In December 2008 the UDD leader Natthawut Saikua made a beautiful speech to the crowd of redshirts in front of parliament. Invoking powerfully elemental imagery, this speech (excerpt translated below) portrays the redshirts in the figurative form of the sons and daughters of the land who know full well that a vast distance separates them from the sky. ‘We only have to look down to realise that we are worth no more than a handful of earth.’ We, the redshirts, are a people denied respect and justice, a people whose collective voice, rising from the land to the sky, calls for the acknowledgement that ‘we too have heart and soul.’
The text and video clip of this speech have since been widely circulating among the network of blogs and websites that participate in the redshirts’ movement. They’ve also appeared on Wikiquote as well as on the webboards of the odd independent media. But elsewhere it’s as if the most powerful Thai political speech in recent years has never happened. The current place of this speech, subsequently entitled ‘from the land to the sky,’ is a curious one. It’s regarded as a speech of historic importance among those who have, so to speak, crossed into the barricades. It doesn’t appear to be widely known among the ‘newly red’: those who may subscribe in conceptual terms to the call for equality, and may therefore sympathise with the crowd from this distance. (But they/I can’t quite see themselves/myself reflected in the provincial-machismo of some of the regulars on the redshirts’ stage.) Those who continue to maintain that all this is only about Thaksin wouldn’t have been irritated by this speech – it wasn’t televised on their channels.A historic speech that wasn’t televised, Natthawut’s trumping of the rambling, robotic convention of Thai political speechmaking deserves much wider, and continuing, circulation. It’s rich food for thought. Why was it this particular speech, and not others, that struck a powerful chord among the UDD supporters? What does the texture of the speech and its reception say about the basis of people’s identification with the redshirts’ movement? The allegorical structure of ‘from the earth to the sky’ is a challenge to think through too. Censorship and the decline of aura both account for the rise of the allegorical form. It’s a type of utterance that works on multiple levels, so won’t be informative enough for the rationalist; but what it always has to have is the trust that the audience will decipher a message that parallels the literal one. How the audience shifts from producing that message into sustaining effective political action is another question, but the quality of Natthawut’s speech tells you that something has changed. There’ll be no more marching into action having made a play of absorbing the cold condescension of sagely wisdom.
From the earth to the sky
Natthawut Saikua..We’re denied many things. We’re denied justice; respect in the way governmental bodies treat us; accurate and direct reporting about us in the media. We’re denied the chance to openly declare our fight – to openly and directly declare, with our clarity and sincerity, what it is that we are fighting for.
What’s most important for us all to remember, brothers and sisters, is that we are the salt of the earth. We are the people with no privileges.
We were born on the land. We grew up on the land. Each step that we take is on this same land. We stand, with our two feet planted here, so far away from the sky.
Tilting our heads fully upwards, we gaze at the sky, and we realise how far away that sky is.
Standing on this land, we only have to look down to realise that we are worth no more than a handful of earth.
But I believe in the power of the redshirts. I believe our number is growing day-by-day, minute-by-minute. Even though we stand on this land, and we speak out from our place among the earth, our voice will rise to the sky. Of this I have no doubt.
The voice we’re making now – our cries and shouts – is the voice of people who are worth only a handful of earth. But it is the voice of the people who were born and grew up on this land, and it will rise to the level of the sky.
We, the redshirts, want to say to the land and sky that we too have heart and soul. We, the redshirts, want to remind the land and sky that we too are the Thai people. We, the redshirts, want to ask the land and sky whether we have been condemned to seek, by ourselves, a rightful place to plant our feet here..
12 responses so far ↓
1 thomas hoy // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:11 am
This speech by Sondhi Lim is cited by Bangkok Pundit as an ASTV report
สนธิ – แล้วก็ ช่วงนี้ก็ไปปล่อยข่าวลือว่าผมนี่ถูกสั่งยิงโดย..โดยฟ้า แล้วเขาก็ไม่รู้นะครับว่าข้างบนเขาก็รู้ว่านี่คือข่าวลือที่พวกเขาปล่อยมา แล้วใครปล่อยเขาก็รู้ ปล่อยผ่านพระองค์หนึ่งแถวๆ ยานนาวา พระองค์นั้นท่านก็ฉุนว่าเอาท่านไปเกี่ยวข้องอะไร ท่านก็โทร.ไปรายงานฟ้าเหมือนกันว่าท่านไม่เกี่ยวข้อง แล้วบอกด้วยว่าใครเป็นคนปล่อยข่าวลือ นี่คือความทุกข์ มันปิดไม่มิดหรอก เอามือปิดฟ้าได้ยังไง
Sondhi L – And at the moment there are rumours that someone in the sky ordered the hit on me. And those in a high place don’t know whether it is the rumour that they spread. And who spread it they know. It was said it was spread through one monk near the Yawana district, but that monk was angry and denied it. He telephoned me and to someone high up that he was not involved and said who was it that spread this rumour. This is is distressing. It cannot be completely concealed. How can you use your hand to cover up the sky?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
2 David Brown // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:51 am
yes… a powerful metaphor
is an english translation of the whole available anywhere
i cant see it on wikiquote…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 Thaihome // Apr 27, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Perhaps this speech from over a year ago was overshadowed by the speech Arisaman made just before the current demostrations where he urged every person to bring a bottle with them to Bangkok. Petrol would supplied when they got there.
TH
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
4 Peter Marshall // Apr 27, 2010 at 10:04 pm
(From Total War – Peter Calvocoressi and Guy Winter –
discussing the events and social changes which led to
the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939)
QUOTE:”The new urban classes began to exert pressure and
command sympathy. What they wanted was vague – less
misery and poverty, more fairness, more self-respect –
but it implied upheaval. The traditional givers of laws
amd mores (churches, kings and nobles), and the laws and
the mores themselves, lost authority under rational
scrutiny and popular suspicion. It was not immediately
clear what the new values were nor where they were to
come from. New elites, professing a democratic instead
of an aristocratic faith, emerged to take or share the
power which was slipping from the exclusive grasp of the
old regime and which, owing to technical revolutions in
communication and manufacturing, was rapidly becoming
much greater than before.”
Sounds familiar?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
5 Mango Man // Apr 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm
My Isan partner, born into stifling poverty, tells how as a child, she used to squat in a field to perform her morning ablutions and look up at the planes crossing the sky, telling herself one day she would be up there.
She is, but sadly as the citizen of a foreign land.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
6 Tench // Apr 28, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“We’re denied the chance to openly declare our fight”
Interesting. What is it they haven’t declared openly? Not the dissolution of parliament, that’s out in the open; not replacing the military-drafted constitution, that’s been mentioned.
Which leaves …
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
7 Wheres TimSebastian? // Apr 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm
The speech that WAS heard:
I have just watched the P.M’s light toasting on BBC’s “Hard-Talk” I will be writing to suggest they rename it “Soft-Ball”
It was obvious that certain key topics were agreed to be off-limits before the interview began. The one about the unmentionables and any discussion of divisions within the military.
He muddled unintelligibly through the question of not having a political mandate from the people and the realignment of political power groups that undermined the electoral system that bought him (and Thaksin) to power.
He tried to put forward the notion of the red-shirt protest as violent and aggressive and resorted to the terrorist epithet for the convenience of bewildered viewers with a short attention span.
When asked if he would impose Martial Law he explained that that was entirely up to the military and nothing to do with him, a mere Prime Minister.
So at least that’s clear!
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
8 stacker // Apr 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Tench. Their fight against inequality. e.g. Anytime they try to express themselves they are denied. It starts at school they are denied to ask questions. The media deny to allow them to express themselves i.e. media do not show anything that is negative to the elite.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
9 Jay R. // Apr 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm
An impressive remake of the speech on Youtube with moving background music – Aesthetis- OST Team Medical Dragon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKeA9if3vL4
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
10 Key Players in Thai Politics | Armadillo Projections // May 5, 2010 at 1:31 am
[...] giving an inspiring speech called “From the Earth to the Sky” To read the speech click here. There has also been a warrant issued for his [...]
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
11 Key Players in Thai Politics - clpl-india News // May 5, 2010 at 3:35 am
[...] giving an inspiring speech called “From the Earth to the Sky” To read the speech click here. There has also been a warrant issued for his [...]
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
12 khikwai.com » Blog Archive » Intermission // May 23, 2010 at 1:39 am
[...] compromises. To borrow imagery from a stirring speech that Nattawut Saikua delivered in 2008 (EN, TH, video below), however, the sky is closer today than it has ever been. The old order is dead. [...]
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
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.