New Mandala

73 responses so far ↓

• 1 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  This is generally a very good article indeed, except for one paragraph dealing with the discussion on the monarchy at the ICTS, where Andrew and Nick write in part:

  It would be academic narcissism to suggest that the conference was an important turning point in Thai public life, but it did provide some support and encouragement for those in Thailand who are working towards a more mature public discussion of royal power.

  I wouldn’t regard your take on the Conference discussion as ‘academic narcissim’. But frankly where’s evidence of it ‘provid[ing]…support and encouragement for those in Thailand who are working towards a more mature public discussion of royal power’? I think I can, without narcissim either, regard myself as one of ‘those’ you mention here. And without wishing to be un-grateful, I simply don’t feel any impact of the Conference discussion, and from where I am, I can’t see it having any noticeable impact on anyone either. (Perhaps, Somchai of Chianmai U or Pravit of The Nation who took part in the Conference might have acted a bit differently after the Conference? But not that much in my view.) This is just a realistic assessment.

  (11.50, 14 April 2009, at the moment the Red Shirts rally ending, their leaders surrendering to the surrounding police and soldiers)

• 2 student // Apr 14, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  I feel very sad for the Thai royalty after reading your article.

  However, when I read your article, I feel as if you are portraying Thaksin as an innocent victim. I feel that your article should also mention other reasons that Thai people did not want to accept Thaksin’s rule, such as his enormous corruptions.

  It is true that the royalty were used for main political puppet for reasons to getting rid of Thaksin’s government, but since this article is also related to politics, I think you should also point out that Thaksin does more than just his modernized “CEO-style leadership…..”. His leaderships were not accepted by the Thais because they see that it is increasingly more similar to Indonesia’s PM Suharto’s style of family-owned economies, as well as corruption in the government. The Thais have been sick but tolerant of corruption in the government for really long time, but none has been able to mobilize this much economy and power in the country.

  For this and also other reasons, that the Thais start to feel insecure for their royal institution’s future. Hence, the use of royal puppet.

  Feel free to correct me in appropriate manner.

• 3 hclau // Apr 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  Sorry Student,

  Massive corruption did you say? Thai people did not want? For whom do you speak. If you truly speak for the Thais, Please explain the election results? Please do not go on about the vote buying etc. etc.. The arguement for this accusation defies logic.

  Reasons –

  1. Election commision appointed by Military Junta
  2. Election supervision – by Military Junta
  3. Judiatiary – By Military Junta
  4. Press (snigger) – By Military Junta

  If the PPP could still have ducked under all that and bought votes, then you military is terribly incompetent.

  BTW – please do not tell me how the democrats are clean as the driven snow (it doesn’t snow in Thailand)

  Given all that, the Thai people did speak – they spoke for Thaksin and the PPP. That my young student friend is the majority of Thai people – not your declaration.

  Anyway, one cannot debate with a law enforcing authority that sees it alright to appoint a leading member of “airport seizure” group as a Minister. can you?

• 4 nganadeeleg // Apr 14, 2009 at 7:55 pm

  Looks like it will be a while you before the country can move beyond Thaksin – keep up the support guys!

• 5 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  I now declare Thaksin’s supporters, You are officially People of 500 Baths (PO500 group)

  Keep up your work. Your daily 500 bahts will make you rich one day. ^_^;;

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K6bGlnirgk

• 6 Ty // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:44 pm

  Interesting to see massive corruption as the point most often offered as the reason why Thaksin is bad for Thailand, given that he has been convicted on only one flimsy case in which his wife was the actual wrongdoer. If I remember correctly, there were other much bigger allegations of corruption against him, e.g. the kickbacks for Suvarnabhumi Airport, including the infamous CTX machines. This suggests to me that too many important and influential people would be implicated if those other cases were to be investigated and brought to trial.

  And as to why Thais don’t care about his carte blanche death sentence on drug dealers or the Tak Bai and Krue Se incidents? Probably for the same reason. If we are to have rule of law as promised by the Abhisit government, all these cases should be pursued without fear or favor, and let the chips fall where they may.

• 7 LondonEye // Apr 14, 2009 at 9:05 pm

  A first rate article. Well done.
  You write that the role of the monarchy is changing, and we may well be in for a switch perhaps as important as 1932. But I wonder if what we are seeing is more of a fight for _all_ political authority – not just between monarchy and critics – but within the critics as well. I think we all know Sondhi Limthongkul was talking about himself when he said ‘we fight for the King.’ Thaksin is also talking about himself when he criticizes Prem. Are we actually watching a fight between the non-royals for who has the largest voice, and the old elite don’t really have someone to counter them?

• 8 Ralph Kramden // Apr 14, 2009 at 10:48 pm

  Come on Taro, you can do better than this. Maybe he got the amount wrong and meant to refer to the Democrats 2000 baht handouts which people did line up for?

• 9 XHTML // Apr 14, 2009 at 11:59 pm

  ^ Heclau – You seem to be saying how can we possibly expect Thaksin – as an integral member of the elite – to be any less corrupt than his poo-yai partners-in-crime in the uniformed services.

  ‘Student’ has a right to expect a much better deal from those who constantly tell us they know better. You intellectuals have totally lost the plot. Are you seriously proposing we cut a piece of slack for the parasite Thaksin just because he is just as corrupt as the rest of his awful class. Truly pathetic.

  Especially since it is corruption that has actually rendered this country incapable of taking any real action against criminals in suits. Corruption is destroying an already very weak system of justice.

  Thaksin has NOTHING to teach anyone here about democracy or justice. Furthermore, I don’t even view him as a competent businessman – since he only seemed to do well when he could fix the rules to suit himself. He was also a lousy policeman. And precisely what did they teach him about criminality at Sam Houston University?

• 10 XHTML // Apr 15, 2009 at 12:12 am

  ^ Pathetic Ty! People like you know full well that this man’s corruption knows no bounds. And you still expect ordinary people to be able to produce evidence against him & corrupt others in a justice system that has been deliberately nobbled to favor the rich, powerful & corrupt. You have obviously confused yourself. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are more than two sides in this argument. The Thaksinites and their enemies act like there can only ever be two sides to the argument. Some of us have no desire to remain the slaves of either side – having found both completely deficient in the way they run the country.

• 11 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 15, 2009 at 12:17 am

  The charge that “Taro” (#5 above) and many Yellow Shirts are now making on the internet must be ranked among the stupidest in recent years, along side perhaps one about Thaksin’s name on Thai flag.

  When I listened to that particular speech live, I got it right away that Thaksin meant to be a sarcasm on the Aphisit gov’s 500 Bath for the elderly (over 60 years old). I have since listened and watched that part of the speech many times and each time still have the same understanding, which by the way any normal, non-paranoid Thai listener would have get it.

  Like the issue of Thaksin’s name on the flag, or the issue of the tiny Thai flag with the words “Long Live the King” on it in some pro-Thaksin rallies, this 500 Bahts accusations by the Yellow Shirts shows how paranoid, stupid bunch of people they are. I have absolutely no doubt that it explains a lot why they are ‘royalists’.

• 12 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 15, 2009 at 12:22 am

  P.S. to Khun Ralph Kramden,

  It’s another Aphisit gov scheme. This one is 500 Bht for the elderly over 60 years old (hence Thaksin’s mention of his own soon to be 60 years of age). The 2000 Baht scheme is for people with salary income under 15000 per month.

  All the same, one can hardly believe the seriousness many of the Yellow Shirts are now taking this issue. It’s all over the internet.

• 13 Garry // Apr 15, 2009 at 12:39 am

  Many may have missed some online footage from yesterday morning showing Thai soldiers shooting the protesters. That footage also showed a body being thrown in a military vehicle, and someone cleaning up blood. A couple of hours later, there is new footage showing the army shooting up in the air. And, most Thai’s considered to be in the red camp do not have the access to Internet that many in the yellow camp have.

  One cannot properly take one side unless they have found all of the facts for both. The facts of any matter do not become false simply because you choose not to believe them. The most blind people in the world are not those who are blind in the eyes. Those who are most blind are those who refuse to see.

  Here are some interesting tidbits for some of you to consider.
  Thaksin has faults, and many. But, he accomplished much in bringing the poor a little better standard of living. But then, the royalists feel that the poor are too ignorant to vote.
  There is evidence that the royalists were getting fed up with what they considered to be more respect for Thaksin than there was for the monarchy, and this fueled the 2006 coup.
  Where was the military when the airport was shut down last year?
  The yellow protesters at the airport were paid. Sadly, the yellow protesters were paid with bogus 1000 baht notes.
  The red shirts are mostly working class. They lose much of their meager wages to come and protest.
  I believe Thailand must either move towards a British type of government where the monarchy is loved and respected, or they may default to becoming more communist.

• 14 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 15, 2009 at 1:42 am

  Well, Ralph,

  500 bahts daily (as long as you attend his lecture) VS one time 2000 bahts , which site would u line up for? To be honest, I would line up for Kevin Rudd’s stimulus $900 package. Damn it, I’m still waiting. lol

  And to somsak, I knew what Thaksin meant by that 500 bahts he mentioned. However, the way he said and paused it right at 500 bahts, just made him look rather stupid. I think it’s quite funny.

  Are you one of those PO500 too, by the way?

  Cheers,
  From an official member of KVR900

• 15 Taro Mongkoltip // Apr 15, 2009 at 1:55 am

  To Somsak,

  Actually, Thaksin might actually give out 500 bahts/person/day to his red team.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxFDr2JXsk

  This is the second news, I have seen in couple days. If you are good in googling and internet searching, you might find it more over internet somewhere.

  Cheers,
  People of KVR900

• 16 Sansai04 // Apr 15, 2009 at 1:58 am

  It seems there are many more than just the one subplot

  From Crispin in Asia Times online. The whole article is well worth reading.

  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KD15Ae03.html

  One UDD organizer, who requested anonymity, suggested that Thaksin’s calls for a national uprising were no idle threat and that the protest group could in the weeks ahead stir more trouble at the provincial level.

  He claimed that Thaksin operatives had for the past two years clandestinely funneled small arms through Cambodia to his supporters in various northeastern provinces, where Thaksin’s grassroots support runs deep. The well-placed source also said the arms had been moved and distributed with the help of former Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) contacts, an ideologically driven insurgent group active in the 1960s and 1970s that frequently criticized the royal family during its years of armed resistance.

• 17 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  Taro #14
  I knew what Thaksin meant by that 500 bahts he mentioned. However, the way he said and paused it right at 500 bahts, just made him look rather stupid. I think it’s quite funny.

  Anyone (like you) who raises this non-issue in the first place is not ‘rather stupid’ but definitely stupid.

  (P.S. Readers can see for themselve at #5 what Taro originally meant. I suspect that most of the Yellow Shirts who spread this issue on the internet initially didn’t recognize the 500Bht for the elderly. They, like a lot of people (for example, Khun Kramdem) knew only the 2000 Bht scheme, and thus made a big deal out of the 500Bht Thaksin said. When they realized later how stupid and wrong they themselve were, they shifted the issue to the alledged ‘funny mannerism’ (pausing and so on) of Thaksin.

• 18 student // Apr 15, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  To hclau,

  I am Thai, but not supporter of any sides, so please don’t start attacking me out of your own assumptions. I am merely suggesting that since this article is also about politics, it should mentioned more about what Thaksin had done that made cause his popularity to decline, not only royal puppet show. I thought that would be fairer that way, rather than merely mentioning him as victim of the show. I am not speaking for the Thai masses nor am I declarating anything. The example I gave were of what many Thais around me had know, and they were also mentioned by Thai media.

  Like HXTML said, I have the right to expect a much better deal. Sorry if the point in my earlier comment was not clear to you.

• 19 Portman // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm

  The article is good in drawing attention to problems that are faced by the monarchy and that it may need to address in refocusing its role in the future. However, it seems to gloss over the many problems that Thaksin created for himself and for the country that made the coup possible. You make it sound as if everything was running smoothly and there was no discontent with Thaksin but it was simply a case of him being too successful and making himself too popular with the masses – ergo the privy council decided he had to go to prevent him from overshadowing the monarchy.

• 20 Pracharat // Apr 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  The example I gave were of what many Thais around me had know, and they were also mentioned by Thai media.

  Since more than 90% of Thais declared themselves Buddhist, there is hight possibility that you are also Buddhist. Then I suggests you should analyze the information according to Buddha teaching before believe everything that media says .

  No matter how corrupt Thaksin was he MUST be brought down by LAW, not by gun.
  If we(Thais) want to claim we are democratic country.

• 21 hclau // Apr 15, 2009 at 7:08 pm

  To student,

  I am not a Thai, but my mother was and still have a lot of relatives in Thailand (bangkok and the south) Most of them are anti Thaksin, but all of them cannot answer for the military or the democrat when I question their corruption. It seems that corrupt police / army and democrats are OK, but anyone else is not. I am not saying Thaksin is not corrupt – he was a pol col and became rich using his connections etc…

  I am not pro-anyone, just tired of one sided accusation about Thaksin Thaksin Thaksin but seemingly intelligent people who conveniently forget corruption of the other side. As some commentators have pointed out here and in other sites, it is not about Thaksin’s corruption, it is a battle between two power camps. Thaksin, just got a weaker hand, because his enemies are the long established power. His ploy was to bring up the countryside and use that against the status quo – right or wrong? ask the small time farmers and the poorer Thais.

  No one else has tried that, especially not the democrats – who can’t seem to win any elections and not for the want of trying. For that change in strategy, I salute Thaksin. Even my relatives (mostly wealthy) have to concede that things were better during Thaksin’s time. (things did get more expensive, but buying power parity went up)

  That’s my take – see all sides, step back and have a holistic approach.

• 22 Ben Jung // Apr 15, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  Why do you guys waste your time discussing? It goes without saying that the Kingdom of Thailand belongs to the Great King. Terms or conditions as well as “The SpecialThai way “of democracy are all defined by its KING. If you cannot tolerate it, get out of Thailand!
  Every Thai is indebted for his or her existence in this very land.

• 23 NP // Apr 15, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  Red-Yellow Alliance? The Hue and Cry of Thailand’s Crisis

  At a red shirt rally in February 2009, one protester told me, “Our movement has gone beyond Thaksin now”. If the red shirts can be divided between pro and anti-Thaksin elements, and the yellow shirts can be divided into many hues of royal liberals, tank liberals, and anti-liberals, then what hope for an eventual red-yellow alliance? That is, how many Thais would like to see their country gradually transformed into a more “normal” constitutional monarchy where the King and his advisers have only ceremonial roles and where the military and police are professional and non-politicized? The problem with such a pie-in-the-sky aspiration obviously has to do with a lack of leadership due to the nature of polarization within the elites themselves. It has become a zero-sum game between a republic and a quasi-constitutional monarchy. Although the potential for a red-yellow movement exists, there is no credible, neutral figure to lead it. And the most polarizing puppetmasters will be around for another 20 years or longer. Thaksin is 59 years old. Prem is 88. The Queen is 76. “Assassination” politics (the idea that killing a few puppetmasters or waiting for them to die would solve the conflict) reflects this. Even if Thaksin were to die of natural causes, the red shirt movement would go on. But Thaksin is still relatively young. Is this why we have to accept him as the “savior” of Thai democracy? Thaksin has been behaving as if the King has already died, but the Network would still be relatively strong even without the King (partly due to the military’s allegiance to the remaining members of the royal family). We cannot expect reconciliation anytime soon.

• 24 A Thai // Apr 15, 2009 at 9:15 pm

  Ben Jung,

  What if I say, I don’t owe the monarchy anything? I only consider owing my parents for the life they have given me: not anyone else. As for feeling indebted for their existence in this land, whose land is it? It’s Thailand which is owned by all Thais, not by one person or one family.

  And don’t talk to me about the ownership the monarchy having over all Thais and the whole country. If you study Thai history, you will see that none of monarchies or kings had the right to this land from their birth, they fought and colonized the same way the European powers did in the past: nothing honorable.

  I respect the monarchy and appreciate their works for the country. But my love and respect have condition that they should be where they belong, the same place the British monarchy is.

  I’m not asking for the abolishing of the monarchy; I’m asking for my right to vote for a PM, and a government that will work for me.

• 25 Garry // Apr 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm

  A THAI,

  You have stated well the fact that Thailand belongs to the Thai people. And, you are also correct that much of Thailand was conquered by Thais. My wife’s great grandfather was once governor of Northern and Eastern Thailand, and Laos back in the days of Siam. This man “earned” his right to rule for obvious reasons.

  And yet, my wife is not in the royalist camp. She is for the Thai people, and for the land of Thailand.

  I note with disdain that the yellow camp infers that the red camp is not “Pro-King”. This is false. The red camp respects the King as much, or more, than the yellows. It is simply that the red camp chooses not to post banners of the king in order to appear as though they speak for him (who, by the way, is noticeably silent thgrough all of this, and has not stepped forward to condemn the protesters.)

  In the USA, being called yellow means that one has no courage, and runs away all of the time, and never chooses a position from which to stand: a coward. This m,akes it a little more difficult for me to be objective at times, but I believe I am still looking at things from both sides.

• 26 Ben Jung // Apr 15, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  A Thai,
  “I’m not asking for the abolishing of the monarchy; I’m asking for my right to vote for a PM, and a government that will work for me”. I understand your point; but do Junta and the monarchy hear or understand or care what you and others want?

• 27 A Thai // Apr 16, 2009 at 12:25 am

  Ben Jung,

  I have already said that my love and respect for the monarchy has condition. If it does not stay where it belongs, well….. you know what I mean.

  I still helplessly hope that the King really cares for Thais, and will eventually does the right thing. If not, well…. I am sure I will live longer than him to see how things fold out. Whatever the outcome maybe, I will be just fine: heartbroken and occasional headache, but physically and financially well. What I am really concerned about the most is the well being of the poor and the disadvantage.

  I have no time for the Amard system nor the Junta government. Hopefully, I will be able to fight with them intellectually, if that happened, I sure would be the winner )

• 28 Ralph Kramden // Apr 16, 2009 at 1:26 am

  Ben: your post has been seen before. One question: can you explain what you mean whe you say “Every Thai is indebted for his or her existence in this very land.”?

• 29 Mariner // Apr 16, 2009 at 2:01 am

  Just a thought, and I’m posting this in the wrong place I know:

  Why not introduce into the website online polls? A question could be posed and those logged in could vote. Perhaps questions could be submitted to the site operators just to keep a handle on things.

• 30 Portman // Apr 16, 2009 at 5:00 am

  Garry #13

  “Many may have missed some online footage from yesterday morning showing Thai soldiers shooting the protesters. That footage also showed a body being thrown in a military vehicle, and someone cleaning up blood.”

  Can you share the URL where this footage is located with us?

• 31 Garry // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:39 am

  Dear Portman,

  The most vital one has been removed. There is yet another I am trying to locate which was not on YouTube.

  Here are two YouTube links of interest. There is another from the Al Jazeera Web site where this reporter saw the rifles being lowered on the crowd. The Muslims are not too scared of a Thai King.

  I will try to find the other video, and I will post it.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkCbSJAwkA

  Loading real bullets and firing into civilians:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0GZRwRvFfg

  Al Jazeera article, corrspondent saw soldiers shooting civilians
  http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/04/200941383652780251.html

• 32 nganadeeleg // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:02 am

  I finally got around to reading Andrew & Nich’s article – basically a reasonable summary, however it has their usual emphasis (dare I say spin?).

  I would be really interested to hear more from Ace Yensabye, who left an interesting comment trying to put some context to the original yellow shirts.

• 33 Garry // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:36 am

  Dear Portman, and Other interested in this issue,

  This news link provides wording that the soldiers shot over red shirt heads, then lowered their rifles on the people.
  http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090413/twl-troops-open-fire-amid-bangkok-protes-3fd0ae9.html

  This link shows soldiers firing their weapons at protesters, not in the air:
  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0W5EHyg-Agk/SeKwZa4G9uI/AAAAAAAAAgI/Xn3xkY-uDgE/s1600-h/

  This link has great eye witness testimony:
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/topstory/30100557/Minus-red-shirts-hard

  The best spot is here at http://thaienews.blogspot.com

  There are lots of pictures.

  Hope this helps

• 34 The Careful Observer // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  It’s difficult to take this article or its authors seriously, no matter their academic credentials. After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors. Nonetheless, our two professors chalk it all up to their contention that the King and his circle, acting like a bunch of petulant teenagers, were insanely jealous of the new kid on the block (Thaksin) because he was so popular. With analysis of that quality, everything that follows should be taken with a boulder of salt.

• 35 Portman // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  Garry #33.

  Thanks for the links. The students federation is following up on the possibility of concealed bodies of red shirts killed by the military and is appealing for relatives of missing red shirts to come forward but they admit this is only a rumour.

  The Russian TV clip didn’t seem to show soldiers shooting red shirts but it did show red shirts throwing molotov cocktails at soldiers.

  The Al Jazeera story says, ” But Al Jazeera’s correspondent Tony Cheng, reporting from the Din Daeng area of the Thai capital, said the protesters showed no sign of backing down and were trying to regain ground shortly after being pushed back by advancing troops firing machine guns into the air. But he said soldiers were firing very close to ground level and the risk of serious injuries or deaths was very high.”

  First of all there is no sign in any of the clips that the troops were firing machine guns into the air or elsewhere, although some were clearly carrying what looked like .50 calibre machine guns. I am sure the .50 calibre machine guns were only there for show, as these are devastating up to 1,500 metres and would easily go through several protestors and penetrate flimsy buildings. The clips only show them firing their standard issue M16 assault rifles. Secondly, firing close to ground level could certainly be lethal, if the soldiers were firing live rounds, but the reporter didn’t cite any evidence that they were firing live rounds.

  In the BBC film in the Middle East TV clip it is not at all clear that the soldier is loading live ammunition into his M16 magazine. From what is visible the rounds don’t seem to have the pointed copper tips of full metal jacket high velocity combat rounds and they also look too short for full metal jacket rounds. They could have have been round nosed lead tipped “practice” rounds but they look too short even for those and are more likely to be blank cartridges that have a low charge and a flat paper wadding tip. Given the lack of deaths and injuries, it seems likely that the vast majority of the troops were issued only with blank cartridges to prevent mishap. Some injuries may have been caused by lead “practice” rounds which, at least, have the advantage of not injuring those behind the person shot, as high velocity full metal jacket rounds can go straight through a human body at 100 metres or less. The use of this ammunition would be very obvious from damage to buildings at the scenes, as in 1992. I suspect a that very small percentage of troops, probably seasoned NCOs, were issued with any live ammo at all for use in life threatening situations. In the worst case of hand to hand fighting the rank and file could always fix bayonets and have a longer reach than the clubs and swords of their oponents.

  I suspect that the image of dead red shirts being loaded on to army trucks to be hidden somewhere, as suggested by Thaksin to CNN, is going to turn out to be a just a ghoulish spectre dragged back from 1992.

• 36 The Careful Observer // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  Just about everybody in Bangkok these days is walking around with a mobile phone with a camera in it. If the army were loading dead bodies on trucks to take them away and hide what they did, certainly photos or videos of that taken by citizens would have emerged by now. These days, in a city such as Bangkok, it would be almost impossible hide something like that. There are no photos because in all likelihood it did not happen.

• 37 Ralph Kramden // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  The Careful Observer: I think you are right about the mobile phones and photos. The army and the government have issued a statement on this: “Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd, Spokesman of the Royal Thai Army, … gave a televised statement at the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) refuting allegations that soldiers had shot and killed … a demonstrator…. Col. Sansern stated … that there have been attempts to twist the facts and spread false information that the army is using weapons to shoot at the people. Photographs have been forwarded by email supposedly as proof of the army’s transgressions and to incite hatred.” They wanted to stop this.

• 38 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  to Care-less Observer #36
  After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors.

  If you really have evidence and argument in support of such claim, show them here, instead of just making empty assertion like this.

  …………..

  just for a start, may I remind readers that a few days after the Coup, the coup leader, Gen Sonthi Bunyaratthanakarin, told reporters “off the record” (but it’s widely known) that he staged the coup because he deemed Thaksin a threat to the monarchy. He specifically alledged that Thaksin had said something like “the monarchy is in my pocket”. This is how one reporter reported the “off the record” interview (in Thai):

  พลเอกสนธิอธิบายว่า ฟางเส้นสุดท้ายที่ทำให้เขาตัดสินใจยึดอำนาจ คือการที่ได้ยินทักษิณกล่าววาจาอันเป็นการจาบจ้วงพระมหากษัตริย์ต่อหน้าผู้บัญชาการเหล่าทัพในทำนองว่า พระมหากษัตริย์อยู่ภายใต้ความควบคุมดูแลของตัวเองเสมือนหนึ่ง “ใส่ไว้ในกระเป๋า”

  Shortly before the general elections of 2007 (under the coup group’s supervision), a senior army officer and member the coup group had lectured to a meeting of senior officers, presided over by Sonthi himself. Records of that lecture, branded “Top Secret”, was distributed among senior officers and subsequently leaked. In the lecture, the officer (and Sonthi himself in the introductory remarks) explained in unequivocal terms, the reason they staged the coup to protect the monarchy from Thaksin’s ambition to ‘compete’ with HM.

  etc. etc.

  One can also cited numerous explanation by another Sonthi (of the PAD) and many PAD leaders and publications to the same effect.

  So, where’s your ‘complex motivation’ of ‘many actors’?

  (P.S. Notice the word Andrew and Nick use “sub-plot”. It means that the monarchy isn’t the only ‘plot’)

• 39 Garry // Apr 16, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  Portman,

  Just getting up now here in the States.

  Seek videos taken in the early morning. They are lit with street light only. It was after the complaints of citizens being shot that new footage appeared (on Thai TV) with soldiers shooting in the air, but even some of those were not the script the Regime had hope for. I did not see “truckloads” of bodies. The clip I say showed only one being loaded into a HumVee, and some soldiers appeared to be cleaning up blood.

  Sadly, Thai culture encourages misleading testimony, if for no other reason than it is considered disrespectful to question a statement given by another. So, I feel that one must find a point somewhere in the middle of all the statements. I believe that both camps have painted much larger pictures of things to support their own positions.

  The Thaienews.blogspot has many eye witness accounts (if you do not read Thai, google the url, and google can transaate much of it). I do not read thai at all, and speak but very little.

  1+1 does not equal zero. One intersting tidbit was the PM stating on Monday afternoon that he was preparing for a night of arson. Really?

  Based on things which have happened so far, understand that many fires were set by people wearing red shirts, but were these “red shirts” part of the real protesters? Many were either yellow shirts in red clothing, or, as depicted elsewhere, blue shirts changing outer colors. The PM knew that people were going to start more fires, and he knew fullwell that these people were preparing to do so were not Thaksin supporters.

  My little bride will be there in another three months. We have some missions work going on there. But, she is also able to get inside info. Let me know if there would be any particulars you would want in more detail, and perhaps another contact point, other than this blog.

• 40 Portman // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:14 am

  If the army had removed dead bodies of protestors and hidden them, there would also be a lot of people with missing family members coming forward to try to find news of their loved ones, as happened after the horrible events of May 1992. So far none have come forward and I think this line of enquiry is a going to be a non-starter. However, two men were found in the Chaopraya bound, gagged and beaten to death after being last seen leaving work to join the red shirt protests.

• 41 chris baker // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:16 am

  Portman #35
  Thanks for this informed comment. I just spent some time talking with a camera team who were on the ground throughout the 13th from the Din Daeng clash onwards. Their impression was exactly the same as yours. In the army units, there were about three young guys to one older guy, regularly spaced. The young guys probably had blanks, to prevent hot-blooded mishaps, while the old guys had live ammunition in case there was a real need for self defence.

  Careful #36/Ralph #37. My impression too. There are lots of photos and clips available, but none that convincingly shows a death. Still, I think people could have been killed in the first clash at Din Daeng. It was still dark. Very few journalists were there. The only clips are murky, but some seem to show low shooting. The soldiers could have been jumpy.

  It’s a good thing that the Students Federation (and others) are following this up. The army needs close scrutiny. But it seems possible that they carried out this operation rather well. Let’s see.

• 42 stu // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:32 am

  Greg Sheridan said in one of his article in the 16 April edition of The Australian that Apisit is a good man. I think he certainly needs Andrew’s education on Thailand. Can anyone introduce him to New mandala?

• 43 Dang // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:43 am

  Shame shame shame. I just can’t believe that is unelected Govt could do such a horrible thing to the people.I truely believe what the PM could do after 99 days(as he said) is mass massacre.

  My 77 years old aunt said she hate to watch the TV because there is no different between them and the Thai soap movie.But it’s sad because it ’s real.It the real thing that we are entering the dark era.No more freedom of expression.

  So i just want us to forget about Thaksin,his bad excense or his square face.We have to face the truth that this Govt is not real.They just do it for themselves because they ‘ve been starving for almost 8 years.Just look at the history of the democrat.It’s creepy,you know.

• 44 The Careful Observer // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:18 am

  Well Ralphie-boy, ol’ pal a mine,

  Notice he said “supposedly as proof of the army’s transgressions…” I haven’t seen any photos that show soldiers loading dead bodies into trucks. I was shown photos by red shirts at Government House of a red shirt dragging a bloody colleague down the street, and of another person being worked on in an ambulance, although there was no blood or wound visible. They claimed this proved at least six people were shot dead at Din Daeng and the soldiers pulled the bodies ont to trucks. But the photos they presented did not show that at all. There wasn’t even absolute proof that the people in the photos had been shot. There are lots of reasons why people could be bloody or are being worked on in an ambulance. No bullet wounds were visible in the photos.

  That being said, Human Rights Watch Asia issued a statement today saying that some soldiers shot at protesters, and I’m sure some did. But once again, if the army was loading dead bodies on to trucks on the streets of Bangkok, where are “those” photos? Do you really think the Thai Army is technologically competent or capable enough to intercept all photos being emailed that could be incriminating to them? I sure don’t think so.

• 45 nganadeeleg // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:35 am

  Stu #42: Are you saying Abhisit is not a good man?
  or,
  are you saying Andrew says Abhisit is not a good man?

  Andrew, can you please advise whether you think Abhisit is not a good man?

  When answering, it might provide context if you also discuss whether you think Thaksin is a good man.

  FWIW, I think Abhisit is a generally a good man in a difficult situation being urged to do good and bad things but generally resisting doing the bad things and often being constrained from doing good things.

  As for Thaksin, the best I can say is that he is capable of doing both good and bad things, is indifferent between the two as long as his objective is achieved.

• 46 Garry // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:06 am

  Well Mates,

  There appears to be an incredible amount of paranoia at every level. We have one solid contact in neither camp (army officer) who is scared to death to say much, and refuses to send anything by email. All we can get out of this man is that there were 8 protesters killed during the initial predawn fusillade by the army, and those bodies were carried off, presumably cremated. The protesters fell back a few hundred meters after the first shots were fired, and this is why no one could see bodies. All employees at the government hospitals have been threatened with imprisonment, or worse, if they say anything. All of the bullets removed from protesters have been confiscated. The two bodies found bound appeared to be people in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it was not determined if they belonged to one side or the other. Most calls leaving the country are being monitored. I could not get an answer as to who ordered the shooting, simply a “you probably know”. The conversation ended quickly.

  FWIW, it seems to me that the predawn attack was intended to make a statement at a time when camera focus and eye witnesses were at their worse. And the beauty of it all, limited evidence, and when anything new is found, it is destroyed or explained away. Bottom line is without concrete proof, you have nothing. Hmmm…..

• 47 Colum Graham // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:57 am

  nganadeeleg, I think, thus far, Abhisit is a weak man, I don’t know whether he is a good man. Maybe he does the grocery shopping. If he was a strong man, he wouldn’t, as you have suggested, be trying to keep everyone onside.

  Maybe he irons his clothes. Maybe he doesn’t drink. Maybe he breaks for little old ladies he could run over. Good is not the right word to use in a political context!

  I think, for me, proof of his goodness will be determined by clearing the smoke and mirrors outlined in the recent Shawn Crispin article on the Asia Times. When the dust has settled, entrenched stereotypes that pin people down, Bangkokonian or rural, can be released and Thai society can progress liberally and in a less petulant fashion.

  Do you think he can do that?

• 48 Ralph Kramden // Apr 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  Do we have any photos of bodies being loaded onto trucks in May 1992? I don’t recall any. Admittedly there are more cameras around now, and some of that footage shows shooting at people. Could a few bodies be taken away without photos being taken? I think the answer is yes. But as always, the military’s body count will be lower than that by those on the victim’s side.I notice that the official injury count has gone up. Hopefully the SFT can at least provide an independent account.

• 49 nganadeeleg // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  “Good is not the right word to use in a political context!”

  I was just picking up on the word Stu used in #42

  As to your question, time will tell, but the odds are definitely against him.
  If not Abhisit, which Thai politician do you think is more suitable, or has a better chance?

• 50 Portman // Apr 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm

  Garry #46. I’m afraid your informant’s report lacks credibility. It is impossible to believe that the government could be successful in intimidating hospital staff in the way he suggested, so that no one would utter a word about protestors killed or injured with gunshot wounds. A large number of medics and paramedics would have seen the corpses or wounded from drivers to doctors, nurses, orderlies, mortuary staff & etc, not to mention the soldiers themselves. How would the government silence all these people, many of whom may be UDD sympathisers with mobile phone cameras? Why would they bother to confiscate all the bullets of those killed, if they cremated the bodies? Without a body to match the spent bullet would be just a piece of crumpled metal that could be picked up from any military firing range. It just doesn’t make any sense.

  Ralf #48. No credible photographs ever emerged of the army loading bodies on to trucks in 1992. Mobile phones were probably decisive in ensuring the free flow of information during those incidents but they were rather clunky things without cameras. Nevertheless, people were very ready to believe the rumours about the trucks due to the extreme brutality of the military crack down and the large numbers of people who came forward looking for missing relatives afterwards. The numbers of the missing diminished substantially over the following months, as people who had just not been in touch with relatives eventually turned up, and, off hand, I think around 30 have still not been accounted for till this day. Many still believe the trucks theory and it has never been proved or disproved. Due to SFT’s efforts, we will probably soon have a better idea of whether it could have happened this time.

• 51 Colum Graham // Apr 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Well certainly not Yongyuth, Pracha, Newin or any of the current leaders in opposition. None of them seem to be particularly vocal (in the English Thai media at least) about what’s going on now, and I would have thought this would have been the time to be making a case for leadership while the Democrat Party is on the back foot and under siege.

  I’m not sure who is more suitable. Yongyuth Wichaidit, I read, has an Interior Ministry background and that doesn’t seem particularly appealing with the ’smoke and mirrors’ paradigm that has enveloped the Thai political sphere. (Perhaps it was Yongyuth Tiyapairat & of course, most public politics is smoke and mirrors but it seems to have permeated much further than that in this case..) Really, I’d be picking names out of a hat to make suggestions. Who do you think is a good candidate?

  From my limited understanding, I don’t think Puer Thai, or it’s next manifestation, can really escape from it’s smeared image and associations with corruption in Bangkok to be backed by elites enough to have enough credibility for governance again. Do you?

  I would have thought that this would be an ideal time for a ‘third candidate’ to emerge… Whoever it is, they can’t be embroiled in the current sham.

• 52 The Careful Observer // Apr 17, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  Ralphie,

  In May 1992 there were no citizens with mobile phones with cameras in them. There weren’t fewer. There were none. There were no cameras in mobile phones in Thailand in 1992. The killings were on Rajadamnoen Avenue, which is not residential, and where all businesses had been shut for days because of the protests. So, the army could have easily picked up bodies then without being photographed. Those are not the conditions in Bangkok today, nor in the areas where the violence took place. Plenty of people live in Din Daeng. You can believe what you want, but you don’t have one shred of credible evidence to back you up. Not one.

• 53 Portman // Apr 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm

  Colum Graham #51.

  Is Newin now in the opposition?

• 54 Colum Graham // Apr 17, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  Yes he is!! … Newin is untrustworthy, and therefore still opposition for Abhisit! There is no real team spirit in political parties, only acquaintances all trying to get the most they can.

  But really, I just tried to come up with more names than Yongyuth Wichaidit during lunch in quick response to nganadeeleg and looked at an old article via Google. Newin being named after Ne Win was enough to be included.

  I’m interested to know who you think would be a good Prime Ministerial appointment.

• 55 nganadeeleg // Apr 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm

  Colum: You summed up the situation pretty well, and that’s why I think the country is lucky to have Abhisit, however I do hope he can break free from his shackles .

  btw, Newin is banned, so if you put him in the picture you would also need to put the other 111 in, but doesn’t the PM have to be an MP now?

  I personally like Purachai (many don’t), but he’s not a MP either is he?

• 56 Ralph Kramden // Apr 17, 2009 at 8:50 pm

  Be more careful Careful. There are plenty of photographs of the 1992 events and lots of video as well. People did own cameras prior to mobile phones.

• 57 GoodnessGraciousMe // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  Somsak # 36

  “This is how one reporter reported the “off the record” interview (in Thai):

  พลเอกสนธิอธิบายว่า ฟางเส้นสุดท้ายที่ทำให้เขาตัดสินใจยึดอำนาจ คือการที่ได้ยินทักษิณกล่าววาจาอันเป็นการจาบจ้วงพระมหากษัตริย์ต่อหน้าผู้บัญชาการเหล่าทัพในทำนองว่า พระมหากษัตริย์อยู่ภายใต้ความควบคุมดูแลของตัวเองเสมือนหนึ่ง “ใส่ไว้ในกระเป๋า””

  - An interesting snippet that I’ve not heard before: can you be a bit more specific as to who this reporter was / which publication / what date it appeared? I’m surprised that this hasn’t received wider coverage.

• 58 The Careful Observer // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  Yes, Ralph, obviously there are plenty of photos of May 1992. But few from people who not either news photographers or involved in the demonstrations themselves. It is quite a different situation today, as anyone can see, unless you’re a conspiracy theorist who doesn’t want to acknowledge the obvious differences because then your conspiracy theory doesn’t hold.

  Furthermore, in 1992, the army was antagonistic towards the news media (witness the scenes at the Royal Hotel), and not particularly interested in giving them access to what they were doing. This time, the army allowed journalists and photographers full access to their operations in the streets. No one, to my knowledge, was pushed away or had their camera or film confiscated.

  Between giving journalists full access, and the number of common people with mobile phone cameras, I don’t see how they could have secretly slaughtered a bunch of people, rolled up the trucks, loaded the dead on them and driven away without anyone getting some photos of it.

  Once again, where is your proof? You (and the red shirts) are the ones making the charges. The burden of proof is, therefore, on you.

• 59 Portman // Apr 17, 2009 at 10:15 pm

  Despite the calm in Bangkok, things seem to be escalating for the worse today with the “chao por” style assassination attempt on Sondhi Limthongkul and the announcement of Thaksin’s appointment as an ambassador to Nicaragua.

  While Sondhi is a definitely a flawed character with ambivalent motivations for his political stance, it is hard to see how murdering him could help further the political aims of the reds. Having him stick around to talk about his silly “new politics” would be much more helpful. Killing him or trying to kill him is more likely to strengthen support for the yellows and give the government more of an excuse for a crack down.

  Given the Marxist past of the Sandinista party and Ortega, himself, signing up as an ambassador for Nicaragua is a free gift for those who want to paint Thaksin as an anti-monarchy communist. This report was filed in Spanish by Reuters Managua correspondent http://lta.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idLTASIE53F02S20090416. Here is a translation of some excerpts:

  “’Currently, the Thai people are engaged in a peaceful struggle to restore the institutions and the rule of law, and facilitate the return of the former prime minister of their country,’ Ortega said the government in a statement…..

  ….The political crisis involves a confrontation of the monarchists, the military and the urban middle class against the poor in rural areas, the loyal supporters of Thaksin, who lives in exile to avoid being jailed on charges of corruption.”

  While many on TM would cheer this description and would like to see the demise of the monarchy, it is unlikely that being clearly affiliated with a former Marxist guerilla and being represented as being in a struggle to overthrow the monarchy will enhance Thaksin’s standing at home. The Thai media are likely to overlook the most obvious explanation that the Nicaraguan diplomatic status was simply the best and most convenient deal that Thaksin’s money could buy when he went passport shopping in Central America, where citizenships and diplomatic passports are readily available for cash. If Panama had offered him a better deal, he probably would have gone for that and avoided the Marxist connotations of Nicaragua but his criminal record may have precluded obtaining diplomatic status in other Central American countries.

• 60 Ralph Kramden // Apr 18, 2009 at 10:36 am

  Careful: what charge? That people had cameras in 1992? Or that it is possible that some bodies could have been taken away with or without photos? Or that there are photos circulating (according to the good policeman)? My charge is that I am pleased that the SFT or someone else outside the govt is looking into it. Earth shattering indeed.

• 61 amberwaves // Apr 18, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  Dear GoodnessGraciousMe:
  This is not the reference to which Ajarn Somsak is referring, but covers much the same territory. There are others if you go looking.

  “EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
  Kingdom ‘would not have survived without coup’

  One month after seizing power, coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin has given an exclusive interview to the editors of the Nation Group, telling behind-the-scenes stories about how it unwound and his thoughts for the future.
  ….
  I’d like to say two things about the military coup. First, I received calls for the coup from many people.

  Second, soldiers are obliged to protect national security, safeguard the nation and uphold loyalty to the monarchy. The military cannot tolerate any leaders who lack or have limited loyalty to the King.

  [Then cites other standard reasons, then...]
  …We want to place emphasis on having the King as Head of State.
  …
  Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/10/26/politics/politics_30017169.php

  As for remarks that Thaksin was alleged to have made about the monarchy, anyone who actually talked politics with anyone in Bangkok in 2006 heard similar and worse. For obvious reasons, published references would be few.

• 62 The Careful Observer // Apr 18, 2009 at 7:04 pm

  Ralph, you made the charge that the army shot dead red shirts, loaded the bodies on the trucks and took them away. The burden of proof is on you – and you don’t have any. When you can show me photos of the army taking away dead red shirts on trucks, I will believe you.

• 63 another thai // Apr 18, 2009 at 9:05 pm

  Ben Jung // Apr 15, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  Why do you guys waste your time discussing? It goes without saying that the Kingdom of Thailand belongs to the Great King. Terms or conditions as well as “The SpecialThai way “of democracy are all defined by its KING. If you cannot tolerate it, get out of Thailand!
  Every Thai is indebted for his or her existence in this very land.

  >>>> you are my hero , i am Thai and that how i felt about the whole thing , Thailand won’t get any better than it is now becoz Thai people are not willing to accept the new thing in life, till the King’s gone then Thailand will have a better picture.

• 64 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 18, 2009 at 9:44 pm

  GoodnessGraciousMe #57

  Sorry I didn’t provide the reference. It’s in a book about the coup. But I intentionally left out the reference because I don’t want to draw too much attention to the author. He’s one of the journalists attending the interview Sonthi gave and therefore, in a sense, is bound by ‘gentleman agreement’ not to reveal part of the interview that was ‘off the record’. That he did is, in this case, a great service to history. I talked to him to confirm the interview but I heard remors of the ‘in my pocket’ remark by Thaksin even before that. I think after Sonthi told that particular story, those attending the interview then told friends and colleagues about it, and the story spread. But what I quoted is the only one somebody put it in print.

  I should emphasize that Sonthi definitely told people that Thaksin made the remark. But there is no proof that Thaksin himself said so.

  The point is the coup leaders’ motivation was clear: to remove the perceived threat to the monarchy from Thaksin, as Andrew and Nick argue in the article.

• 65 Ralph Kramden // Apr 19, 2009 at 10:40 am

  Ah, Careful, you are showing yourself to be careless. You now make a claim that is completely fabricated. You say that I said: “that the army shot dead red shirts, loaded the bodies on the trucks and took them away.” That is simply your imagination running away.

  Show me where I said any such thing.

  This exchange began with me quoting a military spokesman who wanted to stop photos being circulated by email. My next comment was on 1992 and I posed the question: “Could a few bodies be taken away without photos being taken?” My answer was that I think the answer is yes. But I didn’t say that it had happened I just said it was possible.

  My following comment was on 1992.

  So you have been less than careful in making accusations. Change your name.

• 66 amberwaves // Apr 19, 2009 at 6:20 pm

  Re: bodies
  In 1992, to the best of my knowledge , there were no photos of bodies being loaded on to trucks. There was, (I think, but not quite certain) one very ambiguous photos of a rear view of a truck purported to be carrying bodies. There was (certainly) a story that went with it about witnesses seeing this truck with bodies at some point on Vipavadhi-Rangsit. But investigations never backed up the story, which I believe to be apocryphal. Asia Watch (now Human Rights Watch – Asia) looked into the matter, and it may be discusses in the report they did with Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled “Black May: etc etc.” It does not appear to be available online.

  I think the more interesting parallel, which I’m surprised no one has mentioned, is Tak Bai. At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths. (There were photos and videos of the brutality leading up to that point. TV stations, after initially showing the video, were quickly warned by the government to pull it and most complied. Of course, they started circulating on the Internet anyway.)

  I’m very skeptical of reports of bodies being secretly taken away. My point is, an absence of photos is not a very strong argument that it didn’t happen.

• 67 nganadeeleg // Apr 19, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  We can at least be thankful that the operation was over fairly quickly, unlike the protracted drug war that presented perfect opputunities for enemies to be liquidated, with no further explanations than he was a drug dealer.
  (Imagine the carnage if the current PM had left open similar opportunities during the reds clean up operation)

• 68 Frank Lee // Apr 22, 2009 at 12:15 am

  Ralph – since when is a “feeling” the same as a “charge” ?

  Please try to remain coherent and not muddy the waters further –

  otherwise stick to being a bus driver.

• 69 Ralph Kramden // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:48 pm

  Sorry Frank, you have lost me here. Are you the Careful Observer and have changed your name as suggested? What charges and feelings do you refer to? Coherence seems lost or is it that you have missed a contextualisation of a particular comment.

• 70 b // Apr 23, 2009 at 8:37 am

  Having read Garry’s comment – “And, most Thai’s considered to be in the red camp do not have the access to Internet that many in the yellow camp have.”, it just shows how sad Thailand has always been.

  The poor will always remain poor, just because they did not have a ‘voice’, while the rich gets richer and richer. It might be true that the ex prime minister is a corrupted man. But if a corrupted man can help lessen inequalities and let the poor have 3 meals a day, then be it. It is more worthwhile than having politicians who corrupt but provide no positive outcome for our economy and all the Thai citizens, which by the way, includes the poor.

• 71 GoodnessGraciousMe // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm

  Somsak # 64 and amberwaves # 61

  Thanks for your feedback. Apologies that I haven’t responded sooner.

  Somsak – “I should emphasize that Sonthi definitely told people that Thaksin made the remark. But there is no proof that Thaksin himself said so.” Exactly.

  amberwaves – “As for remarks that Thaksin was alleged to have made about the monarchy, anyone who actually talked politics with anyone in Bangkok in 2006 heard similar and worse. For obvious reasons, published references would be few.” I know, I know. We all heard similar and worse, and still do, of course. But invariably it’s always rumours and hearsay “everyone knows etc”. That’s why the comment highlighted by Somsak is so interesting. There’s so much that I’d really like to say but a) it’s futile, b) it’s bad for my blood pressure and c) it’s futile.

  On a subsequent point you make: “Tak Bai. At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.” Actually there were photos / footage available, and also of troops kneeling and firing at demonstrators. If I remember rightly, the Democrats got into trouble later on because some Democrat MPs were showing the footage at rallies. In one of those “you gotta love Thailand” moments I remember trying to find a copy of the VCD at Pantip Plaza. Porn, pirated movies, pirated software, no problem … the moment I mentioned Tak Bai deathly silence … vendors told me that they’d been told by the police that it was five years in the clink for anyone found distributing the VCD.

  Finally, to get it off my chest, did anyone read the astonishing piece in the Bangkok Post’s risible “Inside Politics” this weekend, namely the one that referred to an army spokesman saying that the troops at Din Daeng ‘fired blanks at the protesters but also fired live rounds in the air to scare them’!! How does a live round in the air sound scarier than a blank? Another fine example of the piss-poor standards of journalism here – get spoon-fed any old tosh and regurgitate it without any conscious effort to actually think about what’s been said.

  Time for my medication.

• 72 amberwaves // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  GoodnessGraciousMe: I see you are contributing to a small outbreak of civility here, I hope it spreads.

  Though I concede I may be wrong, I stand by my narrowly defined assertion that “At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.”

  By “at the time,” I mean contemporaneous with the events. I’m certain there were no photos like that circulating before the army itself admitted what happened — surely you remember the shock when that news came out?

  I’m very familiar with the other footage from the time, including the the people being kicked etc as they were forced to crawl across the road, and shooting from riverside, as I recall. But in addition to the post-incident censorship, journalists at the scene were all told very strictly to back off. It’s to their credit that they did manage to film and send out what they did.

  The point is a more general one anyway. Photos (or lack thereof) don’t tell the whole story.

• 73 liz // Apr 24, 2009 at 8:27 am

  b. My sentiments are similar.

  Thaksin continues to have rural Thais’ fervent support NOT because they are stupid and uneducated, on the contrary – they know what is good for them – they have benefited from Thaksin’s policies while he was in office as PM.

  There has always been a wide social disparity between middle-class/upper-class Thais and rural Thais, and the latter’s needs and voice have always been trivialized; they remain in the eyes of the educated Thais as backwards, rural and foolhardy. But the mentality of these people is that they stand to lose a lot without Thaksin’s policies. In my opinion, its not Thaksin they support, its his policies. His policies that acknowledge, understand and support rural Thais. That is perhaps why they continually elect pro-Thaksin candidates in hopes of securing the same treatment they got from Thaksin, and a PAD- sanctioned Abhisit is not going to assuage their fears and worries, neither will the 500 baht or however much (fill in amount here) baht packages introduced by Abhisit; many rural Thais are odd jobs labourer who are not eligible for these packages (a garlic peeler earns less than USD 15/mth).

  PAD and its supporters has repeatedly denied general election results (any affiliation to Thaksin is not allowed) but doesn’t general elections by its people count for something? It’s a plain slap to the face, saying “Who cares about you?.”

  With the PAD-supported Abhisit installed as PM by an arbitrary court decision; the rural Thais are supposed to just roll over and play dead after repeatedly getting ’slapped across their faces’ whilst their voices continue to be toned down? On top of that, the government calls them ‘rural folks who lack education’. Good going there. That’s sure to win them over. As for people who perceive red shirts as minions of the UDD and Thaksin, I think they should really get off their high horse and try to identify with the rural Thais.

  That’s why I always find comments such as ” red shirts are stupid people who support corruption” as ignorant. As for those who believe that red shirts who support UDD and Thaksin invariably supports the subversion of the Thai monarchy, GET REAL. The rural, more traditional Thais revere and love their King doubtlessly more than the westernized, urbanized bourgeois. Anyone who’s been in the rural north can vouch for the fact that every household has a portrait of the King or the royal family hanging on their walls ,and what’s hanging on the walls of the BKK elites? A picasso, most likely.

Leave a Comment