The King Never Smiles - Critical Reception - Thai Reception

Thai Reception

Critical reception in Thailand varied. Royalist Thai media tycoon and talk-show host Sondhi Limthongkul informally criticized the book as "full of gossip" and called Paul Handley "aggressive", "highhanded", "sassy", "derogatory to Asians", and "insolent even to his own parents".

Chris Baker, an independent academic residing in Thailand who wrote a report praising Bhumibol's self-sufficient economy theories for the United Nations, reviewed the book in the Asia Sentinel. Baker praised the book, but said that in its later chapters, it ignored the role of the Thai elite and middle class in reimagining Bhumibol as a symbol of democracy. Baker said that the middle class was key in "rewriting history to cast the king as a peace-maker in 1973 and 1992, glossing over 1976 altogether, and ignoring the 1932 revolution to make democracy seem to be a gift from the throne." Baker also said that the section of the book covering the 2005-2006 political crisis (which was still occurring at the time of the book's publication) included unspecified errors and failed to explain why various groups seized on the monarchy as the focus of opposition to the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. Baker said that although the book introduced little that was new for experts, it did bring everything together, including many obscure sources, in a way that "connects the dots of a complex and important story with great narrative skill and very elegant prose." Furthermore, he said that the book did not "stray off to imagine what is going on in the king's mind." He noted that the book was "far from perfect," but was still "streets ahead of the competition, especially the hilariously error-prone effort of William Stevenson seven years ago."

Socialist activist and political scientist Giles Ungphakorn reviewed the book for Prachatai online newspaper (his brother, Jon Ungpakorn was the Secretary General of the foundation that ran the online newspaper). In his review, he praised the book for its evidence-backed analysis while disagreeing with some major points in the book. He stated that Handley underestimated the historical importance of the popular movement in Thailand, for instance by writing that the 1932 revolution was led by a foreign educated elite that was not accompanied by a popular uprising among the rural population. Giles noted that this view was different from that of political scientist Nakharin Mekhtrairat, who claimed there was strong pressure within the mainstream Thai society of the time to overthrow the absolute monarchy. Giles also said that the book's analysis of the weakening of the Thai military dictatorship during the late 1970s overemphasized the importance of Bhumibol, Army Commander Krit Srivara, and Richard Nixon's diplomacy with Communist China, while not placing enough importance on the role of students and workers. Giles stated that Handley's view that dictator Sarit Thanarat was a tool for King Bhumibol was not that of political scientist Thak Chaloemtiarana, who felt the opposite was true: Sarit used King Bhumibol as a tool to increase his own credibility.

Giles also disagreed regarding Bhumibol and the royalists' intended role for the monarchy. According to Giles, the book said that the royalists wanted to create a system whereby the state would be ruled by a traditional dhammaraja (monarch who rules with dharma) that would play a significant role in shaping policy. Giles said this view differed from that of political scientist Thongchai Winichakul. According to Giles, Thongchai found that after the 1945, the royalists were completely resigned to the loss of the absolute monarchy and focused on building a constitutional framework for the monarchy. Giles also said that Handley's view disagreed with Kullada Kesboonchoo-Mead's. Kullada held that the absolute monarchy had been completely discredited in Thailand as a viable political philosophy.

According to Giles, the book claimed that Bhumibol actively and consistently distrusted democracy and democratically elected leaders. However, Giles said Bhumibol was never powerful enough or independent enough to take a firm stand on the matter. Said Giles, the monarchy was not sufficiently powerful as an institution to prevent its interests from being sidelined by those of the military, the police, and the bureaucracy.