Seriously, if you don't know (or can't do the research to figure out) the difference between a constitutional monarchy and the other kinds, you really don't have a lot of basis to be weighing in, IMO.
Again, look at how the Dutch do it. As with so many other things in this world, they get it pretty damned right.
From wikipedia:
> The monarchy of the Netherlands passes by right of succession to the heirs of William I.[Cons 1] The heir is determined through two mechanisms: absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity of blood.
Again, what are you talking about mate? The fact that their country is doing well doesn't mean it's ok to decide on the lives of people just because you're the son of a monarch. There could be a lot of people more prepare and that could do better.
Consider that people instinctively believe that the top of the government -- or at least the head of their tribe -- is more or less blameless. ("The good Tsar" and all that.) With a king or queen with limited powers, that halo lands somewhere where it can't do much harm; the head of state has limited powers, and the head of government (Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc.) can be justly evaluated, and despised if necessary. But if you have a president, dictator, unconstitutional monarch, or the like, the halo attaches to them, and it can do a lot of damage; have you tried talking with a devout Republican about Guantanamo Bay lately?
I'm in Thailand at the moment and I'm interested to see how this plays out. This guy is super popular. His picture is on the wall in every business and many homes. Not out of compulsion. They just love the king. I'm sure most places will close for mourning.
We have been advised to take out lots of cash and get food sorted as we may not have access for a little while.
The bigger question is what is going to happen with the junta now?
And a popular policy for the ruling class at that. I'd imagine it'd be tough for the king to change that law. He spoke out against it previously in 2005 but only to say that "the king can be wrong".. therefore people can say he is wrong in public. It's still being enforced often despite that comment.
Thailand in a sense is a very divided country, the one thing that the majorities on either sides could agree on was their respect for the king. They called him a "stabilising force" for precisely that reason, the huge majority of Thai's genuinely loved and respected the man if for no other reason than he was a public figure who'd been around before most of them were born and whom was mostly above the kind of day to day dirty politics that lead Thailand to be in an endless cycle of elected government followed by coup.
This is all just based on my personal experience talking to people.
I started asking about him because the pictures were everywhere. Maybe I was fooled but it sure seemed like they liked him and had good things to say. Not that they were fearfully trying to avoid speaking ill of the king.
Is there a law requiring them to hang his picture? I don't think I've been in a single thai owned business that didn't have him hanging on the wall.
You grow up in a nation where from childbirth you're taught its taboo to criticize the ruler - that's consistent with everybody having good things to say; everybody hanging the picture. It becomes second nature.
I feel the same way and made the comment up-thread. I was only visiting for ten days though. Coming from the US it's hard to imagine any current ruler being as well liked as this guy.
> Thailand is a unique society in the modern world: a Theravada Buddhist monarchy with a parliamentary system. The clarinet-playing king, believed to be a living incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, presides via lèse majesté laws over a hedonistic and technology-obsessed Asian Tiger economy, centered in one of the most sophisticated urban cultures on earth. No one has ever been able to understand how it all holds together.
The mystery behind that last sentence may just about to be revealed.
75 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadI hope that Thailand will stay stable. Support of the King has been key to successful military coups and transitions. The Crown Prince is much less admired, and quite odd:
"The 63-year-old crown prince, Vajiralongkorn (pictured), is spoilt and demanding, and—to put it mildly—widely loathed. Three times divorced, he spends a lot of time abroad, often in Germany. In 2007 leaked video footage showed him and his then-consort, who was wearing nothing but a G-string and heels, holding a lavish royal party. The only guest appeared to be Foo Foo, his poodle, which before dying in 2015 enjoyed the rank of air chief marshal."
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21702497-after-ailing-mon...
For those unaware, it has been illegal to defame or insult the monarchy for the last 100 years or so under the country's Lèse majesté law, widely used to silence critics.
Some notable cases from Wikipedia [1]:
2008, Harry Nicolaides from Melbourne, Australia - Wrote an offending passage in his self-published book Verisimilitude. The book, which sold a mere 7 copies, mentioned the "romantic entanglements and intrigues" of royalty. He was arrested upon arriving at Bangkok's international airport[56] and charged with lèse majesté. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail but then pardoned by the king after spending a month in jail, released, and deported.
2012, Ampon Tangnoppakul, He was accused of sending four Short Message Service (SMS) messages from his cell phones. The messages were deemed offensive to the King and Queen of Thailand. He had been denied bail on 8 occasions and died in a prison hospital at the age of 61 while serving a 20–year prison sentence.
2013, Somyot Prueksakasemsuk - Sentenced to ten years in prison, convicted of publishing two articles under a pseudonym that made negative references to the crown in his now-defunct magazine Voice of Taksin.
2015, Thanakorn Siripaiboon, Thai factory worker - He had been detained on 8 December 2015 and had been kept in an undisclosed location prompting fears of his forced disappearance. He faces multiple charges including that of insulting the king's adopted dog Tongdaeng. Thai military junta did not detail the precise insult made towards the animal. He faced up to 37 years in prison. He was granted bail on 8 March 2016; the bail was set at half a million baht
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
A more plausible cynical position would argue that the widespread development projects funded by revenue from the king's vast royal fortune bought the affection.
But the Thai people seem to generally respect, even revere King Bhumibol, feeling that he sincerely cared for the well-being of his people.
obviously you never been/read about central Europe during Soviet occupation (1949-1991), Stalin pictures/busts everywhere, people cried on the streets when he died. In Poland we had _mandatory_ 'work holiday' celebrations on 1 of may. People would march on the streets holding Stalin pictures and chanting "Stalin! Peace! Party! Comecon (Eastern Bloc version of EU) makes us stronger!" and other nonsense while being observed by secret police and party monitors.
Stalin picture was a standard wall ornament in every living room and classroom.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...
Queen Elizabeth of UK (and CANZ) has been ruling since 1952.
There are a ton of US news sources while there is less reporting on Thailand and it is hard to get nuance when you don't speak the language.
Even people who are native English speakers but are not from the US don't understand politics in the US.
The monarchy is (almost) completely separate from the political system. While many people might debate the pros and cons of the Conservatives versus Labour, UKIP or liberal democrats, very few question the role of Queen Elizabeth II.
In the UK, the monarch has the the right to veto legislation passed through the parliament but this right is rarely exercised. This is quite different to the US system where the president is ultimately in charge and has to fight for re-election every few years.
It sounds like the monarchy in Thailand has strived to maintain stability for the people in spite of an unstable political environment. This might explain why the people continue to believe in the monarchy in Thailand in a way which seems alien to anyone in the USA.
Well, unless you get pulled off a flight that turns out to connect through Thailand and go to jail.
Now, there's nobody with moral authority to mediate between clashing factions.
Previously, the king could just say "Guys, stop killing each other and cut it out" and they'd actually listen. The crown prince has no such power and influence over the country. Will be interesting to see who rushes in to grab influence.
"Bhumibol Adulyadej ... chose not to condemn the 1976 massacre at Bangkok's Thammasat University of dozens of pro-democracy protesters ..."
Time Magazine: "Thailand Bids Farewell to Beloved King Bhumibol Adulyadej", regarding said events:
In early October of that year, demonstrations convulsed Bangkok in response to the arrest of prominent student activists. The crowd swelled to around 400,000, including many members of the public, owing to the military’s heavy-handed response that resulted in at least 100 civilian deaths. Bhumibol intervened, ordering the doors of Chitrlada Palace opened to provide the students refuge, and persuaded Thanom and his cohorts to go into temporary exile.
In September 1976, Bhumibol allowed Thanom to return to Thailand, even visiting him with Sirikit in Wat Bovornives — the Chakri dynasty’s personal temple — where he had ordained as a monk. Thousands of furious students gathered inside Thammasat University to oppose Thanom’s return. On Oct. 5, spurred on by radio broadcasts accusing the students of threatening the crown prince and communism, thousands of royalist paramilitaries massed outside the campus.
The killing began the following dawn. First, a rocket-propelled bomb was fired into the throng of students, reportedly killing four and injuring dozens. Military weapons wreaked a heavy toll until around 9 a.m., and at least two students were dragged out, tortured and lynched. Three others were seen dumped on tires, drenched in petrol and burned alive. A junta headed by the Defense Minister, Admiral Sa-ngad Chaloryu, seized power immediately after the massacre. Another flirtation with democracy had been crushed.
"New photos of 6 Oct 1976 massacre emerge" (NSFW, but apparently safe enough for the U.S. to consider Thailand among its staunchest asian allies for the past several decades):
http://prachatai.com/english/node/2814
To at least my outside perspective, The King seems to have been a stabilising force which prevented Thailand from descending into outright civil war.
And I can't help but feel that somehow insinuating that America shouldn't consider Thailand an ally after the events you listed is a bit ridiculous considering the year before they occured the US was still in Vietnam fighting a war with allies who were torturing and killing a damned site more people than what was happening in Thailand around the same time.
Yeah, I can't imagine having B-52s unloading on Cambodia or Laos had anything to do with that. Clearly it's their lack of a monarchy.
Maybe the US found a friend, given that its military also killed college students in the same era; students using their democratic right to protest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
So yes, Kent State was a mistake born from confusion, but there's still similarities in using the military and live rounds to control the population.
Or perhaps a different moral standpoint: in the same era, look at how the US military treated the very Vietnamese civilians that they were explicitly there to protect. I'm not saying the US is an autocratic junta, I'm just saying the glass houses/stones thing - how can the US be a staunch ally of such a place? Well, because the US is often A-OK with those kind of actions.
"...there is now an official period of mourning of one year from 14 October 2016; you should respect the feelings and sensitivities of the Thai people at this time; access to entertainment, including restaurants, bars, and shopping areas may be restricted and you should behave respectfully when in public areas; if possible, wear sombre and respectful clothing when in public; check local media regularly and follow the advice of the local authorities"
[1] https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/thailand
(The whole new-age wave in the West seems to have brought a change of heart to "wannabe Brittania".Indic languages are generally entropically dead to be fair.)
One summer, I read about their wedding in the paper. He wasn't BSing me after all!
"While at MIT she first met Peter Ladd Jensen, whom she later married."
Given media control in Thailand, there's no doubt plenty of incentive leading those in the media to go out of their way to praise the royal family (deserved or not).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...
(also mentioned by ddeck here)
Then I found out about these laws. I'm no terrific judge of phoniness, but it seems to me that they are either well practiced at these responses or they are pretty happy with things.
She said many of the Thai people she met wouldn't say negative things about the government (and especially the king) out of fear, likely due to lèse majesté laws.
She said she also noticed strong peer pressure to maintain that status quo. You don't want your neighbor thinking you don't love the king do you?
The problem is that it's probably not well-founded, given the laws you mentioned ensure virtually all media coverage of the king & royals is never less than glowing.
(Analogy coming to mind is North Koreans shedding true tears for their former leader.)
Abolish monarchy!!!
Monarchies are not necessarily bad, and the kind of shallow, absolutist thinking displayed here contributes nothing to the discussion.
Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down voted.
Again, look at how the Dutch do it. As with so many other things in this world, they get it pretty damned right.
Again, what are you talking about mate? The fact that their country is doing well doesn't mean it's ok to decide on the lives of people just because you're the son of a monarch. There could be a lot of people more prepare and that could do better.
Thailand largely functions either as a parliamentary system or military junta, depending on the year.
We have been advised to take out lots of cash and get food sorted as we may not have access for a little while.
The bigger question is what is going to happen with the junta now?
Making it a crime to criticize the royal family with punishments up to 15 years tends to make it look like uncoerced love.
I started asking about him because the pictures were everywhere. Maybe I was fooled but it sure seemed like they liked him and had good things to say. Not that they were fearfully trying to avoid speaking ill of the king.
Is there a law requiring them to hang his picture? I don't think I've been in a single thai owned business that didn't have him hanging on the wall.
> Thailand is a unique society in the modern world: a Theravada Buddhist monarchy with a parliamentary system. The clarinet-playing king, believed to be a living incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, presides via lèse majesté laws over a hedonistic and technology-obsessed Asian Tiger economy, centered in one of the most sophisticated urban cultures on earth. No one has ever been able to understand how it all holds together.
The mystery behind that last sentence may just about to be revealed.