We received the following account from a New Mandala reader in Bangkok. It provides a very personal perspective on the events around Dindaeng earlier today.
Around 4.19 am. I was woken up by the sound of something like gunshots but I wasn’t sure. I live near the junction between Rachavithi and Rachaprarop Roads – not far from the Dindaeng triangle. So I went out to have a look. I saw many taxi drivers taking their cars to block the roads and a number of red group protesters around. Some of them told me that the sound I heard was that of the soldiers throwing tear gas at the red protesters at the triangle. I saw two ambulances went in and not long later they came out with some people inside. The people there seemed to be very angry and when one of them shouted “‘one of us is dead, brothers”, the rest ran along shouting with anger. Someone came along with something that looked like a container of fuel and not long after I saw a fire being lit not far in front. But it didn’t look like the news of death was true. It was clarified later that the soldiers used tear gas but still people did not back off. One of the taxi drivers got off his car parked in front of me and opened up the rear, took out a baton and a piece of cloth then wrapped it around his face and then walked up to the frontline. Another taxi driver told me soldiers fired tear gas at people protesting in other parts of town too. People asked each other was there any members of the media around and got no answer. Then something happened in the front and people started to run. I did too – back to my room. More gunshot-like sound was heard again and again - just now - in fact- but I stayed inside feeling all ashamed that may be people are killing each other out there but I can’t do anything.I checked the television and got no news. There were programs on someting about the royal visit to somewhere on the Thai PBS, the public television and channel 11 has a monk preaching about how bad it is to block the roads. He said people who did this invited trouble on themselves because there might be someone too angry to control themselves and throw a bomb at them. “Even me, sometimes I thought – let’s get them. You see. Even a monk. But I can suppress that thought.” I changed the program and checked out some websites and got into a chat room of the red group. They were complaining about the media. One of them said ‘”I hope they rot in hell. They let us die and are not even reporting on it.” Outside I hear more of the gunshot-like sounds again. I hear people shouting and someone urging people to join others at Government House.Dawn now.
54 responses so far ↓
1 Cho // Apr 13, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I am not a supporter of either red or yellow sides in this struggle, however, I am concerned about the bias in media coverage I see, not just in Thai press but in international media.
There is a lot of news coming in – pictures videos and reports from bystanders. They are providing us with on the spot reporting which is really valuable. But I notice their comments and stories are deleted and unavailable very soon after they first appear. Really it is not necessary for those first hand accounts to be censored. We are capable of analysing their contribution for ourselves. The cover up of information creates suspicion and makes us less likely to trust traditional media.
For instance on this website you had a link to BBC coverage of the ASEAN Summit protest. which had a link to a viewer’s video showing blue shirted men with balaclavas and steel rods receiving instruction from someone. It was available on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7994538.stm
Now I can’t find that link anymore. It appears to have been deleted (or I can’t find where it is archived?). I would be shocked to find out the BBC deleted this video.
If anyone knows how to get back to that viewer’s video please let me know.
2 Sidh S // Apr 13, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The worrying sign is that we will not have much media coverage – at least from the main Reds protest headquarters at Government House anymore – as the Red leadership has literally banned the media:
Thairath reported “Does not guarantee media (safety) (Reds) Leadership specify, beat (the media) up wherever you meet them”
“ไม่รับประกันสื่อ แกนนำฯระบุเจอตัวที่ใดให้ตีที่นั่น” in:
http://www.thairath.co.th/online.php?section=newsthairathonline&content=132693
Similar reports from Matichon and the Nation:
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1239586747&grpid=03&catid=01
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30100398/Reporters-move-away-from-rally-site-at-Government-
Ofcourse this has been quite consistent of the Reds over the past weeks and the have extremely low tolerance for different reporting from their DTV or from the Red stage. Remember the news reporters who dared report lower numbers on the 8th and 9th April:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/14761/news-teams-under-attack
And also on the 12th when they beat up a Channel 5 photographer:
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1239548185
Making the media ‘the enemy’ does not bode well and reminds many of PMThaksin’s days as leader of the country… Apparently the Reds are not comfortable hearing about the violence they themselves committed in broad daylight???
3 Jim Taylor // Apr 13, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Cho, you should know the now well documented history of Thai print and electronic media distortion since the coup of 2006 and reasons why elite vested interests wish to protect the status quo ante. The propaganda has been intense by the anti-democratic yellow shirt movement aligned with the Democrat Party under General Prem’s orchestration. Now Thaksin has at last exposed these interests in public and the media (always claiming to be ethical) is caught between a continuation of having to report or distort. Read between the lines. It is only through electronic sites and unbiased western reporting that most folk can now actually see what is happening and the double-speak and mischief of Abhisit’s illicit fake “government”.
4 Jim Taylor // Apr 13, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Sidh S still promoting a reactionary position! Dont rely on those sources in his mailing because they skew facts. For accurate events best to see: http://thaienews.blogspot.com/- while mainly a Thai site they have English language materials too. Then readers can make up their own minds.
5 ANU alumnus // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I’ve found the idea of blocking the roads with 2 gas trucks each carrying 8 tones of fuel unbelievably insane. Once again they held the innocent residents of flat Dindaeng hostage. Is it coincidental that the chairman of Siam Gas, a company owning the truck deployed at Dindaeng, is Gen Chaisit Shinawatara? http://www.siamgas.com/Executive.php
Pictures of soldiers firing guns have been used in the red propaganda to deceive people into believing that all those bullets were fired at unarmed red shirts. In fact, they were fired at the bus that was driven with the intention of runing over the soldiers (the bus was seized by the protesters). Had the soldiers fired at the protesters, there would and should have been a lot who got killed or injured and, thus, there should have been at least some pictures of the dead/wounded bodies (the red shirts seem to be able to get hold of the pictures of most incidents). In fact, there has been only one protester reported seriously injured but is now in a safe condition at the hospital.
I know there are a few pro red shirts on here, but please be a bit more sensible.
6 Jim Taylor // Apr 13, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Aside from the predictable comments from pro-yellow student groups brainwashed by Sondhi Lim’s media, like those at the ANU, I for one wish the reds all the power of right to now at last correct the perversions of the last three years under fascist puppet-Master Prem and the artifice of the Democrat Party led by Abhisit. No more should the masses put up with this nonsense to throw Thailand back forty or fifty years just for the benefit of the few elites and their cronies. Enough of the lies and propaganda against the real democrats.
7 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 14, 2009 at 1:16 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyj-g8XI4xk
Thaksin is broadcasting how his money can buy his own type of democracy.
For whoever supports Thaksin here, you better go there and receive your 500 bahts cheque.
8 Toh // Apr 14, 2009 at 3:03 am
Looking for some point of views;
1. The comparisons on the army cooperated actions while the Yellow VS Red protesting.
2. The Yellow more aggressive than Red???
3. ASTV(Yellow) is never disturbed while DTV(Red) and Taxi Radio are closed now by Army.
4. The Democracy Party got green for illegal election. The opposite Party got panics.
……
All bias democretic or hidden dictator.
9 ANU alumnus // Apr 14, 2009 at 5:55 am
I hope you did not refer to me in your post Jim as I hate Sondhi and I don’t watch ASTV. You you incredibly sounds like red shirts in terms of your logic. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you now wears a yellow shirt.
Propaganda? Predictable? Let me be a little more predictable then. Watch the following clip. This is how the fighting broke out in Dindaeng. Tell me if this is also part of my innocent propaganda.
http://tamanxzg.exteen.com/20090413/entry-2
If anyone care to translate. I’m just too lazy.
Suggest you grow up a bit Jim.
10 Jim Taylor // Apr 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
No I was not referring specifically to ANU alumnus, but after reading your post perhaps it is time for you to graduate into the real world? Suriyasai has called for the mobs to back the army and illicit government as agent provocateurs- as if they need such a black force against an unarmed mass demonstration; pathetic. Meanwhile as in October 1976 the army will do the dirty work with the media as one voice lambasting the reds , shoot a few unarmed demonstrators and then…in a couple of days Prem will come out of hiding and save the day reinstating the Democrat Party as illegitimate heirs to the political throne all the time mouthing about democracy… (Now even the CNN shows repetitive pictures of single incidence of anger – and its reportage is atrocious: note how many times do we see the bus collision pic!!) What about the deaths? the bloodletting from “blanks”? Where are transparency, fairness and justice? People have short memories of the direct involvement of Abhisit and his elite military cronies supporting the yellows carrying weapons to heap destruction on the nation.
11 Sidh S // Apr 14, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Jim Taylor #4, I agree lets look as many sources as possible and make up your own mind. That is all I did. I will just caution that a radicalized mind will see and believe what they want to see and believe. In that scenario, the person and/or groups of people end up with ONE TRUTH regardless of the facts and evidences. Look you accused all the Thai major dailies of “skewing the facts” and now, in comment#10, even CNN. This is siege mentality. That is how we ended up with the extremes of ASTV and DTV and why Thailand’s NBT and the former ITV must be encouraged to evolve to resemble what we have here in Australia, ABC and SBS – public television that accommodates multiple, conflicting points of views, ideologies within the same, usually open, forums…
12 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 15, 2009 at 3:23 am
Quick!!
Photos of Thai soilders shooting People
http://www.pantip.com/cafe/rajdumnern/topic/P7748956/P7748956.html
Captured on film…Got you!! Thai’s government…
13 Portman // Apr 15, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Nice pictures Taro Mongkoltip #12.
Looking at news clips where the soldiers were firing their M16s I noticed thick clouds of black smoke coming from their gun muzzles like the smoke produced by black powder muzzle loading muskets. This smoke was certainly not produced by high velocity full metal jacket combat rounds which produce a thin wisp of white smoke. It could have been produced by blank cartridges or, more worringly, by what the Thai army calls “practice” ammunition which is cheap locally manufactured low velocity ammunition with lead tips not covered with a copper jacket that limits penetrative power but can still be lethal. If you fire this stuff at a firing range, you will be covered with filth afterwards. I imagine that they use the same powder in locally produced blank cartridges and suspect that most of the rounds fired where blanks, since there were no signs of dead bodies or pock marked trees and buildings, as there were in 1992. Some of the soldiers, however, perhaps NCOs, carried bandoliers filled with what were clearly full metal jacket copper clad high velocity rounds. So they were certainly ready to use lethal force, if necessary.
14 Graham Roberts // Apr 19, 2009 at 8:22 pm
There are some excellent photos and editorial at this site that I have not seen published elsewhere http://photojourn.wordpress.com/
In particular there is a supposed eye witness account by a monk of seeing a monk and other people shot at Din Daeng http://photojourn.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/monk-i-saw-thai-army-shoot-monk-and-people-at-din-daeng/
In Mr Le Fevre’s photos he shows Thai army troops taking aim at protesters and points out that those aiming at the protesters have extra equipment – a bag around their waist – that the other soldiers don’t have.
He also wrote an interesting analysis article after the Pattaya riots http://photojourn.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/thailand-prime-minister-dead-man-walking-as-asean-leaders-flee-pattaya/
15 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm
They have found Thaksin a new career. He’s now a singer/rapper. The music starts at 0:40. Please watch and comment it there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLW1G1vhxWM
16 David Brown // Apr 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm
note that the photoblog at
http://photojourn.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/monk-i-saw-thai-army-shoot-monk-and-people-at-din-daeng/
now contains link to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_vjXQntWeQ
this video was taken at Din Daeng about 6am, before dawn, 13 April 09 just after the soldiers advanced on the protesters, it includes footage of soldiers loading apparently dead(?) and wounded into 3 army medical minibusses…
I suspect these are the events eyewitnessed by the monk
it would be nice to link this to where the minibusses took the people/bodies, for example correlating with the time the injured arrived at hospital(s) or whether they were taken into the army camp or the crocodile farm in time for morning breakfast
17 NoName // Apr 20, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Dear Sidh S, as a person who was at the same place with those media (the press area at bakc state over 12 April night)! I could say there was no such a call-off to hunt the media like that from the Red leader. If yes, why a lot of international media persons can walk around the scence “UNTOUCH”. Thairath report just implied a part of story since there were a lot of the media (both thai and international) there captured the scenes but only things favoured the government were reported on both TV and newspaper. Yes, some people (not everyone) attained the red-protest got angry since they recognized only haft-truth reported on the media to help painting the picture of how violent the red could be. There was no report to coverage any cause of how the red protesters got into that angry!! But only the action when the violent act happened. The government have total power to control the media this round with no such a call-out like attact-the-media or control-the-press shouted out of their mounth!
For Thairath’s report, did they tell you “WHICH LEADER” announced that? The phase you quoted is only “THEIR HEAD LINE”. So, are you telling me that only the head line can tell you a full story without any kind of distortion? Thai media had such a history that they put an interesting, emoitonal headline to catch an eye but when you read the inside story… they were different!
Please do answer yourself why people attended the protest got so angry and/or depress with the media? By well cooperating with the government to present only one-side-story is such a good thing any media and journalists could do!! And answer yourself how thai media reacted when the yellow PAD protest happened last year!!
18 Sidh S // Apr 22, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Dear NoName, as you are in the events, I can only take your word for it. Please also read Nick Nostitz’s excellent report. I will characterize him as a “Cool-headed foreign Red” who gives the Red cause a good name. ‘Anger’ is no excuse to attack unfriendly media – and as Nick noted, when you are too angry or too radical, you end up attacking Thai media who sympathizes with your course as well. It is self-defeating. On the other hand, the unfortunate actions of the “Hot-headed Reds” that was very well documented by the media and various private sources (Red, Yellow, Neutrals) such as Nick’s, gives both the Reds and the country a bad name and must be condemned along with the Yellow’s takeover of the airports. And he specifically blames the Red Leadership at the end – and they clearly had a hand in provoking anger and radicalizing the crowd for the ensuing violence.
We also have to remember that the government and private medias freely reported and disseminated the contents of the PMThaksin’s phone-in and Red leadership’s speeches in the days and weeks prior while a lot of what was said/accusations are unsubstantiated (a ‘he said, she said’ scenario) – that is until the Reds crossed the line at Pattaya and Bangkok. I would suspect those turn of events may also mark the thinning of the Red crowd, from the peak of 100,000+ on the 8th-9th to the a couple of thousand reported on 14th. I can safely say that the majority of the Reds, though angry and felt unfairly treated, did not desire violence…
Strangely its the Red leadership, from PMThaksin that is peddling a huge body count to foreign and local media alike – why? I can safely say that, from evidences and circumstances, it is what they desired.
19 Dickie Simpkins // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Sidh S,
I find your note at the bottom interesting… why is it they are peddling such a high body count? Where are the missing people?
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Regarding the back and forth bickering on how the violence at Din Daeng started, I would like to send you to this link (i also added this link in another threat, but this one is more topical)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Ph-Fn_IFs
and make your own conclusions.
20 David Brown // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:27 am
the government accuse the redshirts….
the burden of proof is on the accuser……
and the burden of hiding the evidence is on the military…
hmmm what does the video mean?
what was all the noise, sounded like many guns firing,
who was shooting? where was it aimed?
how many were killed? where are the bodies?
21 maverick263 // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:05 am
Sidh S,
thx 4 #18. u say:
“Strangely its the Red leadership, from PMThaksin that is peddling a huge body count to foreign and local media alike – why? I can safely say that, from evidences and circumstances, it is what they desired.”
1) it’s not strange, it’s simple: enticement of mass/mob-violence to enforce bloody “state” “response”.
1a) “state response”, imho, was appropriate. Abhisit gave “UDD” a lot of freedom to “exercise democratic rights” — but maybe that never was intention of some of “managers of ‘ppl revolution’”. [note: "UDD" _at that time_, just 10days ago, was mostly perceived as "_one_ entity". i don't follow that assumption]
1b1) u cannot lose if u play game this way. either (“bad bad, terrible”) “state” appears to be weak (worse, if it actually _is_)— then you just burn it down. a “failed state”. neither parliament, nor mp’s, nor courts, neither army nor police, nor media are able & willing to perform. deep corruption @ heart of society. have a look in mirror, ppl of thailand…
1b2) or “state” (weak or not) executes its right for self-defence. protect life liberty property of “its” citizens — & while doing so…, kills 1, 2, 100, 300 ppl. the bloodier the mess, the higher the scores on global media-impact.
1c) u cannot lose if u play game this way. as long as u’re far away…
*…
2) since apr15 we can observe a massive international “opinion shaping” operation… _NOT_ for interests of (so-called) “UDD” “supporters” or claims, no way — but specifically aimed at:
2a) complete denial of _any_ causal connection between “UDD” (in Thaksin/Jakrapob terminology; “THE people”), Jatuporn, Jakrapob, Thaksin &
2a1) violent events in pattaya
2a2) fierce agitation for a “ppl revolution” etc
2a2) declaration of SoE in bkk
2a3) mob violence
all that never happened ,) well, sorry, yes, maybe some of it happened — but it all was completely different ,)
-> 2b) actually, intent is to show “democracy loving ppl”, “people with bare hands”, were “killed” by an “evil government” without any “legitimation”, controlled by “puppet masters” “in highest places”. yes, sounds like mtv, cnn, bbc, youtube…; & does it _not_ sound like what ppl in critical blog-land “happily” indulge in to perceive? uiiih, does it sounds “real”?
2b1) which “cause” is “real”? thaksin/jakrapob go for escalation & destabilization — as they cannot lose doing it. in general terms, today, we’d call that “terrorism” — but, strangely, “opinion” in “enlightened circles” is… they’re doing that… for what? a “greater good”?
there’s a capitalization on global mind/mood that established systems of governance have failed.
2b1A) anyhow, if thaksin/jakrapob indeed & sincerely wd speak “for (whomever)”, we shd observe a call for empowerment for the moderate, “political” “UDD” — right? the ones that “play by the rules” & are hold in custody. is that the case? do either thaksin or jakrapob even mention their names?
-> 2c) we observe a denial of causation. just another aspect of corruption.
2c1) corruption. of minds/hearts. as usual
*…
my 0,02bht. thx 4 ur time.
22 Sidh S // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Dickie Simpkins #19, maverick263 #21 seem to provide a good answer to that question.
The high body count was part of the premeditated plan to paint to the international media that the Democrat government colluded with the military in ’suppressing with extreme violent unarmed protestors fighting for democracy resulting in truckloads of deaths’. It is ruthless Machiavellianism. Apparently it backfired badly as the foriegn media have begun to really see PMThaksin for what he is – a lying, deceitful hypocrit – and foreign governments understanding the Thai situation better (my sympathies for the Nicaraguans as he will be conducting many questionable business and political deals as their ambassadorial representative).
Frankly I initially thought that it was the end of PMAbhisit’s tenure who was made to look like a global joke after ‘failing’ to provide adequate protection for international leaders at ASEAN summit (and at a logistically very defensible hotel perged on a cliff!). This combined with the fact that his own personal security was breached twice points to the fact that the security forces were not behind him at all, and with Mr.Newin looking like a Trojan Horse, a house dissolution looked the most likely option.
I’m still not sure what turned it around. Many commentators said that PMAbhisit and Suthep circumvented both the army and police chiefs (whom the PAD always considered untrustworthy) but even that is unclear. When the army came out initially after the declaration of SOE, even they seemed directionless. It seemed like suddenly, from thin air, there appeared clear plan of action backed by law and unprecedented professionalism at the 11th hour!
I tend to also agree with what you say in a previous post that it partially came down to ‘accountability’ – and here are top-level political masters openly willing to take responsibility if things take a bad turn as a direct result of plan implementation. This was very different from Oct 7th police surprise crackdown of PAD where PMSomchai and PMChavalit refused to take responsibility and did the bad Thai Phuyai thing of letting the police commanders shoulder the blame (and they did not either – if anyone gets punished it will be the foot soldier). Yes, there are clearly commendable precedents set here – but it will be a long time before it becomes standard practice for Thai politicians.
23 Peter Marshall // Apr 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I was at the Urapong (Rama VI – Phetburi Road) intersection on Monday 13 April and spoke to two different groups of red shirt protesters. They were all very emotional and over-wrought from the events of the night before – earlier that morning – at Din Daeng.
They all said – and were in common agreement – that six protesters had been killed by the army there. (This was told to me around 1.00 PM) The bodies were removed by the army. They wanted people to know about this. They were despairing that the army could actually open fire on unarmed protesters – their comrades.
I believed their testimonies and find it incredulous to know that the government and army had the temerity to report that there were no fatalities from the events that occurred at Din Daeng that fateful night.
The Thai newspapers (including the English language press) and television were obviously under the absolute control of the government when it came to reporting the actual events that night.
24 David Brown // Apr 27, 2009 at 8:52 pm
the Abhisit government has been remarkably swift in organising identification and arrests of redshirt leaders and some talk about those alleged to have been involved in attacks in Pattaya, the Interior Ministry and Lopburi
but, why has there apparently been no effort to identify and arrest those alleged to have been involved in the murders at Nang Lerng and the gas tanker scare at Din Daeng?
surely there were many witnesses to both events..
is it because the government knows that redshirts were not involved in those incidents?
now we discover the government strategy is to label the redshirts as “nearly” terrorists… is this what the military operations planners identified as the objective?
25 David Brown // Apr 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Peter Marshall…
thanks for your confirmation of the military shooting and disposal of bodies
I suppose witnesses are so scared of the army, or know they will be ridiculed as “redshirts”, sadly, it will be years before we will hear anyone admit that these statements are true ….
another win to Prem and the military masters of Thailand…
26 Sidh S // Apr 27, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Peter Marshall #23: “The Thai newspapers (including the English language press) and television were obviously under the absolute control of the government when it came to reporting the actual events that night.”
Is that even possible!!!???
David Brown #26, Peter Marshall did not “confirm” anything.
“I suppose witnesses are so scared of the army, or know they will be ridiculed as “redshirts”, sadly, it will be years before we will hear anyone admit that these statements are true …”
I don’t think so, Pheu Thai MPs had heaps of witnesses and footages, some played in parliament last week. If they had anything better (bloodier), PMThaksin will be peddling it on CNN and BBC…
That said, I agree that transparent assessments/investigations must be held – like the ones after G20 riots in London – on the crowd control measures taken by the security forces. What works must be standardized for future practices and what has been excessive and must be prosecuted. I hope the Oct7th 2008 police crackdown on PAD be the last amateurish one in the country.
27 Dickie Simpkins // Apr 28, 2009 at 3:09 am
Peter and David,
Obviously neither of you have seen anything. You simply go on ‘hearsay’ and state “I believe what I heard”.
That is not “confirmation” of anything.
28 Portman // Apr 28, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Sidh S #22
“The high body count was part of the premeditated plan to paint to the international media that the Democrat government colluded with the military in ’suppressing with extreme violent unarmed protestors fighting for democracy resulting in truckloads of deaths’. ”
Not many on NM like to acknowledge the obvious but, indeed, it seems most probable that Thaksin and some (but not all) other red shirt leaders were desperately hoping to provoke the military to unleash a massacre on the red shirt demonstrators. Considering the past record of the military in riot control and their poor discipline and training, it should have been a very safe bet that this would happen, once the red shirts had aborted the Pattaya conference, attacked Abhisit’s car at the Interior Ministry and started setting fire to buses and threatening to blow up gas tankers. In fact, it is nothing short of miraculous that it didn’t happen. The fact it didn’t and they lost their bet is the sort of low probability outcome with disastrous results that has unseated many a hedge fund manager in recent years. Everything was clearly prepared to trumpet the massacre to the foreign media and petition the king. Thaksin and the red shirt leaders were so dumbfounded and confused by the lack of massacre that they proceeded with the media interviews and the petition to the king anyway in the vain hope that what they were reporting might actually turn out to be true and they could move into position for the final push, whatever form that was supposed to take.
Since there is still some stake money left and the potential return on a winning bet that doesn’t run up against the wrong end of another fat tailed probability distribution curve is so large, we will have to wait and see what the next wager will be.
29 Sidh S // Apr 29, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“In fact, it is nothing short of miraculous that it didn’t happen.” I agree Portman#28 – I was resigned to an all out civil war in the streets of Bangkok (a scenario, which you stated would have forced HMK’s hand to intervene in accordance to PMThaksin’s well laid out script). Foreign commentators may laugh at me when I say that there must be some “magic” in all this (and I heard that PMThaksin has consulted astrologers for the dates to carry out this urban offensive – and that it coincided with a time of weakness of Bangkok’s “Duang Muang”).
And as you said, he will inevitably stir more trouble ahead. I suspect it will be close to the date the 70 billion baht assets seizure case will be decided. That is, essentially, PMThaksin’s price for Thai Democracy that he has held hostage.
30 Portman // Apr 29, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Yes, Sidh, the 76 billion baht is a clearly key issue. Thaksin quite possibly has another US$1 billion or so squirrelled away offshore which should be more than enough to finance revolutionary activities for some time (the Songkran attacks on Pattaya and Bangkok probably only cost him under US$30 million as they were cut short and probably didn’t use up the entire budget). However, it is the 76 billion that is visible to red shirt and Pheua Thai leaders, who might lose heart if it is gone. They wouldn’t know how much is offshore and how much of that Thaksin would be willing to stake them, if the 76 billion is irretrievably gone, whereas the 76 billion is good collateral for all kinds of promises while it is still there shining at the end of the rainbow. We can expect to see some desperate acts in the near future.
On a positive note, if the Supreme Court rules definitively against him over the 76 billion, it should be able to sequester the money to the Treasury Department, so that it can be utilised, unlike Thanom’s frozen assets that were argued over in the courts for 30 years. Given the state of the economy, the money would come in handy to reduce foreign borrowings to finance fiscal stimulus. Since Thaksin has criticized the government over its plan to borrow from abroad, they would no doubt be happy to heed his advice and put this domestic source of funding to good use instead, or perhaps it could be distributed direct to villages as an edible benefit of democracy under constitutional monarchy.
31 Sidh S // May 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“…whereas the 76 billion is good collateral for all kinds of promises while it is still there shining at the end of the rainbow”
Clearly a sad state of Pheu Thai Party, ‘MP-employees’ of PMThaksin. I’ve read many will be switching colors, from Red to Blue, and apply for jobs with a rising group of capitalist-patron in the form of PhumjaiThai party.
For me, politicians selling their votes are far more damaging than people selling their votes – and it will be a major problem for many years to come. The present constitution comes down very hard on the latter case by punishing the whole party for an executive caught in any form of ‘buying’ votes (well, at least the ’sellers’ are not punished?) – while being more lenient on the former, allowing the ‘free vote’ (I am not sure if it is a fair interpretation?).
And thanks, Portman, for pointing out a possible positive on the 76 billion baht saga. It could indeed be a ‘blessing in disguise’ considering the GFC…
32 David Brown // May 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Sidh… its really nice to see you and Portman having your own love-in
meanwhile, back in the real world…
the Thai banks, I suspect especially the royal owned SCB, are currently “enjoying” Thaksins money as part of their liquid assets… so its already doing good for Thailand
I agree that buying politicians loyalty is bad for Thai politics and I draw your attention to the evidence that governments that have a strong electoral mandate have little need to use such tactics to attract good MPs on their side … it is governments with low electoral support that need to indulge in such skullduggery and look with envy on those with an electoral majority
governments with low support in the community also need to maintain their relationship with the military to stay in power…. I notice the news of the second phase of the “sufficient communities project” which presumably is a bribe to the military to keep trying their tactics of intimidation that failed in the leadup to the 2007 election
meanwhile, please refrain from filling our inboxes with too much drivel about how wonderful the world would be if the rich could keep the poor under their feet
33 Sidh S // May 1, 2009 at 6:17 pm
David Brown#32, you are clearly getting emotional here.
“meanwhile, please refrain from filling our inboxes with too much drivel about how wonderful the world would be if the rich could keep the poor under their feet”
Have I ever said that??? On the contrary, I explicitly and constantly condemn such manipulations of the poor. You can search back into my 1-2 years worth of comments here.
Would I get an apology from you?
34 Regular Reader // May 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Sidh S, you asked David Brown:
“Would I get an apology from you?”(Post#33)
I think we all know looking back through Mr.Brown’s posts, he is not capable, ever, of an apology.
Many of us have just given up on this, “blinkered being”.
His ignorance and arrogance, are equally amazing.
35 David Brown // May 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm
apology?
Thaksin was and is the choice of the poor….
by swallowing and regurgitating the incredible self-serving rubbish put forward by Sondhi Lim and his people you are dismissing and degrading the judgement of the poor in favour of snide and unsubstantiated allegations about their chosen leader …
unsubstantiated allegations in law and in fact as far as I can discover, driven by fear and greed, fear that Thaksin is strong enough to overthrow rule by Prem and the military
so, please apologise to me and the majority of Thai people
36 Portman // May 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
David Brown #32
“meanwhile, please refrain from filling our inboxes with too much drivel about how wonderful the world would be if the rich could keep the poor under their feet”
I have the perfect solution for you. Kindly see below:
To block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=…...
37 Portman // May 2, 2009 at 1:56 am
Yes, buying politicians’ loyalty is bad for Thai politics. Where did Thai Rak Thai (and its successors) come from so quickly? Wasn’t it an instant party cut and pasted from several different old style money grubbing parties purchased by Thaksin?
Weren’t many of them more than happy to ally with the military when they saw it as financially rewarding? I seem to recall Samak, as a minister designate in the Suchinda cabinet, shouting down foreign reporters who disagreed with his justification of why the troops had found it necessary to shoot down fleeing unarmed protestors in 1992. Wasn’t Thaksin himself more than happy to do business with the NPKC, not to mention his cozy business deals with the Burmese junta?
38 Regular Reader // May 2, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Thaksin was and is the choice of the poor….”#35
David Brown, how do you know this ?
I doubt you can use election result to justify such a statement.
When people vote,they are not asked about their “status” in society. I would guess (as I have no proof) that although certain stratas of Thai society might/will favour certain candidates, not every voter in that particular grouping, will vote for the same candidate – that’s democracy.
I would also like to know, by what criteria, do you clasify people as “poor”?
You talk about “unsubstantiated” allegations.
I would say to you sir , you make “unsubstaniated” comments.
39 David Brown // May 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree I use the term poor loosely…
it would be more accurate to say that the Thaksin led government was the democratic choice of the Thai people overall, including representatives of all classes and groups in the Thai population
disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall
please if you dont like Thaksin, specify that its your personal opinion and if you really want to claim some broader support, the most you represent is a minority of the Thai people
In case you want to claim that Thaksin and the redshirts popularity might be declining, I wonder if the military’s “sufficiency communities” project was active in Roi Et where the Peua Thai vote increased by 50% over that received in the election of 2007?
40 Portman // May 2, 2009 at 6:03 pm
David Brown #37
We are stuck in a circular argument here whereby foreign Thaksin fans say that, on the one hand, we must respect Thaksin’s right to rule purely using Western liberal democratic standards (and ignoring the fact that his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office, because that is all considered acceptable or even laudable by most Thais and er I forgot – because there are no receipts.
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”
I think that an overwhelming majority of Thai people would support the king wholeheartedly, if ever there were such a referendum. Does that mean that disparaging the king and his achievements, as the majority of posters on New Mandala are so happy to do, is also tantamount to disparaging the Thai people overall?
41 Regular Reader // May 3, 2009 at 12:13 am
“I agree I use the term poor loosely”… David Brown Post#39
It would have been sufficient to just add a word:
“Thaksin was and is the ‘overwhelming’ choice of the poor….”
But you have confused me (and perhaps many others) by saying :
“the Thaksin led government was the democratic choice of the Thai people overall, including representatives of all classes and groups in the Thai population………….”
Now you seem to be confusing the issue, even more, by including others, you didn’t think of before.
Even then, you are once again,”loose” with your words:
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall.”
Really ?
What about people in “all” these group (including many in the UDD/Red Shirts movement), who didn’t /don’t support him ?
Won’t most of these Thai people feel slighted by such a statement?
Or, do you just “write them off”, because they were/are seemingly outnumbered ?
Please think through what you want to say, rather than mouth off emotional statements and catch phrases.
Then, more people might take notice of what you want to say – rather than criticize you.
I would prefer to criticize the post – not the poster – so would many others.
42 David Brown // May 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Regular Reader
thanks for your general agreement and constructive attempts to clear up my use of language.. .. mmm, should I have said “majority” rather than “overall”?
I did say representatives of other classes and groups, meaning less than a majority of some of the groups
so, will you all accept that Sidh, Portman disparage the majority of Thai people when they choose emotive, slighting terms to describe Thaksin? I dont mind if they make specific allegations about Thaksin but object to drawing broad disparaging conclusions in a way that seems to assume agreement by the majority of Thai people
meanwhile, Portman raises some good points:
“his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office”
firstly, I agree that Thai style vote buying is (as far as possible) not permitted in the West… I think its important to note that as far as I know the law appears to be applied fairly and only those directly guilty are penalised. The hysterical, disproportionate and selectively applied penalties of Thai law are not a feature of any other countries political process to my knowledge. If the purpose of the Thai laws was really to assist in the democratic process their scope and misapplication defeats the purpose.
Sadly, Thaksin’s appalling human rights record seems almost normal in Thailand. Not just the events but the same or relatred people are involved. The primary reason is that the military are not under civilian control and are unable, unwilling and secretly encourage their rogue elements. The Border Patrol Police are a part of the military and have a particularly sordid history. I believe Thaksin was trying and failed to bring the military under control of his civilian government. Noone else is even trying!
In the West, corruption is handled according to the law as it applies at the time of alleged offences. If a politician does not break the law but people do not like something he/she does then the people can take personal revenge through voting at the next election. They can also agitate to change the law which will not apply to that politician but can ensure the same thing does not happen again.
I note that there are many allegations against Thaksin but, like most well-organised people he has had good legal advice along the way so no allegations are proven. I discouint the conflict of interest case because of the obvious perversion of the judicial process in contradicting past judgements on the status of the FIDF by the Supreme Court to gain the conviction.
43 David Brown // May 3, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Portman,
you have raised an interesting issue…
“I think that an overwhelming majority of Thai people would support the king wholeheartedly, if ever there were such a referendum. Does that mean that disparaging the king and his achievements, as the majority of posters on New Mandala are so happy to do, is also tantamount to disparaging the Thai people overall?”
I think your first sentence would likely be true because you specify the King rather than royalty or the monarchy.
There are two aspects to your second sentence. As to the first, I think we do need to be careful when being critical of the King to be very specific and recognise that many Thais may either not be aware of the details of some historical events and even if they are they would prefer that the King be allowed to fade gracefully.
The second aspect is the broader question of the royal family/monarchy that perhaps you were careful to avoid. I think most New Mandala commenters would be thinking of this broader question. I suggest that the results of a referendum on the royalty/monarchy in Thailand would depend on timing. Basically Thai people have long had a poor opinion of the Prince and the reputation of the Queen has declined steeply with many privately known stories now emerging in public, her overt support for the PAD and now stories regarding her military supporters.
The reputation of the monarchy continues to be held up by Princess Sirindorn and some lesser diligent royals.
There has been no such referendum, the privy council and the military have done their best to support the image of the monarchy but I think most Thais are now recognising that the combination represents repression of the people and stifling of political development.
hmmmm I am making broad rather than specific allegation but I will be happy if you wish to discuss specifics.
44 Portman // May 3, 2009 at 7:44 pm
David Brown #43
You raise some fair points. I suspect that a referendum on the broader royal family/monarchy would also receive overwhelming support today, as the institution is likely to be closely linked in people’s minds with the reigning monarch. But, if there were a fair means of guaging public opinion on individual members of the royal family, they might not all fare equally well and there might some outlying scores in either direction.
Actually, I am in favour of public discussion of the monarchy and feel that constructive criticism would help the royal family prepare for transition and succession, as it helps the British royals keep abreast of public perception of their role, whereas the current application of LM laws as a political tool mainly damage the institution. I am also in favour of any party or movement that prioritises radical reform and improvement of education, particularly upcountry where it is worst (and healthcare as a second priority). I believe, perhaps somewhat naively, that better education and access to information is the key to Thailand’s future social, political and economic development, even though some have unkindly suggested in NM that better education hasn’t helped city dwellers make the “right” choices in their opinion. Better educated Thais will eventually have a more mature view of the world in which there will be less room for semi divine figures on either side of the red/yellow divide or for that matter for corrupt politicians, politically active soldiers, or gangster policemen.
In my experience, poorly educated rural people appreciate highly the value of the education they never had and are always quick to seize on educational opportunities for their children. Thaksin played around the edges of education with his lottery funded scheme, a good start even though poorly thought out and implemented, and Abhisit and the Democrats have for a long time talked about prioritising education. Let’s see if any one can deliver. It is a tough call, particularly in these difficult economic times, because the percentage budget allocation to education (and healthcare) is pitiful compared to developed countries and changing this will require a major shift in fiscal thinking and the willingness to cut less important budgetary areas as well as raise the total tax rate. But until this nettle is grasped I believe that Thailand’s social, political and economic development will continue to stagnate and Thailand will remain uncompetitive in a world where its cheap labour advantage was surpassed in the early 90s.
45 David Brown // May 3, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Portman #44
and I agree that education for all is very important
education and health are the highest priority, all other issues flow from these… and defence is very low in my list of priorities… the defence budget should be cannibalised in favour of education and health services … Cuba and the South American countries emerging from elite domination, correctly in my view, are implementing free universal education and health care
but I believe the linkage between democracy and education, should be democracy first, because that is the basis for strong emphasis on education and fair distribution to all levels of society
people do not need education to understand whether they are oppressed or not! they do not need education to judge people’s intentions for good or ill!
claims that uneducated people need education to be able to vote is yet another excuse not a reason for delaying implementation of democracy!
46 Sidh S // May 4, 2009 at 7:10 pm
David Brown, I merely asked for apology as you accused me of saying things I never said (and there are plenty of ‘evidences’ that you like to ask for in my NM posts). You countered that with a demand that I apologize to you and the “majority” of Thais as “disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”. I suppose I won’t get an apology yet it makes me understand where you are coming from.
You make good points when not emotional (e.g. your discussions with Portman above) – but when anyone discusses the dark-side of your superhero, PMThaksin you feel deeply and personally “disparaged”. And you have proved to be a consistently loyal disciple of the Thaksin cult – and the cult leader can ‘do no wrong’ (interestingly NM has a parallel discussion on magic in Thai politics as you are obviously under some kind of spell!).
At the end of the day, Thailand is quite a free society and not as “repressive” as many in NM would like to paint it to me. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine. He can be the ‘Thai Nelson Mandela’ for you, but for me he’s the ‘Thai Ferdinand Marcos’. Let’s just happily continue the tussle…
47 David Brown // May 5, 2009 at 12:33 am
Dickie Simkins #26
I agree I was far away from events on the 13th…. but I have seen the video of soldiers loading (unconscious/dead?) bodies and two handcuffed redshirts into two minivans in the early hours of the 13th morning
this seems to be corroborated (not proven) by witnesses reported by Peter
I would really like to know if anyone has traced the bodies and where they were taken, who they are and if their families have been informed
you may express an opinion that we might be telling untruths or whatever but how do you know whether we are or not?
are you at all curious to know what really happened?
48 David Brown // May 5, 2009 at 1:05 am
Sidh S #46
I apologise,
it is true that I have not seen you suggest “how wonderful the world would be if the rich could keep the poor under their feet”
meanwhile….
‘Thai Nelson Mandela’ for you, but for me he’s the ‘Thai Ferdinand Marcos’
makes me pause to consider my attitude to Thaksin…
my impression is that Nelson Mandela performed miracles in replacing the “new politics” style skewed electoral system which maintained the Boers in control with fully enfranchised elections that resulted in majority democratic rule. but his governments have maintained essentially the same class divide and failed to significantly upgrade the quality of life of the majority.
whereas, Thaksin came to power after the good work of others in framing the 1997 constitution and the Chuan government which seemed on a good track but fell over, probably unfairly. Thaksin did good work on upgrading the country and the people.
Thaksin continued to mastermind his business activities using his family while he also ran the country. He and his family had good legal advice and I believe they did not knowingly break any laws.
Sondhi Lim, is a businessman and knows how the rich behave in Thailand.
He found it easy to convince ordinary Thais that are not in business that the way Thai business people behave, even if within the law, is unsavoury. Envy, greed are emotions easily raised when large sums of money are involved.
Sondhi Lim just exposed some of these practices and used Thaksin as his example, the rest is history….
49 Vichai N // May 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm
To David Brown (#47),
I have seen the video(s) too, I agree they are disturbing, but I also agree too that not conclusive.
Throughout all this confusing interpretation events of the closing violent moments of the Red Shirts protests, where are their leaders? Were these leaders at the scenewhere the shootings (by the army) of the Red Shirts occurred, or, have these so called leaders simply vanish, conveniently I might add? Or such leaders were at the scene, knew what exactly happened, but instead encouraged dangerous lies to spread for their own end?
Another point for David Brown to digest: If we presume the Red Shirts to be adequately organized, then we must also presume that the Red Shirts would keep a list of their most ardent die-hard followers – - – exactly those followers who would challenge the army in the heat of protests and ‘lay their lives’ in defense of democracy or Thaksin or whatever, right?
Surely by this time the Red Shirts could accurately report their missing . . . their names and ID numbers. But so far the only Red Shirts missing are (1) Thaksin, the Beloved Leader who challenge the army to shoot him while in hiding at Dubai or Nicaragua or hell knows where and (2) Jakrapob, Thailand’s incoherent spokesman, who at this time promises more violence while he conveniently hides somewhere in Dubai or Nicaragua or hell knows where.
50 Vichai N // May 5, 2009 at 12:39 pm
correction: I meant – “Jakrapob, Thaksin’s (not Thailand’s) incoherent spokesman . . .”
51 David Brown // May 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Vichai #49
hi Vichai… I agree the video is not conclusive… just intriguing and would seem to need an explanation… have you seen/heard any explanation?… other than the statement from one (unnamed?) redshirt that he woke up in a truck of bodies apparently on the way to Lopburi and managed to escape
The redshirt main leaders were at the main, peaceful rally around Government House. In the morning, after hearing of the events at Din Daeng the leaders asked the protesters to leave for home and offered themselves to the police.
I understand that the groups at the Ministry of the Interior and the road blockages were organised by spontaneous, ad hoc groups which were not “adequately organised”, the leaders at the main rally asked them to be peaceful, but they seemed to have no particular control over the activities and did not ask the protesters at the main rally to go out.
I attended some redshirt rallies and neither I nor any around us were approached or identified.
I think the red and yellow groups are quite different in their organisation and support base. The reds seem to be grouping around leaders of their own volition with decentralised local activist leaders. The yellows are highly organised, with logistic support from the army and strict control under a hierarchy of leadership. Many yellow shirts carried ID badges.
52 Dickie Simpkins // May 5, 2009 at 5:45 pm
David Brown #51.
Yes, the Yellows and their leadership is a lot more centralized. The Reds had a leader who called for a ‘revolution’ and that he would be back on the streets to lead it; then appeared on the international media saying he said no such thing, that he offered only ‘moral’ support, and has no intention for any violence whatsoever…. then shifted topics to bodies being hurled into trucks…. wasn’t he supposed to come back to lead them after hearing about the bodies?
Also, part of the ‘ad hoc’ Reds running rampant was that their leadership in front of government house did not send them a message saying it “is not ok”. That would be an important message to send…. “to our reds who have taken victory monument…. thank you for the symbol, you have done us proud… but our brothers and sisters need to go hospital, they need to work, we are not like the PAD, please come back to government house.” type message would have worked… did they do it? No. In fact, they set up a stage, brought a few screens and set up a vdo link to the main stage.
If the Red leadership did not want to encourage that sort of rogue and vigilant behavior in their ranks, they sure had a weird way of showing it.
That apart David, I want to get into something else here, something very relevant that I haven’t heard Somchai Wongsawat deny yet.
On the morning prior to the PAD leaving the airports and government house, Chamlong Srimuang sent a message to the tv pool stating that he had ‘come to an agreement with the Somchai government that no charges would be pressed against the PAD nor its leaders.’
Does a lack of denial on Somchai’s part mean this is true? What about the then Interior Minister… was he in on the deal?
53 Sidh S // May 6, 2009 at 12:07 am
David Brown #48, apologies accepted. And, again, you have raised interesting, quite even-handed, observations in #48. Being Thai, I’m sure you are very familiar with the general Thai attitude to the law – we rarely respect the ’spirit of the law’ but love to look for loopholes. Only the ’stupid’ follow the letter of the law so I’ve heard. Just take driving alone – it’s normal to run red lights, make illegal u-turns, use bus lanes (except during the few days of the month when you are ‘fined’ by the police for local road rules you never knew existed). As you say, the higher you are in the hierarchy the more ‘untouchable’ you are either due to connections, money or top legal advice (well, here we are not that much different from any societies and you often hear from the States that you get a slap on the wrist for white-collar crimes causing millions of dollars in damage, but can get jailed for stealing items from the local grocery worth a few dollars).
In Thailand, there have been gradual, incremental improvements with the convictions of very powerful godfathers such as KamnanPoh and Vatana Asavaheme (who just lost his final appeal last week – and was recently spotted in Melbourne by a friend) – and even, you’ll disagree here, KYPotjaman, her brother and PMThaksin. MajGenSanan Krajornprasat was the first high profile political case – as he was the most powerful politician at that time, the manager and kingmaker of the Democrat government under PMChuan…
It is these developments and precedents which are promising for Thai society in the long term – especially if they lead to a more robust rule of law culture at all levels. This is a very big challenge as they are hard habits to break on a personal level and the law enforcers (the police) as an institution still leaves much to be desired.
54 David Brown // May 6, 2009 at 1:00 am
Dickie #52
the lack of denial does not need to mean anything
lots of things are said and reported in papers… did Chamlong actually speak with anyone about anything? if noone commented then maybe because they knew nothing about it… maybe he was hoping it would come true if he told the press….
Interesting that Chamlong seemed to think there would be grounds for charges
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.