The death of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in December 1963 occurred at a particularly unfortunate time for Thailand and its Western allies because of the increasingly dangerous political situation prevailing in Southeast Asia. The Diem regime had been overthrown in Vietnam and the Viet-Cong were taking full advantage of the resulting confusion to press an offensive in the Mekong Delta. Neighboring Cambodia, which had broken relations with Thailand in 1961, appeared to be moving toward an accommodation with Peking; and in Laos, the civil war threatened to erupt again at any time. Burma was encountering increasing difficulties in preventing dissident elements and the students from plunging the country into chaos, and Thailand's partners in the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), Malaysia and the Philippines, were quarreling with each other and with Indonesia over rights to the North Borneo territories. Thus, the leader who had given the country both political and economic stability for over five years died after a short illness at a time when Thailand found itself surrounded by trouble and in great need of internal stability. For the West, the death of Marshal Sarit meant that the one country in Southeast Asia which seemed capable and determined to withstand the southward push of Chinese influence would enter a period of political uncertainty whose outcome was difficult to predict. Sarit was different in a number of important respects from other prime ministers that have ruled Thailand since the overthrow of absolute monarchy in 1932 and the inauguration of constitutional government for the first time. The three best known political figures-Pibun Songkhram, Pridi Panomyong and Khuang Apaiwong-were educated in France during the 1920s and were part of the small group of conspirators who planned the 1932 coup d'e'tat against the monarchy. Thereafter, each of these men became the leader of a political group or faction and played a prominent role in the politics of Thailand.' In contrast, Sarit received all his education in Thailand, was not a conspirator in the 1932 revolution, and was not the leader of any political group until after he ousted Pibun from the premiership in September 1957. Sarit's entire career had been spent in the Army, and there is little evidence that he aspired to the premiership until political events in 195758 forced him into a decision. Another, and perhaps the most important, difference between Sarit and his predecessors was that he made no pre-
Read full abstract