Republican, you misunderstand the situation with Paul and Thongchai. Progressive academics want to see this book become as influential and as credible as possible. The only way to do that is to silence the Chlear academics. The Chlear academics had their criticisms of this book even before it was published: that it was full of lies, that it was full of unsourced rumors, etc. To prevent the Chlear academics from doing this, certain progressive academics are setting the standard as high as possible – every critical fact has to have a footnote and a reference, no anonymous pamphlets should be used as sources, everything has to be 100% correct, etc.
Handley’s response was that his manuscript was much longer and had an even more massive set of references. It ended up being shortened to make it more readable for the mainstream audience. But even so, the book is still extremely credible. Of all the mainstream Thai history books, it probably has the fewest errors, and I’ve been through it with a magnifying glass. But even then, I still complained to Handley that he didn’t have enough footnotes. When I questioned him about some unsourced facts (I actually had a checklist several pages long), he was able to cite from memory the sources of most of them, so I’m very confident that he didn’t make anything up or use rumors. My intention (which I think is shared by Acharn Thongchai) is not to bring down the book, but to make it even more accepted among mainstream academics.
Ngarnadirek, I shouldn’t have to tell you this: a country can’t be managed the way a company is managed by a CEO. No matter how much perfect foresight a leader has, he has to listen to the people, adjust his priorities to reflect popular concerns, and play by the rules. Prem’s perfect crystal ball and genius in forward management are no excuse for bypassing the polls and ripping up the Constitution.
Who are the english-language texts designed for? I can’t imagine Lao having any significant expats community. Is it for overseas non-Lao-speaking Lao or local english-speaking Lao?
[…] 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”.┬ […]
OK, I get it now – Time magazine is partisan, and Handley is an impartial scholar.
For all your criticisms & malice, Republican, you have yet to offer a better system than what I call the ‘white knight’ system that is currently in place.
To be relevant please point to an example in the region, not a European or US model.
[…] [This post is provided by the National Library of Australia as part of our Book Zone feature. For further information on the featured publications contact Saowapha Viravong at [email protected]] […]
The original title of Thongchai’s 28 November 2006 talk at SOAS as recorded in New Mandala (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/11/15/lecture-thongchai-in-london-on-the-coup/) appears to have been, “Thailand’s Coup: A Step Forward in a Dangerous Direction”. But in this posting the title has apparently been changed, to “Thailand’s September Coup: One Step Backward to Restart Democracy or One Step Forward in a Wrong Direction?”
I have two questions (not having attended the talk):
(i) Why was the title of the talk changed? Does it indicate that originally Thongchai believed the coup to be a “step forward”, but changed his mind afterwards?
(ii) How on earth can the coup be seen as a “step forward”? (I can’t see how from the account of the talk given above)
To me his comment that Handley’s book was “not academic but worth listening to” smacks of academic snobbery. Handley has produced the only critical biography of the king in 60 years, and in my opinion it is having a massive impact on Thai Studies (both English and Thai). And it is leading to academic “spin-offs” in the form of articles and blog-postings, almost all of whom quote Handley. Works such as these, “even” if they are written by lowly journalists, deserve praise from academics, who should rather be asking themselves why it was a journalist, not an academic, to write such a book.
Republican you are repelled by Thai TV, Thai Newspapers, popular American magazines and most likely most other forms of popular media IF and WHEN those are negative on Thaksin and positive on the Thai monarchy. But you do get easily convinced by a certain Mr. Paul Handly, Andrew Walker and Dr. Jory.
Try Japanese cartoon . . . they are mostly entertaining.
Some may be gullible enough to take seriously a popular American magazine’s laughable analysis of Thai politics (written for an audience whose knowledge about Thailand probably starts and ends with the musical “The King and I”) along with partisan newspapers like phu jat kan and The Nation, but serious scholars among us will stick with the facts. Yes, it would have been “very handy to have someone impartial”. If only the king had ever been impartial, instead of continually siding with military dictatorships against his own people.
This seems fairly consistent to the messages he gave at the NYU panel a few weeks ago. Nicholas, your paraphrasing seems directionally correct.
At the time, Acharn Thongchai also noted that he really didn’t like commenting on modern issues because his academic specialization is pre-20th century history/historiography.
Nicholas, you should try to get a screenshot of the general diagram he used. Series 2 is one of the detailed ones. At NYU, he spent a lot of time to discussing the general diagram and explaining how the conflicts that Thailand faced in each “Series” different significantly, and that trying to understand modern challenges through the lens of an older “Series” would lead to incorrect conclusions.
At NYU, Acharn Thongchai also mentioned what he thought was the fundamental reason for the coup: the issue of succession. But he didn’t really give it enough time. Over dinner with the organizers and other panelists, he explained it in much more detail, but noted that people often misunderstood his argument about why succession was such an important issue. Nicholas, it would be great if you could expand a bit more on what Thongchai said in public on this matter.
I’ve always felt it unfortunate that the most popular piece of Thai folklore – the one piece that the Thai (or at least the Central Thai) could look up to and say, “That’s ours! Not the palace’s or the temple’s” – was so full of sexual objectification and misogynism.
I remember reading about how some Chula professor warned university students that wearing tight shirts and short skirts was like going around with a sign saying “Rape Me” and thinking that she was too much a fan of “Khun Chang Khun Phaen.”
Ngarnadirek, you might have misinterpreted my past posts – I don’t think I ever compared the wealth of the monarchy with that of Thaksin, besides the obvious fact that they are both multi-billionaires and the fact that their lack of transparency makes people speculate about them to no end.
It’s a bit speculative to say that the monarchy’s wealth would go to the state if the monarchy would for some reason cease to exist. On the contrary, there is the precedent of King Rama VII, who, after his Boworadej Rebellion failed to bring back the absolute monarchy, threatened to not only abdicate, but to sell out all of his assets in Thailand. I recall that this included the threatened sale of the Emerald Buddha (which then appears to be the property of the royal family, rather than the property of the Thai state). This implies that in extremis, there is a clear distinction between royal assets and state assets. Of course, he ended up not selling anything of significance.
The sale of personal assets of the current royal family is a different matter – there have been quite a couple high profile real estate sales over the past few years.
[…] 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”.┬ […]
[…] 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”.┬ […]
[…] Trekking to London for Thongchai Winichakul’s talk on 28 November 2006, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.┬ The last time I attended a Thai Studies event in London – the talk given by Kraisak Choonhavan ┬ and Sondhi Limthongkul.back in mid-October – it was jam packed and, at times, just a little bit tense.┬ In contrast, Thongchai’s talk was a more relaxed affair.┬ His interpretation of recent political events didn’t seem to provoke any of the candid opposition that confronted Kraisak and Sondhi.┬ Thongchai was, somewhat to my surprise, greeted by a generally receptive audience – patient to clarify his thoughts on the trajectory of Thai politics and, in particular, the role of the King and royally-aligned elites.┬ […]
[…] 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”.┬ […]
[…] Regular New Mandala readers will recall that the October SOAS event was publicly condemned by Singapore based Thai Studies specialist Dr Patrick Jory.┬ Jory, and other critics of SOAS’ initial post-coup offering, may be partly sated by SOAS’ collaboration in this most recent Thai Studies event.┬ As my account of Thongchai’s lecture should make clear, a largely well-received case was made against 19 September style Royally-sponsored, anti-democratic interventions. […]
[…] Trekking to London for Thongchai Winichakul’s talk on 28 November 2006, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.┬ The last time I attended a Thai Studies event in London – the talk given by Kraisak Choonhavan ┬ and Sondhi Limthongkul.back in mid-October – it was jam packed and, at times, just a little bit tense.┬ In contrast, Thongchai’s talk was a more relaxed affair.┬ His interpretation of recent political events didn’t seem to provoke any of the candid opposition that confronted Kraisak and Sondhi.┬ Thongchai was, somewhat to my surprise, greeted by a generally receptive audience – patient to clarify his thoughts on the trajectory of Thai politics and, in particular, the role of the King and royally-aligned elites.┬ […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
Republican, you misunderstand the situation with Paul and Thongchai. Progressive academics want to see this book become as influential and as credible as possible. The only way to do that is to silence the Chlear academics. The Chlear academics had their criticisms of this book even before it was published: that it was full of lies, that it was full of unsourced rumors, etc. To prevent the Chlear academics from doing this, certain progressive academics are setting the standard as high as possible – every critical fact has to have a footnote and a reference, no anonymous pamphlets should be used as sources, everything has to be 100% correct, etc.
Handley’s response was that his manuscript was much longer and had an even more massive set of references. It ended up being shortened to make it more readable for the mainstream audience. But even so, the book is still extremely credible. Of all the mainstream Thai history books, it probably has the fewest errors, and I’ve been through it with a magnifying glass. But even then, I still complained to Handley that he didn’t have enough footnotes. When I questioned him about some unsourced facts (I actually had a checklist several pages long), he was able to cite from memory the sources of most of them, so I’m very confident that he didn’t make anything up or use rumors. My intention (which I think is shared by Acharn Thongchai) is not to bring down the book, but to make it even more accepted among mainstream academics.
Ngarnadirek, I shouldn’t have to tell you this: a country can’t be managed the way a company is managed by a CEO. No matter how much perfect foresight a leader has, he has to listen to the people, adjust his priorities to reflect popular concerns, and play by the rules. Prem’s perfect crystal ball and genius in forward management are no excuse for bypassing the polls and ripping up the Constitution.
Book Zone – Lao popular culture
Who are the english-language texts designed for? I can’t imagine Lao having any significant expats community. Is it for overseas non-Lao-speaking Lao or local english-speaking Lao?
Radio interview with Paul Handley
[…] 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”.┬ […]
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
patiwat: That might be a way for you to accept the coup – a case of good management (forward planning) ?
Against the grain?
OK, I get it now – Time magazine is partisan, and Handley is an impartial scholar.
For all your criticisms & malice, Republican, you have yet to offer a better system than what I call the ‘white knight’ system that is currently in place.
To be relevant please point to an example in the region, not a European or US model.
Book Zone
[…] [This post is provided by the National Library of Australia as part of our Book Zone feature. For further information on the featured publications contact Saowapha Viravong at [email protected]] […]
“A classic love triangle”
Yeah, the bit when Khun Phaen disembowells his girlfriend to get his kuman thong is a little unsettling as well, given his status as folk hero.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
The original title of Thongchai’s 28 November 2006 talk at SOAS as recorded in New Mandala (http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/11/15/lecture-thongchai-in-london-on-the-coup/) appears to have been, “Thailand’s Coup: A Step Forward in a Dangerous Direction”. But in this posting the title has apparently been changed, to “Thailand’s September Coup: One Step Backward to Restart Democracy or One Step Forward in a Wrong Direction?”
I have two questions (not having attended the talk):
(i) Why was the title of the talk changed? Does it indicate that originally Thongchai believed the coup to be a “step forward”, but changed his mind afterwards?
(ii) How on earth can the coup be seen as a “step forward”? (I can’t see how from the account of the talk given above)
To me his comment that Handley’s book was “not academic but worth listening to” smacks of academic snobbery. Handley has produced the only critical biography of the king in 60 years, and in my opinion it is having a massive impact on Thai Studies (both English and Thai). And it is leading to academic “spin-offs” in the form of articles and blog-postings, almost all of whom quote Handley. Works such as these, “even” if they are written by lowly journalists, deserve praise from academics, who should rather be asking themselves why it was a journalist, not an academic, to write such a book.
Against the grain?
Republican you are repelled by Thai TV, Thai Newspapers, popular American magazines and most likely most other forms of popular media IF and WHEN those are negative on Thaksin and positive on the Thai monarchy. But you do get easily convinced by a certain Mr. Paul Handly, Andrew Walker and Dr. Jory.
Try Japanese cartoon . . . they are mostly entertaining.
Against the grain?
Some may be gullible enough to take seriously a popular American magazine’s laughable analysis of Thai politics (written for an audience whose knowledge about Thailand probably starts and ends with the musical “The King and I”) along with partisan newspapers like phu jat kan and The Nation, but serious scholars among us will stick with the facts. Yes, it would have been “very handy to have someone impartial”. If only the king had ever been impartial, instead of continually siding with military dictatorships against his own people.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
This seems fairly consistent to the messages he gave at the NYU panel a few weeks ago. Nicholas, your paraphrasing seems directionally correct.
At the time, Acharn Thongchai also noted that he really didn’t like commenting on modern issues because his academic specialization is pre-20th century history/historiography.
Nicholas, you should try to get a screenshot of the general diagram he used. Series 2 is one of the detailed ones. At NYU, he spent a lot of time to discussing the general diagram and explaining how the conflicts that Thailand faced in each “Series” different significantly, and that trying to understand modern challenges through the lens of an older “Series” would lead to incorrect conclusions.
At NYU, Acharn Thongchai also mentioned what he thought was the fundamental reason for the coup: the issue of succession. But he didn’t really give it enough time. Over dinner with the organizers and other panelists, he explained it in much more detail, but noted that people often misunderstood his argument about why succession was such an important issue. Nicholas, it would be great if you could expand a bit more on what Thongchai said in public on this matter.
“A classic love triangle”
I’ve always felt it unfortunate that the most popular piece of Thai folklore – the one piece that the Thai (or at least the Central Thai) could look up to and say, “That’s ours! Not the palace’s or the temple’s” – was so full of sexual objectification and misogynism.
I remember reading about how some Chula professor warned university students that wearing tight shirts and short skirts was like going around with a sign saying “Rape Me” and thinking that she was too much a fan of “Khun Chang Khun Phaen.”
Against the grain?
Ngarnadirek, you might have misinterpreted my past posts – I don’t think I ever compared the wealth of the monarchy with that of Thaksin, besides the obvious fact that they are both multi-billionaires and the fact that their lack of transparency makes people speculate about them to no end.
It’s a bit speculative to say that the monarchy’s wealth would go to the state if the monarchy would for some reason cease to exist. On the contrary, there is the precedent of King Rama VII, who, after his Boworadej Rebellion failed to bring back the absolute monarchy, threatened to not only abdicate, but to sell out all of his assets in Thailand. I recall that this included the threatened sale of the Emerald Buddha (which then appears to be the property of the royal family, rather than the property of the Thai state). This implies that in extremis, there is a clear distinction between royal assets and state assets. Of course, he ended up not selling anything of significance.
The sale of personal assets of the current royal family is a different matter – there have been quite a couple high profile real estate sales over the past few years.
Reminder: Thongchai in London
Hi James,
It is available here.
Best wishes to all.
NSF
Banned but scanned
[…] 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”.┬ […]
Handley on the Thai coup and succession
[…] 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”.┬ […]
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
[…] Trekking to London for Thongchai Winichakul’s talk on 28 November 2006, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.┬ The last time I attended a Thai Studies event in London – the talk given by Kraisak Choonhavan ┬ and Sondhi Limthongkul.back in mid-October – it was jam packed and, at times, just a little bit tense.┬ In contrast, Thongchai’s talk was a more relaxed affair.┬ His interpretation of recent political events didn’t seem to provoke any of the candid opposition that confronted Kraisak and Sondhi.┬ Thongchai was, somewhat to my surprise, greeted by a generally receptive audience – patient to clarify his thoughts on the trajectory of Thai politics and, in particular, the role of the King and royally-aligned elites.┬ […]
Handley responds to Evans
[…] 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”.┬ […]
SOAS and the coup
[…] Regular New Mandala readers will recall that the October SOAS event was publicly condemned by Singapore based Thai Studies specialist Dr Patrick Jory.┬ Jory, and other critics of SOAS’ initial post-coup offering, may be partly sated by SOAS’ collaboration in this most recent Thai Studies event.┬ As my account of Thongchai’s lecture should make clear, a largely well-received case was made against 19 September style Royally-sponsored, anti-democratic interventions. […]
Lecture: Thongchai in London on the Coup
[…] Trekking to London for Thongchai Winichakul’s talk on 28 November 2006, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.┬ The last time I attended a Thai Studies event in London – the talk given by Kraisak Choonhavan ┬ and Sondhi Limthongkul.back in mid-October – it was jam packed and, at times, just a little bit tense.┬ In contrast, Thongchai’s talk was a more relaxed affair.┬ His interpretation of recent political events didn’t seem to provoke any of the candid opposition that confronted Kraisak and Sondhi.┬ Thongchai was, somewhat to my surprise, greeted by a generally receptive audience – patient to clarify his thoughts on the trajectory of Thai politics and, in particular, the role of the King and royally-aligned elites.┬ […]