Shame shame shame. I just can’t believe that is unelected Govt could do such a horrible thing to the people.I truely believe what the PM could do after 99 days(as he said) is mass massacre.
My 77 years old aunt said she hate to watch the TV because there is no different between them and the Thai soap movie.But it’s sad because it ‘s real.It the real thing that we are entering the dark era.No more freedom of expression.
So i just want us to forget about Thaksin,his bad excense or his square face.We have to face the truth that this Govt is not real.They just do it for themselves because they ‘ve been starving for almost 8 years.Just look at the history of the democrat.It’s creepy,you know.
Greg Sheridan said in one of his article in the 16 April edition of The Australian that Apisit is a good man. I think he certainly needs Andrew’s education on Thailand. Can anyone introduce him to New mandala?
Portman #35
Thanks for this informed comment. I just spent some time talking with a camera team who were on the ground throughout the 13th from the Din Daeng clash onwards. Their impression was exactly the same as yours. In the army units, there were about three young guys to one older guy, regularly spaced. The young guys probably had blanks, to prevent hot-blooded mishaps, while the old guys had live ammunition in case there was a real need for self defence.
Careful #36/Ralph #37. My impression too. There are lots of photos and clips available, but none that convincingly shows a death. Still, I think people could have been killed in the first clash at Din Daeng. It was still dark. Very few journalists were there. The only clips are murky, but some seem to show low shooting. The soldiers could have been jumpy.
It’s a good thing that the Students Federation (and others) are following this up. The army needs close scrutiny. But it seems possible that they carried out this operation rather well. Let’s see.
If the army had removed dead bodies of protestors and hidden them, there would also be a lot of people with missing family members coming forward to try to find news of their loved ones, as happened after the horrible events of May 1992. So far none have come forward and I think this line of enquiry is a going to be a non-starter. However, two men were found in the Chaopraya bound, gagged and beaten to death after being last seen leaving work to join the red shirt protests.
Seek videos taken in the early morning. They are lit with street light only. It was after the complaints of citizens being shot that new footage appeared (on Thai TV) with soldiers shooting in the air, but even some of those were not the script the Regime had hope for. I did not see “truckloads” of bodies. The clip I say showed only one being loaded into a HumVee, and some soldiers appeared to be cleaning up blood.
Sadly, Thai culture encourages misleading testimony, if for no other reason than it is considered disrespectful to question a statement given by another. So, I feel that one must find a point somewhere in the middle of all the statements. I believe that both camps have painted much larger pictures of things to support their own positions.
The Thaienews.blogspot has many eye witness accounts (if you do not read Thai, google the url, and google can transaate much of it). I do not read thai at all, and speak but very little.
1+1 does not equal zero. One intersting tidbit was the PM stating on Monday afternoon that he was preparing for a night of arson. Really?
Based on things which have happened so far, understand that many fires were set by people wearing red shirts, but were these “red shirts” part of the real protesters? Many were either yellow shirts in red clothing, or, as depicted elsewhere, blue shirts changing outer colors. The PM knew that people were going to start more fires, and he knew fullwell that these people were preparing to do so were not Thaksin supporters.
My little bride will be there in another three months. We have some missions work going on there. But, she is also able to get inside info. Let me know if there would be any particulars you would want in more detail, and perhaps another contact point, other than this blog.
Thank you for comments by Arjarn Somsak. I intend to give no fact at all regarding the incident for two reasons. Firstly, I admit that I know of the incident just only marginally based on my own research as I was born long after the incident. Secondly, I’d like NM readers to contribute what they know here. Arjarn Somsak has given a very important information especially his “Case 1”.
The next article in the series will change considerably. I had done a few days research on it. The IV article will cite several sources including academic work. 🙂
to Care-less Observer #36 After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors.
If you really have evidence and argument in support of such claim, show them here, instead of just making empty assertion like this.
…………..
just for a start, may I remind readers that a few days after the Coup, the coup leader, Gen Sonthi Bunyaratthanakarin, told reporters “off the record” (but it’s widely known) that he staged the coup because he deemed Thaksin a threat to the monarchy. He specifically alledged that Thaksin had said something like “the monarchy is in my pocket”. This is how one reporter reported the “off the record” interview (in Thai):
Shortly before the general elections of 2007 (under the coup group’s supervision), a senior army officer and member the coup group had lectured to a meeting of senior officers, presided over by Sonthi himself. Records of that lecture, branded “Top Secret”, was distributed among senior officers and subsequently leaked. In the lecture, the officer (and Sonthi himself in the introductory remarks) explained in unequivocal terms, the reason they staged the coup to protect the monarchy from Thaksin’s ambition to ‘compete’ with HM.
etc. etc.
One can also cited numerous explanation by another Sonthi (of the PAD) and many PAD leaders and publications to the same effect.
So, where’s your ‘complex motivation’ of ‘many actors’?
(P.S. Notice the word Andrew and Nick use “sub-plot”. It means that the monarchy isn’t the only ‘plot’)
The Careful Observer: I think you are right about the mobile phones and photos. The army and the government have issued a statement on this: “Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd, Spokesman of the Royal Thai Army, … gave a televised statement at the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) refuting allegations that soldiers had shot and killed … a demonstrator…. Col. Sansern stated … that there have been attempts to twist the facts and spread false information that the army is using weapons to shoot at the people. Photographs have been forwarded by email supposedly as proof of the army’s transgressions and to incite hatred.” They wanted to stop this.
I was disappointed with Andrew Walker’s final comment on this show, as it was very one sided. I agree with him that Thais, not just members of the elite as he said, but all Thais need to respect election results – and differences in political opinion. However, just as important for democracy to serve the best interests of all, elected representatives must respect the laws, which clearly Thaksin and his proxy parties did not. The impunity with which they subverted the 1997 constitution and broke all sorts of laws, including election laws, fed an underlying anger and frustration among many Thais, and not just members of the “elite.”
Mr. Walker’s comments about The Nation were also one-sided portrayal of the public discourse in Thailand. How much hatred against urban people, opposition politicians and others did “The Truth Today” stir up, and did Samak and Dusit stir up on their shows? It is important to recognize that rural Thais are not the only ones who are being looked down upon or demonized in the public discourse. The other side is also doing more than its fair share of that.
As for The Nation itself, at least it does runs articles by Pravit Rojanapruk, who clearly sympathizes with the red shirts, and presents news and viewpoints at odds with the general slant of the paper.
Just about everybody in Bangkok these days is walking around with a mobile phone with a camera in it. If the army were loading dead bodies on trucks to take them away and hide what they did, certainly photos or videos of that taken by citizens would have emerged by now. These days, in a city such as Bangkok, it would be almost impossible hide something like that. There are no photos because in all likelihood it did not happen.
Thanks for the links. The students federation is following up on the possibility of concealed bodies of red shirts killed by the military and is appealing for relatives of missing red shirts to come forward but they admit this is only a rumour.
The Russian TV clip didn’t seem to show soldiers shooting red shirts but it did show red shirts throwing molotov cocktails at soldiers.
The Al Jazeera story says, ” But Al Jazeera’s correspondent Tony Cheng, reporting from the Din Daeng area of the Thai capital, said the protesters showed no sign of backing down and were trying to regain ground shortly after being pushed back by advancing troops firing machine guns into the air. But he said soldiers were firing very close to ground level and the risk of serious injuries or deaths was very high.”
First of all there is no sign in any of the clips that the troops were firing machine guns into the air or elsewhere, although some were clearly carrying what looked like .50 calibre machine guns. I am sure the .50 calibre machine guns were only there for show, as these are devastating up to 1,500 metres and would easily go through several protestors and penetrate flimsy buildings. The clips only show them firing their standard issue M16 assault rifles. Secondly, firing close to ground level could certainly be lethal, if the soldiers were firing live rounds, but the reporter didn’t cite any evidence that they were firing live rounds.
In the BBC film in the Middle East TV clip it is not at all clear that the soldier is loading live ammunition into his M16 magazine. From what is visible the rounds don’t seem to have the pointed copper tips of full metal jacket high velocity combat rounds and they also look too short for full metal jacket rounds. They could have have been round nosed lead tipped “practice” rounds but they look too short even for those and are more likely to be blank cartridges that have a low charge and a flat paper wadding tip. Given the lack of deaths and injuries, it seems likely that the vast majority of the troops were issued only with blank cartridges to prevent mishap. Some injuries may have been caused by lead “practice” rounds which, at least, have the advantage of not injuring those behind the person shot, as high velocity full metal jacket rounds can go straight through a human body at 100 metres or less. The use of this ammunition would be very obvious from damage to buildings at the scenes, as in 1992. I suspect a that very small percentage of troops, probably seasoned NCOs, were issued with any live ammo at all for use in life threatening situations. In the worst case of hand to hand fighting the rank and file could always fix bayonets and have a longer reach than the clubs and swords of their oponents.
I suspect that the image of dead red shirts being loaded on to army trucks to be hidden somewhere, as suggested by Thaksin to CNN, is going to turn out to be a just a ghoulish spectre dragged back from 1992.
It’s difficult to take this article or its authors seriously, no matter their academic credentials. After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors. Nonetheless, our two professors chalk it all up to their contention that the King and his circle, acting like a bunch of petulant teenagers, were insanely jealous of the new kid on the block (Thaksin) because he was so popular. With analysis of that quality, everything that follows should be taken with a boulder of salt.
I have been gauging public opinion here in Malaysia for the past few days (here on private business) and “all Malaysians think that Thaksin is a good guy” is the common thread I keep hearing.
Having read the pro-Thaksin bias in ther local press as well and knowing the authoritarian nature of the government here, it seems evident that the Malaysian government continues to do as western governments do i.e. support biased coverage in favor of dictators whose naked authoritarianism is protected by the figleaf of being “democratically elected”. After all, despite Thaksin’s crass ignorance and abrassiveness (etc. etc.) he has shown that he has little potential to make the governments of Thailand’s authoritarian (not to say dictatorial) ASEAN regional neighbours look bad.
On the contrary, the wannabe dictator Thaksin , by his actions and words – disregarding the finely crafted set piece speeches that Thaksin has evidently neither the mentality or the education to write himself, makes these authoritarian leaders look good. By contrast, Oxford-educated PM Abhisit (I believe they still make you earn your education there rather than buy it) does have the potential to make them look bad – or at least that seems to be a logical conclusion to make from the state promotion of media bias in favor of Thaksin.
But of course, unlike Thaksin (the Emperor with no clothes), I may not be entirely right.
That a decent man like my father-in-law is still fiercely loyal to Thaksin defies the stereotype that the reds are mere hired hands. It shows how powerfully Thaksin has tapped into real popular frustrations with the status quo. They are fed up with the patron-client and the phuyai system and they want to have freedom of expression in order to make the establishment more transparent and accountable.
These are valid demands in any democratic society.
Since there is no platform for them to express themselves openly and safely, they are forced to turn to the fugitive Thaksin whom they adopt as a symbol of challenge against authority.
The Songkran riots showed how destructive things can get if their perceived injustice is ignored and whipped up by a powerful demagogue like Thaksin.
Like it or not, the 2006 coup and the ensuing battles between the yellow and red shirts have opened a floodgate of dissatisfaction against old taboos. Since we cannot turn the tide, the only way forward is to provide a political safety-valve for change. This requires fixing structural inequalities and providing safety for political expression of all shades. It also entails a rethinking of the lese majeste law to strike a balance between cultural reverence and freedom of expression. An open society which allows dissenting views is not only an indicator of political maturity, it is also key to long-term peace. If and when that is the case, Thaksin Shinawatra’s political trantrums will become meaningless.
Sanitsuda Ekachai is Assistant Editor(Outlook), Bangkok Post.
Actually, I think the meeting was fairly important for Australia.
Rudd appearing non-fussed might be more to do with a dysfunctional ASEAN body being in Australia’s interests because ASEAN driving regional integration in a closed fashion does not help Australia integrate. If ASEAN is less pivotal in Southeast Asian affairs, Australia could have a more significant role in the region because of a number of factors like political and economic stability — and even having the capacity to hold major internatioanl conferences without interruption! Also, perhaps Kevin Rudd wasn’t really surprised at what happened in Pattaya if he had been following the solid red/yellow spiel in the news about Thailand recently.
What happened in Pattaya doesn’t mean that the East Asia summit is less important. It more means that ASEAN as a body takes a knock to its reputation. If ASEAN does continue to push Southeast Asian regionalisation, then that’s what Australia will have to deal with. Meaning that if we wish to be a part of a stronger trade dynamic and have our benign middle power leadership taken note of in Southeast Asia, then every opportunity to make ourselves visible should be taken.
What was the cancellation meant to delay in Australia? What needed to be said probably wasn’t delayed at all. Leaders discussing direction, I would have thought, would have been the most significant loss as a result of the reds’ siege.
Australian PM was supposed to be in that meeting. But he didn’t seem too concerned when the meeting was cancelled. Also, the meeting cancellation doesn’t seem to have delayed anything here in Australia.
The real issue in Thailand is aristocracy and its unjust action against democracy and ordinary people.
As chief editor of an English language newspaper, Kavi can certainly understand the question in English yet he refused to answer the question being asked about the difference between the Red and the Yellow Shirted group.
Second, Kavi knew well about the PAD announcement that they would take the matter into their own hands. The PAD had organized several groups of 100 men (without wearing yellow shirts), scattered around Bangkok to attack the Red Shirts. Those men are members of the “Village Scout” (р╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕нр╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ), the very organization that was responsible for the bloodshed on the 6th October 1976. Instead of explaining more in-depth about the background of these group, Kavi said they were just local people.
Third, about those Muslim who attacked the Red at р╕Цр╕Щр╕Щр╕нр╕╕р╕гр╕╕р╕Юр╕Зр╕йр╣М ( Urupong Road), Kavi knew well that the current monarchy ancestors were Arab Muslim immigrants, Phumipon Adulyadet has been the patron of the Muslim mosque of that area. And the 2006 coup maker, former Army Chief General Sondhi Boonyarataglin is a Muslim. Instead of explaining these facts, Kavi simply said they were normal local people, when in fact they were part of the “network monarchy.” It would be alright if Kavi were an average Thai, but Kavi as chief editor of a newspaper could have explained more.
In May 1992 coup Thai Army killed many hundreds, if not thousands, of their fellow Thais and dumped the corpses into the dirty ponds of Samut Prakan crocodile farms. Most of the people missing in that anti-coup demonstrations have never been found as the hungry crocodiles had gladly devoured their remains.
Could the army have done the same thing this time to the bodies of dead and injured instead of taking them to the hospitals?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Shame shame shame. I just can’t believe that is unelected Govt could do such a horrible thing to the people.I truely believe what the PM could do after 99 days(as he said) is mass massacre.
My 77 years old aunt said she hate to watch the TV because there is no different between them and the Thai soap movie.But it’s sad because it ‘s real.It the real thing that we are entering the dark era.No more freedom of expression.
So i just want us to forget about Thaksin,his bad excense or his square face.We have to face the truth that this Govt is not real.They just do it for themselves because they ‘ve been starving for almost 8 years.Just look at the history of the democrat.It’s creepy,you know.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Greg Sheridan said in one of his article in the 16 April edition of The Australian that Apisit is a good man. I think he certainly needs Andrew’s education on Thailand. Can anyone introduce him to New mandala?
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Portman #35
Thanks for this informed comment. I just spent some time talking with a camera team who were on the ground throughout the 13th from the Din Daeng clash onwards. Their impression was exactly the same as yours. In the army units, there were about three young guys to one older guy, regularly spaced. The young guys probably had blanks, to prevent hot-blooded mishaps, while the old guys had live ammunition in case there was a real need for self defence.
Careful #36/Ralph #37. My impression too. There are lots of photos and clips available, but none that convincingly shows a death. Still, I think people could have been killed in the first clash at Din Daeng. It was still dark. Very few journalists were there. The only clips are murky, but some seem to show low shooting. The soldiers could have been jumpy.
It’s a good thing that the Students Federation (and others) are following this up. The army needs close scrutiny. But it seems possible that they carried out this operation rather well. Let’s see.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
If the army had removed dead bodies of protestors and hidden them, there would also be a lot of people with missing family members coming forward to try to find news of their loved ones, as happened after the horrible events of May 1992. So far none have come forward and I think this line of enquiry is a going to be a non-starter. However, two men were found in the Chaopraya bound, gagged and beaten to death after being last seen leaving work to join the red shirt protests.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Portman,
Just getting up now here in the States.
Seek videos taken in the early morning. They are lit with street light only. It was after the complaints of citizens being shot that new footage appeared (on Thai TV) with soldiers shooting in the air, but even some of those were not the script the Regime had hope for. I did not see “truckloads” of bodies. The clip I say showed only one being loaded into a HumVee, and some soldiers appeared to be cleaning up blood.
Sadly, Thai culture encourages misleading testimony, if for no other reason than it is considered disrespectful to question a statement given by another. So, I feel that one must find a point somewhere in the middle of all the statements. I believe that both camps have painted much larger pictures of things to support their own positions.
The Thaienews.blogspot has many eye witness accounts (if you do not read Thai, google the url, and google can transaate much of it). I do not read thai at all, and speak but very little.
1+1 does not equal zero. One intersting tidbit was the PM stating on Monday afternoon that he was preparing for a night of arson. Really?
Based on things which have happened so far, understand that many fires were set by people wearing red shirts, but were these “red shirts” part of the real protesters? Many were either yellow shirts in red clothing, or, as depicted elsewhere, blue shirts changing outer colors. The PM knew that people were going to start more fires, and he knew fullwell that these people were preparing to do so were not Thaksin supporters.
My little bride will be there in another three months. We have some missions work going on there. But, she is also able to get inside info. Let me know if there would be any particulars you would want in more detail, and perhaps another contact point, other than this blog.
Student massacres
р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Др╕╕р╕У р╕н.р╕кр╕бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣Мр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Фр╕╡р╣Ж р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕г “р╕нр╕▒р╕Ф” р╕кр╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕г р╕вр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ьр╕бр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Ир╕нр╕Б р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Вр╕нр╕нр╕Щр╕╕р╕Нр╕▓р╕Хр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Вр╕╡р╣Йр╕ер╕╖р╕бр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Ыр╕Ор╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕гр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕│р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Др╕╖р╕н 19 р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕Щ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓
р╕Ър╕Чр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Ир╕зр╕вр╣Бр╕Ър╣Ир╕Зр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Гр╕Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╣Бр╕бр╣Йр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕│р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕з р╕вр╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╕бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Хр╕┤р╕бр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕З
р╕Хр╕нр╕Щр╣Бр╕гр╕Бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╣Гр╕Др╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Бр╕кр╕Фр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ р╕Бр╣Зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕ер╕┤р╕Бр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕Фр╕╡р╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╣Гр╕Др╕гр╣Ар╕ер╣Ир╕Щр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕в р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╣Ир╕н р╕н.р╕кр╕бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Вр╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╣М р╕Бр╣Зр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Чр╕│р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ыр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕кр╕▒р╕Бр╕Юр╕▒р╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕вр╣Мр╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕З “р╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣И 1” р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕вр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╣Ар╕ер╕в р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╕Др╕Зр╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕вр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕вр╕┤р╕Щ
р╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╣Гр╕Ир╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕вр╣М р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕зр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╣Бр╕Ыр╕ер╕Зр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╖р╕нр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ыр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Ьр╕бр╕Др╣Йр╕Щр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕┤р╕Ир╕Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕╕р╣Ар╕Ър╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕вр╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕нр╣Йр╕▓р╕Зр╕нр╕┤р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ж р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
Thank you for comments by Arjarn Somsak. I intend to give no fact at all regarding the incident for two reasons. Firstly, I admit that I know of the incident just only marginally based on my own research as I was born long after the incident. Secondly, I’d like NM readers to contribute what they know here. Arjarn Somsak has given a very important information especially his “Case 1”.
The next article in the series will change considerably. I had done a few days research on it. The IV article will cite several sources including academic work. 🙂
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
to Care-less Observer #36
After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors.
If you really have evidence and argument in support of such claim, show them here, instead of just making empty assertion like this.
…………..
just for a start, may I remind readers that a few days after the Coup, the coup leader, Gen Sonthi Bunyaratthanakarin, told reporters “off the record” (but it’s widely known) that he staged the coup because he deemed Thaksin a threat to the monarchy. He specifically alledged that Thaksin had said something like “the monarchy is in my pocket”. This is how one reporter reported the “off the record” interview (in Thai):
р╕Юр╕ер╣Ар╕нр╕Бр╕кр╕Щр╕Шр╕┤р╕нр╕Шр╕┤р╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Яр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╣Йр╕Щр╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕Фр╕кр╕┤р╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕вр╕╢р╕Фр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕И р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕зр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ир╕▓р╕Ър╕Ир╣Йр╕зр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Нр╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Чр╕▒р╕Юр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕│р╕Щр╕нр╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕ар╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Хр╣Йр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕зр╕Ър╕Др╕╕р╕бр╕Фр╕╣р╣Бр╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕З “р╣Гр╕кр╣Ир╣Др╕зр╣Йр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Лр╕▓”
Shortly before the general elections of 2007 (under the coup group’s supervision), a senior army officer and member the coup group had lectured to a meeting of senior officers, presided over by Sonthi himself. Records of that lecture, branded “Top Secret”, was distributed among senior officers and subsequently leaked. In the lecture, the officer (and Sonthi himself in the introductory remarks) explained in unequivocal terms, the reason they staged the coup to protect the monarchy from Thaksin’s ambition to ‘compete’ with HM.
etc. etc.
One can also cited numerous explanation by another Sonthi (of the PAD) and many PAD leaders and publications to the same effect.
So, where’s your ‘complex motivation’ of ‘many actors’?
(P.S. Notice the word Andrew and Nick use “sub-plot”. It means that the monarchy isn’t the only ‘plot’)
Montesano on Thailand’s crisis
This thread is getting a bit too weird> Montesano is either a Marxist, a journalist, or a stooge of the Singapore ruling dynasty. Jeez.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
The Careful Observer: I think you are right about the mobile phones and photos. The army and the government have issued a statement on this: “Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd, Spokesman of the Royal Thai Army, … gave a televised statement at the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) refuting allegations that soldiers had shot and killed … a demonstrator…. Col. Sansern stated … that there have been attempts to twist the facts and spread false information that the army is using weapons to shoot at the people. Photographs have been forwarded by email supposedly as proof of the army’s transgressions and to incite hatred.” They wanted to stop this.
Photos of the crisis in Thailand
Here are some more:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3445009694_33b63632cf_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3629/3444212955_457272f37f_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3444966218_e61b3f71cd_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3311/3444149995_1c23277afd_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3444205153_2378f202bb_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/3444233971_88a237f4f5_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3444224333_3ecee41405_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3594/3444219519_b1c16da868_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3437207901_c14c65fea4_b.jpg
& this guy took some excellent photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikethomas/
Kavi and Walker on Australian radio
I was disappointed with Andrew Walker’s final comment on this show, as it was very one sided. I agree with him that Thais, not just members of the elite as he said, but all Thais need to respect election results – and differences in political opinion. However, just as important for democracy to serve the best interests of all, elected representatives must respect the laws, which clearly Thaksin and his proxy parties did not. The impunity with which they subverted the 1997 constitution and broke all sorts of laws, including election laws, fed an underlying anger and frustration among many Thais, and not just members of the “elite.”
Mr. Walker’s comments about The Nation were also one-sided portrayal of the public discourse in Thailand. How much hatred against urban people, opposition politicians and others did “The Truth Today” stir up, and did Samak and Dusit stir up on their shows? It is important to recognize that rural Thais are not the only ones who are being looked down upon or demonized in the public discourse. The other side is also doing more than its fair share of that.
As for The Nation itself, at least it does runs articles by Pravit Rojanapruk, who clearly sympathizes with the red shirts, and presents news and viewpoints at odds with the general slant of the paper.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Just about everybody in Bangkok these days is walking around with a mobile phone with a camera in it. If the army were loading dead bodies on trucks to take them away and hide what they did, certainly photos or videos of that taken by citizens would have emerged by now. These days, in a city such as Bangkok, it would be almost impossible hide something like that. There are no photos because in all likelihood it did not happen.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
Garry #33.
Thanks for the links. The students federation is following up on the possibility of concealed bodies of red shirts killed by the military and is appealing for relatives of missing red shirts to come forward but they admit this is only a rumour.
The Russian TV clip didn’t seem to show soldiers shooting red shirts but it did show red shirts throwing molotov cocktails at soldiers.
The Al Jazeera story says, ” But Al Jazeera’s correspondent Tony Cheng, reporting from the Din Daeng area of the Thai capital, said the protesters showed no sign of backing down and were trying to regain ground shortly after being pushed back by advancing troops firing machine guns into the air. But he said soldiers were firing very close to ground level and the risk of serious injuries or deaths was very high.”
First of all there is no sign in any of the clips that the troops were firing machine guns into the air or elsewhere, although some were clearly carrying what looked like .50 calibre machine guns. I am sure the .50 calibre machine guns were only there for show, as these are devastating up to 1,500 metres and would easily go through several protestors and penetrate flimsy buildings. The clips only show them firing their standard issue M16 assault rifles. Secondly, firing close to ground level could certainly be lethal, if the soldiers were firing live rounds, but the reporter didn’t cite any evidence that they were firing live rounds.
In the BBC film in the Middle East TV clip it is not at all clear that the soldier is loading live ammunition into his M16 magazine. From what is visible the rounds don’t seem to have the pointed copper tips of full metal jacket high velocity combat rounds and they also look too short for full metal jacket rounds. They could have have been round nosed lead tipped “practice” rounds but they look too short even for those and are more likely to be blank cartridges that have a low charge and a flat paper wadding tip. Given the lack of deaths and injuries, it seems likely that the vast majority of the troops were issued only with blank cartridges to prevent mishap. Some injuries may have been caused by lead “practice” rounds which, at least, have the advantage of not injuring those behind the person shot, as high velocity full metal jacket rounds can go straight through a human body at 100 metres or less. The use of this ammunition would be very obvious from damage to buildings at the scenes, as in 1992. I suspect a that very small percentage of troops, probably seasoned NCOs, were issued with any live ammo at all for use in life threatening situations. In the worst case of hand to hand fighting the rank and file could always fix bayonets and have a longer reach than the clubs and swords of their oponents.
I suspect that the image of dead red shirts being loaded on to army trucks to be hidden somewhere, as suggested by Thaksin to CNN, is going to turn out to be a just a ghoulish spectre dragged back from 1992.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot
It’s difficult to take this article or its authors seriously, no matter their academic credentials. After all, the factors, motivations and events that led to the 2006 coup were varied and complex and involved many actors from different sectors. Nonetheless, our two professors chalk it all up to their contention that the King and his circle, acting like a bunch of petulant teenagers, were insanely jealous of the new kid on the block (Thaksin) because he was so popular. With analysis of that quality, everything that follows should be taken with a boulder of salt.
Andrew Walker on SBS radio
I have been gauging public opinion here in Malaysia for the past few days (here on private business) and “all Malaysians think that Thaksin is a good guy” is the common thread I keep hearing.
Having read the pro-Thaksin bias in ther local press as well and knowing the authoritarian nature of the government here, it seems evident that the Malaysian government continues to do as western governments do i.e. support biased coverage in favor of dictators whose naked authoritarianism is protected by the figleaf of being “democratically elected”. After all, despite Thaksin’s crass ignorance and abrassiveness (etc. etc.) he has shown that he has little potential to make the governments of Thailand’s authoritarian (not to say dictatorial) ASEAN regional neighbours look bad.
On the contrary, the wannabe dictator Thaksin , by his actions and words – disregarding the finely crafted set piece speeches that Thaksin has evidently neither the mentality or the education to write himself, makes these authoritarian leaders look good. By contrast, Oxford-educated PM Abhisit (I believe they still make you earn your education there rather than buy it) does have the potential to make them look bad – or at least that seems to be a logical conclusion to make from the state promotion of media bias in favor of Thaksin.
But of course, unlike Thaksin (the Emperor with no clothes), I may not be entirely right.
Crackdown on the reds?
From the Bangkok Post, April 16, 2009:
That a decent man like my father-in-law is still fiercely loyal to Thaksin defies the stereotype that the reds are mere hired hands. It shows how powerfully Thaksin has tapped into real popular frustrations with the status quo. They are fed up with the patron-client and the phuyai system and they want to have freedom of expression in order to make the establishment more transparent and accountable.
These are valid demands in any democratic society.
Since there is no platform for them to express themselves openly and safely, they are forced to turn to the fugitive Thaksin whom they adopt as a symbol of challenge against authority.
The Songkran riots showed how destructive things can get if their perceived injustice is ignored and whipped up by a powerful demagogue like Thaksin.
Like it or not, the 2006 coup and the ensuing battles between the yellow and red shirts have opened a floodgate of dissatisfaction against old taboos. Since we cannot turn the tide, the only way forward is to provide a political safety-valve for change. This requires fixing structural inequalities and providing safety for political expression of all shades. It also entails a rethinking of the lese majeste law to strike a balance between cultural reverence and freedom of expression. An open society which allows dissenting views is not only an indicator of political maturity, it is also key to long-term peace. If and when that is the case, Thaksin Shinawatra’s political trantrums will become meaningless.
Sanitsuda Ekachai is Assistant Editor(Outlook), Bangkok Post.
Kavi and Walker on Australian radio
sackman,
Actually, I think the meeting was fairly important for Australia.
Rudd appearing non-fussed might be more to do with a dysfunctional ASEAN body being in Australia’s interests because ASEAN driving regional integration in a closed fashion does not help Australia integrate. If ASEAN is less pivotal in Southeast Asian affairs, Australia could have a more significant role in the region because of a number of factors like political and economic stability — and even having the capacity to hold major internatioanl conferences without interruption! Also, perhaps Kevin Rudd wasn’t really surprised at what happened in Pattaya if he had been following the solid red/yellow spiel in the news about Thailand recently.
What happened in Pattaya doesn’t mean that the East Asia summit is less important. It more means that ASEAN as a body takes a knock to its reputation. If ASEAN does continue to push Southeast Asian regionalisation, then that’s what Australia will have to deal with. Meaning that if we wish to be a part of a stronger trade dynamic and have our benign middle power leadership taken note of in Southeast Asia, then every opportunity to make ourselves visible should be taken.
What was the cancellation meant to delay in Australia? What needed to be said probably wasn’t delayed at all. Leaders discussing direction, I would have thought, would have been the most significant loss as a result of the reds’ siege.
Kavi and Walker on Australian radio
Lim Foo Aye – I hope you’re not real Thai.
Australian PM was supposed to be in that meeting. But he didn’t seem too concerned when the meeting was cancelled. Also, the meeting cancellation doesn’t seem to have delayed anything here in Australia.
The real issue in Thailand is aristocracy and its unjust action against democracy and ordinary people.
No justice, no peace!
Kavi and Walker on Australian radio
As chief editor of an English language newspaper, Kavi can certainly understand the question in English yet he refused to answer the question being asked about the difference between the Red and the Yellow Shirted group.
Second, Kavi knew well about the PAD announcement that they would take the matter into their own hands. The PAD had organized several groups of 100 men (without wearing yellow shirts), scattered around Bangkok to attack the Red Shirts. Those men are members of the “Village Scout” (р╕ер╕╣р╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕нр╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ), the very organization that was responsible for the bloodshed on the 6th October 1976. Instead of explaining more in-depth about the background of these group, Kavi said they were just local people.
Third, about those Muslim who attacked the Red at р╕Цр╕Щр╕Щр╕нр╕╕р╕гр╕╕р╕Юр╕Зр╕йр╣М ( Urupong Road), Kavi knew well that the current monarchy ancestors were Arab Muslim immigrants, Phumipon Adulyadet has been the patron of the Muslim mosque of that area. And the 2006 coup maker, former Army Chief General Sondhi Boonyarataglin is a Muslim. Instead of explaining these facts, Kavi simply said they were normal local people, when in fact they were part of the “network monarchy.” It would be alright if Kavi were an average Thai, but Kavi as chief editor of a newspaper could have explained more.
Kavi and Walker on Australian radio
In May 1992 coup Thai Army killed many hundreds, if not thousands, of their fellow Thais and dumped the corpses into the dirty ponds of Samut Prakan crocodile farms. Most of the people missing in that anti-coup demonstrations have never been found as the hungry crocodiles had gladly devoured their remains.
Could the army have done the same thing this time to the bodies of dead and injured instead of taking them to the hospitals?