A new book by Vimolphun Peetathawatchai was launched last week entitled Ek Kasattra Tai Rattadhammanoon (translated as ‘The Great Constitutional Monarch’ by the Bangkok Post, or literally ‘Unique King under the Constitution’).  Matichon has published a couple of excerpts from the book about the death of King Ananda, dealing with what is claimed to be newly discovered evidence.  Dom Dantrakul, son of the late prolific writer Suphoj Dantrakul, who was a devoted defender of Pridi Banomyong and the 1932 revolution, has written an article to refute Vimolphun on the issue.

Dom says in his article that he is familiar with the name of the author, as many of her writings were criticized and refuted by his father.  He raises as an example one of Vimolphun’s book entitled Khao Khong Pho (Father’s Rice) (2nd edition), in which she writes that after the end of the second World War, Thailand, because it had been allied with Japan on the losing side, was forced by the Allies to give them ‘1.5 million tons of rice per year’ as reparations.

Dom says that, in fact, Thailand was forced to provide 1.5 million tons of rice in total, not per year, and on 1 May 1946 Britain agreed to change a clause in the agreement which allowed Thailand to sell 1.2 million tons of rice to Britain at a cheap price instead of giving it for free.  However, the Thai government led by Pridi negotiated further and finally was required to send only 150,000 tons of rice for free.  He cites as sources for his information books by Thai diplomats Direk Chainam and Kantathi Suphamongkhon, a Chulalongkorn masters degree thesis by Thammarak Champa and the website of King Prajadhipok’s Institute.

He also cites an account by former Prime Minister Tawee Boonyaket which was published in his funeral book.

Tawee wrote that in Sept 1945, Pridi, then Regent, invited him as Prime Minister to discuss the issue.  Pridi showed him a telegram from MR Seni Pramoj who suggested the possibility for Thailand to offer the Allies about 1.2-1.5 million tons of rice free, as a gesture of a good will.  He felt very worried as the donation of such a large quantity of rice, equal to the country’s annual export in normal times, would cost Thailand a huge amount of money, no less than two billion baht.  Also, no one knew whether this amount of rice was available because during the war the Japanese military had been buying up rice.  He told Pridi that he would have to consult the relevant officials.  Pridi said that it was an urgent matter, and consultation would probably take too long.  So, in light of the fact that Britain and the US were well aware that MR Seni would return as Thailand’s Prime Minister and had already made the offer, he asked Tawee to respond that the Prime Minister agreed in principle, but would consider the amount later.  Tawee agreed.

The offer to give away 1.2-1.5 million tons of rice was made by MR Seni, and appeared in Article 14 of an agreement signed on 1 Jan 1946 between Britain and Thailand, whose government, led by MR Seni, agreed to send the rice by 1 Sept 1947, as war reparations.

Nevertheless, the government led by Pridi later managed to resolve the issue through negotiation, according to the record of the 33rd Parliamentary meeting on 2 May 1946, Dom says.          

Volume two, page 29, of Vimolphun’s new book, which is claimed to have been extensively researched, particularly in the case of the King Rama VIII’s regicide, says in the excerpt in Matichon:

The first police autopsy of the king was rudimentary, and Pridi, in order to make a public statement about the death, asked the palace physician Luang Nit whether he could state that the death resulted from a stomach problem, and the physician replied that he could not.

Luang Nit also said no to the suggestion made by an official, Luang Chawengsaksongkram, that the king could be said to have died from a heart attack.  And a statement to say that the king had committed a suicide was also rejected by Prince Rangsit who insisted that the government make a public statement according to the facts.  So Pridi, the Prime Minister, officially stated that King Ananda was killed by accident, a claim which was not refuted by Prince Rangsit and the royal family.

According to Dom, Luang Nit, who was reputedly a long-time, close and loyal associate of the Princess Mother and Prince Father Mahidol and was familiar with both Kings Rama VIII and IX, testified in court on 15 Jan 1949 that when he was paying his respects to the dead King, Phra Ram Intra, an official, said to the Prime Minister or someone else that a request had been made to conduct an autopsy on the King’s body, but this was prohibited by Prince Rangsit.

Dom says that Tawee recorded comments which were made about the regicide.  Prince Rangsit told Mom Chao Appaphassarapha Devakul in person, ‘[We] must seek help from the Prime Minister [Pridi] on this issue.’

When Pridi and others convened at the Grand Palace to discuss how to make a public statement, Prince Rangsit who was standing there suggested that the statement say that the King died as a result of a stomach illness, pointing his finger at his own stomach.

Pridi disagreed, arguing that the King had died from a wound and the gunshot had been heard by many people.

The government eventually stated publicly, as agreed by senior members of the Royal Family, that the death was an accident.

The police record on 9 June 1946, which was revealed during the Thawal Thamrong Navaswadhi government in Parliamentary meetings on 23-27 May 1947, states, ‘Today, at 3 pm, several senior royals including Prince Rangsit, Prince Chumbhot, Prince Bhanubhand, Prince Wan and Prince Dhani, together with the Prime Minister [Pridi] and other ministers convened to consider a report by the Police Chief on the investigation into the death of the King.  During the meeting, the Police Chief asked for the opinion of Prince Rangsit.  The Prince said that he understood that it was an accident, as stated by the government, because he knew that the King was fond of guns, and he had seen the King snatch a gun and put the mouth of the gun to his face to look into the barrel.  And the King had said that the trigger of this gun was delicate, easy to fire.’

Dom cites the information from his father’s book, Facts about the King’s Death.  He says that if what was quoted was not correct, his father would have been sued for defamation.  When the book was released on 1 May 1974, Luang Nit was still alive and even gave an interview to the Bangkok Times newspaper, published on 22 July 1974 saying, ‘I laud [Suphoj’s] book which, on pages 103-108, describes the King’s body correctly.’

Another excerpt from Ek Kasattra, volume 2 page 40, published by Matichon, states:

After an autopsy of the King’s body was conducted, the team of physicians sought opinions [among themselves] on the cause of the king’s death.  16 of them agreed it was assassination, while 14 believed that it was a suicide and 2 believed that it was an accident.

Pridi Banomyong had previously asked to meet Foreign Minister Direk Chainam, Police Chief Luang Adul Dejjaras and financial advisor Mr Dol.  Pridi told Direk that he had been informed that foreign physicians had been convinced to play along in a political game.  All four of them agreed that they should conduct an autopsy only, and not comment on the cause of the death.  Pridi asked Direk and Dol to notify the British Ambassador accordingly.  Eventually, the British Army physicians had to withdraw their comments.  Doctor Driburg, who was asked by the current King to participate in the autopsy, told Phraya Damrong Phattayakhun that he had to withdraw the comment, as a soldier must follow an order.

Assoc Prof Dr Sunet Chutintharanont said in an interview to Matichon on 28 Sept 2010 that Vimolphun had found during her research in London that the British Embassy in Thailand telegraphed London on the negotiations for the British physicians to withdraw their comments.  Sunet said that this was new-found evidence about which the Thai people should be informed.

Dom says that those who have read his father’s book would know whether it is new evidence or not, because Luang Nit, as quoted in the book, testified in court on 21 Feb 1949 that on the night of 25 June 1946 he was summoned to meet Prime Minister Pridi who reprovingly asked him why the physicians had to come up with a conclusion, out of the three possible causes of death, instead of just reporting the facts of the autopsy findings.  Luang Nit told Pridi that he also agreed that such a conclusion should not have been made, because the autopsy was not conducted immediately and [the physicians] did not see the original position of the body and the gun.  Pridi went on to say that the foreign physicians exceeded their responsibility in expressing an opinion, and they should withdraw it.  Pridi instructed Direk, who was also present, to inform the British government of this.

Next day, 26 June 1946, in a meeting of the physicians at Chulalongkorn Hospital, Col Driburg said that he was sorry to have expressed an opinion which might have political consequences.  He had been informed by the British ambassador that making such a comment was not proper.  So he withdrew the opinion of his British team.

Dom says that Pridi not only wanted the British team to withdraw its opinion, but also wanted all Thai physicians to do the same.  And his assignment to the Foreign Minister to inform the British government was not a covert operation.  Thus, this is not new evidence at all.           

Dom says that it is unbelievable after so many decades, he still has to continue his father’s fight against attempts to distort the facts of the issue.