Recently, Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom, claiming to be an “independent historian”, has sent an Open Letter to Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva, Thai Prime Minister. To our knowledge, Mr. Thepmontri is also a political activist. So, the credibility of this historian is in question. Can he interpret the past following rigorous standards of critical inquiry? Can he vigorously assert before the public the integrity of the discipline? The following remarks may give the answers to these questions.
1. Mr. Thepmontri, a Thai political activist
Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom has actively participated in Thai political activities at least since 2009. In September 2009, Mr. Thepmontri and eight other Thai “scholars” lodged a suit to Thai Civil Court accusing Prime Minister Hun Sen, Deputy Prime Ministers Sok An and Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong of “violating the Thai people's rights and liberties under the Thai constitution by encroaching on the Preah Vihear temple and the disputed area around the temple ruins”. The Civil Court rejected the suit, saying that “the issue was a dispute between two countries over the sovereignty of the area. It was not a civil matter” (cf. Court rejects Preah Vihear suit - Border dispute 'is not a civil matter' Writer: POST REPORTERS 15/09/2009).
The above rejection by the Thai Civil Court clearly showed that Mr. Thepmontri and his team were completely wrong. Afterwards, in early August 2010, Mr. Thepmontri was one of the leaders of the demonstration participating in “a televised discussion with the Government on land dispute”. According to Thai Asean News Network, “the representatives of the Thai citizens consisting of the People's Alliance for Democracy Spokesperson Panthep Puapongphan, Thepmontri Limpaphayom, a prominent historian, Sompong Sucharitkul, a former member of Thailand's legal team on Preah Vihear Temple case at the International Court of Justice and Veera Somkwarmkid, a well-known social activist, held a discussion with the government represented by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti, Secretary to the Foreign Minister Chawanont Indhrakomarnsut and the prime minister's aide Sirichoke Sopa on the issue of the disputed land surrounding Preah Vihear Temple claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia. The three-hour session was broadcast live on national television. (cf. Citizens Hold Televised Discussion with Govt on Land Dispute, Thai Asean News Network UPDATE: 9 August 2010).
2. Mr. Thepmontri, a “prominent” historian?
Mr. Thepmontri Limpaphayom has been considered by some people as a “prominent” historian, as mentioned above. Recently, he has sent an Open Letter 2to Thai Prime Minister, Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva. His Open Letter, dated 24 August 2010 and appeared on the Facebook page in Thai language, is entitled “Thepmontri offended as Khmers look down on Preah Naresuan, Abhisit remains indifferent”.
According to this letter, Mr. Thepmontri felt offended at the indifference of Thai Prime Minister vis-à-vis Prime Minister Hun Sen and his entourage who have disseminated an article concerning Thai King Naresuan by considering him as a crocodile or an ungrateful king. Being impatient for this, Mr. Thepmontri stated that “Cambodia has distorted history”, and he urged Thai Prime Minister to immediately respond to the above public statement, and also requested Cambodia especially Samdech Hun Sen and his entourage to offer their
apologies. Mr. Thepmontri, a historian with no rigorous standards, has accused Cambodia of distorting history. In reality, history has been distorted by some Thai ultra-nationalist politicians and political activists including Mr. Thepmontri.
3. What kind of King was Naresuan (or Naren-Sô or Phra Naret)?
As we know, a fictitious story about Thai King Naresuan has been told in Thailand, and has been highly appreciated by some Thai ultra-nationalist politicians. The Straits Times (18 August 2008) reported that “[...] generations of Thai students have been told that the Khmer King Satha attacked Ayutthaya while Siam was busy fighting the Burmese. But Siam's King Naresuan defeated and personally executed him, washing his own feet in King Satha's blood. King Naresuan today figures prominently on the banners and T-shirts of the nationalist-royalist People's Alliance for Democracy, which raised the Preah Vihear issue in its months of ongoing anti-government street protests in Bangkok. But the story is fictitious; King Satha was able to escape to Laos”. (cf. Border talks burdened by ancient rivalry, in Straits Times, 18 August 2008).
Beside this, basing on credible sources, especially a history book written in French by a French historian, Mr. Adhémard Leclère, entiled “History of Cambodia” published in 1914, King Naresuan was indeed an ungrateful king. The following paragraph translated from French can provide enough evidence about this: Preah Sotha (1567-1575). [...] Some months after the elevation to the throne of the new king, they learnt in Cambodia that the king of Hângsavadi or Pégouans [Burmese] had invaded the kingdom of Siam and walked on Ayuthyea with a powerful army. The king of the Siamese, leaning on the peace treaty which he had signed the previous year with the late king of Cambodia, sent an ambassador to ask for an army of assistance to the young king. This one, although the peace treaty signed by his father should not oblige him to take side of the king of Siam, sent an army of 20.000 men commended by the Cambodian obaréach [viceroy] to the aid of Ayuthyea. The pégouane [Burmese] army was defeated and expelled out of the border.
And, as the Siamese and Cambodian armies returned victorious, and that they camped near each other in Doeumpou-choeung-bey (the tree of Bodhi with three feet), the king of Siam, Naren-Sô (phra Naret), saw that the Khmer obaréach was sitting in his presence and did not prostrate himself as other mandarins. He addressed him some public and strict observations. The Cambodian prince answered him: “I am the representative of the king of Cambodia here and I am general-in-chief of a Cambodian army and the command of which he entrusted me; besides, I am of royal origin and obaréach; I have the right to the consideration of the king of Siam and I intend to be treated here, at the head of my army as the king”.
The king of Siam answered nothing but, to assert his right of unique leader, he gave order to take a man among the captives of the obaréach, to cut his head, and to put it at the end of a bamboo in front of the boat of the prince. The outraged obaréach took the road back to Cambodia (cf. Adhémard Leclère, Histoire du Cambodge, Paris 1914, p. 299).
As we can see above, instead of expressing his gratitude to Cambodian Viceroy and Cambodian army who had assisted him, King Naresuan committed an act of atrocity against a captive of Cambodian Viceroy. Due to this ironic and atrocious act, King Naresuan has been considered as an “ungrateful king” in Cambodian history.
Therefore, basing on these above-mentioned documents, King Naresuan is notorious for committing atrocious acts, both in Thai fictitious story (King Naresuan defeated and personally executed King Satha, washing his own feet in King Satha's blood) and in Cambodian history (King Naresuan gave order to kill a captive of Cambodian Viceroy). It is horrible! Peace-loving people cannot appreciate this “act of heroism”.
This is our response to Mr. Thepmontri’s Open Letter dated 24 August 2010 for the purpose of bringing new thinking on history, especially in our Era of Culture of Peace in the world we live in. It is not an opportune moment for giving high appreciation to any “bloodthirsty hero” in history.
Moreover, facts and interpretations of historical evidences should be conducted with respect to the truth, and not to serve partisan political interests. Only a correct perception can contribute to the alleviation of friction, to the normalization and enhancement of relations between our two countries, Cambodia and Thailand.
Phnom Penh, 30 August 2010