(Finally there was, in the parking area of the hospital when the UDD group actually encountered a few army officers. The soldiers shot at them. The UDD people escaped uninjured.)
As recent news, the pictures that UDD used as evidence were taken from the Charn Issara Tower not from the Chula Hospital.
Thanks Somsak for “dare to win, dare to lose”. It is a very important character of the nakleng I tried to explain, including the leadership of the UDD. But the phrase didn’t come up to me when I wrote the article. It explains many of their somewhat belligerent, risk-taking behaviors and tactics. It has the upsides for this movement but the downsides too, as Somsak points out.
In fact, part of the reasons of this article is to find a better understanding of the movement (not unitary, of course, and this article cannot capture everything we need to understand either) and the leaders than saying that the leaders don’t care about life and people. Such saying misunderstands the relationship between the leaders and followers of this movement. And it denies the agency of people, who are not mindless followers but the contrary. They know the risks and willing to take them. Many strongly challenged the leaders whenever the latter showed a sign of compromise. It may be a cliche — that people can endure hunger and other material hardship, but they are willing to fight to death for justice — but it is true. The care for each other among people and their leaders are, in my opinion, obviously strong. Very strong indeed. But it is not ideological comradeship, as many of us assume or are familiar with. Think about the relations between the nakleng and their people — I wish I could explain it now, but another time. (Read some Thai novels, please.)
Such saying that the leaders don’t care about life and (ab)use people as pawns also misunderstands the belligerence and risk-taking tendency of the movement. We don’t have to agree with the UDD’s aggressiveness. But to hint at a conspiracy or to suggest that those leaders conspire to (ab)use people as pawns for some undisclosed (wicked?) purposes may be misleading and misses the opportunity to understand the movement better. Such a conspiracy theory cannot explain the belligerence of the followers and the huge number of mid-level operators (are they leaders or followers?), who are often time more aggressive than their top leaders. To say that they are not truly peaceful, Gandhian-like or to the standard of the Amnesty International or the Human Rights Watch, is undoubtedly correct. But it is not because they are blatantly lying for a conspiracy. Rather, peace and non-violence as they may learn from texts and gurus are taken in their own terms. According to our familiar standard for non-violence, I think the nakleng and that kind of non-violence may be irreparably contradictory. Here we have a dilemma (an academic one, thank god!): should we demand them to bserve the AI and HRW standard, our standard? Or should we at least acknowledge that the movement, from leaders to supporters, needs to be understood in a better term, such as the bannok and nakleng fight against hierarchical injustice, as I try to suggest here.
But it is the nakleng movement in the 21st century at the national scale, when the rural society has become globalized. My article only scratches its surface.
Jon Fernquest: Could you please clarify what you mean by radicalized? What are their radical ideas? (Please avoid using Ji Ungpakorn as an example because most of them aren’t socialist).
Jim/ Hope you don’t dismiss the fundamental issues of class and hierarchy easily. But I absolutely agree — and I take your point here — that class and hierarchy are parts of “normal” life and are not the immediate causes for revolt. The crucial moment is when they become injustice. (Actually I wrote a section about injustice and double standard, but cut it because the article is too long.)
This is what the royalists and urban elite don’t seem to get. To understand the crisis simply as a conspiracy by Thaksin badly, horribly misses the point, regardless of how truly corrupt and demagoguery he actually is. Injustice is about power and legitimacy.
It is sad that many academics can analyse a peasant rebellion in the past, can understand and sympathize with people who believe in the Future Buddha. But they can’t understand how “Thaksin” means more and less than the person, when the revolt is against the urban elite like many of them. It is sad that they and many NGOs can understand how crucial injustice is for the crisis in the Deep South. But they fail to understand the current political crisis as a revolt against injustice.
in the end, there’re 3 students summonded yesterday, the Students Federation’s secretary, a female 4th year student of Faculty of Letters, Chula and a male student at a vocational school. More than 50 people turned up to give them moral support, including several university lecturers. But only the three were allowed to pass the main gates. They entered the militarty compounds around 11 am and came out only about 4-5 p.m. The reason of so many hours was there were so many people summoned including motorcycle riders, hire caravan operators, etc.
While there are certain ‘rationale’ for summoning the Students Federation secretary, the other two that were summoned are definitely the result of very bad government intelligence! The female student was accused of belonging to the Red Siam group, she’s NEVER was. (In fact, hardly anyone who’s still in the country can belong to this group!). The other male student was accused of being leader of a group called ‘Seri Panyachon’ (Free Intellectuals), he isn’t either!
There were 3 ’rounds’ of interview that everyone summoned had to pass through, including these three students. Altogether all the interviews lasted about one-and a half to two hours. The first round was the police interview. It’s the same kind of interrogation anyone would face if going to or is called to any police station. There were questions and answered, typed into official interrogation form (as in any police station). Then there was a kind of ‘talk’, in which military intelligence personals would ‘chat’ about the political situation, the views of those summoned. The atmosphere this round was ‘informal’ and a bit ‘relaxed’. There’s no typing into official form, but there appeared to be tape recording, and one of the two officers present, would take some notes. 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.
The whole thing, in modern political terms, is just a total waste of tax-payers’ money, to say the least.
To Pharris #10:
– The ideas of “moral” changes in big and small ways over time, although not necessarily in “progressive” directions. Major and small changes can take place within the frame of such ideology, but to certain limits.
– Within the limits, it is often said that dissatisfied people see the faults of individuals, but not the system. So the system persists. Such was not always true. The 1932 revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy — the system. But you may not find any of those “revolutionaries” who didn’t like King Chulalongkorn, the founder and the pillar of the absolute monarchy. The revolution took place 22 years after the death of their beloved king.
– I believe that Thai society can accommodate the rise of the rural folks. It must be able to, since Thailand’s rural society has already changed fundamentally and nobody can stop the change or turn back the clock, and Thailand will certainly remain on the globe. But when, how, at what cost, I don’t know.
– What does that mean to the future of the monarchy? It still can mean eveything from the persistence of the current system with accommodation to the rural power, to a radical change that seemed unimaginable a few years ago, and everything in between. There are many other variables, such as 1) how the royalist establishment deals with the fundamental changes, and 2) how the whole issue Aladdin #18 discusses unfolds. Both are closely related. And the variable #3, 4, 5, etc.
– I do not know the future. It hasn’t happened yet.
Quote: ” Thai Facebook community is heavily populated by Thai “yuppies” (whose historical background may be different from those of other countries) and “snobs” (who are similar to other snobs around the world). They openly talk about the Reds as dirty, ugly, vulgar, low, inferior people who belong to the “bannok” (rural). ”
I totally agree with this characterization of the Thai FB community.
Somsak: so it from among the disenchanted, angry and disapointed folk that nakleng [tendencies, may, perhaps] EMERGE…But frankly even that does not fit the current line up of personnel of Nor Por Chor leadership; the misleading use of terms like “stormed” Chula (the use of transitive verb- lifted out of the Nation or Pujadkaan online?) indicates a bias in language. Listen to the Nor Por Chor account first.
It is really interesting to read your analys which clearly give the balance of both side of conflicts. I hope those extremist PAD, thai elite (amataya) have read your text and create peace for thailand as well as with their neigbors.
Tarrin (#7) – a slight but significant correction to your comment about the tale of a supposed US$4bn of Thaksin’s assets being seized in the UK…..
It’s not so much that there is so little mention of it in non-Thai media as the simple fact that the writer of the one article that started the whole story (endlessly repeated by others – now including “I’m totally Thai”) himself confirmed back in December 2008 that he was wrong.
The facts have been out there for some time but, needless to say, this doesn’t stop “I’m totally Thai” and his/her mentors from continuing to spread (and who knows – maybe even believe?) the fiction.
these are not nakleng by any definition just disempowered, frustrated, angry and disappointed ordinary folk (the opposite to nakleng who actually possess power & control)
I don’t think that to depict ‘frustrated, angry and disappointed ordinary folk’ and the existence of ‘nakleng’ who ‘possess power & control’ is in any way a contradiction: in fact, sociologically speaking, it’s among the ‘disappointed ordinary folk’ that the kind of ‘nakleng’ culture/politics Thongchai depicts in his article, proliferates. The ‘power & control’ the nakleng possess are not the same kind, bureaucratic-legal, that possessed by central governmental authorities. I can name several Red leaders (with their followers) that I think easily fit the kind of nakleng culture discussed here. Not only Phayap who led the ‘storming’ of Chula Hospital, but people like Khawnchai Praiphana (Udon community radio) or Chinnawat Ha-bunphat (Taxi) – the latter was among the leaders of Caravan of the Poor, who initiated LM charge at Fa Diew Kan and Sulak. While it is understandable how this kind of ‘nakleng’ leaders and followers relationship develop among the disenfranchised rural and urban folk, it is, I suggest, also something to be subject to analysis and discriminate criticism.
Nakleng only have limited power; by definition a nakleng is a thug and hooligan, not someone with power and control. Although, the nakleng who has a gun and is robbing me certainly has both power and control over me at that time and place. Perhaps the term nakleng is being confused with jao-por, the shadowy godfather, of which there are many on both sides of this conflict.
Prof. Thongchai’s article is a fascinating read. One may criticize the bigoted views of certain Bangkok residents, but you do need to take these views into account when (or if, for some readers) you desire to understand why there is so much anger among these certain Bangkokians. The long-standing social hierarchy is not only being challenged, but the affront is quite in the open. This only compounds the ill-feeling. Contrary to popular opinion on this board, whether or not there were soldiers in the hospital, whether or not the reds simply went to inspect or “invaded,” whether or not the staff felt or actually were threatened, the perception among the antireds will predictably be that the reds are acting like thugs. That is, in the Thai sense of things. Thus, even if the reds suspected some threat coming from the hospital, nothing should have been done. What did they expect to accomplish? Even if they were to find soldiers there, haven’t the rumors for the past few weeks been of an impending crackdown, from any direction? Did they believe they were going to engage in a heroic battle with government forces? They had nothing to gain strategically by setting foot in the hospital. Yes, by going to the hospital, they may have believed they would save a few red shirt lives, but sadly the way things stand, not saving those lives would probably only have augmented the red cause.
If the reds could shelve some of their more belligerent rhetoric and actions, they certainly would look better, vis-a-vis the government and their supporters. Alas, this is Thailand. Whether it is red or yellow Flavoraid, everyone is happily imbibing.
Doctors at Bangkok’s main state hospitals said they would not treat police or politicians involved in Tuesday’s clashes.
“No treatment for police and wicked politicians in this room,” said a sign posted outside an exam room at Chulalongkorn Hospital, although hospital officials said they did not endorse the boycott.
Great to hear from a Thai academic. Any insightful commentary from any side from the Thai community I certainly welcome.
This incident at the Chulalongkorn Hospital is being over analyzed in my opinion. Abhisit is desperate so he needs to exploit anything in this standoff to gain some momentum. This hospital sits at a strategic position relative to the protests and presents the possibility of a grave military advantage for the government. Protesters that I spoke with in that area said they heard shots coming from this building late at night. There is access to this hospital from a road down the street where a mass of soldiers could enter with very little knowledge by the Reds. You wouldn’t see this from the reporting. Abhisit’s propaganda regarding this incident and the garbage he is putting out on Facebook is shameless. I former student of mine, and a very bright one, sent me Facebook screenshots of vulgar, anti-monarchy comments and then gave a rant about how Thaksin was dead and that he was part of some “Finland Plot” to turn Thailand into a republic with him as president.
We’ve all heard this before.
The only position of the elitists PAD/Royalists/pink/multi-color/status quo that I could possibly entertain is the argument that one need be educated to participate responsibly in a democracy, as Jefferson argued over 200 years ago. My question would then be what have these elite done to educate this rabble for the last 80 years?
jonfernquest: Love him or loath him, Thaksin won majorities by landslides, twice, and was the first PM to complete a full term in office. This is not one man rule, but the voice of the majority. That’s democracy. Was he corrupt, of course, what billionaire isn’t? But he also accomplished more than any other PM has managed to do in terms of uplifting the masses.
But his real threat is that he dared to empower all the little munchkins in munchkinland with micro financing, low interest loans for students, and projects like OTOP where munchkins started to learn that they could better themselves, by themselves, instead of prostrating themselves with a tin cup at the feet of the beneficent Oz. Thaksin was a munchkin who got off the reservation. Too many in the Emerald City started to lift back the curtain.
This is what happened here in Thailand.
What we see at Ratchaprasong is the progeny of 80 years of usurping the sovereignty of the people by the monarchy, the military, and the elite. Pridi Panomyong, the Father of Thai democracy was written out of the history books. The more democratic constitutions from 1932 and 1997 were thrown out. It’s never been about democracy.
So while many may look at Ratchaprasong in disgust, I look at it and I am inspired. They are rewriting Thailand as we speak. What’s particularly inspiring is watching them watch…themselves as heroes in this emerging narrative as DVD’s play nonstop. They see themselves as change agents. Not Thaksin. Not the King or previous kings. Not their wealthy bosses.
A minor point in the context of the argument of the piece, but otherwise a very major point:
“… the bogus allegation by the government a few days earlier that [the Reds] are anti-monarchy…”
If this is a reference to the CRES’s mind-map of a plot to overthrow the monarchy, then yes, the allegation that there is a linked-up organized conspiracy or network of people working together to overthrow the monarchy is “bogus” and could be easily proven to be so on an empirical basis.
But if you were to ask whether people and organizations named in the figure are opposed to the blatant interference of the monarchy in Thai politics that we have seen over the last 4 years, or want reforms to the monarchy’s current powers, then I believe that there are strong grounds for believing that yes, many of those listed are indeed opposed to the monarchy’s political interference and are likely to want such reforms.
Does this make them “anti-monarchy”?
I think in the government’s eyes and those of many of its supporters it certainly does. It follows that the government’s claim, defined in these terms, is not necessarily “bogus”.
Obviously it is not possible to quantify how many people in Thailand are “anti-monarchy” (defined both in terms of republicanism AND those who merely want a constitutional monarchy completely stripped of its political influence) because of the lese majeste law.
But as I have said before, given the huge support for Thaksin, his parties, and the Red Shirts in Thailand, and given the political interference by the King and Queen over the last four years with the aim of destroying Thaksin, his parties, and the Red Shirts, it seems to me that “anti-monarchy” sentiment on the part of the Reds would be entirely rational. To deny this would come close to “elite” discourses that the Reds are unthinking “buffalos”.
What is not rational is to openly express that sentiment, because of the lese majeste law. So they, like everyone else, have to “play the game” (of pretending they are р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕ар╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕╡).
Anyone who can read the “signals” in Red Shirt speeches, listens to Red community radio, reads pro-Red internet sites, or talks to pro-Red taxi drivers, knows that there is a great deal of anti-monarchy sentiment in Thailand now. If one sees pictures of heavily armed soldiers wearing blue neckerchiefs sent in to quell the Reds surely it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess what people in Red heartlands would think of this particular representative of the monarchy.
I believe that the lese majeste law and the incessant propaganda about the monarchy may be leading to an underestimation of the real extent of “anti-monarchy” feeling in Thailand. This is very dangerous for the future of the monarchy.
The sooner that the problem of the monarchy can be talked about openly, and proposals discussed to reform it, the safer its future.
Regarding:
“Their condemnations are much louder and incomparable to their mild criticism, if not silence, to the government uses of force and live ammunition that resulted in twenty-five deaths on April 10. The invaded body of the clean moral politics represented by the hospital seems to have higher value than the deaths of the Reds. This reinforces the earlier message that the deaths of army officers who commanded the violent crackdown on April 10 were of higher value than the Red victims of the same crackdown. The alleged “double standard” by the urban elite and media is strikingly consistent.”
People worldwide give greater interest to deaths and injuries of the undeserving and unsuspecting, so it’s not surprising in the least it has a higher value.
There is no “double standard” here. This is merely what tuggs at people’s heart strings more.
Helpless innocent, unsuspecting people in a hospital being terrorized trumps voluntary protesters being killed in a risky situation of their own choosing.
Why do we shrug at the 300+ deaths during Song Kran yet give so much significance to the 25 deaths of April 10th?
jonfernquest-Can you provide some references for your assertion that “Radicalized Thai Studies academics flip-flopped in their critical attitude towards Thaksin and adopted a sort of amnesia regarding what Thaksin actually did in this country with his attempt to assert one man rule.” I cannot think of a single one who does not remain critical of Thaksin.
P.S. Are you the same jonfernquest who tweeted during the Chula Hospital intrusion that “armed” Red Shirts had forced their way in, and linked that tweet to a murky photo showing what less fevered minds could see was someone holding a video camera? Or was that a retweet? Just asking.
“until recently they’ve been in an outside world info vacuum” >> One must imagine that even the intellctual Matichon newspaper only has half a page per day for news from outside Thailand…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
As recent news, the pictures that UDD used as evidence were taken from the Charn Issara Tower not from the Chula Hospital.
Student leaders summoned
thanxs Khun Somsak , appreciate your time .
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Distorted and Disgraced….that what I think of this webpage.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Thanks Somsak for “dare to win, dare to lose”. It is a very important character of the nakleng I tried to explain, including the leadership of the UDD. But the phrase didn’t come up to me when I wrote the article. It explains many of their somewhat belligerent, risk-taking behaviors and tactics. It has the upsides for this movement but the downsides too, as Somsak points out.
In fact, part of the reasons of this article is to find a better understanding of the movement (not unitary, of course, and this article cannot capture everything we need to understand either) and the leaders than saying that the leaders don’t care about life and people. Such saying misunderstands the relationship between the leaders and followers of this movement. And it denies the agency of people, who are not mindless followers but the contrary. They know the risks and willing to take them. Many strongly challenged the leaders whenever the latter showed a sign of compromise. It may be a cliche — that people can endure hunger and other material hardship, but they are willing to fight to death for justice — but it is true. The care for each other among people and their leaders are, in my opinion, obviously strong. Very strong indeed. But it is not ideological comradeship, as many of us assume or are familiar with. Think about the relations between the nakleng and their people — I wish I could explain it now, but another time. (Read some Thai novels, please.)
Such saying that the leaders don’t care about life and (ab)use people as pawns also misunderstands the belligerence and risk-taking tendency of the movement. We don’t have to agree with the UDD’s aggressiveness. But to hint at a conspiracy or to suggest that those leaders conspire to (ab)use people as pawns for some undisclosed (wicked?) purposes may be misleading and misses the opportunity to understand the movement better. Such a conspiracy theory cannot explain the belligerence of the followers and the huge number of mid-level operators (are they leaders or followers?), who are often time more aggressive than their top leaders. To say that they are not truly peaceful, Gandhian-like or to the standard of the Amnesty International or the Human Rights Watch, is undoubtedly correct. But it is not because they are blatantly lying for a conspiracy. Rather, peace and non-violence as they may learn from texts and gurus are taken in their own terms. According to our familiar standard for non-violence, I think the nakleng and that kind of non-violence may be irreparably contradictory. Here we have a dilemma (an academic one, thank god!): should we demand them to bserve the AI and HRW standard, our standard? Or should we at least acknowledge that the movement, from leaders to supporters, needs to be understood in a better term, such as the bannok and nakleng fight against hierarchical injustice, as I try to suggest here.
But it is the nakleng movement in the 21st century at the national scale, when the rural society has become globalized. My article only scratches its surface.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Jon Fernquest: Could you please clarify what you mean by radicalized? What are their radical ideas? (Please avoid using Ji Ungpakorn as an example because most of them aren’t socialist).
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Jim/ Hope you don’t dismiss the fundamental issues of class and hierarchy easily. But I absolutely agree — and I take your point here — that class and hierarchy are parts of “normal” life and are not the immediate causes for revolt. The crucial moment is when they become injustice. (Actually I wrote a section about injustice and double standard, but cut it because the article is too long.)
This is what the royalists and urban elite don’t seem to get. To understand the crisis simply as a conspiracy by Thaksin badly, horribly misses the point, regardless of how truly corrupt and demagoguery he actually is. Injustice is about power and legitimacy.
It is sad that many academics can analyse a peasant rebellion in the past, can understand and sympathize with people who believe in the Future Buddha. But they can’t understand how “Thaksin” means more and less than the person, when the revolt is against the urban elite like many of them. It is sad that they and many NGOs can understand how crucial injustice is for the crisis in the Deep South. But they fail to understand the current political crisis as a revolt against injustice.
Student leaders summoned
in the end, there’re 3 students summonded yesterday, the Students Federation’s secretary, a female 4th year student of Faculty of Letters, Chula and a male student at a vocational school. More than 50 people turned up to give them moral support, including several university lecturers. But only the three were allowed to pass the main gates. They entered the militarty compounds around 11 am and came out only about 4-5 p.m. The reason of so many hours was there were so many people summoned including motorcycle riders, hire caravan operators, etc.
While there are certain ‘rationale’ for summoning the Students Federation secretary, the other two that were summoned are definitely the result of very bad government intelligence! The female student was accused of belonging to the Red Siam group, she’s NEVER was. (In fact, hardly anyone who’s still in the country can belong to this group!). The other male student was accused of being leader of a group called ‘Seri Panyachon’ (Free Intellectuals), he isn’t either!
There were 3 ’rounds’ of interview that everyone summoned had to pass through, including these three students. Altogether all the interviews lasted about one-and a half to two hours. The first round was the police interview. It’s the same kind of interrogation anyone would face if going to or is called to any police station. There were questions and answered, typed into official interrogation form (as in any police station). Then there was a kind of ‘talk’, in which military intelligence personals would ‘chat’ about the political situation, the views of those summoned. The atmosphere this round was ‘informal’ and a bit ‘relaxed’. There’s no typing into official form, but there appeared to be tape recording, and one of the two officers present, would take some notes. 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.
The whole thing, in modern political terms, is just a total waste of tax-payers’ money, to say the least.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
To Pharris #10:
– The ideas of “moral” changes in big and small ways over time, although not necessarily in “progressive” directions. Major and small changes can take place within the frame of such ideology, but to certain limits.
– Within the limits, it is often said that dissatisfied people see the faults of individuals, but not the system. So the system persists. Such was not always true. The 1932 revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy — the system. But you may not find any of those “revolutionaries” who didn’t like King Chulalongkorn, the founder and the pillar of the absolute monarchy. The revolution took place 22 years after the death of their beloved king.
– I believe that Thai society can accommodate the rise of the rural folks. It must be able to, since Thailand’s rural society has already changed fundamentally and nobody can stop the change or turn back the clock, and Thailand will certainly remain on the globe. But when, how, at what cost, I don’t know.
– What does that mean to the future of the monarchy? It still can mean eveything from the persistence of the current system with accommodation to the rural power, to a radical change that seemed unimaginable a few years ago, and everything in between. There are many other variables, such as 1) how the royalist establishment deals with the fundamental changes, and 2) how the whole issue Aladdin #18 discusses unfolds. Both are closely related. And the variable #3, 4, 5, etc.
– I do not know the future. It hasn’t happened yet.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Quote: ” Thai Facebook community is heavily populated by Thai “yuppies” (whose historical background may be different from those of other countries) and “snobs” (who are similar to other snobs around the world). They openly talk about the Reds as dirty, ugly, vulgar, low, inferior people who belong to the “bannok” (rural). ”
I totally agree with this characterization of the Thai FB community.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Somsak: so it from among the disenchanted, angry and disapointed folk that nakleng [tendencies, may, perhaps] EMERGE…But frankly even that does not fit the current line up of personnel of Nor Por Chor leadership; the misleading use of terms like “stormed” Chula (the use of transitive verb- lifted out of the Nation or Pujadkaan online?) indicates a bias in language. Listen to the Nor Por Chor account first.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
It is really interesting to read your analys which clearly give the balance of both side of conflicts. I hope those extremist PAD, thai elite (amataya) have read your text and create peace for thailand as well as with their neigbors.
Interview with Thaksin: “I am speaking to you from heaven”
Tarrin (#7) – a slight but significant correction to your comment about the tale of a supposed US$4bn of Thaksin’s assets being seized in the UK…..
It’s not so much that there is so little mention of it in non-Thai media as the simple fact that the writer of the one article that started the whole story (endlessly repeated by others – now including “I’m totally Thai”) himself confirmed back in December 2008 that he was wrong.
No need to take my word for it – his own e-mail confirming the mistake is reproduced (with his permission) and can be read at http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog/2008/12/did-uk-seize-thaksins-assets.htm
The facts have been out there for some time but, needless to say, this doesn’t stop “I’m totally Thai” and his/her mentors from continuing to spread (and who knows – maybe even believe?) the fiction.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Jim Taylor:
these are not nakleng by any definition just disempowered, frustrated, angry and disappointed ordinary folk (the opposite to nakleng who actually possess power & control)
I don’t think that to depict ‘frustrated, angry and disappointed ordinary folk’ and the existence of ‘nakleng’ who ‘possess power & control’ is in any way a contradiction: in fact, sociologically speaking, it’s among the ‘disappointed ordinary folk’ that the kind of ‘nakleng’ culture/politics Thongchai depicts in his article, proliferates. The ‘power & control’ the nakleng possess are not the same kind, bureaucratic-legal, that possessed by central governmental authorities. I can name several Red leaders (with their followers) that I think easily fit the kind of nakleng culture discussed here. Not only Phayap who led the ‘storming’ of Chula Hospital, but people like Khawnchai Praiphana (Udon community radio) or Chinnawat Ha-bunphat (Taxi) – the latter was among the leaders of Caravan of the Poor, who initiated LM charge at Fa Diew Kan and Sulak. While it is understandable how this kind of ‘nakleng’ leaders and followers relationship develop among the disenfranchised rural and urban folk, it is, I suggest, also something to be subject to analysis and discriminate criticism.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Nakleng only have limited power; by definition a nakleng is a thug and hooligan, not someone with power and control. Although, the nakleng who has a gun and is robbing me certainly has both power and control over me at that time and place. Perhaps the term nakleng is being confused with jao-por, the shadowy godfather, of which there are many on both sides of this conflict.
Prof. Thongchai’s article is a fascinating read. One may criticize the bigoted views of certain Bangkok residents, but you do need to take these views into account when (or if, for some readers) you desire to understand why there is so much anger among these certain Bangkokians. The long-standing social hierarchy is not only being challenged, but the affront is quite in the open. This only compounds the ill-feeling. Contrary to popular opinion on this board, whether or not there were soldiers in the hospital, whether or not the reds simply went to inspect or “invaded,” whether or not the staff felt or actually were threatened, the perception among the antireds will predictably be that the reds are acting like thugs. That is, in the Thai sense of things. Thus, even if the reds suspected some threat coming from the hospital, nothing should have been done. What did they expect to accomplish? Even if they were to find soldiers there, haven’t the rumors for the past few weeks been of an impending crackdown, from any direction? Did they believe they were going to engage in a heroic battle with government forces? They had nothing to gain strategically by setting foot in the hospital. Yes, by going to the hospital, they may have believed they would save a few red shirt lives, but sadly the way things stand, not saving those lives would probably only have augmented the red cause.
If the reds could shelve some of their more belligerent rhetoric and actions, they certainly would look better, vis-a-vis the government and their supporters. Alas, this is Thailand. Whether it is red or yellow Flavoraid, everyone is happily imbibing.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
08 Oct 2008
Doctors at Bangkok’s main state hospitals said they would not treat police or politicians involved in Tuesday’s clashes.
“No treatment for police and wicked politicians in this room,” said a sign posted outside an exam room at Chulalongkorn Hospital, although hospital officials said they did not endorse the boycott.
: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BKK67010.htm
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Great to hear from a Thai academic. Any insightful commentary from any side from the Thai community I certainly welcome.
This incident at the Chulalongkorn Hospital is being over analyzed in my opinion. Abhisit is desperate so he needs to exploit anything in this standoff to gain some momentum. This hospital sits at a strategic position relative to the protests and presents the possibility of a grave military advantage for the government. Protesters that I spoke with in that area said they heard shots coming from this building late at night. There is access to this hospital from a road down the street where a mass of soldiers could enter with very little knowledge by the Reds. You wouldn’t see this from the reporting. Abhisit’s propaganda regarding this incident and the garbage he is putting out on Facebook is shameless. I former student of mine, and a very bright one, sent me Facebook screenshots of vulgar, anti-monarchy comments and then gave a rant about how Thaksin was dead and that he was part of some “Finland Plot” to turn Thailand into a republic with him as president.
We’ve all heard this before.
The only position of the elitists PAD/Royalists/pink/multi-color/status quo that I could possibly entertain is the argument that one need be educated to participate responsibly in a democracy, as Jefferson argued over 200 years ago. My question would then be what have these elite done to educate this rabble for the last 80 years?
jonfernquest: Love him or loath him, Thaksin won majorities by landslides, twice, and was the first PM to complete a full term in office. This is not one man rule, but the voice of the majority. That’s democracy. Was he corrupt, of course, what billionaire isn’t? But he also accomplished more than any other PM has managed to do in terms of uplifting the masses.
But his real threat is that he dared to empower all the little munchkins in munchkinland with micro financing, low interest loans for students, and projects like OTOP where munchkins started to learn that they could better themselves, by themselves, instead of prostrating themselves with a tin cup at the feet of the beneficent Oz. Thaksin was a munchkin who got off the reservation. Too many in the Emerald City started to lift back the curtain.
This is what happened here in Thailand.
What we see at Ratchaprasong is the progeny of 80 years of usurping the sovereignty of the people by the monarchy, the military, and the elite. Pridi Panomyong, the Father of Thai democracy was written out of the history books. The more democratic constitutions from 1932 and 1997 were thrown out. It’s never been about democracy.
So while many may look at Ratchaprasong in disgust, I look at it and I am inspired. They are rewriting Thailand as we speak. What’s particularly inspiring is watching them watch…themselves as heroes in this emerging narrative as DVD’s play nonstop. They see themselves as change agents. Not Thaksin. Not the King or previous kings. Not their wealthy bosses.
No wonder Abhisit is nervous.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
A minor point in the context of the argument of the piece, but otherwise a very major point:
“… the bogus allegation by the government a few days earlier that [the Reds] are anti-monarchy…”
If this is a reference to the CRES’s mind-map of a plot to overthrow the monarchy, then yes, the allegation that there is a linked-up organized conspiracy or network of people working together to overthrow the monarchy is “bogus” and could be easily proven to be so on an empirical basis.
But if you were to ask whether people and organizations named in the figure are opposed to the blatant interference of the monarchy in Thai politics that we have seen over the last 4 years, or want reforms to the monarchy’s current powers, then I believe that there are strong grounds for believing that yes, many of those listed are indeed opposed to the monarchy’s political interference and are likely to want such reforms.
Does this make them “anti-monarchy”?
I think in the government’s eyes and those of many of its supporters it certainly does. It follows that the government’s claim, defined in these terms, is not necessarily “bogus”.
Obviously it is not possible to quantify how many people in Thailand are “anti-monarchy” (defined both in terms of republicanism AND those who merely want a constitutional monarchy completely stripped of its political influence) because of the lese majeste law.
But as I have said before, given the huge support for Thaksin, his parties, and the Red Shirts in Thailand, and given the political interference by the King and Queen over the last four years with the aim of destroying Thaksin, his parties, and the Red Shirts, it seems to me that “anti-monarchy” sentiment on the part of the Reds would be entirely rational. To deny this would come close to “elite” discourses that the Reds are unthinking “buffalos”.
What is not rational is to openly express that sentiment, because of the lese majeste law. So they, like everyone else, have to “play the game” (of pretending they are р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕ар╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕╡).
Anyone who can read the “signals” in Red Shirt speeches, listens to Red community radio, reads pro-Red internet sites, or talks to pro-Red taxi drivers, knows that there is a great deal of anti-monarchy sentiment in Thailand now. If one sees pictures of heavily armed soldiers wearing blue neckerchiefs sent in to quell the Reds surely it doesn’t take too much imagination to guess what people in Red heartlands would think of this particular representative of the monarchy.
I believe that the lese majeste law and the incessant propaganda about the monarchy may be leading to an underestimation of the real extent of “anti-monarchy” feeling in Thailand. This is very dangerous for the future of the monarchy.
The sooner that the problem of the monarchy can be talked about openly, and proposals discussed to reform it, the safer its future.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Regarding:
“Their condemnations are much louder and incomparable to their mild criticism, if not silence, to the government uses of force and live ammunition that resulted in twenty-five deaths on April 10. The invaded body of the clean moral politics represented by the hospital seems to have higher value than the deaths of the Reds. This reinforces the earlier message that the deaths of army officers who commanded the violent crackdown on April 10 were of higher value than the Red victims of the same crackdown. The alleged “double standard” by the urban elite and media is strikingly consistent.”
People worldwide give greater interest to deaths and injuries of the undeserving and unsuspecting, so it’s not surprising in the least it has a higher value.
There is no “double standard” here. This is merely what tuggs at people’s heart strings more.
Helpless innocent, unsuspecting people in a hospital being terrorized trumps voluntary protesters being killed in a risky situation of their own choosing.
Why do we shrug at the 300+ deaths during Song Kran yet give so much significance to the 25 deaths of April 10th?
For the same reason.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
jonfernquest-Can you provide some references for your assertion that “Radicalized Thai Studies academics flip-flopped in their critical attitude towards Thaksin and adopted a sort of amnesia regarding what Thaksin actually did in this country with his attempt to assert one man rule.” I cannot think of a single one who does not remain critical of Thaksin.
P.S. Are you the same jonfernquest who tweeted during the Chula Hospital intrusion that “armed” Red Shirts had forced their way in, and linked that tweet to a murky photo showing what less fevered minds could see was someone holding a video camera? Or was that a retweet? Just asking.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
“until recently they’ve been in an outside world info vacuum” >> One must imagine that even the intellctual Matichon newspaper only has half a page per day for news from outside Thailand…