Red Shirts may have lost the battle but not the war. Their top leaders are detained but new ones are ready to lead. This is because the issues are injustice, double standards, and oppression of the rural poor which continue to exist under this Abhisit govt. Under the current worsening economic situation, more and more people are becoming red shirts without even wearing them. Just wait, as soon as the State of Emergency is lifted in Bangkok, stronger opposition against Abhisit govt will start and spread quickly. Around me, there are many who are fed up listening to govt’s broadcast propaganda while at the same time they cannot listen to or watch their favorite commnity radio stations or Dstation.
I stand corrected. Blank M16 rounds have a crimped end but no wad, unlike the sheep killing blank rifle rounds I fired in my youth (I wasn’t one of the sheep killing squad). In fact, when firing blanks purely for noise purposes, the M16 is normally fitted with a blank firing attachment which effectively blocks the barrel so that enough gas comes back to eject the empty cartridge and load the next one into the chamber. The US military uses large colored attachments in training to make it obvious that blanks are being fired but it is possible to produce a much smaller attachment that would be difficult to see. Otherwise blanks can definitely propel things out of the barrel. Higher powered blanks are used to fire grenades and baton rounds from an M16.
The short range target ammunition (SRTA) in the link you provided has a blue plastic tip but the cost in the US is nearly three times as much as the copper clad ball service ammunition. So I doubt very much that the Thai army imports it. It is much more likely that they have their own SRTA made to their specification by Thai Arms, a private company in Rachburi that manufacturers a range of low velocity “practice” ammunition. Another reason I doubt the Thai army uses it is because an M16 has to be fitted with a special bolt to fire it which means that the same rifle cannot be used to fire service ammunition without going back to the armourer. On the other hand Winchester manufactures an SRTA round with a copper or brass tip that uses the same bolt as service ammunition. See http://www.combatreform.com/indoorriflequal.htm . It is quite likely that the Thai army has a copy of this ammo made locally and it could look almost indistinguishable from service ammunition. Although not accurate beyond 25 metres, this is still lethal ammunition and I think it is what the army referred to as “look som” or practice ammuntion. I also still assume they used a lot of blank cartridges, as there would certainly be lot of injuries and damage caused, if all ammo used was either SRTA or service ammo.
What matters more is what they perceived he has said and the consequences they drew from it.
Not that what I am about to say next is newsworthy, but it definitely is thought-provoking. I sat in a cab yesterday (no, that’s not the big news) who was what you call a ‘red shirt’ guy, but he was no longer a red shirted, at least no longer part of the Thaksin-wing.
We had a nice chat he and I. We both agreed that there are too many ‘invisible people’ who play a role in Thai politics, and these people do need to be neutralized. The whole Songkran episode has however made him “wake up” to Thaksin. He really believed that Thaksin was coming back, and was disheartened when he found out (after the riots) that Thaksin had removed his wife and children from the country. They were earlier told that the family was still in Bangkok, and he was at the rally where Yaowapha Wongsawat said the same, that the family was just away on a quick preplanned trip, but would be back in Bangkok in no time… for him, the worst was when he saw Thaksin on CNN deny that he had any part in the Red-shirt movement and that he only offered them ‘moral support’…. (he said he saw this at the house where he stayed in for 2 days of people who had let him stay in their house).
He wasn’t one of those ‘hardcore’ fanatics, he played a part in closing down the Victory Monument…. he was shocked when a few ‘hardliners’ in the Red shirt drove and parked gas tanks at Din Daeng, he told me he was there all night, and roughly 3:30-4am when (in his words) some crazy red-shirters (not blue, not anyone else) told them that they “received orders” to fight the military. He didn’t go up front, but said he was near enough to know that the red shirt tried really hard to get the military to attack. His claims were that the claims of ‘hundreds’ of bodies dead is totally false. He told me that he was there (like a hundred times), and said that “if” anyone died, the number could definitely not exceed 5. When the military shot at people after (he has no recollection much of what happened as he didn’t sleep the whole night), he just heard gun fire and ran…. removed his red-shirt, and ran begging for help from someone in the area. He was first told to move on, but he begged, and was allowed in. He hadn’t showered for 3 days prior to then, and lived with these people for 2 days.
Having said all that to me, he re-iterated that there is still a class system that exists in this country, and that the way the Red Shirts were dealt with was totally different from the PAD, and he still feels pained at that. However, at this moment in time, he does not believe nor trust the red shirt leadership anymore. He feels that they duped him and at the end, left him on his own. He still ‘feels red’, and definitely has no love for Prem and Thailand’s ‘background’ politics. I really wished I had taken his name, but I was taking more a role of a listener, and thanked him profusely when I reached my destination. I didn’t realize the valuability (i’m like Bush, I make up words) of information till I told my colleague of what happened.
I don’t know how this ‘proves’ or ‘disproves’ Thaksin’s call for a revolution, but it was worth noting that someone who thought Thaksin called for one, went there to fight, and was disillusioned by the lack of support given later.
I’m emailing you to see if I can come and visit you.
I did a Parachute Course at Williamstown Australia with you and your bodyguard in 1978.
I have been to Thailand many times and have had no success in contacting you so now I ‘am trying to make contact by this web site. I understand this is not a good web site to contact you as many people try to put you down on this web site. They don’t know you and should not judge you. This is the only web site I can find where I can leave a message and hope you will beable to read.
Take care and I hope to hear from you soon
Regards Jim Jones
I don’t understand why you think that prosecuting commentators on a national academic website of another country would be impossible. The Thai government blocked Youtube, owned by one of the US’s largest corporations, and has recently imprisoned one of its own citizens for posting on it. I think they would care much less about an Australian university’s website. The Thai authorities are free to prosecute anyone in their territory or to refuse entry to any one who isn’t. Anyone can initiate prosecutions under the LM laws which are extraterritorial since they deemed to relate to national security.
I sincerely hope that nothing like this happens to New Mandala or its contributors under any government but my point was that I am extremely doubtful that a restoration of Thaksin would reduce LM prosecutions or result in any reform in the law. I don’t think it’s possible to rule out a return of Thaksin either. I believe the royal family deserves legal protections against defamation but that the application of the current law has degenerated to the extent it actually damages their image. Therefore it is in urgent need of reform precisely to protect the royal family.
You can download the video (not just sound, as in your YouTube links) of Red Shirt rally during Thaksin’s phone-in on 12 April from here:
(It was recorded from LIVE broadcast on the D-Station with picture of the rally listening to Thaksin, plus – at the first few minutes – live picture from Din Daeng)
The sound and picture quality is generally good. The part when he called for a ‘People’s Revolution’, the sound is a bit jumbled, but still quite clear.
Yes, he did call for a ‘People’s Revolution’ (kan-pa-ti-wat-pra-cha-chon), although not in the usual sense of violent overthrow of the government (this is hardly surprising, I think). In fact, he made the call right after attacking the Abhisit gov’s alledged use of force against the Red Shirts, citing Martin Luther King Junior no less! He then called on ‘all sides’ to bring about a ‘People’s Revolution’.
Here’s my transcription:
(between minutes 12:45 and 13:06)
р╕Бр╣Йр╕нр╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Нр╕Кр╕зр╕Щр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Ир╕зр╕вр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Цр╕╖р╕нр╣Вр╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕бр╕▓ р╕Чр╕│р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕нр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕нр╕▓ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╣Ар╕Цр╕нр╕░ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕И р╕ер╕╕р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕ер╕в
(I would like to invite all sides: Let join hands. Take this opportunity to make a People’s Revolution in order to bring about the true democracy to the people. Don’t let this use of force [against the people] continue any longer.)
I also just watched video record of the rally during Thaksin’s videolink speech on 3 April. You’re right he only made ‘historical reference’ to ‘People’s Revolution’ of 14 Tula and 17 May, in the context of contrasting them with the numerous ‘patiwat’ by the miliarty (i.e. coups d’etat). The latter, he argued, constituted the ‘Vicious Circle’ that crippled the devolopment of democracy and made the country less and less competitive against other asian countries (Japan, Malaysia, etc.) Here’s my transcription of his exact words from the video record:
As a professinal historian, I’m curious to know who provided Thaksin with this ‘historical reference’, or gave him advice on the ‘number’. He doesn’t strike me as a guy who’s usually interested in this sort of thing. (He had relatively long pauses and looked up his prepared sripts often.)
Regarding the 30 March vidiolink speech, as you said, he didn’t talk about any revolution there either. Only the ‘pledge’ you mention:
btw, in reference to Thaksin’s 18 and 27 April vidiolink speech that you wrote on other occasion (you know what I mean), I think Thaksin did mean the coup when he told the story of dinner at Pi’s house and Surayut’s alleged audience with HMK and his alleged pledge to HMK to ‘get Thaksin’ (р╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У), or rather Thaksin regarded the story as part of the same process that let to the coup. I’m sure (listening to that speech a few times) he didn’t separate each steps that let to his downfall (from to the annulment of April 2006 elections, to the meeting at Pi’s house, to the sentencing of Election Commitsioners, to Surayut’s phone call to Sonthi L to give ‘moral support’ to the latter, and ultimately to the coup itself). He ‘lumped’ all these together. And quite correctly so, in my view, in the sense that they belonged to the same process. Whether participants of Pi’s dinner did or did not talk about the coup at that stage is hard to tell.
Fed up with posers, how is it selective logic? Where did I say Thaksin being a Nicaraguan ambassador is not ridiculous? I think you are projecting an issue you feel strongly about onto a completely different hypothetical situation which revolves around this website and the Lese Majeste law. This website is not hosted in Thailand.
Australian and Thai relations would be significantly soured if Thaksin persecuted this website. This would not be a logical thing for Thailand to do, but if Thaksin is Stalin resurrected… oh wait, was that your point?
“Note, it is not a call to action, just a historical reference.” But isn’t this reference made in relation to April 8, followed by urging supporters to turn up? To me, his remark looks as if he suggested that April 8 could be like 1973 and 1992 if only a sufficient number of people would turn up.
Anyway, what counts is the perception of the audience about what Thaksin had said, and the consequences they drew from it. Is anything known about this?
Why do you think I put that word in quotation marks and paired it with another sort of quotation marks for “non talents”? Since you seem to be not only careful (at what level, I can only guess), but surely also the opposite of a “a shallow, muddled thinker”, I would have expected you to recognize this hermeneutic extension of your comment. In fact, you even reacted on its meaning.
Which brings me to your statement that, “There is no shortage of Thai analysts out there who possess more depth, logic, insight, knowledge and writing ability than ML Nattakorn.” I consider this as apologetic (otherwise, it might have to be considered ignorant). If there really were so many highly qualified people around here, why don’t we see them writing columns in the papers or acting as TV anchors? Oh, yes — because their places are occupied by all these undeserved, such as “ML.”
In any case, I do in fact think that Khun (unlike you, I prefer to call him this way) Nattakorn has one or two things to learn.
Hopefully, he will be given this time — by his admirers, by his own ego, and by those who think that they should hide a disagreement of opinion behind an attack on his capabilities and formal social status and nepotism (quite a worn tactic, I might add). Your perspective looks more like an insinuation of censorship (of which we already have quite a lot) than as a reasoned evaluation of his position.
BTW, what do you think about Nick’s piece on the red-shirt protests? (Apologies in advance if I have overlooked your comment.)
HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT ATTACK THE WEAPONLESS PROTESTERS BY FORCE WHO HAVE THEIR OWN FREEDOM TO EXPRESS A POLITICAL VIEW?
Apparently, a downtown battle field sparked yesterday as the puppet government used the military troop by way of declaring the state of emergency over the area of Bangkok Metropolitan and its vicinities to specifically dissolve by force the Red-shirt protesters. Red-shirt protesters politically demand the puppet prime minister and government-entangling privy councilor head to resign.
In pictures, the troop brutally shot the Red-shirt protesters, who defended their barracks for political rally, to dead and got severe injuries, while the latter retaliated with no weapons. Not only the ordinary citizen, but also a few monks and a three-year old child were also murdered by firing bullets. Most corpses were secretly hidden, taken away and destroyed by the troop to avert any physical evidence on their committing a massacre. Up to now, nearly one hundred people were registered dead and injured, being drastically and contradictorily contrast to the government report, as saying only two persons were dead.
Some pictures exhibited the Red-shirt women knelled themselves down with flowers in front of the soldiers while begging for their lives. Some pictures delineated the soldiers’ shameful actions drawing on by dragging and yanking the hair of an unarmed woman protester.
The government also made image-smearing stories, lies and deceptions by hiring people to wear the red shirts and ordered them to create chaos and destroy public properties during the evening time in order to generate widespread civil disobedience, as if the Red-shirt protesters had done by themselves.
“Well Portman’s hypothetical situation is ridiculous because prosecuting commentators on a national academic website would create a hilarious legal precedent and a significant diplomatic situation.”
And a myriad of other events and prosecutions in the past 6 years, including Thaksin’s appointment as Ambassador of Nicaragua along with innapropriate political remarks by the Nicaraguan govt are not equally ridiculous and therefore did not happen? Nice use of selective logic and selective memory which is really the overall problem with New Mandela contributors from both sides.
frank, you do realize that the yellow side used violence, murder and intimidation too, right? interesting that you have difficulty seeing through both sides.
susan, don’t forget that Thaksin at one point had many of the old elite on his side. samak is as old elite as they come too. in this battle we see people quickly changing sides as the need arises. this shows that this really has little to do with ideology and more about a grab for power.
in terms of the military, Thaksin was not far away from controlling it too with his cronies almost within reach of the ultimate prize. it sure would be a different story if that had happened.
GoodnessGraciousMe: I see you are contributing to a small outbreak of civility here, I hope it spreads.
Though I concede I may be wrong, I stand by my narrowly defined assertion that “At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.”
By “at the time,” I mean contemporaneous with the events. I’m certain there were no photos like that circulating before the army itself admitted what happened — surely you remember the shock when that news came out?
I’m very familiar with the other footage from the time, including the the people being kicked etc as they were forced to crawl across the road, and shooting from riverside, as I recall. But in addition to the post-incident censorship, journalists at the scene were all told very strictly to back off. It’s to their credit that they did manage to film and send out what they did.
The point is a more general one anyway. Photos (or lack thereof) don’t tell the whole story.
1. No difference in level of violence?
2. No difference in the mentality, personal outlook and manners of supporters in general?
3. One used its media to incite violence, and I mean “Kill Prem,” etc. while the other incited activism you call violence but which is force in many instances. force and violence are not the same. Or are they?
4. No difference in harm they do to the country and people? This is a sticking point because many will maintain that yes, that is exactly it, that they both harm in the same way and degree. But unless you and I have listened to different versions of UDD broadcasts and those form ASTV, etc., it is abundantly clear that the Red shirts incite and support the incitement of clear physical violence. “Prem, if you don’t resign, I will kill you!” This is one reason D-TV was taken off the air.
5. Both sides, however, as almost equally misunderstood by expats. Their organizations and objectives are oversimplified and apparent similarities are interpreted as likenesses.
both represent the elites just under different colors and using different sectors of society to do their dirty work.
Red is controlled by Thaksin and his friends for their agenda to seize power/money over the yellow side, not for the benefit of the poor that are dying in vain. the reds have fooled the poor that their enemy is the yellow side, when in fact thaksin and Co. are no less corrupt, no less oppressive. etc…..
Yellow is controlled by blue bloods, old money, and generals using a cult personality to smash their opponents. this side has tricked the middle class that the reds are the (only) ones that are dangerous and must be stopped.
in the end what’s the difference and how will either make life better for the average Thai?
Thanks for your feedback. Apologies that I haven’t responded sooner.
Somsak – “I should emphasize that Sonthi definitely told people that Thaksin made the remark. But there is no proof that Thaksin himself said so.” Exactly.
amberwaves – “As for remarks that Thaksin was alleged to have made about the monarchy, anyone who actually talked politics with anyone in Bangkok in 2006 heard similar and worse. For obvious reasons, published references would be few.” I know, I know. We all heard similar and worse, and still do, of course. But invariably it’s always rumours and hearsay “everyone knows etc”. That’s why the comment highlighted by Somsak is so interesting. There’s so much that I’d really like to say but a) it’s futile, b) it’s bad for my blood pressure and c) it’s futile.
On a subsequent point you make: “Tak Bai. At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.” Actually there were photos / footage available, and also of troops kneeling and firing at demonstrators. If I remember rightly, the Democrats got into trouble later on because some Democrat MPs were showing the footage at rallies. In one of those “you gotta love Thailand” moments I remember trying to find a copy of the VCD at Pantip Plaza. Porn, pirated movies, pirated software, no problem … the moment I mentioned Tak Bai deathly silence … vendors told me that they’d been told by the police that it was five years in the clink for anyone found distributing the VCD.
Finally, to get it off my chest, did anyone read the astonishing piece in the Bangkok Post’s risible “Inside Politics” this weekend, namely the one that referred to an army spokesman saying that the troops at Din Daeng ‘fired blanks at the protesters but also fired live rounds in the air to scare them’!! How does a live round in the air sound scarier than a blank? Another fine example of the piss-poor standards of journalism here – get spoon-fed any old tosh and regurgitate it without any conscious effort to actually think about what’s been said.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Red Shirts may have lost the battle but not the war. Their top leaders are detained but new ones are ready to lead. This is because the issues are injustice, double standards, and oppression of the rural poor which continue to exist under this Abhisit govt. Under the current worsening economic situation, more and more people are becoming red shirts without even wearing them. Just wait, as soon as the State of Emergency is lifted in Bangkok, stronger opposition against Abhisit govt will start and spread quickly. Around me, there are many who are fed up listening to govt’s broadcast propaganda while at the same time they cannot listen to or watch their favorite commnity radio stations or Dstation.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Marty #67
I stand corrected. Blank M16 rounds have a crimped end but no wad, unlike the sheep killing blank rifle rounds I fired in my youth (I wasn’t one of the sheep killing squad). In fact, when firing blanks purely for noise purposes, the M16 is normally fitted with a blank firing attachment which effectively blocks the barrel so that enough gas comes back to eject the empty cartridge and load the next one into the chamber. The US military uses large colored attachments in training to make it obvious that blanks are being fired but it is possible to produce a much smaller attachment that would be difficult to see. Otherwise blanks can definitely propel things out of the barrel. Higher powered blanks are used to fire grenades and baton rounds from an M16.
The short range target ammunition (SRTA) in the link you provided has a blue plastic tip but the cost in the US is nearly three times as much as the copper clad ball service ammunition. So I doubt very much that the Thai army imports it. It is much more likely that they have their own SRTA made to their specification by Thai Arms, a private company in Rachburi that manufacturers a range of low velocity “practice” ammunition. Another reason I doubt the Thai army uses it is because an M16 has to be fitted with a special bolt to fire it which means that the same rifle cannot be used to fire service ammunition without going back to the armourer. On the other hand Winchester manufactures an SRTA round with a copper or brass tip that uses the same bolt as service ammunition. See http://www.combatreform.com/indoorriflequal.htm . It is quite likely that the Thai army has a copy of this ammo made locally and it could look almost indistinguishable from service ammunition. Although not accurate beyond 25 metres, this is still lethal ammunition and I think it is what the army referred to as “look som” or practice ammuntion. I also still assume they used a lot of blank cartridges, as there would certainly be lot of injuries and damage caused, if all ammo used was either SRTA or service ammo.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Ron J: You forgot the Santi Asoke people on the yellow side in your analysis – the moral crusaders???
Did Thaksin call for revolution?
I agree with Srithanonchai,
What matters more is what they perceived he has said and the consequences they drew from it.
Not that what I am about to say next is newsworthy, but it definitely is thought-provoking. I sat in a cab yesterday (no, that’s not the big news) who was what you call a ‘red shirt’ guy, but he was no longer a red shirted, at least no longer part of the Thaksin-wing.
We had a nice chat he and I. We both agreed that there are too many ‘invisible people’ who play a role in Thai politics, and these people do need to be neutralized. The whole Songkran episode has however made him “wake up” to Thaksin. He really believed that Thaksin was coming back, and was disheartened when he found out (after the riots) that Thaksin had removed his wife and children from the country. They were earlier told that the family was still in Bangkok, and he was at the rally where Yaowapha Wongsawat said the same, that the family was just away on a quick preplanned trip, but would be back in Bangkok in no time… for him, the worst was when he saw Thaksin on CNN deny that he had any part in the Red-shirt movement and that he only offered them ‘moral support’…. (he said he saw this at the house where he stayed in for 2 days of people who had let him stay in their house).
He wasn’t one of those ‘hardcore’ fanatics, he played a part in closing down the Victory Monument…. he was shocked when a few ‘hardliners’ in the Red shirt drove and parked gas tanks at Din Daeng, he told me he was there all night, and roughly 3:30-4am when (in his words) some crazy red-shirters (not blue, not anyone else) told them that they “received orders” to fight the military. He didn’t go up front, but said he was near enough to know that the red shirt tried really hard to get the military to attack. His claims were that the claims of ‘hundreds’ of bodies dead is totally false. He told me that he was there (like a hundred times), and said that “if” anyone died, the number could definitely not exceed 5. When the military shot at people after (he has no recollection much of what happened as he didn’t sleep the whole night), he just heard gun fire and ran…. removed his red-shirt, and ran begging for help from someone in the area. He was first told to move on, but he begged, and was allowed in. He hadn’t showered for 3 days prior to then, and lived with these people for 2 days.
Having said all that to me, he re-iterated that there is still a class system that exists in this country, and that the way the Red Shirts were dealt with was totally different from the PAD, and he still feels pained at that. However, at this moment in time, he does not believe nor trust the red shirt leadership anymore. He feels that they duped him and at the end, left him on his own. He still ‘feels red’, and definitely has no love for Prem and Thailand’s ‘background’ politics. I really wished I had taken his name, but I was taking more a role of a listener, and thanked him profusely when I reached my destination. I didn’t realize the valuability (i’m like Bush, I make up words) of information till I told my colleague of what happened.
I don’t know how this ‘proves’ or ‘disproves’ Thaksin’s call for a revolution, but it was worth noting that someone who thought Thaksin called for one, went there to fight, and was disillusioned by the lack of support given later.
Thailand’s crown prince
Dear Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
I’m emailing you to see if I can come and visit you.
I did a Parachute Course at Williamstown Australia with you and your bodyguard in 1978.
I have been to Thailand many times and have had no success in contacting you so now I ‘am trying to make contact by this web site. I understand this is not a good web site to contact you as many people try to put you down on this web site. They don’t know you and should not judge you. This is the only web site I can find where I can leave a message and hope you will beable to read.
Take care and I hope to hear from you soon
Regards Jim Jones
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Colum Graham #7
I don’t understand why you think that prosecuting commentators on a national academic website of another country would be impossible. The Thai government blocked Youtube, owned by one of the US’s largest corporations, and has recently imprisoned one of its own citizens for posting on it. I think they would care much less about an Australian university’s website. The Thai authorities are free to prosecute anyone in their territory or to refuse entry to any one who isn’t. Anyone can initiate prosecutions under the LM laws which are extraterritorial since they deemed to relate to national security.
I sincerely hope that nothing like this happens to New Mandala or its contributors under any government but my point was that I am extremely doubtful that a restoration of Thaksin would reduce LM prosecutions or result in any reform in the law. I don’t think it’s possible to rule out a return of Thaksin either. I believe the royal family deserves legal protections against defamation but that the application of the current law has degenerated to the extent it actually damages their image. Therefore it is in urgent need of reform precisely to protect the royal family.
Did Thaksin call for revolution?
Yes, he did. But . . .
Dear Dr.Baker,
You can download the video (not just sound, as in your YouTube links) of Red Shirt rally during Thaksin’s phone-in on 12 April from here:
(It was recorded from LIVE broadcast on the D-Station with picture of the rally listening to Thaksin, plus – at the first few minutes – live picture from Din Daeng)
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?xz0yaerznyc
The sound and picture quality is generally good. The part when he called for a ‘People’s Revolution’, the sound is a bit jumbled, but still quite clear.
Yes, he did call for a ‘People’s Revolution’ (kan-pa-ti-wat-pra-cha-chon), although not in the usual sense of violent overthrow of the government (this is hardly surprising, I think). In fact, he made the call right after attacking the Abhisit gov’s alledged use of force against the Red Shirts, citing Martin Luther King Junior no less! He then called on ‘all sides’ to bring about a ‘People’s Revolution’.
Here’s my transcription:
(between minutes 12:45 and 13:06)
р╕Бр╣Йр╕нр╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Кр╕┤р╕Нр╕Кр╕зр╕Щр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Ир╕зр╕вр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Цр╕╖р╕нр╣Вр╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕бр╕▓ р╕Чр╕│р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕нр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕нр╕▓ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╣Ар╕Цр╕нр╕░ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕И р╕ер╕╕р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕ер╕в
(I would like to invite all sides: Let join hands. Take this opportunity to make a People’s Revolution in order to bring about the true democracy to the people. Don’t let this use of force [against the people] continue any longer.)
I also just watched video record of the rally during Thaksin’s videolink speech on 3 April. You’re right he only made ‘historical reference’ to ‘People’s Revolution’ of 14 Tula and 17 May, in the context of contrasting them with the numerous ‘patiwat’ by the miliarty (i.e. coups d’etat). The latter, he argued, constituted the ‘Vicious Circle’ that crippled the devolopment of democracy and made the country less and less competitive against other asian countries (Japan, Malaysia, etc.) Here’s my transcription of his exact words from the video record:
(minutes 16:30 to 21:48)
р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ьр╕бр╕Вр╕н[р╕вр╕Б]р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Яр╕▒р╕Зр╕Щр╕┤р╕Фр╕лр╕Щр╣Ир╕нр╕в р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Яр╕▒р╕Зр╕Фр╕╡р╣Жр╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╣Бр╕Ыр╕ер╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕╡ 2475 р╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Ир╕Ир╕╕р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Щр╕░р╕ор╕░ р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕лр╕бр╕Ф 18 р╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ър╕▓р╕Зр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ “р╕Кр╕▒р╣Ир╕зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕з” р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕Щр╕▓р╕Щр╕Цр╕╢р╕З 8 р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ър╕Ир╕нр╕бр╕Юр╕ер╕кр╕др╕йр╕Фр╕┤р╣М р╕Ър╕▓р╕Зр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ “р╕Цр╕▓р╕зр╕г” р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕вр╕╕р╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕З 1 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Ыр╕╡ 2489 р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Н 18 р╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Др╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Чр╕╕р╕Б 5 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕╢р╕З р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕ор╕░ р╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Бр╕Хр╕┤р╕Хр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Ир╕░р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╣Бр╕Ър╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕гр╕гр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Фр╕╣р╣Бр╕ер╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Бр╕Пр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╕Бр╕Ор╕┤р╕Бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╕р╕Б 5 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З р╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕гр╕Цр╕Юр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щ р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ыр╕╡ 2490 р╕бр╕▓р╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕гр╕Б р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕зр╕Зр╕Ир╕гр╕нр╕╕р╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╕зр╣Мр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕г р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣И 2490 р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕в р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╣Др╕Ыр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з 17 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕░р╕ор╕░ р╕кр╕│р╣Ар╕гр╣Зр╕И 10 [р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З] р╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕│р╣Ар╕гр╣Зр╕И р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕кр╕│р╣Ар╕гр╣Зр╕И 10 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕░р╕ор╕░ р╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З 22 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╣Бр╕кр╕Фр╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Чр╕╕р╕Б 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╕Бр╣Зр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕лр╕Щр╕Щр╕╢р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕Зр╕ор╕░ р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕бр╕╡ 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣М р╕Др╕╖р╕н 14 р╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓ 16 р╣Бр╕ер╕░ 17 р╕Юр╕др╕йр╕ар╕▓р╕Др╕б 35 р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ 8 р╣Ар╕бр╕йр╕▓р╕вр╕Щ р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕╡р╣И р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕╢р╕З р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕ар╕Чр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕зр╣Йр╕Чр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕┤р╕Щ р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕╕р╕Фр╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Юр╕гр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕кр╕ер╕░ р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Др╣Ир╕нр╕вр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕ер╣Ир╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕Йр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Чр╕╡ р╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З 2 р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Чр╕╡р╕Щр╕╢р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Цр╕▓р╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕лр╕зр╣Др╕лр╕бр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ьр╕ер╕Юр╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╣Зр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕вр╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▓р╕У 50 р╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Нр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕╕р╣Ир╕Щ р╣Ар╕зр╕ер╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕Др╣Йр╕▓р╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕лр╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▓р╕У 40 р╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╣Др╕Хр╣Йр╕лр╕зр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▓р╕У 30, 40 р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕┤р╕Зр╕Др╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╣М 20 р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╣Ар╕Лр╕╡р╕в р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕ер╕Ф р╕ер╕Ф р╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕Щр╕░р╕ор╕░ р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Ир╕Ир╕╕р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╣Гр╕Др╕гр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕бр╕▒р╣Йр╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Бр╕Вр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕зр╕╡р╕вр╕Фр╕Щр╕▓р╕б [р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕З]р╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕вр╕╕р╕Хр╕┤р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕Ыр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕╡р╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Др╣Йр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╕ер╕░р╕Кр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Ж р╕Хр╕Бр╕Кр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕в р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕лр╕ер╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╣Лр╕вр╕зр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤ р╕Чр╕│р╣Др╕бр╕ер╣Ир╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ? р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕кр╕Ър╕нр╕▓р╕гр╕бр╕Ур╣Мр╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Кр╕Щр╕Кр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Зр╣Ар╕Чр╕Ю р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ
As a professinal historian, I’m curious to know who provided Thaksin with this ‘historical reference’, or gave him advice on the ‘number’. He doesn’t strike me as a guy who’s usually interested in this sort of thing. (He had relatively long pauses and looked up his prepared sripts often.)
Regarding the 30 March vidiolink speech, as you said, he didn’t talk about any revolution there either. Only the ‘pledge’ you mention:
(minutes 12:35 to 14:01)
р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕лр╣Ир╕зр╕Зр╕Ьр╕б р╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕лр╣Ир╕зр╕З р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕лр╣Ир╕зр╕З р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕гр╕нр╕Ф р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ьр╕бр╕лр╣Ир╕зр╕Зр╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Ьр╕бр╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ [b]р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕лр╕гр╣И р╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Ыр╕╖р╕Щр╣Бр╕Хр╕Б р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕вр╕┤р╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ р╕Ьр╕бр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Др╕Ыр╕Щр╕│р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕Щр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Зр╣Ар╕Чр╕Юр╕Чр╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╡ р╕Ьр╕бр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕вр╕нр╕бр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╕кр╕│р╕лр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕Ьр╕Фр╣Зр╕Ир╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Й[/b] р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕г р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕зр╕И р╕Др╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Фр╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Др╕Вр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕кр╕┤р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Фр╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Др╕Вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕з р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╣Гр╕Др╕гр╕бр╕▓р╕Ьр╕╣р╕Бр╕Вр╕▓р╕Ф р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓.. р╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕ар╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕з р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣И р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓ р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕ар╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕╡р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕бр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕И р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╕Ър╕▓р╕Зр╕Др╕Щр╕Юр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕╣р╕Бр╕Вр╕▓р╕Ф р╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕лр╕▓р╕в
btw, in reference to Thaksin’s 18 and 27 April vidiolink speech that you wrote on other occasion (you know what I mean), I think Thaksin did mean the coup when he told the story of dinner at Pi’s house and Surayut’s alleged audience with HMK and his alleged pledge to HMK to ‘get Thaksin’ (р╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У), or rather Thaksin regarded the story as part of the same process that let to the coup. I’m sure (listening to that speech a few times) he didn’t separate each steps that let to his downfall (from to the annulment of April 2006 elections, to the meeting at Pi’s house, to the sentencing of Election Commitsioners, to Surayut’s phone call to Sonthi L to give ‘moral support’ to the latter, and ultimately to the coup itself). He ‘lumped’ all these together. And quite correctly so, in my view, in the sense that they belonged to the same process. Whether participants of Pi’s dinner did or did not talk about the coup at that stage is hard to tell.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Fed up with posers, how is it selective logic? Where did I say Thaksin being a Nicaraguan ambassador is not ridiculous? I think you are projecting an issue you feel strongly about onto a completely different hypothetical situation which revolves around this website and the Lese Majeste law. This website is not hosted in Thailand.
Australian and Thai relations would be significantly soured if Thaksin persecuted this website. This would not be a logical thing for Thailand to do, but if Thaksin is Stalin resurrected… oh wait, was that your point?
Did Thaksin call for revolution?
“Note, it is not a call to action, just a historical reference.” But isn’t this reference made in relation to April 8, followed by urging supporters to turn up? To me, his remark looks as if he suggested that April 8 could be like 1973 and 1992 if only a sufficient number of people would turn up.
Anyway, what counts is the perception of the audience about what Thaksin had said, and the consequences they drew from it. Is anything known about this?
Reconciliation in Thailand?
“Careful” Observer:
Why do you think I put that word in quotation marks and paired it with another sort of quotation marks for “non talents”? Since you seem to be not only careful (at what level, I can only guess), but surely also the opposite of a “a shallow, muddled thinker”, I would have expected you to recognize this hermeneutic extension of your comment. In fact, you even reacted on its meaning.
Which brings me to your statement that, “There is no shortage of Thai analysts out there who possess more depth, logic, insight, knowledge and writing ability than ML Nattakorn.” I consider this as apologetic (otherwise, it might have to be considered ignorant). If there really were so many highly qualified people around here, why don’t we see them writing columns in the papers or acting as TV anchors? Oh, yes — because their places are occupied by all these undeserved, such as “ML.”
In any case, I do in fact think that Khun (unlike you, I prefer to call him this way) Nattakorn has one or two things to learn.
Hopefully, he will be given this time — by his admirers, by his own ego, and by those who think that they should hide a disagreement of opinion behind an attack on his capabilities and formal social status and nepotism (quite a worn tactic, I might add). Your perspective looks more like an insinuation of censorship (of which we already have quite a lot) than as a reasoned evaluation of his position.
BTW, what do you think about Nick’s piece on the red-shirt protests? (Apologies in advance if I have overlooked your comment.)
The crushing of the Red Shirts
HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT ATTACK THE WEAPONLESS PROTESTERS BY FORCE WHO HAVE THEIR OWN FREEDOM TO EXPRESS A POLITICAL VIEW?
Apparently, a downtown battle field sparked yesterday as the puppet government used the military troop by way of declaring the state of emergency over the area of Bangkok Metropolitan and its vicinities to specifically dissolve by force the Red-shirt protesters. Red-shirt protesters politically demand the puppet prime minister and government-entangling privy councilor head to resign.
In pictures, the troop brutally shot the Red-shirt protesters, who defended their barracks for political rally, to dead and got severe injuries, while the latter retaliated with no weapons. Not only the ordinary citizen, but also a few monks and a three-year old child were also murdered by firing bullets. Most corpses were secretly hidden, taken away and destroyed by the troop to avert any physical evidence on their committing a massacre. Up to now, nearly one hundred people were registered dead and injured, being drastically and contradictorily contrast to the government report, as saying only two persons were dead.
Some pictures exhibited the Red-shirt women knelled themselves down with flowers in front of the soldiers while begging for their lives. Some pictures delineated the soldiers’ shameful actions drawing on by dragging and yanking the hair of an unarmed woman protester.
The government also made image-smearing stories, lies and deceptions by hiring people to wear the red shirts and ordered them to create chaos and destroy public properties during the evening time in order to generate widespread civil disobedience, as if the Red-shirt protesters had done by themselves.
http://www.prachataiwebboard.com/webboard/wbtopic2.php?id=794208
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
“Well Portman’s hypothetical situation is ridiculous because prosecuting commentators on a national academic website would create a hilarious legal precedent and a significant diplomatic situation.”
And a myriad of other events and prosecutions in the past 6 years, including Thaksin’s appointment as Ambassador of Nicaragua along with innapropriate political remarks by the Nicaraguan govt are not equally ridiculous and therefore did not happen? Nice use of selective logic and selective memory which is really the overall problem with New Mandela contributors from both sides.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
frank, you do realize that the yellow side used violence, murder and intimidation too, right? interesting that you have difficulty seeing through both sides.
susan, don’t forget that Thaksin at one point had many of the old elite on his side. samak is as old elite as they come too. in this battle we see people quickly changing sides as the need arises. this shows that this really has little to do with ideology and more about a grab for power.
in terms of the military, Thaksin was not far away from controlling it too with his cronies almost within reach of the ultimate prize. it sure would be a different story if that had happened.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
GoodnessGraciousMe: I see you are contributing to a small outbreak of civility here, I hope it spreads.
Though I concede I may be wrong, I stand by my narrowly defined assertion that “At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.”
By “at the time,” I mean contemporaneous with the events. I’m certain there were no photos like that circulating before the army itself admitted what happened — surely you remember the shock when that news came out?
I’m very familiar with the other footage from the time, including the the people being kicked etc as they were forced to crawl across the road, and shooting from riverside, as I recall. But in addition to the post-incident censorship, journalists at the scene were all told very strictly to back off. It’s to their credit that they did manage to film and send out what they did.
The point is a more general one anyway. Photos (or lack thereof) don’t tell the whole story.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Great..i must express my admiration for your presentation.
thank you.
Did Thaksin call for revolution?
Mr. Sondhi was shot because he revealed who (XXX) is behind the Thai last coup. Find some body to translate for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqnB6TZpvc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN_Oq6COVlk
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Thaksin and his friends (who, specifically?) are as powerful, rich and revered as the old elite?
I see.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
1. No difference in level of violence?
2. No difference in the mentality, personal outlook and manners of supporters in general?
3. One used its media to incite violence, and I mean “Kill Prem,” etc. while the other incited activism you call violence but which is force in many instances. force and violence are not the same. Or are they?
4. No difference in harm they do to the country and people? This is a sticking point because many will maintain that yes, that is exactly it, that they both harm in the same way and degree. But unless you and I have listened to different versions of UDD broadcasts and those form ASTV, etc., it is abundantly clear that the Red shirts incite and support the incitement of clear physical violence. “Prem, if you don’t resign, I will kill you!” This is one reason D-TV was taken off the air.
5. Both sides, however, as almost equally misunderstood by expats. Their organizations and objectives are oversimplified and apparent similarities are interpreted as likenesses.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
well Frank, how are they different?
both represent the elites just under different colors and using different sectors of society to do their dirty work.
Red is controlled by Thaksin and his friends for their agenda to seize power/money over the yellow side, not for the benefit of the poor that are dying in vain. the reds have fooled the poor that their enemy is the yellow side, when in fact thaksin and Co. are no less corrupt, no less oppressive. etc…..
Yellow is controlled by blue bloods, old money, and generals using a cult personality to smash their opponents. this side has tricked the middle class that the reds are the (only) ones that are dangerous and must be stopped.
in the end what’s the difference and how will either make life better for the average Thai?
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Somsak # 64 and amberwaves # 61
Thanks for your feedback. Apologies that I haven’t responded sooner.
Somsak – “I should emphasize that Sonthi definitely told people that Thaksin made the remark. But there is no proof that Thaksin himself said so.” Exactly.
amberwaves – “As for remarks that Thaksin was alleged to have made about the monarchy, anyone who actually talked politics with anyone in Bangkok in 2006 heard similar and worse. For obvious reasons, published references would be few.” I know, I know. We all heard similar and worse, and still do, of course. But invariably it’s always rumours and hearsay “everyone knows etc”. That’s why the comment highlighted by Somsak is so interesting. There’s so much that I’d really like to say but a) it’s futile, b) it’s bad for my blood pressure and c) it’s futile.
On a subsequent point you make: “Tak Bai. At the time, at least (and perhaps up to today, I haven’t looked into it) no photos were available of the loading of the detained men into the trucks in the manner that would cause so many deaths.” Actually there were photos / footage available, and also of troops kneeling and firing at demonstrators. If I remember rightly, the Democrats got into trouble later on because some Democrat MPs were showing the footage at rallies. In one of those “you gotta love Thailand” moments I remember trying to find a copy of the VCD at Pantip Plaza. Porn, pirated movies, pirated software, no problem … the moment I mentioned Tak Bai deathly silence … vendors told me that they’d been told by the police that it was five years in the clink for anyone found distributing the VCD.
Finally, to get it off my chest, did anyone read the astonishing piece in the Bangkok Post’s risible “Inside Politics” this weekend, namely the one that referred to an army spokesman saying that the troops at Din Daeng ‘fired blanks at the protesters but also fired live rounds in the air to scare them’!! How does a live round in the air sound scarier than a blank? Another fine example of the piss-poor standards of journalism here – get spoon-fed any old tosh and regurgitate it without any conscious effort to actually think about what’s been said.
Time for my medication.