Gi’s personal account in his 2010 Thailand’s Crisis book where he describes speaking with Anand about his own case and being told by Anand that he did commit lese majeste in his earlier work speaks volumes of one aspect of Thainess that has not been covered in much detail to date: the failure to accept legitimate appeals against lack of justice. It’s as if each situation has a different set of values that should be applied, always loyalist, of course, and that there is no real common thread among the thousands of unjust prosecutions taking place in the country during any particular period in history.
As well, somehow presence of laws dismisses presence of the need for their timely reform.
[…] those who haven’t yet seen it, at New Mandala, journalist and author of The King Never Smiles, Paul Handley has reviewed King Bhumibol Adulyadej, […]
It is as if the Thai monarchists are aboard HMS Titanic and they are critiquing the caliber of the orchestra while completely ignoring the fact that the ship is sinking.
There’s room for both Paul Handley & Andrew McGregor Marshall to review the book in their own way, for their respective audiences.
IMO, it’s a great pity that Thai experts like Somsak J. or Thongchai W. won’t be able to (safely) review the book in a straightforward way, and therefore the work of the Zenjournalist serves an important purpose for those of us who are not experts, but are always trying to learn more.
Of course, one of the most ridiculous aspects of this ridiculous book is its mention of the idea that R8 was killed by a mysterious Japanese but not of the findings in Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s articles on that episode in Fa Diaokan. In his post above, Somsak refers to the many lies in this new book. Might he offer us a list of those lies here?
I appreciate the work of Somsak, Handley and MacGregor. In fact, while I don’t agree with everything in each of their works, I celebrate them all! The more work we get, from them, McCargo, Ji, Hewison, Gray, Ockey, Jory and more, so much the better for debate and understanding.
AM – Handley’s Gump comparison is memorable and very concise.
Please excuse my honesty but I cannot remember one single line from you that resonates in same way Handley’s Gump moment does or one piece of information from your “review” that offered a new insight.
It seems like your Thai Story had fallen flat and was unfinished and had left your audience underwhelmed so you had to come up with something new as a “relaunch”.
This new book comes out and suddenly you are going to write “the most important work, ever” in “5 parts” with all kinds of “new information” and that you’re an “outlaw” who is doing all this to save “tragic Thailand”.
Your contribution to the entire debate on Thailand has been important but it is only one contribution among many and to my mind other peoples work has actually been far more important. It might help you if you cut out your own personal narrative and self-promotion and got on with the actual job at hand.
I think you make some good points, and I generally agree with a lot of what you have written, but I think there is a whole other element that you have not really discussed yet, but is of crucial importance nonetheless. In many ways, the Stalinist ethno-linguistic categorization system from a past era has also combined with an even older sense amongst many people in Cambodia that ethnicity is something that can change, and thus it is appropriate to expect that a ‘traditional indigenous person’ could lose one’s indigenous status by ‘evolving’ and becoming ‘developed’ as a Khmer. Hun Sen, in fact, has essentially said as much – once people are developed, they can become Khmer. This certainly was what happened long ago.
Certainly you are right that foreign NGOs have played a huge role in constructing the idea of indigeneity in Cambodia in recent years, and I have recently written a book chapter about this exact topic, but also remember that the influences of older ideas, and those about ‘evolving into the Socialist man’ during Soviet era, have also been important in determining how indigeneity is being conceptualised in Cambodia today. It’s all a bit mixed up, which is to be expected.
Of course, the other question that must be asked is, even if the communal land system worked in Cambodia, and the system is fundamentally problematic, since forests not linked to future agriculture cannot be included in communal land claims in Cambodia. All ‘forests’ are supported to remain state land controlled by MAFF (except for protected areas in the Ministry of Environment system). but also, only 1% of the population of Cambodia is eligible for communal land rights anyway, as most are not able to argue that they are ‘indigenous’. In contract, Laos is also moving ahead with communal land rights, and while there are certainly problems there, it is interesting that since they recognise all the population as being ‘indigenous’, everyone is the country is potentially eligible for communal land rights, not just the 1% like in Cambodia. Also, in Laos forests are being included in communal land rights. With all the above being the case, has the idea of ‘indigenous’ as only applying to upland minorities in Cambodia really serving the greater good, or is it removing the necessity of providing everyone in Cambodia with opportunities, by being able to claim that they are giving them to ‘indigenous’ people? Other Cambodian also communally use the forest.
Regarding discussing of LM, Anand says: “I am sure that the king does not mind whether the law exists or not, but the Thai people never, never tolerate criticism of the king” (p. 313).
I don’t know what vacuum Anand has been living in, but that statement is just a complete royalist fantasy and must be called out for the utter and complete horse shit it truly is. On occasions too numerous to count, I have been present in discussions where criticisms have been made, usually mild criticism of K, but not so mild criticism of Q and CP, and none of the Thais present have ever reacted in the way Anand pictures they would. Instead they react the way normal people anywhere else in the world would react. In polite conversation they either agree to disagree or remain silent. Maybe I am just lucky I have never been in the presence of rabid royalists, but I have been in the presence of quite a few high brows in Thai society, and Anand’s statement is just a pathetic excuse for defending a horrific barbaric law.
AGM #26: Good point, and pertinent.
There are many shades of conscience, and the extent it is demonstrated varies. AGM and PMH are very different people, very different writers, writing for very different reasons about the same country, the same culture, with different eyes. Their views are, however, relatively complimentary.
One more thing worth noting about Paul Handley’s review, for those wondering why it was so tepid, is that he now works for AFP. My own experience with Reuters is well known. Those wishing to speak frankly about Thailand cannot do so if they work for an international media organisation.
In the context of critical reviews of writing on the king and his politics, Michael Connors has a piece of interest in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 41, 4, 2011. Part of it is available free at http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/
Worth a read for contextualising criticism over a period from about the mid-1990s.
Since TKNS is mentioned as one of the sources for KBAALW, and indeed is mentioned (negatively) in the book, what does this mean for the lese majeste conviction of Joe Gordon, imprisoned for translating and linking to parts of TKNS while in the United States?
Should the authors of KBAALW be tried? Or should Joe be freed?
The Devil’s Discus is mentioned once in KBAALW, in the bibliography, among English-language source material. TKNS is also there, and so is The Revolutionary King.
The Revolutionary King is also alluded to in the body of KBAALW, but curiously neither the title of the book nor its author are named there. KBAALW also fails to say how The Revolutionary King came to be written.
I will discuss KBAALW’s treatment of Ananda’s death in detail in part 3 of my book review. Part 3 of my review will also give my own views on that incident, referencing several U.S. and UK cables as well as unpublished contemporary correspondence.
Yes, Rayne Kruger’s The Devil’s Discus: The Death of Ananda, King of Siam, is listed in the bibliography (p. 367). In fact, I can’t see too many obvious works published in English which aren’t included, except for anything by Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Pretty much all the big names who have written on (or around) King Bhumibol get a nod.
The list of Thai language sources, on the other hand, seems to have a fair few obvious names missing. It is almost comprehensively “official” or “royalist”, or what have you, in orientation. The diversity of Thai language writing on 20th and 21st century Thailand is not apparent in the list presented.
“A coup for the rich” was withdrawn from CUBook merely for citing TKNS.
KBAALW cites it but does survive (because of royal blessing?).
If KBAALW is translated into Thai, a lot more people in Thailand will know of the existence of TKNS and some other issues not previously publicly discussed. (though poorly presented as many pointed out.)
Probably, I am naive but don’t you think KBAALW is a good starting point for a progress? In Thailand, you can not say publicly “read TKNS to know more about…” but it should be alright to say “read KBAALW and its references to know more about …”
BTW, Can anyone confirm that KBAALW cites “The Devil’s Discus” as well?
Amid these dazzling on going changes, please allow this short exposé of recent event in Myaungmya, a microcosm.
MyaungMya ~ 25 miles from the main city of the delta region Pathein. the quintessential last local staging point b/f venturing to the center of Nargis devastations, such as Bogalay.
If not for the still continuing increases in the # of orphans in the local orphanages, life seem to have returned to near normalcy, by the presence of farmers in the green fields, and youngsters tending to their beasts of burden.
At one such orphanage was a recent new comer from Bogalay. A small child, noticed by our party, 2┬║ to wearing an oversize colorful plastic galoshes.
She was 4, but the size of a 2 yo, pale, listless and fading. My better half offer her the index finger, a tradition that signify ‘please come with me?’
She perked up comply, and promptly fall asleep in her lap upon siting down.
2 days later while in Yangon, were notified of her dead, overnight in her bed.
Heart failure due to malnutrition and forever taxing GI diseases etc.
Heart failure in a child with no heart disease is a crime by it self at any level of Humanity in the West.
One more point. I’m not trying to “attack” Paul Handley. We’ve never met but I consider TKNS to be a brilliant and brave work. That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with every word of his review and ignore errors in it. Debate on these issues is very beneficial, in my view, and I’d assume Paul Handley would agree.
This is an interesting discussion, and if I can identify a core theme of it, it is about whether we should take statements and books from Thailand’s monarchist establishment seriously, and if we want to take them seriously, what that involves.
Handley’s review, and indeed “Nontock”‘s comments about my review, are based on an assumption that everybody knows that this book is going to be filled with lies and evasions, and nobody in the know would be daft enough to consider it the literal truth. Rather like an official biography of Kim Jong-il or Stalin, it is to be judged not on its merits as a biography (because everybody knows that would be ridiculous) but in terms of what little hints and whispers it gives of tiny changes of approach within the ruling elite. So, for example, “nontock” says:
“As a work on its own, its weaknesses are perhaps easy for those of a certain view to identify, and I don’t think it is particularly interesting or constructive to post paragraphs of outrage and corrections.”
I guess the point is that for people in informed circles commenting on Thailand, it is so obvious that there are elephants lumbering around the room that it would seem crass and naive to say so, and so instead we should comment on the style of the wallpaper, which seems a little different to last time. What can it mean?
Of course we all know that monarchy only works by making ordinary things seem extraordinary. Flattery, circumambulation of the kingdom, intricate ceremonies and so on are, essentially, rituals designed to convey a sense of royal barami, and not really to be taken literally. But Thailand is facing a crisis precisely because many Thais are insisting that such things should be taken seriously.
My view is that since Anand has claimed that this is a book of facts, that tells the truth about Bhumibol, then it is not unreasonable to take him at his word and see whether KBAALW is really what he says it is, which of course it is not (I’m presuming we can all agree that, at least, we all know that it utterly fails to give a sensible and honest account of Rama IX’s reign).
I’m reminded of the parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everybody thinks it is terribly impolite and crass to say KBAALW is stark naked.
But perhaps that is because I am an amateur and lack a background in Thai studies.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of A Life’s Work
Gi’s personal account in his 2010 Thailand’s Crisis book where he describes speaking with Anand about his own case and being told by Anand that he did commit lese majeste in his earlier work speaks volumes of one aspect of Thainess that has not been covered in much detail to date: the failure to accept legitimate appeals against lack of justice. It’s as if each situation has a different set of values that should be applied, always loyalist, of course, and that there is no real common thread among the thousands of unjust prosecutions taking place in the country during any particular period in history.
As well, somehow presence of laws dismisses presence of the need for their timely reform.
Smoke across mainland Southeast Asia
Wonder if preventing swidden cultivation will be part of REDD payments.
Ps. NM needs a simple graphic light mobile version.
Review of A Life’s Work
[…] those who haven’t yet seen it, at New Mandala, journalist and author of The King Never Smiles, Paul Handley has reviewed King Bhumibol Adulyadej, […]
Review of A Life’s Work
It is as if the Thai monarchists are aboard HMS Titanic and they are critiquing the caliber of the orchestra while completely ignoring the fact that the ship is sinking.
Review of A Life’s Work
There’s room for both Paul Handley & Andrew McGregor Marshall to review the book in their own way, for their respective audiences.
IMO, it’s a great pity that Thai experts like Somsak J. or Thongchai W. won’t be able to (safely) review the book in a straightforward way, and therefore the work of the Zenjournalist serves an important purpose for those of us who are not experts, but are always trying to learn more.
Review of A Life’s Work
Of course, one of the most ridiculous aspects of this ridiculous book is its mention of the idea that R8 was killed by a mysterious Japanese but not of the findings in Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s articles on that episode in Fa Diaokan. In his post above, Somsak refers to the many lies in this new book. Might he offer us a list of those lies here?
Review of A Life’s Work
I appreciate the work of Somsak, Handley and MacGregor. In fact, while I don’t agree with everything in each of their works, I celebrate them all! The more work we get, from them, McCargo, Ji, Hewison, Gray, Ockey, Jory and more, so much the better for debate and understanding.
Review of A Life’s Work
AM – Handley’s Gump comparison is memorable and very concise.
Please excuse my honesty but I cannot remember one single line from you that resonates in same way Handley’s Gump moment does or one piece of information from your “review” that offered a new insight.
It seems like your Thai Story had fallen flat and was unfinished and had left your audience underwhelmed so you had to come up with something new as a “relaunch”.
This new book comes out and suddenly you are going to write “the most important work, ever” in “5 parts” with all kinds of “new information” and that you’re an “outlaw” who is doing all this to save “tragic Thailand”.
Your contribution to the entire debate on Thailand has been important but it is only one contribution among many and to my mind other peoples work has actually been far more important. It might help you if you cut out your own personal narrative and self-promotion and got on with the actual job at hand.
Land and conflict in Cambodia
Tim,
I think you make some good points, and I generally agree with a lot of what you have written, but I think there is a whole other element that you have not really discussed yet, but is of crucial importance nonetheless. In many ways, the Stalinist ethno-linguistic categorization system from a past era has also combined with an even older sense amongst many people in Cambodia that ethnicity is something that can change, and thus it is appropriate to expect that a ‘traditional indigenous person’ could lose one’s indigenous status by ‘evolving’ and becoming ‘developed’ as a Khmer. Hun Sen, in fact, has essentially said as much – once people are developed, they can become Khmer. This certainly was what happened long ago.
Certainly you are right that foreign NGOs have played a huge role in constructing the idea of indigeneity in Cambodia in recent years, and I have recently written a book chapter about this exact topic, but also remember that the influences of older ideas, and those about ‘evolving into the Socialist man’ during Soviet era, have also been important in determining how indigeneity is being conceptualised in Cambodia today. It’s all a bit mixed up, which is to be expected.
Of course, the other question that must be asked is, even if the communal land system worked in Cambodia, and the system is fundamentally problematic, since forests not linked to future agriculture cannot be included in communal land claims in Cambodia. All ‘forests’ are supported to remain state land controlled by MAFF (except for protected areas in the Ministry of Environment system). but also, only 1% of the population of Cambodia is eligible for communal land rights anyway, as most are not able to argue that they are ‘indigenous’. In contract, Laos is also moving ahead with communal land rights, and while there are certainly problems there, it is interesting that since they recognise all the population as being ‘indigenous’, everyone is the country is potentially eligible for communal land rights, not just the 1% like in Cambodia. Also, in Laos forests are being included in communal land rights. With all the above being the case, has the idea of ‘indigenous’ as only applying to upland minorities in Cambodia really serving the greater good, or is it removing the necessity of providing everyone in Cambodia with opportunities, by being able to claim that they are giving them to ‘indigenous’ people? Other Cambodian also communally use the forest.
Ian
Review of A Life’s Work
Regarding discussing of LM, Anand says: “I am sure that the king does not mind whether the law exists or not, but the Thai people never, never tolerate criticism of the king” (p. 313).
I don’t know what vacuum Anand has been living in, but that statement is just a complete royalist fantasy and must be called out for the utter and complete horse shit it truly is. On occasions too numerous to count, I have been present in discussions where criticisms have been made, usually mild criticism of K, but not so mild criticism of Q and CP, and none of the Thais present have ever reacted in the way Anand pictures they would. Instead they react the way normal people anywhere else in the world would react. In polite conversation they either agree to disagree or remain silent. Maybe I am just lucky I have never been in the presence of rabid royalists, but I have been in the presence of quite a few high brows in Thai society, and Anand’s statement is just a pathetic excuse for defending a horrific barbaric law.
Review of A Life’s Work
AGM #26: Good point, and pertinent.
There are many shades of conscience, and the extent it is demonstrated varies. AGM and PMH are very different people, very different writers, writing for very different reasons about the same country, the same culture, with different eyes. Their views are, however, relatively complimentary.
Review of A Life’s Work
One more thing worth noting about Paul Handley’s review, for those wondering why it was so tepid, is that he now works for AFP. My own experience with Reuters is well known. Those wishing to speak frankly about Thailand cannot do so if they work for an international media organisation.
Review of A Life’s Work
In the context of critical reviews of writing on the king and his politics, Michael Connors has a piece of interest in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 41, 4, 2011. Part of it is available free at http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/
Worth a read for contextualising criticism over a period from about the mid-1990s.
There’s also a hotch-potch of critical academic material at http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/commentary/lese-majeste-issues/.
Review of A Life’s Work
passer by #21 also raises an intriguing point
Since TKNS is mentioned as one of the sources for KBAALW, and indeed is mentioned (negatively) in the book, what does this mean for the lese majeste conviction of Joe Gordon, imprisoned for translating and linking to parts of TKNS while in the United States?
Should the authors of KBAALW be tried? Or should Joe be freed?
Review of A Life’s Work
passer by # 21
The Devil’s Discus is mentioned once in KBAALW, in the bibliography, among English-language source material. TKNS is also there, and so is The Revolutionary King.
The Revolutionary King is also alluded to in the body of KBAALW, but curiously neither the title of the book nor its author are named there. KBAALW also fails to say how The Revolutionary King came to be written.
I will discuss KBAALW’s treatment of Ananda’s death in detail in part 3 of my book review. Part 3 of my review will also give my own views on that incident, referencing several U.S. and UK cables as well as unpublished contemporary correspondence.
Best wishes
Review of A Life’s Work
Thanks passer by,
Yes, Rayne Kruger’s The Devil’s Discus: The Death of Ananda, King of Siam, is listed in the bibliography (p. 367). In fact, I can’t see too many obvious works published in English which aren’t included, except for anything by Giles Ji Ungpakorn. Pretty much all the big names who have written on (or around) King Bhumibol get a nod.
The list of Thai language sources, on the other hand, seems to have a fair few obvious names missing. It is almost comprehensively “official” or “royalist”, or what have you, in orientation. The diversity of Thai language writing on 20th and 21st century Thailand is not apparent in the list presented.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Review of A Life’s Work
To reiterate my point in #10
“A coup for the rich” was withdrawn from CUBook merely for citing TKNS.
KBAALW cites it but does survive (because of royal blessing?).
If KBAALW is translated into Thai, a lot more people in Thailand will know of the existence of TKNS and some other issues not previously publicly discussed. (though poorly presented as many pointed out.)
Probably, I am naive but don’t you think KBAALW is a good starting point for a progress? In Thailand, you can not say publicly “read TKNS to know more about…” but it should be alright to say “read KBAALW and its references to know more about …”
BTW, Can anyone confirm that KBAALW cites “The Devil’s Discus” as well?
Out of the Burmese daze?
Nich
Amid these dazzling on going changes, please allow this short exposé of recent event in Myaungmya, a microcosm.
MyaungMya ~ 25 miles from the main city of the delta region Pathein. the quintessential last local staging point b/f venturing to the center of Nargis devastations, such as Bogalay.
If not for the still continuing increases in the # of orphans in the local orphanages, life seem to have returned to near normalcy, by the presence of farmers in the green fields, and youngsters tending to their beasts of burden.
At one such orphanage was a recent new comer from Bogalay. A small child, noticed by our party, 2┬║ to wearing an oversize colorful plastic galoshes.
She was 4, but the size of a 2 yo, pale, listless and fading. My better half offer her the index finger, a tradition that signify ‘please come with me?’
She perked up comply, and promptly fall asleep in her lap upon siting down.
2 days later while in Yangon, were notified of her dead, overnight in her bed.
Heart failure due to malnutrition and forever taxing GI diseases etc.
Heart failure in a child with no heart disease is a crime by it self at any level of Humanity in the West.
In Myanmar it is just another damn statistic.
Review of A Life’s Work
One more point. I’m not trying to “attack” Paul Handley. We’ve never met but I consider TKNS to be a brilliant and brave work. That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with every word of his review and ignore errors in it. Debate on these issues is very beneficial, in my view, and I’d assume Paul Handley would agree.
Review of A Life’s Work
This is an interesting discussion, and if I can identify a core theme of it, it is about whether we should take statements and books from Thailand’s monarchist establishment seriously, and if we want to take them seriously, what that involves.
Handley’s review, and indeed “Nontock”‘s comments about my review, are based on an assumption that everybody knows that this book is going to be filled with lies and evasions, and nobody in the know would be daft enough to consider it the literal truth. Rather like an official biography of Kim Jong-il or Stalin, it is to be judged not on its merits as a biography (because everybody knows that would be ridiculous) but in terms of what little hints and whispers it gives of tiny changes of approach within the ruling elite. So, for example, “nontock” says:
“As a work on its own, its weaknesses are perhaps easy for those of a certain view to identify, and I don’t think it is particularly interesting or constructive to post paragraphs of outrage and corrections.”
I guess the point is that for people in informed circles commenting on Thailand, it is so obvious that there are elephants lumbering around the room that it would seem crass and naive to say so, and so instead we should comment on the style of the wallpaper, which seems a little different to last time. What can it mean?
Of course we all know that monarchy only works by making ordinary things seem extraordinary. Flattery, circumambulation of the kingdom, intricate ceremonies and so on are, essentially, rituals designed to convey a sense of royal barami, and not really to be taken literally. But Thailand is facing a crisis precisely because many Thais are insisting that such things should be taken seriously.
My view is that since Anand has claimed that this is a book of facts, that tells the truth about Bhumibol, then it is not unreasonable to take him at his word and see whether KBAALW is really what he says it is, which of course it is not (I’m presuming we can all agree that, at least, we all know that it utterly fails to give a sensible and honest account of Rama IX’s reign).
I’m reminded of the parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everybody thinks it is terribly impolite and crass to say KBAALW is stark naked.
But perhaps that is because I am an amateur and lack a background in Thai studies.