Thai media accounts of the accession of Rama X to the throne

In the early days of the new reign, the Thai press repeatedly emphasised King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s close relationship to and approval by his late father, publishing accounts that stressed continuity between father and son, in which the new king is reflected in the charismatic aura of his late father. Much press coverage represented the new monarch as the loyal and grateful son of his father, with King Maha Vajiralongkorn reported as ascending the throne in order to honour King Bhumibol’s wishes and to continue his legacy. 

The majority of outlets reported that the new king’s first words upon accepting the invitation to accede to the throne were, “I accept in order to fulfil His Majesty’s wishes”. The message that the new king had assumed the throne at the behest of his respected father was further emphasised in a simple two-word page 1 banner headline of the Bangkok Post, “Grateful King”, published on 2 December 2016, the morning after King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s accession. The English term ‘grateful’ here translates a Buddhist term from the Thai expression luk katanyu, which denotes a child who shows ‘respectful gratitude’ to his or her parents. The suggestion was that King Maha Vajiralongkorn had become king out of an ethical obligation to his father. The Thai Buddhist notion of ‘gratitude’ to one’s parents differs from the Confucian notion of ‘filial piety’ in that Thai custom emphasises respect for one’s immediate parents rather than one’s patrilineal ancestors. Also, in Thailand the attitude of katanyu or respectful gratitude emphasises the honouring of one’s mother as well as one’s father. Nevertheless, like the Confucian notion, the Thai cultural value implies a profound lifelong moral obligation to one’s parents and the description of King Maha Vajiralongkorn as a ‘grateful king’ yet again represented his reign as being in continuity with that of his father.

The image of the late King Bhumibol as the ‘royal father’ (phor luang) of both the Thai nation and the new king has also been emphasised in the press. There is a long history of Thai kings being represented as the ‘fathers’ of the nation and its people, and in the final decades of his reign King Bhumibol was increasingly referred to in public discourse simply as Phor, or ‘Dad’ in English. On the occasion of what would have been King Bhumibol’s 88th birthday on 5 December 2016, the Thai-language daily Matichon headed an article on his legacy, “The Royal Father of all Thais: The Royal Father of King Rama 10”.  This item used the Thai term ‘father’ (phor) to suggest a common paternity between the new king, Rama X, and the mass of the Thai people. The article represented the late King Bhumibol as the symbolic father of the Thai people and Thai nation just as he was also the biological father of King Maha Vajiralongkorn. This placed both the new king and the people of Thailand in a parallel situation of all being the ‘children’ of the late king and hence, according to Thai Buddhist custom, as being ethically obliged to demonstrate gratitude (khwamkatanyu) and show respect (khwamnapthue) for their deceased ‘royal father’ and his wishes.

When the Thai press represents the new king as his own man, rather than as the son of his father, the overwhelmingly dominant images are of him as a military man. The Thai press has also widely reported the new king’s active service in supporting the Royal Thai Army in campaigns against Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) insurgents in the 1970s. These reports represent the new king as a guardian of national security who has undergone a trial by fire in defence of the nation. While the Cold War ended and the CPT ceased activities over two decades ago, images of anti-communist operations from the 1970s still have political valence, reflecting the continuing role of anti-insurgency thinking against often-unnamed ‘enemies’ of the nation in the military’s approach to politics to this day.

Despite many revisions of the Thai constitution under a succession of military and civilian governments since the overthrow of the absolute monarchy in June 1932, the provision that the Thai monarch should be Buddhist remains unchanged. In the days after he ascended the throne, the Thai press stressed King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s religious affiliation as a faithful supporter of Buddhism, publishing many photos of him when, in November 1978, he followed Thai custom and ordained for a period as a Buddhist monk. Faithful following of Buddhist ethical and ritual practices is regarded as the foundation of the charismatic authority of a Thai king’s legitimate and righteous rule. In contrast to some international reportage that has focused on the new king’s private life of several marriages and absences from Thailand on unofficial overseas trips, the Thai press has consistently emphasised his qualities as a man who is qualified, equipped and fit to rule.

If recent media trends persist, we can expect continuing reference to the heritage of King Bhumibol as justification for political actions and policies. We can also expect relations between the monarchy and the military to continue to have a major, if not defining, role in Thai affairs into at least the medium term. However, while monarchy-military relations are likely to remain close, the new king has moved quickly to assert a degree of independence that indicates he is unlikely to accept a subordinate role. He has shown an ability not to follow expected political scripts.

Peter A. Jackson, Emeritus Professor, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Australia (peter.jackson@anu.edu.au).