A beloved monarch is unique Thai culture

Cultural sensitivity is not an easy thing to preach. Most of the time, the concept clashes with another idealistic principle – “human rights”. Whenever a culture is threatened, breached, or is on the brink of being violated, “human rights” is often invoked, no matter how ironic it may be. Thailand, a Kingdom that profoundly reveres His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej and has some sensitive laws to guard him against insults, is often caught in the firing line between these two ideologies, which are supposed to be working hand in hand.
The national mourning in the wake of His Majesty’s passing has somehow subdued the issue. Even some Western TV networks have toned down their critical questioning of his influence. In fact, CNN has won plaudits. The outpouring of genuine grief and love undoubtedly has influenced the coverage, but the criticism of Thai laws would most likely resurface, sooner or later. The debate would include some additional dimensions because it has been confirmed beyond any doubt that the laws had nothing to do with how grim the country has been since October 13.
Are those laws part of the Thai culture? Different people will have different answers. One camp will insist that there is no other way for Thais to protect their good culture, such as His Majesty the King, without having such laws. The other camp cannot come to terms with such a logic, because it would otherwise signal too much of an ideological compromise.
Nowhere is the divide more obvious than in the comments section below a video clip. The footage shows a senior Thai official stating that every country protects its beloved leader with measures that are more or less stringent, questionable or controversial. “Don’t listen to people who don’t have a great thing to protect like we do,” he told reporters. “Tape this, because no matter how many times you ask me about the laws, this will always be my answer.” Some comments described him as a dinosaur but others considered him a hero.
Global brands like Fox News, Facebook, Google, LINE, Leicester City Football Club and Liverpool Football Club have shown some understanding of cultural sensitivity after October 13. Some did so at the expense of commercial revenue. What they got, though, is the respect of the Thai people who regarded the brands as acknowledging their true love for the monarch.
Western countries have also shown their respect, although some of them are still being looked at by Thais with critical and scrutinising eyes. Some Western embassies used to be vocal in criticising Thai laws. Certain diplomats even allegedly took sides in the Thai political conflict, despite the risk of such a flirtation raising questions about their attitude towards the monarch. It didn’t help that a well-publicised joke, or a report about foreign tourists having their fun spoiled by the national mourning, originated in countries that were always questioned by Thais when it came to His Majesty.
Since “human rights” can be associated with the right to protect one’s culture, this can make anyone preaching human rights without really appreciating exotic cultures a hypocrite. It can get worse if a legitimate culture is threatened by a business-induced political or diplomatic agenda backed by human rights claims that were not well thought-out.
It is undisputed that Thais’ love for His Majesty the King is a human right. Their attempt to protect him could be regarded as an attempt to protect a culture that is rare and worthwhile. To some, such an attempt may seem controversial. But there are others who don’t see anything wrong with it.