[King Bhumibol's] mother commanded such enormous respect among Thais that, if she were still alive, I believe her only surviving son, despite his illness, would yet find the strength to act as mediator. But his former chief of military intelligence, a graduate of a British military academy, a brave man who fought alongside Special Forces in Malaysia and then coaxed the local Communist Chinese leader to work in harmony with the Thai government, recently told me of widespread fears that Bhumibol’s death will mark the end of the dynasty.
This same Thai intelligence general has had to go through enormous subterfuge to stay in touch with me because all communications with the outside world are monitored. The harshest penalties are inflicted on anyone who comments on the dynasty’s future if the Crown Prince succeeds Bhumibol.
- Extracted from William Stevenson, “Thailand’s silent monarch“, The Star, 24 May 2010.
I read the story, expecting to find some new insight. The only thing I “learned” is that “now-discredited” Thaksin has been taking lessons from the Moslem separatists in the South while he’s been in the Middle East. That may be true, but it doesn’t sound probable, especially given the clear anti-Thaksin bias of a writer whose own biography of the King stands as an irrelevant “puff piece” and minor hagiography when compared with Handley’s book
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
36 
3
this is hearsay. take what you will.
we were just in thailand and spoke to a girlfriend of my wife who goes to same hospital as The …., every week as a day patient. the staff have told her that the …. cames down for walks and talks. He is mentally still together.
who knows what he has got?
why won’t he go home?
Quality comment or not?
22 
3
Stevenson doesn’t seem to have all his facts straight.
He claims the king singled out Al Quaeda among terrorist organizations back in the 1990s. Not impossible, but it seems far more likely to me that before 9/11 he would have mentioned Jemmah Islamiyah or Abu Sayyaf, those two being much closer to home.
Quality comment or not?
18 
0
Stevenson refers to Pallop Pinmanee as a radical Red Shirt General.
That’s quite a contrast to the information found in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallop_Pinmanee
Who are Thaksin’s Muslim connections? Is Stevenson suggesting that Muslims by default must be associated with terrorist activities?
Quality comment or not?
13 
0
Who is the “former chief of military intelligence, a graduate of a British military academy” that Stevenson is referring to?
Quality comment or not?
13 
0
The behind doors gossip in Bangkok supports Stevenson’s main point. So I would expect a lot of comments undermining his character and characterizations. He’s been there before so he’ll know what to expect. There is surprisingly little comment or information on Royal Funeral for the general that organizes assassinations on his colleagues and represents only Thaksin’s selfish interest. It was always going to be difficult for the Thai media to spin that one. Currently the claim is that all generals get a Royal Funeral. And if I read it in the Nation it must be true…
Quality comment or not?
10 
2
Its a small point but Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn is the eldest Royal Princess, not the eldest daughter. The eldest daughter is no longer eligible. Similar issues of succession are to be found elsewhere in the immediate Royal family also.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
William Stevenson’s work has its obvious drawbacks. This does not however change the fact that his prediction is simply an expression of what many Red, Yellow and multi-colored people will not dare to say.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
@Christoffer:
“Pallop Pinmanee as a radical Red Shirt General.”
Wikipedia is not good for any political related topic. The thai pages are cleaned regularly by ultra royalists. Don’t give anything on it.
Pallop is well known for being a radial element. The government is pretty sure he is a red shirt supporter cause he was on the first list of people who got the bank accounts closed.
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
If he’s so brave, why won’t he allow his name to be publicised?
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
The “general has had to go through enormous subterfuge to stay in touch with me because all communications with the outside world are monitored.”
Does Stevenson really believe one can’t get a private communication past the border? Does he think this is like North Korea already? I doubt he’s even been here since his biography was published. Although fawning, it was not received well (though it wasn’t banned).
I think he’s been reading too many of his own war stories. I can imagine Stevenson in his study at night, wearing sunglasses, cloak and dagger, the room lit only by a candle, tapping out Morse Code with his mole behind the Silk Curtain.
The mole he has now, by the way, outed.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
enclosed an excellent paper published by the Weltwoche before the bloody events. I received the Newspapers authorization to indicate the link to Des Königs gefährlichster Freund, the kings mosts dangerous friend. Maybe somebody can translate it in English and/or Thai, mentioning always the original source. Its available via :
http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2010-19/artikel-2010-19-des-koenigs-gefaehrlichster-freund.htm
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
@Peter
The link to Wikipedia is the one given in Stevenson’s article. All of the information on the Wikipedia page has references to articles from Bangkok Post, The Nation, etc.
Here is one from The Nation:
“Chamlong told his supporters that they should not worry about him if he were to be arrested, as General Pallop Pinmanee, his long-time friend with extensive combat experience, would replace him as leader of the PAD.
Pallop has stepped up to take the challenge. He said while Chamlong is a good defence strategist, he himself is more of a warrior. If he were to lead PAD, the battle would be finished in three days, whatever that means.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/08/29/opinion/opinion_30081793.php
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
There is a foresay made by Buddhist monks long before the actual kings birth that there will be no Rama X, that monarchy will come to an end with Rama IX. And it looks like Bhumipol is actively working on it to become true since the bloodshed in 1970ies.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
BKK Lawyer asked “Does Stevenson really believe one can’t get a private communication past the border?”
Over the past year or so, numerous recordings of confidential political telephone conversations between senior people, including senior judges and people close to the palace, have been leaked to the public.
So it is quite reasonable for Stevenson to be wary that recordings of confidential communications can be leaked or or somehow tapped.
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
Christoffer Larsson #13 – that’s old news about Pinmanee.
He later switched sides and joined the Reds – but never won their trust.
Stevenson’s book is well-known as having been discredited on several counts (wrong maps, wrong information, etc.), but this article is something of a gem in that it confirms a lot of what is being said elsewhere about Thai military factionalism.
And in that regard, also fits well with events.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Stevenson is hilarious. Prince Mahidol was working as a doctor in a Chiang Mai hospital when he was taken ill, and he died in Sapathum Palace in Bangkok, but Stevenson converts this into the Prince dying while working with lepers in the north. After Rama 7 abdicated, the succession was decided according to the current law and procedure, but Stevenson has Ananda summoned by “politicians” to “restore” the throne. And so on. And so on. He just makes things up. He describes himself as a “confidant” of the king, but it’s doubtful he had more than glancing contact. His book on the king is so strewn with obvious errors that it’s best read as a comic fantasy. I found a review of one of his earlier books which concluded by saying something like, he was not the sort of man to let a fact stand between himself and a dollar. His “revelations” in this article are as solid as everything else he writes. Have a good laugh.
Quality comment or not?
28 
1
@chris beale
Maybe it’s old news, but to me it’s still an eye-opener that the man (General Pallop Pinmanee) who was next in line to become the leader of PAD, is now being accused by the government of being behind the black-clad men at the red-shirt protest and the burning down of buildings in Bangkok.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Christopher Larsson # 18 – yes indeed it is an eye-opener, all part of the almost eye-popping machinations and manuoeverings of Thai politics.
It’s an extraordinary intellectual feat to be able to work out what is really going on, behind the scenes, which is why I’d like to respectfully ask Chris Baker what his thoughts are re. what Stevenson says re. military factionalism, if Chris feels like commenting.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Anonymous @ 15: I was ridiculing Stephenson’s statement that the “general has had to go through enormous subterfuge to stay in touch with me because all communications with the outside world are monitored.”
Enormous subterfuge? All communications with the outside world are monitored?
Avoid using his own telephone, obviously — as you point out, calls are easily monitored. But he could have used any telephone not registered to him and avoided identifying himself in the conversation. He could have sent faxes. He could have sent anonymous emails. He probably could have sent anonymous letters through the mail. “Enormous subterfuge” is hardly necessary.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Chris Baker, don’t ruin whatever reputation you might have as a historian by implying that R8′s rise to the throne was without debate.
The 1924 Palace Law gave the Saovabha/Chakrabongse -line priority over the Savang Vadhana/Mahidol-line. Saovabha’s son, Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath, produced a legitimate son, Chula Chakrabongse, that had a certain degree of eligibility to the throne. It’s true that Section 11 of the 1924 Palace Law forbids offspring of foreigners from rising to the throne and Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath married a Russian – however, the Law was enacted after the marriage.
If it wasn’t for Pridi Bhanomyong’s legal opinion that the retroactive law still applied to Chula Chakrabongse, despite its ex post facto-nature, we would have had a different R8.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
Anonymous #21, where did Chris Baker imply “that R8’s rise to the throne was without debate” ?
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
michael, Chrs Baker wrote “Stevenson is hilarious… After Rama 7 abdicated, the succession was decided according to the current law and procedure, but Stevenson has Ananda summoned by “politicians” to “restore” the throne. ”
To me, Baker’s opinion implies that R8′s rise to the thrown was legally and politically straight forward and without debate.
Quality comment or not?
2 
3
Irritated at this post which has wasted quite a lot of people’s time.
Perhaps we could have a thumbs down on the post itself to short circuit the process.
Quality comment or not?
4 
3
Anon #23, BOLLOCKS! What Baker says is absolutely true, & sufficient in order to make his point.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Anonymous 21
Few days after King Vajiruvudh’s accession to the throne in 1910, he appointed his brother Prince Chakrabongse as heir apparent, on the condition that Prince Chula Chakrabongse had no right to the throne.
You can see details in King Vajiravudh’s personal diary (ประวัติต้นรัชกาลที่ 6), recently published in Thai by Matichon Publishing House.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Roywin, the 1924 Palace Law had legal priority.
Again, there are reasonable grounds to believe that R8′s rise to the throne was not based completely on Siamese law and procedure, but on political considerations as well.
Baker can not credibly state that Stevenson is “hilarious” and “just making things up” for saying that “politicians” played a discretionary role in “restoring” the throne by giving it to the Mahidol branch of the royal family.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
Anonymous,
You’re wrong. Yes, “the 1924 Palace Law had legal priority.” But you don’t read the law with enough care. According to the law, the king’s expressed wish has top priority over any other criteria, including the table of order of heirs that is outlined later in the law. If the king declared any person unfit for the throne, that person is barred forever. And Rama VI did make a signed pact with this brother, Prince Chakkrapong (Chula-Chakkrapong’s father), that the latter’s son would never ascend to the throne. The pact was witnessed by senior royals. Furthermore, after Chakkrapong’s mysterious, untimely death, Rama VI had twice named his successor: first, Prince At-sadang, his next brother, and then, when Prince At-sadang too died early, Prince Prachadhipok, who eventually became Rama VII. This means that Chula-Chakkrapong had been ‘exempted’ (skipped) twice already (even one disregard the pact his father made with the king). And according to the 1924 law, any person who was skipped, could not later ascend the throne.
All these are independent of the law’s provision that forbid son of mixed parents (Chula-Chakkrapong’s mother was Russian). But even this provision itself is not as you understand it. True, it came out after Chula-Chakkrapong was born, but the legal principle of not applying retrospectively is, I argue, not relevant here (because it’s not about punishment). Besides, I believe on historical evidence, that provision was indeed intended by Rama VI, to cover just the Chula-Chakkrapong’s case. (Regardless of this issue, Chula-Chakkrapong was definitely barred-skipped as explained above.)
I have published an article, detailing this issue, which Pridi’s supporters have long been arguing, and you have repeated their argument here, with documentary proof, in Faw Diew Kan Magazine a few years ago, which I’m quite sure is definitive. You can see the article online here:
http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/byproduct-royalists.html
As indicated above, Pridi’s supporters and you are wrong. Rama VIII did ascend to the throne in accordance with the order specified by the 1924 law. In this sense, the royalists that have long asserted this, against Pridi’s supporters, are right.
But Pridi’s supporters (and you here) could also be right too! Political consideration was probably a factor in the People’s Party (and Pridi)’s decision to support Prince Mahidol’s son (Anan) to become Rama VIII. It just happened that political consideration – if there was any – coincided with the 1924 law that made Anan the first in line to the throne in 1933.
To sum up. Both Pridi’s supporters and the royalists are both right, and they are both wrong. Pridi’s supporters are wrong that Rama VIII ascension was not according to law, but they’re probably right that Pridi’s political support/decision probably also played a part. The royalists are right that Anan was first in line to the throne according to law, but they’re probably wrong to deny the political factor entirely.
(I intended to write the second installment of my article above, dealing with this issue, but never got the time to do it. The article was published just when the current crises broke in 2006. In fact, the PAD-Manager crowd, who cannot read any long, complicated article, attacked it for – this is truly funny – supposed covert message of supporting the Chula-Chakkrapong line, against the current occupants of the throne – the exact opposite of what I actually argue.)
……………
My apology to all NM readers to have taken the issue quite far from this post. So let me say in conclusion that, Dr.Chris Baker’s comment of Stevenson is SPOT-ON. Stevenson is probably delusional, I think. And his book should be read just for laugh. (Were it not for some very serious issue, like the Rama VIII assassination, which he mention in the Sun article, and which I would return to, if I have time on my hand.
Quality comment or not?
14 
0
Ricky Ward # 24
Re :
“Irritated at this post which has wasted quite a lot of people’s time.
Perhaps we could have a thumbs down on the post itself to short circuit the process.”
Thank God NM’s editors did not listen to your remarks here.
Very interesting, informative posts by everyone else.
Thank you Chris Baker for stirring this issue up.
And Somsak, I look forward to what you have to say about King Ananda’s assasssination, in relation to the matter raised above.
For one such as myself still very much a learner on things Thai, this gives a wholly new perspective on what even Thai authorities admit was regicide. And regicide with huge regional consequences.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
William Stevenson was possibly chosen by King Bhumipol as his official biographer, although the final product was rejected. The King moreover, translated “A Man Called Intrepid” into Thai, suggesting there was some rapport. Stevenson apparently spent many hours interviewing various other members of the royal family.
Obviously, Stevenson will never be canonized in New Mandalaland, but what’s the point of calling all that he writes “delusional”?
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
For some laughs, here is a take on the Thai crisis (with comments) from the right wing magazine from the USA:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/28/the-king-and-us
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Stephenson has such little credibility that I am surprised a website with academic pretensions would bother to cite his work at all. He wrote a book on another topic that featured some one I knew personally (but he didn’t) and most of it was pure fiction. Events that he claimed to have taken place were impossible because the protaganists were elsewhere at the time. He earlier claimed the King invited him to write a biography because he admired Stephenson’s book, “A Man Called Intrepid”. Now he is claiming that HMK invited him to Thailand as some sort of security adviser. In his book on the King he even had the map of Thailand drawn completely wrong in the beginning of the book.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Portman #32: ‘Stevenson’ with a ‘v’, not ‘Stephenson’ with a ‘ph’, who is the subject of his book ,’A Man Called Intrepid.’ I’ve seen reviews of this book which assert that it’s largely fiction, even down to the allegation that Sir William Stephenson was actually never called ‘Intrepid’ until Stevenson’s book was published. Personally, my suspicions about ‘The Revolutionary King’ were aroused very early, due to his irritating and overly-familiar habit of referring to the principal characters by their nicknames, as well as the map, and his weird theory re. the Japanese spymaster-assassin. All a bit ‘bumper boys-own adventure’.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Portman, Stevenson might have no academic credibility, but of all the writers that we see on NM, he is the probably closest to the King and the royal circle.
If you take his claims and the words of those who he claims to have talked with with a grain of salt, you’ll get some very unique insight to the thinking of the palace.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0