”Finally, there was a kind of ‘psychological advice’ to those summoned. The person conducted this round of interview appeared to be a ‘psychologist’ (female р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕Чр╕вр╕▓). She would ‘lecture’ those summoned on ‘correct’ political, social attitudes, etc.”
What are they the Gestapo?? now Thailand has to resort to “Political Re-Education” ???
with all due respect, has BKK politics never seen nakleng or coarse politicians before now? Who was Samak? Who is Banharn? And so on… And on the point of the color of folks’ skin, Suthep is the shade of night is he not? Having said this, I do think a powerful image was presented in the ‘peace talks’ pre-riots when the three ‘white guys’ – Abhisit, Korbsuk and ? sat across from the ‘brown skinned’ Reds – Jatuporn, Weera and Weng. The picture spoke volumes. And I dont agree with the generalisation of Red leaders as nakleng. Indeed, is not one of the revelations of the past few months the emergence of Natthawut as a credible, eloquent statesman? Or moreover, not that he’s visibly involved at present, but who is Jakrapob? Hardly a coarse, impolitic fellow…
Your thesis has a certain elegance to it, but I’m just not convinced it corresponds to the actual empirical data. Its as if you’re suggesting the BKK middle/upper classes have never been confronted by their upcountry neighbours before when in fact they’ve lived and worked amongst them for decades.
Reply to Thongchai #26 – Sure, it’s difficult to speculate about the future, but I was wondering what you thought about the extent of anti-monarchy sentiment in Thailand NOW.
It seems to me that it is quite possible that the effect of the lese majeste law, together with all the pro-monarchy propaganda, may be that there indeed exists widespread anti-monarchy feeling, but that it is “invisible”; ie. it is there, but cannot be openly expressed – not by the Reds, not by the media, not by the government (except in terms of a plot hatched by Thaksin), and not even by scholars.
So this invisibility of anti-monarchy sentiment may distort the understanding we have of the situation.
As Somsak has said, so many scholars and journalists refuse to talk directly about the monarchy, preferring to use metaphor and referring to “the elite” or “the establishment” or “traditional forces”. So mention of the monarchy is still close to invisible in their discourse. Just today I heard a long interview with a Singapore-based Thai political commentator about the crisis who refused to even mention the monarchy. Of course, virtually every foreign news report has to start off with the “universally revered king / monarchy”, just because that’s what everyone else does. It doesn’t mean it’s true.
(Jakraphop had an interesting article in Thai E-news today that part of the reason there is not more outward expression of hostility towards the monarchy may be due to a feeling of “р╣Ар╕Бр╕гр╕Зр╣Гр╕И” towards the monarchy – but that when that feeling of р╣Ар╕Бр╕гр╕Зр╣Гр╕И ran out it could be very “р╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕з”).
If there really is widespread opposition to the monarchy I wonder whether the “using the monarchy to discredit your opponent” strategy, which has been used so “effectively” since 1946, will work again.
There has been a lot of comment in the media and blogs in recent weeks about whether the government is “softening up” the public for a deadly crackdown on the Reds by accusing them of harbouring plans to overthrow the monarchy (like a re-run of October 1976).
If it is true that there is much more opposition to the monarchy than is commonly believed it would be a very risky strategy on the part of the royalists to use this alleged plot as a pretext for a bloody crackdown on the Reds. It could be suicidal for the Democrats and the monarchy itself, when perhaps around half the country supports the Reds.
This may be why, as you described in your post, the government has made so much propaganda mileage of the Reds’ “storming” of Chula hospital, because scenes of an unruly mob shoving people around in a hospital offends most peoples’ sensibilities more than an alleged plot to overthrow a politically-interfering King and Queen, who appear to have no qualms about letting soldiers from royal units decked in royal colours be sent into the streets to shoot unarmed Red protestors. Maybe that is why Sirindhorn seems to be taking such a close interest in Chula hospital right now, to tap into the outrage about the hospital incident in order to “р╕Чр╕│р╣Бр╕Хр╣Йр╕б” for the monarchy at a time when its moral standing is at a low ebb?
I take your point about the nakleng-like culture of the Red Shirt movement, and agree that this is one important aspect of their leadership. But my point in other articles you allude to is this. It is not the whole story of the movement, and the current conflict in general.
There is another important aspect to it, namely, a power struggle between two different elite groups/fractions. And the leadership of the Red Shirts are not just folk-heroes, they are also members of ruling elite. Thaksin is of course the eminent case. His leadership of the movement, and the degree that the overwhelming majority of the Red Shirt mass is loyal to him, have been downplayed my many academics and activists (yourself included perhaps), partly for understandable political reason (countering gov propaganda) but also, I believe, partly because of their rejection of him for his past records. I’ve never been a strong critic of Thaksin for my own reason, but I’ve never really been his fan either. So I don’t feel the need, as I believe many academics and activists do, to downplay his important or his role in the Red Shirt movement. Relatedly, I don’t feel it’s necessary to give grounds to the gov and the royalists, like the Manager people, by denying the pro-Thaksin aspect of the movement. (By the way, the financial side of staging this kind of protracted rally alone, I believe, currently run into tens of millions of baht, of which Thaksin probably is the single most important contributor by far. I don’t have problem with that, but it would be naive indeed to think that this is not important part of the movement.) There’re also people around Thaksin, who play important role in the movement, from the various politicians (from Chawalit to Phue Thai MPs) to people like Phallop Pinmanee and Manoonkit Roopkhachon, and perhaps connected to the last two, elements within the police and the armed forces. (The existence of the armed MiB is quite likely connected to this last group of people too, in my judgment.)
It seems to me somewhat ironic that, while the great majority of academics and activists refused to defend Thaksin in 2006 (in fact wanting him ousted), now many of the same people seem to forget his (and his group’s) ‘presence’ in the Red Shirt movement; not in person of course (in Thaksin’s case), but as key factor.
I think it would be miraculous indeed if this elite component of the Red Shirt movement has suddenly become altruistic, have humanistic attitude towards the lives of the ordinary people, including their own followers.
(By the way, even considering the ‘nakleng-like’ leadership culture aspect, I don’t believe it means there could not be the case, or criticism cannot be made, that the leaders (ab)use their followers for their own ends without due consideration of the followers’ lost of lives and limps. First of all, we are definitely not speaking here of real ‘nak-leng’, but just ‘nak-leng’ like political culture, in other words, it’s a kind of analogy, which, like any analogy, has limits. Secondly, I don’t believe that, even the real ‘nakleng’ (not just nak-leng, depicted in romanticized novel or folk-tales, or even them!) cannot be seen as (ab)use of followers, from our own modern democratic standards)
………………………..
Another related issue that you raise, about the ‘decision’ of the masses themselves to fight even though they’re aware of the risk (hence their status as ‘agency’) is a complicated one, and I’m planing to write an article about it, to answer many who already raised this issue to me personally or in public (khun Arun-wana, khun Ida, Chusak and Prawit Rojanaphruk). To put the matter briefly here, the ‘decision’ of the mass in the context of political rally is of necessity always made under very limited conditions especially when it comes to the issue of tactics. You yourself, more than anyone else, should realize this. The thousands of people who marched with us, the National Student Center of Thailand, on 21 March 1976, had in a sense decided, by their own ‘free will’, to do so, and were quite aware of the risk. But did they have a chance to discuss the tactics, the pro- and con- of marching or not marching, considering that the issue of American bases had already been ‘settled’ at that point (4 moths postponement of evacuation), and the march would not affect that settlement? Or suppose there were disagreement among the NSCT leaders at the time whether the march should take place, did the mass themselves have the chance to hear both sides?
These last few questions bring me right back to the UDD. As you’re surely aware, from the beginning of the rally, there were indeed different ‘way of thinking’ (р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Др╕┤р╕Ф) among its leaders. Those, like Charan, who have backgrounds in the student movement, would (in his own words) ‘from the very beginning be thinking about how the rally would end’ р╕лр╕▓р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕ер╕Зр╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Бр╕гр╕Б [so-called exit strategy in western political jargon] and this is definitely not the way of thinking of those from politicians’ backgrounds. Did the great majority of Red Shirts masses who attend the rally even hear of this, let alone discussing it? Did they ‘decide on this?
In other words, the issue of ‘decision by the masses themselves’, or to put it in more theoretical language, the issue of ‘agency’, is far more complicated than what my critics would allows. (To put it in even more philosophical terms, borrowing them from my former favorite philosopher some decades ago, I always see the ‘mass’ or ‘class’, or the issue of ‘agency’ not as the point of departure, but the point of arrival)
Finally, even if, in one sense, the masses have indeed ‘decided’ on the political tactics, by practically following them, e.g. occupation of Ratchaprasong, with – let us suppose – quite an awareness of the possibility of a bloody confrontation, it definitely doesn’t mean, in my view, that they cannot be wrong and their ‘decision’ cannot be, or should not be, criticized. In other words, the ‘decision’ by the mass is in itself not the criteria of right or wrong. (It’s noticeable that, when 3 millions plus signed petition asking for royal pardon for Thaksin, virtually no academics / activists came out to hail the ‘decision by the mass’, It seems clear to me that the issue of decision by the mass themselves is raised only when that decision is in accord with other standard of ours (like fighting the gov., the military), and thus proves that the ‘decision by the mass’ isn’t the real issue.)
Thongchai Winichakul, you have always been so distorted that it is hard for me to believe that you are a professor in Thai politics. The pressure at Chula Hospital from the Reds was not a fake one. If it were a fake one, can you tell me why the ill Supreme Patriarch had to be removed to Siriraj Hospital?
It is a clear breach of human rights and needs to be documented for action: people are sent two notices and third time arrest warrant issued if they fail to turn up at the barracks (Abhisit’s hideout). there is no explanation given for why they have to turn up for interrogation; they are not told of their rights; cross-examined using various psych-op methods to try and implicate the Nor Por Chor leaders (e.g. “why one of the leaders is the most extreme in terms of wanting to abolish the monarchy”?); the young and vulnerable stuents are told not to take a lawyer with them; questiined as to how they got involved and what information they have…& etc. It is deplorable.
It’s not who the dinosaur is, the question is how and where it appeared in connection with UDD.
Somsak has explained his “connections” on the map.
How about Somyot, the owner of the Imperial Lad Prao, providing HQ for red movement and their TV, and also being the editor of the magazine that put Jack-Queen-… on their front page, and the founder of Thai Red News, the outlet for Jakrapob/Surachai communist wing of the red movement?
How about Veera being a consultant for “Voice of Thaksin”? Or Weng being a “consultant” for the same Thai Red News?
What should the government believe here? Their public proclamations of loyalty or the stuff they put out in their media?
[…] a horror by the Reds. They can learn about the Reds’ horror everyday from the media. (see more of his in-depth analysis on New Mandala – highly […]
If one had to consciously choose to sacrifice several thousand idealistic students to save 3M people, the correct moral response would be to do just that.
This is one of those utterly bogus hypothetical situations… there are never cases where “sacrificing several thousand idealistic students” will save 3M or any other number of people, just as there are no instances when torturing the lone perpetrator will foreclose the explosion that wipes out the city… that reveals more about the hypothesizer than the situation.
I like Thongchai very much and his case is more or less compelling but the academic analysis of the situation is much less compelling than the situation.
The reds have been “branded”, the neoliberal have now overtaken the marlboro man connotations of the word, just as the students in Thailand in 1976 were, just as generations of American blacks were and are, just as “illegal aliens” in Arizona and Maryland and many other of the United States are today, just as the Palestinians are in their own country.
They came for the red shirts, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a red shirt… That seems to be exactly what’s going down in the city of angels.
The current source of “billions seized in UK” story is Nation’s Thanong. He has incorporated it into a wider narrative of Thaksin’s financial dealings with great many details.
Thanong has never disclosed his sources but they are definitely not that confused arabiannews editor.
I don’t think classifying red shirts as representatives of wider social groups, be it poor, bannok, or nakleng, is going to be productive.
Among those same groups there are about as many yellows as reds.
I’d say it rather depends on the reach of the propaganda machine of each particular color, both sides appealing to practically the same sentiments of injustice and inequality.
Yellows lay the blame on politicians, reds on Bangkok elites.
Participants on both sides are convinced they have been implanted superior knowledge.
In a sense, in a fight for power, Thaksin was the first to “farm” the votes, Sondhi was the first to “farm” the sentiments, now reds are catching up, claiming their crop of hatred is for the ultimate good.
Folks who didn’t go to either yellow or red school of thought stay away. Even in Khon Kaen support for red agenda is about 50%, depending on particular issues.
Prof. Thongchai could also have mentioned the hospital and the government — backed up by Phra Thep’s statement — playing up that the Supreme Patriarch was in the hospital. Obviously the chao bannok lack adequate respect for the religious hierarchy.
Thongchai: “regardless of how truly corrupt and demagoguery he actually is”- who said? Not one shred of hard unequivocal evidence has been shown to prove that Thaksin broke any law according to the constitution at the time (regarded as the most demcratic and inclusive ever) other than the misdeamour that rich folk usually partake (shifting of money within family members etc.). Assumptions are dangerous without evidence to the contrary- and I dont mean heresay, rumour mongering and innuendo or even the clever fiction made by the corrupt judiciary emplace post 2006. [Not that I like or dislike the man- in fact I dont give a rats! the issue is much bigger than this now- you should focus on this]. But lets start to undo the falsification of history and not perpetuate mistruths.
I also saw a few signs among the demonstrators about bannok people, and want to add a small note on the meaning as not only being rural but being ‘farmers’ in the condescending sense, or ‘from the sticks.’ In a Shakespearean sense, the entire Thai educational system/cultural regimentation might be seen as bannok.
Distorted and ignorant are what some comments show here, which have blown the Chula incident out of all proportion (this is what the state and its fascist friends would love): sure the Reds made a miscalculation in their panic -but it is not the end of the world. No one got hurt. The stage was set up by the alliance with two key doctors from this institution and their PAD and state friends. The media jumped on this opportunity but virtually downplayed the April 10 killing of innocent protestors: But who cares? they are only unwashed and uneducated peasants right boys? If you want to see how “impartial” the chula Hospital mob are see р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Ир╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕гр╣М, р╕Юр╕др╕йр╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕б 03, 2010 Believe it or Not! р╕гр╕Ю.р╕Ир╕╕р╕мр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕в2р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕гр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╣Зр╕нр╕Ъ..? (http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2010/05/believe-it-or-not-2.html) hmmm…interesting and read the chula Hospital medical face book!
see: http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9530000060684
It is a class struggle, I agree, but with a difference. The class is not so much struggling as the leadership of the class is struggling to drag the class into the conflict. I believe apathy and indifference are not totally dead in this current impasse, but that they thrive in the minds of those on all sides of the conflict.
Whether that apathy and indifference continue, and whether willingness to slaughter another generation of people who want to be free and equal will be subdued, may be the issue.
”Finally, there was a kind of ‘psychological advice’ to those summoned. The person conducted this round of interview appeared to be a ‘psychologist’ (female р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕Чр╕вр╕▓). She would ‘lecture’ those summoned on ‘correct’ political, social attitudes, etc.”
Without risking offending the higher authorities we can’t discuss locally, am I correct in thinking there’s a _________-sanctioned plan in Th to maintain an agriculturally based society? I was wondering if such a plan was in any way behind the large numbers of people still working the land or if the reasons why the country seems not serious about shifting people to cities/industry lie primarily elsewhere. The ongoing uptick in industrial output seems to contradict this idea, so I was curious if 1) there really was a concerted effort to keep people on the land, 2) if this effort was the reason gov officials are reportedly ‘astonished’ by the numbers of people leaving the land anyway (even while these numbers are substantially lower than they need to be on the way to a developed society) and 3) why, according to the supporters of such a plan, this isn’t tantamount to condemning a class of people to poverty.
Apologies in advance if this isn’t something allowable, but I’m asking more for information as this isn’t something I know much about.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Student leaders summoned
”Finally, there was a kind of ‘psychological advice’ to those summoned. The person conducted this round of interview appeared to be a ‘psychologist’ (female р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕Чр╕вр╕▓). She would ‘lecture’ those summoned on ‘correct’ political, social attitudes, etc.”
What are they the Gestapo?? now Thailand has to resort to “Political Re-Education” ???
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Thongchai,
with all due respect, has BKK politics never seen nakleng or coarse politicians before now? Who was Samak? Who is Banharn? And so on… And on the point of the color of folks’ skin, Suthep is the shade of night is he not? Having said this, I do think a powerful image was presented in the ‘peace talks’ pre-riots when the three ‘white guys’ – Abhisit, Korbsuk and ? sat across from the ‘brown skinned’ Reds – Jatuporn, Weera and Weng. The picture spoke volumes. And I dont agree with the generalisation of Red leaders as nakleng. Indeed, is not one of the revelations of the past few months the emergence of Natthawut as a credible, eloquent statesman? Or moreover, not that he’s visibly involved at present, but who is Jakrapob? Hardly a coarse, impolitic fellow…
Your thesis has a certain elegance to it, but I’m just not convinced it corresponds to the actual empirical data. Its as if you’re suggesting the BKK middle/upper classes have never been confronted by their upcountry neighbours before when in fact they’ve lived and worked amongst them for decades.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Reply to Thongchai #26 – Sure, it’s difficult to speculate about the future, but I was wondering what you thought about the extent of anti-monarchy sentiment in Thailand NOW.
It seems to me that it is quite possible that the effect of the lese majeste law, together with all the pro-monarchy propaganda, may be that there indeed exists widespread anti-monarchy feeling, but that it is “invisible”; ie. it is there, but cannot be openly expressed – not by the Reds, not by the media, not by the government (except in terms of a plot hatched by Thaksin), and not even by scholars.
So this invisibility of anti-monarchy sentiment may distort the understanding we have of the situation.
As Somsak has said, so many scholars and journalists refuse to talk directly about the monarchy, preferring to use metaphor and referring to “the elite” or “the establishment” or “traditional forces”. So mention of the monarchy is still close to invisible in their discourse. Just today I heard a long interview with a Singapore-based Thai political commentator about the crisis who refused to even mention the monarchy. Of course, virtually every foreign news report has to start off with the “universally revered king / monarchy”, just because that’s what everyone else does. It doesn’t mean it’s true.
(Jakraphop had an interesting article in Thai E-news today that part of the reason there is not more outward expression of hostility towards the monarchy may be due to a feeling of “р╣Ар╕Бр╕гр╕Зр╣Гр╕И” towards the monarchy – but that when that feeling of р╣Ар╕Бр╕гр╕Зр╣Гр╕И ran out it could be very “р╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕з”).
If there really is widespread opposition to the monarchy I wonder whether the “using the monarchy to discredit your opponent” strategy, which has been used so “effectively” since 1946, will work again.
There has been a lot of comment in the media and blogs in recent weeks about whether the government is “softening up” the public for a deadly crackdown on the Reds by accusing them of harbouring plans to overthrow the monarchy (like a re-run of October 1976).
If it is true that there is much more opposition to the monarchy than is commonly believed it would be a very risky strategy on the part of the royalists to use this alleged plot as a pretext for a bloody crackdown on the Reds. It could be suicidal for the Democrats and the monarchy itself, when perhaps around half the country supports the Reds.
This may be why, as you described in your post, the government has made so much propaganda mileage of the Reds’ “storming” of Chula hospital, because scenes of an unruly mob shoving people around in a hospital offends most peoples’ sensibilities more than an alleged plot to overthrow a politically-interfering King and Queen, who appear to have no qualms about letting soldiers from royal units decked in royal colours be sent into the streets to shoot unarmed Red protestors. Maybe that is why Sirindhorn seems to be taking such a close interest in Chula hospital right now, to tap into the outrage about the hospital incident in order to “р╕Чр╕│р╣Бр╕Хр╣Йр╕б” for the monarchy at a time when its moral standing is at a low ebb?
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Re: Thongchai #29
I take your point about the nakleng-like culture of the Red Shirt movement, and agree that this is one important aspect of their leadership. But my point in other articles you allude to is this. It is not the whole story of the movement, and the current conflict in general.
There is another important aspect to it, namely, a power struggle between two different elite groups/fractions. And the leadership of the Red Shirts are not just folk-heroes, they are also members of ruling elite. Thaksin is of course the eminent case. His leadership of the movement, and the degree that the overwhelming majority of the Red Shirt mass is loyal to him, have been downplayed my many academics and activists (yourself included perhaps), partly for understandable political reason (countering gov propaganda) but also, I believe, partly because of their rejection of him for his past records. I’ve never been a strong critic of Thaksin for my own reason, but I’ve never really been his fan either. So I don’t feel the need, as I believe many academics and activists do, to downplay his important or his role in the Red Shirt movement. Relatedly, I don’t feel it’s necessary to give grounds to the gov and the royalists, like the Manager people, by denying the pro-Thaksin aspect of the movement. (By the way, the financial side of staging this kind of protracted rally alone, I believe, currently run into tens of millions of baht, of which Thaksin probably is the single most important contributor by far. I don’t have problem with that, but it would be naive indeed to think that this is not important part of the movement.) There’re also people around Thaksin, who play important role in the movement, from the various politicians (from Chawalit to Phue Thai MPs) to people like Phallop Pinmanee and Manoonkit Roopkhachon, and perhaps connected to the last two, elements within the police and the armed forces. (The existence of the armed MiB is quite likely connected to this last group of people too, in my judgment.)
It seems to me somewhat ironic that, while the great majority of academics and activists refused to defend Thaksin in 2006 (in fact wanting him ousted), now many of the same people seem to forget his (and his group’s) ‘presence’ in the Red Shirt movement; not in person of course (in Thaksin’s case), but as key factor.
I think it would be miraculous indeed if this elite component of the Red Shirt movement has suddenly become altruistic, have humanistic attitude towards the lives of the ordinary people, including their own followers.
(By the way, even considering the ‘nakleng-like’ leadership culture aspect, I don’t believe it means there could not be the case, or criticism cannot be made, that the leaders (ab)use their followers for their own ends without due consideration of the followers’ lost of lives and limps. First of all, we are definitely not speaking here of real ‘nak-leng’, but just ‘nak-leng’ like political culture, in other words, it’s a kind of analogy, which, like any analogy, has limits. Secondly, I don’t believe that, even the real ‘nakleng’ (not just nak-leng, depicted in romanticized novel or folk-tales, or even them!) cannot be seen as (ab)use of followers, from our own modern democratic standards)
………………………..
Another related issue that you raise, about the ‘decision’ of the masses themselves to fight even though they’re aware of the risk (hence their status as ‘agency’) is a complicated one, and I’m planing to write an article about it, to answer many who already raised this issue to me personally or in public (khun Arun-wana, khun Ida, Chusak and Prawit Rojanaphruk). To put the matter briefly here, the ‘decision’ of the mass in the context of political rally is of necessity always made under very limited conditions especially when it comes to the issue of tactics. You yourself, more than anyone else, should realize this. The thousands of people who marched with us, the National Student Center of Thailand, on 21 March 1976, had in a sense decided, by their own ‘free will’, to do so, and were quite aware of the risk. But did they have a chance to discuss the tactics, the pro- and con- of marching or not marching, considering that the issue of American bases had already been ‘settled’ at that point (4 moths postponement of evacuation), and the march would not affect that settlement? Or suppose there were disagreement among the NSCT leaders at the time whether the march should take place, did the mass themselves have the chance to hear both sides?
These last few questions bring me right back to the UDD. As you’re surely aware, from the beginning of the rally, there were indeed different ‘way of thinking’ (р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╕Др╕┤р╕Ф) among its leaders. Those, like Charan, who have backgrounds in the student movement, would (in his own words) ‘from the very beginning be thinking about how the rally would end’ р╕лр╕▓р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕ер╕Зр╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Бр╕гр╕Б [so-called exit strategy in western political jargon] and this is definitely not the way of thinking of those from politicians’ backgrounds. Did the great majority of Red Shirts masses who attend the rally even hear of this, let alone discussing it? Did they ‘decide on this?
In other words, the issue of ‘decision by the masses themselves’, or to put it in more theoretical language, the issue of ‘agency’, is far more complicated than what my critics would allows. (To put it in even more philosophical terms, borrowing them from my former favorite philosopher some decades ago, I always see the ‘mass’ or ‘class’, or the issue of ‘agency’ not as the point of departure, but the point of arrival)
Finally, even if, in one sense, the masses have indeed ‘decided’ on the political tactics, by practically following them, e.g. occupation of Ratchaprasong, with – let us suppose – quite an awareness of the possibility of a bloody confrontation, it definitely doesn’t mean, in my view, that they cannot be wrong and their ‘decision’ cannot be, or should not be, criticized. In other words, the ‘decision’ by the mass is in itself not the criteria of right or wrong. (It’s noticeable that, when 3 millions plus signed petition asking for royal pardon for Thaksin, virtually no academics / activists came out to hail the ‘decision by the mass’, It seems clear to me that the issue of decision by the mass themselves is raised only when that decision is in accord with other standard of ours (like fighting the gov., the military), and thus proves that the ‘decision by the mass’ isn’t the real issue.)
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
[…] Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account – New Mandala […]
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Thongchai Winichakul, you have always been so distorted that it is hard for me to believe that you are a professor in Thai politics. The pressure at Chula Hospital from the Reds was not a fake one. If it were a fake one, can you tell me why the ill Supreme Patriarch had to be removed to Siriraj Hospital?
Student leaders summoned
It is a clear breach of human rights and needs to be documented for action: people are sent two notices and third time arrest warrant issued if they fail to turn up at the barracks (Abhisit’s hideout). there is no explanation given for why they have to turn up for interrogation; they are not told of their rights; cross-examined using various psych-op methods to try and implicate the Nor Por Chor leaders (e.g. “why one of the leaders is the most extreme in terms of wanting to abolish the monarchy”?); the young and vulnerable stuents are told not to take a lawyer with them; questiined as to how they got involved and what information they have…& etc. It is deplorable.
see
http://www.prachatai.net/journal/2010/05/29279?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+prachatai+(%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%B2%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%97+Prachatai.com)
and English version: http://www.prachatai.org/english/node/1783?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+prachataienglish+%28Prachatai+in+English%29
Suthep threatens arrests
It’s not who the dinosaur is, the question is how and where it appeared in connection with UDD.
Somsak has explained his “connections” on the map.
How about Somyot, the owner of the Imperial Lad Prao, providing HQ for red movement and their TV, and also being the editor of the magazine that put Jack-Queen-… on their front page, and the founder of Thai Red News, the outlet for Jakrapob/Surachai communist wing of the red movement?
How about Veera being a consultant for “Voice of Thaksin”? Or Weng being a “consultant” for the same Thai Red News?
What should the government believe here? Their public proclamations of loyalty or the stuff they put out in their media?
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
[…] a horror by the Reds. They can learn about the Reds’ horror everyday from the media. (see more of his in-depth analysis on New Mandala – highly […]
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
If one had to consciously choose to sacrifice several thousand idealistic students to save 3M people, the correct moral response would be to do just that.
This is one of those utterly bogus hypothetical situations… there are never cases where “sacrificing several thousand idealistic students” will save 3M or any other number of people, just as there are no instances when torturing the lone perpetrator will foreclose the explosion that wipes out the city… that reveals more about the hypothesizer than the situation.
I like Thongchai very much and his case is more or less compelling but the academic analysis of the situation is much less compelling than the situation.
The reds have been “branded”, the neoliberal have now overtaken the marlboro man connotations of the word, just as the students in Thailand in 1976 were, just as generations of American blacks were and are, just as “illegal aliens” in Arizona and Maryland and many other of the United States are today, just as the Palestinians are in their own country.
They came for the red shirts, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a red shirt… That seems to be exactly what’s going down in the city of angels.
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
The current source of “billions seized in UK” story is Nation’s Thanong. He has incorporated it into a wider narrative of Thaksin’s financial dealings with great many details.
Thanong has never disclosed his sources but they are definitely not that confused arabiannews editor.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
I don’t think classifying red shirts as representatives of wider social groups, be it poor, bannok, or nakleng, is going to be productive.
Among those same groups there are about as many yellows as reds.
I’d say it rather depends on the reach of the propaganda machine of each particular color, both sides appealing to practically the same sentiments of injustice and inequality.
Yellows lay the blame on politicians, reds on Bangkok elites.
Participants on both sides are convinced they have been implanted superior knowledge.
In a sense, in a fight for power, Thaksin was the first to “farm” the votes, Sondhi was the first to “farm” the sentiments, now reds are catching up, claiming their crop of hatred is for the ultimate good.
Folks who didn’t go to either yellow or red school of thought stay away. Even in Khon Kaen support for red agenda is about 50%, depending on particular issues.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Visarut – 41
”Distorted and Disgraced….that what I think of this webpage.”
Exactly which distortions and disgraceful assertions are you referring to?
If you think people here distort the truth or lie, then refute them.
Before damning New Mandala and the correspondents here, think.
Do you really believe that there is free expression of ideas, thoughts and speech in Thailand?
Please also take a look at this:
http://www.newmandala.org/2006/07/28/the-king-never-smiles/#comment-690293 (My thanks to Juan Carlos)
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Prof. Thongchai could also have mentioned the hospital and the government — backed up by Phra Thep’s statement — playing up that the Supreme Patriarch was in the hospital. Obviously the chao bannok lack adequate respect for the religious hierarchy.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Thongchai: “regardless of how truly corrupt and demagoguery he actually is”- who said? Not one shred of hard unequivocal evidence has been shown to prove that Thaksin broke any law according to the constitution at the time (regarded as the most demcratic and inclusive ever) other than the misdeamour that rich folk usually partake (shifting of money within family members etc.). Assumptions are dangerous without evidence to the contrary- and I dont mean heresay, rumour mongering and innuendo or even the clever fiction made by the corrupt judiciary emplace post 2006. [Not that I like or dislike the man- in fact I dont give a rats! the issue is much bigger than this now- you should focus on this]. But lets start to undo the falsification of history and not perpetuate mistruths.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
I also saw a few signs among the demonstrators about bannok people, and want to add a small note on the meaning as not only being rural but being ‘farmers’ in the condescending sense, or ‘from the sticks.’ In a Shakespearean sense, the entire Thai educational system/cultural regimentation might be seen as bannok.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Distorted and ignorant are what some comments show here, which have blown the Chula incident out of all proportion (this is what the state and its fascist friends would love): sure the Reds made a miscalculation in their panic -but it is not the end of the world. No one got hurt. The stage was set up by the alliance with two key doctors from this institution and their PAD and state friends. The media jumped on this opportunity but virtually downplayed the April 10 killing of innocent protestors: But who cares? they are only unwashed and uneducated peasants right boys? If you want to see how “impartial” the chula Hospital mob are see р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Ир╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕гр╣М, р╕Юр╕др╕йр╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕б 03, 2010 Believe it or Not! р╕гр╕Ю.р╕Ир╕╕р╕мр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕в2р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕гр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╣Зр╕нр╕Ъ..? (http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2010/05/believe-it-or-not-2.html) hmmm…interesting and read the chula Hospital medical face book!
see: http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9530000060684
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
It is a class struggle, I agree, but with a difference. The class is not so much struggling as the leadership of the class is struggling to drag the class into the conflict. I believe apathy and indifference are not totally dead in this current impasse, but that they thrive in the minds of those on all sides of the conflict.
Whether that apathy and indifference continue, and whether willingness to slaughter another generation of people who want to be free and equal will be subdued, may be the issue.
Student leaders summoned
Khun Somsak – 21 Thank you for your report.
”Finally, there was a kind of ‘psychological advice’ to those summoned. The person conducted this round of interview appeared to be a ‘psychologist’ (female р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕зр╕┤р╕Чр╕вр╕▓). She would ‘lecture’ those summoned on ‘correct’ political, social attitudes, etc.”
Thought Crime – Thought Police.
I despair.
Thailand’s disparity between agriculture and industry
Without risking offending the higher authorities we can’t discuss locally, am I correct in thinking there’s a _________-sanctioned plan in Th to maintain an agriculturally based society? I was wondering if such a plan was in any way behind the large numbers of people still working the land or if the reasons why the country seems not serious about shifting people to cities/industry lie primarily elsewhere. The ongoing uptick in industrial output seems to contradict this idea, so I was curious if 1) there really was a concerted effort to keep people on the land, 2) if this effort was the reason gov officials are reportedly ‘astonished’ by the numbers of people leaving the land anyway (even while these numbers are substantially lower than they need to be on the way to a developed society) and 3) why, according to the supporters of such a plan, this isn’t tantamount to condemning a class of people to poverty.
Apologies in advance if this isn’t something allowable, but I’m asking more for information as this isn’t something I know much about.