> “I suppose I could have been more charitable and given the academics a free pass and got stuck into the hacks. But charity to a select group and admonishment for the rest reeks of privilege, traces of which may still be observed in Thailand I believe, however, I am not a big fan.”
My definition of ‘academic’ is much less inclusive than yours. You say ‘select group’, ‘reeks of privilege’ … just reeks of rhetoric. Have you read the chapter written by David Streckfuss? If so tell us where it doesn’t come up to scratch. Have you read Porphant Ouyyanont’s chapter? The chapter written by Chris Baker might just be a 12-page rewrite of the paper he wrote for the UNDP or it might not – have you read it? (I’m assuming Chris Baker, at least, contributed elsewhere too.)
David Streckfuss is currently just working for a school and has written an acclaimed book. Chris Baker not only has the dubious distinction of being listed in Thailand Tatler but he also has a Wikipedia page (sarcasm). Mr Streckfuss is a doctor (the Ph.D kind) and Mr Baker was a lecturer at Cambridge and “he has also worked as an advertising executive”. Is the label ‘academic’ some kind of branding, that stays with you until your death, much like it did in 1970s Cambodia and other assorted revolutionary societies – or should you only qualify as an academic through your present employment?
[…] Jeamteerasakul, the leading academic expert on the events surrounding Ananda’s death, has pointed out, deduction can go a long way, just as in crime novels like Murder on the Orient […]
@Johan said: “Perhaps, if Anand had not been accidentally killed by his brother and the royals/military allowed to pin the blame on Pridi, Thailand of today would be a much more developed democracy instead of the current unstable mess.”
To be honest, no one really knows the future. Ananda himself is not stronger than his brother (who, in many scholar’s view, is a weak King who has no standing, and the fact that he has a dark secret to hide regarding his brother’s accidental death, weakens him even further). Thus, who knows what plans the Royalists have up their sleeves. Sarit could have staged a coup to oust Pridi, claiming that he is not loyal to the Monarchy, and King Ananda would be hailed as an inviolable god instead of his brother. Who knows.
King Ananda is certainly popular. The Thais love him, and I dare to say that when Ananda was the King, Thais love him more than they love his brother. And it is very possible that the royalists can use Pridi’s republican antics to oust him, accusing him that he wants to overthrow King Ananda. And I am very sure that King Ananda himself would not be taking a firm stance to oppose such a coup.
As long as the Thais do not believe in democracy, Thailand will never step out of the dark ages.
I would suggest that you need to look a bit deeper in terms of the internal politics of the Pathet Lao after 1975, although I know you know more than most. I think there is more to what happened with Faydang than you appear to realise. Certainly the situation with Souphanouvong after 1975 was very tense, and although the internal split between him and his supporters and Kaysone and his supporters has not been well documented, insiders are all well aware of it, and still, the government has no qualms promoting Souphanouvong’s image, as if there was no conflict, many years later. I agree that overall the leadership of the Pathet Lao was quite disciplined after 1975, but that doesn’t mean that there were not differences between them and power struggles that have not been recorded in any of the Party’s official biographies, etc.
Olli,
No, I have never heard of the pro-Pathet Lao Hmong having been offered autonomy or any other special rights. However, the Pathet Lao certainly promised to stop the ethnic discrimination that the Hmong and other minorities had previously been subjected to, and give them equal rights in relation to those from all other ethnic groups. That was not insignificant.
I have now read the review by A Marshall part I-III and find it excellent. Very satisfying to read a factual account of events that shaped the country. It puts many pieces together that, at least for an outsider like myself, have been clouded by propaganda and censorship.
I wish every Thai would have access to facts and publications such as this review. I hope that A Marshall will publish his work in book form and translated into Thai language online.
Perhaps, if Anand had not been accidentally killed by his brother and the royals/military allowed to pin the blame on Pridi, Thailand of today would be a much more developed democracy instead of the current unstable mess.
“Manote Tripathi, writing in The Nation, calls King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work, “the most authoritative treatise to date about His Majesty and Thailand’s 750-year-old monarchy””. This seems to be a clue to the motive of the new book’s producers and promoters– an attempt to displace Handley’s book, The King Never Smiles, as the standard English-language biography of King Bhumibol. They have concluded, probably correctly, that Handley has done as much to undermine the Thai monarchy abroad as Thaksin has done at home. Probably neither set out to do what they have achieved. One has done it by telling the truth, and the other by providing the people with an alternative that they consistently prefer.
Stuart #83. Yes agreed, Nostitz’s coverage of the Thai political and social scene since the last coup has been really excellent. However, if you observe Bangkokpundit dancing between the raindrops in his endeavors to evade criminal or perhaps physical sanction with his reporting. One inevitably never gets the full story. The spade never gets to be identified as that damned shovel. This is a reality of working in Thailand but most foreigners are never coerced to “kraap” the king, so if one goes out of their way to prostrate themselves in such a manner then they must accept the perceptions that flow from it.
Jon Wright #84 I suppose I could have been more charitable and given the academics a free pass and got stuck into the hacks. But charity to a select group and admonishment for the rest reeks of privilege, traces of which may still be observed in Thailand I believe, however, I am not a big fan.
“Their chapters broke new ground for a publication of this kind.” Damning with such faint praise, your a devil who must blend seamlessly in Thai society. Your inside knowledge of the organization of this publication I will accept at face value, although, I am unsure where the quote “group of experts” comes from.
If I volunteer to set up the sound system for one of Yingluck’s political events and then people suspect I may be trying to ingratiate myself into Thaksin’s political organization for whatever benefit that is a perception that I would expect and accept. In Thai society or any other.
The building of heroic statues is a costly process, but a lot of the time it is outside entrepreneurs covering the expenses. It’s all part of the Party’s system of patronage. Costly statues and monuments are built in various ‘poor’ states of the world so the Lao aren’t doing anything unusual. I’m sure it is also encouraged to a degree by foreign agencies to stimulate tourism and preserve metal working skills. With regards to the construction of schools and hospitals, yes they are necessary, but the maintenance of such buildings and fitting them with the necessary resources is more important in my opinion. Privatization of health care and education is being encouraged by the Party so there are opportunities a plenty for the philanthropic as long as you acknowledge the patronage of the Party in the state’s broad development scheme. Personally I’d like to know how much money is wasted on paint, billboards and plaques which acknowledge donations to temples, schools, roads and the like. Charitable giving is meant to be done without expecting anything. Most governmental donors require signposts to show their benevolence for development projects. Is it really necessary? Regarding semi-autonomy for the minorities in Laos, no, there was never any special deal organized like in China. The RLG was never willing to give concessions to the Hmong allied to Vang Pao so there was no need for the Pathet Lao to go out on a limb giving special privileges. What the press in the West fails to acknowledge is that an equally large portion of the Hmong had earlier joined the Pathet Lao back in 1950 and were happy with the policies put forward and implemented by the Pathet Lao.
> “Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance. They all chose to actively participate, and thus, for me at least, are now all equally tainted. ”
You could be more charitable and divide them into two groups. Strekfuss did the LM section, Baker did the sufficiency economy, and Porphant Ouyyanont covered The Crown Property Bureau. They are the authorities on their respective subjects and presumably they extracted certain assurances before they commenced work. Their chapters broke new ground for a publication of this kind.
The other writers, “freelancers and stringers in recent years, doing assignments for news organizations, travel guides, coffee-table books, inflight magazines, hotel brochures and the like“, to quote Andrew MacGregor Marshall, should come under more scrutiny. The names are: Julian Gearing, Paul Wedel, Richard Ehrlich, Robert Horn, Joe Cummings and Robert Woodrow. Not exactly a “group of experts”, a couple are notably anti-Thaksin and at least one was has been trying to ingratiate himself with the fascist/royalist establishment since well before Thaksin came to power.
As for Nicholas Grossman and Dominic Faulder – I guess their role was project management, basically consisting of smoothing out the to-ing and fro-ing between an incoherent committee and the exasperated writers. Not a task I’d like to undertake and not an accomplishment I’d like to be remembered for.
Nich is right that there is much reviewing going on. I am writing one for the Journal of Contemporary Asia, and am really just finding my way into the book, and it will be some time before the review appears. However, I was struck by some features of it that I don’t think has been mentioned in your other two sets of reviews and comments.
When Anand launched the book, he was reported as stating that the editors and authors “did not use details without reference…” (from the report in the Nation).
Indeed, the book does include a long bibliography and there are 135 endnotes. Oddly, about a third of the way into the volume 5 “footnotes” appear in the margins.
Of these 140 notes, six are from the first 279 pages of the book and none of them include citations or comments on sources. In these pages, standard referencing is eschewed, even for direct quotations, and replaced by a simple naming of authors. But even this isn’t standardized. This unusual approach is not really presenting details with referencing as promised.
Something else that struck me is the fact that we really have two books in one. Part III, presumably by the contracted academic authors, does have proper citation. However, this Part is distinguished and separated from Parts I and II not just by this academic citation, but by much more (and I trust that I haven’t got hold of a copy that is an anomaly).
Part III appears physically different and separated because there is a change of font, by being set in two columns (rather than left and right justified from left to right margins) and it has different borders from Parts I and II.
I suspect this separating isn’t an editor’s Freudian slip but a choice that was made. Your readers might like to ponder the deeper meanings of this feature of the book.
> “I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one”
Don’t wriggle out, I was addressing your comment implying that more than one person had been ‘incarcerated’ in connection with TKNS. I think it’s established now that the number of known cases is one – Joe Gordon. Until we have very good indications that more have been locked up for this specific action then don’t imply the number is plural. If we don’t apply more rigour to our statements then others unconsciously repeat them and it just becomes viral.
From Siam Paragon (AsiaBooks) with Love. – “Sorry Sir, our system does not have any information about the book itself or whether we will sell it in the future. But I just check Amazon and it says the book was released on 15th of January already.” … Ok, bought the Khunying & Co on Sufficiency Economy pamphlet instead and will learn it by heart. *sigh*
@Anouvong: The standard book on this issue is probably Grant Evans’ Politics of Ritual and Remembrance from 1998 where he discusses the ideological shifts in Laos after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Since then the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party fostered its legitimacy by commemorating the ‘national liberation struggle’ against French and American ‘imperialists’ as continuation of the allegedly ‘patriotic’ historical campaigns by Fa Ngum, Setthathilat, and Anouvong – i.e. the revolutionaries depict themselves as true heirs of old Lan Sang.
@ Martin and other experts of Hmong history: Do you know if there were any discussions among the pro-Pathet Lao Hmong concerning an eventual autonomy or other special rights for the Hmong after the revolution? There must have been incentives to counter Vang Pao’s influence during the 60s/70s.
@ Lanxang: The Lao government builds a lot of schools with financial support by Japan, France, Germany, and many other countries. The real challenge is the training of teachers and the improvement of secondary education. This would indeed be investment for the country’s future.
I have neither exhorted Andrew (Macgregor Marshall) to “simply shut up” as you choose to put it, nor would I dream of making attacks on his person (small minded or otherwise). Nor do I hold any “personal antipathy” towards him. He is a contributor to a debate and he contributes with gusto. I am sure he would feel disappointed if he was not answered.
I am simply questioning the critical methodology by which he describes the book in question and saying that, in my opinion, Handley’s methodology is more apposite. And, with no wish to upset you, your desire for me to “please provide your own contribution to my understanding of Thailand” is a a wee bit self-centred.
#83 laoguy
“Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance.”
This does indeed beg a question considering the glittering array of intellect on display.
Inasmuch as journalists are lumped together with used car salesmen and bad lawyers, I think you’ll find a great deal of the better insights into Thailand have come from newsmen – Paul Handley, Nick Nostitz and Bangkok Pundit, to name the obvious ones to hand. There have also been some very good academics on the subject, although I tend to read the journalists more. Both journalists and historians are motivated to unearth the facts. But where the historian looks to add context and colour after the event, the journalist is often the subject’s conscience, even stoking the fires in the heat of events. That’s why they make better activists, if unwittingly sometimes. Journalists also know how to write; and by God don’t Handley and Marshall just! (Perhaps I should change “write” to “communicate” or “expression” in deference to Nostitz’s photographs).
With few exceptions one wonders why the masses should be assaulted and offended with useless and expensive statues of any politicians. Politics is about personal quest for power and enrichment built on a platform of lies and corruption, hardly qualities of human endeavour to which we need pay homage.
Lena #74. “I would not describe the authors who worked on this book as activists.” You can count me out on that one. Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance. They all chose to actively participate, and thus, for me at least, are now all equally tainted. These participants are not ignorant bumblers, most have a deep knowledge of Thailand, its history and society. Everyone of them lent their names to a project of disinformation designed to ameliorate the growing alternate perspective of Phumiphion’s reign. That’s right, foreigners are becoming increasingly ‘taa sawaang’ also. Sheesh! This guy protected and or promoted the perpetrators of all the major political massacres of the last 50 years. Security can be elusive in Thailand, and hence, we witness many aberrant expressions of this phenomenon
This thread is aberrant also. It appears to be much less about the king’s biography than about which journalist has the true historical perspective of the ninth reign. Apparently, an academic view is no longer valued. Perhaps they are no longer trusted. Only lawyers and used car salesmens to go. Sad.
> “I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one Mr Wright.”
Don’t wriggle out, I was addressing your comment implying that more than one person had been ‘incarcerated’ in connection with TKNS. I think it’s established now that the number of known cases in one – Joe Gordon. Until we have very good indications that more have been locked up for this specific action then don’t imply the number is plural. If we don’t apply more rigour to our statements then others unconsciously repeat them and it just becomes viral.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of A Life’s Work
laoguy:
> “I suppose I could have been more charitable and given the academics a free pass and got stuck into the hacks. But charity to a select group and admonishment for the rest reeks of privilege, traces of which may still be observed in Thailand I believe, however, I am not a big fan.”
My definition of ‘academic’ is much less inclusive than yours. You say ‘select group’, ‘reeks of privilege’ … just reeks of rhetoric. Have you read the chapter written by David Streckfuss? If so tell us where it doesn’t come up to scratch. Have you read Porphant Ouyyanont’s chapter? The chapter written by Chris Baker might just be a 12-page rewrite of the paper he wrote for the UNDP or it might not – have you read it? (I’m assuming Chris Baker, at least, contributed elsewhere too.)
David Streckfuss is currently just working for a school and has written an acclaimed book. Chris Baker not only has the dubious distinction of being listed in Thailand Tatler but he also has a Wikipedia page (sarcasm). Mr Streckfuss is a doctor (the Ph.D kind) and Mr Baker was a lecturer at Cambridge and “he has also worked as an advertising executive”. Is the label ‘academic’ some kind of branding, that stays with you until your death, much like it did in 1970s Cambodia and other assorted revolutionary societies – or should you only qualify as an academic through your present employment?
Review of A Life’s Work
> ‘I am unsure where the quote “group of experts” comes from.’
The Nation.
Somsak on Ananda Mahidol
[…] Jeamteerasakul, the leading academic expert on the events surrounding Ananda’s death, has pointed out, deduction can go a long way, just as in crime novels like Murder on the Orient […]
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
@Johan said: “Perhaps, if Anand had not been accidentally killed by his brother and the royals/military allowed to pin the blame on Pridi, Thailand of today would be a much more developed democracy instead of the current unstable mess.”
To be honest, no one really knows the future. Ananda himself is not stronger than his brother (who, in many scholar’s view, is a weak King who has no standing, and the fact that he has a dark secret to hide regarding his brother’s accidental death, weakens him even further). Thus, who knows what plans the Royalists have up their sleeves. Sarit could have staged a coup to oust Pridi, claiming that he is not loyal to the Monarchy, and King Ananda would be hailed as an inviolable god instead of his brother. Who knows.
King Ananda is certainly popular. The Thais love him, and I dare to say that when Ananda was the King, Thais love him more than they love his brother. And it is very possible that the royalists can use Pridi’s republican antics to oust him, accusing him that he wants to overthrow King Ananda. And I am very sure that King Ananda himself would not be taking a firm stance to oppose such a coup.
As long as the Thais do not believe in democracy, Thailand will never step out of the dark ages.
Revolutionary statues reloaded
Martin,
I would suggest that you need to look a bit deeper in terms of the internal politics of the Pathet Lao after 1975, although I know you know more than most. I think there is more to what happened with Faydang than you appear to realise. Certainly the situation with Souphanouvong after 1975 was very tense, and although the internal split between him and his supporters and Kaysone and his supporters has not been well documented, insiders are all well aware of it, and still, the government has no qualms promoting Souphanouvong’s image, as if there was no conflict, many years later. I agree that overall the leadership of the Pathet Lao was quite disciplined after 1975, but that doesn’t mean that there were not differences between them and power struggles that have not been recorded in any of the Party’s official biographies, etc.
Olli,
No, I have never heard of the pro-Pathet Lao Hmong having been offered autonomy or any other special rights. However, the Pathet Lao certainly promised to stop the ethnic discrimination that the Hmong and other minorities had previously been subjected to, and give them equal rights in relation to those from all other ethnic groups. That was not insignificant.
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
I have now read the review by A Marshall part I-III and find it excellent. Very satisfying to read a factual account of events that shaped the country. It puts many pieces together that, at least for an outsider like myself, have been clouded by propaganda and censorship.
I wish every Thai would have access to facts and publications such as this review. I hope that A Marshall will publish his work in book form and translated into Thai language online.
Perhaps, if Anand had not been accidentally killed by his brother and the royals/military allowed to pin the blame on Pridi, Thailand of today would be a much more developed democracy instead of the current unstable mess.
Reviews and reviews and reviews
“Manote Tripathi, writing in The Nation, calls King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work, “the most authoritative treatise to date about His Majesty and Thailand’s 750-year-old monarchy””. This seems to be a clue to the motive of the new book’s producers and promoters– an attempt to displace Handley’s book, The King Never Smiles, as the standard English-language biography of King Bhumibol. They have concluded, probably correctly, that Handley has done as much to undermine the Thai monarchy abroad as Thaksin has done at home. Probably neither set out to do what they have achieved. One has done it by telling the truth, and the other by providing the people with an alternative that they consistently prefer.
Review of A Life’s Work
Stuart #83. Yes agreed, Nostitz’s coverage of the Thai political and social scene since the last coup has been really excellent. However, if you observe Bangkokpundit dancing between the raindrops in his endeavors to evade criminal or perhaps physical sanction with his reporting. One inevitably never gets the full story. The spade never gets to be identified as that damned shovel. This is a reality of working in Thailand but most foreigners are never coerced to “kraap” the king, so if one goes out of their way to prostrate themselves in such a manner then they must accept the perceptions that flow from it.
Jon Wright #84 I suppose I could have been more charitable and given the academics a free pass and got stuck into the hacks. But charity to a select group and admonishment for the rest reeks of privilege, traces of which may still be observed in Thailand I believe, however, I am not a big fan.
“Their chapters broke new ground for a publication of this kind.” Damning with such faint praise, your a devil who must blend seamlessly in Thai society. Your inside knowledge of the organization of this publication I will accept at face value, although, I am unsure where the quote “group of experts” comes from.
If I volunteer to set up the sound system for one of Yingluck’s political events and then people suspect I may be trying to ingratiate myself into Thaksin’s political organization for whatever benefit that is a perception that I would expect and accept. In Thai society or any other.
Revolutionary statues reloaded
The building of heroic statues is a costly process, but a lot of the time it is outside entrepreneurs covering the expenses. It’s all part of the Party’s system of patronage. Costly statues and monuments are built in various ‘poor’ states of the world so the Lao aren’t doing anything unusual. I’m sure it is also encouraged to a degree by foreign agencies to stimulate tourism and preserve metal working skills. With regards to the construction of schools and hospitals, yes they are necessary, but the maintenance of such buildings and fitting them with the necessary resources is more important in my opinion. Privatization of health care and education is being encouraged by the Party so there are opportunities a plenty for the philanthropic as long as you acknowledge the patronage of the Party in the state’s broad development scheme. Personally I’d like to know how much money is wasted on paint, billboards and plaques which acknowledge donations to temples, schools, roads and the like. Charitable giving is meant to be done without expecting anything. Most governmental donors require signposts to show their benevolence for development projects. Is it really necessary? Regarding semi-autonomy for the minorities in Laos, no, there was never any special deal organized like in China. The RLG was never willing to give concessions to the Hmong allied to Vang Pao so there was no need for the Pathet Lao to go out on a limb giving special privileges. What the press in the West fails to acknowledge is that an equally large portion of the Hmong had earlier joined the Pathet Lao back in 1950 and were happy with the policies put forward and implemented by the Pathet Lao.
Review of A Life’s Work
> “Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance. They all chose to actively participate, and thus, for me at least, are now all equally tainted. ”
You could be more charitable and divide them into two groups. Strekfuss did the LM section, Baker did the sufficiency economy, and Porphant Ouyyanont covered The Crown Property Bureau. They are the authorities on their respective subjects and presumably they extracted certain assurances before they commenced work. Their chapters broke new ground for a publication of this kind.
The other writers, “freelancers and stringers in recent years, doing assignments for news organizations, travel guides, coffee-table books, inflight magazines, hotel brochures and the like“, to quote Andrew MacGregor Marshall, should come under more scrutiny. The names are: Julian Gearing, Paul Wedel, Richard Ehrlich, Robert Horn, Joe Cummings and Robert Woodrow. Not exactly a “group of experts”, a couple are notably anti-Thaksin and at least one was has been trying to ingratiate himself with the fascist/royalist establishment since well before Thaksin came to power.
As for Nicholas Grossman and Dominic Faulder – I guess their role was project management, basically consisting of smoothing out the to-ing and fro-ing between an incoherent committee and the exasperated writers. Not a task I’d like to undertake and not an accomplishment I’d like to be remembered for.
Reviews and reviews and reviews
Nich is right that there is much reviewing going on. I am writing one for the Journal of Contemporary Asia, and am really just finding my way into the book, and it will be some time before the review appears. However, I was struck by some features of it that I don’t think has been mentioned in your other two sets of reviews and comments.
When Anand launched the book, he was reported as stating that the editors and authors “did not use details without reference…” (from the report in the Nation).
Indeed, the book does include a long bibliography and there are 135 endnotes. Oddly, about a third of the way into the volume 5 “footnotes” appear in the margins.
Of these 140 notes, six are from the first 279 pages of the book and none of them include citations or comments on sources. In these pages, standard referencing is eschewed, even for direct quotations, and replaced by a simple naming of authors. But even this isn’t standardized. This unusual approach is not really presenting details with referencing as promised.
Something else that struck me is the fact that we really have two books in one. Part III, presumably by the contracted academic authors, does have proper citation. However, this Part is distinguished and separated from Parts I and II not just by this academic citation, but by much more (and I trust that I haven’t got hold of a copy that is an anomaly).
Part III appears physically different and separated because there is a change of font, by being set in two columns (rather than left and right justified from left to right margins) and it has different borders from Parts I and II.
I suspect this separating isn’t an editor’s Freudian slip but a choice that was made. Your readers might like to ponder the deeper meanings of this feature of the book.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena:
> “I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one”
Don’t wriggle out, I was addressing your comment implying that more than one person had been ‘incarcerated’ in connection with TKNS. I think it’s established now that the number of known cases is one – Joe Gordon. Until we have very good indications that more have been locked up for this specific action then don’t imply the number is plural. If we don’t apply more rigour to our statements then others unconsciously repeat them and it just becomes viral.
Bangkok May 2010
From Siam Paragon (AsiaBooks) with Love. – “Sorry Sir, our system does not have any information about the book itself or whether we will sell it in the future. But I just check Amazon and it says the book was released on 15th of January already.” … Ok, bought the Khunying & Co on Sufficiency Economy pamphlet instead and will learn it by heart. *sigh*
Revolutionary statues reloaded
@Anouvong: The standard book on this issue is probably Grant Evans’ Politics of Ritual and Remembrance from 1998 where he discusses the ideological shifts in Laos after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Since then the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party fostered its legitimacy by commemorating the ‘national liberation struggle’ against French and American ‘imperialists’ as continuation of the allegedly ‘patriotic’ historical campaigns by Fa Ngum, Setthathilat, and Anouvong – i.e. the revolutionaries depict themselves as true heirs of old Lan Sang.
@ Martin and other experts of Hmong history: Do you know if there were any discussions among the pro-Pathet Lao Hmong concerning an eventual autonomy or other special rights for the Hmong after the revolution? There must have been incentives to counter Vang Pao’s influence during the 60s/70s.
@ Lanxang: The Lao government builds a lot of schools with financial support by Japan, France, Germany, and many other countries. The real challenge is the training of teachers and the improvement of secondary education. This would indeed be investment for the country’s future.
Review of A Life’s Work
#82
Stuart
I have neither exhorted Andrew (Macgregor Marshall) to “simply shut up” as you choose to put it, nor would I dream of making attacks on his person (small minded or otherwise). Nor do I hold any “personal antipathy” towards him. He is a contributor to a debate and he contributes with gusto. I am sure he would feel disappointed if he was not answered.
I am simply questioning the critical methodology by which he describes the book in question and saying that, in my opinion, Handley’s methodology is more apposite. And, with no wish to upset you, your desire for me to “please provide your own contribution to my understanding of Thailand” is a a wee bit self-centred.
#83 laoguy
“Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance.”
This does indeed beg a question considering the glittering array of intellect on display.
Revolutionary statues reloaded
Instead of building useless statues, they should be building schools and name them for these people if they feel the need to glorify themselves.
Review of A Life’s Work
laoguy
Inasmuch as journalists are lumped together with used car salesmen and bad lawyers, I think you’ll find a great deal of the better insights into Thailand have come from newsmen – Paul Handley, Nick Nostitz and Bangkok Pundit, to name the obvious ones to hand. There have also been some very good academics on the subject, although I tend to read the journalists more. Both journalists and historians are motivated to unearth the facts. But where the historian looks to add context and colour after the event, the journalist is often the subject’s conscience, even stoking the fires in the heat of events. That’s why they make better activists, if unwittingly sometimes. Journalists also know how to write; and by God don’t Handley and Marshall just! (Perhaps I should change “write” to “communicate” or “expression” in deference to Nostitz’s photographs).
Revolutionary statues reloaded
With few exceptions one wonders why the masses should be assaulted and offended with useless and expensive statues of any politicians. Politics is about personal quest for power and enrichment built on a platform of lies and corruption, hardly qualities of human endeavour to which we need pay homage.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena #74. “I would not describe the authors who worked on this book as activists.” You can count me out on that one. Every one of these authors knew the only outcome would be a work of saccharine dissemblance. They all chose to actively participate, and thus, for me at least, are now all equally tainted. These participants are not ignorant bumblers, most have a deep knowledge of Thailand, its history and society. Everyone of them lent their names to a project of disinformation designed to ameliorate the growing alternate perspective of Phumiphion’s reign. That’s right, foreigners are becoming increasingly ‘taa sawaang’ also. Sheesh! This guy protected and or promoted the perpetrators of all the major political massacres of the last 50 years. Security can be elusive in Thailand, and hence, we witness many aberrant expressions of this phenomenon
This thread is aberrant also. It appears to be much less about the king’s biography than about which journalist has the true historical perspective of the ninth reign. Apparently, an academic view is no longer valued. Perhaps they are no longer trusted. Only lawyers and used car salesmens to go. Sad.
Review of A Life’s Work
Lena:
> “I think you will find that the Lese Majeste laws of Thailand have snared rather more unfortunates than one Mr Wright.”
Don’t wriggle out, I was addressing your comment implying that more than one person had been ‘incarcerated’ in connection with TKNS. I think it’s established now that the number of known cases in one – Joe Gordon. Until we have very good indications that more have been locked up for this specific action then don’t imply the number is plural. If we don’t apply more rigour to our statements then others unconsciously repeat them and it just becomes viral.