#41 Why should we employ reasoning when we have FGA? “Takbai was an intentional mistreatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens.” I do not doubt that the mistreatment was intended to a certain extent, based on the worldview of the military, i.e. their lack of care for “the enemy” (negligence), etc. But do you think that the deaths were intended as well? Finally, to suggests that people who try to see Tak Bai realistically are “probably” also apologists of the Ocober events is plainly rubbish. By the way, I watched videos of all these events.
Kuson: I don’t doubt that a number of people donated small sums of money coming from their pure (others would say misguided and immature) political minds. However, according to Suriyasai, the PAD spends one million baht per day. After three weeks, he said that PAD had spent about 21 million, with four million more in reserve, and more expected. Thus, until today, PAD will have spent more than 40 million. It would be good if the PAD could make a detailed account available to the public. Concerning trust in leaders, one should rather trust one’s own judgment than any leaders. Thailand’s leadership culture is part of the problem that you mention, I guess. Finally, you cannot eliminate TRT/PPP, because you will not have any politicians left to run for parliament, except some Democrats. Or you can introduce a proportional election system with national-level party lists, i.e. without candidates being forced to succeed in winning a plurality in their local constituencies first. But this also has its drawbacks…
karmablues and kuson, your comments reminded me of the highly articulate anti-Thaksin/TRT mass-emails that did the rounds many years ago. Pro-Thaksinite’s/TRT always countered with “where’s the evidence?”.
Sidh, the most disturbing aspect of the “where’s the evidence” mentality is that, behind those lines lies the assertion that: where’s the evidence? you couldn’t possibly uncover or prove anything because the police are totally corrupt, the prosecutors are on the payroll of the politicians, independent bodies are littered with their cronies, and even if a few cases get do find their way to the courts most judges can be bought anyways. So pleaseee don’t claim that you have evidence, it’s impossible!!
Luckily, things are beginning to change, and I agree with your prediction that the “where’s the evidence” defense will quickly morph into “the courts are biased and the cases are politicized.”
And so while the “where’s the evidence” crowd know that the country is being run by one large mafia-led TRT/PPP criminal syndicate (which was also made irrefutable by the fact that it had previously gone on killing spree of 2500 civilians and 78 minority villagers and have admitted to scheming another 3000 – 4000 civilian deaths), they would be quick to point the finger at those who wish to protest that they must adhere strictly to the limits of freedom of assembly. What’s the logic in this? Oh, I suppose if PAD strictly adheres to the limits of freedom of assembly, the mafia gangsters will suddenly follow their example and voluntarily stay within the limits of law? Or is the real purpose to silence the voice of the people so that the mafia-led criminal syndicate can continue to stay above the law? So that, for example, Noppadon’s unlawful and unconstitutional activities (endorsed by Cabinet resolution) which may have also amounted to selling off parts of Thai territory (and here I refer to the parts not covered by the ICJ ruling) can go unchecked?
Well, luckily for Thailand, the voice of the people have been heard and continue to be spoken, and hopefully, the rule of law will prevail.
I enjoyed most of Reynold’s notes from the roundtable, and I especially like his characterization of the discourse surrounding the monarchy as a “war of position.” However, I have to strongly disagree with Reynold’s “yawn, sigh” conclusion about the likely impact of Handley’s book in Thailand. It probably reflects Reynold’s distorted sense of the current state of discourse about the monarchy (based on his own circle of conversation partners?) and/or a bit of wishful thinking on his part (ah yes, everyone in Thailand knows this already, or at least “everyone who matters.”)
An anecdotal contribution: I’ve assigned the book in an undergraduate seminar on Southeast Asian history at an Ivy League University in the U.S. (there were at least 3 upper class Thai students in that class, each from wealthy and/or powerful families in Thailand, and each planning to return to Thailand–some to get involved in politics–after graduation), and the reaction from the Thai students in the class was like charting the stages of grief in reaction to death: denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
It took a *great* deal of convincing before two of my Thai students were even willing to pick up the book (as in, literally touch the book): they knew it from reputation in Thailand as an evil, defamatory text not even worthy of critical scrutiny. Remember, these students would be in their late teens/early twenties, and one thing Handley’s book does well is to offer a sense of their worldview regarding the monarchy: by the time they were born, the palace PR machine was up and running smoothly and well-oiled, and the *political* consciousness of these students is likely dominated by the 1992 images of the antagonists in that political crisis knelling at the feet of the king while with a few nationally televised words he ends the bloodshed and restores peace and democracy to the kingdom.
For students and Thai people of this generation, the power of Handley’s book lies *not* in its systematic attack on the Thai monarchy (the book contains no such programmatic attack), but rather in its willingness to analyze the king and the institution of the monarchy as a *political* institution. To say, as Reynolds does, that the book contains “not much new” for Thai speakers and to suggest that its value is primarily for the English speaking world not acquainted with contemporary Thai discourse is to vastly underestimate the continuing hold of the “king and monarchy is above politics” narrative.
Handley’s book should hardly be taken as the last word on the monarchy. Rather, its promise lies in clearing some land–much like in swidden agriculture–and fertilizing the soil for what will hopefully be many more such studies (academic or not) to follow.
Handley, on the subject of the monarchy as a political institution in Thai politics and history, your book changed at least two of my Thai students to the core, Reynolds’ “yawn, sigh” concluding line notwithstanding.
A feature article in the Vientiane Times of Monday 7th July may be worth noting. The article is entitled ‘Simple farming methods cut production costs’, and it argues for returning to/maintaining: pooling of labour resources, use of animals to plough fields and use of organic fertiliser.
The article concludes that ‘such simple farming methods may be able to keep food prices lower, especially if farmers practice these techniques on a wide scale. They certainly have their place in today’s troubling situation of spiralling production costs, which would become history if traditional practices were restored.’
In addition to this urban and somewhat idealysed view on agriculture and rural life the article does also acknowledge the reality of (temporary) migration out or rural areas.
When I was last in Nepal, I was amazed to see, whilst wandering passed a Nayabazzar stall, DVD’s of ‘Bungee Jumping to their Own’, a music DVD of MC Mong and hundreds K-pop CDs. The whole Shabang-Shabang (shiny, shiny) attitude is everywhere.
Having watched some of these dramas; which seem only to follow a story line similar to terrible Jane Austen novels, I wonder what sort of diluting effect it will have on social relations if kids are taking these shows seriously enough for them to be adapting their culture to Shabang-Shabang Korea Time. I can’t wait to see shiny silver suits that swoosh all over the world.
If only there were Manipur, or South Asian productions, finding their way to Korea! Then the articles conclusion, that there will be a broader cultural ‘exchange’, would be more accurate.
[…] an aside, in the past I have invited more contributions from scientists who work (in whatever capacity) in mainland Southeast Asia. That offer still stands and I would […]
Moe Aung: “Every technological advancement from the wheel onwards, every bit of investment deserves the essential question: whom does it benefit? It’s a double-edged sword depending on who is harnessing it to what end, personal gain and profit at the expense of the many, or for the greater good.”
I’ve known management in textile mills as well as workers, all of them Asian, the wages weren’t very good, but better than the government mills, but more hours work. I shudder at having to spend my life at work like that, but for some people it was pure gold and when mills shut down it really hurt them. Both capital and labour benefited from those mills.
For a long time it’s been a “prodigal son” situation policy-wise for the west. If the US had chosen to engage and invest in Burma they would have done immense good in many peoples’ lives. If they made a few elite generals rich in process, the cost would have been worth the benefits. After 40 years of isolation, meaning effectively no “civil society,” you can’t expect much to begin with.
Every year of non-engagement digs a bigger ditch for the Burmese people that they will have to collectively dig themselves out of in the future. It’s not like you can catch up on 40 years of isolation overnight. Hopefully, Asians it will be another Asians help Asians situation soon.
[…] Andrew’s recent post on the reported revival of buffalos in northern Thailand, this piece on pigs in Laos caught my attention. The relevant report comes […]
For what it is worth, my observation is that plowing by using an “iron buffalo” is not that significantly faster than using a real buffalo. I am not saying there is no increase in efficiency, but I can understand how the increase in efficiency could easily be offset with significant fuel price increases to a cash starved farmer who has some time on his hands and little else.
#26
Srithanonchai – I think you’re quite right, there are probably some baddies free-riding (or even sponsoring) on the crusade against Thaksinism, and I don’t really know that. However, what I know is that myself and alot of people I know donated some money to pitch in. Lots of traders and merchants also put in “1,000 apples’ (when in the protest in front of the gov house) and ‘free drinking water’ (from Electric Auth of Thailand personnel). I’m quite sure the sources come more from the heart and source more distributed (i.e. Representing the Group, a near democratic ideal). This is why the protest can go on for so long- when PAD is needed, assembly is quite easy via the web or ASTV.
This contrasts very deeply from the hired hands from the “Other side” — who you can see straight away quite barbaric (anyone hired, when they come down the bus, they will come and pull your T-shirt, or throw bags of piss) and more importantly, most likely financed from a very predictable, small source. Its quite clear those people are not the reasoning type, but rather follow some instructions.
** For the current government, I think they are already done for and look forward to the next election- but I suspect Mr. Thaksin has fulfilled his “Return on Investment” in utilizing the current government to do business, and Noppadon did the commando job and will probably live with a Golden spoon up his *** in Prison. Thus they don’t need to be “Oppressive Nor Authoritarian”, they (well at least Noppadon) just need to sell Thailand or if they live abit longer, all they need to fulfill and devote all the time they can to get Thaksin off the hook – “Who cares about Thailand?” [Ok, I admit in this paragraph I don’t have evidence, but its speculation– taken the government does so many politically foolish things – things that Thaksin would never do out in the Open, kind of suggest that he would do it because he has a deadline; ]
#27
Reg, I haven’t seen the ASTV in 7 days now (sheepishly); Perhaps you are right;
For me, as long as Thaksinism goes away — that’s the biggest achievement PAD can do. I trust the PAD leaders much more than Thaksin. I remember Chamlong’s Integrity when he was governor. I remember Dr. Jermsak . I remember Sondhi. (And if Thailand can near a Two-Party Parliament (no more TRT/PPP/etc and no more Coalition Governments) and a large poplulation of smart people helping to audit the government, I’ll be thrilled)
I don’t think there is a widespread desire to return to traditional forms of agriculture, and for my part, I neither suggested it nor think it wise. But the current form of agriculture, at least in Cambodia (which is as different from the situations in Laos and Thailand as you suggest are the motivations among particular people), the recent switch to mechanical agriculture has been devastating.
I thoroughly agree that there is a widespread sentiment throughout the agricultural Global South that farmers have been left out of the benefits of the modernization that they see in agricultural systems in the North. They want these benefits, and frankly deserve them. On the other hand, I think it does a disservice to these same farmers to assume that they don’t see the difference between the methods of mechanical agriculture (which have been adopted in many parts of the South) and their benefits – which tend to accrue only to large, corporate landholders, at least in their extreme form.
As for theft of farming implements and commodities, I’m not sure that this anecdote really tells us much. Stealing a buffalo is much, much, more difficult than stealing gasoline, and much harder to sell (you can identify a buffalo – ever tried to identify a liter of gasoline as the same liter you purchased earlier in the day?). Rural areas are not isolated, and gasoline thefts from farmers are not necessarily being perpetrated in all cases by farmers – even though they take place in farm-dominant areas.
From the SMH, not the mainland South East Asia massif, but southeast Asia nonetheless.
As he announced his retirement from Parliament yesterday, Downer said his greatest accomplishment was to bring freedom to the people of East Timor. And it was a signal achievement for Australia to act as midwife at the birth of an independent East Timor.
But the problem with this claim is that the big decision on East Timor was John Howard’s, not Alexander Downer’s. Indeed, all the really major foreign policy choices of the Howard years were Howard’s. This crimps Downer’s claim of ownership of Timorese independence, but it also helps exonerate him from blame for some of the worst decisions of the last government.
Good point about Yunus, Jon. That’s exactly my point about political will. Every technological advancement from the wheel onwards, every bit of investment deserves the essential question: whom does it benefit? It’s a double-edged sword depending on who is harnessing it to what end, personal gain and profit at the expense of the many, or for the greater good. It certainly is neither a neutral good nor apolitical in real life where exploitation of the many by the few continues to exist worldwide within and between communities..
I have recently heard stories of people stealing fuel at gunpoint in rural Laos from parties perceived to have a lot of fuel. But these stories are complex and can only really be understood in the context of the particular people and motivations involved. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is enough for me to state that what was evident in these thefts was not a desire for a return to older forms of agriculture. Rather, the motivation (even justification) seems to have been that poorer people felt left out of modern transformations, and wanted to be part of them, via force if necessary.
After all, they it was not buffalo they were stealing at gunpoint.
The debate between Thongchai and Republican (and their various supporters) captures everything that’s right and wrong about contemporary “progressive” intellectual activity in/about Thailand. It reminds me of Fanon’s observation in *The Wretched of the Earth* that before the colonized can direct their energies against the colonizers, they first attack each other with such violence….
Republican, I don’t know who you are but can deduce from the posts that you are a non-Thai intellectual teaching at a University in Thailand (with the princess’ name?), and Thongchai, I know your work, especially *Siam Mapped.” So that’s my familiarity with each of you.
Once you remove all the ad hominem attacks and invectives based on (typically academic) oversized egos, doesn’t this discussion come down a disagreement over strategies and tactics?
Surely Ajarns Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak–were they able to get over their obvious personal animosities for each other–would agree that *at least in the broad outlines* they are in agreement about what needs to be accomplished in order to create space for a truly more democratic and free Thailand. But within this broad agreement, there will always be (heated and passionate and important) disagreements about the tactics and strategies needed to make that space more of a reality.
Ajarn Thongchai, writing in the context of a specific and immediate political situation surrounding the LM amendment, chose to use a strategy of employing a dominant discourse (LM) in order to refute its expansion. There’s nothing new about this tactic, and students of power in history will recognize it as a time-honored strategy and tactics based approach to change. Those, like Republican, who seem to insist on absolute ideological purity and orthodoxy in every specific tactical maneouver and encounter really need to consider a more pragmatic approach to change.
Since you are all academics, let me suggest four disparate resources that have really informed my own thinking on this (I must admit that like Republican, I have purist proclivities when it comes to advocating change–especially from behind the safety of a pseudonym on an academic blog where I am risking very little): First is Max Weber’s discussion of the problem of “dirty hands” in politics. Weber distinguishes between idealists (like Republican, at least in the context of this debate) who take an “all or nothing” approach to realizing their goals, and those who are “responsible,” who recognize that purist approaches to political and social change often lead to paralysis and non-involvement and who are willing to have “dirty hands” in order to create change. Second is Michel Foucault’s approach to power in Discipline and Punish, Power/Knowledge and other key texts. Since Republican himself (I’m guessing he’s a man) cites Foucault, perhaps he can outline how Foucault’s approach to power and discourse would inform a normative evaluation of Ajarn Thongchai’s article in “The Nation.” Third is James C. Scott’s book, *Weapons of the Weak,* which carries a pretty strong argument against “purist” approaches to power and resistance. One of the main lessons of that book–based on two years of careful ethnography in a Malaysian village–is that EVERY IDEOLOGY CONTAINS THE ELEMENTS FOR ITS OWN CRITIQUE and that to demand that “true” resistance step completely outside the discourse of the hegemony or ideology that it opposes is a particular conceit of academics and self-styled revolutionaries who often end up screwing the very “people” they purport to be “in solidarity” with. Finally, and this is an unlikely resource for this debate, is Bent Flyvbjerg’s book “Rationality and Power” which is a study of a political fight over the location of a bus depot in the Danish town of Aalborg. Flyvbjerg draws on Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Foucault to show that the powerful always define rationality in terms that are beneficial to them, and that it is *ALMOST ALWAYS* to the advantage of the weak to negotiate social change *within* that framework of biased rationality rather than provoke open confrontation with the powerful when the imbalance of power is too high. Flyvbjerg lists 10 lessons about rationality and power in his conclusion that might be of interest to those who share the broad aims of Ajarn Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak (sorry guys, but I really do see you as *all being on the same side,* your passionate attacks against each other notwithstanding).
Republican’s position–ideological purity and orthodoxy–is seductive, and all attempts at change need their radicals (although, how radical is it really to sit behind a pseudonym and attack others who dare to engage these issues using their real names in forums where the consequences of their words are likely to go much further than bruised egos and good excuses for further procrastination), so I don’t want to side too strongly with Thongchai. But I think that in adopting the strategy that he did in this particular LM situation, Thongchai may at the end of the day prove the more astute student of power…..
Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
Question: [It] means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.
11 July 2008
To underscore some of the so-called elite’s approach to the human misery equation, let me paste here a translation I did of Seri Pramoj’s interview a couple of years after 6 October 1976 regarding the amnesty given to those killed and those who killed. I was disappointed in his handling of important issues like accountability and punishment, but again, that’s too often the Thai way – forget everything until next time.
Question: There are people who have suggested this amnesty was an acquittal.
M.R. Pramoj: That they’ve said ‘acquittal’ are people who don’t know what they are talking about. An ‘acquittal’ means that a court has acquitted. How can the government order the courts, when the power of the judiciary is one of the three highest [in the land].
Question: Is it true or not that if the court has decided fault, that an amnesty can be given?
M.R. Pramoj: It’s not true. That is a pardon. The court has ruled [defendant] at fault and His Majesty has pardoned them. But in this amnesty there was no penalty…well it was cleansing the blemish just as if no wrongdoing was committed. It’s much different. As to other methods, if we were to have the prosecutor dismiss charges, after they are withdrawn they could be refiled. There is no protection from being imprisoned again. If the court were instructed to dismiss the case, it would mean that administrative power overlaps that of the bench. So there was only amnesty left which can be deemed to be a decisive weapon.
Question: Some people say that this amnesty this time is a bid for popularity by the prime minister.
M.R. Pramoj: If it were, I would support it, I agree. Why seek revenge? I have said that there were a lot of worn-out charges inserted, [they are] communists, sloppy [charges]. I only issued one charge – lese majeste, which I had suspected would be contrived.
Question: An amnesty – does it mean that there would be no counter-charges?
M.R. Pramoj: In an amnesty there is no proving of fault or no fault. As to those who need to counter-file, I say they are not all there. It’s over it’s over.
Question: The relatives of those who died on that day…can they file or not?
M.R. Pramoj: Died because of who? What people did the police shoot? Go ahead and take pictures. Photographing when [anyone] was shot, there are no [such photos]. Assume that you file against the police, the police will say they were doing their duty. If it’s the people, well they can file, but don’t forget – this amnesty applies to everyone. The law on amnesty, the wrote it well. It covers everything. The students and police.
Question: That the publication New World published photos of those who died that day was ordered seized…the truth is the truth and should be revealed.
M.R. Pramoj: Not all of the truth need be told. There are many kinds of truths. Truth that causes hatred doesn’t need to be told. Why isn’t something in the past left in the past?
Question: But the feelings of fathers and mothers, friends of those who had anything to do with the incident…?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on how deep passions run. If they run deep then there’s no end. Just let it go. Whether or not [filing charges] would be good or not, next time there will be more blood. For this time only prison. Getting serious and interfering will become messy. The military are still in control.
Question: Forgetting the 6 October incident isn’t a matter of desire?
M.R. Pramoj: Old matters – the issue of desire or human passion can’t be of any help. Those who don’t forget, well don’t forget. But the important point is that they are in a quandary. Just hanging on and not forgetting. They don’t have to earn a living, then…
Question: What’s right ought be what’s right.
M.R. Pramoj: Correct. There are many kinds of right and wrong. I got to the bathroom, it’s not necessary that I tell you. These days there are many people who are not getting justice in society. Not just the students. Therefore, one must struggle often. Some people use intelligence.
Question: Going to court will uncover truths that will cause some groups to lose advantage.
M.R. Pramoj: Truths can be uncovered anywhere. Go ahead and uncover them if you really have enough nerve. Why uncover them in court to have [underlings] end up with a record? You can uncover them outside court. I believe that [the subordinates] didn’t do anything wrong.
Question: In your opinion, were the nineteen accused innocent?
M.R. Pramoj: I issued one accusation, that of lese majeste, which I did not believe to be true, it was contrived but looking at the [situation] I had to handle it. I did not believe the picture to very closely resemble HRH the Crown Prince. It would be easy to make up. Just cut out a photo of HRH and paste it in and there he is. How could it not be similar? …There were two papers that published the photos….Dao Siam and the Bangkok Post. But when a photo has appeared then the matter has to be dealt with. I issued only one accusation. As to other accusations, the following government issued them.
Question: It shows that the publication of the prince’s photo was a doctored photo.
M.R. Pramoj: Doctoring a photo is done very easily. Bring in someone, enact a hanging, take a photo, blow it up, remove the head and stick on his photo in place. Take the photo once more [copy the fake], anyone can do this. It’s not difficult.
Question: In this matter, if there’s proof…?
M.R. Pramoj: It’s not this matter. There are many matters [resulting] in accusations. It was a plan by seditionists to create unrest. Only one case? There were many accusations, with punishments up to execution. The charge of lese majeste would only result in a maximum of twelve years in prison.
Question: Was it really a plan by seditionists?
M.R. Pramoj: I believe so.
Question: And the return of Field Marshal Thanom, was that also a plan or not?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know. Thanom and Prapas came back. Thanom’s father was ill. Prapas coming back…he probably wanted his properties back.
Question: What purpose would faking the photo have?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know who did it. Newspaper editors could say the photo came from anywhere.
Question: Arising out of the 6 October incident, it has caused people to say that a democratic government is ineffective, that it’s unable to control situations.
M.R. Pramoj: Tell me first what effectiveness is. Is it guns? Is that what you want? Bring out the guns and see if they settle things. And don’t be a democracy…plodding along headless…go ahead in a frenzy and shoot! I am democracy but others aren’t. Democracy is shrewdly winning with reason, not with spears and swords. Democracy is able to exist by compromise, not through reasons. Because reasons and justice for each person are not the same. The use of force is action that is said to be mad.
Question: Who is it that then uses force?
M.R. Pramoj: Whoever. You know.
Question: According to your view, is 6 October over yet?
M.R. Pramoj: No, it’s not over. Ginger is still strong even when you break off its roots, and grows back again. And what have you gained from it? You should continue studying, start anew.
Question: And those the nineteen accused that Maj. General Sutsai Hatdin warned not to act up anymore even before they got out of prison?
M.R. Pramoj: Don’t listen to him. Why listen to him? Everyone knows it’s just wind in the ear.
Question: That there’s been news that the Democrat Party was supporting the Red Gaurs…?
M.R. Pramoj: Well, then this group had surrounded me and said they were taking care of my safety. And they took photos. They then went and said they were wearing the same glasses [as I was]. What Red Gaurs? I am not familiar with the Red Gaurs.
Question: Did some members of the Democrat party support the Red Gaurs?
M.R. Pramoj: There may be some members of the party involved but I won’t name them.
Question: And the party doesn’t have any policy toward that group?
M.R. Pramoj: It has, but they don’t go along with it. Well, even monks can be shameless.
Question: What is your view of the Red Gaurs?
M.R. Pramoj: [They are] wrong. Using force was wrong. You have to act with cause.
Question: What can Thailand take from all of this? Because since 1932 there have been coups constantly. How would you phrase it?
M.R. Pramoj: Well, constant coups and guns…As long as the military engages in politics…what do they want? And saying that effectiveness is missing. They can’t protect anything. Heck, it’s all been taken already. Fighting them you die needlessly.
Question: Prime Minister Kriengsak said that the military these days is not the same as before. What do you think?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know anything about military matters. And the military, who are they? How many quarters, how many corps? I have only been Defense Minister for a month…would I know?
Question: What is your view of the military?
M.R. Pramoj: I can’t say. They hold the guns. You can’t say when they will or will not rob. I can’t tell you.
Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
Question: I means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.
M.R. Pramoj: The next elections might be a point of beginning. But then they’ll fold once again. Another coup will occur. We should travel the Middle Path. That is, democracy with victory by show of hands [voting]. Where there’s a lot of people it’s natural that there will be differences.
Source: Thawatchai Sujarittuankul, Historical Cases, the 6 October Case, Book 2, Bangkok, Baphitkarnphim, 1979, page 426-432, citing Student Magazine 29 June 1978, pages 13-15
11 July 2008
A bit lost in all of this back and forth jibberish on what constitutes criminal actions and who has a right or not to call an act criminal. Anyone who thinks that TakBai was negligent manslaughter will probably also rush to justify the 6 October 1976 massacre, the earlier one on 14 October 1973, and the later in May 1992. And there have been others.
Takbai was an intentional misteatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens. Par for the course in the Thai justice system, by the way. This idea of things being criminal – Thailand is certainly criminally negligent for many hundreds of lives lost in the tsunami, but what does Thailand do about it? It refuses to issue a report or accept responsibility.
Watching Takbai videos and video of the 6 October 1976 bloodbath, one need not play guessing games about what Thai society in general feels about what is criminal and what is not. The general approach is that if it shuts people up, restores so-called order and can silence dissent, then it’s not criminal, or if it is criminal, we don’t need to pursue charges.
In terms of general issues, including lese majeste by the way, Thai society as a whole is criminally negligent. And the sad aspect of this is that the negligence is not an ordinary kind of negligence, but one inculcated and enforced by what Thak Chaloemtiarana has called, in his book, despotic paternalism.
Throwing immature comments at others about their playing God is tantamount to putting your head back under the sand and ignoring reality for another century or two while more and more bodies pile up.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
#41 Why should we employ reasoning when we have FGA? “Takbai was an intentional mistreatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens.” I do not doubt that the mistreatment was intended to a certain extent, based on the worldview of the military, i.e. their lack of care for “the enemy” (negligence), etc. But do you think that the deaths were intended as well? Finally, to suggests that people who try to see Tak Bai realistically are “probably” also apologists of the Ocober events is plainly rubbish. By the way, I watched videos of all these events.
Time to go home
Kuson: I don’t doubt that a number of people donated small sums of money coming from their pure (others would say misguided and immature) political minds. However, according to Suriyasai, the PAD spends one million baht per day. After three weeks, he said that PAD had spent about 21 million, with four million more in reserve, and more expected. Thus, until today, PAD will have spent more than 40 million. It would be good if the PAD could make a detailed account available to the public. Concerning trust in leaders, one should rather trust one’s own judgment than any leaders. Thailand’s leadership culture is part of the problem that you mention, I guess. Finally, you cannot eliminate TRT/PPP, because you will not have any politicians left to run for parliament, except some Democrats. Or you can introduce a proportional election system with national-level party lists, i.e. without candidates being forced to succeed in winning a plurality in their local constituencies first. But this also has its drawbacks…
Time to go home
karmablues and kuson, your comments reminded me of the highly articulate anti-Thaksin/TRT mass-emails that did the rounds many years ago. Pro-Thaksinite’s/TRT always countered with “where’s the evidence?”.
Sidh, the most disturbing aspect of the “where’s the evidence” mentality is that, behind those lines lies the assertion that: where’s the evidence? you couldn’t possibly uncover or prove anything because the police are totally corrupt, the prosecutors are on the payroll of the politicians, independent bodies are littered with their cronies, and even if a few cases get do find their way to the courts most judges can be bought anyways. So pleaseee don’t claim that you have evidence, it’s impossible!!
Luckily, things are beginning to change, and I agree with your prediction that the “where’s the evidence” defense will quickly morph into “the courts are biased and the cases are politicized.”
And so while the “where’s the evidence” crowd know that the country is being run by one large mafia-led TRT/PPP criminal syndicate (which was also made irrefutable by the fact that it had previously gone on killing spree of 2500 civilians and 78 minority villagers and have admitted to scheming another 3000 – 4000 civilian deaths), they would be quick to point the finger at those who wish to protest that they must adhere strictly to the limits of freedom of assembly. What’s the logic in this? Oh, I suppose if PAD strictly adheres to the limits of freedom of assembly, the mafia gangsters will suddenly follow their example and voluntarily stay within the limits of law? Or is the real purpose to silence the voice of the people so that the mafia-led criminal syndicate can continue to stay above the law? So that, for example, Noppadon’s unlawful and unconstitutional activities (endorsed by Cabinet resolution) which may have also amounted to selling off parts of Thai territory (and here I refer to the parts not covered by the ICJ ruling) can go unchecked?
Well, luckily for Thailand, the voice of the people have been heard and continue to be spoken, and hopefully, the rule of law will prevail.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
I enjoyed most of Reynold’s notes from the roundtable, and I especially like his characterization of the discourse surrounding the monarchy as a “war of position.” However, I have to strongly disagree with Reynold’s “yawn, sigh” conclusion about the likely impact of Handley’s book in Thailand. It probably reflects Reynold’s distorted sense of the current state of discourse about the monarchy (based on his own circle of conversation partners?) and/or a bit of wishful thinking on his part (ah yes, everyone in Thailand knows this already, or at least “everyone who matters.”)
An anecdotal contribution: I’ve assigned the book in an undergraduate seminar on Southeast Asian history at an Ivy League University in the U.S. (there were at least 3 upper class Thai students in that class, each from wealthy and/or powerful families in Thailand, and each planning to return to Thailand–some to get involved in politics–after graduation), and the reaction from the Thai students in the class was like charting the stages of grief in reaction to death: denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
It took a *great* deal of convincing before two of my Thai students were even willing to pick up the book (as in, literally touch the book): they knew it from reputation in Thailand as an evil, defamatory text not even worthy of critical scrutiny. Remember, these students would be in their late teens/early twenties, and one thing Handley’s book does well is to offer a sense of their worldview regarding the monarchy: by the time they were born, the palace PR machine was up and running smoothly and well-oiled, and the *political* consciousness of these students is likely dominated by the 1992 images of the antagonists in that political crisis knelling at the feet of the king while with a few nationally televised words he ends the bloodshed and restores peace and democracy to the kingdom.
For students and Thai people of this generation, the power of Handley’s book lies *not* in its systematic attack on the Thai monarchy (the book contains no such programmatic attack), but rather in its willingness to analyze the king and the institution of the monarchy as a *political* institution. To say, as Reynolds does, that the book contains “not much new” for Thai speakers and to suggest that its value is primarily for the English speaking world not acquainted with contemporary Thai discourse is to vastly underestimate the continuing hold of the “king and monarchy is above politics” narrative.
Handley’s book should hardly be taken as the last word on the monarchy. Rather, its promise lies in clearing some land–much like in swidden agriculture–and fertilizing the soil for what will hopefully be many more such studies (academic or not) to follow.
Handley, on the subject of the monarchy as a political institution in Thai politics and history, your book changed at least two of my Thai students to the core, Reynolds’ “yawn, sigh” concluding line notwithstanding.
A buffalo come-back?
A feature article in the Vientiane Times of Monday 7th July may be worth noting. The article is entitled ‘Simple farming methods cut production costs’, and it argues for returning to/maintaining: pooling of labour resources, use of animals to plough fields and use of organic fertiliser.
The article concludes that ‘such simple farming methods may be able to keep food prices lower, especially if farmers practice these techniques on a wide scale. They certainly have their place in today’s troubling situation of spiralling production costs, which would become history if traditional practices were restored.’
In addition to this urban and somewhat idealysed view on agriculture and rural life the article does also acknowledge the reality of (temporary) migration out or rural areas.
Zones of cultural exception in the borderlands
When I was last in Nepal, I was amazed to see, whilst wandering passed a Nayabazzar stall, DVD’s of ‘Bungee Jumping to their Own’, a music DVD of MC Mong and hundreds K-pop CDs. The whole Shabang-Shabang (shiny, shiny) attitude is everywhere.
Having watched some of these dramas; which seem only to follow a story line similar to terrible Jane Austen novels, I wonder what sort of diluting effect it will have on social relations if kids are taking these shows seriously enough for them to be adapting their culture to Shabang-Shabang Korea Time. I can’t wait to see shiny silver suits that swoosh all over the world.
If only there were Manipur, or South Asian productions, finding their way to Korea! Then the articles conclusion, that there will be a broader cultural ‘exchange’, would be more accurate.
The white-handed gibbon and science in Southeast Asia
[…] an aside, in the past I have invited more contributions from scientists who work (in whatever capacity) in mainland Southeast Asia. That offer still stands and I would […]
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Moe Aung: “Every technological advancement from the wheel onwards, every bit of investment deserves the essential question: whom does it benefit? It’s a double-edged sword depending on who is harnessing it to what end, personal gain and profit at the expense of the many, or for the greater good.”
I’ve known management in textile mills as well as workers, all of them Asian, the wages weren’t very good, but better than the government mills, but more hours work. I shudder at having to spend my life at work like that, but for some people it was pure gold and when mills shut down it really hurt them. Both capital and labour benefited from those mills.
For a long time it’s been a “prodigal son” situation policy-wise for the west. If the US had chosen to engage and invest in Burma they would have done immense good in many peoples’ lives. If they made a few elite generals rich in process, the cost would have been worth the benefits. After 40 years of isolation, meaning effectively no “civil society,” you can’t expect much to begin with.
Every year of non-engagement digs a bigger ditch for the Burmese people that they will have to collectively dig themselves out of in the future. It’s not like you can catch up on 40 years of isolation overnight. Hopefully, Asians it will be another Asians help Asians situation soon.
A buffalo come-back?
[…] Andrew’s recent post on the reported revival of buffalos in northern Thailand, this piece on pigs in Laos caught my attention. The relevant report comes […]
A buffalo come-back?
For what it is worth, my observation is that plowing by using an “iron buffalo” is not that significantly faster than using a real buffalo. I am not saying there is no increase in efficiency, but I can understand how the increase in efficiency could easily be offset with significant fuel price increases to a cash starved farmer who has some time on his hands and little else.
Time to go home
#26
Srithanonchai – I think you’re quite right, there are probably some baddies free-riding (or even sponsoring) on the crusade against Thaksinism, and I don’t really know that. However, what I know is that myself and alot of people I know donated some money to pitch in. Lots of traders and merchants also put in “1,000 apples’ (when in the protest in front of the gov house) and ‘free drinking water’ (from Electric Auth of Thailand personnel). I’m quite sure the sources come more from the heart and source more distributed (i.e. Representing the Group, a near democratic ideal). This is why the protest can go on for so long- when PAD is needed, assembly is quite easy via the web or ASTV.
This contrasts very deeply from the hired hands from the “Other side” — who you can see straight away quite barbaric (anyone hired, when they come down the bus, they will come and pull your T-shirt, or throw bags of piss) and more importantly, most likely financed from a very predictable, small source. Its quite clear those people are not the reasoning type, but rather follow some instructions.
** For the current government, I think they are already done for and look forward to the next election- but I suspect Mr. Thaksin has fulfilled his “Return on Investment” in utilizing the current government to do business, and Noppadon did the commando job and will probably live with a Golden spoon up his *** in Prison. Thus they don’t need to be “Oppressive Nor Authoritarian”, they (well at least Noppadon) just need to sell Thailand or if they live abit longer, all they need to fulfill and devote all the time they can to get Thaksin off the hook – “Who cares about Thailand?” [Ok, I admit in this paragraph I don’t have evidence, but its speculation– taken the government does so many politically foolish things – things that Thaksin would never do out in the Open, kind of suggest that he would do it because he has a deadline; ]
#27
Reg, I haven’t seen the ASTV in 7 days now (sheepishly); Perhaps you are right;
For me, as long as Thaksinism goes away — that’s the biggest achievement PAD can do. I trust the PAD leaders much more than Thaksin. I remember Chamlong’s Integrity when he was governor. I remember Dr. Jermsak . I remember Sondhi. (And if Thailand can near a Two-Party Parliament (no more TRT/PPP/etc and no more Coalition Governments) and a large poplulation of smart people helping to audit the government, I’ll be thrilled)
A buffalo come-back?
I don’t think there is a widespread desire to return to traditional forms of agriculture, and for my part, I neither suggested it nor think it wise. But the current form of agriculture, at least in Cambodia (which is as different from the situations in Laos and Thailand as you suggest are the motivations among particular people), the recent switch to mechanical agriculture has been devastating.
I thoroughly agree that there is a widespread sentiment throughout the agricultural Global South that farmers have been left out of the benefits of the modernization that they see in agricultural systems in the North. They want these benefits, and frankly deserve them. On the other hand, I think it does a disservice to these same farmers to assume that they don’t see the difference between the methods of mechanical agriculture (which have been adopted in many parts of the South) and their benefits – which tend to accrue only to large, corporate landholders, at least in their extreme form.
As for theft of farming implements and commodities, I’m not sure that this anecdote really tells us much. Stealing a buffalo is much, much, more difficult than stealing gasoline, and much harder to sell (you can identify a buffalo – ever tried to identify a liter of gasoline as the same liter you purchased earlier in the day?). Rural areas are not isolated, and gasoline thefts from farmers are not necessarily being perpetrated in all cases by farmers – even though they take place in farm-dominant areas.
Farewell to the idiot son
From the SMH, not the mainland South East Asia massif, but southeast Asia nonetheless.
As he announced his retirement from Parliament yesterday, Downer said his greatest accomplishment was to bring freedom to the people of East Timor. And it was a signal achievement for Australia to act as midwife at the birth of an independent East Timor.
But the problem with this claim is that the big decision on East Timor was John Howard’s, not Alexander Downer’s. Indeed, all the really major foreign policy choices of the Howard years were Howard’s. This crimps Downer’s claim of ownership of Timorese independence, but it also helps exonerate him from blame for some of the worst decisions of the last government.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/peter-hartcher/vale-alexander-the-notsogreat/2008/07/03/1214950947565.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
Ashley South on post-cyclone Burma
Good point about Yunus, Jon. That’s exactly my point about political will. Every technological advancement from the wheel onwards, every bit of investment deserves the essential question: whom does it benefit? It’s a double-edged sword depending on who is harnessing it to what end, personal gain and profit at the expense of the many, or for the greater good. It certainly is neither a neutral good nor apolitical in real life where exploitation of the many by the few continues to exist worldwide within and between communities..
A buffalo come-back?
I have recently heard stories of people stealing fuel at gunpoint in rural Laos from parties perceived to have a lot of fuel. But these stories are complex and can only really be understood in the context of the particular people and motivations involved. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is enough for me to state that what was evident in these thefts was not a desire for a return to older forms of agriculture. Rather, the motivation (even justification) seems to have been that poorer people felt left out of modern transformations, and wanted to be part of them, via force if necessary.
After all, they it was not buffalo they were stealing at gunpoint.
The King Never Smiles?
The debate between Thongchai and Republican (and their various supporters) captures everything that’s right and wrong about contemporary “progressive” intellectual activity in/about Thailand. It reminds me of Fanon’s observation in *The Wretched of the Earth* that before the colonized can direct their energies against the colonizers, they first attack each other with such violence….
Republican, I don’t know who you are but can deduce from the posts that you are a non-Thai intellectual teaching at a University in Thailand (with the princess’ name?), and Thongchai, I know your work, especially *Siam Mapped.” So that’s my familiarity with each of you.
Once you remove all the ad hominem attacks and invectives based on (typically academic) oversized egos, doesn’t this discussion come down a disagreement over strategies and tactics?
Surely Ajarns Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak–were they able to get over their obvious personal animosities for each other–would agree that *at least in the broad outlines* they are in agreement about what needs to be accomplished in order to create space for a truly more democratic and free Thailand. But within this broad agreement, there will always be (heated and passionate and important) disagreements about the tactics and strategies needed to make that space more of a reality.
Ajarn Thongchai, writing in the context of a specific and immediate political situation surrounding the LM amendment, chose to use a strategy of employing a dominant discourse (LM) in order to refute its expansion. There’s nothing new about this tactic, and students of power in history will recognize it as a time-honored strategy and tactics based approach to change. Those, like Republican, who seem to insist on absolute ideological purity and orthodoxy in every specific tactical maneouver and encounter really need to consider a more pragmatic approach to change.
Since you are all academics, let me suggest four disparate resources that have really informed my own thinking on this (I must admit that like Republican, I have purist proclivities when it comes to advocating change–especially from behind the safety of a pseudonym on an academic blog where I am risking very little): First is Max Weber’s discussion of the problem of “dirty hands” in politics. Weber distinguishes between idealists (like Republican, at least in the context of this debate) who take an “all or nothing” approach to realizing their goals, and those who are “responsible,” who recognize that purist approaches to political and social change often lead to paralysis and non-involvement and who are willing to have “dirty hands” in order to create change. Second is Michel Foucault’s approach to power in Discipline and Punish, Power/Knowledge and other key texts. Since Republican himself (I’m guessing he’s a man) cites Foucault, perhaps he can outline how Foucault’s approach to power and discourse would inform a normative evaluation of Ajarn Thongchai’s article in “The Nation.” Third is James C. Scott’s book, *Weapons of the Weak,* which carries a pretty strong argument against “purist” approaches to power and resistance. One of the main lessons of that book–based on two years of careful ethnography in a Malaysian village–is that EVERY IDEOLOGY CONTAINS THE ELEMENTS FOR ITS OWN CRITIQUE and that to demand that “true” resistance step completely outside the discourse of the hegemony or ideology that it opposes is a particular conceit of academics and self-styled revolutionaries who often end up screwing the very “people” they purport to be “in solidarity” with. Finally, and this is an unlikely resource for this debate, is Bent Flyvbjerg’s book “Rationality and Power” which is a study of a political fight over the location of a bus depot in the Danish town of Aalborg. Flyvbjerg draws on Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Foucault to show that the powerful always define rationality in terms that are beneficial to them, and that it is *ALMOST ALWAYS* to the advantage of the weak to negotiate social change *within* that framework of biased rationality rather than provoke open confrontation with the powerful when the imbalance of power is too high. Flyvbjerg lists 10 lessons about rationality and power in his conclusion that might be of interest to those who share the broad aims of Ajarn Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak (sorry guys, but I really do see you as *all being on the same side,* your passionate attacks against each other notwithstanding).
Republican’s position–ideological purity and orthodoxy–is seductive, and all attempts at change need their radicals (although, how radical is it really to sit behind a pseudonym and attack others who dare to engage these issues using their real names in forums where the consequences of their words are likely to go much further than bruised egos and good excuses for further procrastination), so I don’t want to side too strongly with Thongchai. But I think that in adopting the strategy that he did in this particular LM situation, Thongchai may at the end of the day prove the more astute student of power…..
Time to go home
kuson: I think the rose coloured glasses probably need to come off. I watch ASTV on TV – satellite – and your account of it doesn’t match what I see.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
Typo correction with apologies…
Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
Question: [It] means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
11 July 2008
To underscore some of the so-called elite’s approach to the human misery equation, let me paste here a translation I did of Seri Pramoj’s interview a couple of years after 6 October 1976 regarding the amnesty given to those killed and those who killed. I was disappointed in his handling of important issues like accountability and punishment, but again, that’s too often the Thai way – forget everything until next time.
Question: There are people who have suggested this amnesty was an acquittal.
M.R. Pramoj: That they’ve said ‘acquittal’ are people who don’t know what they are talking about. An ‘acquittal’ means that a court has acquitted. How can the government order the courts, when the power of the judiciary is one of the three highest [in the land].
Question: Is it true or not that if the court has decided fault, that an amnesty can be given?
M.R. Pramoj: It’s not true. That is a pardon. The court has ruled [defendant] at fault and His Majesty has pardoned them. But in this amnesty there was no penalty…well it was cleansing the blemish just as if no wrongdoing was committed. It’s much different. As to other methods, if we were to have the prosecutor dismiss charges, after they are withdrawn they could be refiled. There is no protection from being imprisoned again. If the court were instructed to dismiss the case, it would mean that administrative power overlaps that of the bench. So there was only amnesty left which can be deemed to be a decisive weapon.
Question: Some people say that this amnesty this time is a bid for popularity by the prime minister.
M.R. Pramoj: If it were, I would support it, I agree. Why seek revenge? I have said that there were a lot of worn-out charges inserted, [they are] communists, sloppy [charges]. I only issued one charge – lese majeste, which I had suspected would be contrived.
Question: An amnesty – does it mean that there would be no counter-charges?
M.R. Pramoj: In an amnesty there is no proving of fault or no fault. As to those who need to counter-file, I say they are not all there. It’s over it’s over.
Question: The relatives of those who died on that day…can they file or not?
M.R. Pramoj: Died because of who? What people did the police shoot? Go ahead and take pictures. Photographing when [anyone] was shot, there are no [such photos]. Assume that you file against the police, the police will say they were doing their duty. If it’s the people, well they can file, but don’t forget – this amnesty applies to everyone. The law on amnesty, the wrote it well. It covers everything. The students and police.
Question: That the publication New World published photos of those who died that day was ordered seized…the truth is the truth and should be revealed.
M.R. Pramoj: Not all of the truth need be told. There are many kinds of truths. Truth that causes hatred doesn’t need to be told. Why isn’t something in the past left in the past?
Question: But the feelings of fathers and mothers, friends of those who had anything to do with the incident…?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on how deep passions run. If they run deep then there’s no end. Just let it go. Whether or not [filing charges] would be good or not, next time there will be more blood. For this time only prison. Getting serious and interfering will become messy. The military are still in control.
Question: Forgetting the 6 October incident isn’t a matter of desire?
M.R. Pramoj: Old matters – the issue of desire or human passion can’t be of any help. Those who don’t forget, well don’t forget. But the important point is that they are in a quandary. Just hanging on and not forgetting. They don’t have to earn a living, then…
Question: What’s right ought be what’s right.
M.R. Pramoj: Correct. There are many kinds of right and wrong. I got to the bathroom, it’s not necessary that I tell you. These days there are many people who are not getting justice in society. Not just the students. Therefore, one must struggle often. Some people use intelligence.
Question: Going to court will uncover truths that will cause some groups to lose advantage.
M.R. Pramoj: Truths can be uncovered anywhere. Go ahead and uncover them if you really have enough nerve. Why uncover them in court to have [underlings] end up with a record? You can uncover them outside court. I believe that [the subordinates] didn’t do anything wrong.
Question: In your opinion, were the nineteen accused innocent?
M.R. Pramoj: I issued one accusation, that of lese majeste, which I did not believe to be true, it was contrived but looking at the [situation] I had to handle it. I did not believe the picture to very closely resemble HRH the Crown Prince. It would be easy to make up. Just cut out a photo of HRH and paste it in and there he is. How could it not be similar? …There were two papers that published the photos….Dao Siam and the Bangkok Post. But when a photo has appeared then the matter has to be dealt with. I issued only one accusation. As to other accusations, the following government issued them.
Question: It shows that the publication of the prince’s photo was a doctored photo.
M.R. Pramoj: Doctoring a photo is done very easily. Bring in someone, enact a hanging, take a photo, blow it up, remove the head and stick on his photo in place. Take the photo once more [copy the fake], anyone can do this. It’s not difficult.
Question: In this matter, if there’s proof…?
M.R. Pramoj: It’s not this matter. There are many matters [resulting] in accusations. It was a plan by seditionists to create unrest. Only one case? There were many accusations, with punishments up to execution. The charge of lese majeste would only result in a maximum of twelve years in prison.
Question: Was it really a plan by seditionists?
M.R. Pramoj: I believe so.
Question: And the return of Field Marshal Thanom, was that also a plan or not?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know. Thanom and Prapas came back. Thanom’s father was ill. Prapas coming back…he probably wanted his properties back.
Question: What purpose would faking the photo have?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know who did it. Newspaper editors could say the photo came from anywhere.
Question: Arising out of the 6 October incident, it has caused people to say that a democratic government is ineffective, that it’s unable to control situations.
M.R. Pramoj: Tell me first what effectiveness is. Is it guns? Is that what you want? Bring out the guns and see if they settle things. And don’t be a democracy…plodding along headless…go ahead in a frenzy and shoot! I am democracy but others aren’t. Democracy is shrewdly winning with reason, not with spears and swords. Democracy is able to exist by compromise, not through reasons. Because reasons and justice for each person are not the same. The use of force is action that is said to be mad.
Question: Who is it that then uses force?
M.R. Pramoj: Whoever. You know.
Question: According to your view, is 6 October over yet?
M.R. Pramoj: No, it’s not over. Ginger is still strong even when you break off its roots, and grows back again. And what have you gained from it? You should continue studying, start anew.
Question: And those the nineteen accused that Maj. General Sutsai Hatdin warned not to act up anymore even before they got out of prison?
M.R. Pramoj: Don’t listen to him. Why listen to him? Everyone knows it’s just wind in the ear.
Question: That there’s been news that the Democrat Party was supporting the Red Gaurs…?
M.R. Pramoj: Well, then this group had surrounded me and said they were taking care of my safety. And they took photos. They then went and said they were wearing the same glasses [as I was]. What Red Gaurs? I am not familiar with the Red Gaurs.
Question: Did some members of the Democrat party support the Red Gaurs?
M.R. Pramoj: There may be some members of the party involved but I won’t name them.
Question: And the party doesn’t have any policy toward that group?
M.R. Pramoj: It has, but they don’t go along with it. Well, even monks can be shameless.
Question: What is your view of the Red Gaurs?
M.R. Pramoj: [They are] wrong. Using force was wrong. You have to act with cause.
Question: What can Thailand take from all of this? Because since 1932 there have been coups constantly. How would you phrase it?
M.R. Pramoj: Well, constant coups and guns…As long as the military engages in politics…what do they want? And saying that effectiveness is missing. They can’t protect anything. Heck, it’s all been taken already. Fighting them you die needlessly.
Question: Prime Minister Kriengsak said that the military these days is not the same as before. What do you think?
M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know anything about military matters. And the military, who are they? How many quarters, how many corps? I have only been Defense Minister for a month…would I know?
Question: What is your view of the military?
M.R. Pramoj: I can’t say. They hold the guns. You can’t say when they will or will not rob. I can’t tell you.
Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
Question: I means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.
M.R. Pramoj: The next elections might be a point of beginning. But then they’ll fold once again. Another coup will occur. We should travel the Middle Path. That is, democracy with victory by show of hands [voting]. Where there’s a lot of people it’s natural that there will be differences.
Source: Thawatchai Sujarittuankul, Historical Cases, the 6 October Case, Book 2, Bangkok, Baphitkarnphim, 1979, page 426-432, citing Student Magazine 29 June 1978, pages 13-15
Ji Ungpakorn on the “carnival of reaction”
11 July 2008
A bit lost in all of this back and forth jibberish on what constitutes criminal actions and who has a right or not to call an act criminal. Anyone who thinks that TakBai was negligent manslaughter will probably also rush to justify the 6 October 1976 massacre, the earlier one on 14 October 1973, and the later in May 1992. And there have been others.
Takbai was an intentional misteatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens. Par for the course in the Thai justice system, by the way. This idea of things being criminal – Thailand is certainly criminally negligent for many hundreds of lives lost in the tsunami, but what does Thailand do about it? It refuses to issue a report or accept responsibility.
Watching Takbai videos and video of the 6 October 1976 bloodbath, one need not play guessing games about what Thai society in general feels about what is criminal and what is not. The general approach is that if it shuts people up, restores so-called order and can silence dissent, then it’s not criminal, or if it is criminal, we don’t need to pursue charges.
In terms of general issues, including lese majeste by the way, Thai society as a whole is criminally negligent. And the sad aspect of this is that the negligence is not an ordinary kind of negligence, but one inculcated and enforced by what Thak Chaloemtiarana has called, in his book, despotic paternalism.
Throwing immature comments at others about their playing God is tantamount to putting your head back under the sand and ignoring reality for another century or two while more and more bodies pile up.