Manote Tripathi, writing in The Nation, calls King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work, “the most authoritative treatise to date about His Majesty and Thailand’s 750-year-old monarchy”. According to Manote, “thanks to the material’s unmatched sources, this book is an eye-opener even for veteran Thai journalists”.
New Mandala readers who have digested the two most significant reviews of the book, one by Andrew MacGregor Marshall and the other by Paul Handley, and who have skated through the lengthy follow-up discussions here on New Mandala, will appreciate that not everyone agrees with this verdict.
I have no doubt that in the months to come there will be further reflections on this big book and its big ambitions. Here at New Mandala we will continue to pay attention to its reception. We are, of course, very happy to publish any responses to any of the critiques that have emerged.
Some New Mandala readers will want to know that the book has also garnered some attention in the Thai language media. For instance, Naew Na describes it as “worth holding on to as a reference work that covers a significant amount of knowledge”. Krungthep Turikit offers a short review which suggests “this book may be different from the royal history that Thais are familar with because it prioritises ‘truth’. It was not written to excessively praise [the king]“. Last year Thai Rath also published an account of the book, with plenty of pictures too.
And I am sure that more reviews will be forthcoming once Somsak Jeeamteerasakul and other important Thai voices on these topics have copies in hand.
Minote Tripathi’s review seems to merely pile more lies and distortions on top of whatever KBAAWL has to offer. He tells us that the book provides “stunning descriptions of people, places and events we knew little about ” but is unable to elucidate on any such information in his review.
Then he tells us “the book ……… harks back to old Sukhothai, whose rulers pioneered the concept of kingship as paternalistic and righteous in the Buddhist sense. Every monarch since then has adhered to this moral template.” Really? Hard to see how Vajiravudh Rama VI adhered to that moral template, let alone some of the Ayutthayan kings.
Minote tells us that “the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 warrant[s] special attention.” and then proceeds to quote Prajadhipok’s abdication letter followed by the statement “Within days, Siam had a draft of its first constitution.” But the abdication speech was written in 1935 more than two years after Thailand’s first constitution was promulgated.
On the subject of Ananda’s death he tells us that one theory mentioned in the book involves Tsuji Masanobu, without mentioning that this is probably the most ridiculous theory of the many (He should perhaps read Andrew Marhall’s review where this is thoroughly handled).
Like many I have been unable to get my hands on KBAALW yet so perhaps I must take Minote on his word that “the lese majeste law is heavily discussed from a range of perspectives”
It does seem that KBAAWL will be used by many to trot out the same tired old myths surrounding the monarchy whilst purporting to be having an open and honest discussion of all issues.
Quality comment or not?
11 
3
Nich is right that there is much reviewing going on. I am writing one for the Journal of Contemporary Asia, and am really just finding my way into the book, and it will be some time before the review appears. However, I was struck by some features of it that I don’t think has been mentioned in your other two sets of reviews and comments.
When Anand launched the book, he was reported as stating that the editors and authors “did not use details without reference…” (from the report in the Nation).
Indeed, the book does include a long bibliography and there are 135 endnotes. Oddly, about a third of the way into the volume 5 “footnotes” appear in the margins.
Of these 140 notes, six are from the first 279 pages of the book and none of them include citations or comments on sources. In these pages, standard referencing is eschewed, even for direct quotations, and replaced by a simple naming of authors. But even this isn’t standardized. This unusual approach is not really presenting details with referencing as promised.
Something else that struck me is the fact that we really have two books in one. Part III, presumably by the contracted academic authors, does have proper citation. However, this Part is distinguished and separated from Parts I and II not just by this academic citation, but by much more (and I trust that I haven’t got hold of a copy that is an anomaly).
Part III appears physically different and separated because there is a change of font, by being set in two columns (rather than left and right justified from left to right margins) and it has different borders from Parts I and II.
I suspect this separating isn’t an editor’s Freudian slip but a choice that was made. Your readers might like to ponder the deeper meanings of this feature of the book.
Quality comment or not?
14 
0
“Manote Tripathi, writing in The Nation, calls King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work, “the most authoritative treatise to date about His Majesty and Thailand’s 750-year-old monarchy””. This seems to be a clue to the motive of the new book’s producers and promoters— an attempt to displace Handley’s book, The King Never Smiles, as the standard English-language biography of King Bhumibol. They have concluded, probably correctly, that Handley has done as much to undermine the Thai monarchy abroad as Thaksin has done at home. Probably neither set out to do what they have achieved. One has done it by telling the truth, and the other by providing the people with an alternative that they consistently prefer.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
#3 RN England
“They have concluded, probably correctly, that Handley has done as much to undermine the Thai monarchy abroad as Thaksin has done at home.”
Sorry?…. Thaksin has done no such thing….. He is a loyal servant of the King and Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung in the present Thaksin controlled government has made clear it clear that it is his intention to vigorously pursue all cases of defamation against the King and uphold the laws of Lese Majeste. Nor are the vast majority of Red shirts anything other than loyal. Thida Thavornseth has made that clear.
Quality comment or not?
2 
3
For a book that boasts “accuracy”, “A Life’s Work” manages to get a very well known and crucial fact about King Ananda’s death, wrong!!
(See below for details; I just thought it’s fun to begin with a “headline” 55555 – for our non-Thai readers, this is “Thai-style “lol”)
………………….
I finally got hold of a copy yesterday afternoon, thanks to the generosity of the staff at Asia Books Fashion Island branch. The new batch that just arrived, all several hundreds copies, had already been reserved in advance. (I didn’t reserve one.) But after some checking the staff found that someone had not come in to pick up his/her copy since the last batch, despite being repeatedly contacted by the branch. So they decided to give that copy to me. (Sorry for that person if s/he ever comes in later!)
…………….
Obviously I haven’t finished the book. Frankly, reading certain sections quickly and browsing the whole book, I don’t find it as interesting as I expected. When Anand Panyarachun gave a long interview to promote the book on the well-known “Answer the Questions” program on Thai PBS, both he and the program host (the currently very famous Phinyo – “I am neutral, don’t pressure me to choose side” – Traisurathamma) gave a strong impression that the book departs in significant ways from previous official and semi-official “biographies” of the King, in dealing with controversial issues like the “King Ananda’s Death Case” or “6 Tula” (6 October) in a frank, “objective” fashion. Well, it doesn’t. It’s still the same old dishonesty and lies by deliberate omissions we’ve seen before, and not that subtle either.
Anyway, I’ll come back when I finish at least those parts of the book that I’m particularly curious about (the CPB and the Lesse Majeste law, in addition to the two issues mentioned above.)
……………….
Now about the factual error I “headline” above.
On page 83, the book says (my emphasis):
“At 9.20 am, about 20 minutes after Prince Bhumibol had left the breakfast table, a shot rang out. A bullet had entered King Ananda’s forehead over his right eye and exited as a more minor wound into the bed’s mattress.”
As anyone with just a minimum knowledge of the case would know, the fact is: it’s over the LEFT eye that the bullet entered! And this was one of the reasons why Ananda could not possibly have shot himself, either accidentally or deliberately. (He’s right-handed.)
By the way, the sequence about Bhumibol having breaking that morning is factually wrong too. (I’ll explain when I write a long review.)
I also found another factual error when the book describes the events leading to the 1973 student uprising (the same error is repeated twice on one page).
…………………
Anyway, let me end with another 555555.
I smiles when I see that I am in one of the photos in the book. A very tiny shot of (a very young) me!!
Quality comment or not?
17 
2
Somsak Jeamteerasakul #5
Please let us know which page we can find you. Going through the whole book yet again to look for it would be more than I could bear.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Speaking of KBAAWL, may I recommend B.J. Terwiel’s Thailand’s Political History: From the Fall of Ayutthaya to Recent Times , 2011 reviewed and updated form the original book.
Great use of original sources, supporting footnotes, thought provoking ideas and – so far – a very good read. Some nice concluding comments covering the state of how Thai history is interpreted, packaged and disseminated to the people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Khun Andrew MacGregor Marshall #6
Somsak Jeamteerasakul #5
Please let us know which page we can find you. Going through the whole book yet again to look for it would be more than I could bear.
It’s on page 137.
I’ve posted a photo of it on my facebook with some explanation in Thai of the background (the description in the book gives no details), here
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=289993317720621&set=a.137616112958343.44289.100001298657012&type=1&theater¬if_t=like
I also posted critique of the book’s disgraceful treatment of Pridi on the King Anada’s death case here
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=289932647726688&set=a.137616112958343.44289.100001298657012&type=1
here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=277872082280548&id=100001298657012¬if_t=like
and here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=289981474388472&set=a.137616112958343.44289.100001298657012&type=1
Sorry, they are all in Thai; have no time to write an English review yet.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2