This post is a follow-up to the New Mandala interview with Paul Handley posted on 19 September 2007.
Thanks for all the comments and interest in The King Never Smiles. I’m still a bit frustrated over the lack of discussion here and elsewhere over specific themes and content of the book. Everyone still focuses on the book’s existence and my intentions. Both Sidh S. and Republican here, for example. But anyway, here’s some comments and answers to your questions.
Start with Khun Sidh .. hey, it’s Handley, with an “l”. Sidh, I really wish you would read the book because your comments on specifics would be interesting. By your statement “I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverance in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha,’” you provide strong support for one of the book’s more controversial themes, that the palace has knowingly presented the king as a bodhisattva and devaraja.
On the other hand, your remarks about westerners and cold calculation and my intent are just silly, as if Thai leaders and the palace aren’t given to cold calculation. My intent, as I have said time and time again, was to satisfy my own curiosity and do the best job I could to tell the story of King Bhumibol’s reign. You say you are “more interested in a more comprehensive, even-handed treatment that considers all players/institutions specific historical and cultural contexts,” but without reading the book , how do you know that it isn’t that? Essentially you say that only a true Thai and true believer – one and the same in your view – can write the book. But of course no true believer/true Thai would do so, preferring like yourself to preserve the “beautiful mystery” of the Chakri monarchy. But anyway, read the book … it addresses lots of the points you raise.
Teth: Re your reference to Spain’s king … I tried to write the book as an example of one contemporary monarchy, since they all operate in similar structures. I would like to see more broadly discussed how similar (or not) the Thai monarchy is to other monarchies in the world. Sidh suggests it is too unique to compare, but that is simply wrong.
Somsak: I suppose… how would you put it?
Nganadeeleg: The publisher decided not to include pictures, for budgetary reasons I think. I hoped to use some of the iconic pictures to back up my arguments about how he is presented to the people. Unfortunately they also did not want the family tree I created which I thought was a wonderful illustration of the inbreeding and apparent results thereof.
Craig: I think also that the Thai royals found Sihanouk flaky and not adequately committed to classical monarchism. Probably a good call.
Observer: Just because it is Yale or an academic press does not make it right. Suffice it to say that the book was closely vetted and endorsed by several experts, some anonymously, in Thai studies and political science. Any book has to stand on its own, whoever the publisher is.
Col. Jeru: We obviously disagree: you separate the military’s interest from the king’s, while my book argues that from 1957 onward they have coincided, with the result of stifling development of civilian politics. Certainly the king didn’t like what he saw in Banharn, Chavalit and Thaksin, but each in his way owes his rise to the palace. If Prem – the king’s close aide – valued the rule of law perhaps neither Chavalit nor Banharn would have risen very high, as corrupt as both are. I do not believe that what Prem does and what the king does are separable.
Grasshopper and Tosakan: as Polo said, huh?. I’m not skilled with political theory. But I wrote the book in hopes that it might be useful to those who indulge in that, and I am glad it can spark some debate. Still, I’d rather first see a debate on what it says.
Republican: having seen your other comments on this blog, I think we might disagree as much as I would with Sidh. I’m no royalist, but it’s the hand that was dealt. Highly revered? Absolutely. If you could convincingly drop lese majeste laws, I believe you would get a massive majority polling great respect for Bhumibol – for better or for worse. As a friend last year said of Thaksin’s rural base: if they were convinced that Thaksin was a threat to the king they would drop him in an instant, as did the urban middle class. In the absence of polls, I think the evidence of people’s behavior by choice is overwhelming.
The comparison to Suharto always struck me as well.. Pak Harto and Ibu Tien also collected donations and recycled them as their own largesse, and it elevated them. He used his farm and his simple appearance to show he was a man of the people. Ultimately it was his kids who wrecked everything, for they turned the tide against the technocrats who kept things relatively stable. Suharto and his wife as a matter of policy backed their children’s plundering the economy. Tommy Suharto was already a billionaire in his 30s. In Thailand, something – the king perhaps? – has prevented the Mahidol children from being that rapacious, if they had it in them. Thaksin’s family was taking that path though.
As for King Ananda’s death, lots of people criticize that I did not “solve” the case. To claim in a book that King Bhumibol killed his brother requires incontrovertible evidence. This is not available. The evidence was deliberately corrupted, the truth deliberately obscured. Only one person alive today has direct knowledge of what happened – the king. The book is out enough on a limb that I was not going to take that step. (Which is to say that some of the “rumors” in the book have a lot more behind them than all the testimony in the Ananda case.) You haven’t said, in fact, why a decisive conclusion on this would make a difference. As I made clear, it was not the truth of the matter which ultimately counted but how it was spun. The truth matters perhaps in Bhumibol’s conscience but psychoanalysis is, for this book, another weak limb
to crawl out on.
You are right, of course, to say that change is forced on monarchies. I’m not naïve – I point out all the pressures already there and the risks of going down the wrong path. That’s maybe not the kind of force you mean, but it’s still coercive. The fact is, it took Bhumibol a long time to build what he has, and it is not completely transferable, and everyone with some amnaj knows that. That in itself is pressure.
33 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Sep 28, 2007 at 9:21 am
Paul Handley: Thanks for the explanation about the pictures.
I admit I was one of those who were critical of your book before I had even read it (based mainly on reading all the reviews over at amazon).
In case you missed it, here is a thread discussing your book, which shows my opinion before and after reading the book:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/07/28/the-king-never-smiles/#comments
I am starting to wonder if the time is near where the 8am & 6pm cultivation of the royal image will start to do more harm than good, particularly having seen reports of plans to make traffic stop at those times - that seems like overkill IMO.
2 col. jeru // Sep 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I am surprised and pleased that Paul Handley was obliged to respond to my poster. Maybe I’ll take the time to read Paul Handley’s book after all, if only to return the courtesy.
But Paul Handley misunderstands my post. I do not dispute that there is a close ‘linkage’ between the military and the monarchy. But I submit that HMK after having realized the serious (past) threats to the monarchy from ambitious Generals, embarked thence on a deliberate policy of ‘nurturing’ and ‘nourishing’ good rapport with the military, to ensure that rising police and military generals are strongly loyal to the monarchy. Which policy, I submit, was not only good sense but was very successful which accounted for HMK Bhumibhol’s long reign.
But that was not enough. HMK must have realized that he needs a counterforce against the military, lest Thailand degenerate to the same fascistic oppressive military government form, similar to neighbor Burma. Hence HMK too needed, in much stronger urgency, to develop Thailand’s democracy. HMK’s needed a well-developed Thailand democracy, with strong checks & balances institutions, to prevent the rise of military dictatorship in Thailand.
3 FarangBha // Sep 28, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“Unfortunately they also did not want the family tree I created which I thought was a wonderful illustration of the inbreeding and apparent results thereof.”
Is there anywhere this is available online - or can it be posted somewhere; its something I’ve been looking for.
4 Sidh S. // Sep 28, 2007 at 7:41 pm
My apologies for mispelling your name all this time!
Thanks for giving us the honor of responding to the discussions. I actually read your book - across three nights last year. I was really tempted to post comments on Yale’s website back then, but I thought others will do it anyway (which I understand they did - also in amazon which I did not check). I got drawn into this one in particular because, from my limited time in this blog (which is otherwise very excellent and intellectually stimulating), I gathered it was too fixated on the monarchy - almost a fetish, in fact. My deduction, from my postings, pointed to the fact that the Thai monarchy and its role is relatively unique in the context of democratic development in the country. ‘Developed democracies’ dealt with secular leftist-centrist-rightist politics; aspiring ‘democracies’ closer to home dealt directly with the armed forces or ‘paternistic parliamentary dictatorships’; while Thailand has the monarchy to ‘complicate’ things. Add HM the King’s very long career - outlasting each casts of characters from the multiple cycles of coups and elections - it is not really surprising. My wish is we could move on but I don’t think that will happen (as people are attracted - and entitled - to the exotic and novel!)!
I will also admit that it is a long time since reading your book and details are now vague - but what particularly caught me was its familiarity as it is also a collection of rumours that I have heard through the years from the various echelons of Thai society (from the bureaucrat to the barber). It attempts to contextualize those rumours in the Thai political drama through the years. It also makes many big conclusions - many of which I don’t agree with (whether its on the issue of succession or the development of Thai democracy as commented upon). However, to be fair to you, I should read the book again (it will be some time before I get the time admittedly).
I will say that your points on my comments are fair in that it reinforces the very different subjectivities between being ‘Thai’ and ‘non-Thai’. And, yes, my Thai perceptions may be coldly calculated and constructed by the Siamese-Thai elites (as it has been for hundreds of years - so it is culturally deep) - and you, a rationale, objective outsider is merely, rationally exposing them (which is fair enough). But, as stated, my main preoccupations is with ‘intent’ (and the resultant actions, consequences) - and from historical and contemporary evidences, I believe HM the King and the ‘cool heads’ in the Thai elites have the best Thai interests at heart. As another commentator has pointed out, at most they can be accused of being ‘overly protective’ (a practical, cultural fixation on ’stability’ perhaps?)…
5 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Sep 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm
In Thailand, something – the king perhaps? – has prevented the Mahidol children from being that rapacious, if they had it in them.
Actually, that “something” is defenitely NOT the king, but a small event call the ‘Change of Government’ (i.e. revolution) on 24 June 1932 which henceforth deprived the royal family of any direct administrative role in government or the economy. Considered this formal prohibition, the ‘Mahidol children’ haven’t done so bad, don’t you think?
About your treatment of Anan death, here’s my brief comment, excerped from an article on the case :
ล่าสุด ผมอดแปลกใจและผิดหวังเล็กน้อยไม่ได้ เมื่ออ่าน The King Never Smiles (หน้า 76-79) และพบว่า เมื่อบรรยายถึงกรณีสวรรคต ผู้เขียน (Paul M Handley) แทบไม่มีอะไรใหม่เลย นี่ไม่ใช่การวิจารณ์เสียทีเดียว เพราะผู้เขียนเองรู้ตัวและได้เขียนยอมรับไว้เอง (ดูจดหมายของเขาที่โต้ตอบคำวิจารณ์ของ Grant Evans ใน Far Eastern Economic Review, November 2006: “I have said little new from what has been in print for years. . . . I have no idea whether Ananda shot himself or was killed. . .”) เป็นความจริงที่ว่า แฮนลี่ย์ได้พูดถึงความเป็นไปได้ 2 ทางของการสวรรคตที่ได้รับการยอมรับมากที่สุด แต่เขาเพียงแต่สรุปสิ่งที่มีผู้เสนอไว้แล้ว เขาไม่ได้วิเคราะห์หรืออธิบายให้เห็นว่าความเป็นไปได้ 2 ทางนี้มีที่มาอย่างไร ทำไมจึงสรุปว่ามีความเป็นไปได้ 2 ทางนี้ แต่ละทางมีจุดอ่อนจุดแข็งอย่างไร
ในทัศนะของผม ปัญหาไม่ได้อยู่ที่ว่า แฮนลี่ย์ไม่ได้มีอะไรพูดถึงมากไปกว่าที่มีการพูดกันไว้แล้ว แต่คือ เขาได้พูดน้อยกว่าสิ่งที่มีการเผยแพร่ไว้แล้วควรจะทำให้เขาพูดได้ พูดอีกอย่างหนึ่งคือ จากข้อมูลและการวิเคราะห์อันมากมาย ที่มีการเผยแพร่แล้ว โดยเฉพาะในภาษาไทย แฮนลี่ย์ควรที่จะสามารถเขียนถึงกรณีนี้ได้ดีกว่านี้ (กรณี 6 ตุลา เป็นอีกกรณีหนึ่งที่ผมรู้สึกประหลาดใจและผิดหวังในทำนองเดียวกัน) กรณีผู้เขียนอื่นในระยะใกล้ๆกัน เช่น กอบเกื้อ (Kings, Country, Constitutions หน้า 132-137 และ 246-247) ก็คล้ายกัน แต่แย่กว่ามาก คือไม่กล้าแม้แต่จะระบุให้หมด (อย่าว่าแต่จะพยายามวิเคราะห์) ว่ามีทฤษฎีอธิบายกรณีสวรรคตไว้อะไรบ้าง (คือ ระบุเพียงทฤษฎี “murdered by unknown person[s], most probably Pridi’s supporters”, อุบัติเหตุโดยพระองค์เอง และฆ่าตัวตาย นอกจากนี้ กอบเกื้อยังกล่าวอย่างเหลือเชื่อว่า หนังสือกรณีสวรรคตของสรรชัย แสงวิเชียร ที่โปรเจ้าแอนตี้ปรีดีอย่างสุดๆ เป็นหนังสือที่เสนอทัศนะเป็นกลาง [balanced view]) ผมจะไม่พูดถึงกรณี Revolutionary King หนังสือเล่มนี้ ถ้าไม่ใช่เพราะการเขียนอย่างสัปเพล่าเต็มไปหมดของผู้เขียน จนกลายเป็นงานชวนหัวโดยไม่ตั้งใจ ต้องถือเป็นความพยายามล่าสุดที่จะบิดเบือนกรณีสวรรคต และแก้ต่างให้กับผู้ทำผิดตัวจริง โดยเฉพาะในกรณีที่หนังสือพยายามอธิบายว่าทำไมจึงไม่มีการรักษาชีวิตของ 3 จำเลยไว้ในนาทีสุดท้าย ที่ผมถือว่าเป็นการแก้ตัวที่น่ารังเกียจยิ่ง (ดูบทความเรื่อง “50 ปีการประหารชีวิต” ของผม)
http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=7779
6 Restorationist // Sep 29, 2007 at 3:42 am
“In Thailand, something – the king perhaps? – has prevented the Mahidol children from being that rapacious, if they had it in them. Thaksin’s family was taking that path though.” I’m not quite sure what Mr Handley is getting at here. The monarchy in Thailand far outstrips the Suharto family for wealth, so perhaps he is simply referring to personal corruption? How do we know for Thailand? It is all secret. Rumours of the prince’s appetite for the good life are ever present. Stories of Chulabhorn’s fashion fetishes perhaps rival Imelda Marcos stories. And Ubolrat seems to anger jewellery store owners by not paying for her “purchases”. But these are all rumours because no one is allowed to investigate and publish.
Then, what about pouring billions of baht into dubious “scientific” projects? Rain-making, etc.? Rapaciousness, perhaps not? Corruption? Maybe?
And, I would have thought that these royal children were far more rapacious than Thaksin’s more or less disinterested kids.
7 col. jeru // Sep 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm
” . . . . Thaksin’s more or less disinterested kids.” - is true only because of the reality that both Thaksin and Potjaman kept an iron grip on the Shinawatra finances micro-managing and massaging the Shin enterprise share price while Thaksin Shinawatra was Prime Minister of Thailand.
Thaksin’s more or less disinterested kids have really no clue about AmpleRich and WinMark and any other offshore vehicles that father Thaksin or mother Potjaman may have cooked up to hide Thaksin’s assets while PM, or, to manipulate (insider trading) Shin stock price. When Thaksin is brought to judicial trial for the AmpleRich-WinMark affair, we will all be entertained by how ‘disinterested’ those multi-billionaire Thaksin kids truly were.
But the CP notoriety, even on money matters, have been the staple of hi-so rumors quickly circulated. How true is it that the CP’s mega-extravagance was encouraged and financed by then PM Thaksin himself while he was in power?
8 Alan // Sep 29, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Like others I have problems with a biography filled with assumptions based on gossip. And I have problems with the way Handley tries to rationalize his use of it–whether the monarchy benefits from gossip itself is no justification for a serious biographer to wander into that territory.
On reading the book I could clearly see that it was written by a “Bangkok foreigner” and not someone who spent much time living and mingling among rural folk. I found Handley perspectives on Thailand and the Thai people (their psychology and sociology) very narrow, which in turn led to very dubious generalizations. Just the title of the book itself I found absurd.
There are hundreds of billboards around Isaan with the King smiling. Is it a wide toothed grin? No, of course not. Show me a reigning monarch who runs around flashing one. But there is a gentle smile there; and it’s one I have seen countless times when the King has given is annual royal birthday address and in many photos. When compared to Queen Elizabeth of England, I would say it’s the Queen who comes of much more dour. When the simple title of the book can be so far from reality, it does little to build confidence in the rest of Handley’s analysis.
Lastly, when it comes to the King cultivating a god-like image or not allowing criticism, I think with regards to this issue we should let the King do the talking. Something which Handley rarely, if ever, does in his book–even though there were hundreds of royal addresses at his disposal. In his birthday address of 2005, the King stated quite clearly that he can be criticized and that those who say he can’t be criticized are insulting him because they are saying that he is not human. One shouldn’t confuse the way Thai governments abuses lese majeste laws with how the King feels. He constantly frees foreigners who are arrested on these charges, as was just shown again when he recently freed a man jailed for spaypainting over a billboard with his image.
9 Srithanonchai // Sep 30, 2007 at 2:14 am
“In his birthday address of 2005, the King stated quite clearly that he can be criticized and that those who say he can’t be criticized are insulting him because they are saying that he is not human. One shouldn’t confuse the way Thai governments abuses lese majeste laws with how the King feels.”
1) That statement re criticism seemed to be clearly designed as a criticism of Thaksin’s attitudes and actions, and thus politically instrumental.
2) So, should we believe that over all these decades, the king has merely been a prisoner of the governments and the bureaucrats? Would it not have been easy for him to create an atmosphere of public openness of the monarchy, if he had desired so? Or is the king powerless vis-a-vis the above-mentioned groups? Could he act to lift the ban on Handley’s book in Thailand and make it freely available in the bookshops here? But note what Prem had said about the book in the FEER interview: “I don’t like it. The nation doesn’t like it. It’s a hearsay book and is not based on the fact. We are worried [about] the foreigners who read it. My suggestion is—please ignore that book. It’s useless.”
10 Srithanonchai // Sep 30, 2007 at 2:25 am
P.S.: I have read a few chapters of the book, and think that it opens an important perspective on the Thai monarchy. However, I was also at times annoyed by the gossip. Finally, I did not continue reading simply because increasingly I found the writing style boring.
11 Restorationist // Sep 30, 2007 at 2:50 am
Alan: Like other critics of the Handley book, you are not specific. What are the errors? By this post, you show that you accept the propaganda on the king. That Handley doesn’t is troubling for you, but try to be specific. What, exactly, is wrong with the book? Most of the generalisations you make are the same as those that have been put around since the book emerged (and even before it was published). What are the assumptions that bother you? make a point that can be checked and assessed.
Your comment on the title suggests that you haven’t been around Thailand for long. I thought the title was a bit old-fashioned when it came out, harking back to a story that after his brother’s death, the king didn’t smile. Not sure if that is why Handley chose it. But, as they say, you can’t judge a book by its cover.
Hundreds of king’s speeches available? Not sure I agree on this. It is a bit hard to find them at times (especially prior to the internet) and in the past the press didn’t always publish them in full. Many of his speeches in the 1970s were really short. Those in recent years have been long, tedious and confused. Most of the royalist propaganda does that, so I’m not sure why a biography should do the same?
Your comment on the king saying he could be criticised is one that makes little sense. When has he been directly criticised since 2005? And being criticised is not the same has some drunk defacing a poster.
12 Restorationist // Sep 30, 2007 at 2:56 am
Good old Col Jeru can always be baited. I actually through in that line about the disinterested kids for Jeru. But I think it is true and it is good that Jeru agrees. The Thaksin kids were by no means as voracious as the Suharto kids, and they showed little interest or knowledge of the old man’s businesses. At last, Jeru, we agree.
I wonder if anyone will ever be able to check how much money the rapacious royals in Thailand get out of the governments (including Thaksin’s)? All those trips to Europe and China, all those palaces, the jewelery and cars, the land, shares, etc. Not to mention the cost of security, closing roads, building roads, etc. etc.
13 nganadeeleg // Sep 30, 2007 at 9:33 am
Restorationist said: “Your comment on the title suggests that you haven’t been around Thailand for long. I thought the title was a bit old-fashioned when it came out, harking back to a story that after his brother’s death, the king didn’t smile. Not sure if that is why Handley chose it. But, as they say, you can’t judge a book by its cover.”
Your comment above suggests you may not have even read the book.
IMHO, why the king doesn’t smile is part of one of the main themes of the book.
14 Alan // Sep 30, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Srithanonchai, sure his comments were aimed at Thaksin and others, but that doesn’t negate his message. I think his power to cultivate this atmosphere of openness you say is complicated by many political factors which are too difficult for me to try to sum up for you in a few lines on a message board. It’s an immensely complicated and dangerous arena that the King is operating within. Has he always managed it perfectly. Of course not. But, all things considered, he has done an admirable job. If Thaksin had used all that money he threw down on the drain on corrupt village fund schemes to support Royal initiated sufficiency development projects (the successes of which I’ve seen first hand) on a country-wide basis, the rural people would be much better off instead of wallowing in debt.
Restorationist, it is beyond me how my comment about the title shows that I haven’t been in Thailand long. It is the fact that I have lived here so long and have fluency in both Thai and Isaan that I had problems with Handley’s book. As someone who has researched the King, I can state that I’ve never had any trouble finding Royal addresses to read. Are they (or were they) difficult to find in English. Yes. But Handley surely shouldn’t be writing a biography about the King unless he can read and speak Thai fluently and conduct his own translations. But I have no knowledge of Handley’s fluency in Thai. Though on reading the book I did have my suspicions.
As to citing specifics, well sorry, I’ve long since loaned my copy out to others and can’t leaf through to cite specifics for you. I can only sum up my general impression about the book at this point. Which I’ve done. And these impressions have been pretty much shared by those other long time foreigners in Thailand to whom I’ve loaned the book. I will have to leave it at that and let you all continue on with your debate.
15 Srithanonchai // Sep 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Alan: I rather doubt that merely acting as an apologist will open up broader perspectives in our quest for knowledge on Thailand. Handley has gone much beyond this position already. You should not fall back behind it…
“which are too difficult for me to try to sum up for you in a few lines” > Since you say that, contrary to me, you know everything and could explain it if you were not restricted by the format of a message board, may I suggest you write an academic article and publish it, prefereably in The Pacific Review? For good measure, you could throw in another text defending the rather controversial “sufficiency economy” propaganda/approach. Alternatively, submit longer guest contributions about these issues to New Mandala.
“I will have to leave it at that and let you all continue on with your debate.” > Very convenient indeed. See the second paragraph.
I have become rather bored of this “long-time-foreigner” argument. As if the length of time one has spent in Thailand and the degree of one’s proviency in Thai (and Isan!) would causally determine a specific set of opinions. There are so many farang who have the same characteristics you claim to have but are very much critical of certain socio-political phenomena in Thailand, including of having an appreciation of Handley’s book, although they might not agree with everything he said.
16 col. jeru // Sep 30, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I read somewhere that the 10 monarchies of Europe all together incur annual expenses of below $200 million during the 1980s, with the British monarchy accounting for more than half of that (on average, monarchies incur less than $10 million annually).
It would be wonderful if Thailand would be more transparent with how much its monarchy is costing the Thai taxpayers. But I would hazard a guess that it would be below the cost of maintaining the British monarchy.
But I get the impression that the prince and princesses carry on their royal duties under some tight government budget. Which is why I recall those stories about the CP having “to borrow’ from well-off hi-sos, and also those rumors of largesse from Thaksin, to maintain the CP’s rumored extravagant lifestyle.
But Restorationist, Historicus, Tosakan and Republican do not have to be cute with their baits. I always scan all threes’ posters because I’m always suspicious of these hard-core pro-Thaksin supporters, whether they deny it or not.
17 Restorationist // Sep 30, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Alan: As usual, the critics cannot cite the errors and problems to allow for a clear discussion. It just comes down to a silly point of, I don’t like it… because of tone or unspecified rumours or something like that. Doesn’t get us anywhere. You can hang around Thailand and not learn much I guess if you choose not to.
Col. Jeru: You can guess as much as you like about the cost of the royals, but as you imply, no one knows. That’s just one area where a lack of transparency is a problem related to this royal family. But we can ponder a bit.
They are generally assessed as being one of the wealthiest royal families in Asia (see Forbes - $5 billion), but this is based on an assessment of their institutional stock market investments alone. How much could their land be worth? $10-20 billion or more? And, if we were to look at their personal wealth, again, there is no transparency.
While fabulously rich, they also get a load from the government in a way that is less transparent than the old secret military fund. How much was the new plane? I think the Bkk Post had it in the billions. Most of the European monarchies look frugal compared with this lot.
18 Republican // Oct 1, 2007 at 12:14 am
Reply to Paul Handley: Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. Could I just reply to a couple of specific points in your response:
Regarding the king’s “popularity” you say, “…In the absence of polls, I think the evidence of people’s behavior by choice is overwhelming…”
“Behavior by choice” … I’m trying to think when people have ever had a choice with this king. Obviously they didn’t have the choice to have him as their king. They don’t have the choice of electing a government free from his interference. They don’t have the choice of criticizing him without running the risk of a 15 year jail sentence, or worse. They don’t have the choice of schooling their children without their being indoctrinated into the king’s personality cult. They don’t have the choice of a media free of his propaganda. They don’t have the choice of knowing the full extent of the king’s and royal family’s wealth. They don’t have the choice of studying the facts of the monarchy’s real role in modern Thai political history. They don’t have the choice NOT to grovel in prostration in his presence. Etc. etc. etc.
My point is that when Western academics and media constantly repeat this phrase “the highly revered king”, without also pointing out the reasons why people appear to “revere”/ “respect” the king, aren’t they in fact contributing to the propaganda, and indirectly to the political repression in the king’s name that is a product of this propaganda? It’s like saying “the highly revered” Mao or the “highly revered” Kim Jong Il. They appear “highly revered” because it is simply not possible politically (both in the personal and in the public sense) to adopt any other posture. As I’ve said on this website before, in my view the support that the Thai king and the royalist establishment (“network”) surrounding him gets from the “international community” – including academics, the media, aid organizations, international institutions, eg. the UNDP, as well as foreign governments – is a crucial pillar supporting his political authority in Thailand. Remove that – as in the case of Suharto after the Cold War when he was no longer needed as an anti-communist ally to the West – and you deal a blow to that authority.
“… In Thailand, something – the king perhaps? – has prevented the Mahidol children from being that rapacious, if they had it in them. Thaksin’s family was taking that path though….”
Others have already beaten me to it but could I add my comment here: are we talking about the same family? I think if you examined the personal worth of the king’s children (if the information was freely available) there is ample evidence of a rapacity comparable, if not equal to, that of the Suharto children. Let’s leave aside the palaces, share holdings, jewellery collections (including, allegedly, some of the Saudi royal family’s stolen royal jewels), real estate, charities, research institutes, etc. and take one small example which might otherwise be easy to overlook: graduation ceremonies (the season has just finished). These important occasions, which in other countries are held to celebrate the achievement of the graduands, in Thailand have been converted into ceremonies eulogizing the royal family. Apart from their propaganda value the prince and princesses who preside over these ceremonies get a per-head commission based on the number of students graduating. Then multiply this with the tens of thousands of university students who graduate each year and you have a not inconsiderable figure. Sometimes an additional “gift”, say, a state-of-the-art laptop computer, will be thrown in by the university authorities. All for a few hours “work”. Consider the brilliance of this scheme’s conception: their own subjects are forced to pay for the royals’ propaganda.
I can’t really see the comparison with Thaksin’s children, apart from the fact that they are obviously well looked after. I don’t agree that the family of a PM who was in power for 5 years, most of whose wealth was acquired before he became PM, and who could have been tossed out at any election (if not a coup), bears a greater similarity to the Suharto children than the Thai royals. As for the murderous, philandering Tommy, isn’t the Crown Prince the natural comparison?
Again, I come back to the main theme of my posts. The singular achievement of the Thai king is how he has been able to HIDE his corruption of Thailand’s political system both from his own citizens as well as from the “international community” for so long. What we are talking about here I think is one of the greatest deceptions in modern political history.
19 Restorationist // Oct 1, 2007 at 6:19 am
By the way Colonel Jeru, as you would know from many of my postings, being labeled as a “hard-core pro-Thaksin supporters” is a fantasy you can persist with. Of course, as a hard core supporter of the military junta and an illegal coup, you persist in measuring all comments on a Thaksin scale where there are only two points - for or against. So as a supporter of the coup, anyone seeking to comment on the royal family must be pro-Thaksin.
20 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Oct 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Thanks to Republican.
Dear Khun Handley,
The way Khun Republican deals with the issue of ‘highly revered’ is exactly how I would put the matter regarding the ‘positive lessons’ of the reign.
Everytime I hear someone says things like : “Thai people love the King” or “The King has done countless good things for this country”
I would simply ask (in my MIND of course - I’m not cracy) :
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Suppose the King were to be subjected to the same rules as Thaksin and all the politicians :
Open to scrutiny, criticism, ridicule, attact, etc.
His and ALL his family members’ financial accounts open to public scrutiny.
All his so-called Royal Project open for rational independen assessment and scrutiny, criticism, ridicule, attact, etc.
The case of his brother death open to discussion (a la, JFK movie, for instance)
and of course, without the state propaganda about him and his family
AFTER all these - say within 4 or 5 years, if he were to still ‘highly revered’, I would readily endorse any such talk.
On the other hand, in the absence of all these conditions of modern democracy, I simply ask : HOW DO YOU KNOW about all those ‘reverence’, or ‘positive lessons’?
As I say, consider the book you wrote, the way you put these matters are very strange indeed.
21 beth // Oct 2, 2007 at 2:51 am
I thought I wasn’t going to comment, as I only read about half of the book and I skipped to the last few pages… so I knew the end. I haven’t got a chance to pick it up again and finish reading it. This is personal habit; an excuse is time constraint and all that. I see that it seemed OK to some to praise or rather criticize a book they have never read, and so strongly. I get it that the subject matter is important but isn’t it a matter of time before it is another story to tell, extraordinary, or forgettable… it all depends. Some of us appreciate a presentation like My life as a Shan princess, Wild Swan… or Mao or the movie JFK up to Elizabeth; what is accurate, what is not is almost a perception and besides the point. The author in this case wasn’t born and educated in a system that prescribes a theme or color … and he writes ‘Pour mon petit Robin des bois’. So, do we still have a long way to go? If someone doesn’t like it, why doesn’t someone present his/her own version, and see if it would be better received? On the other hand, would we see in our life time a work of scholar in English, in French, or in Chinese for that matter…?
So, for me I thought TKNS was a good read when I was reading it. I had an interest in the subject, and Yale University Press is a good name. I guess I have my opinion – which is not too important here. What surprised me recently, when I was at the village stall, is a comment from an old lady, who I’m pretty sure wouldn’t have heard of TKNS. She said Kon Thammada… They have family problems and they can’t help us. To me, it sounded like things were pretty much demystified… but you kids Yaa Pood Maak, she added and rode away on her bicycle.
I wonder if HM is powerless over his ‘reported’ enormous wealth… like, what to do with it? There is still a large poor and uneducated population in Thailand… now, THAT is a known fact, IMHO.
22 Paul Handley // Oct 2, 2007 at 7:22 am
A few more responses:
I think generally that the sharp differences on the book and the king between Thais on this blog perhaps shows that it isn’t an issue of whether a farang wrote “The King Never Smiles” but that there are real things to talk about.
Col Jeru, Sidh: Thanks for considering to take another look at the book. We disagree on the king’s wisdom, his intent and his impact — so pretty much everything except that he is popular (see below). But look at the book for my arguments and not my motivations. I argue that the king has preferred the “discipline” and “order” (khwaam riaproy) of military rule to “undisciplined” “disorderly” elected parliaments. Maybe he has also found reason to doubt the tenability of military rule, but he hasn’t offered an alternative, besides the Mahajanaka fable and “Thongdaeng”.
Rumors: I think I make clear in the book what is rumor, and I say why this is significant. It is still a minor part of the book. If you dismiss the book simply for this, I’m not sure you’ve really read it. My explanation of use of rumor is hardly a “rationalization”: I use the rumors to make broader points about the royal family’s image. Ask an anthropologist of the importance of rumor in society and politics.
Alan: your claim of “hundreds of billboards” of the king smiling in Isaan is just not true — unless it’s since the book came out. If you found the title absurd, you didn’t understand the book. As for the king’s speeches, I went through them, ad nauseam. In a draft of the book I had much longer excerpts to reinforce numerous points, but then those like Srithanonchai, who found the book and style boring, would not have gotten as far as they did. And I suspect that even if I filled the book with speech excerpts, you still would not get my point.
The Ananda case: I know what critics want me to say — that Bhumibol killed his brother — but I still maintain there would be reasonable doubt were the case tried today without firsthand witnesses or a confession. I have not seen anyone make that case, though certainly it is too risky for someone to do so. Still, I don’t think it really matters. To those that do think so, what do you hope to prove? If the king theoretically confessed to it, it would not really change history, besides giving a little credence to Pridi-ists. And I don’t believe it would have much impact on Bhumibol’s reputation, and arguably might enhance it. That’s part of the point of the book about royal image-building ….
Bhumibol’s popularity: … The king has gained incredible merit (as perceived by the people); he has portrayed himself as in a lifetime of suffering, for the country, and so on. Those who argue that the king would not be popular today if all of a sudden the monarchy was an open topic for discussion are just wrong. I repeat: just plain wrong. It would take years erode his personal image. It is fairly immune to what his family does, to acts of feeble age, to a book by a farang, to whatever Sulak or Nidhi or Somsak or Thongchai or Fah Diawkaan say. Indeed, for example, Thaksin remains popular despite the massive campaign to make sure everyone knows his malfeasances. “Popular” does not mean “correct” or “good”; maybe you are forgetting that. “How do I know?,” Somsak? Some times you have to believe people when they say they love the king. Sometimes you have to take the evidence at face value — the sales of Thongdaeng books and t-shirts, the yellow shirts, the genuine smiles. Why? is another issue.
Royal fortune: I was in Indonesia when the Suharto kids were building their fortune, and I reported on it. There is nothing similar to the king’s family’s position in the Thai economy and that of the Suharto kids. The Suharto kids sought a piece of everything they saw, grabbed openly and never stopped amassing assets, even fighting between themselves. Were the Thai prince like a Suharto kid, he would have: taken over the new airport project but put the debt on the government; directly taken over the major shopping centers and hotels in Bangkok; taken over Bangkok mass transit; taken control of PTT subcontracting operations; taken over Egat; taken a major position in banking and stockbroking in the country; and that’s just the beginning. If he were like that, you would have every other tycoon in Thailand up in arms that he was being squeezed out of his business. Certainly the Thai royal family has billions, maybe tens of billions of dollars in assets, if you mark the property value to current market prices. And certainly the Crown Property Bureau is a wealthy conglomerate, controlled by the palace but overseen also by the Finance Ministry. But there is a world of difference in behavior and impact. Expensive gems and trips and imported Thai food from London can be scandalous but are just little things when it comes to the Suhartos.
So you have to ask why? Who repressed the Thai family, who encouraged the Indonesian family? Suharto wanted his family to be the leaders of the country in all areas. But there is no sign the Thai royal family seeks to dominate the economy in every sector, or even some outside of cement.
Farang bha: I’d love to post the family tree I created, but to read it requires some lost program which I used a short-term try-out version for, and that presents more than a few hassles. The most comprehensive on this is “The Royal Family of Thailand” by Jeffrey Finestone, which was made with the royal family’s support. They had one in the reserve books room at the Chula library, but at one point it was pulled from availability and hidden away — I think someone in the palace had a change of heart about it. I see its expensive but still available on the internet.
Beth: “There is still a large poor and uneducated population in Thailand…”: And isn’t that the whole point.
23 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Oct 2, 2007 at 11:00 am
่just one minor correction (I haven’t had a chance to read all the above closely):
And certainly the Crown Property Bureau is a wealthy conglomerate, controlled by the palace but overseen also by the Finance Ministry
actually this is not the case at all.
the 1948 law precribes that the Finance Minister and ONLY the Minister NOT the Ministry be nomially appointed ‘Chairman’ of the board (all other members the King appoints at his pleasure). But he has no legal power whatsoever over the CPB (see article 4 of the law : the board has the vague ‘duty’ of ‘general overseeing’ (ดูแลทั่วไป)
I published an article in Fah Diew Kan a year or so ago, showing with evidence from the State Council (krit-sa-di-ka) that over the past 50 years, the CPB has not been subject to any ‘overseeing’ by any government. In fact no government can even ‘touch’ it.
24 FarangBha // Oct 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Thanks for your response.
25 Sidh S. // Oct 2, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Thanks for the response, Paul. You wrote:
“I argue that the king has preferred the “discipline” and “order” (khwaam riaproy) of military rule to “undisciplined” “disorderly” elected parliaments.”
I think this is related to the issue of ’stability’ that I raised through discussions with Taxidriver and Ngandeeleg in the last posting on your interview. I argued that the preference for stability, via negotiations/compromise, is culturally deep and Siamese/Thai history (particularly from the rulership - whether they be ‘warrior’ and/or ‘trader’ kings) provides ample evidence. The traditional guarantee of that stability is the military which the king and nobles were also part of. The other is economic stability which Siamese/Thai kings were also known to be very active. The 19th century colonial threat heightened/reinforced the monarchy’s (and nobility’s) role in both military and economic means towards stability/survival…
… To cut to the chase and put simply, Thai history in the past century when HM the King is most active in his career, was about the transition from ’stability’ guaranteed by the military to one through democratic rule. That is why I mentioned that, in studying the King’s career, it may seem to be a close call between the two (military vs democracy) but if one views things as an inevitable transition (military towards democracy) - as I have no doubt HM the King does, then things become significantly different. Evidences can be viewed in a different, much more subtle and complex light (the latest, and this is only my speculation, being the promotion of the ‘cool head’ GenAnupong Paojinda over the ‘militant’ GenSaprang Kalayamitr for army c-in-c - and this if we make the assumption, that I don’t necessarily agree with, that many often make that PMSurayud-PMPrem-HM the King are inseparable).
Also, thank you for providing an evenhanded differentiation between the economic involvement of HM the King’s and Suharto’s families and putting it in very clear context (I’ve also made the point that if the CPB was given priority treatment by the government, it would have benefited, not suffered from the 1997 economic crisis - as it would have been ‘informed’ of and ‘prepared’ for the baht’s pending float). Many have often drawn unfair comparisons - as others have between the Thai and Burmese Junta. It is extremely sad that it has to take a very violent crack-down on protestors (many being Buddhist monks) for the difference to be clearly apparent. But it has drawn out telling remarks from GenSonthi which reflect the kind of embedded military culture Thai society (HM the King included) have been dealing with and tried to mitigate. It is indeed another round of ‘professionalizing’ and ‘democratizing’ the military (good work begun by PMChuan and GenSurayud as army c-in-c). The politicians’ role has been curtailed (no repeats of an all dominating Thaksin) and those of the bureucrats’ enhanced (is this the Japanese democratic model?).
26 Teth // Oct 3, 2007 at 1:40 am
I am still laughing at Alan “I’m-more-Isaan-than-thou”
What an argument. He clearly has not read the book.
27 beth // Oct 3, 2007 at 5:26 am
Paul Handley: Thank you for your response. I will get the time to read the rest (1/3) of the book. My real reason that I haven’t finished it is that I don’t think it’s a good idea to bring it to read openly at the airport, or train station, in Thailand… Definitely not because it’s a large book with no pictures : )
28 Paul Handley // Oct 3, 2007 at 6:16 am
Somsak,
You are right of course. The issue is, what has prevented the Royal CPB-Privy Purse-Charity Funds-private funds money complex from being as rapacious as the Suharto or Marcos families? There is a range of explanations, including laziness, lack of desire, incompetence, failure, discipline, self-control, Finance Ministry influence, the king’s influence, and so on.
Likewise, there must be a reason why there is a need for financial assistance from tycoons like Thaksin and Fayed to rebuild old palaces. Could it be true lack of resources, cheapness, habit, working from example (of parents), something else? The government gives a budget for upkeep of the royal family and its buildings and offices — why wasn’t this enough?
Paul
29 Tosakan // Oct 3, 2007 at 6:55 am
Khun Sidh wrote:
>>I argued that the preference for stability, via negotiations/compromise, is culturally deep and Siamese/Thai history (particularly from the rulership - whether they be ‘warrior’ and/or ‘trader’ kings) provides ample evidence. The traditional guarantee of that stability is the military which the king and nobles were also part of. The other is economic stability which Siamese/Thai kings were also known to be very active. The 19th century colonial threat heightened/reinforced the monarchy’s (and nobility’s) role in both military and economic means towards stability/survival…
30 Tosakan // Oct 3, 2007 at 6:59 am
Khun Sidh wrote:
I argued that the preference for stability, via negotiations/compromise, is culturally deep and Siamese/Thai history (particularly from the rulership - whether they be ‘warrior’ and/or ‘trader’ kings) provides ample evidence. The traditional guarantee of that stability is the military which the king and nobles were also part of. The other is economic stability which Siamese/Thai kings were also known to be very active. The 19th century colonial threat heightened/reinforced the monarchy’s (and nobility’s) role in both military and economic means towards stability/survival…
Response:
The Thai monarchy, for the most part, hasn’t been stable, going back to very ancient times.
Siam has had a long history of fratricide, regicide, and deadly competition by the elites at the highest level.
During the Ayutthaya period, Thai kings and/or elites used foreigners, the Portuguese, Dutch, French, etc as allies in putting down Thai competitors, as well as subjugating Thai muang on the periphery.
During the early Rattanakosin period, the various Chao Phya would be at each other’s throats trying to defend their own political and economic turf, more than willing to sacrifice political stability of the country.
Many, such as the Bunnag clan, would openly defy the king if that meant furthering their own interests.
During the reigns of Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, the 2nd kings were open and active competitors who had their own wealth and armies, and formed informal relationships with foreigners outside the purview of the court.
The institution of the second king was done away with during the fifth reign because the second king rebelled against King Chulalongkorn, and when his rebellion failed, he sought refuge at the British embassy.
There was an attempted coup during the 6th reign.
The absolute monarchy was overthrown during 7th reign
King Ananda was murdered, probably, during the 8th reign.
The only king that has been obsessed with stability has been this one, yet how many coups has there been during his reign? Too many to count
If there is a truism of Thai politics: It isn’t stable and harmonious.
31 Sidh S. // Oct 3, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I agree with your point KhunTosakan - and I have (ironically it seemed) actually used it in the “interview with Paul Handley” posting to ‘clarify’ the issue of Siamese/Thai succession. Culturally, succession has been unstable characterized by power plays between various candidates - but once settled, is often followed by relative stability (as, more often than not, the most abled men/women - I am not using ‘man’ here as it has always been a team effort with women often also playing significant roles - has won). I am not sure about statistics, but I suspect (but could be wrong) that most historical Thai kings see out their reign in their deathbeds than by being violently overthrown. They just might not have the peace of mind of who will succeed them with certainty.
It may sound like an oxymoron - but it has been a ‘dynamic’ but ’stable’ system (someone must have a better term) that guarantees continuity and was, importantly, adaptible to changes. There are conflicts aplenty, but they seem of the ‘creative’ type that does not degenerate into the destruction of whole societies (safe the 2nd fall of Ayutthya?). Arguably, the concept of Uparaj (2nd king) seem to be designed with stability in mind - as it co-opts another highly talented royal, while also serving as a backup system (a complete administrative system in fact) in the case the king/his court fails or passes away suddenly (whether through disease or warfare).
Even more recent ideological/personal conflicts between the alpha males of FMPibul and AjarnPridi seems to illustrate this - especially during WWII. FMPibul sides with the Axis, Ajarn Pridi with the Allies - but there are evidences that they were coordinated all along (for the aims of national survival). AjarnPridi may have eventually lost out to FMPibul then, but we know who will have the last laugh. Democratic government is not necessarily ’stable and harmornious’, but played maturely (in the spirits of the rules of the game), it is stable - and Thai society is slowly, but surely, growing into it (under the auspices/actions/intents of many from King Prajadhipok, AjarnPridi - even FMPibul, through a succession of many individuals/groups/agencies to the present, HM the King being one of the key players in the past half century).
It is interesting to note that in 1932, Thailand had a military coup against the monarchy to install ‘democracy’ (proto/pseudo-democracy to be more accurate). In this historical context, the monarchy, the military and democracy manifests both eccentric synergies and conflicts. Trace that historical trajectory, there’s no doubt democracy will prevail - and, I stress again, both the monarchy and military (at least a critical mass) knows and accepts that inevitability (which they always had a hand in creating).
Future monarchs will succeed to the throne in a much more, open and democratic age. They will need to be extremely capable and charismatic to emulate HM the King’s achievements and popularity. I suspect they won’t need to be - as, it is hoped, the work has already been done… the people will take care of themselves. The struggle, then, will be like any other democracies - to mitigate money politics and economic inequalities.
32 jonfernquest // Oct 4, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I’m surprised there’s nothing yet on New Mandala on the banning of Sulak Sivaraksa’s book:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/04Oct2007_news04.php
33 Frank G Anderson // Mar 1, 2008 at 6:19 pm
1 March 2008
Greetings.
Having been run through the grinder here in Thailand a couple of times myself, a former Thailand Peace Corps volunteer and long-married to a wonderful Thai lady (39 years), bot of us were accused of being foreigners damaging the nation, the religion and the monarchy, I had a charge of lese majesty against me filed with the national police, and we have been in court for criminal and civil (defamation) claims and counter-claims.Yet, no one would proceed with human rights-related investigations of what happened at Watpa Salawan that 12 February 2005.
I am working on a book on the topic, tentatively titled Five Octobers, because events at Watpa were precipitated by an October 2004 incident and the other four Octobers, in Thailand, relate to the infamous massacres and southern violence. I have spent some nine years with the local media - something foreigners are not supposed to be doing - and have a personal in-depth grasp of what the media are faced with, as well as how academics, government and private sector individuals and groups act, etc.
In short, I would like Mr. Handley’s email address, and would appreciate anyone else’s comments who cares to contribute something to this new book.
Thank you all.
Sincerely,
Frank G Anderson
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.