A right royal hatchet job | 23.11.05

Seeing Sondhi Limthongkul in his “We’ll fight for the king™” T-shirt brings back unpleasant memories.

Of course, it was only natural for the pompous founder of the Manager Group to kick and scream when his somewhat popular babble show was axed from the state-run (and absurdly-named) Modern 9 television. After all, he is now left with only Thailand’s most popular news website, a well-known newspaper by the same name, the Asia Times, and a cable news channel — not nearly enough to trigger sanctimonious cries against media cross-ownership.

But fight for the king? Aw, not again.

When EGAT unionists were parading His Majesty’s portraits in their anti-privatization rally, they were obviously fighting for the King and not their own lavish pays and perks.

When Sathienpong Wannapok, protégé of the original buddhist-nationalist Sulak Sivaraksa, argued for Buddhism’s state religion status and faulted the constitution (No. 17, give and take) for not making that official, he, too, was fighting for the kings. (Note the plural: he cited an impressive of array royal pronouncements starting with King Ramkhamhaeng’s.)

Khun Sondhi is the latest practitioner of that noble tradition.

Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER)

In my blissfully innocent years, I’d have expected the international media not only to give this sort of claim a wide berth, but also to raise serious questions about the role of the monarchy in a democracy. I lost that innocence in January 2002, when the Far Eastern Economic Review published this piece of “intelligence”:

A Right Royal Headache

It promises to be a messy new year for Thailand politically, if the messages from some senior officials are to be believed. Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is becoming an increasing source of irritation to King Bhumibol Adulyadej because of Thaksin’s perceived arrogance and his alleged attempts to meddle in royal family affairs. Thailand’s constitutional monarch has no formal role in day-to-day politics, but in a speech in early December marking his birthday he lambasted the premier in public. Thaksin is known to have business links with the king’s son, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn. According to a senior official close to the palace, all this is frowned upon by the king, prompting speculation of a possible confrontation between the Prime Minister’s Office and the palace. The same source worries that Thaksin, who gained a massive majority in last year’s January 6 general election, may use his status as Thailand’s wealthiest businessman, with solid backing in parliament, to fend off the royal palace. That would have serious and worrying implications for the future stability of Thailand.

Presumably, the Review was fighting for the king, too.

And it was fighting hard. Given the Thais’ great reverence for the monarchy, to be an “irritation” to the king, to try to “meddle in royal family affairs”, and most unthinkably to “fend off” His Majesty are unimaginably explosive offenses in Thailand, way beyond rape and murder in the minds of many people. A Matichon analysis at the time compared the Review’s allegations to the “Pridi killed the king” shout in the popular Chalermkrung theatre that brought down Prime Minister Pridi Phanomyong’s government following King Ananda Mahidol’s death. The article even went so far as to insinuate the Democrat Party, which, in 2001 as in 1946, was the main opposition party. Despite my low opinion of Matichon’s journalism — which dates back to well beyond the time when it was an overtly pro-Thaksin newspaper — I must say that the parallel at least makes sense. Whether the writer was a witting or unwitting ploy in this, he and his “senior official” (or “senior officials”, he was being inconsistent) were obviously so worried that they were practically drooling.

Disappointingly for them, that vile smear campaign didn’t come anywhere close to sinking the Thaksin government. Who knows, maybe the Thai people for once knew a hatchet job when the saw it. There was, of course, no showdown between the head of government and the head of state in 2002. The year not only wasn’t messy, but turned out to be a pretty good one, with GDP growing 5.3 percent and the SET index rising 17.3 percent.

There was, however, a consolation prize for the rumor mongers. The police banned that issue of the Review and ordered the expulsion of Shawn Crispin and Rodney Tasker, the Review’s bureau chief and correspondent respectively. Although the sentence was never carried out, the world media and the press rights groups were predictably all indignant about this violation of their cherished press freedom (which apparently includes the freedom to publish unsubstantiated smears). The government’s many critics had a great opportunity to portray it not as anachronistic royalists (which would have been a coveted title), but underhanded bullies bent on suppressing the critical media with trumped-up charges. This paragraph from the first BBC link typifies that:

Commentators here are arguing that the article showed no disrespect to the king, and that the affair has demonstrated the known sensitivity of Mr Thaksin to media criticism of his populist policies. [Emphasis added.]

That was none-too-subtly echoed by the letter (scroll down) from then Review editor Michael Vatikiotis to Police Major-General Tritos Ranaridhvichai:

Please understand that it is never the intention of the Review to publish any information that could harm social discipline or the morals of the Thai people. The Review is fully cognisant of and sensitive to the protocol surrounding reporting on the Royal family to Thailand. By no means did the article in question intend to be critical of the Royal institution, but rather was commentary on Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s government. [Emphasis added.]

What commentary? What criticism? What policies? According to the Review’s own classification, the article was a piece of “intelligence”, not a commentary. No government policy was discussed, nor were any criticisms made (the mere mention that the king “lambasted the premier in public” doesn’t count). It was purely and simply a hit piece that sought to undermine the popular prime minister by pitting him against the venerated monarch.

But doesn’t that corroborate the media’s and the critics’ contention that the article does not disrespect the king? Yes, but that’s a blatant red herring. The report talked about not only about the king and the prime minister, but also the crown prince, the third-ranking royal family member after the king and the queen, whom it cast in an unfavorable light. Unfavorable enough to warrant the ban? Before we go any further, let’s take a look at either of the BBC articles linked above. See anything remarkable in the “see also” box? Yes, the story headlined “Thais banish Anna and the King”:

Thailand’s censorship committee has banned Jodie Foster’s latest film Anna and the King on the grounds that it is an insult to the monarchy and a distortion of Thai history.

Now can you think anything insulting to the Thai monarchy in Anna and the King? I haven’t seen the film, but none of my Thai friends who have were offended and a few absolutely loved it. Yet Anna was banned by the oh-so-enlightened Chuan government with large public approval. See “Anna and the censors of Siam” for the government’s official case against the film and my rebuttal of it. Suffice it to say that lèse majesté covers a very expansive ground in Thailand.

Unlike the movie, whose offenses are border-line, the Review’s assertion that the crown prince has a business relationship that the king disapproves of and hence insinuation of a rift in the royal family falls smack in the heart of the Thai definition of lèse majesté. (The Review used the weasel construction “is known to”. By whom, one wonders. I for one have never heard of that, on or off the record.) To put this in perspective, although the crown prince’s current wife is his third, there have never been any public discussions about his divorces. His second wife disappeared altogether from public view, as did the four sons he fathered with her. Just writing these sentences makes me nervous. A politician once went to jail for making a hypothetical remark about himself being born a prince. Personally, I prefer being expelled, but unfortunately I’m not an expat journalist. As for those Thais who insist that the legal actions against the Review and its journalists were “politically motivated”, just ask them why we had never read such allegations even in the most anti-Thaksin local newspapers, and whether they themselves would be willing to state them publicly.

Time magazine

Even without the references to the crown prince, the gleefully gloomy talk featuring “confrontation” and “fend off” was deeply distasteful, and likely already actionable. The local media certainly would never dare go that far. And they didn’t have to. It was enough just to report the king’s speech in which the Review said he “lambasted” Mr. Thaksin. That they did loudly, sensationally, and with impunity a month before the Review article.

That speech was even picked up by Time magazine, the granddaddy of the international media, likewise, loudly, sensationally, and with impunity:

A Royal Dressing-Down

Imperious Thaksin gets a very public scolding from King Bhumibol for the state of the nation

A mandate can sometimes be a dangerous thing. Since scoring the largest electoral win in Thai history last February, Thaksin Shinawatra has proved to be a Prime Minister with no tolerance for criticism. He promised voters a return to prosperity, but as the country’s economy continues to crumble, Thaksin has lashed out at economists, academics, bankers, bureaucrats and news organizations that have questioned his policies. Citing the 11 million votes (out of 29.9 million cast) he won, the PM has told his detractors to support him or shut up. But last Tuesday, Thaksin got a very public dressing-down from a man he doesn’t dare tell to keep quiet, a man with a mandate infinitely more impressive than his own: King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

In his 55 years on the throne, King Bhumibol has made the constitutional monarchy a moral counterpoint to the slime pit of Thai politics. Revered by his subjects as semidivine and for his work among the poor, he intervenes in politics only during times of crisis—most notably ending the bloodshed of the May 1992 democracy uprising. He prefers giving advice to Premiers in private. So, as Thaksin and his ministers sat in the Dusidalai Throne Hall awaiting the King’s annual birthday address to the nation, they were expecting the usual sermon on development peppered with parables and gentle jibes. Instead, Bhumibol, 74, warned Thailand was heading for catastrophe, and lambasted its political class for their arrogance, intolerance and double standards. “The Prime Minister has a long face now after I mentioned catastrophe,” the King said. “But I’m telling the truth. I think we all know that our country is not developing, that everything seems to be in decline.” By the time the King was done, Thaksin’s face was red.

Stirring stuff. Personally I’d say the King’s actual quote isn’t so dramatic as to qualify as a lambaste, but one could counter that by the king’s reserved standards it does. Since we’re all intelligent individuals capable of our own thoughts, I’ll simply quote the most relevant passage from the official transcript for you judge for yourself:

ซึ่งก่อนลงมานี้ มิได้ตั้งใจจะมาพูดเรื่อง เรื่องพัฒนา ตั้งใจจะมาพูดถึงเรื่อง เรื่องความหายนะ ซึ่งปัจจุบันนี้ ทุกคนทราบดีว่า ประเทศดูเหมือนว่า จะหายนะ ไม่ใช่ พัฒนะ ไม่ใช่วัฒนะ เพราะว่า เดี๋ยวนี้อะไรๆ ดูจะเสื่อมลง ทางนายกฯ ดูนั่งทำหน้ามุ่ย รู้สึก รู้สึกไม่พอใจที่บอกว่า ประเทศหายนะ แต่เป็นความจริง เพราะว่า ทำอะไรมันดูมีปัญหาทั้งนั้น แต่สำหรับท่านนายกฯ น่ะไม่มี นายกฯ Happy แต่ว่า Happy ข้างนอก ดูท่าทาง Happy แต่ข้างในไม่สบายใจ ก็ว่าไม่รู้จะทำยังไง เพราะว่าไม่ก้าวหน้า แต่ยังไง การก้าวหน้านั้น นายกฯ ก็ได้ให้สูตรไว้แล้วว่าทำยังไงให้ก้าวหน้า คือ จะต้องสามัคคีกัน ร่วมกันทำ แล้วถ้าร่วมกันทำ มันก้าวหน้าได้ แต่ถ้าไม่ร่วมกันทำ ไม่ ไม่มีทางก้าวหน้า แล้วข้อสำคัญเรามานึกถึงคำว่า ทัศนะของแต่ละคน ความคิดของแต่ละคน ก็มีความคิดดีทั้งนั้น แต่ว่าทัศนะของอีกคนหรือความคิด หรือเกณฑ์ของคนอื่น มันไม่เหมือนกัน ก็ขัดกัน ถ้าเรามีความคิดอย่างหนึ่งแล้วก็มาพูดกับอีกคน เขาบอกไม่ ไม่ถูก เขาก็มีสิทธิ์ที่จะบอกว่าไม่ถูก แต่ตอนนี้เราจะทำยังไง ถ้าหากว่ามีความคิดใน ในงานอะไรอย่างหนึ่ง คนหนึ่งบอกต้องทำอย่างนี้ อีกคนบอกทำอีกอย่าง ขัดกัน มันจะสำเร็จได้อย่างไร มันไม่มีทางสำเร็จ แต่ว่าทางสำเร็จมันมี อยู่ที่จะต้องละทิฐิ ถ้าหากว่ามาพูดกัน และจะเห็นได้ว่ามีทาง ในงานอะไรก็ตาม ความจริงมันมีทางเดียว ไม่ใช่มีหลายทาง ถ้ามีหลายทาง บางทีก็มาดูดี ๆ มันก็ทางเดียวกัน ทางที่จะทำให้งานสำเร็จน่ะ ไม่ใช่มีหลายทาง มันมีทางเดียว แต่ความคิดไม่เหมือนกัน มีจับเกณฑ์ของตัวเป็นใหญ่ อีกคนหนึ่ง เขาก็มีเกณฑ์ของเขา ฉะนั้นจะต้องให้ปรองดองกันได้

Before coming down, I didn’t intend to talk about development, but catastrophe. Nowadays everybody knows well that the country seems to be a catastrophe, not a development. Because, things now seem to be in decline. The prime minister has a long face, seems to be dissatisfied with the mention of the country’s catastrophe. But it’s the truth, because everything one does seems to have problems. But Mr. Prime Minister doesn’t have [problems]. The prime minister is happy, but happy on the outside. Looks happy but unhappy inside, as he doesn’t know what to do. Because there’s no progress, but as to how to progress, the prime minister has already given a formula on how to progress, that is [people] must cohere, work together. If [we] work together, there can be progress. If [we] don’t work together, there can never be progress. The important thing that we must think of is the word […] each person’s view, each person’s thoughts, each has a good idea, but another person’s view or thought or criterian isn’t the same. So there’s a conflict. So what do we do? If there’s an idea in a certain project, one person says to do this, another says to do differently. How can it succeed? There’s no way it can succeed. But there is a way to success, only one has to dispense with ego. If [people] come together to talk, they’ll see that there’s a way. In whatever project, there is in fact only one way, not many ways. If there are many ways, once one looks at them carefully, they are the same way. The way to make a project succeed, there are not many ways, there’s only one way. But ideas are not the same. One puts his criteria first, another one has his own criteria. Therefore [we] must unite.

[Translated by yours truly.]

The four immediately following paragraphs may also be considered relevant to the so-called lambaste, but they are extremely difficult for me to decipher (I’d hate to put my words in His Majesty’s mouth) and in any case are secondary to the one above, which was the only one quoted directly by Time.

Whether or not you see the characterization of the speech by both the Thai and international media as overdramatic, here’s a veritable drama courtesy of Time:

Time’s caption: “KING’S CROSS: Bhumibol, left, broke with tradition to chastise his Prime Minister, right”

Look at that priceless expression on the premier’s face, doesn’t it just scream “I’m in trouble”? The context, however, is everything here. If you just look at the photo by itself with the king and the quote covered, and you have a man lowering his head to scratch his eyebrow. Not a flattering shot, but not much to read into it, either. Unfortunately for Time’s gullible readers, that is precisely how they should have looked at the Thaksin picture, as it was most certainly not taken from the royal audience on December 4, 2001.

The suit gave it away. As you will see from the banner at the top of the transcript’s webpage, officials attending the ceremony on the eve of the king’s birthday do not wear suits and ties, but the “white normal” (“ปกติขาว”) uniforms. The shirt would be of the same kind as in the “full-dress” (“เต็มยศ”) uniform that the king is wearing in the Time photo, but it will not be decorated except with the shoulder boards and, for military officers, the aiguillette. (Here are some examples of navy officers wearing the normal white.) Ironically, as you will also see on the transcript’s webpage, it’s the king who normally wears a suit in that event. So Time probably misrepresented the king’s photograph, too. Don’t tell me you’re surprised. (Update See exactly how people dress for the occasion in this December 4, 2004 video.)

All of this was almost four years ago. You may be wondering now what has happened since, particularly with regard to the annual December 4 addresses. If so, you’re in luck. Here are the first two paragraphs of His Majesty’s 2002 speech:

ขอขอบใจท่านทั้งหลายที่ได้มาในโอกาสวันนี้ ซึ่งเป็นวันก่อนวันเกิด และขอขอบใจนายกฯ ที่ได้อวยพรในนามของท่านที่อยู่ในศาลานี้ และทั้งข้างนอก รวมทั้งคนที่อยู่นอกวังอยู่หนึ่ง นอกกรุง ให้พร ซึ่งก็เป็นสิ่งที่มีพลังเพราะว่า คนจำนวนมากมาให้พรก็น่าจะเป็นผลดี ก็ต้องขอบใจที่ได้กล่าวถึงกิจการที่ได้ทำมาตลอด มีสิ่งหนึ่งที่ท่านยังไม่ได้กล่าวถึงและก็เป็นสิ่งที่เป็นความเดือดร้อนของชาติบ้านเมือง มาเป็นเวลานานประมาณ ๕๐ ปี ซึ่งเป็นเรื่องของยาเสพติด ซึ่งยาเสพติดนั้นมีมาก่อนเป็นเวลานาน แต่เป็นยาเสพติดที่ไม่รุนแรงมากนัก คือ ที่เขาสู้กันเรื่องฝิ่น

ฝิ่นนั้นน่ะ จนกระทั่ง พูดถึงสงครามฝิ่น โดยเฉพาะในเมืองจีน สงครามฝิ่นนั้นน่ะ โดยมากคนนึกถึงว่า ชาวจีนสูบฝิ่น ซึ่งก็อาจจะเป็นจริง แต่สงครามฝิ่นนั้น มาจากฝรั่ง ฝรั่งเป็นผู้ก่อสงครามฝิ่น เพราะว่าอยากจะตีเมืองจีน และอยากจะครองเมืองจีน ครองโลก ฝิ่นนั้นก็นับว่าเป็นสงครามที่รุนแรงพอสมควร แต่ว่า เมื่อ ๕๐ ปีในเมืองไทย ฝิ่นก็ไม่ได้มีการบริโภคมากนัก และไม่มีการค้าขายมากนัก แต่เราเริ่มมีการค้าขายซึ่งที่เป็นมาจากฝิ่น โดยเฉพาะเฮโรอีน ซึ่งเมื่อหลายสิบปี ไม่ค่อยรู้จักเฮโรอีน เพิ่งทราบมาว่าตอนนั้นมันเริ่มโดยที่มีการใส่เฮโรอีนในน้ำหวาน หรือในกาแฟ คือกาแฟนี่ ถ้าใส่เฮโรอีนก็จะทำให้คนที่บริโภคมีความ มีอาการภาพหลอน และก็เป็นเหมือนกับเป็นบ้า แต่มีน้อย แล้วก็ได้ทราบว่า หลอกลวงคนที่ไม่รู้เรื่องให้ติดเฮโรอีน และเมื่อติดเฮโรอีนแล้วก็ขวนขวาย คนที่ได้บริโภคก็ขวนขวาย

Thank you all of you for coming today, which is [my] birthday’s eve. And thank you PM for wishing me well on behalf of all of you in this hall and outside, including those are outside the palace [and] outside the city. Wishing is a powerful thing because it should be a good thing that many people come to wish me well. Thank you for mentioning the projects that I’ve done. [But] there’s one thing that you haven’t mentioned and that has been the scourge of the country for fifty years. That is narcotics. Narcotics has existed for a long time, but [it] was the kind of narcotic that wasn’t very violent, that is what they fight about opium.

Opium… until… talking about the Opium War, especially in China. This Opium War, many people think the Chinese smoke opium, which is probably true. But the Opium War comes from the farangs [white people]. Farangs are the one who waged the Opium War because [they] wanted to invade China, to possess China, to possess the world. Opium was a rather violent war. But fifty years [ago] in Thailand opium was not very much consumed, not very much traded. But we started to trade opiates, especially heroin. Decades ago [I] didn’t know much about heroin. I’ve just realized that it started with adding heroin to soft drinks or to coffee. This coffee, with heroin added to it, will cause the consumer to hallucinate and become like a lunatic. But there were few [of what it is not clear –ed.. And [I] have learned that [they] tricked the ignorant to become addicted to heroin and once addicted to heroin, [they] had to struggle [to acquire heroin]. Those who had consumed had to struggle.

The king then went on at length about drugs and their social costs, at one point even blaming the “farangs” for creating the demand for narcotics.

Three months later, the ever popular war on drugs began. Well, popular with a majority of Thais, that is. Not so with the media and human rights groups, who complained about its high death toll. The official tally before the king’s speech was 2,245 drug-related killings in the three-month campaign, of which all but “a few dozens”, to quote the BBC report of the police’s account, were gangland killings committed by the traffickers themselves. The critics eagerly took the first number, but not the second. To their complaints, the king had this response in his 2003 birthday-eve speech:

ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก ๒,๕๐๐ คน ถ้านายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ นายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ ทุกปี ๆ จดไว้นะ มีมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คนที่ตาย ที่ตายทั้งคนที่เสพติด แล้วก็ขึ้นไป ฆ่าคน หรือทำอะไร เผาอะไรต่าง ๆ รวมทั้งเจ้าหน้าที่ที่ต้องไปปราบปกติ ก็ตายมากเหมือนกัน แต่ไม่พูดเท่านั้นเอง ไม่ไปนับ แต่นี้เขาก็นับไปชี้ ชี้ ชี้นับ พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ทำ ก็ตายเยอะเหมือนกัน ก่อนนี้ แต่ไม่พูดถึง เชื่อว่าพอๆ กับที่ได้จดว่า มีผู้ที่ตายในการสงครามต่อสู้ยาเสพติด ที่ทราบว่าคนตาย เพราะยาเสพติดนี่ มากมาย

เพราะว่า สังเกตดูตั้งปีที่แล้ว บอกว่า ๔๐ กว่าปี ต้อง ๔๐ กว่าปีแน่ เพราะว่าตอนนั้นอยู่ที่พระที่นั่งอัมพรฯ ก่อน ก่อนลูกองค์นี้ อย่างน้อยลูกเกิด คนเล็กนะยังไม่เกิด ลูกคนเล็กเกิดที่พระที่นั่งอัมพรฯ แล้ว เราถึงย้ายมาที่ตำหนักสวนจิตรฯ นี่ มียาเสพติดก่อนเขา วิธีที่จะทำ ปีที่แล้วมาเล่าให้ฟัง แต่ว่าอาจจะไม่ละเอียดพอ ไม่เข้าใจ ปีที่แล้วอธิบายว่า ทำไมนึกถึงเป็นสงคราม ไอ้คำว่า สงครามเอามาจากปากคนนี้ ว่าเป็นสงคราม เพราะว่า สงคราม ๒ อย่าง สงครามการเมือง และสงครามเศรษฐกิจ สงครามการเมืองเขาใช้ยาเสพติดนี้มาก สำหรับมาบ่อนทำลายประชากรไทย รวมทั้งประชากรของประเทศ

เขาก็ได้เป็นผลพลอยได้เท่านั้นเอง ที่เขาได้เงิน แต่ที่ได้คือ ทำลาย ทำลายประชากรให้เป็นคนติดยา เป็นคนที่เขาว่า ขี้ยา คนขี้ยาคิดอะไรไม่ออก บางคนนึกว่าใช้ยานี่ทำให้แข็งแรง ทำให้มีความคิดดี แต่แท้จริงไม่ คนที่กินนั่นนะ เสพยา ตอนนั้นเป็นเฮโรอีนนะ เขาใส่ในน้ำหวาน ใส่ในกาแฟ ใส่ในน้ำแล้วก็หลอกทั้งเด็ก ทั้งผู้ใหญ่ เมืองจีนเขาทำ แล้วก็ไม่ใช่คนจีนทำ เป็นฝรั่งทำ ที่นี่มีฝรั่งหรือเปล่า เดี๋ยวเขาโกรธเอา แต่ว่าเป็นความจริงว่า ฝรั่งเป็นคนใช้ยาเสพติด ทำลายเมืองจีน แต่ไม่สำเร็จ จนกระทั่งมีสงคราม เขาก็มีสงครามเหมือนกัน แต่ตายมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คน

แล้วที่บอก ๒,๕๐๐ คน นี่ก็ไม่เชื่อ มีมากกว่า ที่เขาตายแต่เราไม่รู้ แล้วก็พวกที่ทางเจ้าหน้าที่ได้สังหาร ไม่ใช่ ๒,๕๐๐ นี่เขาสังหารกันเอง แล้วนี่เราจะรับผิดชอบได้อย่างไร เขาด่าว่า นายกฯ ทำสงคราม ทำให้คนตาย ๒,๕๐๐ คน ความจริงไม่ใช่อย่างนั้น ๒,๕๐๐ คน มันหมดทั้งหมด เขานับแต่ว่า พวกที่ตายเป็นส่วนใหญ่ เป็นพวกที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ผลิต เขาฆ่ากันเอง จำนวนมาก ที่ทางราชการจะรับผิดชอบ ก็อาจจะมีจำนวนหนึ่ง ก็ลองถามทางผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ ไปแยก จำแนกเป็นเท่าไร ก็เชื่อว่าใน ๒,๕๐๐ นี่ มากที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง แล้วก็ความผิดของเขา มาโยนความผิดให้ท่านซูเปอร์นายกฯ

This victory of narcotics suppression… it’s good to suppress. What they criticize, saying, hey, as many as 2500 people died or whatever. That’s a trifle. 2500 people, if PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it. Jot it down every year that there are more then 2500 people who die, including those who got addicted and go kill people or do things, burn things et cetera, including officers who have to go suppress as they’re supposed to do who die in large numbers, too. But [they] don’t talk about them, don’t count them. Now they count, point, point and count the traders, the makers, who have died in large numbers, too. The past, they don’t talk about. [I] believe that, about as many as I’ve jotted down that people who died in the War on Drugs, which [I] know that people died because narcotics are numerous. [the last sentence’s loose construction is original–ed.]

Because [I]noticed last year, say 40 years, it must be over 40 years, because [I] was then at the Amphorn Villa, before this child, at least this she had been born, the youngest one hadn’t been born. My youngest child was born at the Amphorn Villa and only then did I move to the Chitralada Palace. There was narcotics before her. The way to do it, last year I have told you, but it may not have been detailed enough. Last year [I] explained why [I] thought of war. This word “war” came from this man. That it’s war. Because two kinds of war: political war and economic war. Political war they often use narcotics, to destroy the Thai population, including the country’s population.

What they got is only a by-product. They got money, but what they [mainly] got is to destroy, reduce the population to what they call “junkies”. Junkies can’t think. Some people think the drug makes them strong, makes them creative, but in fact that is not the case. Those who ate, who took drugs — it was heroin back then — they put in soft drinks, in coffee, in water and fool children and adults alike. In China they did it, and it wasn’t the Chinese who did it, but farangs [white people]. Are there any farangs here? They might get mad. But it’s true that farangs are the one who used drugs to destroy China, but they didn’t succeed. Until there was a war. They had a war, too. But more than 2500 people died.

And what talk about 2500 people, [I] don’t believe it. There are more than that, people who died but we don’t know. Those that officers killed are not 2500. That they killed one another. How can we take responsibility for that? They denounce PM for waging a war, for causing 2500 people to die. The truth isn’t so. 2500 is all of them. They only count… most of those who died, they killed one another. The traders, the makers, they killed one another in large numbers. Those that the authorities are responsible, there may be some. Try asking the commissioner-general of the Royal Thai Police to categorize them. [I] believe that this 2500 people, they mostly killed one another. It’s their fault, but they blame it on Super PM.

Unlike Time and the Far Eastern Economic Review, I’m not one to use royal pronouncements to make unanswerable arguments or to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is therefore not an argument about the War on Drugs. It is rather an exposé of the hypocrisy of those who hyped up the rather vague 2001 speech, which suited their agenda, and played down or distorted the much more explicit 2002 and 2003 ones, which didn’t. Those people are very loyal indeed to the king, so much so that they always have a ready explanation for an instancewhere the King appears to think differently they do. His Majesty cannot possibly disagree with them, you see, because he always thinks the right thoughts. With the king’s interest so much in their heart, one wonders if these royalists ever have time for their own.

So in this case, they could single out a tidbit like “Super PM” as a sure sign that the king was being sarcastic about the whole thing. Needless to say, that would be a very difficult argument to make considering all his talk about the drug menaces and the “farangs” in both the 2002 and 2003 speeches. Alternatively, they could focus on the few sentences in which the His Majesty seemed to be pressing for answers from the police and the government. Again, the full context seems to me one in which he was defending them and urging them to defend themselves better against criticisms (following the speech, the police revised down the drug-related toll to 1329, of which 72 were extra-judicial killings by the police). The Bangkok Post took the misleading-quote-out-of-context approach, which is falsely rumored to irk the premier so much he had the then Post editor Veera Prateepchaikul sacked. Ironically, The Nation, which is usually even more anti-government than the Post, played the story much more straight this time.

ROYAL MESSAGE: King wants drug toll explained

Monarch endorses anti-narcotics campaign but asks govt to clarify causes of the 2,500 deaths

His Majesty the King called on the government yesterday to provide a detailed accounting of the estimated 2,500 people who died in the “war on drugs”, saying the exact number of deaths should be ascertained and the circumstances surrounding the killings clarified.

“It is said the prime minister’s war on drugs killed about 2,500 people. That is not correct. Most of them were killed by their accomplices and others by the government crackdown,” the King said.

Sondhi Limthongkul

This illustrates the peril of using the king to make one’s arguments. His Majesty, an individual with a mind of his own, may not cooperate. When that happens, one can either subserviently eat crow, or hypocritically ignore him like Time, or fraudulently twist his words like the Bangkok Post. Here’s hoping Sondhi “We’ll fight for the king™” Limthongkul will face those choices sooner rather than later.

In the mean time, though, the narcissistic firebrand can be left to discredit himself. Like Matichon, he once condemned a tactic that he equated to the “Pridi killed the king” foul play mentioned earlier. However, whereas Matichon published its analysis in early 2002, which in Thai politics might as well have been in the past life, Sondhi’s Manager column titled “Democrats’ old karma of ‘rousing the sentiments’ against rivals!?” (“กรรมเก่าปชป.เคย ‘ปลุกกระแส’ ทำลายคู่แข่ง!?”) was published in February this year in response to the Democrats’ alleged use of a royal quotation in their general election campaign:

•• จริงอยู่ การเผยแพร่พระราชดำรัส นั้นแม้จะ ไม่ผิด แต่นี่เป็นประเด็นที่ ละเอียดอ่อน การกระทำที่มีแนวโน้มส่อไปในทาง เพื่อประโยชน์ในการต่อสู้ทางการเมือง นั้นจะผิดหรือไม่ผิดไม่สำคัญเท่ากับว่า ไม่เหมาะสม, ไม่สมควรกระทำ เป็น มุกเก่า, มุกเดิม ที่พูดตามตรงว่าฝ่ายตรงกันข้ามเขา จับทางได้แล้ว จึงไม่ยากที่เขาจะ ย้อนรอย เอาอย่าง เจ็บปวด เช่นครั้งนี้

•• เพราะก่อนหน้านี้ตั้งแต่ ปลายปี 2544 โดยเฉพาะช่วง ต้นปี 2545 บรรดาพันธมิตรปรปักษ์ทางการเมืองของ พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ที่รู้ตัวดีหากจะ โค่นล้ม คน ๆ นี้ลงได้ เร็ว, เบ็ดเสร็จ มีอยู่ทางเดียวเท่านั้นคือหันไปใช้ ยุทธการดั้งเดิม ที่เคยกระทำต่อ ท่านปรีดี พนมยงค์ เมื่อครั้ง ปี 2489 - 2490 ด้วยกระบวนการปล่อยข่าวแพร่ข่าวสร้างภาพให้คน ๆ นี้เป็น บุคคลผู้มักใหญ่ใฝ่สูงเกินศักดิ์ – เห่อเหิมไม่เจียมตน โดยพัฒนารูปแบบวิธีการขึ้นจากระดับ การตะโกนในโรงภาพยนตร์ มาเป็นการใช้ สื่อมวลชน รวมทั้ง สื่อมวลชนต่างประเทศ คำว่า “…ระวังจะไม่มีแผ่นดินอยู่.” นั้นออกจากปากหนึ่งในคนกลุ่มนี้ตั้งแต่ช่วง กุมภาพันธ์ - มีนาคม 2545 หลังจาก พลิกเกม จาก รับ ขึ้นมา ยัน ได้ในระดับหนึ่ง พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร บอกเล่าความในใจของเขาออกมาในการให้สัมภาษณ์ ไมเคิล วิติคิโอติส, รอดนีย์ ทาสเกอร์ แห่ง ฟาร์อีสเทิร์นอีคอนอมิกรีวิว ในบทความเรื่อง Prickly Premier ตีพิมพ์ในฉบับลง วันที่ 11 เมษายน ค.ศ. 2002 ประโยคตรงไปตรงมามีว่า “…มีบางคนพยายามทำให้ผมปะทะทางอุดม การณ์กับประชาชน โดยอาศัยสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ นั่นเลวร้ายอย่างมาก ผมทุ่มเททั้งหัวใจให้กับพระมหากษัตริย์และประเทศไทย พวกนั้นไม่สามารถโค่นผมโดยอาศัยระบบรัฐสภาได้ เพราะประชาชนให้ฉันทานุมัติผมมา และเพราะความเข้มแข็งในการเป็นผู้นำของผม.”

True, to propagate a royal speech is not wrong, but this is a sensitive issue. This act [by the Democrats] has an inclination to benefit their political fight. Whether wrong or not is not important, it is inappropriate, improper to do. [It] is an old trick, same old trick, that honestly speaking the other side has seen through. So it is not difficult for them to turn this painfully against [the Democrats].

Because previously, late 2001 and especially 2002, the alliance of Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra’s political enemies knew that the only way to topple this man quickly and utterly is to use the old campaign that was made against Mr. Pridi Phanomyong in the years 1946-1947, by propagating the image of this man as overly ambitious, vainglorious, with the method evolving from shouting in the movie theater to using the media, including the foreign media. The words “be careful of not having a state to live in [being forced into exile]” have been coming out of the mouths of this group of people since February – March 2002. After turning the game around from defense to neutrality, Pol. Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra speaks his mind in an interview with Michael Vatikiotis and Rodney Tasker of the Far Eastern Economic Review in the article “Prickly Premier” published in the April 11, 2002. The straightforward [relevant?] sentences are: “Someone is trying to make me clash ideologically with the people through the monarchy. That is very bad. I am wholeheartedly for the king and Thailand. They can’t topple me using the parliamentary system. They can’t do it, because of the people’s mandate and my strong leadership.”

[Translated by yours truly.]

The irony of it all. From what I hear about Mr. Sondhi’s wild accusations against the premier in his localized speeches (not all of which made it to his media mouthpieces), he is now going well beyond what he decried in the second paragraph. Here’s wondering when his karma will catch up with him.

Conclusion

As the Review episode was developing and the Bangkok Post and The Nation were busy engraving the hackneyed phrase “politically motivated” on it, I once expressed my frustrations to an American girl I had just met. (There was really no one to vent about this with in Shanghai, so she was as good as any.) She did not dispute my facts — after all, she only knew Thailand as a tourist — but she did object to my assertion that politics was not a factor in this case. By her definition, to ban someone for allegedly slandering someone else is in and of itself a political act, even if that someone else is supposed to be above politics like the king of Thailand. It might’ve been her American republicanism talking, but it was nonetheless hard to argue with.

I don’t know what the king would have made of her contention. I wouldn’t dare guess. However, he did say this in his 2003 birthday-eve speech:

พระมหากษัตริย์ เดือดร้อนเพราะว่า ใครตำหนิไม่ได้ เราไม่ได้บอกนะ ท่านที่เขียนรัฐธรรมนูญบอกว่า พระมหากษัตริย์ใครตำหนิไม่ได้ ใครละเมิดไม่ได้ ทำไมเขียนอย่างนั้น ไม่ทราบ

The King is troubled because nobody can criticize. I didn’t tell those who wrote the constitution that the king cannot be criticized or violated. Why wrote it that way, [I] don’t know.

The tradition is probably why. It is, as we’ve seen, a hypocritical tradition in which shady operators co-opt the name of the royal institution in order to advance their agendas. Unfortunately, it is also a tradition that has always been wholeheartedly adopted by Thailand-based correspondents, as we’ve seen as well. The Review article is an example of adopting too much of that tradition, not too little. Time was doing it just right.

Against this backdrop, it was all the more remarkable that The Economist’s Edward McBride came up with this perspective in the conclusion of his 2002 Thailand Survey:

Outsiders might squirm at the idea of a constitutional monarch chiding an elected prime minister. But Thais seem to think of the king as an arbiter of political propriety, not an offender against it. Indeed, their concern is that the king will not be able to play that part indefinitely. He is 74, and suffers from a variety of ailments. His son, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, is held in much less esteem. Bangkok gossips like to swap tales of his lurid personal life. One of his sisters, another possible heir to the throne, is more popular, but Thailand has never been ruled by a woman.

Besides, no successor, however worthy, can hope to equal the stature King Bhumibol has attained after 55 years on the throne. The monarch’s role is bound to diminish with his death. But that might not be such a bad thing: ideally, Thailand will develop a political system robust enough to regulate itself, without intervention from the monarch. The best legacy the king could bequeath his subjects is a state where everyone is subject to the law—including the king.

Sure enough, this, too, was banned. Or more precisely, the Economist’s Thai distributor (incidentally the Bangkok Post’s parent company) stopped that issue before it was formally banned, which it would have had to be. Alas, the irony of that was lost on most people, not least The Economist itself.

PS If you can read Thai, I wrote a quick, snarky post about Sondhi on my Thai blog: “กรรมใหม่ สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล !?”.

update See also: The king’s speech can do no wrong.

update II From one of my comments below:

Besides, the Watergate turned out to be true. Following all that controversy in early 2002, the king awarded Thaksin with a royal decoration (Chula Chom Klao, Second Class) in May that year. If that isn’t his way of quelling the rumor, what is?

16:35 ▪ media, politics

« Plus ça change? | Main | Why Sondhi turned against Thaksin »

1

poststaffer 23.11.05

Distribution of that edition of the Economist was ”blocked”, but the survey was posted on the magazine’s website, where people were free to read it, and still are, I suspect.

It is old news now, Tom, though I resist the temptation to say the same about your blog.

JW and I have left 26 posts on the Sonthi affair as it has unfolded over the last week, which raise questions about freedom of speech versus the government’s undoubted right to resist populist uprisings aimed at dislodging it from office. These seem to have passed you by, but never mind.

By the way, your link to the Economist is subscription-only. I could put the rest of the article here, but I suggest you change the link yourself if you want people to read it.

Welcome back.

2

JW 24.11.05

Tom

First, a criticism, I don’t get the exact point you are trying to make.* You do have headings, but I would suggest you need to signpost exactly what you are planning to talk about. I have read it twice now and am not sure I get your exact point.

I suggest you read up about Sarit and the use of the King as a form of political legitimacy. It was Sarit who started everything. After Sarit staged a coup in 1957, he used the King (and also Buddhism) as forms of legitimacy and justification for his rule.

I wrote a 5000 word paper 7 years ago on this. Same points

For a number of reasons by 1957, there had been a significant decline in the power of the King (due to the overthrow of absolute monarchy in 1932, then the King in 1933 abdicating and the new King being very young and dying in 1946. The present King came to the throne in 1946 but was also very young at the time. Political leaders at the time also paid little attention to the monarchy).

By 1954, the King’s power had declined so much that a survey showed that 61% of people living in rural areas were uncertain on the meaning of ‘monarchy’ (Source: Bowie , p87). At this time, it was also very common for villagers to have a photo of US President Eisenhower in their homes.

To provide legitimacy for his rule, Sarit reinstituted the First Ploughing Ceremony and revitalised the Royal Kathin Ceremony. Both ceremonies strongly feature the King and provided the people with a greater connection with the King.

At Sarit’s request, the King and Queen visited 23 different countries between 1959-1963 and upon their return from each country, Sarit arranged a ‘welcoming-home celebration’. Since the end of Sarit’s regime in 1963, the King and Queen have only been overseas a handful of times.

By 1963, Eisenhower’s photo had been replaced by the King’s photo.

It is somewhat ironic that Sarit used the King during his regime as a form of legitimacy to justify his rule, but because of this the King’s power and influence increased and it was the King who the key player in seeing Sarit’s successor Thanom resign in 1973.

*You have mentioned you are writing a book and want to use this website as a way to get feedback, otherwise I wouldn’t be so critical.

3

JW 24.11.05

Tom

In my blissfully innocent years, I’d have expected the international media not only to give this sort of claim a wide berth, but also to raise serious questions about the role of the monarchy in a democracy. I lost that innocence in January 2002, when the Far Eastern Economic Review published this piece of “intelligence”

How can the international media raise serious questions about the role of the monarchy in democracy, when to do so can result in the banning of your publication and your arrest? FEER dipped their toes in the water in 2002 and soon discovered that it was a very unwise move.

Disappointingly for them, that vile smear campaign didn’t come anywhere close to sinking the Thaksin government.

‘Vile smear campaign’. Sorry, Tom you have lost me here. You seem to ignore the possibility that the article might be true (or are you saying that Thaksin doesn’t/didn’t have business links with the Crown Prince?) and because you seemingly disagree with it, you call it a vile smear campaign. You complain that they are “unsubstantiated smears”, but how do you expect FEER to substantiate them - it would not be easy to go around Bangkok seeking confirmation, the topic is taboo. Should I ask for your evidence that the rumours are unsubtantiated?

The FEER’s source is wrong with the conclusion that Thaksin would fend off the monarchy, if anything it was after 4 Dec 2001 that Thaksin embraced the monarchy. Surely, you noticed the change.

Have you listened to the King’s Speech in 2001? For some unknown reason, I did watch it on TV and some parts of it were clearly aimed at Thaksin - you surely remember the introduction to the Thai lexicon of ‘double standard’. I specifically remember some camera focusing on Thaksin after this, who I believe was in the front row, and he looked very uncomfortable.

Yes, Time should have stated that the photos they are used were ‘file photos’, but Thaksin certainly had an uncomfortable look on his face during some parts of the speech. I know from another event with the Royal Family that news media couldn’t take their own photos, but all images would be supplied directly - I think someone from the Public Relations Department took the photos. So Time might not have been able to get access to the photos of the PM and the King that they wanted. Sure, that doesn’t excuse them from saying they were photos from file, but it is hardly the crime of the century.

As for those Thais who insist that the legal actions against the Review and its journalists were “politically motivated”, just ask them why we had never read such allegations even in the most anti-Thaksin local newspapers, and whether they themselves would be willing to state them publicly.

FEER learned their lesson, I don’t think the anti-Thaksin media would be that stupid to venture into such a sensitive topic.

You seem annoyed that there was little commentary of the 2002 and 2003 Royal Speeches, do you blame the media? How can they possibly offer any commentary on the speeches when their publications could be banned and people are threatened with jail? I don’t see how you can ignore this when talking about the lack of commentary particularly when it was after the 2001 speech, but before the 2002 speech that the FEER and The Economist publications were banned/withdrawn.

4

post staffer 24.11.05

It meanders, like the King’s own speeches. I did, however, like the ”find” from the Manager website in February, which criticises the Democrats for co-opting the monarchy in pursuit of their own political interests, and Thaksin complaining of the same.

As Tom says, this is hardly a new phenomenon, but Sonthi has taken it further than most.

I liked this part of the King’s 2003 birthday speech, and I recall the Post mentioned it at the time:

”The King is troubled because nobody can criticize. I didn’t tell those who wrote the constitution that the king cannot be criticized or violated. Why wrote it that way, [I] don’t know”

Alas, no one listens, because it’s in their interest to continue exploiting the monarchy to justify this or that foul cause of their own.

However, I think we can get a little carried away where we accuse the media of deliberately distorting what the King says to take a free serve at Thaksin.

Tom says the Bangkok Post ”took the misleading-quote-out-of-context approach”.

It was not a deliberate thing, I can assure you, but if you think you can summarise better what the King said that night, knock it out under deadline, and make it readable enough so people want to buy the paper the next day, then step up to the plate.

Judging by your efforts to get out posts on time, Tom, I fear you’d fail the deadline test…never mind the small matter of writing concisely and clearly.

As Tom seems to acknowledge at one point, the King’s birthday speeches can be fiendishly difficult to decipher. I am reading a book of his speeches at the moment. He appears to speak without notes, and meanders all over the place in them, too.

In any case it was not the story which upset Thaksin so (our account of what the King said), but the headline, which was written by a sub-editor.

Many of our stories are written by rewriters, who turn copy filed by reporters in Thai, into stories we can publish in English. They also write many stories from scratch themselves.

If I have a complaint with our re-writers, it is that they are often too pedantic or literal in their earnest efforts to get the story straight. A passage which is too literally translated can end up looking ridiculous, and no two translations will look the same anyway.

Some of the copy sent in by our reporters is wretched stuff, and it is the job of our re-writers to make sense of it. Far from throwing their hands up in disgust, these people - the workhorses of the paper, much more than the reporters - just get on with it.

Among the re-writers I have never detected political bias of the kind Tom appears to be insinuating, although I do have a problem with some of our reporters when they get too close to their sources.

However, where the King’s utterances are concerned, our people take particular pains to get it right. It’s one thing to get a flea in the ear from Thaksin, quite another to hear from the King”s office.

Sub-editors or anyone else in the newsroom who doubts the veracity of what he is reading is free to challenge a translation, and when I have done so in the past the re-writers have always made a convincing case.

We also have a Thai among the sub-editors on home news desk, so the place is not entirely at the mercy of bloody-minded westerners with an animus against Thaksin.

So, enough of the grizzling already. Too easy for someone who has never worked as a journalist, Tom, to carp and snipe.

PS I criticise Tom all the time, regardless of whether he is writing a book.

5

KCUS KCID 24.11.05

-Thai newspaper are as biased as it gets and therefore unreliable. I prefer to judge the government based on real facts such as GDP growth, business climate, human development index, etc. Although some of those measures can still be a bit biased due to dumb foreigners.

-And you guys are quoting newspapers like it’s a reliable source! What dumbasses! Thai newspaper only focuses on one perspective and that is the Democrat’s perspective.

-Freedom of press? I don’t give a fuck about freedom of press. Thai press is controlled by singapore. It should more correctly be called freedom of Singapore. Yeh I know that country is behind it.

6

Tom Vamvanij 24.11.05

JW:

You’re right. You still don’t get my points.

How can the international media raise serious questions about the role of the monarchy in democracy, when to do so can result in the banning of your publication and your arrest? FEER dipped their toes in the water in 2002 and soon discovered that it was a very unwise move.

FEER did not do that at all. It simply channeled a slanderous gossip. The Economist’s Edward McBride did, and I admire him for that even though his article was banned in Thailand, just as it pretty much had to be. By the way, I didn’t know that a threat of censorship or expulsion should prevent reputable international media organizations from doing their job. That would be good news indeed for the real tyrants of the world (as opposed to a fake one like Thaksin, who still gets slammed day in, day out).

‘Vile smear campaign’. Sorry, Tom you have lost me here. You seem to ignore the possibility that the article might be true (or are you saying that Thaksin doesn’t/didn’t have business links with the Crown Prince?) and because you seemingly disagree with it, you call it a vile smear campaign. You complain that they are “unsubstantiated smears”, but how do you expect FEER to substantiate them - it would not be easy to go around Bangkok seeking confirmation, the topic is taboo. Should I ask for your evidence that the rumours are unsubtantiated?

Your awkward rhetorical question is rebutted by the sentence before it. To substantiate means “establish by proof or competent evidence”. The FEER article didn’t do that, and indeed used the cop-out phrase “if the messages from some senior officials are to be believed”, so I properly call it “unsubstantiated”. Now you say it’s difficult for FEER to confirm the rumor, who says journalism is easy? Can you simply send things you can’t verify to print and still call yourself a jounalist. You lost me here.

You know very well that business links are the most benign aspect of the article. I’ve listed other allegations which I say to many people are beyond murder and rape. When one makes or channels such explosive charges with nothing to back them up, I call it a smear job.

The FEER’s source is wrong with the conclusion that Thaksin would fend off the monarchy, if anything it was after 4 Dec 2001 that Thaksin embraced the monarchy. Surely, you noticed the change.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.

Have you listened to the King’s Speech in 2001? For some unknown reason, I did watch it on TV and some parts of it were clearly aimed at Thaksin - you surely remember the introduction to the Thai lexicon of ‘double standard’. I specifically remember some camera focusing on Thaksin after this, who I believe was in the front row, and he looked very uncomfortable.

No, I haven’t, although I did read the entire transcript. I honestly don’t understand what exactly “double standard” refers to in that context. The king’s speech is often convoluted, and that passage is certainly one of the more convoluted ones. Putting words in people’s mouths is wrong to begin with, and is particularly fraught in case of the Thai king, who holds so much sway but rarely gets a chance to speak for himself and set the records straight. Each can have his own impression from the speech — the Economist’s characterization was much more restrained than Time and the Review, while my Cambridge-educated, Indepedent-reading sister said it was all a joke — but most authoritative voice in this is still the king’s own in the transcript. And to me, it is not nearly as dramatic as the Time’s coverage. To be generous, maybe the reporter was facing a dilemma: sensationalism or nothing at all.

Yes, Time should have stated that the photos they are used were ‘file photos’, but Thaksin certainly had an uncomfortable look on his face during some parts of the speech. I know from another event with the Royal Family that news media couldn’t take their own photos, but all images would be supplied directly - I think someone from the Public Relations Department took the photos. So Time might not have been able to get access to the photos of the PM and the King that they wanted. Sure, that doesn’t excuse them from saying they were photos from file, but it is hardly the crime of the century.

I didn’t call it the crime of the century. Still, very bad in my book. Note that this isn’t a gap-filling kind of photos that you usually see in the Economist, but is used as an integral part of the story.

As for those Thais who insist that the legal actions against the Review and its journalists were “politically motivated”, just ask them why we had never read such allegations even in the most anti-Thaksin local newspapers, and whether they themselves would be willing to state them publicly.

FEER learned their lesson, I don’t think the anti-Thaksin media would be that stupid to venture into such a sensitive topic.

Are you endorsing or refuting me? What the FEER published is illegal under Thai law. You could replace Thaksin with Chuan in the article and it would still be illegal.

You seem annoyed that there was little commentary of the 2002 and 2003 Royal Speeches, do you blame the media? How can they possibly offer any commentary on the speeches when their publications could be banned and people are threatened with jail? I don’t see how you can ignore this when talking about the lack of commentary particularly when it was after the 2001 speech, but before the 2002 speech that the FEER and The Economist publications were banned/withdrawn.

I was saying that, as far as I know, there’s been no report in the international media of the 2002 and 2003 speeches, even though they were highly relevant to the much reported War on Drugs. It may not be a good idea to comment negatively on a royal speech (positive comments are okay, I think), but it is always allowed, even encouraged, to report. The Time article I talked about is a report and its anti-Thaksin angle didn’t give it any troubles. The local media has always reported every single speech, before and after 2002, though not always accurately.

Now if the international media were to stop talking about the Thai monarchy in a political context altogether following 2002 censorship, that’s totally fine by me. I don’t think that’s their reason for never even mentioning those two speeches, though.

7

JW 24.11.05

Tom

I agree with your point about Sondhi.

I am really not sure what to make of Sondhi, the only time I thought he was actually onto something was with the flight to Chiang Mai turned out to be much ado about nothing.

I really don’t understand the long-term benefit of Sondhi trying to link his ‘cause’/’movement’ with the King. At some point, it will blow up in his face,* but I doubt he has thought that far ahead. Does anyone know what has turned Sondhi against Thaksin? It would be helpful to figure out what turned him against Thaksin. He seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder.

*Sondhi’s repeated outbursts are not likely to go unnoticed by the Royal Household. A slight rebuke could destroy him.

Post Staffer: I was busy yesterday and forgot to say thanks for the links in your last post on the previous thread.

8

post staffer 24.11.05

Great pics on the Manager website (see link below) of fisticuffs and feet flying, as pro-Sonthi and anti-Sonthi ”forces” meet, while Sonthi himself takes sanctuary at the temple of Thaksin critic หลวงตาบัว.

The other day I managed to get a copy of the first Thailand Weekly tabloid, which sold out virtually the same day it came out.

Goes for 10 baht, but a friend who runs a newspaper stand and is appalled by Sonthi gave me one free, in the hope I would write something scathing.

It contains many stories that the Manager ran on its website the same morning. Speaking as a journalist, it’s well laid out, looks great. Runs to 16 pages, lavish pics. Not the typical flysheet put out by a religious fanatic or crusading Hitler type, but a professional publication, like - ahem - the Manager itself.

Contains a pic of Sonthi and his co-host Sarocha standing amid a huge congregation of monks (the 600 monks who paid him a visit the same day), like tourists amid a field of daisies..except I could think of less flattering terms to describe the scene.

Also many pics from the latest show at Lumphini Park. Speaking of which, at the Manager website you can watch a 10-minute video clip of people arriving at the show. Great, sweeping overhead shots of the crowded rainy night scene beneath King Rama the VI’s statue and shaky close-ups of the Man Of The Hour himself, as he struggles to the stage through his sea of yellow worshippers.

Take a look at the effort that goes into organising that show (security, sound system, video screens, those big towering rigs that cameras are perched on, seating) and ask yourself how much he must be investing in his roadshow.

It’s worth a look, if only to get a feel for atmosphere (crowded, claustrophobic, and scary). Click on the icon right under the pic at the top of the page, called ภาพการเคลื่อนขบวน.

Back page of the tabloid contains a pic of Sonthi’s ‘movement’ (his supporters, whom a huge headline describes as innocents).

Not so innocent perhaps, if they are beating people up.

Earlier, the BangkokBiz site carried a pic of three guys Sonthi sent to court on his behalf today, posing proudly on the court steps. What an odd looking bunch.

Here are a few links on the fracas, today’s court ”action”, and the monk giving shelter to Sonthi.

ลิ่วล้อสุดเถื่อน! ทุบศิษย์หลวงตาบัว ขณะปลดป้ายด่า “สนธิ

http://www.manager.co.th/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000162421

อุดรฯป่วน!กลุ่มต้าน-หนุน’สนธิ’หวิดปะทะกลางเมือง

http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2005/11/24/w001l1_55154.php?news_id=55154

ศาลยโสธรยกคำร้อง ออกหมายจับ ‘สนธิ -สโรชา’
http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2005/11/24/w001l2_55129.php?news_id=55129

“หลวงตามหาบัว” ไม่ยอมให้ ตร.จับ “สนธิ” ขวางรัฐบาลป่าเถื่อน
http://www.manager.co.th/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000162354

9

Tom Vamvanij 24.11.05

Post Staffer:

It is old news now, Tom, though I resist the temptation to say the same about your blog.

Old news, yes, but when was the misinformation and misperception ever corrected? My two American friends were applying for visas at the Myanmar embassy about two weeks ago when an unsolicited expat recycled the content of the FEER piece to them. His new twist: without the king, Thaksin would go all out and be absolutely anti-West. (If you don’t find this ironic, reread the original post.)

I don’t break news here; I pick up the pieces. You have your favorite website already for “news as it happens” and up-to-the-minute heckles.

It was not a deliberate thing, I can assure you, but if you think you can summarise better what the King said that night, knock it out under deadline, and make it readable enough so people want to buy the paper the next day, then step up to the plate.

The Nation did that (see above). And it’s not even the best possible job. Why don’t you dig the article up from the archive and let people judge for themselves?

We also have a Thai among the sub-editors on home news desk, so the place is not entirely at the mercy of bloody-minded westerners with an animus against Thaksin.

That’s offensive. Anyone familiar with this blog knows that I never entertain your straw-man premise about “westerners”. (Go ahead, search the site for the word.) The fiercest (and looniest) Thaksin critics are Thai, a fact that the international media doesn’t appreciate enough (see my correction of the Economist in the postscript of this post). Your Thai sub-editor could be as anti-Thaksin as Sanitsuda or Thirasant Mann for all I know. Or he or she may not. The Bangkok Post is still biased against this government.

10

post staffer 24.11.05

From Tom:

I don’t break news here; I pick up the pieces. You have your favorite website already for “news as it happens” and up-to-the-minute heckles.”

—Haven’t been there for ages, Tom, though I noticed you survived the bullying onslaught of the ignorant westerners who visit that site (thaivisa.com) a mere few days…was it even that long?

These days your blog has my full and undivided attention, Tom. Aren’t you lucky? I don’t share my talents with anyone else.

I have noticed before that you seem to
view with scorn anyone who attempts to analyse news ”as it happens”. Well, that’s a journalist’s job, my friend, the same bunch you are so keen to take apart on this website day after day (oops…your posts are not nearly as frequent as that).

For you, Tom, it seems any news that’s happening today, this week or perhaps even this month is way too current (plebeian?) to venture an opinion.
I recall your shocking silence during Grammy’s attempted takeover of Matichon and the Bangkok Post. You broke cover only after the thing had fizzled out. I was tearing my hair out waiting to hear your views.

Then, this week, as JW and I were wondering if perhaps you had not gone on another sortie to China or a peregrination to Paris, so silent were you on the dramatic and unfolding Sonthi versus Thaksin clash, with all its thrilling undertones of army coups and violence in the streets, it turns out you were actually here with us all along - helpfully translating plodding speeches the King made years ago and may have long forgotten himself.

More of Tom:

That’s offensive. Anyone familiar with this blog knows that I never entertain your straw-man premise about “westerners”.

—Now, now. No offence was intended. I don’t mind if a Thai has a go at farang; I am always criticising them myself, especially the dreadful flotsam (sorry, JW) that seems to end up on these shores.

I can understand how you might be upset, however, if you are the kind of Thai who is more westerner than he is Thai….the references to your various farang friends, and your favourite western-Thai style eating places, might be telling.

We travel in opposite directions. In my five years here I have made virtually no farang friends. I see no one from work, and can think of only one westerner I know outside work - a woman who speaks six, seven languages (including perfect French and English, Tom - annoying, non?)

That’s because I came here to learn a culture and a new language, and I won’t get that from westerners who live their lives here as if they have never really left home.

Tom, yet again:

Your Thai sub-editor could be as anti-Thaksin as Sanitsuda or Thirasant Mann for all I know. Or he or she may not.

—He’s a fan, I suspect, as am I. But I don’t care whether a journalist is for or against Thaksin. The issue is whether journalists allow bias or prejudice to turn up in print.

The Post has every right to take a stand against Thaksin; but whether it is overtly, consistently and deliberately biased is another matter entirely, and as far as I am concerned you have yet to prove your case.

11

post staffer 24.11.05

To KUS KCID (sounds like the name of communist special police):

”Thai newspaper only focuses on one perspective and that is the Democrat’s perspective”

Yep. That’s it. Before the Post employed me they gave me a sneaky little test to find out my political views.

First question: Do you love Singapore? Yes, I said, especially the huge airport (helps me get out of there faster).

Next question: Will you vote Democrats? Yes again, so I was in like a shoehorn.

12

post staffer 24.11.05

Here’s more of that scary breaking news stuff, Tom. Feel free to keep your silence, if you like…

Government downplaying news reports that talk of a populist uprising and attempts to throw it out of office are scaring the share market:

วันนี้ ( 24 พ.ย.) นายสุรนันทน์ เวชชาชีวะ รัฐมนตรีประจำสำนักนายกรัฐมนตรี และกรรมการบริหารพรรคไทยรักไทย กล่าวถึงกรณีกระแสข่าวการปฏิวัติรัฐประหาร จนส่งผลทำให้นักลงทุนเกิดความหวั่นไหวและเทขายหุ้นในตลาดหลักทรัพย์ ว่า เรื่องของการปฏิวัติในวันนี้เป็นข่าวที่พูดกันไปเอง และไม่เชื่อว่ามีคนอยากจะเปลี่ยนแปลงนอกระบบ ไม่เชื่อว่า ทหาร รัฐบาล นักการเมือง แม้ผู้ที่ไปฟังการอภิปรายที่ต่างๆ ต้องการให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงนอกระบบ และวันนี้พวกเราต้องช่วยกันรักษาระบบนี้ไว้ และรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับนี้ประชาชนช่วยกันร่างขึ้นมา

“สุรนันทน์” วอนเคารพกติกาชี้ “ทักษิณ” ฟ้อง “สนธิ” 2 พัน ล.ป้องสิทธิ

http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000162497

While Thaksin decides that Sonthi’s comments about his sister and the air force C-130 were defamatory after all (after his lawyer initially said they posed no problems).

He now wants B2 billion baht. Those damages seem to be going up by a billion a day at present. Latest case is filed in criminal court only:

Thaksin files fourth suit against Sondhi, Sarosha

Citing comments made about his sister, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra yesterday filed his fourth libel lawsuit in two months against Sondhi Limthongkul and Sarosha Pornudomsak, outspoken hosts of the contentious talk show Thailand This Week.

Thaksin’s lawyers yesterday insisted the lawsuits, which seek a total of two billion baht in compensatory damages, are not intended to intimidate the media but only to protect their client’s reputation.

http://www.manager.co.th/IHT/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9480000162513

13

Tom Vamvanij 24.11.05

Post staffer:

Haven’t been there for ages, Tom, though I noticed you survived the bullying onslaught of the ignorant westerners who visit that site (thaivisa.com) a mere few days…was it even that long?

It should’ve been very clear to anyone who’s so much as glanced at your recent comments which site I was referring to. Yet it wasn’t to you. No wonder we sometimes have communication problems.

I wasn’t bullied at Thaivisa.com. I was ignored, which might not have been a bad thing all told.

I can understand how you might be upset, however, if you are the kind of Thai who is more westerner than he is Thai….the references to your various farang friends, and your favourite western-Thai style eating places, might be telling.

I was offended because I know countless Thais who like to babble on about “western” this and that who are racist or otherwise bigoted. Sondhi Limthongkul and Thirayuth Boonmi, both of whom see Russia as part of the West, are chief among them. Does my sensitivity make sense now?

My friends who went to the Myanmar embassy are proud Chinese-Americans and therefore not farangs. I added the adjective “American” when I first mentioned them because it would’ve been weird for the expat to strike up that conversation with stranger Thais.

14

JW 24.11.05

By the way, I didn’t know that a threat of censorship or expulsion should prevent reputable international media organizations from doing their job.

Well, in the ideal world, it would be nice that journalists weren’t worried about such threats, but in the real world, you have to worry about such threats. In this case, if they ceased reporting about the Royal Family, they can still report on political matters, it is small sacrifice which I think they decided is worth paying. Otherwise, they lose the ability to have reporters based in Thailand and can’t sell their publication in Thailand.

Now you say it’s difficult for FEER to confirm the rumor, who says journalism is easy? Can you simply send things you can’t verify to print and still call yourself a jounalist. You lost me here.

Well, by your standards, there would have be no Watergate. Many articles in the media are published with anonymous sources. If your source is trustworthy enough, you report.

The FEER article didn’t do that, and indeed used the cop-out phrase “if the messages from some senior officials are to be believed”, so I properly call it “unsubstantiated”.

Surely, that is qualifying the statements they are making, isn’t that just being prudent? I note no such qualifications from Gen Thammarak (see below).

I’ve listed other allegations which I say to many people are beyond murder and rape.

Who are these ‘many people’ you keep talking about? Isn’t this some of the “weasel construction” of words you don’t like? You can’t have it both ways.

When one makes or channels such explosive charges with nothing to back them up, I call it a smear job.

So when the Defense Minister Thammarak Isarangura Ayudhaya alleged that Muslim insurgents from southern Thailand have been plotting attacks during meetings on the Malaysian resort island of Langkawi. When asked by Malaysia for evidence, Thai governments officials conceded that he had no evidence to substantiate the reports as requested.

Since you have resorted dictionary definitions, so will I. Vile means ‘Loathsome; disgusting’, or ‘Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked’. So what is really ‘vile’?

Was this a vile smear campaign perpetrated by TRT?

Are you endorsing or refuting me?

Probably, leaning more towards refuting you. Just because the anti-Thaksin media haven’t published such allegations, doesn’t mean they are true, but of course it doesn’t mean they are true. You offer as evidence that if it was somehow true, why haven’t the anti-Thaksin media published the allegations, maybe they don’t want to go to jail? Because of the taboo nature of the subject they won’t publish anything like this even if they were able to substantiate it. Even reporting facts about the Crown Prince makes you nervous so what is a journalist who is more easily identifiable meant to think and do.

It may not be a good idea to comment negatively on a royal speech (positive comments are okay, I think), but it is always allowed, even encouraged, to report.

They could simply translate the speech and print it verbatim that is just reporting, but basically they are reduced to offering no commentary at all.

15

poststaffer 24.11.05

From Tom:

It should’ve been very clear to anyone who’s so much as glanced at your recent comments which site I was referring to. Yet it wasn’t to you. No wonder we sometimes have communication problems.

—Indeed, Tom, we do. The ”heckling” bit threw me off, probably because I rarely bother to read the rubbish that readers post under stories at the Manager site (which I gather is the site you actually meant). Heckling, though, is staple fare at that other website, which is so lame I don’t want to mention its name again.

I do try taking news from other sources, really I do (Krungthep Thurakit, Matichon, Kom Chad Leuk, Modern 9), but they are so slow, and some make no pretence at all about being impartial, which for the discriminating reader is no fun.

I don’t bother with the Nation, unless someone points me to something, because it’s such a slanted, painful and poorly-written rag; and as for my own paper, well…

More of Tom:

I was offended because I know countless Thais who like to babble on about “western” this and that who are racist or otherwise bigoted

—I have noticed your stand against such bigotry before, and admire it. I have not encountered such racism myself, except in the utterances of public figures such as your beloved Thaksin, firebrand Sonthi, and faux academic Boonmi.

However, where politicians are concerned, hating the West appears to be one of those push-button issues - designed to elicit an immediate frisson of nervous excitement, a clamour of applause, a sweaty ”hurrah” from the rear…one of those trigger words that politicians like to put in their speeches to fire up an audience.

As for the King, I have been reading a speech he gave to Thammasat University students in 1969, talking about the country’s new constitution, newly elected government, student protests and the need for everyone to compromise and work together.

In light of Sonthi wants to achieve (overthrowing the government), it makes topical reading. If I have the energy tomorrow I might type it out (no thai keyboard here at work)…but only if I am not gripped by a wave of Tom-style inertia first.

That’s not meant to be offensive either, Tom. Reading your King’s speech made me feel strangely at peace. I have been reading too much of this acrimonious political BS on the Manager website lately, and it is starting to stress me out.

The King is the nearest thing to divinity on two legs that I know (apart from Queen Elizabeth II, of course). Despite deriding Tom’s efforts to translate his speeches, I do think what the monarch says is worth reading, especially when his words are put in an historical context, which JW helpfully provided above.

If only that ratbag Sonthi would heed the King’s advice, too. But then compromise is not part of his game, as he is not building anything nor trying to improve it (where the need for compromise often arises), merely trying to topple a government.

16

poststaffer 24.11.05

Oops. Make that Thirayuth, not Boonmi. And who called me a sub?

17

Tom Vamvanij 24.11.05

JW:

Well, by your standards, there would have be no Watergate. Many articles in the media are published with anonymous sources. If your source is trustworthy enough, you report.

From what little I know about the Watergate scandal, Woodward and Bernstein did most of the investigation on their own, with Deep Throat only pointing them in the right direction (“follow the money” and whatnot). At stake was an alleged serious crime by the office of the presidency, and they were up to it. They didn’t come up with a one-paragraph rumor about who irritates whom. There’s just no comparing the two.

Besides, the Watergate turned out to be true. Following all that controversy in early 2002, the king awarded Thaksin with a royal decoration (Chula Chom Klao, Second Class) in May that year. If that isn’t his way of quelling the rumor, what is? (That fact was pointed out to a member of my immediate family by a Privy Councillor, who may well be more senior than the FEER source.)

Probably, leaning more towards refuting you. Just because the anti-Thaksin media haven’t published such allegations, doesn’t mean they are true, but of course it doesn’t mean they are true. You offer as evidence that if it was somehow true, why haven’t the anti-Thaksin media published the allegations, maybe they don’t want to go to jail?

I did not make that argument, which would’ve been puerile. Instead, I was trying to get across…

Because of the taboo nature of the subject they won’t publish anything like this even if they were able to substantiate it. Even reporting facts about the Crown Prince makes you nervous so what is a journalist who is more easily identifiable meant to think and do.

Exactly. Taboo. The censorship of a taboo article does not need to be “politically motivated”, as claimed by the critics. Like I said before, the article would’ve had to be banned even if it’d said Chuan instead of Thaksin.

Who are these ‘many people’ you keep talking about? Isn’t this some of the “weasel construction” of words you don’t like? You can’t have it both ways.

I said that once in the original post, and only because I disagree with the sentiments I was describing. It’s not weasel construction. I don’t think the assertion is at all controversial, especially to someone who knows Thailand as much as you do. But if you disagree with it, then I’m not going do a survey to convince you.

This is the last time I’m posting on this tread. Have fun, people.

18

post staffer 26.11.05

Visited the world of blogs tonight. Haven’t been to blog land in a long time. But for Tom’s blog, I have tended to avoid them, and even recall dismissing them in a past post. Well, I’ve changed my mind!

I stumbled upon a blog by a Zealander which opened my eyes to changes in the media, to the way journalists think and do their job.

NZ was such a small, narrow place when I left it a mere five years ago. The information revolution seems to have made it bigger, or at least more sophisticated, so much so that I fear it would swallow me up if I went back.

Alternative media is making a big impact, and it is a credit to traditional media that it is able to adapt and embrace blogging, student radio, political interest-group weblogs, media analysts, political newsletters, journalist and politician bloggers, and the rest of the smart society babble.

Most of that was not around when I was there, or has taken on new forms - as part of the information revolution, to put it in fancy language. Part of the way we are, to put it more plainly.

The chatter is much better informed. Now, almost every media outlet, TV and radio included, individual journalists and even staff working for MPs have their own blogs or websites.

The political and media blogs I found tonight are streaks ahead of the rubbish I read here, though where Thai blogs are concerned I might be looking in the wrong places. Most blogs I bump into here are penned by teenagers who want to talk about their cellphone, dog, or show off their latest pair of Levi jeans.

Here’s an entertaining look at the strange ways the world of blogs and traditional media interact, taken from Russell Brown’s blog, the one I found tonight.

A right-wing columnist for my old newspaper, the Press in Christchurch, is caught plagiarising the views of her father (yes, really), who ran a right-wing think tank – the Maxim Institute, which espouses Christian and family values.

The editor writes a memo to staff, explaining why he is about to stop running her column – which someone then leaks to Brown’s blog.

Brown publishes the memo, and mainstream media pick up the story. Another think tank which delights in exposing the hypocrisy of right-wing groups – the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists -
then runs a terrific demolition job of this woman and her father.

Her father? Fantastic as it may seem, the girl’s father, Bruce Logan, whom I dimly remember, is himself caught out plagiarising stuff, though he looked to overseas writers for his inspiration.

He makes an apology, which the Press publishes…and so on it goes, round and round in circles. It’s the way the media works these days, and perhaps always did, though the circles seem bigger than they did in the past.

Here’s a chioce excerpt from the right-wing knockers mentioned above, who penned this expert hatchet job on poor Bruce Logan:

**

An interesting fact revealed last week is that Bruce Logan, Director of the Maxim Institute, has a secret daughter. More interesting still is that she is none other than Alexis Stuart, housewife superstar and columnist for the Press in Christchurch. We learned this because Ms Stuart has just lost her job: a reader of the Press noted a striking similarity between her latest article and one of Mr Logan’s, that had been published in the Northland Age on 8th September. The Press took this revelation seriously and dumped her. It transpired that the two authors are daughter and father, a relationship previously known to the publishers of the Press but not to the public. It also transpires that so close are this pair they that they use each other’s words.

**

Here’s more:

**

I have done a little accurate and timely research (to use a Maxim maxim) and it turns out that this is not the first time that Ms Stuart has been a little free with the cut and paste. On 9th August the Press published a rant by Ms Stuart called Islam’s threat to democracy, which includes this paragraph:

-Some Muslim countries have religious rulers, others have nationalist and secular rulers, but all (with the possible exceptions of Turkey and Malaysia) are despotisms, in which the rule of law is a matter to be negotiated. Everywhere the secret police and the military are an ominous presence.

Compare and contrast that, gentle reader, with the following, which is taken from the foreword by David Pryce-Jones to Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, published in 2002:

-Some Muslim countries have religious rulers, others have nationalist and secular rulers, but all (with the doubtful exception of Turkey) are despotisms, in which the rule of law is a matter to be negotiated. Everywhere the secret police and the military are an ominous presence.

An uncanny resemblance do you not think? Perhaps Ms Stuart sent her article to Mr Pryce-Jones for advice.

http://www.nzarh.org.nz/fundy/thepost018.htm

**

Now, there was nothing like that on internet in NZ when I left those fair shores. Only newspapers, books or magazines ran critical commentary as good as that.

Here’s a great link, about an Irish TV journalist’s interview with George Bush, which I also found on Russell Brown’s blog:

**

I wanted to slap him

George W Bush was so upset by Carole Coleman’s White House interview that an official complaint was lodged with the Irish embassy. The RTE journalist explains why the president made her blood boil

With just minutes to go to my interview with George W Bush, I was escorted to the White House library, where a staff member gave instructions on how to greet the president: ‘He’ll be coming in the door behind you, just stand up, turn around and extend your hand.’

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2766-1817008,00.html

**

Finally, I urge you take a look at the blogger Russell Brown himself. Here he is on the row over whether BBC really meant to banish the word ‘terrorist’ from its coverage of the Tube blasts.

http://publicaddress.net/hardnews

19

post staffer 26.11.05

Here’s an interesting and troubling story from the Post. Troubling, because in part it looks like incitement, even if it is a pale shadow of the treasonous nonsense the Nation has been running lately.

However, interesting also, for what it says about popular movements, why Sondhi is able to draw so many unhappy souls to his show every week (a desire for greater transparency, apparently), and what the government should do about it.

POLITICS / SONDHI’S SHOW

Feud ‘could lead to a showdown’

TUL PINKAEW

Manager Daily founder Sondhi Limthongkul’s ability to draw crowds by exposing alleged government cover-ups and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s persistence in “making a big deal of it” could eventually lead to an uprising and bring an end to the Thai Rak Thai government, said political analysts.

The Manager website _ www.manager.co.th _ ran a message throughout the day yesterday urging people to fight for the freedom to information and warning that it would be their loss if they gave in.

The animated message compared the current need to struggle to that of those who fought for democracy during the Oct 1973 and May 1992 uprisings against military rule.

“It is a phenomenon, no one can deny that, and it might also lead to a public uprising against the government. But it is only in its initial stages,” said Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, a lecturer at the National Institute of Development Administration.

Mr Sombat, a former student leader during the Oct 14, 1973 uprising, said three groups of people have been drawn to the Sondhi bandwagon. The first were Mr Thaksin’s regular critics, second were those who were appalled by the government’s gag on the media, and the third group wanted to know what was going on.

Mr Sombat said when the three groups come together, it becomes a new type of uprising, “something you might call an `information revolution’, in which the public want access to the truth at all costs, and it is alarming for the government”.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a Thammasat University law lecturer, said the middle class-led revolt in 1992 and that of 1973 were to regain democracy taken away by a military dictatorship, but in the present atmosphere of democratic rule the goal is transparency.

Mr Prinya, a former student leader during the May 1992 uprising, said the public has become tired of the government, during its two terms in office, deploying non-transparent decision-making processes that fostered abuses of power, and wanted to know what was behind the scene.

“What was the same with the two incidents is that media freedom was taken away, and if there is no press freedom then there is also no democracy, whichever way you look at it,” said Mr Prinya.

However, he said the government still had time to make things right if it was willing to drop all the lawsuits filed against Mr Sondhi and allow the free flow of information, but what it was doing now was just adding fuel to the fire.

Mr Sombat said Mr Sondhi’s weekly programme also enjoyed an advantage over a normal rally where leaders have to carry on for hours on end, day after day.

“Mr Sondhi has time to prepare his material and come up with even more information,” he said.

“The public don’t even care about Mr Sondhi’s `shady’ background and how he was formerly one of Prime Minister Thaksin’s closest allies, the people are just looking for a leader,” said Mr Sombat.

Mr Sombat said the Manager owner is presently commanding the crowd. “But when the crowd gets bigger and controls Mr Sondhi and wants him to be the leader, then we could have a public uprising on our hands.”

Somkiat Pongpaiboon, an academic at Rajabhat University in Nakhon Ratchasima, said the phenomenon was just starting.

If it was to succeed, the masses must come to a common conclusion and aim for one goal as a whole, he said.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/26Nov2005_news10.php

Now, here’s that excerpt from the King’s 1969 speech I mentioned above. He was talking here to Thammasat students shortly after an election and new constitution were draw up. I would not like to have been here during those times: so many governments, coups and protests over a mere few decades. I wonder if people could even remember what political stability meant.

รัฐธรรมนูญ เรามีตั้งแต่ปีที่แล้ว แล้วยังมีการเลือกตั้งที่ผ่านแล้ว และจวนจะมีรัฐบาลใหม่แล้วด้วย จะเป็นรัฐบาลใหม่เก่า เก่าใหม่ก็ไม่ทราบ (เสียงปรบมือ) แต่อย่างไรเราก็ต้องมี เป็นอย่างไรๆเราก็ต้องนึกว่าจะมีรัฐบาลอย่างไร ก็รู้สึกว่าก็ต้องเป็นของธรรมดา หลังจากมีรัฐบาลก็จะขาดอีกอย่างหนึ่งคือการยึดอำนาจ แต่ว่ามานึกดูดีๆการยึดอำนาจหรือการปฏิวัติการอะไรก็ตามนี้ จะมีความจำเป็นหรือเปล่า หรือเราจะทำอย่างไรที่จะปฏิบัติการเพื่อให้ได้ผลดีตามที่เราต้องการทุกคน ก็เข้าใจว่าไม่จำเป็นที่จะปฏิวัติกัน เพราะว่าถ้าทุกคนช่วยกันอย่างที่ทุกคนได้ช่วยกันในการเลือกตั้งแล้ว ก็เชื่อว่าต้องมีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในทางที่ดีอย่างค่อยเป็นค่อยไปโดยที่ถ้าเราทุกคนร่วมแรงกันก็ต้องเกิดผลแน่
พูดถึงผลของการเลือกตั้ง ก็พูดได้ว่าได้ผลพอสมควร คำว่า พอสมนี้อาจอยากจะหัวร่อ แต่ก็อย่าเพิ่งหัวเราะมากเกินไป เพราะว่าคำว่าพอสมควรนี้ เป็นคำที่สำคัญที่สุดแล้วก็อาจเป็นใจกลางของการปฏิบัติทุกอย่าง แต่อาจดูคล้ายว่า เป็นคำที่แสดงความเฉื่อยไปบ้าง ที่คิดคำนี้ เพราะว่ามีอาจารย์คนหนึ่งที่มีผู้คนนับถือพอสมควร ได้เคยมาพูดมาบอกว่ากลุ้มใจเต็มทน ที่ไปพูดกับนักศึกษาว่าควรจะทำอย่างนั้นๆ ไม่ควรจะเดินขบวนแล้วต่อไปก็เรียบร้อยไป การพูดอย่างนี้ก็เชื่อว่าจะไม่เป็นผลดีประเดี๋ยวนิสิต นักศึกษาทั้งหลายใครต่อใครเกิดเดินขบวนกันกันขึ้นมา ก็ไม่มีทางที่จะทำให้เขาไม่เดิน ก็อาจจริง แต่ว่าขอให้สงสารอาจารย์ผู้นั้นที่กลุ้มใจเต็มทนจนกระทั่งต้องเข้าโรงพยาบาล สงสัยว่าจะเป็นโรคเส้นประสาทด้วยเพราะว่ามีความกลุ้มใจหลายอย่าง ขอให้ช่วยจิตใจอาจารย์ผู้นั้นด้วย ด้วยการเข้าใจคำว่าพอสมควร คำว่าพอสมควรนั้นเป็นหัวใจของประชาธิปไตย เพราะว่าการเลือกตั้งก็ตาม หรือการถกเถียงอะไรทุกสิ่งทุกอย่างก็ตามต้องได้ผลพอสมควรทั้งนั้น ถ้าไม่ได้ผลพอสมควรได้ผลร้อยเปอร์เซ็นต์ เชื่อได้ว่ามีพลร่ม เชื่อได้ว่าทุจริต เชื่อได้ว่าไม่ใช่ประชาธิปไตย เพราะทุกคนมีผลประโยชน์ มีความต้องการแตกต่างกัน ก็แล้วก็มีผลพอสมควร หมายความว่าเป็นที่พอใจของแต่ละคนพอสมควร จึงจะมีความเรียบร้อย มีความสงบ ถ้าแต่ละคนเห็นแก่ตัวมีแต่จะเอาผลเต็มที่สำหรับตัว เชื่อว่าอีกคนหนึ่งเขาก็จะเดือดร้อน ประชาธิปไตยหรือความเป็นอยู่ของสังคม ของชาติอยู่ที่แต่ละคนมีความสุขพอสมควร จะได้ไม่ใช่เบียดเบียนกันอย่างเปิดเผย ก็หมายความว่าทุกคนก็ต้องร่วมมือกันช่วยกัน ตัวใครตัวมันก็ไม่ได้ ก็ต้องถือเป็นหลักว่าเราต้องช่วยกันทำ ผู้ที่มีความคิดความรู้ก็ควรที่จะคิดให้มากหน่อยแล้วก็พยายามที่จะจัดการหรือทำให้เปลี่ยนแปลงในทางที่ดีพอสมควร

-Taken from the book พระราชอารมณ์ขันจากพระโอษฐ์ by วิลาศ มณีวัด

I wish Sonthi would read that!

Here’s a bit of historical context:

The constitution was finally proclaimed in June 1968, but martial law, which had been imposed in 1958, remained in effect. Party politics were legalized and resumed shortly after mid-1968, and general elections for the new National Assembly were held in February 1969.

Thanom’s United Thai People’s Party returned 75 members to the 219-seat lower house, giving them the largest representation of the 13 parties, while the second-running Democrat Party won 57 seats.

In November 1971, Prime Minister Thanom executed a coup against his own government, thereby ending the three-year experiment with what had passed for parliamentary democracy. The 1968 constitution was suspended, political parties banned, and undisguised military rule imposed on the country. Under the new regime, executive and legislative authority was held by a military junta…

And so on it goes.
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-13700.html

20

post staffer 26.11.05

How could I be so mean and misguided about Thai blogs? Still haven’t found many about politics and the media that I like (apart from this one), but there’s plenty of intellectual stuff out there, including one or two which (now that I think of it it ) I have seen compiled and published as books.

One is fringer.org (http://www.fringer.org/) by a 30-something Thai guy who describes himself as ‘left-leaning capitalist who believes in the benefits of free trade and globalization, but at the same time distrusts big businesses’.

His list of blog links looks interesting, and includes one I’ve also seen in print as a ‘pocketbook’, by Pin Poramet (http://pinporamet.blogspot.com/)

I found on one blog a link to a NY Times piece, a travel article which ran about a week ago, ‘To Be Young and Hip in Bangkok’.

Left me cold, but then I am not young any more.

On the bottom of the page you’ll find a few more links to travel pieces on Bangkok, including a lovely dreamy one about Phra Athit Rd from a few years ago.

To Be Young and Hip in Bangkok
(Sorry for the ugly url, Tom):

link

21

don 27.11.05

I agree with the Thai people as an american who has lived in Thailand, the King has done much to keep the Kingdom safe from much of the problems of the last century and deserves Thaksins respect. The PM is obviously a great business man who’s ego matchs his wealth. There is nothing wrong with humility HRH provides.

How to deal with Muslims in the South is as difficult for thai people as it is for rest of the world. Most here have no idea how many people die daily/weekly there. Sorry think you are far to critical of the Monarch, compared to leadership and ethics of the UK counterpart… there is no comparison.

22

KCUS KCID 27.11.05

There is no reason for Thai people to topple the government and I am 100 percent sure that it will never happen. Sonthi knows that too —so does the media, but they are trying to pump it up. It’s there job!

It’s all about economics. The Thai economy has been showing strength lately and what happens? Rumors of a coup. I have been tracking events like this and have charted it. Eventually everything will get back to normal. “They” will do anything to reduce investor confidence.

And jeez will you guys stop spamming this blog!

23

post staffer 27.11.05

From Don:

-Sorry think you are far to critical of the Monarch, compared to leadership and ethics of the UK counterpart… there is no comparison.

I don’t get that. I have not seen anyone criticise the King here.

And unlike you, I am one of that British monarch’s subjects. I think she does a fine job, thanks very much.

Comrade Kiss Kiss:

-It’s all about economics. The Thai economy has been showing strength lately and what happens? Rumors of a coup.

An article in one newspaper the other day talked about the huge jump in traffic to the Manager’s site since Sonthi started his attacks. The government itself seems in no doubt about why he’s doing it:

‘He must stop playing the sympathy card because eventually the public will see through it and realise that the reason he is doing this is to sell his satellite dishes,’ said Thai Rak Thai deputy spokesman Chatuporn Prompan. (BP)

Oh! Maybe this qualifies as spam as well. If so, my humble apologies, Kiss Kiss.

24

JW 27.11.05

“It’s all about economics. The Thai economy has been showing strength lately and what happens?”

Showing strength lately? That all depends on what you mean by lately. GDP growth for 2005 was earlier forecast at 5.2% , but this has recently been revised down to 4.2% (per World Bank or 4.5% (per Thaskin himself).

The World Bank also forecasts that for 2006 GDP growth will be around 5%

Given that GDP growth was 6.1% in 2004, I would hardly say that the economy has been showing strength lately. If anything economic growth has been trending downward.

Rumors of a coup. I have been tracking events like this and have charted it. Eventually everything will get back to normal. “They” will do anything to reduce investor confidence.”

Rumours of a coup only started after the military came out specifically with statements that they might take action and Sondhi’s statements were sabotaging national security. I don’t see how you can blame that on Sondhi, if you anything you can blame the coup rumours on the military themselves.

25

JW 27.11.05

Still haven’t found many about politics and the media that I like (apart from this one),

Post Staffer: I sometimes post over here. I should have more time over the next 6-7 months so should be posting more often.

26

poststaffer 27.11.05

Thank you for the link. I found that one on my travels yesterday but did not give it a good look until just now. It is one of the ‘bigger’ ones, I suspect.

I found no links to Tom’s blog anywhere, which is a shame, as Tom speaks with a highly individual voice. He might not approve anyway: too much current affairs babble on other blogs, perhaps.

Speaking of which, at the risk of offending Comrade Kiss Kiss once again with my ‘spam’, here’s something from a Naew Na story on the rumours last week of an army coup, taken from the MThai website.

Avert your eyes here, Kiss Kiss:

วิเคราะห์ม็อบสนธิขยายวง
วันเดียวกัน นายสมบัติ ธำรงธัญวงศ์ อาจารย์ประจำคณะรัฐประศาสนศาสตร์ สถาบันบัณฑิต พัฒนบริหารศาสตร์(นิด้า) อดีตผู้นำนักศึกษาในเหตุการณ์ 14 ตุลา 2516 ได้วิเคราะห์การเคลื่อนไหวของนายสนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล ในฐานะผู้ดำเนินรายการเมืองไทยรายสัปดาห์ ว่า การเคลื่อนไหวมวลชนที่ร่วมฟังรายการของนายสนธิ ยังไม่พัฒนาสู่การเคลื่อนไหวเรียกร้อง เพราะการต่อสู้ เรียกร้องนั้น ต้องมีการยื่นคำขาด มีเป้าหมายในการเรียกร้องชัดเจน

สถานการณ์ในเวลานี้ ยังเป็นเพียงการเชิญชวนประชาชนมาฟังข้อมูล ข่าวสาร แล้วก็จบกัน ไป มวลชนก็มาฟังข้อมูลแล้ว ก็แยกย้ายกันกลับบ้าน แต่การให้ข้อมูลประชาชนอย่างต่อเนื่องเช่นนี้ จะยกระดับไปสู่การเรียกร้อง ที่มีเป้าหมายได้ในอนาคตแน่นอนเพราะเป็นไปไม่ได้ที่ประชาชนเมื่อ รับรู้ข้อมูลความเลวร้ายของรัฐบาลแล้วจะอยู่เฉยๆ

The academic quoted here - a former student leader in the Oct 76 massacre - doubts a popular uprising is likely, as Sonthi has delivered no ultimatums, nor told his followers to do anything, or set any goals. People just turn up, listen, then go home.

However, he says that situation can’t go on indefinitely, as sooner or later people will demand something be done to tackle all this alleged government corruption.

Actually, I think this guy said all this in the Post as well, but never mind.

MThai is full of posts on this topic (another example: สนธิ ใช้อะไรดึงพลังจากประชาชนไทย คุณรู้ไหม), but most look distinctly light-weight.

http://webboard.mthai.com/5/2005-11-27/170474.html

27

post staffer 28.11.05

I have taken a look at the blog above, and I have a few complaints, which I might even leave at that site.

One, I know nothing about the author, because he doesn’t tell us, or if he does I can’t find it. I want to know who I am reading, even if it’s just the basic facts.
Is the author Thai? If so, where does he live? Why his interest in the South? Why no mission statement, or explanation of where he stands? Does he even have a stand?

Tom tells us virtually nothing, but at least it’s more than I get at Bangkok Pundit.

Also, I thought the word ‘blog’ was supposed to be synonymous with the word ‘community’. I see scant evidence of Pundit linking to what other bloggers are saying, and Tom likewise.

Another bitch is that the blog is so passive. Pundit is just a collection of links to news stories, with minimal comment attached. Example: Pundit posts a news story on such-and-such. His response? ‘What will Thaksin think?’

What indeed! Care to venture an opinion, dear, or is it all too hard?

No effort by the author to enlarge on those links to newspapers, by drawing on other sources on the web, or - heaven forbid - actually talking to someone himself.

That’s hard, of course, when you are not a recognised name working for a recognised media outfit (or even a famous blog). But people can surprise you sometimes with what they are willing to share, even if they have to speak anonymously.

And why, o why, can I find no links to audio or video? Is it that hard to do? If I visit a blog, I want to do more than just read, I want to listen and watch as well. The Thai broadcast media does conduct interviews from time to time, you know, and keeps those clips on the web. I watch them myself.

Here’s an example of the way blogging should be done, from the NZ blog I mentioned above by Russell Brown. This is a guy who is not scared to provide links to what broadcast media are saying, or fellow bloggers for that matter.

Look at the extraordinary trouble he goes to here to provide audio of a famous Oxford Union debate involving former Prime Minister David Lange.

He negotiated with the state broadcaster Radio NZ, TVNZ, David Lange and his wife Margaret Pope. Finally he met with success, which for his own site paid off in a huge increase in hits.

—

Liberated! | Aug 17, 2005 10:04

Today, we post the full recording of David Lange’s 1985 Oxford Union debate speech. It’s been quite a long road here. Ever since I published the original transcript, readers have been asking after the recording itself and I’ve been negotiating with Radio New Zealand Sound Archives Nga Taonga Korero, which provided me with “listening access” for the transcript, for permission to make it available.

After an appeal higher up last week I thought I’d cracked it, but RNZ’s final offer proved to be that I provide a letter of indemnity against copyright claims (which, with a note in hand from Margaret Pope expressing her and David’s strong wish that I be able to use the recording, I was happy to do), but that I could not make the file available in any form that could be downloaded.

This was not great for me: streaming means lower quality, and difficulty in access for people on dial-up connections. I really wanted people to be able to download a good quality file and play it offline.

My ideal scenario was to release the speech under a Creative Commons licence: specifically, one composed of the Attribution/Non-Commercial/Share-Alike components. This would allow derivative works, but would not allow them to be sold without explicit permission from the copyright holder. (David seemed to quite like the idea of being sampled into a dance track.)

I saw it as an opportunity to establish some good practice behind the government’s fine words about a New Zealand Creative Commons. That iconic speech by a New Zealand Prime Minister seemed an ideal candidate for such practice. (In any case, I was in no position to meet the $45,000 ratecard price for the global rights implicit in posting the 30-minute recording on the Internet.)

Why make these things available? Public good. When we published the transcript here, 10,000 people read it in a week and a half. It took about two days to rise to the top of Google rankings for the relevant search queries. This week, since David’s death, about 600 people have come to the transcript from Wikipedia’s David Lange entry, which links to it.

The MP3 file posted today is encoded at 96kbit/s and is about 20MB. If you want to link to the recording - and you are naturally very welcome to do so - please use this link.

Anyway, on Monday I took another tack and approached TVNZ CEO Ian Fraser for permission to use the TV broadcast audio (which so far as I can tell is the original source of the radio copy). He came to the party with no conditions, for which I am extremely grateful, and I trust you are too. In the circumstances, it was simpler not to proceed with the Creative Commons idea this time.

I must make it clear that I’m not bagging Sound Archives. It’s a brilliant resource, they’re nice people and they’re simply operating to their current rules; rules they had to bend to originally give me listening access. I intend to work with them on some other ideas in future. It’s much easier for TVNZ to be generous with the audio when it can still hold the pictures close. But I look forward to the development of a government policy on archive access, one that the answers the demand for actuality in the network age.

—

Tom’s last post referred to recent speeches by the King. Just by coincidence the other day I came across a state-run site where audio files are kept of the King’s speeches. Even if we have to listen to the whole thing, it’s better than no sound at all, so why no link?

PS I would love to leave a link here to a moving, wonderful newspaper interview Margaret Pope has just given about David Lange, but I suspect I will be accused of spamming again.

28

KCUS KCID 28.11.05

“Lately” as in recently -as in less than a year. OMG, don’t tell me you didn’t understand that!!!
Data for Q2 of 2005 showed that the Thai economy grew 4.4% compared to 3.3% of the first quarter. That’s what I meant by lately.

[Rumors of a coup. I have been tracking events like this and have charted it. Eventually everything will get back to normal. “They” will do anything to reduce investor confidence.”
Rumours of a coup only started after the military came out specifically with statements that they might take action and Sondhi’s statements were sabotaging national security. I don’t see how you can blame that on Sondhi, if you anything you can blame the coup rumours on the military themselves.]

Did I ever blame Sonhi? You seem to be trying to distort the facts.
Let me refresh you on what happened: Right after the military stated that they were unhappy with Sonhi, the media interviewed personnels in that unit and the general consensus among that unit was that they shared the same feeling as the commander. What did Sonhi do after that? Raised the issue of the monarchy and rallied for support. With the media at its ally, rumors of the coup were specifically target at the financial markets.

29

post staffer 28.11.05

Darling, it’s Sonthi with a T or a D, take your choice. But he’d probably prefer one of them. Don’t tell me you didn’t understand that!

”With the media at its ally, rumors of the coup were specifically target at the financial markets.”

Impact was short-lived, judging by this Reuters piece:

Thai stocks end flat, political jitters ease

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051124/3/2bc0c.html

30

post staffer 28.11.05

Not sure what I think of this. Sounds like Boris Johnson (British Conservative MP, editor of the Spectator of London) is going over the top, but the government’s threats to jail anyone who publishes details of what Bush said about bombing Al-Jazeera recalls the Thai government’s response to the awful Sonthi: shut him down at all costs.

Take a look.

Bush and Al-Jazeera
November 24, 2005

The Attorney General’s ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act … we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. .. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for

http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2005/11/bush_and_al-jaz.html

31

JW 28.11.05

” “Lately” as in recently -as in less than a year. OMG, don’t tell me you didn’t understand that!!!”

Yes, lately does mean recently, but I would hardly say it is confined to less than a year. Find me a dictionary which specifically limits “lately” lately to less than a year and I will humbly apologise. The economy recovered in the 2nd quarter, but it is still some distance of from showing strength.

How am I meant to read your mind about exactly who fitted within your ‘they’? You were talking about Sondhi in the first paragraph, I just assumed Sondhi fitted within your ‘they’. Then, after saying I distort the facts you still talk about Sondhi in your reply. So is Sondhi part of your ‘they’, or is it just the media?

Would there have been any coup rumours unless the Supreme Commander had threatened to take action? No. I don’t see how you can blame ‘they’ for the coup rumours. The reporting only happened about the threat by the Supreme Commander to take action. What do you want the media to do, ignore the statements? There are plenty of things to complain about with the Thai media, this is not of them.

32

JW 28.11.05

I have taken a look at the blog above, and I have a few complaints, which I might even leave at that site.

I will reply to your complaints if you post them over at the site.

33

KCUS KCID 29.11.05

True, the dictionary does not confine lately to less than a year. I usually use the term “lately” in contexts that mean less than a year. If I didn’t make myself clear before, my apologies.
–—
And stop assuming my usage of the word “they”!!!! I never meant “they” to include Sonhi nor the media. I am glad you have at least half of it figured out!
–—
The coup actually has to do with Sonhi and not the military. As I said before, there was a consensus among that particular unit that Sonhi was showing disrespect for HRH. So therefore, yes, there would be rumors of a coup even without the statement made by the Supreme Commander (which was made Sonhi continued to show disrespect). Why? Because Sonhi is staging the coup and not the military. Why call it a coup when no governmental unit is supporting it? That brings me to my previous point, its all about economics. I hope you are following the logic and not letting the media lead you astray.
–—
One reason of conducting the coup is to slow down investments in infrastructure or raise the cost of capital. There are many more, but I have not the time.

34

post staffer 29.11.05

Sonthi can’t stage a coup or insurrection (organised opposition to authority) as you put it, as his movement is too loose.

He can encourage a popular revolt. In my understanding of the word, the army could stage a coup…but not Sonthi, who has no organised forces behind him, and no alternative government waiting in the wings.

From a dic on the net:

coup d’etat

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

OR

A sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people

Or (and this is where I come unstuck)

A sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force [no qualifier here about the overthrowing forces being organised]

By and large, though, I would expect anyone attempting a coup to be organised, with specific goals in mind, a command structure in place, and an alternative waiting in the wings to assume power.

In Sonthi’s case maybe we are better off talking about the possibility of a spontaneous uprising by the public, fed by his incendiary propaganda, with or without the army’s help (recent news reports talk about uprisings against Thaksin, not Sonthi).