New Mandala

11 responses so far ↓

• 1 anandana // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  Mr. Sondhi was shot because he revealed who (XXX) is behind the Thai last coup. Find some body to translate for you.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqnB6TZpvc
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN_Oq6COVlk

• 2 Srithanonchai // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  “Note, it is not a call to action, just a historical reference.” But isn’t this reference made in relation to April 8, followed by urging supporters to turn up? To me, his remark looks as if he suggested that April 8 could be like 1973 and 1992 if only a sufficient number of people would turn up.

  Anyway, what counts is the perception of the audience about what Thaksin had said, and the consequences they drew from it. Is anything known about this?

• 3 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  Yes, he did. But . . .

  Dear Dr.Baker,

  You can download the video (not just sound, as in your YouTube links) of Red Shirt rally during Thaksin’s phone-in on 12 April from here:
  (It was recorded from LIVE broadcast on the D-Station with picture of the rally listening to Thaksin, plus – at the first few minutes – live picture from Din Daeng)

  http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?xz0yaerznyc

  The sound and picture quality is generally good. The part when he called for a ‘People’s Revolution’, the sound is a bit jumbled, but still quite clear.

  Yes, he did call for a ‘People’s Revolution’ (kan-pa-ti-wat-pra-cha-chon), although not in the usual sense of violent overthrow of the government (this is hardly surprising, I think). In fact, he made the call right after attacking the Abhisit gov’s alledged use of force against the Red Shirts, citing Martin Luther King Junior no less! He then called on ‘all sides’ to bring about a ‘People’s Revolution’.

  Here’s my transcription:
  (between minutes 12:45 and 13:06)

  ก้ออยากจะเชิญชวนทุกฝ่ายครับ ว่ามาช่วยกัน ถือโอกาสมา ทำการปฏิวัติประชาชน เพื่อเอา เพื่อเอา ประชาธิปไตยที่แท้จริง มาให้แก่ประชาชนเถอะ อย่าให้มีการใช้อำนาจ ลุแก่อำนาจแบบนี้เลย
  (I would like to invite all sides: Let join hands. Take this opportunity to make a People’s Revolution in order to bring about the true democracy to the people. Don’t let this use of force [against the people] continue any longer.)

  I also just watched video record of the rally during Thaksin’s videolink speech on 3 April. You’re right he only made ‘historical reference’ to ‘People’s Revolution’ of 14 Tula and 17 May, in the context of contrasting them with the numerous ‘patiwat’ by the miliarty (i.e. coups d’etat). The latter, he argued, constituted the ‘Vicious Circle’ that crippled the devolopment of democracy and made the country less and less competitive against other asian countries (Japan, Malaysia, etc.) Here’s my transcription of his exact words from the video record:

  (minutes 16:30 to 21:48)

  พี่น้องครับ ผมขอ[ยก]ตัวเลขให้พี่น้องฟังนิดหน่อย พี่น้องฟังดีๆนะครับ เรามีการเปลี่ยนแปลงการปกครองเมื่อปี 2475 นับจากนั้นมาถึงปัจจุบันนะฮะ เรามีรัฐธรรมนูญทั้งหมด 18 ฉบับ บางฉบับเรียกว่า “ชั่วคราว” แต่อยู่นานถึง 8 ปีนั่นคือฉบับจอมพลสฤษดิ์ บางฉบับเรียกว่า “ถาวร” แต่มีอายุเพียง 1 ปี คือปี 2489 พี่น้องครับ ประเทศเดียวนี่นะครับ มีรัฐธรรมนูญ 18 ฉบับ คำนวนได้ว่า ทุก 5 ปี มีรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับนึง รัฐธรรมนูญคืออะไรฮะ คือ กติตาทีคนไทยจะอยู่ร่วมกัน แบ่งสรรการจัดการอำนาจในการบริหารและดูแลพี่น้องประชาชน แต่ปรากฏว่า เราเปลี่ยนกฎิกาทุก 5 ปี นักการเมือง ก็ไม่สามารถพัฒนาตัวเองได้ เพราะเดี๋ยวก็เปลี่ยนเดี๋ยวก็เปลี่ยน ตั้งแต่ปี 2490 มานะครับ เรามีปฏิวัติทางทหารเป็นครั้งแรก และตั้งแต่นั้นมาก็เกิดวงจรอุบาทว์ของการปฏิวัติโดยทหาร เราตั้งแต่ 2490 มาเนี่ย เรามีปฏิวัติไปแล้ว 17 ครั้งนะฮะ สำเร็จ 10 [ครั้ง] นะครับ จากการสำเร็จ ปฏิวัติสำเร็จ 10 ครั้งนี่นะฮะ มีการเลือกตั้ง 22 ครั้ง แสดงว่าเลือกตั้งทุก 2 ครั้ง ก็ปฏิวัติหนนึง แล้วประเทศมันจะอยู่ยังไงฮะ เดี๋ยวเปลี่ยน เดี๋ยวเปลี่ยน เดี๋ยวเปลี่ยน แต่ที่น่าสนใจครับ พี่น้องครับ มี 2 ครั้งในประวัติศาสตร์ คือ 14 ตุลา 16 และ 17 พฤษภาคม 35 เป็นการปฏิวัติโดยประชาชนครับ ไม่รู้ว่า 8 เมษายน นี่จะใช่ด้วยหรือเปล่าครับ พี่น้องครับ การที่ การที่เรามีการเลือกตั้ง 2 ครั้ง ปฏิวัติครั้ง เลือกตั้ง 2 ครั้ง ปฏิวัติครั้งนึง เราจึงมีแต่นักการเมืองประเภทที่เอาการเมืองไว้ทำมาหากิน นักการเมืองที่มีอุดมการ พร้อมเสียสละ อยู่ไม่ค่อยได้ล่ะครับ เฉลี่ยว่าเลือกตั้ง 2 ครั้ง ปฏิวัติที เลือกตั้ง 2 ครั้ง ปฏิวัติทีนึง แล้วถามว่า ประเทศมันจะไปไหวไหมครับ ผลพวงก็คือว่า มองย้อนหลังนะครับ ประมาณ 50 กว่าปีที่แล้ว เราจะแข่งกับญี่ปุ่น เวลานี้ไม่ต้องพูดครับ เค้าไปไหนแล้ว ประมาณ 40 กว่าปีที่แล้ว เราจะแข่งกับไต้หวัน ประมาณ 30, 40 ปีที่แล้ว เราแข่งกับสิงคโปร์ 20 ปีที่แล้ว แข่งกับมาเลเซีย นี่เราแข่ง แล้วลด ลด ระดับการแข่งมาเรื่อยนะฮะ ปัจจุบันเราแข่งใครรู้มั้ยครับ แข่งกับเวียดนาม [ซึ่ง]เพิ่งยุติสงครามไปไม่กี่ปีนี้เอง แล้วเราสู้เค้าไม่ได้มาทีละชั้นๆ ตกชั้นมาเรื่อย เพราะการเมืองของเรามันไม่เป็นประชาธิปไตยที่แท้จริงนี่แหละครับ พี่น้องครับ เดี๋ยวปฏิวัติ เดี๋ยวปฏิวัติ ทำไมล่ะครับ? ไม่สบอารมณ์อำมาตย์ การเมืองจึงเป็นการเมืองเพื่ออำมาตย์ เพื่อชนชั้นในกรุงเทพ ไม่ได้เป็นการเมืองเพื่อประชาชน

  As a professinal historian, I’m curious to know who provided Thaksin with this ‘historical reference’, or gave him advice on the ‘number’. He doesn’t strike me as a guy who’s usually interested in this sort of thing. (He had relatively long pauses and looked up his prepared sripts often.)

  Regarding the 30 March vidiolink speech, as you said, he didn’t talk about any revolution there either. Only the ‘pledge’ you mention:

  (minutes 12:35 to 14:01)
  พี่น้องครับ วันนี้พี่น้อง ไม่ต้องห่วงผม หลายคนเป็นห่วง ไม่ต้องห่วง ผมเอาตัวรอด แต่ผมห่วงพี่น้องครับ บอกพี่น้อง พี่น้องผมบอกได้เลยนะครับ [b]ถ้าเมื่อไหร่ เสียงปืนแตก ทหารยิงประชาชน ผมจะเข้าไปนำพี่น้องเดินเข้ากรุงเทพทันที ผมจะไม่ยอมอีกแล้ว สำหรับเผด็จการแบบนี้[/b] พี่น้องครับ พี่น้องทหาร พี่น้องตำรวจ คนเหล่านี้ คือเลือดเนื้อเชื้อไขไทยทั้งสิ้น เป็นเลือดเนื้อเชื้อไขที่รักพระเจ้าอยู่หัว เช่นเดียวกับพวกท่าน อย่ามีใครมาผูกขาด ว่าจงรักพระเจ้า.. จงรักภักดีพระเจ้าอยู่หัว โดยที่ไม่ใช่ ไม่นับพวกเรา คนไทยทุกคนจงรักภักดีและรักพระเจ้าอยู่หัวและสมเด็จ แต่มีคนบางคนพยายามผูกขาด ทำให้ท่านเสียหาย

  btw, in reference to Thaksin’s 18 and 27 April vidiolink speech that you wrote on other occasion (you know what I mean), I think Thaksin did mean the coup when he told the story of dinner at Pi’s house and Surayut’s alleged audience with HMK and his alleged pledge to HMK to ‘get Thaksin’ (จัดการทักษิณ), or rather Thaksin regarded the story as part of the same process that let to the coup. I’m sure (listening to that speech a few times) he didn’t separate each steps that let to his downfall (from to the annulment of April 2006 elections, to the meeting at Pi’s house, to the sentencing of Election Commitsioners, to Surayut’s phone call to Sonthi L to give ‘moral support’ to the latter, and ultimately to the coup itself). He ‘lumped’ all these together. And quite correctly so, in my view, in the sense that they belonged to the same process. Whether participants of Pi’s dinner did or did not talk about the coup at that stage is hard to tell.

• 4 Dickie Simpkins // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm

  I agree with Srithanonchai,

  What matters more is what they perceived he has said and the consequences they drew from it.

  Not that what I am about to say next is newsworthy, but it definitely is thought-provoking. I sat in a cab yesterday (no, that’s not the big news) who was what you call a ‘red shirt’ guy, but he was no longer a red shirted, at least no longer part of the Thaksin-wing.

  We had a nice chat he and I. We both agreed that there are too many ‘invisible people’ who play a role in Thai politics, and these people do need to be neutralized. The whole Songkran episode has however made him “wake up” to Thaksin. He really believed that Thaksin was coming back, and was disheartened when he found out (after the riots) that Thaksin had removed his wife and children from the country. They were earlier told that the family was still in Bangkok, and he was at the rally where Yaowapha Wongsawat said the same, that the family was just away on a quick preplanned trip, but would be back in Bangkok in no time… for him, the worst was when he saw Thaksin on CNN deny that he had any part in the Red-shirt movement and that he only offered them ‘moral support’…. (he said he saw this at the house where he stayed in for 2 days of people who had let him stay in their house).

  He wasn’t one of those ‘hardcore’ fanatics, he played a part in closing down the Victory Monument…. he was shocked when a few ‘hardliners’ in the Red shirt drove and parked gas tanks at Din Daeng, he told me he was there all night, and roughly 3:30-4am when (in his words) some crazy red-shirters (not blue, not anyone else) told them that they “received orders” to fight the military. He didn’t go up front, but said he was near enough to know that the red shirt tried really hard to get the military to attack. His claims were that the claims of ‘hundreds’ of bodies dead is totally false. He told me that he was there (like a hundred times), and said that “if” anyone died, the number could definitely not exceed 5. When the military shot at people after (he has no recollection much of what happened as he didn’t sleep the whole night), he just heard gun fire and ran…. removed his red-shirt, and ran begging for help from someone in the area. He was first told to move on, but he begged, and was allowed in. He hadn’t showered for 3 days prior to then, and lived with these people for 2 days.

  Having said all that to me, he re-iterated that there is still a class system that exists in this country, and that the way the Red Shirts were dealt with was totally different from the PAD, and he still feels pained at that. However, at this moment in time, he does not believe nor trust the red shirt leadership anymore. He feels that they duped him and at the end, left him on his own. He still ‘feels red’, and definitely has no love for Prem and Thailand’s ‘background’ politics. I really wished I had taken his name, but I was taking more a role of a listener, and thanked him profusely when I reached my destination. I didn’t realize the valuability (i’m like Bush, I make up words) of information till I told my colleague of what happened.

  I don’t know how this ‘proves’ or ‘disproves’ Thaksin’s call for a revolution, but it was worth noting that someone who thought Thaksin called for one, went there to fight, and was disillusioned by the lack of support given later.

• 5 Mungo Gubbins // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:47 am

  It would seem that the “billionaire” Dr. Thaksin already has ambitious plans for his own post revolution investment, and that he has the foresight to prepare for foreign policy initiatives in advance of the people’s victory.

  From Star Radio Liberia http://www.starradio.org.lr/content/view/11443/380/

  “Former Thai PM in Liberia

  Written by Julius Kanubah
  Tuesday, 21 April 2009

  The former Prime Minister of Thailand has held talks with Vice President Joseph Boakai aimed at exploring avenues for a huge investment in Liberia.

  Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra told VP Boakai Tuesday it is his strong intention for Thailand to have good relations with African Countries.

  According to him, Thailand would like to share its success and failure in the areas of agriculture and poverty eradication.

  Mr. Shinawatra said his group is interested in oil and mineral exploration and extraction, agriculture, telecommunication license and Lottery.

  The Thai billionaire arrived in Liberia early Tuesday and would continue his journey to Ivory Coast and other African Countries on Wednesday.

  Making remarks, VP Boakai welcomed Mr. Shinawatra and delegation and urged the Thais to investment in Liberia as the country has all of the minerals. ”

  Or is he just trying to blag somehere to set up a satellite link?

• 6 chris baker // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  Acharn Somsak. Many, many thanks for digging out this reference.

  I asked this question because I want to quote these words in a publication. As a general rule, if a quote appears (like this one) in English translation, I try to find the Thai original because the press translations are sometimes quite loose.

  As it turns out he did not say the words quoted in the AP story on the night of the 12th. Their quotation is a conflation of three things he said at three different times. So I was right to be wary. And I’m very grateful to A. Somsak and NM (and AP) for helping to sort this out, and saving me from a misquotation.

  I now have a correct (and different) quote, which is great.

  On the Pi Malakul house meeting. I agree with A. Somsak, that Thaksin might well have meant the coup. That’s an interpretation. But what Thaksin related, in summary form was, ‘Surayud told the meeting that three PCs had been to audience and given an undertaking to fix me.’ The FT headline has changed this to say that the three PCs informed him about a coup. The FT headline was rapidly repeated by other papers and blogs. It has now become a ‘fact.’ As one of Thailand’s most punctilious historians, A. Somsak knows what I mean. I don’t think we want the facts made up in Fleet Street.

  Yes, I agree with Srithanonchai and Dickie that the audience might have interpreted his statement as a call for action. Again, interpretation. In fact, interpretation of interpretation.

  Thanks to all.

• 7 jonfernquest // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  Thanks for providing a glimpse of a historian at work, Dr. Baker.

  What a semiotic jungle the word ปฏิวัติ is. When I first heard it after the 2006 coup, I replied, don’t you mean รัฐประหาร. I thought that maybe using the word “revolution” for “coup” was casting it in positive light but Thaksin uses this way too in the given quote. Then there is การปฏิวัติ ประชาชน which surely can’t mean coup of the people, but before the 1992 so-called People’s Revolution many elements of the Bangkok middle class sympathized with the military and coup as they did in 2006 although they later changed their minds. If current events are simply the latest manifestation of the “Tale of Two Democracies” phenomenon, then what “People” does การปฏิวัติ ประชาชน refer to? Thailand is a divided nation. As always, more accurate demographics seems to be called for.

  The selective citing of Malaysia and Japan in Thaksin’s claim that military intervention retards economic development is also highly suspect. Korea’s development was intimately tied with military interventions and what about the Tianamen Square incident and the collective forgetting afterwards that preceded China’s great growth surge?

• 8 Andrew Walker // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  I have received this message from a reader:

  Here’s someone else who wrote about Thaksin talking about ‘revolution’ during the DStation broadcast of April 12. (Wrote about it as it was happening, on Twitter). Unfortunately, it’s not a quote.

  #
  Pict3415_normal
  smartbrain: thaksin calling for a revolution for democracy for the king.
  Apr 12, 2009 11:32 AM GMT · from mobile web · Reply · View Tweet

  #
  Pict3415_normal
  smartbrain: thaksin on dstation
  Apr 12, 2009 11:31 AM GMT · from mobile web · Reply · View Tweet

  (http://search.twitter.com/search?lang=en&max_id=1505898607&page=3&q=+from%3Asmartbrain+since%3A2009-04-11+until%3A2009-04-12&rpp=50)

• 9 yolada // Apr 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  i dont think he had to say the words to rally up the people.
  from his whole speech, even i felt like he wanted the people to create a revolution. if he didnt, why was he sooo… what’s a word to use… forceful with his words and the animations of his hand.

  if he had wanted peace, he woulda urged the people to do it with words and silent protests but i think with his energy, many people took it as a call for a revolution. if he didnt want a ‘revolution’ he shoulda kept his mouth closed or at least talk to the current government. not use people’s troubles and issues as a fuel to do his work.

• 10 Sidh S // Apr 27, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  “The selective citing of Malaysia and Japan in Thaksin’s claim that military intervention retards economic development is also highly suspect.” Good point Jonfernquest #7. If we analyze economic growth rate with the level of democracy in Asia, Thailand may be accused of having too much ‘democracy’ (like the Indian vs. Chinese models)!

  And the desire for strong, stable governments (sacrificing democratic and political freedom) for the sake of economic growth is always there. Here’s a link to Sorayuth’s interesting interview of Vikrom Kromadit, the industrial-estate tycoon, who seem to support this model:

  http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=837124

  This is true “Thaksinomics” (remember the vision of creating “10 Singapores” in Thailand?) – a vision that could have been, had another group of Thai elite and the urban middle-class been willing to accept PMThaksin’s overlordship and overlook his/colleagues rampant corruption and self-interests. It also could have been had PMThaksin spread his centralization of power and economic interests over a 10 year period instead of 5…

  This vision of ‘democracy’ is probably what PMThaksin still meant when he stated to the global media that he is fighting for “true democracy”.

• 11 Andrea // Nov 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  How did Tak Sin become King??
  Could someone plaese answer this…really want to know!

Leave a Comment