The only embarrassing (and infantile) thing here is when language fascists never tire to overstress their opponents’ weaknesses in a foreign language they themselves believe to have a better command over.
I wonder if Vichai has ever had to face a public Q&A in which he head to stay polite and answer somewhat intelligently (and diplomatically) when faced with rather unintelligent and self evident questions, such as the one given in the by Vichai provided video.
You may find out, by the way, that in a one on one interview situation, her English is much better.
By all means, criticize Yingluck – to be under scrutiny comes with the job – but can’t you find more substance than ridiculing her command of English?
Maybe an even more ambitious stab at a “pure Sufficiency Economy” than North Korea was the extreme effort by the “French educated, French utopian leftist” plus extreme “denial of ego/self Buddhism” influenced Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge.
Empty out the trading/financial hub/Capital, void all bank accounts/records/credit/credit cards/money, eliminate all “office/white collar” jobs/workers, destroy all records establishing proof pf property ownership, put the entire population “back on the farm”, living in shared huts, eking out a subsistence living, force an extreme “flatness” on the entire society with only a tiny elite in total control with total impunity.
Now that’s enough “Sufficiency” to make even “Sufficiency Economy’s” most strident advocates like Sondhi and Thanong and Chamlong shake in in their boots, much less the average middle-class resident of Bangkok.
Aiyo, I not ji siao one, total objection. I dun know what you mean by selling, I not sell much dat part of reason for writing here. Advertisement to old ang moh lah who wan Singapore-Johor like was when Chicken Rice War and Army Daze came out on colour VCD lah. Now got genuine fake Army Daze DVD leh.
Total objection again. 99% of Singaporeans dun think Thais like that lah. Maybe only you in the 1% with your Coxford friend lah. 99% of Singaporeans dun have time to think mah. Got job lah, not paiseh student one. Also Coxford graduate dun swear lah. Damn suspect hor.
Greg still missed the point. The Constitution provides that the Menteri Besar SHALL tender his resignation when he loses the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. The stalemate would have not occured should he act according to the provision of the Constitution and in the spirit of the established convention of the Westminster system of government.
Let that be a warning to every NM reader not to mimic or repeat any of Vichai N’s utterances lest they end up ‘rotting in prison’. Not that I’m aware anyone had taken the liberty to ‘utter a-la-Vichai’ but if they did, they deserve to be in gaol for besmirking my reputation.
I would like to ask England what specific ‘scurrilous’ remarks I had penned that offended him so. Could that be the Yinluck-could-be-a-Bimbo comment because of the utterly embarrassing Yingluck made at Davos recently?
“Great article, and it definitely shows the disconnect between the minority areas and the majority areas. One wonders how long that disconnect can continue without it affecting the majority areas.”
The conflicts b/t various ethnic groups and Bamar could have been long settled if:
As example:
A) Grand Daddy of all conflicts, Karen/Myanmar.
2┬║ to British Colonial Policy, neglected by the West, under Ne Win, and used to vilify SPDC now again being neglected.
B) Kachin/Myamar, 2┬║ to useless careless policy of Sanctions and overt threat of regime change that has now evolved to present well armed KIA and the following reality on the ground
1) Where is the west and UN effort now, prioritizing the fate of minorities as everywhere else by solving the real causes of conflicts, that were so loudly touted through HRI and such during SPDC era?
2)Has the Useless careless policy that has no historical base within Myanmar or anywhere else in the world being reversed?
Not by the continuing support of DASSK, whom herself is being deluded.
This 3rd generation problems should never have been if not for the west policy.
I think you are right ,Nick Nostitz, about Bangkok Post or even some other mess media. I think there are some factors – everyone knows time “change” coming soon within 5 years or less. The power has held Thai society for decades will be end soon and more and more people have the clear eyes. The persons in line to succeed to the throne (is clear (from the book)) is unpopular. The future picture is pretty clear unless they accept the fact of reality – lose some power and stay away from politics!
The situation in Thailand almost like or will be like (soon) a lion lost his fangs!
I don’t agree with Dan. It is not true that a person must be “unemployed, obsessed or retired” to read books or to read AMM’s works. Actually, many human beings who have jobs find time to read plenty of books. Moreover, AMM’s writings are very well written, and in fact are enjoyed by many.
You shouldn’t mix up “political system” with “economic system”. They got nothing relate to each other, Greece fail because of undisciplined fiscal policy coupled with global economic slowdown.
Furthermore, the if you want na see ‘Sufficiency Economy’ in action you should check out North Korea. That’s where I think the word “sufficiency” is being push to limit.
A very interesting viewpoint – those who read books must be “either unemployed, obsessed or retired”. I’m still working and I might be accused of being obsessed about certain things (although I’d prefer to say interested). But I still find some time to read books. Though I must confess I haven’t read this one except second hand through the various reviews.
I do think you should probably find the time or obsession to read the book you’re commenting on or alternatively read what is becoming a book length review of the book by AMM.
Your gratitude to AMM seemed to be given rather ungraciously, I thought. I certainly hadn’t noticed any ranting.
Thanks for the bullet list. Good to see a bit of concise substance at last after all the ranting. Plenty of food for thought. As I said, I am not going to take you up on specifics because of where I live and the laws I am subject too…. Laws of which you are only too aware.
But thanks, for finally, distilling down some of your criticisms to a length that most of us (who aren’t either unemployed, obsessed or retired) have time to actually read….. I think your next step should be to actually write a book review….. Good luck with it, if you do choose to go down that road.
Delighted to oblige, Dan. I’ll focus on four of the most dishonest parts of the book, for starters. These have all of course been identified at length in my review here – http://www.zenjournalist.com/2012/01/the-tragedy-of-king-bhumibol-ii/ – but for people like you who spend so much time pontificating that you have no time to read anything more than bullet points, here you go:
1. The very first paragraph of the foreword to KBAALW, Anand Panyarachun’s foreword, contains a highly misleading statement. This really sets the tone for the whole book, it’s incredible that the first substantive piece of text in the book is already clearly mendacious. Anand begins the book like this:
“His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand succeeded to the throne on 9 June 1946. He left the kingdom shortly afterwards to complete his university education in Switzerland.”
In fact, Bhumibol never finished his studies and never received a genuine degree (despite holding the world record for honorary degrees). Although it is true, technically, that Bhumibol left Siam in 1946 intending to complete his university education, he never actually did so. He dropped out of Lausanne University in 1948 after he crashed his Fiat 500 Topolino sports car into a truck and lost his sight in one eye, and never finished his formal studies.
2. It is of course understandable why KBAALW does not mention the most overwhelming likely explanation for the death of Bhumibol’s brother Rama VIII. But less understandable is why the authors saw fit to yet again smear Pridi Banomyong, who as it has long been widely know, had nothing to do with Ananda’s death. KBAALW repeats long-discredited innuendos. On page 86 KBAALW states: “For Pridi Banomyong, the coup and accusations against him after King Ananda’s death were the final blows to his political career. As the wartime regent and incumbent prime minister he had at the very least failed to keep King Ananda safe.” On page 87 it manages to leave lingering suspicion with this sentence: “Many did not believe Pridi had played any role in King Ananda’s death, but after the 1949 failed coup he never came home and offered no explanation himself beyond saying he did not know who was responsible.” Anybody who knows the real reason for Pridi’s behaviour will see how disgraceful these statements are.
3. The Thammasat massacre of October 1976. Here is how KBAALW describes the events that followed:
“Two days after the Thammasat debacle, Thanin Kraivixien, a conservative supreme court judge, was appointed prime minister… Thanin’s government proved to be more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years, but alienated much of the public and the military. Within a year, Thanin was toppled… King Bhumibol appointed Thanin a privy councillor, but kept himself well apart from the perilous entanglements of politics.”
This is an astonishing little passage. First, it uses the wholly inadequate word “debacle” to describe the vicious orgy of murder, rape and torture that unfolded at Thammasat that day. Then it employs the passive voice to skirt around the uncomfortable fact that it was Bhumibol and Sirikit who engineered the appointment of Thanin – perhaps the most extremist and incompetent prime minister Thailand has ever had. Then it states that he was “more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years”, a comical euphemism for the fact that the previous three years were a brief democratic interlude and that Thanin’s government was a dictatorship installed by the palace after a savage massacre of student protesters and a military coup. Thanin turned out to be so ultra-right-wing that even the military found his extremism unpalatable and turfed him out, and at this point an affronted Bhumibol appointed him to the privy council, a clear signal of palace support. To state at the end of this whole appalling episode that the king was keeping out of politics really beggars belief. The reality was exactly the reverse: Bhumibol and Sirikit had made a series of disastrous interventions which had taken Thailand to the brink of civil war.
4. In its account of the 2006 coup, rather than deal sensibly with the question of royal involvement (and in particular Sirikit’s actions), KBAALW quotes the royalist and frankly useless Professor Suchit Bunbongkarn as stating:
“I would say the king did not have anything to do with the coup. It turned out to be a disaster for the palace.”
The second part of his statement is very true, but does not follow logically from the first, which is extremely questionable, to say the least, and undermined by several cables from the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, among other evidence. Besides, if Bhumibol had really been against the coup and knew it would be a disaster, why did he give it his blessing so readily? He had stood against coup attempts several times before. He could have done so again. But there is no rigorous discussion of any of these issues. Suchit is given a cameo appearance to deliver a throwaway line claiming the king was not inappropriately meddling in Thai politics, and that is supposed to be that.
Of course, if this book was supposed to be just another fairytale hagiography, such lies would not matter. But Anand has claimed that this is a book that is “fair to all sides, and is regarded as a reference for anyone without true knowledge about the monarchy”.
Andrew…. Well you could start with some of the people who have reviewed it why not?…. Including Paul Handley who you ‘imagine’ hasn’t read it either…..
What might be helpful if you wish to ‘engage’ is, rather than making sweeping generalisations, you actually buckle down and specify some specific untruths that this book peddles that you have (elsewhere) claimed are intentional lies ….. Then people have something to go on you see. Try it as a bullet list.
I won’t engage with you I am afraid because I live in thailand and that could draw me into a debate that might put me in breach of the criminal law, which is a road I would rather not go down. This is not an issue for you since you have made your own conscious decisions…..
And, of course, as you say, I haven’t read it and nor has anybody else you ‘imagine’.
I’ve already made clear that my survey is anecdotal and unscientific, but I have a feeling it is pretty accurate. Basically I have been trying to find somebody – anybody – Thai, foreign or extraterrestrial – who has actually (1) read this book thoroughly, (2) liked it, and (3) is able to explain to me clearly and sensibly how the account KBAALW gives of the death of Rama VIII, or the Thammasat massacre in 1976, or the 2006 military coup (to give just three examples) are in any way honest, fair, and helpful in the current sensitive political climate.
I haven’t even managed to get to points 2 and 3 yet because I have yet to find anyone who even satisfies point 1. I can’t find a single person who has read the book. And that includes you, which makes your cheerleading for it all the more comical.
If you want to refute my sweeping generalisations, why don’t you find somebody who has read the book and can sensibly defend it? If you can’t, I think that speaks for itself.
Hi Andrew…. Those are a lot of sweeping generalisations and assumptions about a lot of people. Are you also saying that Handley’s review was not thorough or complete or is in some way invalid, ill-informed or fraudulent? You seem to ‘imagine’ quite a lot don’t you?
“I have spoken to about three dozen people who admit to owning KBAALW, and not a single one of them has read it.”
Who are these people? How did you find them? Given that the book has sold around 25,000 copies I believe, I would be interested to know why it is that you believe that these 33 people are truly representative?
“which makes your relentless and enthusiastic PR work for the book and its authors all the more bewildering.”
I am simply asking you questions Andrew. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. No PR work involved I am afraid.
“They would also have noted that praising the king for having “straddled two centuries” and sharpening his own pencils was perhaps not the best strategy for evoking the monarch’s greatness.”
Do you think that “evoking the monarch’s greatness” is the total sum of the aims of this book? It is commissioned by the Palace but given the experience and intellectual authority of some of the contributors, one might have thought they see the project as being rather more complex than that which is, presumably, why they consented to be commissioned in the first place. Handley echoes that view despite his withering put down of its evaluative worth (“Forrest Gump”).
“Had they done so, they would surely not have allowed execrable lines like “love came knocking on his door in the shape of a cousin” to make it into the final version.”
I don’t much like this line either, but it is not actually an editorial mistake is it? So one would presume that the editors have a different taste in prose from both you and me. I would imagine it didn’t slip through any editorial net.
“I have a suggestion for you: how about you postpone any further comments until you have actually bothered to read the book, and then we can talk sensibly.”
Suggest away……. I am not critiquing the book. I am questioning your approach to critiquing the book and its readers which by yopur opwn words seems to involve a lot of imagination.
#11
“Dan – What is your experience of Thai people as readers? ”
I have known a number of voracious readers in Thailand. Education levels in Thailand are generally not good, I would agree, but if the point you are about to make is that no one reads (is that your point?), I would wonder why anyone (including Andrew Macgregor Marshall, Chris Baker or David Streckfuss to name some foreign authors who write about Thailand) actually bothers to write anything at all…. The reality of your comment is that we are once again in the realms of sweeping generalisation.
I’m compiling evidence – which is widely available but not systematically organised especially for those who choose to be blind to the compelling evidence – on the links between UMNO’s policies and the decline of the quality of education (among many other things) in Malaysia.
For a start, this case study by the World Bank, comparing University Malaya (UM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS) provides a natural experiment on how different policies lead to – obviously – different outcomes. Singapore NUS focused on global competitiveness, Malaysia’s UM focused on placating the majority race. The outcomes are self-explanatory.
Vichai N (66). People are rotting in prison for making utterances like yours. Thank you for bringing the hypocrisy of unequal laws into such sharp focus.
Great article, and it definitely shows the disconnect between the minority areas and the majority areas. One wonders how long that disconnect can continue without it affecting the majority areas.
Somewhat off topic, what birds are those on the Manau tusks? They aren’t hornbills, are they?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The toll of flooding on lives and politics
“Vichai N”:
The only embarrassing (and infantile) thing here is when language fascists never tire to overstress their opponents’ weaknesses in a foreign language they themselves believe to have a better command over.
I wonder if Vichai has ever had to face a public Q&A in which he head to stay polite and answer somewhat intelligently (and diplomatically) when faced with rather unintelligent and self evident questions, such as the one given in the by Vichai provided video.
You may find out, by the way, that in a one on one interview situation, her English is much better.
By all means, criticize Yingluck – to be under scrutiny comes with the job – but can’t you find more substance than ridiculing her command of English?
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
Maybe an even more ambitious stab at a “pure Sufficiency Economy” than North Korea was the extreme effort by the “French educated, French utopian leftist” plus extreme “denial of ego/self Buddhism” influenced Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge.
Empty out the trading/financial hub/Capital, void all bank accounts/records/credit/credit cards/money, eliminate all “office/white collar” jobs/workers, destroy all records establishing proof pf property ownership, put the entire population “back on the farm”, living in shared huts, eking out a subsistence living, force an extreme “flatness” on the entire society with only a tiny elite in total control with total impunity.
Now that’s enough “Sufficiency” to make even “Sufficiency Economy’s” most strident advocates like Sondhi and Thanong and Chamlong shake in in their boots, much less the average middle-class resident of Bangkok.
For Singaporeans, Bangkok is the new Johor Bahru
Aiyo, I not ji siao one, total objection. I dun know what you mean by selling, I not sell much dat part of reason for writing here. Advertisement to old ang moh lah who wan Singapore-Johor like was when Chicken Rice War and Army Daze came out on colour VCD lah. Now got genuine fake Army Daze DVD leh.
Total objection again. 99% of Singaporeans dun think Thais like that lah. Maybe only you in the 1% with your Coxford friend lah. 99% of Singaporeans dun have time to think mah. Got job lah, not paiseh student one. Also Coxford graduate dun swear lah. Damn suspect hor.
Walan I put u in the noose. Bowl u over like dis one http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzaw8gDwLQ1r88u00o1_400.gif hoooo
Will UMNO give up power?
Greg still missed the point. The Constitution provides that the Menteri Besar SHALL tender his resignation when he loses the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. The stalemate would have not occured should he act according to the provision of the Constitution and in the spirit of the established convention of the Westminster system of government.
The toll of flooding on lives and politics
Let that be a warning to every NM reader not to mimic or repeat any of Vichai N’s utterances lest they end up ‘rotting in prison’. Not that I’m aware anyone had taken the liberty to ‘utter a-la-Vichai’ but if they did, they deserve to be in gaol for besmirking my reputation.
I would like to ask England what specific ‘scurrilous’ remarks I had penned that offended him so. Could that be the Yinluck-could-be-a-Bimbo comment because of the utterly embarrassing Yingluck made at Davos recently?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2ktL77vnA
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
If only the book had been published in cartoon form….. just about every Thai could have read it.
Global Mail on Kachin war
“Great article, and it definitely shows the disconnect between the minority areas and the majority areas. One wonders how long that disconnect can continue without it affecting the majority areas.”
The conflicts b/t various ethnic groups and Bamar could have been long settled if:
As example:
A) Grand Daddy of all conflicts, Karen/Myanmar.
2┬║ to British Colonial Policy, neglected by the West, under Ne Win, and used to vilify SPDC now again being neglected.
B) Kachin/Myamar, 2┬║ to useless careless policy of Sanctions and overt threat of regime change that has now evolved to present well armed KIA and the following reality on the ground
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/myanmars-bloody-war-in-the-shadows/50/
1) Where is the west and UN effort now, prioritizing the fate of minorities as everywhere else by solving the real causes of conflicts, that were so loudly touted through HRI and such during SPDC era?
2)Has the Useless careless policy that has no historical base within Myanmar or anywhere else in the world being reversed?
Not by the continuing support of DASSK, whom herself is being deluded.
This 3rd generation problems should never have been if not for the west policy.
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
I think you are right ,Nick Nostitz, about Bangkok Post or even some other mess media. I think there are some factors – everyone knows time “change” coming soon within 5 years or less. The power has held Thai society for decades will be end soon and more and more people have the clear eyes. The persons in line to succeed to the throne (is clear (from the book)) is unpopular. The future picture is pretty clear unless they accept the fact of reality – lose some power and stay away from politics!
The situation in Thailand almost like or will be like (soon) a lion lost his fangs!
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
I don’t agree with Dan. It is not true that a person must be “unemployed, obsessed or retired” to read books or to read AMM’s works. Actually, many human beings who have jobs find time to read plenty of books. Moreover, AMM’s writings are very well written, and in fact are enjoyed by many.
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
Vichai N – 17
You shouldn’t mix up “political system” with “economic system”. They got nothing relate to each other, Greece fail because of undisciplined fiscal policy coupled with global economic slowdown.
Furthermore, the if you want na see ‘Sufficiency Economy’ in action you should check out North Korea. That’s where I think the word “sufficiency” is being push to limit.
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
Dan
A very interesting viewpoint – those who read books must be “either unemployed, obsessed or retired”. I’m still working and I might be accused of being obsessed about certain things (although I’d prefer to say interested). But I still find some time to read books. Though I must confess I haven’t read this one except second hand through the various reviews.
I do think you should probably find the time or obsession to read the book you’re commenting on or alternatively read what is becoming a book length review of the book by AMM.
Your gratitude to AMM seemed to be given rather ungraciously, I thought. I certainly hadn’t noticed any ranting.
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
Hi Andrew….
Thanks for the bullet list. Good to see a bit of concise substance at last after all the ranting. Plenty of food for thought. As I said, I am not going to take you up on specifics because of where I live and the laws I am subject too…. Laws of which you are only too aware.
But thanks, for finally, distilling down some of your criticisms to a length that most of us (who aren’t either unemployed, obsessed or retired) have time to actually read….. I think your next step should be to actually write a book review….. Good luck with it, if you do choose to go down that road.
Best
Dan
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
Delighted to oblige, Dan. I’ll focus on four of the most dishonest parts of the book, for starters. These have all of course been identified at length in my review here – http://www.zenjournalist.com/2012/01/the-tragedy-of-king-bhumibol-ii/ – but for people like you who spend so much time pontificating that you have no time to read anything more than bullet points, here you go:
1. The very first paragraph of the foreword to KBAALW, Anand Panyarachun’s foreword, contains a highly misleading statement. This really sets the tone for the whole book, it’s incredible that the first substantive piece of text in the book is already clearly mendacious. Anand begins the book like this:
“His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand succeeded to the throne on 9 June 1946. He left the kingdom shortly afterwards to complete his university education in Switzerland.”
In fact, Bhumibol never finished his studies and never received a genuine degree (despite holding the world record for honorary degrees). Although it is true, technically, that Bhumibol left Siam in 1946 intending to complete his university education, he never actually did so. He dropped out of Lausanne University in 1948 after he crashed his Fiat 500 Topolino sports car into a truck and lost his sight in one eye, and never finished his formal studies.
2. It is of course understandable why KBAALW does not mention the most overwhelming likely explanation for the death of Bhumibol’s brother Rama VIII. But less understandable is why the authors saw fit to yet again smear Pridi Banomyong, who as it has long been widely know, had nothing to do with Ananda’s death. KBAALW repeats long-discredited innuendos. On page 86 KBAALW states: “For Pridi Banomyong, the coup and accusations against him after King Ananda’s death were the final blows to his political career. As the wartime regent and incumbent prime minister he had at the very least failed to keep King Ananda safe.” On page 87 it manages to leave lingering suspicion with this sentence: “Many did not believe Pridi had played any role in King Ananda’s death, but after the 1949 failed coup he never came home and offered no explanation himself beyond saying he did not know who was responsible.” Anybody who knows the real reason for Pridi’s behaviour will see how disgraceful these statements are.
3. The Thammasat massacre of October 1976. Here is how KBAALW describes the events that followed:
“Two days after the Thammasat debacle, Thanin Kraivixien, a conservative supreme court judge, was appointed prime minister… Thanin’s government proved to be more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years, but alienated much of the public and the military. Within a year, Thanin was toppled… King Bhumibol appointed Thanin a privy councillor, but kept himself well apart from the perilous entanglements of politics.”
This is an astonishing little passage. First, it uses the wholly inadequate word “debacle” to describe the vicious orgy of murder, rape and torture that unfolded at Thammasat that day. Then it employs the passive voice to skirt around the uncomfortable fact that it was Bhumibol and Sirikit who engineered the appointment of Thanin – perhaps the most extremist and incompetent prime minister Thailand has ever had. Then it states that he was “more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years”, a comical euphemism for the fact that the previous three years were a brief democratic interlude and that Thanin’s government was a dictatorship installed by the palace after a savage massacre of student protesters and a military coup. Thanin turned out to be so ultra-right-wing that even the military found his extremism unpalatable and turfed him out, and at this point an affronted Bhumibol appointed him to the privy council, a clear signal of palace support. To state at the end of this whole appalling episode that the king was keeping out of politics really beggars belief. The reality was exactly the reverse: Bhumibol and Sirikit had made a series of disastrous interventions which had taken Thailand to the brink of civil war.
4. In its account of the 2006 coup, rather than deal sensibly with the question of royal involvement (and in particular Sirikit’s actions), KBAALW quotes the royalist and frankly useless Professor Suchit Bunbongkarn as stating:
“I would say the king did not have anything to do with the coup. It turned out to be a disaster for the palace.”
The second part of his statement is very true, but does not follow logically from the first, which is extremely questionable, to say the least, and undermined by several cables from the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, among other evidence. Besides, if Bhumibol had really been against the coup and knew it would be a disaster, why did he give it his blessing so readily? He had stood against coup attempts several times before. He could have done so again. But there is no rigorous discussion of any of these issues. Suchit is given a cameo appearance to deliver a throwaway line claiming the king was not inappropriately meddling in Thai politics, and that is supposed to be that.
Of course, if this book was supposed to be just another fairytale hagiography, such lies would not matter. But Anand has claimed that this is a book that is “fair to all sides, and is regarded as a reference for anyone without true knowledge about the monarchy”.
I don’t see how that claim can be supported.
Do you?
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
Andrew…. Well you could start with some of the people who have reviewed it why not?…. Including Paul Handley who you ‘imagine’ hasn’t read it either…..
What might be helpful if you wish to ‘engage’ is, rather than making sweeping generalisations, you actually buckle down and specify some specific untruths that this book peddles that you have (elsewhere) claimed are intentional lies ….. Then people have something to go on you see. Try it as a bullet list.
I won’t engage with you I am afraid because I live in thailand and that could draw me into a debate that might put me in breach of the criminal law, which is a road I would rather not go down. This is not an issue for you since you have made your own conscious decisions…..
And, of course, as you say, I haven’t read it and nor has anybody else you ‘imagine’.
The University of Adelaide and the Chief Minister of Sarawak
[…] Pio Lopez Also, don’t forget Univesity of Adelaide: http://www.newmandala.org/2011/03/21/the-university-of-adelaide-and-the-chief-ministe… 4 hours […]
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
Dan #12
I’ve already made clear that my survey is anecdotal and unscientific, but I have a feeling it is pretty accurate. Basically I have been trying to find somebody – anybody – Thai, foreign or extraterrestrial – who has actually (1) read this book thoroughly, (2) liked it, and (3) is able to explain to me clearly and sensibly how the account KBAALW gives of the death of Rama VIII, or the Thammasat massacre in 1976, or the 2006 military coup (to give just three examples) are in any way honest, fair, and helpful in the current sensitive political climate.
I haven’t even managed to get to points 2 and 3 yet because I have yet to find anyone who even satisfies point 1. I can’t find a single person who has read the book. And that includes you, which makes your cheerleading for it all the more comical.
If you want to refute my sweeping generalisations, why don’t you find somebody who has read the book and can sensibly defend it? If you can’t, I think that speaks for itself.
Another review of King Bhumibol’s life
#10
Hi Andrew…. Those are a lot of sweeping generalisations and assumptions about a lot of people. Are you also saying that Handley’s review was not thorough or complete or is in some way invalid, ill-informed or fraudulent? You seem to ‘imagine’ quite a lot don’t you?
“I have spoken to about three dozen people who admit to owning KBAALW, and not a single one of them has read it.”
Who are these people? How did you find them? Given that the book has sold around 25,000 copies I believe, I would be interested to know why it is that you believe that these 33 people are truly representative?
“which makes your relentless and enthusiastic PR work for the book and its authors all the more bewildering.”
I am simply asking you questions Andrew. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. No PR work involved I am afraid.
“They would also have noted that praising the king for having “straddled two centuries” and sharpening his own pencils was perhaps not the best strategy for evoking the monarch’s greatness.”
Do you think that “evoking the monarch’s greatness” is the total sum of the aims of this book? It is commissioned by the Palace but given the experience and intellectual authority of some of the contributors, one might have thought they see the project as being rather more complex than that which is, presumably, why they consented to be commissioned in the first place. Handley echoes that view despite his withering put down of its evaluative worth (“Forrest Gump”).
“Had they done so, they would surely not have allowed execrable lines like “love came knocking on his door in the shape of a cousin” to make it into the final version.”
I don’t much like this line either, but it is not actually an editorial mistake is it? So one would presume that the editors have a different taste in prose from both you and me. I would imagine it didn’t slip through any editorial net.
“I have a suggestion for you: how about you postpone any further comments until you have actually bothered to read the book, and then we can talk sensibly.”
Suggest away……. I am not critiquing the book. I am questioning your approach to critiquing the book and its readers which by yopur opwn words seems to involve a lot of imagination.
#11
“Dan – What is your experience of Thai people as readers? ”
I have known a number of voracious readers in Thailand. Education levels in Thailand are generally not good, I would agree, but if the point you are about to make is that no one reads (is that your point?), I would wonder why anyone (including Andrew Macgregor Marshall, Chris Baker or David Streckfuss to name some foreign authors who write about Thailand) actually bothers to write anything at all…. The reality of your comment is that we are once again in the realms of sweeping generalisation.
Bumiputera graduate unemployment and Malaysia’s world class education system – a recipe for disaster
I’m compiling evidence – which is widely available but not systematically organised especially for those who choose to be blind to the compelling evidence – on the links between UMNO’s policies and the decline of the quality of education (among many other things) in Malaysia.
For a start, this case study by the World Bank, comparing University Malaya (UM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS) provides a natural experiment on how different policies lead to – obviously – different outcomes. Singapore NUS focused on global competitiveness, Malaysia’s UM focused on placating the majority race. The outcomes are self-explanatory.
The toll of flooding on lives and politics
Vichai N (66). People are rotting in prison for making utterances like yours. Thank you for bringing the hypocrisy of unequal laws into such sharp focus.
Global Mail on Kachin war
Great article, and it definitely shows the disconnect between the minority areas and the majority areas. One wonders how long that disconnect can continue without it affecting the majority areas.
Somewhat off topic, what birds are those on the Manau tusks? They aren’t hornbills, are they?