I have just finished reading Paul Handley’s biography of Thailand’s King Bhumiphol. The book is banned in Thailand and there are even reports that access to the web site of the book’s publisher has been blocked by Thai internet service providers. There is certainly much in the book that would cause grave offence to Thais, especially given the current outpouring of love and respect that has marked the sixtieth anniversary of the King’s reign. I have heard some Thais here in Australia dismiss the book as “biased” or as containing a lot of “gossip”. Handley is, no doubt, critical of what he sees as the persistently anti-democratic tendencies of the monarchy in Thailand. And there is a sprinkling of salacious gossip about the royal family. But the criticisms are placed in the context of a detailed political history of Thailand since the early decades of the twentieth century. This political history strikes me as an important contribution to Thai scholarship and, while there is much room for debate about specific findings, there are many insights which contribute to an understanding of Thailand’s current political mess. And, yes, there is some gossip (though most of Handley’s material seems to come from well documented sources). But, from an Australian perspective, this seems rather mild, especially when compared to the extraordinary dissection of our own royal family’s woes.
Over the past few months in Thailand there has been much discussion about the importance of democratic institutions beyond the electoral process. Should those institutions cater for free publication of political opinion, even if that opinion involves criticism of a figure as revered as the King? What role do lèse-majesté laws have to play in a modern democracy? To me it is clear that there is enormous respect for the King throughout Thailand. Banning an informed, if critical, political commentary on his reign seems to involve an underestimation of the strength and resilience of this sentiment.
287 responses so far ↓
1 New Mandala » A royal Grant // Sep 10, 2006 at 10:42 pm
[...] Grant Evans doesn’t like the book. I did, as I indicated in an earlier post. Grant’s review makes me want to go back and take another good look (a sure sign of a good review and, perhaps, a good book). I haven’t yet had a chance to do so, and given the pile of student essays I am slowly working my way through I don’t think I will have a chance any time soon. So, a couple of quick comments will have to do – one specific and one more general. [...]
2 Lloyd Stevens // Sep 23, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Where can I buy this book ?
Thanks to anyone who can provide me the information where to buy.
3 screwed-up thai // Oct 10, 2006 at 3:08 pm
what would u do if
1- u were appointed as a young naive boy
2 - trying to survive
3 - alone. not really a thai or a westerner
4 - surrounded yourself with groups that would make u survives …1st the military and etc.
face the facts, my man.
history will judge u soon.
it is even now doing so.
4 Gloria Gustowski // Oct 18, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Can you pls advise where The Kind Never Smiles by Paul Handley can be purchased in Melbourne
Thk you
5 New Mandala » Handley on the Thai coup and succession // Nov 7, 2006 at 1:37 am
[...] Paul Handley, the author of this year’s most important book on Thailand, The King Never Smiles, has a short article in Asia Sentinel. In today’s contribution, Handley asks, “Who gets the kingdom’s sceptre when Bhumibol leaves the stage?” While not fully answering his own question, Handley does argue that: The coup was about Thaksin’s ambition and misrule, certainly, but what really got General Sonthi Boonyaratklin and his cohorts to move was the issue of succession to the throne. There was a clear meeting of minds between the crown and the military, through King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s number one aide Prem Tinsulanonda, that they did not want Thaksin in a position to exert influence on the passing of the Chakri Dynasty mantle to Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn. [...]
6 New Mandala » Handley responds to Evans // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:09 pm
[...] In relation to previous posts on The King Never Smiles, here is Paul Handley’s response to the review by anthropologist Grant Evans in the Far Eastern Economic Review (thanks to Polo for the link): Nuanced Views of the King One would hardly know from Grant Evans’ September review of my book, The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej, that it highlights the political philosophy behind the Thai monarchy’s support for military coups against elected governments over the past six decades. Nor did Mr. Evans reveal that another main theme is how King Bhumibol mastered and adapted traditional ritual to restore power to the throne and build an overwhelming popularity among the Thai people. [...]
7 New Mandala » Celebrating peripheral power // Nov 13, 2006 at 8:14 pm
[...] Paul Handley’s political biography of King Bhumiphol contains numerous examples of the king’s religious practices and orientations to various otherworldly forces. It is perhaps stating the obvious, but in Thai social and political discourse, royal ritual is almost never disparaged as “voodoo”, superstition or irrationality. [...]
8 New Mandala » Radio interview with Paul Handley // Nov 21, 2006 at 8:10 am
[...] Author of The King Never Smiles, Paul Handley, was interviewed on Australian radio last night. He was interviewed by the ABC Late Night Live’s Phillip Adams. The interview is available online here (the interview with Handley starts about half way through the recording). The Late Night Live promo reads: There is one topic in Thailand that is off limits: the King and his family. A journalist interested in doing a story about the monarchy will be given a range of excuses from “the palace has nothing more to say other than what has been put in the official press statements”, ot that the “subject is too susceptible and intricate for palace outsiders to handle”. Or simply that it “is too risky”. [...]
9 david becher // Nov 26, 2006 at 3:53 am
I do not know Handley, although I am familiar with a couple of pieces he did earlier in FEER. I will not debate specific issues as this is not my intention although it would appear that is exactly what Handley would like. I have extensive experience on Thailand professionally (state department) and personally (lived there 18 years) and have PhDs in law and economics.
Anyone interested in understanding Thailand and Thai culture I urge you please do your own homework. There is well researched scholarly work and analysis available that would qualify for refereed journals. Handley’s book does not fit that category. That doesn’t matter much. It has far different purposes. (I did not say “don’t buy this book.”) All of the controversy following the publication is the reward Handley sought and has now achieved. My initial reaction was hostility and desire to have at it face off with Handley. But then this is not even ideology when you look at in perspective. Getting into in a debate in print is what Handley wants. A hint of a modus operandi. Google on Handley And “king never smiles” and look at the “history” tab, did Handley make nearly all of these entries. Look at the links and find cross references to other Wikipedia entries. (there is a basic problem with Wikipedia - that is, it is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can make entry’s for publication without any editorial review. My god, take look at Handley’s repartee in this month’s (Nov 06) FEER http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/ 0611/free/p006.html.
If parts of this book appear well researched and documented but others appear as opinion and gossip (as the lead-in to this blog suggests, then proceed with caution because dear Hobbes you are not told which parts are self serving commere pejoratif and which are not. I can without risk of persecution say that “in my opinion” U.S. president an incompetent stupid ass. There is no “in my opinion” here but declarative style meaning to appear authorative, “this is fact.” In today’s world anyone can say things about anyone but the risk in a country like Thailand is of becoming a persona non grata. Which Mr. Handley now is.
10 Suchada // Nov 30, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Please let we live in our own way..And please do not touch our beloved King
11 nganadeeleg // Dec 1, 2006 at 5:43 am
I might read Mr Handley’s book, but only if I see it at a library as I am not inclined to pay him for it.
The King may not smile, but he is human, and admits that he can make mistakes.
It is clear from his actions that the King has the best interests of his country at heart, but one has to wonder at the intentions of those who choose to criticise the King.
Why is it that the academics at this site choose to criticise the king, the coup and the urban elite, but generally leave Thaksin alone just because he won a majority of the votes?
Have a look at Andrew’s response the the following questions posed by Thai in Seattle:
Do you know how Thaksin & his cronies had manipulated Thai Constitution, laws (election & others) & annual budget for their personal & political party gains? THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE!
Do you think Thaksin did not engage in monopolistic business practices? MONOPOLISTIC? I DON’T THINK SO. BUT, AGAIN, NEW MANDALA WOULD WELCOME A POST ON THESE BUSINESS ISSUES.
Do you think it is right and fair to exempt Thaksin from paying capital gain tax from his $1.7 billion sales of assets while the agents of the Dept of Revenue were sent to count the numbers of bowl of noodle sold in the noodle shops? RIGHT? FAIR? LEGAL? MORAL? THESE ARE ALL RATHER DIFFERENT ISSUES. BUT, I AGREE, BOWLS OF NOODLES SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
I’m just waiting to James Haughton to chime in and tell me I have all the maturity of a fourteen year old.
12 patiwat // Dec 1, 2006 at 4:09 pm
It’s not your maturity that’s the problem - it’s your sad hold on the truth.
For the thousandth time….. Thailand doesn’t have a capital gains tax for individual asset sales in the stock market. It’s not just Thaksin - nobody has to pay this tax.
Sales of noodles aren’t charged a capital gains tax either - they get a VAT or a corporate income tax. These have nothing to do with capital gains.
13 nganadeeleg // Dec 1, 2006 at 6:47 pm
I’ve posted on this topic before - you are looking at the wrong transaction.
You need to look at the Ample Rich transactions - there was an obvious scheme to avoid tax.
So you think using tax haven companies, nominees/maids etc to avoid tax (and scrutiny) is acceptable behaviour for a prime minister?
All this from a so called champion of the rural poor!
14 Parinda // Dec 21, 2006 at 8:00 pm
What’s wrong with the author ’s brain and his eyes.
I’ve always see my beloved king smile.
He’s never ask anyone to love him but
all Thai people love him because all things he did to our country.
If you don’t know the true or do the good research before write
the book , you should not write.
Are you the author or just write it down and print without using brain or common sense.
15 New Mandala » Christmas reading // Dec 21, 2006 at 8:52 pm
[...] For those reluctant, for whatever reason, to read Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles here is an alternative perspective on the Thai king. Written by Police General Vasit Dejkunjorn (12 years service in the royal court police) this English language translation provides an up-close look at royal travels and travails. I am only half way through the book at this stage so cannot find a full review, but New Mandala readers can access some commentary at the publisher’s web site. My favourite passage so far: I have heard civil servants such as district chiefs quite embarrassingly use common terms like phom (for I) and khrap in speaking with the king. I think that district chiefs should learn how to use the royal vocabulary properly. (p. 78) [...]
16 Paul Chen // Jan 9, 2007 at 4:45 am
Did the Author who wrote The King Never Smile?
Had met the King? Did he make personel interview with King?
If, Not why? and How can this book named a King Biography??
All contents might be a full true facts!
This is not Fair to the King!!
Do you agree??
====================
Every Year Dec 5, the King Birthday, he got the chance to
speak to public only once a year.
Why the Book Author go to meet the King and have
personel interview with him.
This is Fair to him!!
=========================
17 anonymous // Jan 9, 2007 at 10:12 am
Handley requested a personal royal interview, but was denied.
I wish that people who criticize the book actually read it. It’s a very factually correct biography, and the analysis is very interesting. I don’t agree with all the points, but if you’re interested in Thai politics and the King’s role, it’s a must read.
18 prem // Jan 14, 2007 at 8:44 pm
If you’re really love the king ,you have to let him out of the politics. The king never protect Thai’s democracy but he protect his family and his conservative system as he did when Prem was the priminister. Thai people should learn to live with the principle of democracy ,not this beloved king .Don’t forget he can’t live forever. You have to develop yourself to live with the next King also.
19 Kasumo // Jan 23, 2007 at 2:42 am
Talking about being factually correct, on the first page of the book, Handley already got it wrong. King Bhumibol was born at the Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Mass., not in Brookline. …. Need I say more…..
20 patiwat // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Kasumo, while technically true, that’s like saying that somebody born in Siriraj Hospital wasn’t born in Bangkok. The town of Brookline is opposite the Charles River from the city of Cambridge. Mt. Auburn Hospital itself is right next to the river.
21 Kasumo // Jan 24, 2007 at 5:03 am
=)
Let us move on to the second page of the book concerning HRH the Princess Mother. Handley wrote that “A commoner, part Chinese, Sangwal was born to a poor parents in 1900 just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace.”
Also wrong !
HRH the Princess Mother was born in Nonthaburi Province according to the book “My Mother Told Me” by Princess Galyani Vadhana, her owed daughter.
HRH the Princess Mother’s grandfather lived across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace as Handley understood, but her father and mother moved to Nonthaburi before she was born. This is why HRH the Princess Mother actually born in Nonthaburi not just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace. In fact, many websites got this fact wrong. So, was Handley.
If I have more time, I will point out to you further on Handley’s other mistakes on page 2. There are several more. And I can tell you, since his book has around 500 pages, there are plenty of other mistakes within the book and it shows how careful and how well research the author has been with his subject.
Well should I say any more….. =)
22 charles st. // Jan 25, 2007 at 9:32 pm
The King is very rich. Thai Baht 3,000,000,000 is also tax-free.
It’s a real pity for poor Thai people. The rich keeps telling us to follow the Sufficient Economic Policy. Between the line is that the rich doesn’t want poor people to have more economic power.
“Let the people be poor and uneducated, they will be very obedient and easy to be controlled.” That’s the unspoken opinion from the blue blood and the anti-Taksin groups.
23 New Mandala » More debate on The King Never Smiles // Jan 25, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] Back in July, Andrew Walker posted a short review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles. This book continues to atract a great deal of interest. Anybody keen to quickly come up to speed on the issues it raises could do worse than trawl through these New Mandala posts. Over the past week or more, Andrew’s review has seen a lot of traffic, and a number of fresh comments about the book have been posted. [...]
24 Huh ? // Jan 26, 2007 at 11:08 am
Kasumo wrote:
“Well should I say any more….. =)”
If you do Kasumo, please point out any errors on important facts, rather than trivial details.
That would actually be interesting.
25 zaza // Jan 27, 2007 at 5:43 am
The king never smile because a privy councillor, king representative, esp. Mr.Paem is bigger than the king and force him to sign everything. His family is under controlled. If the king has conflict to these group of people, they will kill him.
26 Batman // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm
yes Kazumo or anyone else out there. Can we have some information about any important factual errors about the King’s constant repressive use of power. that might raise the level of debate or are the lese majeste laws in place here
27 viriya // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Who is Paul Handley? What book is his master peace before the King never smiles?
I do not want to spend money for this book but might rent from library to know what did he say. If nothing is interesting in 50 pages, it is waste time to read.
Media usually annouces both truth and lies. Hope all readers use your vision and understand Thai culture. Time will help us to know the truth.
As my opinion, I had seen only his work hard&resposibility for all Thai people since I was born. Nobody who is in similar position, has done as Thai King. 60 years of his responsibility represents his heart and great kindness.
The value of human is measured by performance. Anyone wants to get rich or famous by blaming or taking advantage of others. Should we support?
28 Historicus // Feb 11, 2007 at 3:34 am
I am very late to this page and the comments. There are some minor factual errors in the book, but nothing major, so Kasumo’s points are about trivial items. In any case, if Kasumo is to demand accuracy about trivial things, get your own facts right. Kasumo says, “on the first page of the book, Handley already got it wrong. King Bhumibol was born at the Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Mass., not in Brookline.” The fact is that this item does NOT appear on page 1. It is on page 12. But really, how trivial is the point? Brookline is where the family lived, and the Cambridge hospital is spitting distance away. Come up with some substantive criticism instead of this silly and disingenuous trash.
29 Thongchai // Feb 13, 2007 at 2:55 am
Dancan McCargo writes a review of this book in the latest issue of New Left Review.
30 Thongchai // Feb 13, 2007 at 7:38 am
Ian Buruma just published another review of Handley’s The King Never Smiles, in the March 1, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books.
31 James Haughton // Feb 13, 2007 at 11:43 am
nganadeeleg: keep waiting
32 New Mandala » A royal petition // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:03 pm
[...] indeed. Prem is very close to the king. One of the most useful contributions of Handley’s controversial biography of the king is his documentation of this close relationship and of Prem’s enduring influence in [...]
33 nganadeeleg // Apr 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Further to #17 above, I have just finished reading Handley’s book.
BTW, I stuck to my principles and borrowed rather than purchased the book, however having read the book, I now do not begrudge Handley receiving financial reward for what was obviously years of research.
Overall it is a great read, particularly if one is aware of the spin.
The book is clearly well researched, and with my limited knowledge of Thai history I am in no position to dispute any historical facts.
There are enough side comments in the book that lead me to doubt Handley’s declaration in the preface:
“I have never had any purpose but to satisfy my own curiosity and then to tell a more complete story of Bhumibol’s life and tenure on the throne”
Just the title of the book gives some indication of where Handley is coming from.
In his defence, I suppose from a commercial viewpoint it was necessary to have a more controversial theme, because merely regurgitating the 60th anniversary commemoration literature was unlikely to be a best seller even in Thailand, let alone outside.
No pictures are very unusual for a biography of this type – was copyright a factor ? I am sure Handley could have chosen some interesting photo’s of the various players if he had wanted to - has Handley offered any explanation for the lack of pictures in the book?
Handley wants us to accept that the King never smiles as part of the overall grand scheme, but with constant political bickering and people still suffering, why would the monarch want to be seen smiling – It would actually be offensive if the king went about his public duties smiling away, while his countries problems had yet to be alleviated.
We must also remember that the king lost both his father and his brother early in his life, and those events together with having to become monarch would surely have an influence - I imagine being a monarch would be quite a burden.
Another theme in the book is that the image of the king has been carefully cultivated during his reign via an orchestrated propaganda campaign to increase popularity of the monarchy. There may be some truth in that assertion, however in my opinion Handley has overplayed this matter.
He contends that the royal rituals and ceremonies are all part of this grand plan, but rituals are what royals do everywhere around the world (that’s just what they do – always have, probably always will).
For example Handley makes note of the various ceremonies after the death of Ananda as though they were also part of the grand plan, and in doing so he discounts or ignores the possibility that the family & the people felt a genuine sense of loss – in particular it would have been very hard for Bhumibol losing his brother and closest companion/friend.
It is also clear that the royals still had widespread popularity even before Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne - Handley even documents the large street gatherings to greet the young Mahidol’s during their first visit to Thailand, and the large gatherings for Ananda’s funeral ceremonies.
So rather than some grand plan, I think it can more properly be characterized as giving the people what they want – they expect rituals, they want the king to be considered a great man, a musician, sportsman, scientist, inventor, composer – it makes them feel good.
The royal charity works are also characterized as being part of the grand plan, but an alternative view is that the King genuinely wants to improve the situation in the country (the book documents the constant theme in the kings speeches and his preoccupation with droughts, floods, cooperative farming and sufficiency - rather than being a sinister way of advancing himself, I think it is clear that Bhumibol is trying to improve things)
Handley does a good job documenting the political events since 1932 together with the shortcomings of the leading politicians over that time.
Given the various flaws in most of the politicians, it is my opinion Handley has not made a strong case that things would have been any better without having Bhumibol on the scene, and it is fairly obvious that things could have been much worse.
The book also seems to imply that Western style democracy/capitalism is the best system for Thailand, without really making the case as to how things would be any better under that system and whether it would successfully translate to the Thai situation.
In my opinion Handley has failed to negate the King’s vision of unity being better than conflict, and communal work & moderation being better than capitalistic individual desires.
Handley offers some positive suggestions (in the last chapter) regarding the need for the monarchy to adapt and remake itself to ensure its survival.
It is obvious that the succession situation needs to be resolved and preferably before Bhumibol passes.
Here’s my suggestion: - Having acquired wisdom with maturity, the prince recognizes that his past actions make him unsuitable to be king and he withdraws in favor of his sister. Brother and sister work together to groom the prince’s children for the role after the princess’s reign ends.
OK that solves the succession issue, now let’s write a new constitution.
34 Lt.kongkrit polayimg // Apr 14, 2007 at 1:47 pm
por favor, dejenos en paz. nuestro querido rey ha hecho mucha buena cosa para que tailandia pase los putos criticos que povocan por los putos politicos.
35 anon // Apr 20, 2007 at 9:30 am
Nganadeeleg, photograph copyright shouldn’t have been too much of an issue. The Royal Household licenses all photographs that it takes of the King and his family with a very progressive Creative Commons license.
Note that you can read a translation of chapters 1 and 15 of the book (the title of which is translated to สวรรค์ในอก นรกในใจ) at TKNSthai.googlepages.com.
36 chama // May 2, 2007 at 10:18 pm
to Nganadeeleg! I thought we suppose to criticize the book..why did u just start mentioning about Thaksin? …I thought the Thailand Security and Exchange commission investigated the transactions! Anyways, just want to tell you that we should not be out of topic.. and don’t be too emotional!!
37 nganadeeleg // May 3, 2007 at 9:09 am
to Chama: My review is at post #33 (no mention of Thaksin as far as I can see ! )
The previous comments regarding Thaksin date back to early December when there were several discussions, across a number of threads, regarding the merits or otherwise of Thaksin and also why he still had support, including from Andrew.
I have also been involved in an ongoing discussion with Patiwat regarding the Ample Rich transactions, nominees and tax havens etc over several threads on New Mandala and also over at Bankgkok Pundit’s site and Fonzi’s (Tosakan’s) site, Thailand Jumped the Shark.
As for being too emotional, don’t worry about that - it’s only a hobby to me!
38 thaiboy // May 10, 2007 at 5:14 am
absolutely i love land of thailand ,i love smile of thai people ,culture and my king. i invite you live in thailand for long year ,will understand thai culture.
39 Real Thai people // May 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I think your book destroy smile of thai people if you don’t know thai culture and not thai people. Please do not touch our beloved King. and I will tell you my king’s smile is smile of his people.
40 John Butler // Sep 27, 2007 at 4:54 am
Like many tourists, I noted the extraordinary number of pictures and posters of King Bhumibol all over Bangkok. I was sceptical about the apparently universal popularity of the King and about the respect the Royal Family has in Thailand. I cannot comment on the book as I have not read it, but I have seen plenty of photographs in which the King is smiling. I have seen no signs that the affection Thais appear to have for him is coerced or indoctrinated, although I am sure that since it is very bad form to criticise the King (as one Australian recently discovered) there may be some attempt on the part of authorities to encourage a cult. Even if this were true, however, it does not mean that the King encourages such behaviour, and indeed his sensible decision about the Australian lese-majeste seems to indicate quite the opposite. His political interventions, at least from what I read, seem equally sensible. That a country holds its Royal Family in respect or even reverence does not strike me as a bad thing, as long as the Royal Family in question deserves that respect; the recent humiliation of King Gyanendra in Nepal shows that people will not tolerate a ruler who acts arbitrarily and stupidly. Since the time of Rama I the Thai monarchy has shown itself flexible and progressive (if we take Rama IV and V as examples), and whilst governments like Prem’s come and go, the King is always there. That’s why monarchies, in the right hands, work. An idiot President like George Bush does much more damage to a country than an inept constitutional monarch, partly because there is no antidote to idiot Presidents and no “higher” authority. In my own country (Britain) the monarchy is not doing so well, and many of its members deserve the scorn people feel for them. The Thais are fortunate in their monarchy. Let them decide whether they want to keep it or not, and let’s stop applying our western notions of what governments should be like to Asian countries.
41 Grasshopper // Sep 27, 2007 at 10:58 am
John Butler, you cannot compare Gyanendra to Bhumibol because Gyanendra was not in direct line to the throne. When he assumed power he was already disliked by not only the (then fewer) Maoists but the majority of citizens who felt that he were corrupt due instances of him not paying taxes whilst being a major stakeholder in significant South Asian corporations (like Tata and Suriya). Furthermore, many Chetri and Brahmin did not recognize him as a true King from the beginning of his reign because of his suspected involvement in the massacre itself. Therefore, the divinity of Gyanendra has always been in question whereas Bhumibol’s has never and consequently your notion of tolerance of bad governance is myopic!
Don’t you think that the only flexibility that the Thai monarchs show is the image they want to portrait of themselves rather than what is really not so fortunate for Thai people.This is not some Western conception of what government should be like, its simply highlighting a lie. Or do you think that Queen Sirikit wearing makeup gives her right to tell everyone she is 21?
42 Ex-Ajarn // Sep 28, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Wow, this topic surely brings out people’s emotions. As those of us in country can not run down to the local bookstore and pick up a copy of the book, I can not comment on the books contents.
But the topic does raise some questions about how those of us from the outside living in the country deal with this topic. On the one hand, coming from a “democratic tradition” one feels entitled to express one’s feelings and opinions on any topic; on the other hand, local sensibilities need to be considered if one intends to live in this country. I have had to bite my tongue at times while working and living here on several occasions. To any scholar or objective individual, the concept of any person actually be infallible is not aligned with reality. On the other hand, the “image” of the monarchy is obviously a source of pride and solidarity for the Thai people. But, how does a monarchy fit into a democratic country? “All men are created equal?” How does a country move forward while clinging to institutions that are more aligned with conditions in the 18th century than the 21st?
43 Restorationist // Sep 29, 2007 at 12:33 am
Dear thaiboy: It is nice that you love your country and your king. But the idea that every Thai shares your view is just silly. I have lived in Thailand for years and have known Thailand for 4 decades, and I can affirm that there are plenty of Thais who do not accept the nationalist ideology you subscribe to. There are also many who do not accept the infallibility of the current king.
44 Michael // Oct 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm
If the king do not like Thaksin, he can ask him to resign. But he did not. He waited for the military coup and he straightaway supported the coup. Why? Becos the coup always refer the king and has full respect for him. Will the furture PM and his cabinet in the next election be less corrupted? The new constitution limit the power of the PM. But will it prevent the next govt the abuse of power and corruption? I do think so. In the end, who benefits? The king and his family. Who suffers? The people.
45 Michael // Oct 14, 2007 at 2:25 pm
If the king can ask the PM and his cabinet to resign, then the king is having power above the constitution! The king should not involve in politics.
46 oo // Oct 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I am Thai and have read the book for free in a book store in the US.
Based on the claims and info in the book, the book talks about rumours rather than well-researched info.
Personally, I love HM the king Bhumibol as much as most thais do or more. Respects of the Thai towards the King does not hold back democracy development in Thailand, if that is the concern here.
Thaksin (the worst prime minister of thailand
) had been protested by hundreds of thousands of Thais on street for more than 6 months. How could a prime minister changed the laws or used internal information in his favour ???? It did not happen once. It happened many times. I am a citizen of Thailand. I did not allow that but we couldn’t touch Thaksin … why …?? Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand. !!!
47 sos // Nov 1, 2007 at 11:57 pm
who can smile all the time? no one!
48 Restorationist // Nov 2, 2007 at 2:54 am
oo,
“Personally, I love HM the king Bhumibol as much as most thais do or more.”
Thanks for your love story and other assertions. Where is the analysis? Come on, this is a serious discussion - or should be. Enough of the assertion and more factual and intelligent discussion.
49 Nattha // Nov 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm
A few month ago, my husband had talked with the soldier who has a high rand and is working in the northern part which people has very income.He said that about 30 years ago when our king was on helicopter, he noticed a temple with is not in a map.The king wanted to kow , how the monks and people nearby lived, then he asked the pilot to land on a field. He travelled with quee Sirikit and maj.gen prem.Our king and queen were waiting in helicopter while Mr. Prem walked across the field to find a car. Would you who touch our king do this.We did’nt have a concret road at that time,and is hard to walk across the field. He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do. So Do Not TOUCH him anymore.
50 Srithanonchai // Nov 5, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“So Do Not TOUCH him anymore.” >> Why would you want to go farther than the King himself? If you were really loyal to him, you should follow the King’s famous statement, “I can be criticized.”
51 Restorationist // Nov 6, 2007 at 7:30 am
Nattha : Nice try. You mean no-one else has ever walked into a village. Yeah, right, only a king could do that. Very silly posting.
52 KU KON THAI // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:20 am
I hate this book. Hate since the title is ABSOLUTELY AND ALWAYS UNTRUE. Paul Handley, you have no respect to our culture and our most beloved person. I WISH YOU IN CURSE FOREVER ASSHOLE
53 กูฝรั่งโว้ย // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:53 am
เป็นหนังสือที่ดีที่สุดเล่มหนึ่งเกี่ยวกับกษัตริย์ที่หลอกลวงประเทศนี้มานาน
ออกจากกะลาได้แล้ว khun kon thai
54 Teth // Nov 8, 2007 at 1:41 am
For a farang, the fact that you can type Thai is very flattering.
Nice reply as well. The post by the “Khon Thai” clearly shows the Thai mentality and the reason why we are a backwards state. So much for Buddhist and gentle Thailand hahahahah.
(กูก็คนไทย แต่ออกจากกะลาแล้ว)
55 Restorationist // Nov 8, 2007 at 2:10 am
ku khon thai is, I think, the first person to use a profanity on this blog. That is a great shame, especially as s/he has nothing to say of any worth.
56 Tip // Nov 8, 2007 at 3:08 am
oo: “Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand.”
In my opinion, the media and middle class are obsessed with petty issues that technocrats and bureaucrats like to talk about. If you really care about democracy, instead of dwelling on issues like ‘buying votes’ you should start asking more serious questions. What stops Thailand from implementing progressive tax system, agrarian reform, universal health care, free education, etc.? Is Thailand affluent enough to be in that position?
Nattha: “He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do.”
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
57 Teth // Nov 8, 2007 at 11:53 am
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
I would retroactive audit his books and tax him. Let him and his family keep their inherited wealth, but I would strip them of all political powers, whether reserve or otherwise. Basically, I would declare a republic and appoint Phra Thep as President for life after which we would elect our Presidents. Of course, this scheme is not the most Republican one available, but for the sake of legitimacy as well as continuity and avoiding the need for any Charles and Olivers, it sounds good.
58 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
On the meaning of the republic, I understand that the original meaning of ประชาธิปไตย during the คณะราษฏร era was in fact, “republic”.
Since 14th October we’ve had to settle for the ประชาธิปไตยอันมีพะมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข
Time to go back to the original meaning.
59 pui // Nov 18, 2007 at 2:27 pm
leave every counties alone let it be in thier own way
earth is geting warmer,share love to everyone stop criticize
every one will suffer,we live in same planet
westerner ,asian,
civilized westerner whom cause green house effect with civilized brain.
barbarian asian whom always were outwited from who claim to be civilized specimen.
about this book
feed oneself with criticize other people by tring to apply western culture
which is one claimed to be universal culture to Asian.
why one feel concern of other people personal feeling or affection.
how to do feel if one criticize your wife mom or dad.
I personally love this king and no one force me to love him
just only love, no other reason
It’s non of other people business.
some say Iam stupid /yes am I
some say king has good tactics to make most of stupid Thais love him.
/yes I love him
This blog just only for make money to Pual fuckinghand ly
60 Restorationist // Nov 19, 2007 at 12:10 am
Pui: Thanks for your love story. Some mothers and fathers deserve criticism, especially if they do bad things. A monarchy is everyone’s business. You haven’t read the book, have you? Otherwise you wouldn’t post this thoughtless stuff.
61 Restorationist // Nov 19, 2007 at 12:14 am
Pui: You say, “This blog just only for make money to Pual fuckinghand ly” which is silly, so I have to you agree with your own assessment of yourself: “some say I am stupid /yes am I.” You also need to clean up your language. People on this blog do not usually use profanities.
62 Teth // Nov 19, 2007 at 11:11 am
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
But does Thailand really need an Oliver Cromwell to behead Charles? There will never be a peaceful transition into a Republican system unless we get rid of the royals and I suppose putting one up as a puppet is probably the best way. No need for bloodshed and we strip away the stupidity that surrounds monarchy whilst giving a job for a popular royal.
After that royal’s death, which as you say would be in a long time (long enough for everybody to forget their royalism and conservative lunacy and long enough for the new generation to be sufficiently “educated” in republican values), we elect a figurehead President and resume our Parliamentary republic system properly.
63 Republican // Nov 19, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Talking about bloodshed, one of the events that was not dealt with in great detail in “The King Never Smiles” (an issue that was raised on NM) was the shooting death of the king’s brother, King Rama VIII.
Read the second installment of Somsak’s research into this history-turning event, “ปริศนากรณีสวรรคต ตอนที่ 2 : ในหลวงอานันท์ยิงพระองค์เอง หรือถูกผู้อื่นยิง” by following the links from Fa Dio Kan: http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4137
This is ESSENTIAL reading.
64 Sidh S. // Nov 19, 2007 at 5:50 pm
KhunPui, I understand your sentiments - and they are already well expressed without the need for profanities.
Teth, we are already in a relatively peaceful transition to a ‘constitutional monarchy’ which, in time, will be more akin to the Japanese than British model. It has been marked by the very sad, tragic violent events of 1973, 1976 and 1992 that Thais should and must not forget - and lets hope Thai students of the future gets a more accurate account of events in even-handed perspectives and relative to the contexts that they occured.
Relative to other societies, Thais have argubly paid a less painful price towards ‘democracy’. As Jonfernquest has stated in another topic, Thais are living the price of societal ’stability’ (regardless of coups and changes of governments). Was it worth it? We’ll have to ask our fellow Thais and immigrants from unstable societies who settled in Thailand and their descendents (and also those who used/is using Siam/Thailand as a stable political base to affect changes at home).
Moreover, it will be extremely hard - if not possible - for any future Thai monarch to replicate HMK’s popularity, which is a product of specific times, places and events. Thai culture and society is already very different, unrecognizable from where it was in 1947 when HMK ascended the throne. Let’s see what we’ll be discussing in New Mandala in, say, 10 years…
65 Teth // Nov 19, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Regardless, there is no need for monarchy: it is an archaic and useless institution that has no democratic grounding. How can all wo/men be equal when one is “above criticism and above the law”? Plus, it will remain an anchor for the conservative and hypocritical sections of Thai society who refuse change.
In the case of the British one, there is a balance between pragmatism and principle. The only reason the British monarchy is still there is because people reckon a figurehead President will mean nothing and cost no less than a Royal Family. (And probably a few sentimental issues). But the fact remains is that the Thai one should be abolished.
66 landofsnarls // Nov 20, 2007 at 1:25 am
Republican, I’m REALLY keen to read the first, as well as the second installment of Somsak’s research…but I’m illiterate: I can’t read Thai. Is it available anywhere in English.
I must say that the 2 main theories I’ve heard of and read so far are both highly improbable : (1)who would have wanted the job in preference to a nice safe life in Europe, and what other motive could there have been? & (2) Stevenson’s theory in his vapid extended P.R. release is ridiculously contrived, and has absolutely no evidence to support it, as well as considerable opposition from scholars of the Japanese spook.
I’m not surprised that Handley dealt with it so briefly. In the absence of evidence, he could have only speculated, as Stevenson did.That would have dropped the standards of what is really a pretty good piece of work, researched & written, I would think, with a fair degree of difficulty, considering that revisionism and bare-faced lies are such an integral part of Thai culture - so necessary for pulling the wool over the eyes of the people.
BTW, speaking of b.s., and I know this is way off topic - I was looking again last night at the letter sent by 7 Ambassadors to the govt 0n 22nd Nov.2006, asking for an audit of some 60 million baht given by their governments (to which a senior prat in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs reacted by stating that if they were so intent on listening to rumours, the appropriate thing to do would be to write to the government, stating their concerns…! Very Mad-Hatter’s Tea Party!), & wondering if anything ever came of it. Has anyone any news? If so, please just give me a reference. Don’t want to interrupt the flow of this discussion.
67 Sidh S. // Nov 20, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Teth, the British took centuries (and a lot of blood) to really make sense of a working parliament and a monarchy. Membership of the House of Lords was traditionally limited to the nobility and is still by appointment only. On that aspect, we have already gone further with a partially elected Senate. And even so, the British have kept their royal family as have the Japanese. However irrelevant the monarchy is to Australia, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state. Thailand will become much more ‘democratic’ that is certain, but the monarchy will be around, as part of Thai society in an evolving capacity, for a very long time to come.
The only way to abolish the monarchy is through violence, as the British did to the Burmese nobility - or the French through their own revolution. Both the British and the French had their chances to do the same to Siam’s in the 19th century - maybe that is an alternative history you prefer and we might be conversing in French (or much better English)!
Some argued AjarnPridi and FMPibul had their chances. I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy? Personally, as a ‘critical royalist’, I suspect both.
While Handley’s book has its merits, I would urge you to read as many books on Siamese-Thai history as is possible. David Wyatt is a good easy to read start. AjarnChris and AjarnPasuk’s is highly recommended too as well as B.J. Terwiel’s. AjarnThongchai’s “Siam Mapped” was ‘paradigm changing’ for me. From a material history point of view, Clarence Aasen’s “Architecture of Siam” is brilliant. There are many others addressing specific eras in both Thai and English worth sorting out.
68 Teth // Nov 21, 2007 at 1:13 am
Sidh, I understand that the British have been through much bloodshed, hence my references to Charles and Oliver. Regardless, the British arrangement on monarchy, as with many of its other eccentricities of government, is a pragmatic (and perhaps a little sentimental) one: it simply works. The monarch is nothing but a figurehead, the Lords is clearly not as powerful as the Commons, and an unwritten Constitution can have “constitutional experts”. So in that sense, you cannot even begin to compare our new partially elected Senate to the Lords.
Sidh, when you say:
I assume you are defending monarchy as an essential element of some countries? Like I said, the only reason for the survival of monarchy is pragmatic and sentimental. There is no other logical explanation for their existence. They hark from an age of mysticism. Tell me how a King is any different from a President (as a figurehead) or why any human being should be born with the right to rule over any other. Not by merit nor by work, but by birth?
As I have re-iterated, unless you find a pragmatic reason for their existence, monarchies should not exist. What is the pragmatic reason for the existence of the Thai monarchy? Conservatism, meddling in politics, military coups, vague economic theories, image-building visits to rural places, killing students (sorry, Communists), appointing prime ministers, disposing of enemies brutally, and superstitious Brahmin rituals?
Most European monarchies have earned their right for survival and its damn time for the Thai one to do the same. Uphold democracy like Juan Carlos, be duty bound as Elizabeth II, be progressive like Margrethe II, or else be abolished. Last time I checked, the US was a republic, so is France, and these are some of the most powerful countries in the world…
You forget that there were nearly 100 people involved in the Khana Ratsadorn and at the time of the coup, important princes and important elements of the government were placed under arrest. That is how a coup is done.
69 Democratus // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:10 am
Sidh S: If you think that Wyatt’s book is the best place to begin understanding Thai history, you need to do some more critical reading. Might as well have recommended WAR Wood.
Besides, where do you get off recommending texts to others? What qualifications do you have and what makes you consider Teth uneducated in these matters?
Your reading of monarchies elsewhere (if indeed you have done some reading) seems rather limited to me. At least based on your trite statements here.
70 Restorationist // Nov 21, 2007 at 11:16 am
Sidh S says, “I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy?”
This is nothing more than the high school textbook line on Prajadhipok. It is also the royalist’s standard version of history. Can you provide the evidence for this view outside of P’s self-serving abdication letter or the half-hearted view he took on maybe expanding the privy council? I’d be interested to see it.
71 Sidh S. // Nov 21, 2007 at 4:43 pm
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence - such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
And to take pragmatism further, I went back into history (two centuries) exploring the times when Siamese-Thai monarchy was most threatened - and I thought during the height of 19th century colonialism and during the 1932 coup. Restorationist thinks I took a high school textbook line here - it is up to him/her. But we can conveniently choose our interpretations, selections of history. Maybe this is a subtle point in history worth investigating, whether at the time of the coup, who had more control of the armed forces and its key personnels? In the scenario is 50:50, then my point is proven that King Prajadhipok had that choice to fight but did not take it.
In the end, a Thai compromised was struck, the monarchy was significantly weakened - at the very least it no longer governs the country. Under HMK, the monarchy is resuscitated again, enjoying high respect and popularity amongst the Thai populace (this is also Paul Handley’s view and some NM commentators will beg to differ)… At this point in time what is the ‘pragmatic’ way of abolishing the monarchy?
Democratus, I have had previous exchanges with Teth and he has once admitted that his main source of Thai political history was from Paul Handley’s book. Otherwise, as a historian I am certain he is more qualified than me.
72 Tosakan // Nov 21, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Restorationist-
There is a lot of evidence to support King Prajadhipok.
You can start with Benjamin Bateson here http://seapdatapapers.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=seap;idno=seap095
King Prajadhipok may not have been a Jeffersonian democrat, but the intent to transform the political system was definitely there.
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions.
73 nganadeeleg // Nov 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions
They should have advised him to start doing some educating.
74 Republican // Nov 21, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Somsak has brilliantly destroyed the ridiculous royalist propaganda that the last absolute monarch was ever interested in democracy, based on the historical evidence. See his ประวัติศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง - I think it’s chapter 2 or 3 (my copy is at home).
You would have to be an idiot to believe that an absolute monarch, and all the aristocratic and noble political and economic interests that surround the monarchy, would ever have willingly wanted to surrender that power to their enemies. It’s a total joke. Why on earth did the Bowaradet rebellion take place?
You have to understand that all this mythologizing about R7’s democratic credentials was built up in the era in which the royalists had regained control over the Thai state after the defeat of the Peoples Party, and especially after October 1973, when the monarchy, after 16 years of staunch support for a military dictatorship, had to rebrand itself as “democratic”.
75 Republican // Nov 21, 2007 at 9:54 pm
To Landofsnarls: No, the article on the death of the R8 is not available in English. But I strongly recommend have a friend translate it for you.
76 Historicus // Nov 21, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Tosakan: The Batson selection of documents is insufficient in my view, precisely because it is a selection and Batson was very selective indeed. If you read Batson’s book, you see that his thesis is that P was a democrat. However, if you read more widely, I do not believe that this thesis is nearly so strong. The king’s main idea was to expand the privy council and establish a constitution that maintained the monarchy, but this did not amount to a constitutional democracy (of the modern variety). After he was overthrown, he complained that his advisers should have convinced him to go ahead with his plan. Post-1932, there is ample evidence that he only supported elements of democratic reform if this got the royalists more power (e.g. he only supported political parties when he thought royalists could benefit. He opposed this when he was certain that the revolutionists would gain more. This is hardly a case for him being the great democrat of royalist propaganda.
77 Teth // Nov 22, 2007 at 1:03 am
The case of Prajadhipok is one of hindsight. He clearly wanted reform, but what his intentions were, I think we cannot fully deduce neutrally. What is certain is Prajadhipok did not choose to fight, was he in a position to fight is certainly a good question to ask. Did he not learn about the coup d’etat via Pridi’s declaration rather than any of his senior advisors/ministers, who presumably were put under arrest?
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence - such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
Sidh, you and I either have different definitions for pragmatic or else you still believe the King is a force for good in this country. Since I do not think he is, I believe it is better for the country to not be burdened with a monarchy. That is what I believe is pragmatic: abolish the monarchy and its negative influence.
Considering the opportunity cost with regards to abolishing/not abolishing the monarchy, I still see it as a worthy path to tread towards. If there is no lese majeste, no idiotic clause in the Constitution that subvert the rule of law (ie. the King is above the law), there should be a proper investigation as to the wrongdoings of the monarch (or heir) and punish them according to the law applied to all commoners. Wasn’t the rule of law one of the many things anti-Thaksinites claim was subverted? Heed Israel’s example and convict a head-of-state or an heir.
The pragmatic way to abolish the monarchy: abolish it via a decree or constitutional amendment; put them on trial; banish/exile/imprison them. Of course, the matter of the King’s popularity is an issue that needs to be reversed. Focus on the unpopularity of the heir and perhaps exploit Phra Thep as president. That’s my “pragmatic” view, really.
Sadly, I still feel that it is unlikely, because the Thai “establishment” and network monarchy is so entrenched that change is unlikely. I also feel that the work of HMK would not be undone even after his death: too many will still continue to pursue his ruthless agendas and already they are well prepared for a smooth succession.
78 Sidh S. // Nov 22, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Teth, the Khmer Rouge would argued that they were ‘pragmatic’ - and so would Hitler in imposing his vision for (’Aryan’) German/European/World society. I think you are talking ‘pragmatism’ framed by ideology here than anything else - you want Thailand to become a republic ASAP (yet acknowledging it is not possible?). No one can predict the future and I would say it may be possible. It is for future generations to decide and the only scenario that this is possible is for the monarchy to be highly unpopular which is again only possible through blatant misbehaviour (a modern example of Nepal - how just one generation may lead to the abolishment of the monarchy).
In my line of thinking, the most likely scenario is that Thailand will mature democratically and the monarchy will also become increasingly ceremonial, like Japanese and European royalties.
I would also argue that at a historical-cultural level, the Siamese-Thai monarchy has been a much more integral to Thai society. Moreover, Thais have the notion of “boonkhun”, “boonbaramee” that is very deep rooted and kings of the past still command deep emotional affection (even cultic following) to today (modern Japan seems to display some of these traits too). You can argue ‘re-education’ and negative media would do the job - but it will require the abolishing or deep rooted cultural practices. It requires every Jatukam worshippers and all those who believe the sacredness of the amulets they wear - whether of the Buddha, Hindu Gods, King Chulalongkorn…etc. to renege their their beliefs. It is ideological deep and it requires conversion (by persuasion and by force?).
On a personal level, we differ significantly as I see (supplied with much the same evidences as you) HMK and Siamese-Thai monarchs of the past as very positive influences in their respective societies. As we can’t predict the future, I don’t know what the future holds - but judging from the past to the present, that is my assessment. This was also borne out of considering ‘alternative histories’. What would Thailand be like without the monarchy? Being practical, there’s two possible times (and they maybe more) in the past two centuries when that could have occured - 1893, a total French takeover of the capital and eventual settlement with the British to divide Siam along the ChaoPhraya River into British west and French east. The second in 1932, if the radical elements in the People’s Party held sway and a bloody Siamese civil war breaks out (with a possibility of foriegn intervention lurking in the background?). In those scenarios which democratic/development path would Siam have taken amongst ‘comparable’ neighbours - Malaysia/Singapore? Myanmar/Laos/Cambodia? Vietnam? Indonesia? Will Thailand do better or worse? Without the monarchy, which institution(s) will most likely take over (an easier question, where would FMPibul, GenSarit etal with ‘absolute’ power take the country)?
Here, I also strongly agree with Jonfernquest’s apt assessment - that the monarchy is Thailand’s price for “stability”. Other commentators may beg to differ, but many Thais will agree with me that the price was more than worth it - and this is, arguably, a cultural preference. I will admit to once seriously entertaining ideas such as ‘why can’t we be more like the Europeans’? It is only after living outside of Thailand continuously for 10 years that the thought ‘I am not European (which is not as ‘perfect’ as seen from inside Thailand anyway)’ and ‘Thailand is making positive progress at its preferred rate and in its own way’ occured and then everything made perfect sense… Yes, it is full of imperfections - but generally they are not too harmful, even charming (pardon my partisanship!). Immigrants from the region over the past century+ and tourists from around the world seem to think so too… (but many commentators here will refuse to credit HMK and the monarchy with any of the positives - only everything they see and perceive as negative and wrong!)
79 Teth // Nov 23, 2007 at 12:05 am
Like I said, our definitions of pragmatic are different. Perhaps utilitarian would be a better word to describe my view of the situation, that is, monarchy has more harm than good for this country, and, its abolishment will produce more good than harm. Therefore, my conclusion is that we abolish it. It will be very difficult, but I still see the outcome as worth the attempt. Obviously, you disagree.
Blasphemy! Isn’t HMK already ceremonial and non-political?!?!??
The way I see it, the monarchic cult machine will continue running for a long time whether in history books or in the media. And how will Thailand mature democratically when so far 75 years after the democratic revolution, there has been yet another coup d’etat? Maybe because there’s been people who have tried to hamper that development?
Trust me, there will be no stopping the royal propaganda machine. See how they’re trying to give the mantle to the heir even now.
Is that so? So harking back to the Kings of Ayutthaya, who lived in splendor, ruthlessly killed each other, didn’t bother giving a rat’s ass about the country, employed slaves, enforced corvee labor, gave titles and positions away to family members (aka cronyism), etc etc etc, you think Thai monarchs are “very positive influences”? What makes you think the Kings of Chakri are any different? Are they not usurpers, monopolists, slavers, wealthy patricians who cared little about the people, and ruthless rulers, except maybe one or two of them? But I trust you will excuse them by telling me not to judge them by modern standards, which is similar to what you are doing.
The problem is, with monarchy, you didn’t have the choice, did you?
There is no such thing as Thailand’s preferred rate of positive progress. Where did you dream that from? That suddenly all Thai citizens decided to cast a ballot detailing what percentage economic/social/political growth they wanted? Sorry, but there is no such thing. Simply put, there are people taking Thailand forwards and those dragging us back. To explain those dragging us back as “Thailand’s preferred rate” is absolute nonsense, its as if you excuse corrupt politicians as agents of Thailand’s “preferred rate”, after all, those politicians can be charming, can’t they? Or did you mean our military leaders who now dictate this “preferred rate”. How Orwellian that sounds.
And why anybody would want positive progress at a slow rate is beyond me. Maybe they are listening too much to HMK, who said Thailand didn’t need to develop much because if we became a leading nation, the only way to go from there is down. (As opposed to staying down all our lives). And, I do not understand how and why you are attributing national charm to HMK as in this quote:
80 Sidh S. // Nov 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Very interesting comments Teth - beginning with the introduction of another scary word “utilitarian”!!!
Ah, another socio-cultural ‘engineer’ I assume! For me it is unfortunate that you see and is apparently extremely frustrated by only the ‘dark side’ of Thai culture. From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history. On the other hand, you have very high ambitions, Thailand without the monarchy (which should have been abolished since the Ayutthaya period?!), would have already become a “leading nation” on par with France or America. By your “modern standards”, Thailand seemed to have achieved nothing in its long history!
That is fine by me - I have close Thai friends and respected colleagues who also thinks that way (one going as far as saying Thailand would have done better if it has been colonized!). It has made for many lively and enjoyable conversations through the years - and always confirmed to me that, whatever form of government - democratic, pseudo-democratic, dictatorship the Thai mind is always free (and very critical). Things not said loudly in public is discussed widely in private… “Choices”? Really, who has? We didn’t have much choice to begin with, you and I are born Thai? Some others are born Pakistani, American, Japanese… The majority of Australians want to be a republic but is still not… And politically, how different is John Howard from Kevin Rudd? How different is the Republican from the Democrats? How different is McDonalds from KFC? When the Greens have a decent chance to win an election, then we have real ‘choice’…
But anyway, that’s besides the point. I probably dwell a very different ‘Thai’ world from you Teth. I get frustrated with the dark sides but I also do enjoy the positive sides immensely (over-indulgence will be more accurate). When I was new in Australia, many of my foriegn colleagues (Aussie and fellow SEAsians) observed that Thais are “very proud people” - something I did not understood then, as I always assumed everyone is proud of their cultures/countries. In fact, I have so many bad things to say literally coming off the 1997 Asian economic crisis. But through the years, being outside of the Thai fish tank and looking in and having numerous opportunities to observe Thai behaviour in a foriegn context. Regardless of Penek’s stereotype of Thais in the hilarious film “6ixty9″ that “Thai men are drug-dealers and Thai women are prostitutes”, yes I discern that element of proudness (that few apart from the Thais themselves understand) often associated with HMK, Buddhism, FOOD, “never colonized”, Thai language, Muay Thai, Luk thung, TV advertisments, PMThaksin (not me here)… and a hosts of generic and specific things. Another statement which caught me is an observation by a Thai designer who has worked abroad that “Thais are very talented, but not ambitious” - which had a strange ring of truth for me. I’ve seen many very talented Thais come through the educational system here with the majority choosing to return home (unlike the less talented like myself. I suspect you have that ‘choice’ too Teth, if you despise the country and its culture so much). Ofcourse, while it hasn’t suffered too much ‘brain drain’, the Thai system seem to not fully utilize those talents (on the other hand, they might just want to enjoy life, time with friends/family outside of the utilitarian. I have heard the Thais being compared with the Italians and Spanish too in their attitude to life).
Am I attributing the “national charm” to HMK? In this NM context, where many kept attributing all Thailand’s ills to HMK, it is a fair call. Obviously both reductivist, fundamentalist thinking are false. The reality must be somewhere in the middle - and the extremely complex entity that is ‘Thailand’ (that no one can really fully comprehend), all institutions, all the people in it, past and present, contributed to and are responsible for its charms and its ills (credit to the many foriegners who had a critical hand too - from the Portuguese sailors who introduced chilli to Thailand - to the Mons, Khmers, Chinese, Persians, Malays, Vietnamese, Burmese…etc…etc…, who bought their wonderful cultures to this charming mix. Why are they here - and, more often than not, free to retain their cultural practices and religious believes (something relatively quite recent in the Western world)? Why did they assimilate? Add “stability” to the ingredient provided by the Siamese-Thai kings and we have the package we have today…
“Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” - relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam (pardon my partisanship again - here, I maintain that everyone is proud, and rightly so, of their cultures/beliefs as long as it does not promote hate/prejudice). To end this rambling, Teth, I respect and accept your views. We are all just “conditioned” differently (and do keep this going!).
81 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Nov 23, 2007 at 10:30 pm
re: Sidh> To paraphrase that great statesman, Cicero,Quo usque tandem abutere, Sidh S., patientia nostra?
Indeed, for how long will you abuse our patience? In past discussions on this board, you categorically denied my charge that you harbor, consciously or unconsciously, racist beliefs. However, when you employ slimy rhetorical tricks like, in your response to Teth, “From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history, ” I can only conclude that you are indeed the worst kind of racist. How dare you engage in this faux-psychoanalysis when the only “crime” the man has committed is disagreeing with you. And after that you have the chutzpah to write ” Teth, I respect and accept your views”?
O tempora, o mores!
Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.
You state to be proud that you were indoctrinated with an ethnocentric and paternalistic (complete with the almost incestuous motherhood-cult that pervades Thai culture) world view through the educational system of a dictatorship? Of that, I can only feel pity. Perhaps if you received an education that encouraged critical thought and exploration of other cultures you would know that “Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” - relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam” is complete and absolute Occidentialist stercum tauri.
Perhaps it would do you some good to read up on Ancient Rome, especially the time of the res publica. You will learn of concepts like “tolerantia universa,” that is the policy universal tolerance of religion and culture that was practiced by Rome. (Although, the tolerance had its limits, as the Judeans found out. Nevertheless, the Romans always dealt with the Judeans as a people as opposed to a religion). You would learn of the many “fusion” foods the Romans enjoyed. You might also learn about the fact that after a certain time, Roman citizenship was open to people of any race or nation.
And all of this occurred while the “Siamese” were still barely a Bronze-age tribe living in the far South of China.
Vale,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz/Numerius Cassius Niger
82 Sidh S. // Nov 24, 2007 at 12:08 am
I agree with you on Rome, Lleij Samuel Schwartz - until Christianity came into the picture, as you mentioned, let’s not forget. Let’s also not forget when Siam came in the picture a millenia or so later, Europe was in the midst of the Inquisition (and a Christian civil war too?)… Give the poor Siamese some credit mate - I plead of you!
And mate, the only crime I committed for being accused of being “the worse kind of racist” was also disagreeing with you! More patience please, why accuse anyone of raci