On 30 November 2009 Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, accompanied by Satit Wongnongtoey, made his appearance at Samak’s funeral, and attended the rites. The security presence was heavy, police was afraid that a similar incident might occur as happened when Nevin Chidchob came at the first day of the rites. Nothing to speak of happened other than when Abhisit arrived some of the many Red Shirts in attendance voiced their anger slightly. Police took no chances though, and deployed portable sound gun in case the Red Shirts made a move.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Steve // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:07 am
Let’s give Abhisit his due. Despite his (many) faults, it seems reasonable to expect that his UK upbringing would have instilled in him what’s expected at funeral ceremonies – i.e. to be as gracious as you can manage whatever the past history between you and the deceased. My understanding is that it’s not so very different in Thai culture – at least because you shouldn’t be criticising people who now can’t answer.
Newin attending? Arguably rather different from a current PM attending the rites for a former PM – rites honoured with several royal wreathes and a palace-ordered washing of the body. In the UK, the thinking is that certain people are expected to “do the decent thing” and stay away. I suspect that in Thailand being seen to turn up and “show respect for the deceased” is more of a factor – i.e. you just look bad if you don’t. Either way, the protests against him were completely inappropriate for the occasion.
2 mythai // Dec 2, 2009 at 4:16 am
Err, can anyone enlighten us on what exactly a ‘portable sound gun’ is? Yes, the clue is clearly in the name but does anyone have any further details? Sonic weapons? Interesting and disturbing.
3 Susie Wong // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:08 am
Steve, you got it all wrong. Newin and Aphisit paid last respect to Samak because it was Samak who organized the alliance of Newin and Aphisit. At the time, the People’s Power Party was split into two factions, the Gang of Four and the rest. Samak was with the Gang of Four (Newin, Chavarat the Interior Minister, Newin’s father the House Speaker, basically the Phumjai Thai Party). Samak’s wife in the picture is Charoen Pokapan employee, she brought the CP to join the Democrat Party coalition which had increased the financial support for the Democrat Party substantially. The current government was the making of Samak and his wife to a certain degree. Samak was closed with the Army Chief Anupong Paochinda. The two made a deal which gave confidence for Newin to defect from Thaksin.
4 Nick Nostitz // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“mythai”:
I don’t know the proper description for that thing. You see it in the image – the huge loudspeaker the police officer is carrying. I have been last year on the receiving end of such a thing mounted on a pick up truck – it gives out a tremendous high pitched noise which hurts the ears a lot.
5 siammiddlepath // Dec 2, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Steve,
I’m sorry but I think you over rated the UK upbringing – I think Apisit going to the service had nothing to do with it. Although it’s a bit sad as a Thai that the first thing which came to mind when you thought of the Thai PM was his elite background. Doesn’t it sound very much like when you talk of a dog or similar show animals – from his pedigree and not from his achievements? Anyway, back to the funeral, short of you being the murderer of the one you go to pay respect to, Thai culture expects that you show up as a final act of forgiveness.
I’m a Thai who grew up here without the benefit of western upbringing or education. So naturally I’m not good at critical thinking or writing. However, I’d like to ask you to read the ‘Dudeist’ comments on the neighbor site Bangkok Pundit – which actually spoke my mind except on the bits on whether Apisit should or should not have gone to the funeral. (NM I hope this reference is ok)
6 StanG // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Are reds going to cement themselves as successors of Village Scouts and Nawapon? Why do they appear they so protective of Samak? Or are they just hijacking his funeral to continue with their political fight?
According to Pridiyathorn, Samak and Chuan were on the same debating team and won many competitions together (with Uthai Pimchaichon).
Did Chuan show up or sent a wreath?
7 Steve // Dec 3, 2009 at 1:38 am
siammiddlepath,
Our background (UK/German in my case) is always with us – and I probably made too much of Abhisit’s (partly) UK upbringing. My apologies if I seemed to imply that he would in some way “know better” or “behave better” only because of that UK background. I did go on to say why I thought – as a Thai and the current PM – he would automatically go to the ceremony.
I think you’re too modest about your own skills! I did read dudeist’s post at BP – not much for me to disagree with there.
8 Susie Wong // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:26 pm
As times gone by, people in Thailand and Southeast Asia region get to know more about Aphisit. As a result, ASEAN leaders declined to attend the opening of the ASEAN summit in order to distance themselves from Aphisit. It’s an embarrassment for Thailand. Integrity is important in any international relations. Even Aphisit has the title of Prime Minister, still he can’t force respect from neighboring countries. It is unwise for Aphisit to pretend not to know how others people think about him. Thailand cannot continue to have Aphisit who lacks legitimacy both inside Thailand and abroad. Thailand deserves something better. Straight forward honesty is an universal value in any culture. Obviously, Aphisit has neither British, German nor Asian values. In my opinion, if we respect dishonest people it means we disrespect ourselves.
9 Nick Nostitz // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“StanG”:
It is a bit simplistic to conclude that because many Red Shirts support Samak (and there are many that don’t) that they are “going to cement themselves as successors of Village Scouts and Nawapon”.
On both sides of the conflict there are people that have been involved with these organizations in the run-up and during the Oct. 6 period.
So was Chamlong Srimuang heavily involved as well, was present behind the stage at Royal Plaza on that day, organizing the speeches of village scout leaders. You can read this in Thongchai Winitchakul’s “Silencing/Remembering the Past”. This was also confirmed to me by a lower ranked BPP officer who has taken part in the atrocities.
If there is one organization that can be compared to Navapon or Kratingdaeng – it is the Blue Shirts of Pattaya fame – a by the state organized militia that has been used to attack opposition protesters in ways security services are not supposed to be seen doing. Yet there was strong involvement of soldiers (and Buriram police officers) in the Blue Shirts, in addition to PAD guards.
I would also suggest to have a look which of the two present mass organization’s political stand and resulting rhetoric resembles the political views of the right wing of the 70’s.
Red Shirt support of Samak comes not from his history in the 70’s, but from the simple fact that he was Prime Minister of a PPP led government.
Things are bit more muddled nowadays. Both sides have former communists in their ranks, and both sides have people that were involved in the right wing organizations of the 70’s. The present conflict may have strong roots in the political conflicts of the 70’s (as those days were a development from previous conflicts), but it is a different socio-political situation, and a different conflict. One may draw certain parallels to conflicts past, yet there are distinct differences.
10 Chris Beale // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Nick you’re certainly correct pointing out that there are important differences between now compared to 1976.
And it also needs to be said that 1976’s Thammasat massacre (Tula) and coup was counter-productive to the Right-wing :
it massively boosted the Communist Party of Thailand, from a relatively insignificant fringe irritant, into a formidable challenge to the Thai state, nearly plunging the country into irredeemable civil war.
An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ‘76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
Now any attempt to have Tula Mark Two is the one thing certain to plunge Thailand into irredeemable civil war – with much of the military (especially Chiang Mai’s Fourth Army, and Isaarn’s Third Army), full of officers and men sympathetic to Thaksin, and Thailand’s police heavily pro-Thaksin and refusing to be dismissed from their posts.
11 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:16 am
Chris Beale:
An important difference between then and now is at that the elite is far more divided – in ‘76 there was no Thaksin, and His Majesty was still young and healthy.
actually, I don’t think it’s quite correct to put it this way.
Factionalism in the military in the 70s ran very deep and wide. There had been rumors of coup (not to speak of actual coups) almost every year (sometimes almost the whole year) down to the 1980s, i.e. throughout the Prem’s regime. No similar situations exist nowadays.
On the other hand, while Thaksin is, so to speak, a member of the ‘elite’, he has a genuinely mass support. This is the key difference. Observers (not least academic observers) often miss this crucial fact: Thaksin was the first PM elected by nation-wide vote, virtually the first presidential-style elective leader. No person who assumed the PM post before him ever achieved over half the vote in general election as he did, making him the first leader of a single-party government. Observers and his enemies alike have underestimated this historic change. And while he lost much support subsequently during the crises, it’s still there quite massively. Conflicts among members of the elite never assumed such sharpness and longivity because none of them really had this kind of genuine mass support, not even Chatchai, the last elective PM overthrown by a coup before Thaksin. In short, it’s not simply a ‘more divided’ elite. If it’s just that, it would have been resolved long ago. (Of course, the monarchy has developed a mass support of its own too, for the first time in my view, unlike the 1970s when it largely relied on state-organized groups like the Village Scouts. (the PAD’s royalism is critically different from the Village Scouts’ royalism in this regard.)
12 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:31 am
Consider this: after Chatchai was overthrown, no mass movement coming out to defend him or to demand his return to power. This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.
13 StanG // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Perhaps some PAD member inherited Nation-Religion-King ideology from the 70s while pro-Thaksin reds inherit longing for a strong and popular leader ala Sarit and good old days – the main cause of resentment against reformists in 1973- 1976, imo.
Of course PAD wants more than just protecting the monarchy and reds want more than restoring Thaksin.
14 Nick Nostitz // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“Somsak Jeamteerasakul”:
“This conflict is definitely not just ‘conflict between members of the elite’, as many observers have been fond of saying these past few years.”
I would even go so far, and say that the main factor that drives this conflict is the mass movements and not the elite machinations. This is also the main reason which has kept me being obsessed with photographing and reporting on this. It is quite unpredictable, unprecedented, and the potential for profound change is tremendous.
Red Shirt political philosophy i hear repeated in many areas outside the protests, by people who have never attended the rallies. But one should also not dismiss the PAD – even though they may have received backing from the elites last year (and to some extend still do), they are not just a tool of the elites. In their eyes – they also do stand for change, which does bring them in conflict with the elites, whose main ideal is just re-enforcing their traditional positions of domination.
In many ways, i believe that the traditional elites are rather helpless when facing the situation. All their efforts to stop these developments have been fruitless, and made hardly any impact.
The funeral festivities of Samak are rather telling in how Thailand has already changed. In some ways, this elite event has not played out as it should have. In important events like this, top – ranked people come together, to show their respects, to be seen, while their conflicts are for the brief moment left aside in a show of good manners.
The common people are there to cue up, bow and be quiet – a perfect representation of how Thai society should be – well ordered, where every sector knows its place.
Yet suddenly they have broken the code – they have not just been present in silence, but have made their views known in very “un-Thai” forms: the threw water bottles at Nevin, and shouted displeasure at Abhisit’s appearance.
Where else will this all go?
15 Srithanonchai // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I am not sure whether references such as “presidential-style elective leader” do not reproduce the view of the ammart, who are fond of denouncing Thaksin’s time as “semi-presidentialism”–for obvious reasons. Thaksin had to be elected by parliament. Many parliamentary systems use much more proportionality in their election systems than Thailand does, without being called presidential. Would it make sense to call Thatcher or Blair, elected by using a majoritarian system, “semi-presidents”?
16 StanG // Dec 4, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Nick, I’m glad people moved on from simplistic “evil elites vs good people” understanding of the Thailand’s conflict.
I don’t know what your opinion was a year or two ago, I myself never believed PAD to be just a tool of elites. The elites (let’s say Prem and Co) were rather reacting to PAD’s movements, from the coup to the court decision against PPP which was practically forced by PAD when they blocked the airports.
The country is also moving past the extreme yellow-red polarization with majority of people trying to stay as far away from both camps as possible, settling with the devils they know – Newin, Democrats, Chavalit. This creates ideological vacuum as PAD prepares to unleash their New Politics on the mainstream society, or some other version of “think new act new” comes along.
I’d give a year or two at most – people will want their political entertainment again, they will want new shows and a new cast.
17 Nick Nostitz // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“StanG”:
The PAD may have started as an independent anti-Thaksin/anti-corruption movement, but was instrumentalized by the traditional elites as soon as they saw their potential. Many supporters left the PAD after the military coup, and quite a few of them you can find now in the Red Shirts. Nevertheless, even though the PAD did the bidding of those sectors, especially in 2008, they were not just a tool, but their political aims do go far beyond of what their backers in the shadows aim for. The PAD are a nationalist-revolutionary movement with strong third-positionist ideologies.
I do not see the “majority of people trying to stay as far away from both camps as possible”. That may be reported by by the media as the new catch phrase – the “silent majority”.
The silent majority i see, especially and also in my daily life in a average working class/lower middle class neighborhood (and those sectors are the numerical majority here in Bangkok), has very strong support for the Red Shirt’s political aims. Most people may have no time to attend the protests as they have to work very hard, but they do talk about politics (a trend that has started with the introduction of Thaksin’s populist policies).
In the villages of Isaarn and the North i have seen very similar political views.
Over the past year we have had many attempts to orchestrate such a “silent majority”, or a “unity” movement. So far every single attempt failed miserably. Just think about what happened with the anti-petition signature campaign – we heard nothing anymore about it. How many signatures have they collected? What about the “white shirts”? One public appearance, trying to begin a country-wide movement – and nothing anymore.
18 Chris Beale // Dec 8, 2009 at 2:14 am
Nick – like you, until recently when I left Thailand, perhaps for good, I was living in a mixed working class / middle class area.
Two things struck me :
1) the way poorer members of the area were almost fearless in their open support of the Red-shirts – eg. loudly listening to Red-Shirt radio, cheering when they anyone wearing a red-shirt (whether political or not), and those from Isaarn increasingly willing to voice their increasingly brazen, almost break-away Isaarn identity – some to the point of calling Isaarn their “country”.
2) was the still quite evident menace of intimidation from semi-criminal thuggish Yellow-Shirt supporters.
It seems to me much of the Yellow Shirt – and more moderate Royalist reation is coming from a sense of fear and threat : they know they’ve lost Isaarn (ages ago), and Lanna (Chiang Mai, etc.),
that the military is deeply divided, that the police – overwhelmingly Thaksin-supporters – are refusing to be moved
out of their posts in favour anti-Thaksin officers.
I.e. that the “Thai” state is now severely fractured – and that the old levers of reaction seem to only half-work (at brest from their point of view). It seems the reactionaries are terrified of an uprising in Bangkok. They realise they’ve lost Isaarn and Lanna, now almost separate states, if not yet separate nations.
19 StanG // Dec 8, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I do not have much faith in “silent majority”, I put more value on the fact than neither reds nor yellows have been able to mobilize substantial crowds with compelling agenda.
Let’s see if reds cancel their upcoming Dec 10 rally, and how many people will show up if they don’t.
I think the days of street politics deciding country’s fate are over.
On Thaksin’s pardon – what do you think the actual number was? At some point there was talk of reaching ten million.
20 Chris Beale // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Stan – I hope you are correct about “the days of street politics deciding country’s fate are over”.
It would be far better for the country’s fate to be decided through the ballot box, than either street politics or yet another coup (which it seems General Anupong is now quietly warning of).
There was an excellent post here awhile ago by a Thai pointing out that the Democrats have a good chance of winning many votes in Lanna and Isaarn. This is the hopeful way to go.
But from a Western perspective, OUR history offers not much hope at all of avoidng civil war in the type of situation Thailand is now in. But never under-estimate particular Thai cultural traits – especially their extraordinary ability to achieve compromise and consensus in the most difficult circumstances.
21 NongChang // Jan 18, 2010 at 8:53 am
We should forget him and this Al Jazeera interview is a good source to remember him alive. Especially [01:10]!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuoqLiLSgnI
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.