Andrew Biggs is no stranger to putting his foot in it, but he’s a little surprised diplomats are stirring things up that way.

Ambassadors assigned to the Land of Smiles have been stirring things up by saying things that don’t bring happiness to the men in uniform By Andrew Biggs

There is a Thai idiom that translated into English means “foot-stirring”. This is the act of deliberately provoking in an obnoxious manner. The Thai word is guan-teen but don’t go throwing that word around the beer bar just yet, dear reader.

Say it in the wrong tone to the wrong person and you may end up celebrating Christmas in Bamrungrat Hospital or, worse, Wat That Thong.

My graphic artist likes to use it on me when I allegedly make too many demands. He is allowed to; we have worked together for 25 years.

“You stir foot,” he says, to which I explain there is no equivalent idiom in English, and therefore his comment doesn’t have the desired effect of upsetting me. I fail to tell him that in fact we do have something similar, except the English version has a faecal substitute for the foot, but such information would only encourage him.

Who would have thought that in these dying days of 2015 we would be witness to a grand display of foot stirring, perhaps inadvertent but stirring nonetheless, that threatens to sour relations between two of Thailand’s greatest allies … and coming from the diplomatic community no less!

It was prominent 19th century British journalist Walter Bagehot who said that an ambassador “is not simply an agent; he is a spectacle”.

How relevant for us here and now, with the Bangkok diplomatic community doing all it can to make a spectacle of themselves. With their feet. In a stirring motion.

As I write this column the American ambassador is being threatened with a police investigation and the British ambassador is being accused of siding with anti-government renegades. The military government is reeling from their comments, and not just because they were in English.

Diplomats? Foot stirring? What an extraordinary, outrageous allegation, especially when you consider where Thailand sits on the international diplomatic map.

This is the dream post for diplomats. I have that straight from the horse’s mouth and that is all I am permitted to let on for diplomatic reasons. Thailand is a reward after a lengthy spell in the Middle East, for example. It’s the place you get sent to after being overlooked for that Swiss posting and instead ended up with two years in Sierra Leone, despite the generous face mask and hardship allowances.

Of course Thailand is a dream post. The Thais themselves are masters of diplomacy, so they are generally never keen to upset the international apple cart. Throw in great food, impeccable service and an easy-going lifestyle and you soon understand that if you have to perform on the international ambassadorial stage, you may as well do it in the Land of Smiles.

I have witnessed nine Australian ambassadors quietly move in and out of the Australian embassy residence on Sathon Road over the past 26 years. What a happy bunch they have been. They’ve all moved on to bigger and better things, with the exception of the one that caused an, ahem, diplomatic incident, but look, that was a long time ago and ambassadors are human too you know.

Any ambassador who ends up at the Australian embassy incites envoy envy among his peers scattered around the globe. It is an embassy that exudes happiness, starting with the happy and brightly-festooned security lady who frisks you down as you enter. She’s been there for years and why would she ever want to leave? The security doors are a little difficult to manoeuvre — apparently it’s a clandestine IQ test for visitors — but this is the Australian embassy remember, so things shouldn’t be completely sensible.

It is even a little glitzy; last year an Australian TV network made a reality show inside it, with the intensely original title Embassy, starring real-life consular staff as they dealt with misadventurous Australian tourists who definitely needed help with those doors.

The fact they allowed cameras in to make such a series shows how much fun the place is. It is not just the Australian embassy. It’s all of them. Bangkok is where you go to chill for a couple of years before returning to the real world, if indeed diplomacy acknowledges such a place. And it’s even better under military rule.

When the generals storm into power like they did here, diplomatic relations between Western democratic countries sour, albeit tacitly. That sounds ominous but it evokes an opposite feeling among the ambassadors of those countries; upon hearing the news some were known to jump up and down on the spot, clapping their hands vigorously.

That is because there will be no official visits from their own country’s politicians while the generals stay in power. The threat of a visiting prime minister or cabinet minister plummets; thus the most taxing tasks to get through on a daily basis are gallery openings and the Bangkok Post cryptic crossword.

I’d give anything to have a life like that. This is why the Bangkok diplomatic world is a quiet, happy one. Nobody would think to stir their feet.

And yet they did, according to the government.

Perhaps the cushiness of Bangkok life has given ambassadors too much of a good thing. Bangkok’s foreign ambassadors, fed up with swanning around Sathon on their best behaviour, have suddenly gone all vocal, and being vocal cannot be found anywhere on the job description of any ambassador.

It is improbable to think that the American ambassador didn’t think his comments on lese majeste laws would go unreported. The same could be said for the UK ambassador’s Twitter comment following the 200-strong protest outside the American embassy.

A lot of people jumped to the ambassadors’ defence, especially in the social media world, saying their comments were commonsensical. They missed the point; it is not the role of a diplomat to be commonsensical. Their job is to remain calm — and quiet — in the absence of common sense.

But boy are those two in trouble now. The police have launched an investigation into the American ambassador’s comments. The military is threatening to invite the UK ambassador to military headquarters for their famous “attitude adjustment”, normally reserved for red shirts, the media, students and other miscreants.

(Mark Kent isn’t the only one quaking in his boots. Spare a thought for the poor military interrogators and strong-armers, terrified over the prospect of having to attitude-adjust in English.)

Somebody — that horse’s mouth, actually, alluded to earlier — once told me there were no accidents in the diplomatic world. If that is the case, are the US and UK, rather than their envoys, now stirring their feet in Thailand?

This is new territory for everybody if they are. In the meantime the military government is at a loss as to what to do with these errant ambassadors. What if it’s a trend? Could Thailand become a hub for delinquent diplomats? What if everybody stops talking circles and starts calling spades a spade?

By the end of the week the military had no choice but to come out fighting with their own circular footwork. They had face to save, thanks to the burgeoning problem of the Rajabhakti Park corruption controversy spiralling out of control, tied directly to the ambassadors’ comments. Ironically, last Wednesday was World Anti-Corruption Day, not the best day to be trying to cover up dubious kickbacks for giant bronze statues. It was a perfect storm, with absolutely no winners.

There does seem to be an overriding feeling that if the corruption at Rajabhakti Park was sincerely investigated and offenders punished, there would be less foot movement from both sides. Diplomats could return to being diplomats. Students could return to their studies. And with a new constitution, the military could return to the barracks. I promise I am not stirring my foot in saying that.