New Mandala readers with good memories may have woken today with an awareness that 17 May 1992 and the days that came after are still called “Black May”. This is a period of infamy in Thailand’s recent political history. Back in May 1992 a protest in central Bangkok demanding the end of what many considered an illegitimate government was crushed with the combat boots and lethal weapons of the Royal Thai Army.
It is often repeated that King Bhumibol “intervened” to end the bloodshed.
Unfortunately, many protesters had died by 20 May 1992 when his televised audience with Generals Suchinda and Chamlong brought some resolution to the immediate crisis. The broadcast of that royal intervention is often proclaimed as a defining moment in Thailand’s democratic culture.
But as Paul Handley writes in his unofficial biography of the king:
May 1992 was a manifestation of the faults in Bhumibol’s ideal of a royal government, of his unrelenting prejudice against politicians, and his miscomprehension of the social changes that had occurred during his long reign…Bhumibol’s skill in saving the day after the bloody convulsion of May 18-20 helped to hide his consistent bias against protesters and popular movements…there is the problem that Bhumibol acted only three days after the first demonstrators were killed.
Handley’s appraisal of King Bhumibol’s handling of May 1992 should give us cause to consider what is happening in May 2010. In Handley’s description, King Bhumibol’s 63-year reign has been marked by profound ambivalence about democratic institutions and some of the protesters who seek to defend them. Now, as the clock ticks down to the end of his reign, the king has left his kingdom without a strong democratic culture and with few good mechanisms for solving its conflicts. Right now even the notional “silver bullet” of a royal intervention could fail. At this time of crisis, some are even suggesting that the monarchy itself is part of the problem rather than part of any future resolution.
So 18 years later, once again on 17 May, a Thai government has issued what looks like its final ultimatum.
36 responses so far ↓
1 JohnH // May 17, 2010 at 4:28 pm
A telling footnote to Nich’s Wiki source.
”Suchinda was later appointed Chairman of Telecom Asia (today known as True), a company which received a concession to install 2 million telephone lines in Bangkok during the Anand government. Anand became Chairman of Saha-Union Group, which had received an Independent Power Producer concession during his government.”
What price on democracy, lives or dollars?
Quality comment or not?
23 
2
2 Hla Oo // May 17, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I was working in Bangkok during the May 1992 events and witnessed the brutal crackdown and the aftermath.
I watched the TV as the whole nation when the King verbaled both Charmlong and General Suchinda publicly, and swiftly ended the crisis.
Will the history repeat this time? No, this time is different as both sides are structurally fractured. Who are king gonna call even if he wanted to?
The protesters are the seemingly leaderless mob from the upcountry. No single leader like charismatic former Bangkok mayor Charmlong. And Thaksin is in faraway Dubai or in Cambodia?
Other side also now appears to be seriously fractured. Abisit seems to have lost control to a group of nameless royalist generals and the army chief has washed his hands of the sniper-slaying in the so-called Live Firing Zones.
In 1992 crackdown the death and injured simple disappeared and the grieving families of the missing, more than a thousand, even had to search the Samut Prakan crocodile farms as the stories of soldiers feeding the bodies of slain and injured to the large crocodiles surfaced.
But this time the slain lay dead the wounded lay dying on the streets of Bangkok to be recorded and counted. Army as an institution seems to stop worrying about its image outside of Thailand.
The crisis in Thailand will linger on and brought Bangkok into a state of anarchic limbo like the prewar Berlin. No immediate end in sight!
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
54 
2
3 Ayutthaya // May 17, 2010 at 4:48 pm
There was a time when the sun, then the only sun in the sky, traversed the sky along its appointed route, daily rising in the east, duly setting in the west, enveloping the land in its warmth. Then, enigmatically, another sun strives to rise in the skies, to assist to wrap the land in further warmth. Inexplicably, the sun which had always preached that its purpose was just to warm the land, nothing more, began to diverge from its proper, duly appointed route. Inexplicably. Could it actually resent this newcomer to the firmament? If, in truth, as it avows, it just seeks to warm the land it shouldn’t; the newcomer is doing little more than this. But the sun now plots a path much closer, much lower to the land, scorching and burning the land it avows it only seeks to warm.
Quality comment or not?
23 
3
4 Simon // May 17, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I don’t agree with Handley’s interpretation of delayed intervention by the King as some kind of ‘problem’. Historically the King has not interfered with the daily business of government. His interventions as head of state have been rare and generally as a measure of last resort when the government has broken down.
I would argue that the King’s legal powers are almost irrelevant compared to his moral authority among Thai people, and that it was largely this moral authority that enabled him to defuse the 1992 crisis rather than any legal power.
The King’s moral authority comes in part from a perception that he is above politics and does not abuse power. Handley would not agree, but the point is that most Thai citizens do. An ‘interventionist’ king would lose the perception of neutrality and would not be able to intervene in this way.
So I doubt that the King will intervene while there is a functioning, democratically elected government in place excercising lawful authority to deal with an ugly mess. If the crackdown results in a massacre and a shattered, disfunctional government that won’t let go, perhaps then, but in the meantime the government has to deal with its own problems.
Hot debate. What do you think? Quality comment or not?
21 
48
5 Ken // May 17, 2010 at 5:26 pm
#1
Arnand was appointed chairman of SahaUnion in 1985. Not after the May 92 incident.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
6 LesAbbey // May 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a ‘where were they then’ on some of the politicians of today?
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
7 Nganadeeleg // May 17, 2010 at 6:05 pm
It’s a moot point whether he abuses power or whether power is abused in his name – whichever way, it happens (and he is compliant).
Maybe we could ask Darunee (Da Torpedo) or Suwicha Thakhor which they think it is?
Quality comment or not?
18 
3
8 Yuri // May 17, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Hla Oo, # 2
It is incorrect for you to say the protesters are seemingly leaderless mob from upcountry. Have you ever heard the Three Buddies (Sam Kleu — Veera, Chatuporn, and Nathawut) addressing the crowd in Rajprasong on any given evening ? Each one has his own style — Veera being the most senior (former Democrat politician) began the evening with general topics, Chatuporn (currently an MP) spoke with thundering voice, while Nathawut the last speaker with his jokes and knowledge of the Chinese Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sam Kok) always thrill the crowd who see the evening as uneventful without listening to the three in a row.
As former student activist, Chatuporn admitted he was once a follower of Chamlong and fought together against Suchinda in May 1992. He told the red crowd how he became disappointed with Chamlong who now prefers to side with the military dictatorship.
The Three Buddies may not have Chamlong’s charisma but now that Sae Daeng has become a martyr (died only this morning), people have turned their grief into anger and strength. See this pro-military paper Bkk Post’s report this morning that women refuse to leave Rajprasong —
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/37430/women-elderly-refuse-to-budge
Without the leadership of the Three Buddies and others like Dr. Weng (veteran pro-democracy fighter since when he was a student), and even former singer Arisman, and others, the crowd at Rajprasong would have thrown up the towel and gone home a long time ago.
Quality comment or not?
18 
4
9 BKK lawyer // May 17, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Please forgive the lengthy copy & paste. I thought this a passionate and articulate comment from a red Thai, “Ploy Daeng,” to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial today “The Killing in Bangkok”:
This is sad to see that most of you dont even get the basics of what’s going on. I am what you call a “dumb youth” … I am a red Thai. US Educated and relatively ‘wealthy’. We dont care about Thaksin. But at least he was born in Thailand…unlike our current PM. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Unlike the current PM and the entourage he belongs too. Despite being rich himself and technically closer to the BKK power clans, Thaksin understood that the havenots in Thailand (which I need to highlight for those who only see the shopping malls of Silom, the Gogo bars of Soi Cowboys and the beaches of Phuket, represent 80% of the population. Once you step out of Bangkok, you survive on USD 100 a month. Good luck!) were left out from the “Thai economic growth miracle”. The havenots are tired to wait, they are now more educated, they have access to internet and they realized…”we are the majority of this country”… The reds are surely not fighting for Thaksin to come back. That’s irrelevant. We are fighting for a more equal society. Where all the power (commercial, political, army, financial, intellectual, etc.) is not in the hand of a happy few in BKK.
Second, if Thailand calls itself a democracy then simply let the people decide. It is that easy. You cant call yourself a “democrat” but only when you win the elections and create chaos by blocking the airport for 2 weeks when you dont win. The current Democrat Party has not won any elections for the past ten years but they are in power now. How would , the British, the Germans, the Americans feel if your PM was not elected and then out to give democracy lessons to all? This is ridiculous even to an illiterate farmer from Khon Kaen…
You are all very fast to stamp Thaksin as corrupted but when he was in power all the MNCs and G-7 governments were very happy to invest and to do business with him and Thailand. His policies where cited as an example (Thasksonomics) in all the global Business press. Thailand was “leading” ASEAN, FDI was pouring in. In that case we can also call all the MNCs that invest in TH corrupted if you want… Corruption charges against Thaksin were brought forward by a judiciary system completely at the mercy of the current BKK apparatchiks. In that same case, YOU would all jump bail and stay out of the system if you think you can’t have a fair trial. I sure would fight at the court if I can get a fair trial.
Last, no one approves the burning of tires, the camping on bitumen, and the stress it brings on people on all sides but we need to stop calling demonstrators thugs, mob, vigilantes, dumb etc. Like it or not the Red are the majority in the country. Is Thaksin buying all the votes ? Is Thaksin organizing a crowd of 200,000 to descend on BKK ? Is Thaksin asking people to die ? This is not credible…. The reds left inside their compounds have the majority of the country behind them. So far we cant really say that they are terrorist, armed with anything else than stones and tires. You dont get shot in the head,Mr Gornman in the US / UK for trowing a rock. Even repeatedly. If you dont want the reds in the streets fighting and dying then meet them around an election. Unlike the “Democrats” we will respect the verdict.
If you keep stigmatizing the reds as dumb paid thugs from the country side you will have the same result as with Marie Antoinette when she offered “cake” to the French crowd that was demanding “more bread” in 1789. We all know what happened to Marie Antoinette after. ..
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
100 
2
10 bill blak // May 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm
The King’s failed health precludes any intervention. He is frail and has likely suffered several strokes.
Anyhow, he’s been close to the military since early days. Sarit etc.
No man should be worth $35billion.
Quality comment or not?
22 
8
11 Jaded // May 17, 2010 at 7:20 pm
LesAbbey // May 17, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a ‘where were they then’ on some of the politicians of today?
Well if you take a look at the careers of the Privy Council you will find some of the answers to your question. The careers of senior judicial appointees can also be interesting.
Quality comment or not?
18 
2
12 LesAbbey // May 17, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Jaded – 11
Yes you could be right although I was thinking more of today’s politicians and MPs, maybe even Thaksin himself.
Quality comment or not?
7 
3
13 Frank G Anderson // May 17, 2010 at 7:59 pm
My birthday passed on this same day, by the way, and I am halfway around the world from the one I love, at this stage in life trying to figure out what life is about…so to speak.
The many things that are being written and said about Thailand only begin to disclose the social ramifications of an ancient system that has long been qualified for removal.
Many of those demonstrating in Bangkok, and getting pissed off up-country, are and have been estranged and they may feel they have a voice in the actions against the government.
Let us see what tomorrow brings.
Quality comment or not?
14 
2
14 Jaded // May 17, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Thaksin has a lot less blood on his hands than some of the leading members of the Privy Council. He was corrupt, opportunistic and sought to find support for his authoritarianism by giving both the military and the police opportunities to terrorize the population. The police, in particular, seem to have benefited from his government sanctioned murder campaigns. But even if Thaksin was still in power now and thinking about his retirement options it is arguable that he has accumulated enough blood on his hands to be considered as a prospective Privy Counsellor. He doesn’t have a paramilitary powerbase and he isn’t a representative of the traditional establishment that runs Thailand. He’s an outsider with nothing but a popular vote as a powerbase who was allowed to take power because it was felt he might be competent but he could be, and obvious was, removed. He didn’t burn any books, or burn anyone alive in a oil drum, he didn’t even personally order the assassination of his enemies. He was too big a wimp to get the job done the traditional Thai way. No I think he just wouldn’t cut the mustard as a Privy Counsellor.
Like I said before, it an interesting exercise to take a look at the careers of these eminent people.
Quality comment or not?
29 
5
15 LesAbbey // May 17, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Jaded – 14
No I think he just wouldn’t cut the mustard as a Privy Counsellor.
Funny enough I have long had a suspicion that control of the Privy Council was an issue behind much of what’s gone on since Thaksin became prime minister, because as you know, he who controls the Privy Council controls the succession. Mind you I am not connected enough to know what party wants which party, if you see what I mean.
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
16 Hla Oo // May 17, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“In the 1980s, Veera Musikapong was banned from politics for five years after he said in a campaign speech he would have a happier and easier life as a prince than a politician. Veera was sentenced to six years in jail, but received a royal pardon and served only a few months.”
Yuri, if that Veera is the former labor leader Veera Musikapong he definitely is qualified as an anti-royalist Red shirt leader as he was once a silly victim of that draconian Les-majeste law.
Quality comment or not?
12 
2
17 Alistair // May 17, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I was political analyst at the Australian Embassy in 1992. I will never forget the events of Black May. I experienced something like what Nick Nostitz experienced this week, crouched on the ground outside the Royal Hotel on Sanam Luang, in utter disbelief at the mayhem and senseless killing of unarmed civilians. In exactly 18 years, I have never been so frightened.
For a few years afterwards the mood in Thailand was “never again”, and I assessed that a repeat, let alone another coup d’etat, was highly unlikely. Thailand was the democratic darling of the region. Then the Asian financial crisis hit and laid the seeds for Thaksin to assume power on a populist platform, and for the long established divide between the Bangkok elite and the rural dispossessed to emerge, on the back of uncertainty and manoeuvring over the succession.
It seems that 17 May will again be the day of reckoning. The government has back itself into a corner – there is no going back now, otherwise Abhisit will fall and the military will launch a coup d’etat, to “rescue the country from itself”. Same for the redshirts – they must be under no illusions about what is in store, and perhaps the scattered violence and uprisings in the suburbs of Bangkok will now spread to the provinces, especially in the north and northeast. In the meantime, many will die.
I don’t agree with some of the views expressed here, but we can surely agree that the it is a thoroughly depressing and sickening situation.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
34 
1
18 StanG // May 17, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Who among Privy Councilors has got more blood on their hands than Thaksin?
I assume Thaksin’s number is mostly from drug war. Who can top him up with thousands of deaths?
That’s a broad accusation that needs to be at least clarified if not decisively proven.
Quality comment or not?
13 
12
19 Frank G Anderson // May 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Trying to top wrongdoing seems counterproductive to logic. Comparing one wrong to other wrongs is that itself not…wrong? We dismiss the evil that men do because of more evil other men did. Or we attempt to lessen the severity of the wrongs committed by our friends and those we sympathize with.
The argument, too, about Thailand being unique and thus the rest of the world should understand this uniqueness is tomfoolery at best.
The sad and depressing situation we see and feel in Thailand isn’t something that just came up with Thaksin. Blame those who engineer Thai culture.
Quality comment or not?
18 
1
20 Jaded // May 17, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Well I guess you will have to check those names yourself Stan G. Perhaps you can do a little research and tell readers of New Mandala? Or are you, like me, considering how close you can go to telling the truth before you become a target for arrest and imprisonment? Perhaps at the same time you should also research the following questions. How many people have been charged with lesse majeste last year? (Clue Its more than 100 and less than… ) Is any comment on a privy counsellor considered to be lesse majeste? (Clue – Google Lesse majeste and privy counsellor) But if you are asking me then I will simply say that the careers of the Privy Counsellors make for some interesting reading as they are men who have had an important role to play in Thailand’s modern history. These men are heavyweights in Thai society and even in their dotage retain an enormous amount of influence and power in the institutions of the state. Thaksin, for all his money and winning of elections, is a lightweight by their standards.
This is not to deny the Thaksin doesn’t have his own career as a creepy authoritarian who buys a lot of his influence and popularity. But the idea that the people opposing him have some kind of moral high ground to stand on is as ludicrous as calling the demonstrators in downtown Bangkok terrorists. Thaksin sanctioned state terror campaigns in Thailand of course. You could argue that Thaksin is terrorist supporter and sympathizer on this basis. But state sanctioned terror campaigns and massacre have been the prerogative of the Thai state for a long time. And political power in Thailand is not familiar with the idea that respect for fundamental human rights is an important limitation on government policy choices. A lifetime dedicated to public service in Thailand means something quite different to what if means in Australia.
Quality comment or not?
20 
3
21 starbucks // May 17, 2010 at 11:04 pm
My opinion could be found radical but I insist that no royal intervention is needed here!
The red shirts should fight for themselves and claim the victory solely to themselves. The victory should comes from the red shirts’ own effort as their blood is spread over the Thai soil.
Leave not even a tiny opportunity for the sky to claim for its contribution!
No matter how long it will take, fight until the true revolution happens.
Quality comment or not?
24 
5
22 Erewhon // May 18, 2010 at 12:24 am
Puea Thai/the UDD, and Sinn Fein/the Provisional IRA, what’s the difference? After 35 years of fighting, the parties sit down and negotate a settlement. The economy is more important than countless deaths.
Quality comment or not?
0 
7
23 Marta // May 18, 2010 at 12:42 am
Anybody who has watched Thai TV today and seen this so-called Thai actor , at a ridiculously pompous award ceremony , basically spit on the Red Shirts and tell them that they do not deserve to live in this country , will understand all that is wrong in this country .
This pathetic buffoon sycophant , barely able to express half an emotion with his dwarfed acting skills, wrapped up his ridiculous argument in the usual ” holier than thou ” love of the King .
Guess what Buddy : you do not have the monopoly on the Love of the King . The Red Shirts in their immense majority love the king as much as you do , so please try to find some more believable excuse to justify your moronic rant .
If you had 2 neurons and only 1 synapse you could understand that these tactics do not work anymore , but obviously this is beyond the reach of your minuscule intellect .
Quality comment or not?
17 
3
24 Frank G Anderson // May 18, 2010 at 12:48 am
Solid advice from an armchair warrior!
If the rest of us allowed the other guys to win our battles for us we would be in the same shape Thailand is now in.
Is that what you are in favor of?
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
25 Joe // May 18, 2010 at 1:38 am
Just in case someone didn’t know:
Surayud Chulanont, a currently Privy Councilor & and former PM (gaining power through the 2006 coup), is the one who was the commander in charge of the violent military crackdown at Rattanakosin Hotel during Bloody May.
Quality comment or not?
12 
1
26 chris beale // May 18, 2010 at 2:16 am
Alistair @ 17 :
like you, I was there during May ’92 – close to the Royal Hotel, and had a photographer friend in the crowd directly in front of the hotel.
Nobody ever lives through such events and ever forgets them – they stay with us for the rest of our lives, especially memories of the incredible bravery of unarmed civilians standing up to heavily armed troops.
I think your analysis is almost 100% correct and can see why Australia’s government appointed you as a top political analyst.
Handley’s book is a good one, and a valuable corrective to so much of the propagandist, hagiographic gibberish published about Bumiphol.
But Handley is grossly unfair to Bumphol in relation to May ’92 – and has even had to concede that without the King’s intervention, the bloodshed would have been much worse.
And that Thailand would most likely have reverted to military dictatorship, rather than subsequently enjoying 15 years of democracy.
It is silly of Handley to blame Bumiphol for not intervening, or not stopping the crisis earlier.
The king was in no position to do so, despite Handley’s efforts to argue the contrary.
It speaks volumes about HM’s courage that when he had the chance to further democracy, he took it – by appointing Anand PM.
One of the most telling faults on Handley on May ’92, is where he lambasts Bumiphol for chastising Chamlong, who Handley mistakenly labels “the democracy leader”.
If Chamlong has ever been a genuine “democracy leader”, then pigs do fly !! Just look at Chamlong’s role supporting the thoroughly undemocratic government of South Vietnam, his role in the ’76 Thammasat massacre (as an intelligence officer), and his role now spearheading disenfranchisement of at least 50% of Thailand’s population !!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
27 To jaded // May 18, 2010 at 2:46 am
Thaksin got his billion dollar concessions from the 92 coup boys. Facts and photos easy to find. But I guess that if you start with the premise that thaksin can do no wrong, or at least it is acceptably less wrong, you accept that thailand is lawless and you want the right to pick your strong man. Well I want to pick my own as well, I would like a monopoly license thrown in too.
Quality comment or not?
4 
5
28 1976 // May 18, 2010 at 2:55 am
I remember very well that day when the government announced no school to open. My sister and I were ready to get the bus but the news came. I remember as a child I cheered for not having to go to school, not knowing much what really was going on around Ratchadamnoen Road. All that was featured on TV was speeches and announcements by those generals, reading what they wanted to say. News were blocked, there’s no such thing as internet, let alone social network website. We could get news from newspapers the next day. I remember my mother commented on one death of a boy from her own village in Sakon Nakorn. He was shot in the head. The photo on the newspaper showed his body wrapped by a Thai flag. The news actually said something like he was lucky his fellow demontrators could retrieve his body before it was snatched and sent to somewhere unknown, unlike other illfated, unfound demonstrators whose bodies are still missing until these days. For a child, it all happened pretty fast, when the king called Suchinda and Chamlong in, everything ended. We talked among ourselves in our neighbourhood we all wished he came out sooner. How naieve. After that Anand was chosen to be PM. Long afterwards Thai politics of old scenes keep repeating until these days. Thaksin was a new breath, something new that threatened older versions of politicians. He makes them scared. But all in all, it is all the same in Thailand. Leaders, politicians, bureaucrats are still the same. They all want power and money for themselves. No real education measures to enhance ability and skills for Thai people. Keep people basic and keep them “poor and stupid”, that way all rich and powerful can manipulate their power and enjoy their interest and benefit. As for middle class people, eye closed as usual as long as they have shopping malls to walk in. I remember lately from a fashion magazine, Suchinda was holding a champagne glass in a hi-so event somewhere all smiling. Clearly a major role player in the massacre is still welcomed in the socalled “hi-society” in Thailand. As of now, I pray for no more deaths. But once again, I might be too naieve to pray for that.
Quality comment or not?
27 
1
29 StanG // May 18, 2010 at 4:31 am
Jaded #20,
There hasn’t been any terror campaigns in this country for about thirty years and even post 1976 events did not claim as many victims as Thaksin’s drug war, and they, like fighting communist insurgency, cannot be attributed to any single person.
I’m surprised that are wriggling your way out of a simple and straightforward question.
Who among Privy Councilors has allegedly more blood on their hands than Thaksin?
Quality comment or not?
4 
8
30 Leeyiankun // May 18, 2010 at 7:20 am
Prem, Surayudth, even Chamlong is a hardcore Killer.
StanG, let me ask you a question. You seem hellbent on pinning the deaths on Thaksin, to the extent that one would thought that your relatives got caught up in the ‘Drug war’.
Surely this is not it, right?
Thaksin’s crimes can’t be greater than Abhisit, who you are defending with zeal that belies your color preference. Abhisit took his decision knowing full well of the consequences, Thaksin may or may not have.
The death tolls are an estimate, it might have been higher or lower by a large margin. Such a hazy evidence is used to prosecute him w/o trial time and time again, isn’t this just bias?
And you can’t dismiss the events leading up to Thaksin’s decision on it. A certain someone who no one can ignore commented on the drug problems that had been escalating sometimes before it all happen. That someone whose words is took as a mandate rather than a suggestion, is often ignored in all context of the ‘Drug war’.
Thaksin is obviously guilty of issuing it, but if you’re in his position, you’d had no other choice but to do so. Circumstances and incompatance factored into a disastrous outcome. Kresae and Takbai , are events that illuminates the thai army as cold blooded and incapable army.
I say again, you pinned everything on the man. Can you give solid, hard, concrete evidence that he is responsible for every killing, every tortured, missing cases in that war?
Sometimes in life, you are left only with the wrong choices in front of you. So you can only choose the smallest evil. This is a quality that Thaksin has, and Abhisit doesn’t. It’s a quality that marks him not as a saint, but as a leader.
Remember, in Thailand, every politician is evil. The police are corrupt, the military more so. The officials are either under trained/sub-standard.
Not to mention the country just got hit by it’s worst depression in decades. Later it even got hit by a large natural disaster unheard of in the region.
Face with such problem that had plague the country for more than half a century/ new harsh ones. I’d say the man did a splendid job.
Now StanG, can you tell me why you want to carve the man’s guts out?
Quality comment or not?
11 
3
31 Leeyiankun // May 18, 2010 at 7:35 am
IMO, I’m not the one who thinks the world of Thaksin. If you watch an entire day of ASTV programme, you’d find out that either -
-The man’s is an illegal alien from the planet Krypton or
-A illegitimate love child of an elder God.
Because he controls the world international media / puppets millions of ppl from his Montenegro/Dubai home /had a love affair with several youngin’ despite his gland cancer problem so severe he died and came back to life. / is now the 14th richest man in the world /has total loyalty of the police and some of the army in 5yrs/ got the underground world under his thumb and carted their earnings to his penthouse overseas./kills Muslims and still retain buddy-buddy status with Dubai/Abudbi/Saudi Arabia Sheikhs.
All of this and many more that had Germsak – oops soory – Jermsak Pinthong wrote an entire series of books that baffled the academics in how all of this escapes their notice.
And right now the man is plotting to outdo himself, overthrow Thailand’s beloved God-king!
So other than those 2 choices I mention, he also must be an incarnation of Satan!
Quality comment or not?
12 
3
32 No Color Thai // May 18, 2010 at 7:54 am
LesAbbey // May 17, 2010 at 7:44 pm said “Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a ‘where were they then’ on some of the politicians of today?”
I suggest you start with Sonthi Limthongkun.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
33 No Color Thai // May 18, 2010 at 8:02 am
To jaded // May 18, 2010 at 2:46 am said “Thaksin got his billion dollar concessions from the 92 coup boys. ”
Question: Who controlled the coup boys?
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
34 Sattahibo // May 18, 2010 at 9:21 am
Simon (4), you clearly understand the present conditions in Thailand. That the present conflict is now under control by the Thai government keeps King Bhumibol away from his peaceful intervention.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
35 Erewhon // May 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Bangkok Department stores are closed, so wonder what they plan to do with the money
Authorities will shortly ask two close aides of Pojaman na Pombejra, ex-wife of Thaksin Shinawatra, to substantiate their recent cash withdrawals of Bt600 million and Bt800 million.
The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) said yesterday that massive amounts of money had been withdrawn by Akarat Changlao and Kanchanapa Honghern, respectively, on behalf of Pojaman.
The money was taken out of bank accounts in cash and left the banks in several vehicles.
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
36 hrk // May 19, 2010 at 2:56 am
Somehow the situation is kind of surrealistic. Perhaps someone has some more information on the following questions:
1. So far in Thai history bloodshed on the streets on Bangkok lead to changes in government. In 1973 and 1992 authoritarian governments were toppled, while 1976 rightists used bloodshed to install an authoritarian government. Even though Abhisit is no historian, he should know about these facts. Is it because in the mentioned cases the protesters were drawn mainly from the Bangkok middle classes, while this year they are portrayed as rural folks? Does he think he would not be affected in his position as prime minister from the dead bodies or because in 1973 and 1992 (not in 1976!) the media were critical of the government while today they are supporting it?
2. In the mentioned cases the military send in quite well trained troops. From the video coverage I have the impression that most of the troops are not specially trained but common troops and even draftees. Of course this excludes the snipers, which are an innovation. Why were no really trained troops used? Are there none available?
3. Extended fighting destabilizes those responsible namely the government, military leadership etc. While this year the violence continues already for five days and is spreading rather then calming down, in the other cases it was over after two or three days! Why was the military intervention not organized as a rapid sweep? Is it due to incompetence of the soldiers and their leaders? Do they try to minimize casualties? Certainly, a fast charge would have costs many lives, may be more then the so far admitted close to 50 dead, but looking at 1973, 1976 and 1992 I don’t think that in these cases this was of higher relevance. Although it might sound cynical, but to me it appears as if the military wants to show that they are doing something, but in fact take care that the protests can continue. The questions for me are, is there an intention that the government is damaged beyond repair after five days of fighting? Are the options of the military leadership limited because among the troops many sympathise with the protesters, who might be their friends and relatives from the rural areas? Are there opponents of the current leadership within the military that even appreciate a loss of reputation of the political and military leaders?
4. The military and political leaders should have an interest to contain the protests instead of spreading them, as it is happening now. Why don’t they? Do they feel so secure in support from the old elites? That they either go abroad or hide in military installations is not an indicator of feeling secure!
Quality comment or not?
6 
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.