
Andrew MacGregor Marshall holds up the second edition of his book a Kingdom in Crisis. Photo: @zenjournalist on Twitter
New Mandala co-founder Andrew Walker reviews A Kingdom in Crisis.
There is a long tradition in Western commentary on Asia pointing to the reprehensible behaviour of oriental despots.
Advocates for colonial expansion often built their case around the need to liberate the Asian masses from their rapacious, and sometimes unhinged, rulers. Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s A Kingdom in Crisis sits firmly within this orientalist tradition.
A Kingdom in Crisis provides a salacious chronicle of royal brutality and “murderous violence” in pre-modern Siam (p 53). Princes who fell out of favour were put in velvet sacks and beaten to death with sandalwood clubs (p 43); petty criminals were slow-roasted alive (p 53); the owners of dogs whose barking disturbed the king were “killed in the cruellest fashion on earth” (p 52); and unsuspecting maidens were arbitrarily sacrificed to meet the king’s superstitious whim (p 122). There were also “blood-curdling punishments” for those bold enough to engage in “immoral intercourse with a lady of the Palace” (p 51).
Palace intercourse — MacGregor Marshall shows us that there was an awful lot of it — was the prerogative of extraordinarily randy monarchs. Prasart Thong, who seized the throne in 1629, was a pervert, selecting the “prettiest maidens and daughters of the greatest men” (p 124) as his concubines! And even the scholarly Mongkut, released from his monastic sublimation at the ripe old age of 46, begat 82 children by 35 women in his “harem” (p 129).
Do not be misled by the imagery of the “land of smiles” MacGregor Marshall helpfully warns those who mistake tourism slogans for reality: Thais are very good at staging political theatre, but behind the scenes a violent and libidinous orient is lurking.
The core objective of A Kingdom in Crisis is to challenge Thailand’s royalist mythology.
In simple terms, the core myth is that the king is a unifying, integrating and benevolent force in Thai society. Drawing extensively on Thailand’s long royal history, MacGregor Marshall shows that, in fact, the monarch in Siam/ Thailand has been a powerhouse of intra-elite conflict, while at the same time providing an ideological figurehead to facilitate the oppression of the masses. The book’s far from flattering account of Thai history draws on the accounts of Westerners resident in pre-modern Siam (with surprisingly little critical reflection on how their vested interests may have shaped the shocking tales they tell), modern (and not so modern) scholars, popular tales, and, most originally, the WikiLeaks cables.
It certainly is a myth-busting tour-de-force showing how Thai kings, and the elites that surround them, have regularly generated political crises, which also reflect competition between narrow sectional interests. However, whether or not the book will achieve its myth-busting objective is hard to tell. Most readers, I suspect, will already be converts to MacGregor Marshall’s position. By contrast, those who subscribe to the royal mythology will probably be confirmed in their view that unsympathetic Westerners like MacGregor Marshall are determined to slander the royal institution.
The book’s central claim is that the current political crisis that has gripped Thailand since 2005 “is essentially a succession struggle over who will become monarch when King Bhumibol dies” (p 3). The hitherto “unacknowledged war of succession” (p 4) is the key to making “Thailand’s bewildering crisis … comprehensible” (p 5). Given the centrality, and boldness, of this claim, MacGregor Marshall has surprisingly little to say about it.
Part III of the book addresses “the secrets of the Thai succession” (p 105). MacGregor Marshall starts this section by categorically rejecting the conventional wisdom that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn will take the throne following the passing of his father. He confidently declares that predictions of an orderly succession “are completely untrue” (p 109).
So what are the secrets that are revealed in these central chapters? From my reading there are three. First, that going back centuries, royal succession in Southeast Asia has been contested and often violent. Second, that elites have often attempted to manoeuvre weak kings onto the throne. Third, that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn is unpopular and there are serious doubts held about his suitability for the throne.
All in all, very standard stuff that has been well known to even casual observers of Southeast Asia for a long time. Some readers may regard this as evidence that is compelling enough for MacGregor Marshall to dismiss as “completely untrue” the claim that Thailand’s royal succession is a done deal. I do not.
In the latter chapters of the book, which provide a very lively and readable account of the past 10 years of political crisis in Thailand, MacGregor Marshall makes further specific claims about the succession. He suggests that the “ruling class had long been confident that when the time came they would be able to keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne” (p 158) but that their optimism was “evaporating” (p 158) in 2005 as a result of the birth of the prince’s first son, and his close relationship with then-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
These favourable developments for Vajiralongkorn generated a climate of “apocalyptic dread among the elite” (p 159). Later, he reports that the “establishment” assumed that the 2006 coup was part of a plan to manage the succession (p 167) and that in 2007, the “elite secretively plotted” (p 170) about the succession and launched a campaign to damage Vajiralongkorn’s reputation. MacGregor Marshall also claims that the Queen, having previously supported Vajiralongkorn, decided to “freeze her son out of the royal succession, planning to reign as regent” (p 173). We are also told that the “army leadership also supported blocking the prince” (p 174).
These are all plausible claims, and they are consistent with rumours and commentaries that circulate online.
However, A Kingdom in Crisis presents no compelling evidence to back them up. In most cases no sources are cited. Of course, given the threat of Thailand’s oppressive lese majeste law, it is very reasonable not to cite specific people. But some indication of the nature and provenance of the evidence is called for, given the importance of the claims and the confidence with which they are made. More careful reference to sources may also have moderated the tendency to attribute specific motivations to very broadly defined social groups: the “ruling class”, the “elite” and the “establishment”.
In some cases reference is made to WikiLeaks material, but this is not compelling either. One cited cable refers to attempts to undermine the reputation of Vajiralongkorn’s consort, but the author of the cable only “assumes” that this has “implications” for the prince (p 170). Discussions between the US ambassador and various Thai elder statesmen who were critical of Vajiralongkorn are also cited. To account for the fact that these prominent Thais made no mention of a succession struggle, MacGregor Marshall declares that they “lied … to conceal their active efforts to sabotage the succession” (p 187). All in all, MacGregor Marshall’s evidence does not match his claims.
MacGregor Marshall’s preoccupation with the succession points to a broader problem with this book.
Despite its provocations and iconoclasm this is very much a royalist account of Thai history. Like Thailand’s royalists, MacGregor Marshall places the king at the heart of the Thai polity. In A Kingdom in Crisis, contestation over royal power is the engine room of 21st century Thai politics, as it has been over the past millennium (p 213).
The mass of people sometimes do feature, but they are peripheral to MacGregor Marshall’s central purpose. When they do enter into the narrative, it is as an undifferentiated mass of “ordinary people” who are struggling against the elite in pursuit of “greater freedom and a fairer society” (p 109).
This two-dimensional and a-historical model – a cut-throat elite ruling over a repressed population – is classic orientalism and contributes little to an understanding of the complex and cross-cutting social and economic forces that have brought Thailand to its contemporary political impasse.
Andrew Walker is Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the ANU Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, and co-founder of New Mandala.
This review was published in the December 2015 issue of the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies journal, Contemporary Southeast Asia. The second edition of ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’ is now available from Zed Books.
I assume that Andre MacGregor Marshall will not be holidaying in Thailand anytime soon. When people are imprisoned for 7 years for a comment made in a book years ago, and the Internet site that holds the story of the defeat and death of Henry II is blocked, Thailand is a rather dangerous place for some commentators and authors.
0
0
Sorry, Richard III’s defeat at Bosworth Field in 1485 … obviously the Thai Internet snooper and blocker is unhappy about anything to do with the death of a King.
0
0
“This is very much a royalist account of Thai history. Like Thailand’s royalists, MacGregor Marshall places the king at the heart of the Thai polity …” This is exactly the problem that I have with the book. It seems difficult to use non-royalist perspectives.
0
0
There is of course a midway position between MacGregor Marshall’s agitprop (he is equally dismissive of the British monarchy)and that of those who subscribe uncritically to the Thai royalist mythology.This would be to support the monarchical institution in Thailand as one in harmony with the country’s culture and tradition, but with the hope it can be slimmed down and be less politicised by third parties.
0
0
A far too royalist account which perpetuates the myth of their importance. Who calls the shots in Thai politics by defining a state of emergency/ exception ? The military. By doing such and staging coups their exercise sovereign power according to Carl Scmitt. So, so what about succession! The Thai monarchy is ruled by the army and Sino Thai capitalists
0
0
While I agree with the critique of Marshall’s summary of the earlier history of the monarchy, dismissing it out of hand by reducing it to a modern form of Orientialism would seem to miss the point, particularly since newer and equally lethal forms of royal prerogative seem alive and well.
This is a work by a journalist, not a scholar. I don’t see many scholars publishing on the subject.
Marshall used a sledgehammer to get his point across and open up dialogue. He also worked his way through hundreds of pages of Wikileaks cables to provide novel material, which deserves acknowledgement.
Criticizing Marshall for not studying peasants, other classes, etc when he was addressing a narrow point about a succession crisis seems a little disingenuous. Same with critiquing the book for insufficient data to support his points. I suspect he was tireless in his quest for informants, most of whom were too terrified to give names.
I look forward to work by Walker and other established scholars on the topic, adding a new, substantial body of verifiable fact and desired nuance from what is essentially a police state. Or perhaps they can produce a textured, direct, detailed anthropology on the monarchy from the viewpoint of the periphery, the Thai working class, or students, or members of the Red Shirt movement. Or military and police perspectives on the monarchy. Or examine the latter’s relationship to the citizenry, providing hard data on exactly how they acquired huge fortunes on a civil servant’s salary.
I would like to see the research proposal for any of the above, which would, of course, go straight to the National Research Council or some equivalent for approval.
Andrew’s done his bit. It’s time to move on. Yes. He’s furious. His cameraman was murdered. He was a journalist who was forbidden to write about the obvious.
The book was powered by grief and outrage, written under less than ideal circumstances.
Covering Bangkok/Thailand with its distinct legal system, history of murdered journalists, and requirements for happiness would seem to radicalize foreign journalists. Perhaps pointing out the obvious is not all that radical, just courageous.
Criticizing Andrew or his book does not take much courage, but it might put one in good stead with the junta, which controls access, or with the entrenched elite, who control business, banking, etc.
It’s time for a respected mainstream scholar to address the topic in the desired scholarly manner.
0
0
A promisingly fruitful debate sparked by the two Andrews. But I wonder how much MacGregor’s second edition is out of date, as soon as it is published, espe cially in relation to such matters as Queen Sirikit taking over as Regent. We know Her Majesty suffered a stroke on July 21, 2012, Queen Sirikit, in public view, and that this was so severe she was not seen again in public until August 2013, and rarely appears today. This has surely ruled out any possibility of her Regency, if in fact such was ever planned.
0
0
So who are the people to read on the current state of Thailand – or a true(r) history – in addition to Mr MacGregor, in order to get a more nuanced view? Can anyone recommend?
0
0
I think the point is it’s a breaking situation, with silence imposed on discussion of the monarchy, and anything relevant. Usually it’s Pasuk & Baker, but they are inside the country and therefore must edge around the topic.
It would take an outside voice, someone who was willing to give up research access. Social media enables global, inside-outside partnerships.
Since all the key players operate globally with offshore wealth, this raises new questions about “Thai-ness,” and who has the highest stakes in elections and localized, on-shore profits.
In centuries past the king never left the palace, or capital. It was taboo, bad luck.
Truly a unique situation.
The breakthrough of Andrew MacGregor M.'”The Hammer’s” book is simply taking the topic of the monarchy head on. Breaking the taboo when the obvious became overwhelming. Plus he’s currently the most or perhaps determined, consistent journalist on the topic, the very study of which is dangerous and burns people out.
What’s making people a little nuts is proportionality: having broken the taboo big time, how is one to assess this information? Or provide more accurate versions…
Andrew Walker is senior enough scholar to take this on.
I have hope for a new generation of scholars like Serhat Unaldi, whose book “Working Towards the Monarchy” should be out soon…Claudio Sopranzetti, and Eugenie Merieau.
Let’s not create such a bitter environment that we eat the young. Obviously the field is sexist as hell, leaving a huge blank about gender issues in Bangkok day-life. Cherchez les femmes. What femmes?
People used to ask me, “What does the king think?”
Go ask him.
0
0
[…] first is probably already widely known as it is by Andrew Walker at New Mandala. In a lengthy review, Walker […]
0
0
Just a couple of points.
Andrew Walker is spot-on in identifying more than a whiff of orientalism in Marshall’s book and it goes without saying, for anyone who has actually bothered to read the book, that the central thesis of the book remains utterly unproven.
As to the suggestion that Marshall has “broken the taboo”, I can’t agree. Handley’s book did that, and did it with more dignity and far less spurious rancor, which means of course that it will be taken more seriously by a wide range of readers.
When I first read Marshall’s book, which is very well-written, I thought that despite making no significant contribution to understanding the “crisis”, it would at least provide an introduction, biased though it is, to Thai history for readers who might otherwise not bother.
But ultimately I have come to think that, as Walker points out in his review, the erasure of the Thai people as actors in their own history serves only to reinforce the tradition of palace-centric historiography that belongs somewhere in the past.
0
0
The problem with academia is it likes to over theorise everything. Walker is on point with his criticisms from an academic position- but as Christine Gray rightly points out AMM is not an academic. The book has its faults, it can and should be critiqued, but it is a little disingenuous to reduce AMM’s work as a modern form of Orientalism. The book may offer a too simplistic palace-centric narrative for the liking of academics, yet the goal of the book is not to produce an overtly complex theoretical explanation to account for the “complex and cross-cutting social and economic forces that have brought Thailand to its contemporary political impasse,” but rather to challenge the Royalist myth and allow greater readership by adopting the same type of approach used by the Royalists themselves. I see nothing wrong with that approach. Of course Paul Handley may have done a better job more suited to the taste of academics, but AMM’s approach is far more readable and accessible to the general public. It may not offer a complete, nuanced, in-depth view of Thailand’s political problems, but it is an important view that should not be dismissed.
0
0
About a year ago Andrew Marshall ran a crowd-sourcing venture to raise money for a translation of some of his work into Thai.
I can’t remember the exact amount raised but it was for at least US$1000.
So far this translation has not appeared and Andrew Marshall has given no indication what happened to that money or when the translation will appear.
I hope he will read this and respond but if not maybe someone else could pass this onto him and ask him?
0
0
If laymen want to understand the topic of the Royalty in Thailand they’re more likely to get a better picture from a journalist than an academic. A journalist while doing research will still highlight evidence based on events rather than academic theses. For the laymen the trying of simplifying things would be a better service than insisting on many references as a footnote. They’d probably ignore most of that. To simplify it, the fact that the Monarchy ceased to be absolute in the 30s changed the paradigm in Thai life. The constitutional monarchy became the front for the ruling classes. They still needed the appearance to control the uneducated masses but they didn’t need a King to tell them what to do. The only time the King was useful to them when there were powerstruggles in the military. The numerous coups were needing a circuit breaker and the King was a handy tool. This made a mostly bloodless change possible. The Buddhist principles were seemingly maintained. Their problems became acute with he appearance of Thaksin who wasn’t part of the establishment. That coincided with Thailand emerging as an Asian economic tiger. It looked like that Thaksinism was going to sideline Monarchism, other than a ceremonial tourist attraction, similar to the British Royal family. The new Thailand according to Thaksin didn’t need a front for governance, only as a decorative entity. The establishment railed against it as it sidelined their constituency. The maintaining of the Royal family in this context is essential to them. That’s why Prayuth is so dictatorial. He is trying to turn the clock back. In the long run he can’t succeed, the Thais are growing up,are more educated and internet savvy and the consumer society engulfed them . You can’t satiate people with pomp and ceremony and blind faith. The fruits of economic riches must be shared a bit more than royalist traditions, Thaksin understood this and I think Marshall does too. His book is more of a political essay than anything else.
0
0
The Thai police have intimidated the family of the wife of a former Bangkok-based British journalist wanted for lèse majesté.
At 3 pm on 18 January 2017, Ruedeewan Lahthip, the mother-in-law of Andrew MacGregor Marshall, a British journalist accused of lèse majesté, told BBC Thai that two policewomen in plainclothes visited her house to look for her daughter, Noppawan “Ploy” Bunluesilp, 39.
As Noppawan was not at home, the policewoman told Ruedeewan that their superior would like Marshall not to post information deemed defamatory to the Thai Monarchy online again.
“They were polite and said “please tell Andrew that [if he likes or does not like certain things] he should keep this to himself and not post [certain] images, so his child can come back to Thailand with no worries,” Ruedeewan told the BBC Thai.
http://prachatai.org/english/node/6852
0
0
This revelation is only surprising when you compare it to the behaviour expected from police and law enforcement agencies in the first world.
Everyone else recognises this is fairly typical behaviour from Thais, disappointing though it is. Thais do not understand why the world does not accept their superiority. This is one of the reasons.
But then after 60-odd years of being ripped off and propagandised, it’s reasonable to ask what else one could expect. The delusions of budgies that think they’re eagles are safe enough while they stay in their cage.
0
0