Regional Autonomy?

[ncr]

From the Letters Section (http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/14/letters/letters_30034140.php) of The Nation, 14 May 2007:

Autonomy needed for all the country's regions

Re: "Stop dreaming: you'll never win the hearts and minds of Muslims", Letters, May 13.

The letter is worrying because I suspect that the opinions expressed by the writer concerning the southern insurrection are widely held by Thais in general. The writer contends that there are two choices facing Thailand. It can give up territory in the South and run the risk of facing similar claims for autonomy from people in other parts of the country, or, to put it bluntly, it can engage in ethnic cleansing in the South.

Let us put aside the idea of ethnic cleansing as being too morally repugnant to consider and concentrate on the other contention. I agree with the writer's suggestion that there are people in other parts of the country who are dissatisfied with the rule of the Bangkok powers and desire some measure of autonomy in running their own affairs, but it does not follow that this will lead to the disintegration of the country.

For most of the time since the overthrow of the absolute monarchy, the country has been ruled by a series of illegitimate governments, drawn from a small Bangkok "elite", who have ruled the country for their own benefit, at the expense of the majority of Thais. Despite depriving Thai people of adequate education and access to information, many of them are starting to realise what is being done to them and are demanding change.

The reason that the Bangkok powers cling to central control is not because local autonomy would weaken the country but because it would weaken this tiny elite's grip on power. In fact, granting local autonomy to all the regions of the country is what will save Thailand, because if power is not ceded to the people, just like the people of the South, they will rise up and seize that power.

Dom Dunn
London


I'd say I fully agree with the author.

[Wisarut]

Better revive "Monthon" (Circle - a group of provinces) whcih was a creation of Prince Damrong to meet local people's demand ... Monthon was run by "Khalaung Thesaphiban" (High Commissioner General) ... He could declare State of Emeregency and Emergency Military Drafting within his own Monthon for this matter withotu askign permission from the central government.

Monthon system had been abolished by The Administration of Siamese Kingdom Act of BE 2477 ... as a punishment to thsoe High Commissioner General who jointed the Boworndej Coup .... and the groups of provinces were even weakened by the reguaiton of Field Marshall Plaek in 1956 whcih reduced Inspectors (the successors of High Comissioner General) ... into figureheads ... no longer had ANY real power to go AGAINST the central government

[Wisarut]

BTW, ther were used to be 21 Monthon in Siam .... includign Monthon Krungthep (Greater Bangkok) ....

As far as I remember abtou 21 Monthon, I could list them as follows:

1) Monthon Krungthep (Greater Bangkok - coivering Phra Nakhon (Eastern BKK), Thonburi (Western BKK), Nonthaburi, Minburi, Samut Prakarn, Samut Sakhon, Pra Padaeng)

2) Monthon Krungkao (Ayuthaya, Pathumthani, Thanyaburi, Lopburi, Saraburi, Ang Thong, Singhburi, Phrom Buri)

3) Monthon Prachinburi (Prachinburi, Chachongsao, Chonburi, Kabinburi, Nakhon Nayok, Phanom Sarakham)

4) Monthon Chanthaburi (Rayong, Chanthaburi, Trat)

5) Monthon Nakhonchaisri (Suphanburi, Nakhon pathom, Samut Sakhon)

6) Monthon Rajburi (Rajburi, Kanchanaburi, Samut Songkram, Phetburi, Prachuab Khirikhan)

7) Monthon Chumporn (Chumporn, Lang Suan, Surat Thani [Chaiya, Kanchanadit, Ban Don])

8) Monthon Phuket (Phuket, Trang, Ranong, Takua Pah, Krabi, Phang Nga, Trang Satul)

9) Monthon Nakhon Srithammarat (Nakhon Srithammarat, Phatthalung, Songkla)

10) Monthon Pattani (Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, Saiburi)

11) Phetchabun (Phetchabun, Lomsak)

12) Nakhon Ratchasima (Khorat, Chaiyaphum, Buriram)

13) Monthon Ubonratchathani (Ubon Ratchathani, Sisaket, Surin, Khu khan)

14) Monthon Udornthani (Udornthani, Khonkaen, Nongkhai, Loei, Sakhon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom)

15) Monthon Phayap (Chiangmai, Mae Hongson, Lamphun)

16) Monthon Maharat (Lampang, Chiang Rai, Phrae, Nan, Phayao)

17) Monthon Roy Ed (Roy Ed, Mahasarakham, Kalasin)

18) Monthon Nakhon Sawan (Nakhon Sawan, Chai Nart, Tak, Uthai Thani, Kamphaeng Phet)

19) Monthon Phitsanuloke (Phitsanuloke, Uttaradit, Sukhothai, Sawankhaloke)

The other 2 Monthon is NO Longer become a part of Thailand ... Monthon Boorapha (Battambang, Siem Riep, Sisophon [Bantei Meanchei]) and Monthon Saiyaburi (Kedha, Pelis)

[Ahoerstemeier]

Monthon system had been abolished by The Administration of Siamese Kingdom Act of BE 2477 ... as a punishment to thsoe High Commissioner General who jointed the Boworndej Coup .... and the groups of provinces were even weakened by the reguaiton of Field Marshall Plaek in 1956 whcih reduced Inspectors (the successors of High Comissioner General) ... into figureheads ... no longer had ANY real power to go AGAINST the central government

Can you elaborate a bit more on the history of the monthon after 2477? I did not know there was something like a "group of provinces" to continue the monthon with less functions. Does it even have them right now? While researching for the Wikipedia article on Monthon I read the book by Tej Bunnag, but that one more-or-less stops with the resignation of Prince Damrong.

[Wisarut]

Between BE 2477 to 2499 (1934 - 1956), The subsittue of Monthon is Phak (region) run by governors of region .... Even though Governor of region could run day to day business within the region, they had NO power to draft the army or eve promotion and demotion of officers within the region. There wer 9 Phak (region) covering Thailand ...


However, Field marshall Palek had weaken the system by reduing the governor of region into just a groupd ofg inspectors whcih wer figurehead .... had NO power at all ....

For the case between teh resignation of Prince Damrong in 1915 to the mergign of Ministry if Local Administration (Krasuang nakhonbarn) in 1922, thsoe High Commissioner belogn to the King ... anf Kign Vajiravut had set up Upparat (Vice Roy) to control thsoe High Comissionerrr .... This had complicated the administration since King Vajiravut decided to Lower the power of Mahatthai (Ministry of Interior) through various scheme, the dacoits were runnign rampoage as a consequence ....

This has compeleld King Vajiravut to merge Ministry of Local Administration and Ministry Interior to reinvigorate Mahatthai .... and asking His Mentor (Chaoiphraya Yommaraj) which was runnign Ministry of Local Admnistration before to Rung the revitalized Mahatthai ....

Tghis has solved the proble,m somewhat ... However the insurrection at Monthon Pattani in 1922- 1923 had compelld Kign Vajiravut to askg those Muslim Officer to draft the codes for thsoe wh owere going to run the administration at Pattani circle includign the extra payment of Malayu language .... However, economicv hard time in 1930-31 had compelled the governemtn to abolish the extra pement of the foreign language in pattani Circle ...

[GWR]

Spotted this in Letters to the Editor in The Nation:

Regional autonomy might work, but beware corruption

After reading the letter from Dom Dunn ("Autonomy needed for all the country's regions", Letters, May 14), I would suggest that the government revive the monthon thesaphiban system [administrative system in which the country was subdivided into different areas, monthon, led by thesaphiban, royal commissioners] introduced in 1892 by Prince Damrong Rachanuphab and abolished by Ajarn Pridi Banomyong in 1934.

At least the thesaphiban would be able to declare a state of emergency and draft emergency legislation without requiring the assent of the central government. Furthermore, high commissioners would be able to oversee promotions and demotions at the provincial level without needing to ask the central government about these matters.

However, we better be prepared to handle the trouble created by the elected bodies because these organisation could magnify the greed of elected local scoundrels to the point where it would be on a par with that of the scoundrels in the central government.

Wisarut
Bangkok

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/16/letters/letters_30034331.php

[Wisarut]

The original content of my letter before being edited by The Nation will be as follows:

Dear editor,

After reading the letter from Mr. Dunn (Autonomy needed for all the country's regions - The Nation, May 14, 2007), I would tell Mr. Dunn that the government should revive Monthon Thasaphiban system created by Prince Damrong Rachanuphab in 1892 and abolished by Ajarn Pridi Banomyong in 1934.

At least, Khalaung Thesaphiban (High Commissioner - the head of Circle) could declare State of Emergency and make emergency drafting without asking the central government at all. Furthermore, the promotion and demotion at the level of proivinces can be done by the High Commissioners withotu askign Central government for these matters.

However, we better prepare to handle the troble with elected body (Monthon Administration Organization) if there were created at all because this organization could magnify the greed of elected local scorndrels to be at par with the scorndrels in Central government.

Wisarut