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.
Both themes, of course, are germane to the September coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The palace’s implicit support for the coup would make any assessment of King Bhumibol’s political life and thought useful, whether one agrees with the conclusions or not. Mr. Evans, though, ignores my book’s core theses to instead condemn me as simply a hater of monarchy, traditional Asian culture and King Bhumibol himself.
To reach such malicious conclusions, Mr. Evans distorts and even fabricates the book’s content. For instance, he brands my coverage of the shooting death of the previous king, Ananda Mahidol, Bhumibol’s elder brother, as “jaundiced,” even though I have said little new from what has been in print for years.
And he strongly suggests I assert that Bhumibol himself killed Ananda because he “coveted the throne.” There is nothing in the book to support this borderline libelous statement. I have no idea whether Ananda shot himself or was killed by Bhumibol, the two possibilities most accepted among historians. If the latter, I clearly term it an accident that occurred in play.
Mr. Evans says Ananda’s death was used by former Prime Minister Phibun Songkhram to tar “leftists,” like former Prime Minister Pridi Banomyong. Yet my book makes meticulously clear that it was the royalists, the palace’s highest princes and their backers, who campaigned to smear Pridi with Ananda’s death. This point is crucial to understanding King Bhumibol’s restoration of royal power, but again Mr. Evans misrepresents the book.
While he offers other such distortions, more astounding is Mr. Evans’s attempt to suggest I dismiss the ritual, visual symbols and other traditions which shore up Bhumibol’s image as a saintly Buddhist king. Mr. Evans calls me galled and puzzled by such rituals: “That these rituals strike a deep chord across Thai society is clearly beyond Mr. Handley’s imagination.”
That’s funny, because so much of my book, including most of the first chapter, details the centrality of traditional rituals and symbols in Bhumibol’s restoration. Indeed, I titled the book The King Never Smiles to emphasize this, explaining very early on that the king’s conscious avoidance of smiling, and the lack of him doing so in almost all official portraiture, is to project himself as an impeccable bodhisattva. But Mr. Evans, who as an anthropologist should get the importance of ritual imagery in modern politics, calls the title “supercilious,” saying I really want King Bhumibol to “go around glad-handing people with smiles plastered on [his] face in the manner of U.S. politicians.”
If I sum up Mr. Evans’ assessment of my book, it is the mindless work of a Western-fixated, unqualified and insensitive mere reporter who scorns Thai culture and people, hates monarchies, and depends mostly on unsourced gossip to fashion an ugly picture of a monarch that he doesn’t realize is genuinely loved by the Thai people. This is strikingly similar to the Thai palace and government’s official view of my book, designed to convince people to dismiss it without reading it.
Paul Handley
Washington, D.C
8 responses so far ↓
1 Curious // Nov 7, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Yes, calling the title “supercillious” is a misreading. I think most Thais with long memories know the significance of the phrase. The unspeakable. I’m sure Handley does too; it has nothing to do with bodhisattvas. Again, the hold of Thai royalist discourse over Western academics is remarkable. Why are they so eager to defend the monarchy? And anthropologists of all people. They need to understand that monarchs do not equal “culture”.
2 New Mandala » Siam Rumoured: The Thongchai Lecture in London // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:23 am
[...] In Thongchai’s historical overview, Series 3 describes the power relations among what he rather playfully called “M/P3”. This is the series that focuses on the interactions between “Politicians (elected)/Money; People/Mass; Palace/Monarchists, Monarchy”. He sees this series, which begins in 1973, as heralding “the revival of the monarchy”. Speaking of the bloody events of October 1976, Thongchai argued that nobody mentions that “the King’s intervention is part of the massacre”. This is all part of Series 3. In this scheme, “Royalists now talk democracy” and have, very cunningly, created an “upper floor of politics”. This is a “second floor [that] provides the moral authority”. On this point, and as a digression, Thongchai briefly noted that Paul Handley’s widely debated book, The King Never Smiles, is, in his view, “not academic but worth listening to”. [...]
3 Louis // Jan 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think Handley’s book is spot on the money in several places. Let’s face it, there are a lot of Thai apologists out there. If you would believe that many people are saying the royal family is loved by all Thais,but the truth on the ground is quite different. I compare the love they are expected to express much akin to the public love expressed to the “Englightened and Most Loved” leader of North Korea. People do it because the law requires them to and because they have been indoctrinated in it.
If it seems farfecthed, realized Bhumiphol has been in power longer than the father/son duo in North Korea.
4 Grant Evans // Jan 8, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Handley’s response to my review has already been run on New Mandala (Nov. 7, 2006). I am quite happy for it to be run again, but I suggest it would be fair to run my review again too. Needless to say, I stand by the review.
Anthropologists from the very beginning of the discipline have spent a great deal of time trying to understand the nature of kingship. The latest contribution is The Character of Kingship edited by Declan Quiqley (2005). I recommend it to anyone who is interested.
5 Republican // Jan 9, 2008 at 3:50 am
I remember reading this review and being surprised at the hostile reception Evans gave to what is the first critical biography of the king in 60 years.
After everything that has happened since September 2006 when the review came out – the very month of the coup – not to mention everything that has been published and discussed on blogs and elsewhere since then, I’m surprised again that Evans “stands by” what he wrote.
I agree with the last paragraph of Handley’s response. Basically Evans’ review is a perfect reproduction of classic Thai royalist discourse.
But one of the things that made me smile was this remark in relation to the Crown Prince’s current partner:
“…Even with his elegant, charming third wife…”
Many of the “Thai people” that the anthropologists are supposed to “understand” might disagree with him on this one.
What is it about anthropologists of Thailand (both Thai and non-Thai) which makes them so conservative and lacking in critical distance when talking about monarchy?
(I could make the same point for when the anthropologists talk about Buddhism, but will keep that for another post).
6 polo // Jan 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Republican: Re “…Even with his elegant, charming third wife…”
Maybe Evans had already seen the video . heh heh heh
7 Republican // Jan 11, 2008 at 1:28 am
For an alternative Thai history of Bhumibol’s reign and the dynasty he belongs to which is even more critical than Handley’s TKNS see:
http://chakridynasty.googlepages.com
The document is dated 1982 and the writer gives as his penname, “Raktham Rakthai”. It’s a leftist-inspired popular history of the Chakri dynasty.
See expecially the chapter on the present king, “คนบาปในคราบนักบุญ”. The image we gain of Bhumibol from this account is of a ruthless, bloodsoaked, avaricious and duplicitous autocrat who has lied and deceived the Thai people for the duration of his reign for the sole purpose of preserving the throne: “กษัตริย์ภูมิพลจอมวางแผน”
Among the more interesting aspects of the account: it was Bhumibol who murdered his brother, King Rama 8; he refused to commute the execution sentences for the two royal pages and the royal secretary whom he framed for the murder; he ordered the police to attack the students at the 14 October 1973 protests in order to make it appear that it had been ordered by the “3 Tyrants” with whom the king was in conflict; he perverted the Buddhist religion to attack his enemies; and he was responsible for the infamous massacre of students at Thammasat University on 6 October 1976: “ทุกครั้งที่มีการเอ่ยถึงเหตุการณ์มหาวิปโยคในวันที่ ๖ ตุลาคม ยากยิ่งที่ชาวไทยจะไม่หวนระลึกถึงกษัตริย์ภูมิพลและราชินีสิริกิตติ์คนบาปในคราบนักบุญ ผู้บงการและอยู่เบื้องหลังการตายอันน่าขนพองสยองเกล้าของเหล่านักศึกษาผู้บริสุทธิ์”
There is much more of interest.
Now of course, the factuality of this account remains to be proved – but this is no different from the royalist propaganda that is produced about the king on a daily basis. The point is that even if the facts were proven, because of the lese majeste law it would be impossible in Thailand to publicly state them.
What this document shows is the existence of an alternative view of the king and the royal family held by Thais, but which is hidden because of the the royalist program of indoctrination, censorship and propaganda that intensified from the time of the Prem era.
8 Historicus // Jan 11, 2008 at 3:20 am
Is this the famous Nine Reigns booklet? I don’t have a copy with me, so can’t verify. Maybe someone else can?
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.