Mad, mad, monarchism II

One of the traits of royalism in Thailand is the way in which royalists seek to annihilate those they identify as opponents.

Back in the news is the “case” being mounted against historian Nattaphol Chai­ching. Beginning from 2018, academic royalists sought to censor his work. As a royalist stronghold, under pressure from mad monarchists, it considered the claims against Nattaphol.

The royalists viewed Nattaphol’s books and their popularity as a threat. In particular, the execrable yellow-shirted political “philosopher” Chaiyan Chaiyaporn targeted the author, calling for his 2009 PhD to be revoked. The university set up an investigation committee to review the thesis that was the basis for the books while barring public access to the thesis. It appears the university found some errors – most corrected in the books – but would not allow them to be corrected in the thesis. It apparently found no misconduct.

As a footnote, the most contentious point related to a Bangkok Post story from 18 December 1950. The Post claimed to “clarify” and claimed to reproduce the original article. It didn’t and it still hasn’t.

That royalist assault was paired with a ridiculous (except in royalist Thailand) defamation case by minor royal, MR Priyanandana Rangsit, against Nattaphol and publisher Fah Diaw Kan (Same Sky), seeking to protect the “honor” of a long dead relative.

We would have hoped that such a malicious set of actions by mad monarchists would have faded away. It hasn’t.

Prachatai reports that the “Civil Court said on Tuesday (9 November) that it will issue a ruling on 30 November in a lawsuit filed against historian Nattapol Chaiching and his publisher, Same Sky Books for producing two books based on Nattapol’s PhD thesis about Thai politics during the Cold War period.”

Priyanandana is seeking compensation of 50 million baht for the “damage” done to the dead relative, Prince Rangsit:

She initially asked the Court for a temporary injunction stopping the circulation of both books, but later withdrew her request, noting that there was no point to a temporary injunction as the books have been widely circulated. She is also suing Nattapol’s PhD thesis supervisor, former Faculty of Political Science lecturer Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead; Chaithawat Tulathon, editor for “Dream the Impossible Dream”; Anchalee Maneeroj, editor for “The Junta, the Lords, and the Eagle”; Same Sky Books, the publisher of both volumes; and Same Sky Books editor-in-chief Thanapol Eawsakul.

Apart from the usual royalist nonsense, why Prince Rangsit? Essentially because the Prince is seen as one of the driving forces for the political and economic restoration of the palace and for steering it through the difficult times after the abdication and then the death of Ananda Mahidol and the rise of Bhumibol.

Rangsit spend several years in detention, accused of treason and of plotting a coup in 1938, but was released at the end of WW2. He became regent in 1946 and was quick to support royalists and military men opposed to the People’s Party. Even if the original claim – that Rangsit interfered with cabinet – is not supported by the Bangkok Post story in 1950, it is clear in several accounts that Rangsit repeatedly interfered, seeking advantages for the palace and for royalists.

Thai Enquirer reports on the inclusion of Dr Kullada in the case and her response. She laments that “Chulalongkorn University … failed to protect her against a lawsuit even though all she did was approve a thesis while she was teaching at the school.” She said: “To prosecute me as a thesis adviser is defying the principles of academic freedom and this will have a serious impact on the academic sector in the future as well…”.

Hopefully her student is defended as well. But we fear that the most recent absurd decision by the Constitutional Court will empower mad monarchists, including those who are judges.