PBS Live footage of firework rockets, the sound of gunfire, and film of buses, taxis, private cars and motorbikes STILL driving around the Silom/ Rama IV intersection.
Out of question, it’s a very well-crafted and fascinating analysis but I wonder how this powerful analogy of red germs and moral political body holds true to the real situation. The author seems to overly glorify the red shirt leaders’ act and attempts to redefine non-violence practice, which partly helps defuse the illegitimacy of the hawkish red shirts’ vulgarism and provocative actions.
I think the best term to define the red leaders’ behaviour is ”anthaphaan”, not ”nak leng”. The term ”nak leng” gives certain sense of responsibility — ”nak leng” might be rude and upfront and resort to violent means in settling the perceived conflict with their opponents, but they also take consequences of their acts. Whereas, ”anthaphaan” are ruthless and rude as well, but they take no consideration on whatever dirty means they employ to quell their opponents and the trouble they have caused others. ”Nak leng” tend to have some sort of self-pride and earn respect from their opponents and followers under their protection through some forms of reciprocity and words-keeping. But ”anthaphaan” appear to have low self-esteem and have an urge for attention seeking and recognition. They feel insecure to confront their opponents face-to-face unless they are in the company of their groups.
In reality, what characterise the red leaders’ tactics and style of command and communication are blatant lies, distorted information, unfair accusations, mud-throwing, abject cowardice through self-escape and the use of women, youngs and olds as human shield in time of confrontation. These behaviours earn the red leaders a trademark and make them fit better with the frame of ”anthaphaan” rather than the ”nak leng ” category. What basically irritates the so-called Bangkok elites in confronting the red movement has more to do with such ”anthaphaan” behavioural style and the potential use of intimidation, than the displays of cultural differences such as folk rural music, vulgar jokes, unsophisticated manner and isaan dialect, as archaan Thongchai has argued. There are sufficient evidence that those who hold different views from the red shrits can become targets of head-hunting and casting of eggs, fermented fish and blood by their red-shirted peers. In fact, the low level of social respect shown by the red leaders, and as their political source and even employment come from their master, khun Thaksin, is what hurts the legitimacy of the movement itself.
On the meaning of non-violence approach, archaan Thongchai celebrates the red leaders’ uniqueness, asserting that non-violence works in a different way for the red movement. One may be convinced to accept the verbal vulgarism and retaliation as part of this peculiar approach of non-violence. But one can be completely blind not to acknowledge that an armed guerilla operation is one component of the current red movement. Non-violence and violence co-exist and the red movement has at times grown more cruel and provocative as its maserminds have carefully orchestrated an end scenario of civil warfare to overthrow their political opponents. And in the name of non-violence, the ”gunmen in black” could move freely inside the red movement and claim the lives of both soldiers and the red masses while grenade attacks from unknown party killed and scared others.
It is by all means a tragic incident that some of the red protesters lost their lives and nearly a thousand were injured in the deadly April 10 clash. But this bloody incident, which certainly deserves a condemnation, cannot be seen in isolation from the context, strategic nuance and political intent from which it derived. The escalation of the red rebellion culminated in the protesters’ raid into the parliament and subsequent confrontations between the hardline and moderate red shrits and the soldiers — both sides seeking to take control of the PTV. Shorty prior to the bloody clash, khun Kwanchai Praipana led the red protesters to the nearby army base around Phan Fa area, physically threatening to invade the base. There was a conscious attempt on the part of the red leaders to provoke the military’s crackdown on the protesters. The govrnment’s operation to reclaim the Phan Fah area was a response to the red leaders’ escalation of the demonstration. There was a causality for the military’s dispersal operation, which sadly and unexpectedly ended in casualties for both the red protesters and the soldiers. But the intent of the operation counted in this case. Judging from the weaponary potential, the soldiers could have gone cruel in random shooting or killing the protesters. But they did not resort to such total suppression because their commanders issued an order for self-restraint and limited operation. In addition, there were reports and a video revealing that the reds immediately stormed Vajira Hospital to snatch the dead bodies, which were subsequently carried along in the city’s parade to condemn the govenment as the killer. The plot, in which the beginning, the middle and the end make up a narrative of unjust military suppression of the unarmed red shirt civilians, appeared to be too deliberate. As such, this tragic death of protesters cannot be simply seen as soldiers’ attempt to kill the red shirts. An appropriate way to look at this April 10 bloodbath should be directed to the fact that the protesters fall victims to the movement’s masterminds who carefully plotted the bloodbath in which the leaders themselves, not the red followers, always escape safely. Yet, with the facts about the red shirts’ death established in archaan Thongchai’s account, what struck me is the fact that there is an untold story that made up the tragic April 10 incident. What the author has omitted is the crucial fact that there were ”gunmen in black” emerging in the red movement and these gunmen did claim many lives of both the protesters and the soldiers.
The red movement campaigns under the banner of class war between ”prai” and ”ammat”, which archaan Thongchai translates into the underclass’s feeling of oppression directed towards the elitsts and urban middle class who hold prejudice and judgement on their rural counterparts based on spatial differentiation and colour of complexion. In fact, the social inequality and domination, though they exist, in Thai society have never been absolute. And matching the poor underclass against the urban elitists and middle class might be mistakenly framed as the root cause of the ongoing conflict. Archaan Akin Rapeepat, a well-respected anthropologist (Krung Thep Turakit, May 2010), has earlier argued that grassroot villagers in their everyday life find the local bureaucrats and capitalists, not the nobles and urban elites, as their true opponents in a hostile, exploitative and top-down relationship. In the city of Bangkok, we see a constant real-life negotiation between the urban poor who struggle to make ends meet (haa chao kin kham) and their middle class counterparts with salary-paid jobs (manut ngoen doen), but their relationship is never characterised by a coercion nor completely one way of control. The art of resistance is subtly orchestrated when taxi drivers reject to take some middle class snobs as their passengers; bus drivers and conductors riducule well-dressed passengers; and hired motorcyclists negotiate the distance and fare sometimes unfairly with the educated clients. Their real opponents tend to be the policemen and state officials with whom these urban poor people truely feel powerless to negotiate and deal with nor retaliate against. Whereas, the middle class members also have the common opponents, albeit in different way and less in degree of intensity. Middle class salarymen take offense when coming into contact with the policemen and state officials but they do have some negotiating power through bribery, connections and diplomatic talks.
It is true that class differentiation exists but it has never been an absolute coercion in the same way racism produces elsewhere in the world. Thus, arousing the unnatural rise of class consciousness and hatred among the multi-layered groups of Thais encourage radicalism and Thai-version of racism. Overturning this class differentiation as a justification for revolt is somewhat out of proportion. Doing so invokes a scene of Old Major’s propaganda of an oversimplistic statement ”four legs good, two legs bad” that ”..all animals are friends. Man is the enemy” in George Orwell’s classic. The ideal of ”all animals are equal” in the Animal Farm is never feasible when ”..some animals are more equal than others.”
The strategic use of the term ”ammat” in the class war argument also has double meanings. How far, does the definition of ”ammat”, which literally includes aristrocacy, nobility and bureaucracy, in the red movement’s terminology go has never been clear. Does the ”prai” and ”ammat” class conflict transcend the symbolic expression about the perceived underclass’s oppression by the urban upperclass as archaan Thongchai has argued? Or do some pigs have other plans? We never know.
On a personal level, I am well aware that you have directly experienced the trauma of military suppression in the past and I can sense that the wound that has been inflicted on you cannot be deleted nor healed no matter how many decades have passed. This wound, though I cannot say I understand the full extent of it, is certainly a valid and justified feeling. Certainly, it has given you the meaning of life and informed your ideology for which you are advocating — supposedly, democracy, equality and eradicating military domination. Given the gruesome scenario that this red shirt uproar might lead to, don’t you think it would be thoughtful and more appropriate to spare the red massess and generations ahead from the same trauma and wound which you have experienced and knwon at heart. Fanning the class war narrative when such injustice of class differentiation, though it may exist, is not the real and naturally-ripen cause of the ongoing political crisis, plays a part in deepening the hatred and social divide. The looming scenario — either the military crackdown or the civil warfare between the reds and the royalist yellows and multi-coloured groups and the aftermath, suggets that the price of this rebellion is too high. It certainly includes the loss of lives of innocent people and rehabilitation for those who survive and those who are left behind. The irony is that many of them are made to believe they come to fight and die for democracy, not for the sake of Thaksin or the utopias of some ideologists and campaign designers. My question is why then would you, as an exile like myelf, pass on your belief, which of course holds a great deal of truth, and the history of hatred when you know so well the pain that they would inflict on the generations ahead? Above all, these masses — be it the reds, the yellows and the multi-coloured, do have the right to know what they really die for.
Some personal notes:
..Only journalists who have and perpetuate a habit of violence themselves can see the hospital incident as the media’s cooking of B grade films to portray some 100 red shirts parading the hospital at night and frightening nurses and patients. One such journalist I know has a track record of women abuses and sexual violence in private life but do make name on writing about and speaking for the poor and acting as human rights advocate. The B-grade film argument and the hospital’s overreaction blame strikingly resemble a notorious rape argument in which the perpetrators blame the raped for dressing herself in a revealing way as the cause of sexual assault, rather than their own act of rape.
..Snobs do exist and thrive in all walks of life and professions, not only in the Thai Facebook community, and the academy is unfortunately not immune to them.
Silom like a quiet war zone after the initial frenzy about 7:30. Police pulling barricades into the street. People standing in soi entrances and doorways looking up Silom toward Rami IV.
Back in my neighborhood, people watching soap operas on TV (the army-owned TV stations, no doubt).
Just reported on Prachatai Facebook — CRES proposed expansion of state of emergency to 15 more provinces in the central, northern, and northeastern regions.
Pity these same folk can’t pass on their expertise or direct help to apprehend the woefully large number of ne’er-do-wells in authority, positions of power and influence who screw the country and people of Thailand on a daily basis.
As handphone signals (AIS, DTAC) have been cut off in Rajprasong area, I suspect internet will also be disconnected anytime soon. Before I can no longer make any posting in this forum, let us make sure who gave the order to this crackdown so we will know who will be held responsible and face the tribunal as War Criminals for shooting at unarmed civilian protesters. Definitely Suthep as CRES chief and Abhisit himself plus the talkative colonel spokesman should qualify.
If Army chief Anupong, well known for his stand against the use of force, disagrees with this operation, he should quickly make a statement so he can remain clean and respected in society. People here also suspect that Prayuth is masterminding this operation, expected to be more bloody and cruel than the 10 April operation.
Anyway, just wait until the dust settles tomorrow morning.
BANGKOK – A renegade Thai general was shot in Bangkok on Thursday as the military planned to encircle the barricaded encampment of antigovernment demonstrators.
Gen. Khattiya Sawatdiphol, 59, better known as Seh Daeng, was allied with the protesters. He appeared to have taken a single bullet to the head during an interview with The International Herald Tribune.
It is rather bizarre listening to the royal household news on TV, now it is Chulabhorn’s part, and at the time time trying to follow news of injured and dead Thais in the Rajaprasong area
Still no live TV news of the events in Sala Daeng. Plenty of phoned reports of gunfire, explosions and Seh Daeng’s shooting, but no footage of what’s happening on the ground. Seh Daeng is reported as being in Seecheow Hospital, not Chula. My transliteration is not good, so apologies, but is anyone familiar with this place. I or my wife (Thai) are not.
Endless recycling of daytime footage, which PBS and NBT seem to be sharing, including stock film of people walking around the Paragon and Siam Centre when they are both closed and have been for some time.
My point?
What’s to hide? Or are the illustrious press corp of Thailand too scared to relay what’s going on, or have they been told not to?
Answers on a postcard please to the usual address.
Now commentators will need to establish the blog-equivalent of citation cartels in order to support their networks with high-quality approval ratings. Ha!
AW/that is also my understanding, all the rituals finished today- e.g. Brahmanic ploughing festival and of course Coronation Day last week…Now tanks and commandos have surrounded pro-democracy protesters (again); lets see. I doubt that Abhisit never had any intention of submiting to the thai electorate any time soon; he was playing for time, while maintaining a strategic advantage through the public appearance of compromise (so keenly promoted by media as being fair politics…)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
All TV stations announcing an emergency order/ decree to close all major roads coming into Bangkok from the north of the city.
Further closure of roads, areas, Silom BTS? and MRT? in Bangkok.
More army heading to Ratchaprasong.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Yes, the only cars I saw on Silom an hour ago (8 pm) were taxis. All south-bound. North-bound (toward Lumpini shut off by various barricades.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
PBS Live footage of firework rockets, the sound of gunfire, and film of buses, taxis, private cars and motorbikes STILL driving around the Silom/ Rama IV intersection.
Roads closed? I think not.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Archaan Thongchai:
Out of question, it’s a very well-crafted and fascinating analysis but I wonder how this powerful analogy of red germs and moral political body holds true to the real situation. The author seems to overly glorify the red shirt leaders’ act and attempts to redefine non-violence practice, which partly helps defuse the illegitimacy of the hawkish red shirts’ vulgarism and provocative actions.
I think the best term to define the red leaders’ behaviour is ”anthaphaan”, not ”nak leng”. The term ”nak leng” gives certain sense of responsibility — ”nak leng” might be rude and upfront and resort to violent means in settling the perceived conflict with their opponents, but they also take consequences of their acts. Whereas, ”anthaphaan” are ruthless and rude as well, but they take no consideration on whatever dirty means they employ to quell their opponents and the trouble they have caused others. ”Nak leng” tend to have some sort of self-pride and earn respect from their opponents and followers under their protection through some forms of reciprocity and words-keeping. But ”anthaphaan” appear to have low self-esteem and have an urge for attention seeking and recognition. They feel insecure to confront their opponents face-to-face unless they are in the company of their groups.
In reality, what characterise the red leaders’ tactics and style of command and communication are blatant lies, distorted information, unfair accusations, mud-throwing, abject cowardice through self-escape and the use of women, youngs and olds as human shield in time of confrontation. These behaviours earn the red leaders a trademark and make them fit better with the frame of ”anthaphaan” rather than the ”nak leng ” category. What basically irritates the so-called Bangkok elites in confronting the red movement has more to do with such ”anthaphaan” behavioural style and the potential use of intimidation, than the displays of cultural differences such as folk rural music, vulgar jokes, unsophisticated manner and isaan dialect, as archaan Thongchai has argued. There are sufficient evidence that those who hold different views from the red shrits can become targets of head-hunting and casting of eggs, fermented fish and blood by their red-shirted peers. In fact, the low level of social respect shown by the red leaders, and as their political source and even employment come from their master, khun Thaksin, is what hurts the legitimacy of the movement itself.
On the meaning of non-violence approach, archaan Thongchai celebrates the red leaders’ uniqueness, asserting that non-violence works in a different way for the red movement. One may be convinced to accept the verbal vulgarism and retaliation as part of this peculiar approach of non-violence. But one can be completely blind not to acknowledge that an armed guerilla operation is one component of the current red movement. Non-violence and violence co-exist and the red movement has at times grown more cruel and provocative as its maserminds have carefully orchestrated an end scenario of civil warfare to overthrow their political opponents. And in the name of non-violence, the ”gunmen in black” could move freely inside the red movement and claim the lives of both soldiers and the red masses while grenade attacks from unknown party killed and scared others.
It is by all means a tragic incident that some of the red protesters lost their lives and nearly a thousand were injured in the deadly April 10 clash. But this bloody incident, which certainly deserves a condemnation, cannot be seen in isolation from the context, strategic nuance and political intent from which it derived. The escalation of the red rebellion culminated in the protesters’ raid into the parliament and subsequent confrontations between the hardline and moderate red shrits and the soldiers — both sides seeking to take control of the PTV. Shorty prior to the bloody clash, khun Kwanchai Praipana led the red protesters to the nearby army base around Phan Fa area, physically threatening to invade the base. There was a conscious attempt on the part of the red leaders to provoke the military’s crackdown on the protesters. The govrnment’s operation to reclaim the Phan Fah area was a response to the red leaders’ escalation of the demonstration. There was a causality for the military’s dispersal operation, which sadly and unexpectedly ended in casualties for both the red protesters and the soldiers. But the intent of the operation counted in this case. Judging from the weaponary potential, the soldiers could have gone cruel in random shooting or killing the protesters. But they did not resort to such total suppression because their commanders issued an order for self-restraint and limited operation. In addition, there were reports and a video revealing that the reds immediately stormed Vajira Hospital to snatch the dead bodies, which were subsequently carried along in the city’s parade to condemn the govenment as the killer. The plot, in which the beginning, the middle and the end make up a narrative of unjust military suppression of the unarmed red shirt civilians, appeared to be too deliberate. As such, this tragic death of protesters cannot be simply seen as soldiers’ attempt to kill the red shirts. An appropriate way to look at this April 10 bloodbath should be directed to the fact that the protesters fall victims to the movement’s masterminds who carefully plotted the bloodbath in which the leaders themselves, not the red followers, always escape safely. Yet, with the facts about the red shirts’ death established in archaan Thongchai’s account, what struck me is the fact that there is an untold story that made up the tragic April 10 incident. What the author has omitted is the crucial fact that there were ”gunmen in black” emerging in the red movement and these gunmen did claim many lives of both the protesters and the soldiers.
The red movement campaigns under the banner of class war between ”prai” and ”ammat”, which archaan Thongchai translates into the underclass’s feeling of oppression directed towards the elitsts and urban middle class who hold prejudice and judgement on their rural counterparts based on spatial differentiation and colour of complexion. In fact, the social inequality and domination, though they exist, in Thai society have never been absolute. And matching the poor underclass against the urban elitists and middle class might be mistakenly framed as the root cause of the ongoing conflict. Archaan Akin Rapeepat, a well-respected anthropologist (Krung Thep Turakit, May 2010), has earlier argued that grassroot villagers in their everyday life find the local bureaucrats and capitalists, not the nobles and urban elites, as their true opponents in a hostile, exploitative and top-down relationship. In the city of Bangkok, we see a constant real-life negotiation between the urban poor who struggle to make ends meet (haa chao kin kham) and their middle class counterparts with salary-paid jobs (manut ngoen doen), but their relationship is never characterised by a coercion nor completely one way of control. The art of resistance is subtly orchestrated when taxi drivers reject to take some middle class snobs as their passengers; bus drivers and conductors riducule well-dressed passengers; and hired motorcyclists negotiate the distance and fare sometimes unfairly with the educated clients. Their real opponents tend to be the policemen and state officials with whom these urban poor people truely feel powerless to negotiate and deal with nor retaliate against. Whereas, the middle class members also have the common opponents, albeit in different way and less in degree of intensity. Middle class salarymen take offense when coming into contact with the policemen and state officials but they do have some negotiating power through bribery, connections and diplomatic talks.
It is true that class differentiation exists but it has never been an absolute coercion in the same way racism produces elsewhere in the world. Thus, arousing the unnatural rise of class consciousness and hatred among the multi-layered groups of Thais encourage radicalism and Thai-version of racism. Overturning this class differentiation as a justification for revolt is somewhat out of proportion. Doing so invokes a scene of Old Major’s propaganda of an oversimplistic statement ”four legs good, two legs bad” that ”..all animals are friends. Man is the enemy” in George Orwell’s classic. The ideal of ”all animals are equal” in the Animal Farm is never feasible when ”..some animals are more equal than others.”
The strategic use of the term ”ammat” in the class war argument also has double meanings. How far, does the definition of ”ammat”, which literally includes aristrocacy, nobility and bureaucracy, in the red movement’s terminology go has never been clear. Does the ”prai” and ”ammat” class conflict transcend the symbolic expression about the perceived underclass’s oppression by the urban upperclass as archaan Thongchai has argued? Or do some pigs have other plans? We never know.
On a personal level, I am well aware that you have directly experienced the trauma of military suppression in the past and I can sense that the wound that has been inflicted on you cannot be deleted nor healed no matter how many decades have passed. This wound, though I cannot say I understand the full extent of it, is certainly a valid and justified feeling. Certainly, it has given you the meaning of life and informed your ideology for which you are advocating — supposedly, democracy, equality and eradicating military domination. Given the gruesome scenario that this red shirt uproar might lead to, don’t you think it would be thoughtful and more appropriate to spare the red massess and generations ahead from the same trauma and wound which you have experienced and knwon at heart. Fanning the class war narrative when such injustice of class differentiation, though it may exist, is not the real and naturally-ripen cause of the ongoing political crisis, plays a part in deepening the hatred and social divide. The looming scenario — either the military crackdown or the civil warfare between the reds and the royalist yellows and multi-coloured groups and the aftermath, suggets that the price of this rebellion is too high. It certainly includes the loss of lives of innocent people and rehabilitation for those who survive and those who are left behind. The irony is that many of them are made to believe they come to fight and die for democracy, not for the sake of Thaksin or the utopias of some ideologists and campaign designers. My question is why then would you, as an exile like myelf, pass on your belief, which of course holds a great deal of truth, and the history of hatred when you know so well the pain that they would inflict on the generations ahead? Above all, these masses — be it the reds, the yellows and the multi-coloured, do have the right to know what they really die for.
Some personal notes:
..Only journalists who have and perpetuate a habit of violence themselves can see the hospital incident as the media’s cooking of B grade films to portray some 100 red shirts parading the hospital at night and frightening nurses and patients. One such journalist I know has a track record of women abuses and sexual violence in private life but do make name on writing about and speaking for the poor and acting as human rights advocate. The B-grade film argument and the hospital’s overreaction blame strikingly resemble a notorious rape argument in which the perpetrators blame the raped for dressing herself in a revealing way as the cause of sexual assault, rather than their own act of rape.
..Snobs do exist and thrive in all walks of life and professions, not only in the Thai Facebook community, and the academy is unfortunately not immune to them.
Malee Lang
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Seh Daeng not dead – unconscious with head wound – NBT
Modern 9 – live report showing ambulances and, beyond belief, taxis still driving around Silom.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Silom like a quiet war zone after the initial frenzy about 7:30. Police pulling barricades into the street. People standing in soi entrances and doorways looking up Silom toward Rami IV.
Back in my neighborhood, people watching soap operas on TV (the army-owned TV stations, no doubt).
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
First footage of casualties from Sala Daeng now coming through on Modern 9 TV.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Just reported on Prachatai Facebook — CRES proposed expansion of state of emergency to 15 more provinces in the central, northern, and northeastern regions.
р╕ир╕нр╕Й.р╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕ир╕ар╕▓р╕зр╕░р╕Йр╕╕р╕Бр╣Ар╕Йр╕┤р╕Щр╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕б 15 р╕Ир╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕зр╕▒р╕Ф р╕Бр╕ер╕▓р╕З-р╣Ар╕лр╕Щр╕╖р╕н-р╕нр╕╡р╕кр╕▓р╕Щ р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕бр╣Зр╕нр╕Ър╕п р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╣М
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Seh Daeng dead? Thai Special Forces?
Pity these same folk can’t pass on their expertise or direct help to apprehend the woefully large number of ne’er-do-wells in authority, positions of power and influence who screw the country and people of Thailand on a daily basis.
Wonder who they might be?
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
As handphone signals (AIS, DTAC) have been cut off in Rajprasong area, I suspect internet will also be disconnected anytime soon. Before I can no longer make any posting in this forum, let us make sure who gave the order to this crackdown so we will know who will be held responsible and face the tribunal as War Criminals for shooting at unarmed civilian protesters. Definitely Suthep as CRES chief and Abhisit himself plus the talkative colonel spokesman should qualify.
If Army chief Anupong, well known for his stand against the use of force, disagrees with this operation, he should quickly make a statement so he can remain clean and respected in society. People here also suspect that Prayuth is masterminding this operation, expected to be more bloody and cruel than the 10 April operation.
Anyway, just wait until the dust settles tomorrow morning.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
From the New York Times, via Pundit:
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
It is rather bizarre listening to the royal household news on TV, now it is Chulabhorn’s part, and at the time time trying to follow news of injured and dead Thais in the Rajaprasong area
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Reports that Seh Daeng is dead. UPDATE – other reports that he is not.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Following Andrew’s comments:
Still no live TV news of the events in Sala Daeng. Plenty of phoned reports of gunfire, explosions and Seh Daeng’s shooting, but no footage of what’s happening on the ground. Seh Daeng is reported as being in Seecheow Hospital, not Chula. My transliteration is not good, so apologies, but is anyone familiar with this place. I or my wife (Thai) are not.
Endless recycling of daytime footage, which PBS and NBT seem to be sharing, including stock film of people walking around the Paragon and Siam Centre when they are both closed and have been for some time.
My point?
What’s to hide? Or are the illustrious press corp of Thailand too scared to relay what’s going on, or have they been told not to?
Answers on a postcard please to the usual address.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
[…] at New Mandala says: “Several injured it seems. More gun / M79 fire. Guns firing right now as I peck on my […]
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
From Bangkok Pundit’s twitter: ThaiPBS reports that Seh Daeng shot in the head and seriously injured
Rating comments
Now commentators will need to establish the blog-equivalent of citation cartels in order to support their networks with high-quality approval ratings. Ha!
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Dozens of shots fired….probably 100 or so by now. Still unclear as to number of injuries / deaths, if any.
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
AW/that is also my understanding, all the rituals finished today- e.g. Brahmanic ploughing festival and of course Coronation Day last week…Now tanks and commandos have surrounded pro-democracy protesters (again); lets see. I doubt that Abhisit never had any intention of submiting to the thai electorate any time soon; he was playing for time, while maintaining a strategic advantage through the public appearance of compromise (so keenly promoted by media as being fair politics…)
Crackdown? Abhisit’s last stand?
Several injured it seems. More gun / M79 fire. Guns firing right now as I peck on my iPhone. 19.31