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.

Maybe Evans had already seen the video . heh heh heh

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).

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.

If it seems farfecthed, realized Bhumiphol has been in power longer than the father/son duo in North Korea.