The 104.10 ‘Pathum Thani People’s Radio station’ in Lam Luk Ka near Klong 3, Pathum Thani province, held a small Songkran party on 6 April 6 2012. Previously the small community radio station, then on the 107.85 wave, was located further away at Klong 3, off the Rangsit-Nakhorn Nayok Highway, but they moved after their previous station was damaged by the floods, and the rent of the plot of land was too high. Their leader and one of the station’s DJ’s Wootipong “Go-Tee” Kodchatamkoon said that when they were helping in Ayutthaya water rose in their station, uprooted their antenna and damaged their transmitter. This station, close to the Red Shirt Village Movement, tries to follow a new path – as soon as the investors pay off the debts of their initial investments for their technical equipment, they plan to hand over ownership to an overseeing council, which is to be elected yearly by the members of their station.
The small Songkran party for their members was on an empty plot of land next to the small wooden house in which their station was located. Go-Tee said that they decided to hold the party a few days before the official Songkran holiday as many of their members would leave soon to their home villages, and during Songkran many large Red Shirt events will take place. Main UDD leaders were not invited, as most of them were busy preparing the larger Songkran events. But Go-Tee said that a main reasons was also their philosophy “tuk khon pen kaenam tua eng” – or “everybody is his/her own leader”, first propagated by Sombat Boonngamanong shortly after the Ratchaprasong crackdown.
The party began in the afternoon. A dozen elders sat on a row of chairs and the Red Shirts, after washing a small Buddha figure, washed the hands of the elders with scented water in the traditional Songkran way. Several children splashed each other with water from a large bucket. There was free food made by members of the station.
A group of dancers came on the stage, and then sat on the encircled ground. Red Shirts bought tickets to dance a Ram Wong (a folk dance in which the dancers move in a circle) with the dance group. Several of the dances were sponsored by elders. Quite mesmerising was a “Ram Fon Ngan Mongkhon” dance performed by an older woman on the stage.
The evening was mostly lighthearted, singing and dancing, with several brief political speeches. A topic that came up often was the reconciliation process and the planned amnesty, first propagated by the KPI report, and then followed by the government. People there were very critical of the planned amnesty, and especially about Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung, whom they viewed not as part of the Red Shirt movement, but as a politician they deeply distrusted. People stated that they want the truth first before thinking about an amnesty. They said also that the Pheua Thai Party is not bigger than the people, and has to listen to the people first.
One of the leaders on the stage said that their fight is not just for Thaksin, though they still love him, but for the future of their children, and that people shouldn’t have died for nothing. He said that Abhisit, Suthep and Yellow Shirt leaders should also be in prison, and that the “Amart” should stay where they belong and not interfere. Several of the local leaders said that the present reconciliation process and the idea of an amnesty could result in conflicts in the Red Shirt movement as some parts are for an amnesty, but others are strongly opposed
People stated that they want the truth first before thinking about an amnesty
So, Nick, what do you think will happen if it were to come out from a full investigation that Thaksin hired General Pallop and others to organize a armed group within the UDD with orders to provoke the Army into shooting?
TH
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
JS,
He said the truth. I don’t think he meant that we settle on the wildest of yellow short fantasies.
But the truth is the truth. The best thing for Thailand is to get it out on the table and deal with it, whatever it is.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Leah Hoyt 3 2
we settle on the wildest of yellow short fantasies.
Any objective analysis of the 2009 and 2010 protest would show who had the most to gain from provoking the Army into shooting in 2010. In a comparison of the 2009 protest and 2010, the armed element within the UDD is the main difference.
In 2009 the Army used the highly effective tactics to break up the demonstration without anyone being killed. The Army used these same tactics in the early days of the 2010 protest. The difference, starting on the evening of April 10, and then later during May 14th to May 19th, is there were people within the UDD that were shooting at the Army. That changed the game entirely.
Who benefited form that change? Why would the Army and the government change their tactics from what worked so well in 2009? Why would they decide to start shooting “unarmed, peaceful protestors”?
What was the meeting in Dubai in January 2010 with Pallop, Khattiya, and Arisman about?
Didn’t Pallop come back from that and announce a People’s Army with Chavalit as commander? An People’s Army that would start an insurrection in order to provoke a coup?
Didn’t Arisman then start making his infamous “bring your bottle we will supply the petrol” speeches?
Why did Arisman not surrender with other UDD leaders on May 19th? What was he doing on the afternoon of the May 19th? Was he personally directing the arson attacks? Why did he wait until after the PTP majority government was elected?
Why did Veera quit the demonstration on May 14th when the election offer was rejected? Keep in mind that Veera was the main leader in 2009 and it was him that called it off in the face of the highly effective riot control tactics the Army used.
The answer to these question and many more are the last things Thaksin and the UDD leadership want to come out.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“John Smith”:
“So, Nick, what do you think will happen if it were to come out from a full investigation that Thaksin hired General Pallop and others to organize a armed group within the UDD with orders to provoke the Army into shooting?”
Hardly this will be the result of any serious investigation.
Your hypothesis of the second post is quite wrong as well. Much of what you write is speculation based on a red herring. The only thing that is true is that there were militants under the protesters.
You also got details wrong, such as the early morning attack in 2009, which was terribly incompetent and undisciplined, so that for the lunch time push the 11th infantry regiment had to come in support to bring some order into the mess. We have no proof for dead, but there is clear proof that Red Shirts were badly injured by shots fired by the military. Two disabled protester got a few months ago damages awarded in a civil case. For some strange reason the criminal case against the military has not started yet.
I will not go here into the screw-ups of the military (and the government) in 2010, as i just haven’t got the time to write all those here and now.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
John Smith
You’re missing the context.
Which is…
That the government that sent the troops onto the street in 2009 had no democratic mandate to rule Thailand and was imposed on the people via force and the threat of force.
Therefore the Thai people had a legitimate right to protest and call for an election.
That the army were used in 2009 to crush the protests doesn’t reveal, as you seem to imply, that Abhisit’s government was “democratic” even if there were no deaths (apart from the two Red Shirts found dead in the river). It shows the complete reverse.
The use of troops in 2009 revealed an illegitimate government whose power was secured through threat of extreme violence by an army with a long, well-deserved reputation for massacring unarmed civilians.
Abhisit had, just about, the right to form a government in 2008 if only to stabilise the country. But, if he and his party believed in democracy, he should’ve called an immediate election or set the timetable for one. In democracies voters decide parliaments, not courts, not elites, not the army. That point seems to have been lost on Abhisit as does the point that his main parliamentary allies, the BJT, didn’t even exist at the 2007 election which formed the parliament from where Abhisit secured his premiership.
As for your other “theories” of what happened – if the Red Shirts were so hell-bent on violence why then hand back all the weapons they acquired at Kok Wua?
Then there is a question of legitimacy. If an army equipped with war weapons is routinely used, as you describe, to keep an unelected, unpopular government in place, in clear opposition to the democratic will of the people, do those people then have a right to oppose that army? In lots of countries such as Burma, Syria, Libya, Apartheid-era South Africa, Iran, 1970s South/Central American states etc etc many would view such a form of resistance as legitimate, even if that resistance is violent.
Then there is the question of snipers and Wat Patum. If there were black shirts provoking violence why then did the Army and Abhisit government via CRES, knowing that this plot was afoot, start executing nurses at Wat Patum and other unarmed people, such as the teenage boy, Sher? Why then was a “live fire” zone created?
If your provocateur theory stands up why did the then Abhisit government fail to conduct a proper transparent investigation? If they knew that the scenario you paint was the case why didn’t they conduct this investigation when they had the means to do so? Why was Romklao’s body immediately burned? Surely an autopsy on that would’ve been key to proving your theory?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The other John Smith # 5.
Again, almost certain confirmation you are indeed Andrew Spooner. The same fallacy arguments, changing the subject and putting words in my mouth but at least you did not use neo-fascist anyway.
I have no problem with a full open investigation of the 2010 protests and the violence that ensued.
What should come out of that would a full accounting of not only how the Army did or did not follow the rules of engagement laid out to them, but also who funded and directed the armed element within the UDD.
You are all in favor of the first part, but seem to get very vague about the second. The armed element that existed in 2010 is the main difference between the 2009 and 2010 events. The answer to who was behind the change in the UDD strategy is the key to the whole issue.
Do you want to know the answer? I certainly do. And just as much, I also want to hear what the ground level Army commanders thought their rules of engagement were and if they believed they were following them. I would like to see documentation of where every person killed or wounded (protestors, bystanders, or Army) was, who was around them , and what was going on when it happened.
The fact that all you hear now is about full amnesty and both the families of the military and civilian causalities are just going to have to let it go, shows both the UDD and PTP leadership do not want a full investigation.
There is plenty of blame for the tragedy to go around, but to deny the UDD leadership and their backers have no share of that blame is just being intentionally blind to the reality of the situation.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nick #4
I will not go here into the screw-ups of the military (and the government) in 2010, as i just haven’t got the time to write all those here and now.
Nor will you ever go into what was the reason for the armed element within the UDD in 2010.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
John Smith
I absolutely agree with you – a full and complete investigation needs to be completed.
But to just blame PTP for that not happening is nonsense.
One key reason that a proper investigation has not taken place so far is this.
When Abhisit set-up the Truth and Reconciliation Committee he gave it no powers of subpoena. They have called several military figures to attend and give evidence. All have refused.
Abhisit had the chance to put together a proper investigation committee and didn’t do it.
He had 14months from the massacre to his humiliating election defeat and didn’t take full advantage of that to put a proper investigation in place.
At present there are dozens and dozens of UDD members languishing in prison for the events of 2010. Some have decades long prison sentences for relatively minor offences. Many of those cases are on appeal.
To claim that the UDD have not been investigated nor paid a price brought to bear via the legal system is a straight-out lie. Go to the prison at Laksi and you’ll see all the political prisoners there.
Conversely not one single soldier or politician has been properly held to account, ever, in Thailand for 2010 nor any other similar massacre or coup.
Why did the army feel the need to shoot Nurse Ked or Sher? Eye-witnesses at both killings say it was very very clear both were completely unarmed. Someone has to answer for that and the rest of the 91. To just create some fiction/excuses about “what the soldiers were thinking” or that because some other people were armed the unarmed protesters then needed to be executed wouldn’t stand up in any independent court in any democracy.
The 2009/2010 angle you’re working on is moot. Sending in heavily armed troops, from an army with a reputation for massacre like the Thai Army, against civilians at night and using armoured vehicles is hardly the move of a government committed to a peaceful resolution. This needs to be set in the context that up until that point the protest not only had a complete legitimacy in calling for the Abhisit govt to be removed immediately but that it was also almost entirely peaceful.
In international and domestic law a government has a greater duty to behave lawfully than a protest group. That’s why, in theory at least, a govt gets the keys to the levers of power, gets to send its ministers around the world, gets to spend all those taxes.
So, trying to make an equivalence between the govt and the Red Shirts is another moot point. As pointed out many Red Shirts are already in prison. Many are dead. They’ve paid a very high price. Abhisit gets to answer soft questions from foolish, bought journalists at the FCCT rather than face a proper investigation.
Snipers were used against civilians. Is there anything more outrageous, cynical and calculated than that? And you then talk of it as a “tragedy”? What an awful and mealy-mouthed term to use.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“John Smith”:
“Nor will you ever go into what was the reason for the armed element within the UDD in 2010.”
That is absolutely wrong.
I have done so, to some extend, during the ISEAS conference on the effects of the military coup last September, and in my paper which will be published in a book following this conference the topic of Red Shirt armed militants is included.
I will write about this issue more extensively in my own book on 2010, volume 3 of the series, which i have been working for quite a while.
But i will not write about this issue out of context. Just because some in this internet age seem to demand instant gratification does not mean that i will have to provide such. I will write about it when i feel confident enough that what i write is correct.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Other John #8
Yes, the Democrat led government did not setup an open, fully empowered investigation into the 2010 violence. But where did I just blame PTP for that not happening? All said was that it is becoming more and more obvious that the PTP and UDD leadership do not want one, even though they now have the power to do so.
Again, putting words in my mouth to divert attention away from the real issue.
If your one sided perspective of the violence is correct and the Army was intent on the cold blooded killing of unarmed innocent protestors then the reason the Democrat lead government did not so would be plain to see.
What is PTP’s reasons for not doing so now? Who are they protecting and why?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
John Smith
You asked
“If your one sided perspective of the violence is correct and the Army was intent on the cold blooded killing of unarmed innocent protestors”
My evidence that the Army did participate in the cold-blooded killing of unarmed innocent protesters is that there was big pile of corpses at the end without any evidence existing that any of those persons were armed. If the Army had shot the “black shirts” then you’d have a case. They didn’t. They shot unarmed women, children and other ordinary Red Shirt protesters. They even killed two foreign journalists.
The Thai Army have a long track record of conducting such brutal actions in Thailand. They did it in 1973, 1992, Krue Sae, Tak Bai, Bangkok 2010.
So there’s a huge historical precedence as well.
So I would contend that the army didn’t just engage in the cold blooded killing of unarmed innocent protestors the one time in 2010 but have engaged in such actions on several occasions.
Given that record of coups/massacres trying to create an equivalence between the Army and the UDD is nonsense.
One has a long, well-documented history of brutal killings and abrogating democracy through the use of force. The other might have links to an as yet unverified group of unknown armed assailants and called for an election.
The Army has a history of complete impunity, avoiding all prosecution and proper investigation. The prisons are full of UDD people incarcerated from mere infractions of draconian and oppressive emergency laws.
As for why aren’t PTP conducting a full investigation now?
Well, for one, the Army have threatened a coup. Not an excuse in my book but a political reality, the scope and consequences of which neither you nor I have to make a decision on.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0