It has been some weeks since reviews of King Bhumibol Adulyadej: A Life’s Work hogged the limelight here on New Mandala. In the interest of continuing the important discussions about this book and its role in the presentation of the Thai monarchy I think it well worth pointing to today’s review by Grant Evans in the Bangkok Post. It is headlined “Keeping the spirit of the country”.
Evans concludes by arguing that:
This book will be dismissed outright as an apologia by anti-monarchists, who, it must be said, have grown rapidly in number in Thailand since the 2006 military coup. That many saw it as a “royalist” coup illustrates the monarchy’s precarious relationship with democracy. On the other hand the book’s attempt to deal evenly with the history of King Bhumibol’s reign will give little comfort to hardline royalists who wish to turn the clock back. It will, however, appeal to the large majority of Thais, and others, who as modern, educated citizens want a rational discussion not only about the country’s past, but its future as well. That the book will appear soon in Thai translation is a good sign.
For context, readers may want to consider this review by Paul Handley and the discussions that swirl around Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s mega-critique. For those who are interested the first three parts of MacGregor Marshall’s (five-part) critique are available here.
Will anyone but reviewers read the book?
Quality comment or not?
5 
3
“On the other hand the book’s attempt to deal evenly with the history of King Bhumibol’s reign will give little comfort to hardline royalists who wish to turn the clock back. ”
Really?
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
To further contextualize it, could someone remind me? I seem to recall that the same Grant Evans seriously criticized Mr. Handley’s book for being culturally oblivious to the role of monarchy in Thai thinking. If I am correct, is that position not also a form of apologia?
Quality comment or not?
10 
3
“john francis lee”:
Yes, many do buy the book – the first print run was sold out very fast.
I am surprised by the Bangkok Post – for this paper the review is brave, as have been many recent articles published in the Post quite critical of the lese majeste laws.
Quality comment or not?
18 
3
Nick is entirely correct that many do buy the book, but that does not mean that they read it. My impression from anecdotal evidence is that the vast majority of those who bought it did so to have it as a status symbol or talisman, a badge of their loyalty to the king to leave prominently on their coffee table for when guests visit. The majority of those who bought it have no interest in actually reading it, and those who attempt to do so quickly give up. I can’t say I blame them.
I guess Nick is also right that for the Bangkok Post to carry Evans’ review is brave, but that is a depressing illustration of how dissociated from reality Thai royalists have become — that even a tepidly positive and toothless review of a shameless hagiography of the king should be regarded as somehow edgy just because it mentions lese majeste and the need of the monarchy to change. These are points that no sane person would disagree with, and yet stating them in the Bangkok Post in a generally highly sycophantic review is regarded as brave and controversial in the Thailand of 2012. How sad.
Quality comment or not?
18 
10
“the vast majority of those who bought it did so to have it as a status symbol or talisman” – is there a better reason to buy a book?
Quality comment or not?
4 
4
I don’t have time to look anything up right now. Can anyone tell me whether the book actually discussed anything mentioned in the review in Bangkok Post? , the lese majeste, the CPB, the unaccountability, and the contradiction with sufficiency, etc.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Andrew Walker #7: Fair comment. It has other uses too: because of its immense bulk, it also makes an excellent offensive weapon. If you ever want to beat somebody to death with a book, KBAALW would be far more effective than The Story of Tongdaeng or even TKNS.
So it is not entirely worthless.
Quality comment or not?
11 
8
#5 Andrew
Andrew “My impression from anecdotal evidence is that the vast majority of those who bought it did so to have it as a status symbol or talisman” etc
Any chance you might be able to tell us how you arrived at that impression and what the anecdotal evidence is? Is it based on research? wishful thinking? Vox pops? Internet chat?….. How many anecdotes have you collected since I believe the book has sold thousands and thousands of copies and you have passed judgement on the ‘majority’ of buyers?
Please don’t take offence, but it seems to me to be a fairly patronising ‘impression’….. As if somehow those Thai people who might be genuinely interested in reading it are in someway to be looked down on, or incapable of genuine thought.
The fact is that it is selling like proverbial hot cakes. A great many people are buying it. Presumably they are reading it what is your actual evidence that they are not?)….. And that means they might also be reading the sections of the book that, “mentions lese majeste and the need of the monarchy to change”? ….. That means, however timid, a debate is in process surely?
Quality comment or not?
8 
5
Dear Dan #9
My admittedly unscientific anecdotal survey is based on the following evidence: I have spoken to about three dozen people who admit to owning KBAALW, and not a single one of them has read it.
I also doubt that Paul Handley and Grant Evans have read it. The impression I have from their reviews is that they dipped into it, read parts of it, but never really confronted the full horror of reading it from cover to cover.
I would add that, by your own admission, you also have not read it and have no plans to do so in the near future, which makes your relentless and enthusiastic PR work for the book and its authors all the more bewildering.
Frankly I wonder if even the editors bothered to read the book properly. Had they done so, they would surely not have allowed execrable lines like “love came knocking on his door in the shape of a cousin” to make it into the final version. They would also have noted that praising the king for having “straddled two centuries” and sharpening his own pencils was perhaps not the best strategy for evoking the monarch’s greatness.
I have a suggestion for you: how about you postpone any further comments until you have actually bothered to read the book, and then we can talk sensibly.
Just to add, the biggest selling book in Thai history is the Story of Tongdaeng. High sales do not equate to high quality.
Cheers
Andrew
Quality comment or not?
16 
7
Dan – What is your experience of Thai people as readers? Mine is like that of a development worker I met a decade ago who said to me “Thai teachers don’t read”. So I do think Andrew MM might be on to something.
Quality comment or not?
8 
1
#10
Hi Andrew…. Those are a lot of sweeping generalisations and assumptions about a lot of people. Are you also saying that Handley’s review was not thorough or complete or is in some way invalid, ill-informed or fraudulent? You seem to ‘imagine’ quite a lot don’t you?
“I have spoken to about three dozen people who admit to owning KBAALW, and not a single one of them has read it.”
Who are these people? How did you find them? Given that the book has sold around 25,000 copies I believe, I would be interested to know why it is that you believe that these 33 people are truly representative?
“which makes your relentless and enthusiastic PR work for the book and its authors all the more bewildering.”
I am simply asking you questions Andrew. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. No PR work involved I am afraid.
“They would also have noted that praising the king for having “straddled two centuries” and sharpening his own pencils was perhaps not the best strategy for evoking the monarch’s greatness.”
Do you think that “evoking the monarch’s greatness” is the total sum of the aims of this book? It is commissioned by the Palace but given the experience and intellectual authority of some of the contributors, one might have thought they see the project as being rather more complex than that which is, presumably, why they consented to be commissioned in the first place. Handley echoes that view despite his withering put down of its evaluative worth (“Forrest Gump”).
“Had they done so, they would surely not have allowed execrable lines like “love came knocking on his door in the shape of a cousin” to make it into the final version.”
I don’t much like this line either, but it is not actually an editorial mistake is it? So one would presume that the editors have a different taste in prose from both you and me. I would imagine it didn’t slip through any editorial net.
“I have a suggestion for you: how about you postpone any further comments until you have actually bothered to read the book, and then we can talk sensibly.”
Suggest away……. I am not critiquing the book. I am questioning your approach to critiquing the book and its readers which by yopur opwn words seems to involve a lot of imagination.
#11
“Dan – What is your experience of Thai people as readers? ”
I have known a number of voracious readers in Thailand. Education levels in Thailand are generally not good, I would agree, but if the point you are about to make is that no one reads (is that your point?), I would wonder why anyone (including Andrew Macgregor Marshall, Chris Baker or David Streckfuss to name some foreign authors who write about Thailand) actually bothers to write anything at all…. The reality of your comment is that we are once again in the realms of sweeping generalisation.
Quality comment or not?
9 
9
Dan #12
I’ve already made clear that my survey is anecdotal and unscientific, but I have a feeling it is pretty accurate. Basically I have been trying to find somebody — anybody – Thai, foreign or extraterrestrial — who has actually (1) read this book thoroughly, (2) liked it, and (3) is able to explain to me clearly and sensibly how the account KBAALW gives of the death of Rama VIII, or the Thammasat massacre in 1976, or the 2006 military coup (to give just three examples) are in any way honest, fair, and helpful in the current sensitive political climate.
I haven’t even managed to get to points 2 and 3 yet because I have yet to find anyone who even satisfies point 1. I can’t find a single person who has read the book. And that includes you, which makes your cheerleading for it all the more comical.
If you want to refute my sweeping generalisations, why don’t you find somebody who has read the book and can sensibly defend it? If you can’t, I think that speaks for itself.
Quality comment or not?
9 
4
Andrew…. Well you could start with some of the people who have reviewed it why not?…. Including Paul Handley who you ‘imagine’ hasn’t read it either…..
What might be helpful if you wish to ‘engage’ is, rather than making sweeping generalisations, you actually buckle down and specify some specific untruths that this book peddles that you have (elsewhere) claimed are intentional lies ….. Then people have something to go on you see. Try it as a bullet list.
I won’t engage with you I am afraid because I live in thailand and that could draw me into a debate that might put me in breach of the criminal law, which is a road I would rather not go down. This is not an issue for you since you have made your own conscious decisions…..
And, of course, as you say, I haven’t read it and nor has anybody else you ‘imagine’.
Quality comment or not?
4 
12
Delighted to oblige, Dan. I’ll focus on four of the most dishonest parts of the book, for starters. These have all of course been identified at length in my review here — http://www.zenjournalist.com/2012/01/the-tragedy-of-king-bhumibol-ii/ — but for people like you who spend so much time pontificating that you have no time to read anything more than bullet points, here you go:
1. The very first paragraph of the foreword to KBAALW, Anand Panyarachun’s foreword, contains a highly misleading statement. This really sets the tone for the whole book, it’s incredible that the first substantive piece of text in the book is already clearly mendacious. Anand begins the book like this:
“His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand succeeded to the throne on 9 June 1946. He left the kingdom shortly afterwards to complete his university education in Switzerland.”
In fact, Bhumibol never finished his studies and never received a genuine degree (despite holding the world record for honorary degrees). Although it is true, technically, that Bhumibol left Siam in 1946 intending to complete his university education, he never actually did so. He dropped out of Lausanne University in 1948 after he crashed his Fiat 500 Topolino sports car into a truck and lost his sight in one eye, and never finished his formal studies.
2. It is of course understandable why KBAALW does not mention the most overwhelming likely explanation for the death of Bhumibol’s brother Rama VIII. But less understandable is why the authors saw fit to yet again smear Pridi Banomyong, who as it has long been widely know, had nothing to do with Ananda’s death. KBAALW repeats long-discredited innuendos. On page 86 KBAALW states: “For Pridi Banomyong, the coup and accusations against him after King Ananda’s death were the final blows to his political career. As the wartime regent and incumbent prime minister he had at the very least failed to keep King Ananda safe.” On page 87 it manages to leave lingering suspicion with this sentence: “Many did not believe Pridi had played any role in King Ananda’s death, but after the 1949 failed coup he never came home and offered no explanation himself beyond saying he did not know who was responsible.” Anybody who knows the real reason for Pridi’s behaviour will see how disgraceful these statements are.
3. The Thammasat massacre of October 1976. Here is how KBAALW describes the events that followed:
“Two days after the Thammasat debacle, Thanin Kraivixien, a conservative supreme court judge, was appointed prime minister… Thanin’s government proved to be more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years, but alienated much of the public and the military. Within a year, Thanin was toppled… King Bhumibol appointed Thanin a privy councillor, but kept himself well apart from the perilous entanglements of politics.”
This is an astonishing little passage. First, it uses the wholly inadequate word “debacle” to describe the vicious orgy of murder, rape and torture that unfolded at Thammasat that day. Then it employs the passive voice to skirt around the uncomfortable fact that it was Bhumibol and Sirikit who engineered the appointment of Thanin — perhaps the most extremist and incompetent prime minister Thailand has ever had. Then it states that he was “more assertive than anything seen in the previous three years”, a comical euphemism for the fact that the previous three years were a brief democratic interlude and that Thanin’s government was a dictatorship installed by the palace after a savage massacre of student protesters and a military coup. Thanin turned out to be so ultra-right-wing that even the military found his extremism unpalatable and turfed him out, and at this point an affronted Bhumibol appointed him to the privy council, a clear signal of palace support. To state at the end of this whole appalling episode that the king was keeping out of politics really beggars belief. The reality was exactly the reverse: Bhumibol and Sirikit had made a series of disastrous interventions which had taken Thailand to the brink of civil war.
4. In its account of the 2006 coup, rather than deal sensibly with the question of royal involvement (and in particular Sirikit’s actions), KBAALW quotes the royalist and frankly useless Professor Suchit Bunbongkarn as stating:
“I would say the king did not have anything to do with the coup. It turned out to be a disaster for the palace.”
The second part of his statement is very true, but does not follow logically from the first, which is extremely questionable, to say the least, and undermined by several cables from the U.S. embassy in Bangkok, among other evidence. Besides, if Bhumibol had really been against the coup and knew it would be a disaster, why did he give it his blessing so readily? He had stood against coup attempts several times before. He could have done so again. But there is no rigorous discussion of any of these issues. Suchit is given a cameo appearance to deliver a throwaway line claiming the king was not inappropriately meddling in Thai politics, and that is supposed to be that.
Of course, if this book was supposed to be just another fairytale hagiography, such lies would not matter. But Anand has claimed that this is a book that is “fair to all sides, and is regarded as a reference for anyone without true knowledge about the monarchy”.
I don’t see how that claim can be supported.
Do you?
Quality comment or not?
23 
5
Hi Andrew….
Thanks for the bullet list. Good to see a bit of concise substance at last after all the ranting. Plenty of food for thought. As I said, I am not going to take you up on specifics because of where I live and the laws I am subject too…. Laws of which you are only too aware.
But thanks, for finally, distilling down some of your criticisms to a length that most of us (who aren’t either unemployed, obsessed or retired) have time to actually read….. I think your next step should be to actually write a book review….. Good luck with it, if you do choose to go down that road.
Best
Dan
Quality comment or not?
8 
21
Dan
A very interesting viewpoint – those who read books must be “either unemployed, obsessed or retired”. I’m still working and I might be accused of being obsessed about certain things (although I’d prefer to say interested). But I still find some time to read books. Though I must confess I haven’t read this one except second hand through the various reviews.
I do think you should probably find the time or obsession to read the book you’re commenting on or alternatively read what is becoming a book length review of the book by AMM.
Your gratitude to AMM seemed to be given rather ungraciously, I thought. I certainly hadn’t noticed any ranting.
Quality comment or not?
9 
2
I don’t agree with Dan. It is not true that a person must be “unemployed, obsessed or retired” to read books or to read AMM’s works. Actually, many human beings who have jobs find time to read plenty of books. Moreover, AMM’s writings are very well written, and in fact are enjoyed by many.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
I think you are right ,Nick Nostitz, about Bangkok Post or even some other mess media. I think there are some factors – everyone knows time “change” coming soon within 5 years or less. The power has held Thai society for decades will be end soon and more and more people have the clear eyes. The persons in line to succeed to the throne (is clear (from the book)) is unpopular. The future picture is pretty clear unless they accept the fact of reality – lose some power and stay away from politics!
The situation in Thailand almost like or will be like (soon) a lion lost his fangs!
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
If only the book had been published in cartoon form….. just about every Thai could have read it.
Quality comment or not?
8 
1
# 20
There are cartoon books on the king’s life already. They are promoted by Se-ed books with the slogan “Books everybody must read” (if I remember correctly).
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
“If only the book had been published in cartoon form….. just about every Thai could have read it”
Except western academics. Too complicated for them to understand !
Quality comment or not?
4 
7
Jesse,
Stop talking to Mandala people that way! they do read fact! they don’t like fiction, rumour, gossip etc. etc.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Nattavud Pimpa,
Don’t ever tell me to express my view !
Mandala people don’t like fiction, rumor, gossip ?
They sure love “facts”, as presented on the website !
Quality comment or not?
1 
4
Meant to say “Stop expressing my view above”
Quality comment or not?
0 
1