The Devil’s Discus – in Thai – กงจักรปีศาจ-New Mandala

[FACT comments: Some readers may be aware that FACT's anti-censorship campaign started with The Devil's Discus.]

The Devil’s Discus – in Thai – กงจักรปีศาจ
Andrew Walker
New Mandala: May 29th, 2008

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/05/29/the-devils-discus-in-thai/#comments

I was recently given a digital copy of the Thai translation of The Devil’s Discus by Rayne Kruger. The translation (กงจักรปีศาจ – Kongjat Bisat) was undertaken by Chalit Chaisitthiwet and the publication, according to the back cover, was arranged by the “History Students Association.” I can’t see any date of publication on the version I have been sent. My brief research has uncovered various dates – all of them in the 1970s.

According to Wikipedia, the translator, Chalit Chaisithiwet, was the brother of Vacharachai Chaisithiwet who was aide-de-camp to former prime-minister Pridi Banomyong: “Pridi was brought under suspicion of regicide in the death of King Ananda by his chief political rival, strongman military Prime Minister Plaek Pibulsonggram and was forced to flee into exile with his chief aide-de-camp (and Ananda’s), Vacharachai Chaisittiwet. Vacharachai’s brother became the Thai translator of The Devil’s Discus in an attempt to clear his name.”

This translation appears to have met with a more liberal fate than the original English-language version. Whereas the English-language original (published in 1964) was banned immediately in Thailand, the Thai translation was only banned in 2006. Perhaps this backs up the point suggested by Craig Reynolds at the recent panel discussion on The King Never Smiles that Thai language discussions of the monarchy may be less offensive to the authorities than those by English-language authors.
But, of course, official bans are not the only way to suppress unwelcome material, and I have been told that the Thai translation of The Devil’s Discus is hard to find in libraries throughout Thailand. Can any New Mandala readers confirm this?

I have received some interesting background on this translation from CJ Hinke of Freedom Against Censorship in Thailand:

Devil’s Discus only saw one printing in English (Cassell, London, 1964) and one printing in Japanese. The Thai translation was published by Political Science students at Thammasat University in 1977. I have only seen the black cover variant and all copies I have examined are missing the first 16 pages. There is a second cover variant in yellow, quite rare!

Kruger’s UK obituaries carried an interesting anecdote. They state that, following publication of the Thai translation, the Thai publishing house was burned to the ground. I’m still digging on this but it appears to be mythical!

The English edition saw only one printing as it was banned in the Royal Gazette in its year of publication!

The Thai translation was not banned until 2006, 30 years after its publication. Someone thought it a bright idea to sell its photocopies at Sondhi’s PAD rallies at Lumpini Park. The police followed them home and it was banned shortly after.

All known English copies of Devil’s Discus in Thailand were ordered destroyed. The Siam Society resisted with the support of Princess Galyani but it is still in restricted circulation. Some university libraries have copies in rare books.

(Thanks to FACT for this information! You can sign FACT’s petition against censorship in Thailand here and here.)

If any other New Mandala readers have information or opinions about this translation, please post your comments here. In particular, does anyone know why copies of the Thai-language version (including the copy I have been given) start at page 17?

13 RESPONSES SO FAR ↓
1
An old phrai // May 29, 2008 at 11:55 am 
This is based entirely on my memory. The main story is still clear to me but I cannot assure the accuracy of all facts.
A publication of the Thai translation was in late 1974 by two Thammasat students (or just graduated). But in the end the published copies were never released to the market. After printing, and a day or two before the two planned to release the book, something happened. All I know is that most copies were destroyed or hidden away by the two publishers (not by the police) while some were circulated in small circles. Later we knew that both of them went to the jungle in mid 1975, the same group as Seksan, Jiranan and others. One of them later became an elected Senator from a northeastern province. The other one returned from the jungle with Seksan (and was mentioned in the film “Moonhunter”). But I didn’t follow his whereabout since then. 
I don’t think the 1974 publication was known to the police. It was not banned because the publication didn’t exist! Only a small circle of their friends knew about the publications and the change of plan. Ask former student activists of the 70s, most of them never knew or saw this book at the time. I think the fact that the book was never released to the public and the police didn’t know about it, i.e. the book didn’t exist, is the reason why the ban only took place in 2006, when a copy of an old print emerged in public. It is not true that a publication of Devil Discus in Thai is more tolerable than the one in English. It was so dangerous that “something happened” can caused the publishers to change their plan.
I do not know if the cover shown here is the same as the 1974/75 edition but was mistaken to be the 1977 edition. Or there were really two different prints: 1974/75 and 1977 ones. In 1974, I didn’t see the cover. When I talked to the two about the book, I was too naive and didn’t realize the significance of the book. I only knew the title in Thai “กงจักรปีศาจ” and knew that it was dangerous.
Sorry that I cannot tell the real names of the two. They might not want to be known involving with this episode 34 years ago, esp in the current ugly royalist climate.

2
An old phrai // May 29, 2008 at 12:02 pm 
Sorry– in the above anecdote, I put the date 74/75 in some places because at first I was not so sure what year I encountered this incident. I believe it was late 1974 when I met them and since by mid-1975 both of them went to the jungle. But I forgot to revise all the “74/75″ in the above message to “1974″.

3
ThaiCrisis // May 29, 2008 at 12:04 pm 
Sorry to arrive into the discussion like an elephant into a glassware shop… but could you… tell us what is Devil’s Discus about ??? !!!
And point number 2, it’s enough to know that is has been banned in Thailand… to have a huge desire to read it.
Therefore, where is it possible to find the english version? 
Thanks.

4
Reg Varney // May 29, 2008 at 1:28 pm 
I can’t add to the DD story. However, the suggestion that Thai discussion of the monarchy is more acceptable to those up top than western appears to lack any supporting evidence.

5
Serhat // May 29, 2008 at 7:46 pm 
All known English copies of Devil’s Discus in Thailand were ordered destroyed. The Siam Society resisted with the support of Princess Galyani but it is still in restricted circulation. Some university libraries have copies in rare books.

Until recently, Thammasat library actually had an English language copy freely accessible at Professor Direck Jayanama Library. In October 2007 I was able to borrow the book and make a copy. According to the loan period card, it had been borrowed seven times in 2007 alone.
I returned the book and a few weeks afterwards I checked the shelves again for a friend but could not find it any more. To my surprise, the title had also been deleted from the online catalogue. Whereas a few weeks before the catalogue had still listed two copies of the book at Thammasat Central Library (that copy was nowhere to be found) and at Direck Jayanama, it seems as if “The Devil’s Discus” has now completely “disappeared” from Thammasat.

6
Thorn // May 29, 2008 at 9:17 pm 
I have never seen a Thai version, but have read an English version at my university library (in England).
To my knowledge, this book in a Thai version does not exist in Thailand. I looked at library cataloque, both at Thammasat and Chula, and could not find it (a Thai version).
Although there are various other books on Rama 8 death; most of them can be found in bookstores in Thailand. My family have bought a few of them. I have never seen this book in any bookstore too. 
I think that one you have seen is an “underground” one. Very very limited amount of people have seen it (at least people in my age –20 something years old).
Therefore, I disagree with your observation that the Thai discussion of monarchy is more acceptable. I think a critical observation of the monarchy by the Thais just does not exist in the public (none of us want to end up in jail).

7
Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 29, 2008 at 11:22 pm 
Nine years ago I published an article about the backgrounds of this Thai version of The Devil’s Discus, titled กงจักรปีศาจ และหนังสือกรณีสวรรคต . The article was later included in my book ประวัติศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง I’ll put the whole article on my blog shortly, and will give notice here after I finish.
Let me discuss here a few details about the book. I’ll write more later if I have time.
 First of all, Andrew’s picture of the book cover above is definitely not the real one. It’s been, I think, digitally modified to make the book’s title, author and translator more easily readable. (The font used here actually was not invented back in 1974) I’ll put the picture of the real 1974 front cover on my blog too. (Or if you can’t wait and can find my book, you can have a look there on page 100.)
About the book’s availability.

As K.Serhat says, there used to be a copy of the English version in the Pol Science Faculty Library (too bad without the dusk jacket which looks quite nice). It’s been there for great many years without much notice, until recently.
Actually in my article I also “revealed” how a THAI version had been, for many years also, mysteriously put inside the Thammasat main library, under a wrong title (both on the front cover and in the library catalog). But some students of mine recently told me that it has also been removed, or disappeared or stolen (I cannot think how the staff would know its existence to remove it. But possibly because of my mentioning it the article some people had tracked it down and maybe kept it for him/herself.
About the Thai version. K.Old Phrai’s story is largely correct (I really wonder who you are, since not many people, even of my – our – generation would know about it).
The publishers were the two TU Pol Science students K.Old Phrai says. At first I thought of revealing their names, since it’s been more than 30 years and no harm should happen to them. (Besides they have long ceased to be leftist activists). But on reading K.Old Phrai, I agree it’s better not talk about their names for the time being, especially at current political climate (although given details K.Old Phrai already told, it wouldn’t be difficult for anyone with keen interest in the matter to find out. I’m not saying this’s wrong. Below I’ll confirm some details about them which I don’t think make much difference from what K.Old Phrai already says.
At the time (1974) the two were very close to Seksan.

They’re also in a relationship, but had since broken up, I believe, after they went into the jungle to join the CPT. The man left with Seksan and Jiranan in 1980 but the woman stayed and rose to the rank of the CPT Central Committee just before the party’s demise. Late the woman was arrested and released. She started a new career as a writer and wrote articles for daily paper with a sort of feminist leaning. (I have to check K.Old Phrai’s story about her being a senator. This part of her life I missed it.)
In 1974, they (especially the man) decided to publish the Thai version believing it’s legal, since Pridi had submitted it in court case he brought againt MR.Kukrit Pramot for defamation. But I was told since 1974 that Seksan himself adviced against putting the book (already finished) on the market. The book was then “sold under the table” (ขายใต้โต๊ะ i.e. selling something illegally). This was how I bought a copy in 1974, as did a number of people in the student movement . A couple of years ago I checked with an old-book seller at Jatuchak Market, the book I bought for 25 baht was now priced around 6-7000 baht!
I was told that the very first printing of the book had a yellow cover. But I never saw it (the one I bought has the same black cover K.Andrew shows above except for the font used for title, etc as I said earlier). I understnad this yellow cover was changed after the publishers decided to sell it ‘under the table’ instead, as he also have to remove the first 16 pages (or the first prining sheet. I don’t know the technical term in English but we used to call this หนังสือ 16 หน้า ยก which means one printing sheet folded to make 16 pages) Because contained the preface and the real name of the publisher.
That’s it for now. I may write some more if I have time.

8
Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 29, 2008 at 11:47 pm 
Dear Khun Andrew,
I tried to post the following several times. Not sure if each time it already reach you (it didn’t show up on my screen as usual with the caption “your comment is awaiting moderation”). If it already did, please disregard this one. Thank you.
Somsak.
……………………….
One more point. I have great respect for K.Chalit Chaisitthiwet, the translator. But, as I explain in my article, the book was quite badly translated, with mistakes on almost every page. Some of these are quite serious. I’ll give here two examples (from my article – sorry it’s in Thai):
(p.s. Over the years, I sometimes entertained the idea of tranlating the whole book myself.)
ในหน้า 71 ของฉบับภาษาอังกฤษ ครูเกอร์เล่าว่า ที่ท่าอากาศยานสวิตเซอร์แลนด์ ก่อนจะทรงโดยสารเครื่องบินที่จะนำพระองค์กลับไทย ในหลวงอานันท์ฯทรงแอบหลบไปโทรศัพท์ถึง “a student friend” (พระสหายนักเรียนผู้หนึ่ง) “With journalists swarming about he had time but to say au revoir. He told no one of the call.” ซึ่งชลิตแปลว่า “พระองค์ทรงมีเวลาที่จะรับสั่งกับบรรดานักหนังสือพิมพ์ซึ่งมาห้อมล้อมพระองค์อยู่ว่า ‘ลาก่อน’ แต่พระองค์มิได้ทรงรับสั่งถึงเรื่องที่ได้ทรงโทรศัพท์กับใคร” แต่ความจริง ควรจะแปลว่า “ด้วยเหตุที่มีนักหนังสือพิมพ์คอยห้อมล้อมเต็มไปหมด, พระองค์จึงทรงมีเวลารับสั่งต่อพระสหายผู้นั้นเพียงว่า ‘ลาก่อน’ พระองค์มิได้ทรงบอกใครถึงเรื่องที่ได้ทรงโทรศัพท์นั้น” (ในหน้าเดียวกันนั้น ยังมีประโยคที่แปลผิดอีกหลายประโยค)
……………
ในหน้า 166 ของฉบับภาษาอังกฤษ ครูเกอร์เล่าคำให้การในฐานะพยานโจทก์ของสมเด็จพระราชชนนี “She recalled a private audience Pridi had of the King after dinner on 7 June…. Ananda told her that under the constitution he had the power of appointment [of the Regency Council]. She confirmed the Buddhist tutor’s reporting to her Pridi’s threat after this audience that he would not support the throne again.” ในฉบับแปล “สมเด็จพระราชชนนีทรงให้การว่า…. ปรีดีเข้ามาเฝ้าในหลวงอานันท์ฯเป็นการส่วนพระองค์ในวันที่ 7 มิถุนายน…. ในหลวงอานันท์ฯได้ทูลพระองค์ว่าภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ พระองค์ทรงมีพระราชอำนาจที่จะทรงแต่งตั้งผู้สำเร็จราชการ นายปรีดีได้ขู่ภายหลังการเข้าเฝ้านี้ว่าเขาจะไม่สนับสนุนพระราชวงศ์อีก” ข้อความที่ว่า “She confirmed the Buddhist tutor’s reporting to her” หายไปไม่มีการแปล (อาจเป็นเพราะปัญหาการพิมพ์ก็เป็นได้) ซึ่งอาจทำให้เข้าใจผิดได้ว่า ในหลวงอานันท์ฯทรงเล่าเรื่อง “การขู่” ของปรีดีให้สมเด็จพระราชชนนีฟังด้วยพระองค์เอง แต่ความจริง สมเด็จฯทรงได้ยินเรื่องนี้จากปากของ “the Buddhist tutor” (อนุศาสนาจารย์ คือนายวงศ์ เชาวนะกวี ผู้ถวายอักษรไทย)
ฯลฯ….ฯลฯ….ฯลฯ

9
paul handley // May 30, 2008 at 1:52 am 
Just a note on what I understand are the origins of the book: Kruger was recruited to write it by Prince Subhasvasti, aka Tan Chin, in his Free Thai name, a brother of Queen Rambhai who was exiled in England with the outgoing royal family after the revolution. Prince Subha liked and trusted Pridi and believed he and the others had been framed, and wanted to correct that — and also give King Bhumibol a way out. He had suggested in an earlier long 1947 letter to Bhumibol that Ananda’s death could well have been an accident related to his being ill.
Kruger though concluded (ATTN PLOT TWIST GIVEAWAY COMING if you haven’t read it) that Ananda was despondent over a Swiss girl he wanted to be with/marry. But I don’t think Prince Subha would have had a problem with that.
Anyway, the book was imported into Thailand and went on sale in bookstores before someone took note and got it banned.
By the way, a friend told me around 2003-04 that he saw the photocopied book, English version (possibly Thai too, my friend doesn’t read it) openly on sale at a book fair at Chiang Mai University.

10
SomchaiB // May 30, 2008 at 11:23 am 
Just as an aside readers might be interested in British pathologist Professor Keith Simpson’s account of his involvement in the Ananda case. See ‘The Violent Death of King Ananda of Siam’ in his Forty Years of Murder: An Autobiography, London: Harrap, 1978. Simpson’s disagrees with both the accident and suicide versions of what happened. He writes:
‘The question was…accident, suicide, or murder? The King has been keenly interested in small firearms, and had often practiced shooting with Vacharachai. He had kept an American Army .45 Colt automatic in his bedside drawer. Could it have gone off accidently while he was examining it? Would an intelligent man who knew anything about firearms inspect a pistol with the safety catch of and the magazine charged while lying in bed on his back, his head on the pillow and the pistol pointing at his forehead? The idea seemed wildly far-fetched, even apart from the fact that the King’s sight was so defective that he could not have examined anything without his spectacles, and at the time of his death these were lying on the bedroom table. The position of the body made suicide almost equally unlikely. In twenty years experience I had not seen a suicide shoot himself whilst lying flat on his back. No such case existed, so far as I knew. The suicide sits up or stands up to shoot himself. There were other strong indications against suicide. The pistol found at the King’s side was by his left hand, but he was right-handed. The wound, over the left eye, was not in one of the elective sites, nor a “contact” discharge. The direction of fire was not inward towards the centre of the head. Furthermore the King had never hinted at suicide to anyone and had not been depressed at the time of his death. That left only murder, for which the evidence was very strong. I thought he had almost certainly been shot while dozing, and that unconsciousness had followed instantly. The muzzle of the pistol had evidently been close to but not against the skin, giving the King no warning or any chance to protect himself. “This is not a case of suicidal discharge nor of accident, but one of deliberate killing by firearm,” I concluded my report’.

11
Stephen // May 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm 
“but could you… tell us what is Devil’s Discus about ??? !!!
ThaiCrisis and others, there’s a summary of the book available here.

12
Reg Varney // May 30, 2008 at 2:50 pm 
SomchaiB: Thanks for that. Interesting. But it still leaves open the idea of an accident that involved another person.

13
SomsakJeamteerasakul // May 31, 2008 at 12:23 pm 
Dear Khun Paul,
Thanks a lot for sharing this interesting info with us all.
Given the fact that Prince SuphaSawat had ever since the incident in 1946 tried to defend Pridi, to reconcile Pridi with Bhumibol and, as you say, to find the way out for both Pridi and Bhumibol (and I may addd, to cite the Prince himself in that letter you mention, to ‘lift a great weight off [his] mind’ over the incident), your story makes perfect sense and sounds very true.