Cosmo: I think Anon was being sarcastic, although it doesn’t really come across in this format.
Polo: Just because Prem’s cronies insist that Prem wasn’t involved doesn’t make it true. I wouldn’t beleive a single thing Prasong says in any case.
Surang: The military mafia going on another crime spree says nothing about Thais in general. The military may well be the most corrupt institution in the whole country. There are plenty of non-corrupt Thais, but it is difficult for them top do much in a system that provides barriers to accomplishing things legitimately and incentives to graft. Change the system and you will change the people. Thais are no different than anyone else.
As you say, it allows almost instantaneous peer review and it is far better than, for instance, forums on WebCT, which have never seemed to be so alive. The biggest personal development that I have garnered from this blog is that I am increasingly aware of my language.
I think that academics should be open to a blogging future because the level of engagement and consequent learning can be so much greater for , in my case, students who would never have been disposed towards imagined nostalgias of dusty journal volumes which contain seemingly irrelevant debates because the histories or associations have never been explored or even been directed towards. Furthermore, that when one has an interest, yet no real association for the content to be significant, to see it as significant, especially amongst a diverse audience that is based in the region, is much more beneficial than to sit in a tutorial with a tutor who is more interested in getting back to whatever it was they were doing before ‘educating'(talking at) pesky undergraduates.
Academic blogging should not be viewed as a feared, new fangled, process in which someones reputation and dignity is on the line, rather more an avenue to directly connect to persons willing to learn. An ego should not come before the argument or content, and if it does, well as we have seen it is cut back to size.
Stephen Fry said in an interview that education should never be a timed process, because how can one really determine whether or not they have been sufficiently educated. Getting the piece of paper which says you can drive does not make you a good driver much the same as getting a degree parchment does not make you a good thinker. The internet allows for a constant educational experience and the sooner there are more academically themed blogs, people anywhere can begin filling an educational void that is fostered by other circumstance.
Re: Englehart’s paper, it was a breath of fresh air to hear successful policies praised instead of focusing solely on policy failures and shortcomings, but comparing radically ethnically diverse Burma with northern Thailand is like comparing apples and oranges (or rambutans and truffles). And the post-WWII formed during the Cold War Burmese state with the Thai state forged during the late colonial era? The details in the case studies that show that inter-ethnic conflict can exist at one level while at higher level forces are working to resolve problems, are the real strong point of this article. When it zooms out and tries to take a macro comparative perspective with Burma, it falls short.
On Grashopper’s “by the way” (and thus off-topic): The intentions of the constitution drafters were probably a bit more complex than to weaken democracy. One might well say that they wanted to strengthen democracy in the medium term by weakening the politicians in the short term. From this perspective, politicians/political parties (the way they are, and the way they are perceived) are not identical with democracy (the way it should be).
Moreover, CDC and CDA were certainly rather factious, worked under immense time constraints, and suffered from a lack of expertise and reflection. Contrary to what the coup plotters had wanted, CDC and CDA even produced an election system that paved the way for the return of those they had toppled in their coup, although an election system with a pro-coup effect had indeed been suggested.
It is sort of funny to observe now how the ECT and others are caught in the legalistic web they had constructed themselves, and don’t know what to do about it. The ECT’s sub-committee tried the Srithanonchai escape, but some on the ECT seem to be reluctant to follow this path. Contrary to the Bangkok Post’s editorial, a lead article in Matichon (March 16, 2008, p. 2) strongly warned the ECT that the only way was to dissolve Chart Thai and Matchima (which, obviously, would pave the way to dissolve PPP, if the Supreme Court confirms the ECT’s red card for Yongyudh). This article concluded, “Therefore, if the ECT follows the suggestion of its sub-committee, those who should be dissolved rather is the ECT, because they are the ones who destroy the law and the constitution.”
“…because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain.”
How could the following book be written with only written sources:
Katherine Bowie, Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in Thailand (New York: Columbia University Press), 1996. (Once copy in Chula’s poli sci library as far as I can see)
Or Matthew McDaniel’s documentation of went on in the Chiang Rai hinterland or Desmond Ball’s paramilitary studies. Working in a Thai university, word of mouth was the only way to know what was going on. I still haven’t read Handley’s book. People keep saying they are going to lend me a copy but they never do, but relying on interviews would seem like a necessity. I think you could argue that any research of value on contemporary situations has to rely mainly on interviews and firsthand experience as source material.
And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paс╣нipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.
Observer: Regarding the constitution, I agree, and have always said the junta should have merely modified the weaknesses of the 1997 constitution – unfortunately, they were so spooked by one man that they threw everything out to try to stop him.
As for the monarchy tainting the concept of democracy, even if true, I doubt it would be possible if the politicians elected were better behaved.
Mr Handley: Thanks again for a good book – Pity about the pictures though
🙂
Paul Handley, thank you for your replies, and above all, your book. I would like to confirm what you’ve brought up with regards to seeing a written alternative to palace propaganda. Your book has enabled me to see an alternative history of the monarchy and understand those with a different paradigm without going through the hard work and dedication they have put through to garner their knowledge. Your book has allowed me to critically examine my King without either experiencing these events first-hand or trawling and studying through them from first-hand sources, much to your credit. Also, as it has been said, though this information may not be anything new for those in the know or those who have examined the archives or lived it firsthand, its dissemination is vitally important for the future advancement of Thai politics, society, and studies.
It is truly a shame that people were scared into not sharing information while people like me were too complacent to look into it ourselves. So kudo’s to your hard work.
This Sondhi money is another proof that all Thais are basically corruptible, so Thais of all walks of life should quit accusing each other of being corrupt. We are, indeed, all corrupt.
Is professor Reynolds following this discussion and planning to comment? He started by saying he planned to “blog” on this topic, but instead seems to have just used the forum to disseminate his notes. That alone is great, but using the word blog may have raised some expectations.
By the way, the Bangkok Post editorial today echoes my comments above that the intention of the 2007 constitution was to damage democracy and says that “laws were methodically changed so as to weaken politicians and stunt the growth of political parties”.
So clearly the royalist coup had overt anti-democratic objectives.
Thanks to Craig Reynolds for his kind comments. I’d like to make a few points here in response.
The reason this book is here, and has attracted interest, is not because academics save their best points for the end, but because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain. The book’s sales suggest it is not. I disagree that the controversy is that a journalist wrote something, rather than an academic. Had an academic directly and critically assessed the reign of King Bhumibol, the reaction would have been the same. It’s not that academics are trusted to do it differently, but that they have never taken up the subject directly.
Reynolds says no academic “could” or “would” write this book. But why not? Just look at all the popular, straightforward books by noted historians on the US presidents.
Academics deal with not only linear history and the meaning of events, but also with the power of ritual, the importance and impact of rumor, the construction of image, and the social and political thought of important leaders. Agree with my book or not, it is a synthesis of much of that, from academics. Just not constructed the way they do things.
And many academic books rest not only on what can be documented in footnotes but also what the author garners visually and from interviews, conversations and gossip, to shape his assessment. While my book may not stand up in a thesis defense based on attributions, and because it lacks (very consciously) a theoretical framework, I don’t see why someone else from academia could not do the same — and without succumbing to the “post-modernist” label.
Getting to the nub of the problem, Reynolds mentions various academic discussions that deal with the way the modern monarchy is talked about, and how that has changed over time. That would be a worthwhile research topic, he says.
It would be, indeed. But a study about how the monarchy is talked about when you don’t even have the basic substance of the monarchy down on paper is hollow for most people. If you were teaching a course on modern Thai history, and you assigned the Thongchai-Saichol debate, would the students completely get it — not having any basic account of the modern monarchy to begin with?
If you are a foreign businessman or journalist moving to Thailand and you want to know about the monarchy, how helpful would it be to only have an academic book on how the monarchy is talked about in history?
Again, many academics “think” that everything fundamental to say about the monarchy is already out there, when it is only out there in private discussions over bottles of whiskey in restaurants on the banks of the Chao Phraya or Ping. No footnotes there.
As Reynolds’ friend suggests, you have to have the history written before you can debate about the way history is written. The Silpawatthanatham cognoscenti “know” the alternative history to the palace-controlled version, but that is not the same as having it down in print. This situation is almost an exercise which enjoys — in all senses of the word — the decades of the lese majeste laws going unchallenged. The reason you have Fah Diawkan is not just Thaksin and the yellow shirt brigades, is not just the internet, but because there was a gaping space open for it for too long.
I don’t want to sound like “Republican” faulting people for what they don’t say or do. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. But this is an important context for the book.
As for the sourcing issue: As “Dog Lover” noted, there are more than two Thai language sources behind The King Never Smiles. It is regrettable that my publisher did not want to include a bibliography to clarify this point. I do read Thai, only not so quickly, so it took longer to do the book. I went through the king’s speeches in Thai; went through the constitution in Thai (translations are horribly inconsistent, suggesting changes in language that didn’t change in Thai); went through Thai biographies and funeral volumes to find bits and pieces; examined some Thai academic theses; read old issues of Siam Rath in the National Library to see how Kukrit reported the king; religiously watched the royal news; and so on. I didn’t dedicate a career to combing Thai source material, as a full-fledged academic might. Reynolds suggests that the book would have been different had I digested more than two Thai-language sources. Since I did, I can guess that he is really finding some particular faults in the book — faults he wasn’t willing to enumerate. I look forward to that some day.
Additionally, as Michael Connors says here, there is in fact really not much written about the monarchy in English or in Thai before 2000. Indeed, there’s a huge range of subjects unaddressed — for instance, an account, non-biographical, of what happened in Thai political, economic and social development in the 1960s would be useful. Or an assessment of the 1980s under Prem.
Just look at the bibliographies in academic works. There really isn’t much. Certainly one could go through decades of Matichon Weekly and Silpawatthanatham and if one knows the authors and the inflections one can pry out bits of information. But besides that, there’s not much there. As for what came out in the past 4-5 years, TKNS was already on the bumpy road to publication. But I’m not sure it would have changed my views.
On political strategy and ethnic markers, it seems to me that in general, upland minority people would just court overt suppression and violence if they emphasized their ethnic distinctiveness in relation to political action or agitation. Like Andrew (above), I of course think my own work should have been cited 🙂 and there could have been a useful debate. For the Mien people I am familiar with, they can dress ethnic at public events that express loyalty and devotion to king and country (in politics, they dress, act, talk, and think Thai, it’s the only way to go). There have been quite a few sports festivals, for instance, that feature parades, flag raising, the national anthem, and sometimes a speech by an invited politician. In 2005, Channel 7 broadcast a clip of one of those, “three times on national television” said some of the locals (I missed the event itself). Real politics, about resources, land rights, ethnicity, culture, gender, and more, is happening at these festivals, and it seems to me that the focus on ethnicity and resource conflict has so far brought with it a very selective notion of the character of political life in rural Thailand, to the point of sometimes missing the boat. I have written some about this, in a book and a set of articles, and also did a short video documentary on a sports and culture festival that I can provide the weblink to if anyone is interested.
Is the royalist network really disapointed with politicians being weak and looking bad? I would suggest that not only are they happy with this condition, but have intentionally manufactured it.
The junta Constitution is what brought us clowns like Vattana, Sanmak and Chalerm. The 1997 Constitution provided a road map for improving politics. If the junta/palace gang had modified that document to fix its weaknesses, they could claim to be trying to improve politicians. Since they went back to the old methods that weakened politicians and forced them to be horsetraders, it seems clear that they are actually happy with politicians, as long as don’t threaten their feudal benefits.
It seems that the monarchy not only undermined democracy, but has tried to taint the entire concept. If democracy worked here, why would you need a King?
But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit.
I’m not so sure about the modern bit. 🙂
Actually, I generally dislike royalty…… but I can sympathize with him trying to keep a lid on things in Thailand, and also with his disappointment in politicians.
I’d like to see a revolution in Thailand (of the Ungpakorn kind), however I would prefer to wait and endure a temporary status quo, rather than have it led by greedy/corrupt/vindictive people like Thaksin, Chalerm, Samak, Newin, Jakrapob & co, and academics like Republican.
This article doesn’t exactly make it sound like the powers behind the power are as open to critical discussion as Reynolds implies.
The King may well have been a force for good in Thailand, but it is clear that the image and adulation has been carefully manufactured. It will be interesting to see not only how the monarch’s image fares in a more open dialogue, but how the country reacts when they find out the propaganda machine was massive and extremely powerful.
ICT to ‘hack & crack’ foreign websites offensive to Thai supreme institution
Or to put it another way: – Rightly or wrongly, the king feels many elected politicians have been disappointing, and with his conservative nature, he therefore prefers the stability offered by authoritarian governments .
He may choose to see that. But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit. Especially since authoritarian governments are staggeringly incompetent and corrupt, even more so than their elected counterparts!
I still stand by the fact that power and influence is what he is after, not a long term, sustainable, nor visionary plan for the country. Instability is a code word for “when you don’t know what is going to happen to the power you previously had and assume you deserve.”
No blood boiling here, and it’s quite amusing from where I sit, which is a long way from the throne.
Only those close to him would know whether the ‘dumb’ label is appropriate, but I wonder how it fits in with the fact that he has survived for a long time, including during some quite turbulent periods.
(is he also a master manipulator?)
I think ‘slow learner’ might be a more appropriate tag, particularly the ability to move with the times.
Any such assessment should also take into account what he has been trying to achieve:
– If it was longevity of his reign, then he’s a success
– If it was to protect from communists: Success
– If it was to hold the country together & not split it up: Success ?
– Ensure the monarchy’s future: Doubtful, unless changes are made
Just about every other measure would result in failure, particularly when viewed from westerners eyes, although one does not have to look very far from Thailand to see how things could have been much worse.
I see him as a mere human, not superhuman, and not evil – a product of his upbringing and time in history.
As for the “rightly or wrongly”, I can accept that democratic development has been retarded, but the blame for that should also be shared by the politicians and the people (as well as the military, of course).
btw – what’s wrong with getting inspiration from comics?
“Or to put it another way: – … the king feels many elected politicians have been disappointing, and with his conservative nature, he therefore prefers the stability offered by authoritarian governments.”
I can accept that interpretation. Except that I don’t buy the “rightly or wrongly”. He is wrong to intervene in political processes in the ways that he has because this retards democratic development. All the usual stuff on this: he is meant to be a constitutional monarch, he is not elected, etc.
And, to get nganadeeleg ‘s blood boiling, I’d argue that he’s basically pretty dumb and needs to be put on a short leash. There are my blinkers, perhaps. I have read his speeches over many years and see these shallow homilies as evidence of limited intellectual capacity. His rambling and incoherent speeches of late are particularly awful. His great strength was his ability to listen to smarter people (Handley shows this). He’s lost that ability since the time he began to see himself as being a kind of super hero. What do we make of a man who draws inspiration from comics? The quote from him is: “Everybody has faults. That is one thing I see in the comics (I read comics, Superman and all that) where the people want to always find faults. Take Superman, he is as fallible as all superheroes…. A leader should not be fallible. He should be a superhero.”
On another point, I think Connors is undoubtedly correct. Reynolds provides little evidence for his comments on the Thai literature. Handley’s book is a breakthrough, even if most of the sources are not in Thai (see my comment above on Reynolds miscount or misrepresentation), he has brought together a story that no one else has been willing or able to tell in English or Thai.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Kong thun taharn – Sonthi’s billion baht fund!
Cosmo: I think Anon was being sarcastic, although it doesn’t really come across in this format.
Polo: Just because Prem’s cronies insist that Prem wasn’t involved doesn’t make it true. I wouldn’t beleive a single thing Prasong says in any case.
Surang: The military mafia going on another crime spree says nothing about Thais in general. The military may well be the most corrupt institution in the whole country. There are plenty of non-corrupt Thais, but it is difficult for them top do much in a system that provides barriers to accomplishing things legitimately and incentives to graft. Change the system and you will change the people. Thais are no different than anyone else.
New Mandala on New Mandala
As you say, it allows almost instantaneous peer review and it is far better than, for instance, forums on WebCT, which have never seemed to be so alive. The biggest personal development that I have garnered from this blog is that I am increasingly aware of my language.
I think that academics should be open to a blogging future because the level of engagement and consequent learning can be so much greater for , in my case, students who would never have been disposed towards imagined nostalgias of dusty journal volumes which contain seemingly irrelevant debates because the histories or associations have never been explored or even been directed towards. Furthermore, that when one has an interest, yet no real association for the content to be significant, to see it as significant, especially amongst a diverse audience that is based in the region, is much more beneficial than to sit in a tutorial with a tutor who is more interested in getting back to whatever it was they were doing before ‘educating'(talking at) pesky undergraduates.
Academic blogging should not be viewed as a feared, new fangled, process in which someones reputation and dignity is on the line, rather more an avenue to directly connect to persons willing to learn. An ego should not come before the argument or content, and if it does, well as we have seen it is cut back to size.
Stephen Fry said in an interview that education should never be a timed process, because how can one really determine whether or not they have been sufficiently educated. Getting the piece of paper which says you can drive does not make you a good driver much the same as getting a degree parchment does not make you a good thinker. The internet allows for a constant educational experience and the sooner there are more academically themed blogs, people anywhere can begin filling an educational void that is fostered by other circumstance.
Northern Thailand’s phony war
Re: Englehart’s paper, it was a breath of fresh air to hear successful policies praised instead of focusing solely on policy failures and shortcomings, but comparing radically ethnically diverse Burma with northern Thailand is like comparing apples and oranges (or rambutans and truffles). And the post-WWII formed during the Cold War Burmese state with the Thai state forged during the late colonial era? The details in the case studies that show that inter-ethnic conflict can exist at one level while at higher level forces are working to resolve problems, are the real strong point of this article. When it zooms out and tries to take a macro comparative perspective with Burma, it falls short.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
On Grashopper’s “by the way” (and thus off-topic): The intentions of the constitution drafters were probably a bit more complex than to weaken democracy. One might well say that they wanted to strengthen democracy in the medium term by weakening the politicians in the short term. From this perspective, politicians/political parties (the way they are, and the way they are perceived) are not identical with democracy (the way it should be).
Moreover, CDC and CDA were certainly rather factious, worked under immense time constraints, and suffered from a lack of expertise and reflection. Contrary to what the coup plotters had wanted, CDC and CDA even produced an election system that paved the way for the return of those they had toppled in their coup, although an election system with a pro-coup effect had indeed been suggested.
It is sort of funny to observe now how the ECT and others are caught in the legalistic web they had constructed themselves, and don’t know what to do about it. The ECT’s sub-committee tried the Srithanonchai escape, but some on the ECT seem to be reluctant to follow this path. Contrary to the Bangkok Post’s editorial, a lead article in Matichon (March 16, 2008, p. 2) strongly warned the ECT that the only way was to dissolve Chart Thai and Matchima (which, obviously, would pave the way to dissolve PPP, if the Supreme Court confirms the ECT’s red card for Yongyudh). This article concluded, “Therefore, if the ECT follows the suggestion of its sub-committee, those who should be dissolved rather is the ECT, because they are the ones who destroy the law and the constitution.”
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
“…because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain.”
How could the following book be written with only written sources:
Katherine Bowie, Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in Thailand (New York: Columbia University Press), 1996. (Once copy in Chula’s poli sci library as far as I can see)
Or Matthew McDaniel’s documentation of went on in the Chiang Rai hinterland or Desmond Ball’s paramilitary studies. Working in a Thai university, word of mouth was the only way to know what was going on. I still haven’t read Handley’s book. People keep saying they are going to lend me a copy but they never do, but relying on interviews would seem like a necessity. I think you could argue that any research of value on contemporary situations has to rely mainly on interviews and firsthand experience as source material.
And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paс╣нipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Srithanonchai: I doubt this is the place to discuss political leanings, but just FYI, I agree with most of what Giles says here:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=344
Observer: Regarding the constitution, I agree, and have always said the junta should have merely modified the weaknesses of the 1997 constitution – unfortunately, they were so spooked by one man that they threw everything out to try to stop him.
As for the monarchy tainting the concept of democracy, even if true, I doubt it would be possible if the politicians elected were better behaved.
Mr Handley: Thanks again for a good book – Pity about the pictures though
🙂
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Paul Handley, thank you for your replies, and above all, your book. I would like to confirm what you’ve brought up with regards to seeing a written alternative to palace propaganda. Your book has enabled me to see an alternative history of the monarchy and understand those with a different paradigm without going through the hard work and dedication they have put through to garner their knowledge. Your book has allowed me to critically examine my King without either experiencing these events first-hand or trawling and studying through them from first-hand sources, much to your credit. Also, as it has been said, though this information may not be anything new for those in the know or those who have examined the archives or lived it firsthand, its dissemination is vitally important for the future advancement of Thai politics, society, and studies.
It is truly a shame that people were scared into not sharing information while people like me were too complacent to look into it ourselves. So kudo’s to your hard work.
Kong thun taharn – Sonthi’s billion baht fund!
This Sondhi money is another proof that all Thais are basically corruptible, so Thais of all walks of life should quit accusing each other of being corrupt. We are, indeed, all corrupt.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Is professor Reynolds following this discussion and planning to comment? He started by saying he planned to “blog” on this topic, but instead seems to have just used the forum to disseminate his notes. That alone is great, but using the word blog may have raised some expectations.
By the way, the Bangkok Post editorial today echoes my comments above that the intention of the 2007 constitution was to damage democracy and says that “laws were methodically changed so as to weaken politicians and stunt the growth of political parties”.
So clearly the royalist coup had overt anti-democratic objectives.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Thanks to Craig Reynolds for his kind comments. I’d like to make a few points here in response.
The reason this book is here, and has attracted interest, is not because academics save their best points for the end, but because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain. The book’s sales suggest it is not. I disagree that the controversy is that a journalist wrote something, rather than an academic. Had an academic directly and critically assessed the reign of King Bhumibol, the reaction would have been the same. It’s not that academics are trusted to do it differently, but that they have never taken up the subject directly.
Reynolds says no academic “could” or “would” write this book. But why not? Just look at all the popular, straightforward books by noted historians on the US presidents.
Academics deal with not only linear history and the meaning of events, but also with the power of ritual, the importance and impact of rumor, the construction of image, and the social and political thought of important leaders. Agree with my book or not, it is a synthesis of much of that, from academics. Just not constructed the way they do things.
And many academic books rest not only on what can be documented in footnotes but also what the author garners visually and from interviews, conversations and gossip, to shape his assessment. While my book may not stand up in a thesis defense based on attributions, and because it lacks (very consciously) a theoretical framework, I don’t see why someone else from academia could not do the same — and without succumbing to the “post-modernist” label.
Getting to the nub of the problem, Reynolds mentions various academic discussions that deal with the way the modern monarchy is talked about, and how that has changed over time. That would be a worthwhile research topic, he says.
It would be, indeed. But a study about how the monarchy is talked about when you don’t even have the basic substance of the monarchy down on paper is hollow for most people. If you were teaching a course on modern Thai history, and you assigned the Thongchai-Saichol debate, would the students completely get it — not having any basic account of the modern monarchy to begin with?
If you are a foreign businessman or journalist moving to Thailand and you want to know about the monarchy, how helpful would it be to only have an academic book on how the monarchy is talked about in history?
Again, many academics “think” that everything fundamental to say about the monarchy is already out there, when it is only out there in private discussions over bottles of whiskey in restaurants on the banks of the Chao Phraya or Ping. No footnotes there.
As Reynolds’ friend suggests, you have to have the history written before you can debate about the way history is written. The Silpawatthanatham cognoscenti “know” the alternative history to the palace-controlled version, but that is not the same as having it down in print. This situation is almost an exercise which enjoys — in all senses of the word — the decades of the lese majeste laws going unchallenged. The reason you have Fah Diawkan is not just Thaksin and the yellow shirt brigades, is not just the internet, but because there was a gaping space open for it for too long.
I don’t want to sound like “Republican” faulting people for what they don’t say or do. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. But this is an important context for the book.
As for the sourcing issue: As “Dog Lover” noted, there are more than two Thai language sources behind The King Never Smiles. It is regrettable that my publisher did not want to include a bibliography to clarify this point. I do read Thai, only not so quickly, so it took longer to do the book. I went through the king’s speeches in Thai; went through the constitution in Thai (translations are horribly inconsistent, suggesting changes in language that didn’t change in Thai); went through Thai biographies and funeral volumes to find bits and pieces; examined some Thai academic theses; read old issues of Siam Rath in the National Library to see how Kukrit reported the king; religiously watched the royal news; and so on. I didn’t dedicate a career to combing Thai source material, as a full-fledged academic might. Reynolds suggests that the book would have been different had I digested more than two Thai-language sources. Since I did, I can guess that he is really finding some particular faults in the book — faults he wasn’t willing to enumerate. I look forward to that some day.
Additionally, as Michael Connors says here, there is in fact really not much written about the monarchy in English or in Thai before 2000. Indeed, there’s a huge range of subjects unaddressed — for instance, an account, non-biographical, of what happened in Thai political, economic and social development in the 1960s would be useful. Or an assessment of the 1980s under Prem.
Just look at the bibliographies in academic works. There really isn’t much. Certainly one could go through decades of Matichon Weekly and Silpawatthanatham and if one knows the authors and the inflections one can pry out bits of information. But besides that, there’s not much there. As for what came out in the past 4-5 years, TKNS was already on the bumpy road to publication. But I’m not sure it would have changed my views.
Call for Lonely Planet boycott
yeah! why don’t you all try to get Dalai Lama back to Tibet first ?
No one in the West can avoid ” Made in China”. Thanks to China we all can afford things.
Message from Burma
I agree with infrastructure development. I do not agree with sanctions.
If no one can touch China why must they punish Myanmar?
Northern Thailand’s phony war
On political strategy and ethnic markers, it seems to me that in general, upland minority people would just court overt suppression and violence if they emphasized their ethnic distinctiveness in relation to political action or agitation. Like Andrew (above), I of course think my own work should have been cited 🙂 and there could have been a useful debate. For the Mien people I am familiar with, they can dress ethnic at public events that express loyalty and devotion to king and country (in politics, they dress, act, talk, and think Thai, it’s the only way to go). There have been quite a few sports festivals, for instance, that feature parades, flag raising, the national anthem, and sometimes a speech by an invited politician. In 2005, Channel 7 broadcast a clip of one of those, “three times on national television” said some of the locals (I missed the event itself). Real politics, about resources, land rights, ethnicity, culture, gender, and more, is happening at these festivals, and it seems to me that the focus on ethnicity and resource conflict has so far brought with it a very selective notion of the character of political life in rural Thailand, to the point of sometimes missing the boat. I have written some about this, in a book and a set of articles, and also did a short video documentary on a sports and culture festival that I can provide the weblink to if anyone is interested.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Of the Ungpakjorn kind? Why should a Leninist Thailand be any better than the current system?
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Is the royalist network really disapointed with politicians being weak and looking bad? I would suggest that not only are they happy with this condition, but have intentionally manufactured it.
The junta Constitution is what brought us clowns like Vattana, Sanmak and Chalerm. The 1997 Constitution provided a road map for improving politics. If the junta/palace gang had modified that document to fix its weaknesses, they could claim to be trying to improve politicians. Since they went back to the old methods that weakened politicians and forced them to be horsetraders, it seems clear that they are actually happy with politicians, as long as don’t threaten their feudal benefits.
It seems that the monarchy not only undermined democracy, but has tried to taint the entire concept. If democracy worked here, why would you need a King?
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit.
I’m not so sure about the modern bit. 🙂
Actually, I generally dislike royalty…… but I can sympathize with him trying to keep a lid on things in Thailand, and also with his disappointment in politicians.
I’d like to see a revolution in Thailand (of the Ungpakorn kind), however I would prefer to wait and endure a temporary status quo, rather than have it led by greedy/corrupt/vindictive people like Thaksin, Chalerm, Samak, Newin, Jakrapob & co, and academics like Republican.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
This article doesn’t exactly make it sound like the powers behind the power are as open to critical discussion as Reynolds implies.
The King may well have been a force for good in Thailand, but it is clear that the image and adulation has been carefully manufactured. It will be interesting to see not only how the monarch’s image fares in a more open dialogue, but how the country reacts when they find out the propaganda machine was massive and extremely powerful.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=565
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
He may choose to see that. But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit. Especially since authoritarian governments are staggeringly incompetent and corrupt, even more so than their elected counterparts!
I still stand by the fact that power and influence is what he is after, not a long term, sustainable, nor visionary plan for the country. Instability is a code word for “when you don’t know what is going to happen to the power you previously had and assume you deserve.”
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
And, to get nganadeeleg ’s blood boiling……
No blood boiling here, and it’s quite amusing from where I sit, which is a long way from the throne.
Only those close to him would know whether the ‘dumb’ label is appropriate, but I wonder how it fits in with the fact that he has survived for a long time, including during some quite turbulent periods.
(is he also a master manipulator?)
I think ‘slow learner’ might be a more appropriate tag, particularly the ability to move with the times.
Any such assessment should also take into account what he has been trying to achieve:
– If it was longevity of his reign, then he’s a success
– If it was to protect from communists: Success
– If it was to hold the country together & not split it up: Success ?
– Ensure the monarchy’s future: Doubtful, unless changes are made
Just about every other measure would result in failure, particularly when viewed from westerners eyes, although one does not have to look very far from Thailand to see how things could have been much worse.
I see him as a mere human, not superhuman, and not evil – a product of his upbringing and time in history.
As for the “rightly or wrongly”, I can accept that democratic development has been retarded, but the blame for that should also be shared by the politicians and the people (as well as the military, of course).
btw – what’s wrong with getting inspiration from comics?
Hobby
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
“Or to put it another way: – … the king feels many elected politicians have been disappointing, and with his conservative nature, he therefore prefers the stability offered by authoritarian governments.”
I can accept that interpretation. Except that I don’t buy the “rightly or wrongly”. He is wrong to intervene in political processes in the ways that he has because this retards democratic development. All the usual stuff on this: he is meant to be a constitutional monarch, he is not elected, etc.
And, to get nganadeeleg ‘s blood boiling, I’d argue that he’s basically pretty dumb and needs to be put on a short leash. There are my blinkers, perhaps. I have read his speeches over many years and see these shallow homilies as evidence of limited intellectual capacity. His rambling and incoherent speeches of late are particularly awful. His great strength was his ability to listen to smarter people (Handley shows this). He’s lost that ability since the time he began to see himself as being a kind of super hero. What do we make of a man who draws inspiration from comics? The quote from him is: “Everybody has faults. That is one thing I see in the comics (I read comics, Superman and all that) where the people want to always find faults. Take Superman, he is as fallible as all superheroes…. A leader should not be fallible. He should be a superhero.”
On another point, I think Connors is undoubtedly correct. Reynolds provides little evidence for his comments on the Thai literature. Handley’s book is a breakthrough, even if most of the sources are not in Thai (see my comment above on Reynolds miscount or misrepresentation), he has brought together a story that no one else has been willing or able to tell in English or Thai.