“We could gather ten thousands of people. Sometimes hundred thousands. So, they were like, ‘the chink Limthongkul is kinda great.’ So, they came to support me. Now, they started. General Surayudth called me. General Sondhi had his close aide call me. In the palace… In the palace we had privilege. Everyone was close to me. They were close to me as hell. (Laughter.) I could reach. You don’t have to ask if I could actually reach. If you have something to say, say it. I assure you that it will reach the King/Queen’s ears (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕гр╕У). I don’t care. So, they started backing our movement.
Until there was a signal sent to me. I was fighting then. There was a gift from the palace, sent through Kunying Busaba, the Queen’s sister. It turned out that, after I had just received it from Kunying Busaba in person, many people called me. Prem had his aide call me. General Chawalit, everyone called me, asking me if it is true.”
You guys have an incredible ability to have amnesia of Thai military – political history pre-Thaksin. perhaps we should start a new calender with AT (Anno Thaksin) calling this year 9 AT or whatever. The rest years BT is simply ancient history and not to be remembered.
The Military has never been out of politics and have never been under the control of the political parties. Furthermore to suggest that Thaksin come back to Thailand to stand trial is a joke – kangaroo court – to paraphrase the Oz. He has less chance than snowball in hell!
In case you don’t remember, the judges and court officials were hand picked by the military and have a penchant to interprete “laws” according to its master’s desires.
David Brown #22, Portman #23 has answered your questions. As recent as 1992, the military massacred the protesting urban based middleclasses. In 2006 the military was allied (and still is) with the urban based middleclasses against one Thaksin Shinawatra!!! Let us hear your response to this and Portman’s comments in #23 (with an additional accusation against PMThaksin of messing up the police force as well).
Rough translation (I’m sorry for my poor English skills):
“Thank you for those who ask about the PTT. Surayudh once said about the gasoline prices. I’ll tell you. A journalist said to him, “the price of gasoline has exceeded 30 baht/litre.” The PM said, “it’s the nature of it.” I’m very disappointed because the PM knows well that part of the the ousting of Thaksin was him; he urged me to do many things. He knows that PTT is another story. That is, privatize the PTT to the private sector. And that private sector is Thaksin’s people. Those who listen to me will remember this. Even if you give me a chance to speak million times, I will keep saying the same because I stick to the truth. I always say that, you the board of directors of PTT, don’t you know why politicians privatized the PTT? Why they have to give considerable profit to the private sector? Today, PTT is a secret land. No one knows what they are doing inside.”
“With Thaksin’s popularity slipping significantly in the polls, the sense of desperation is becoming increasingly apparent. The most recent poll showed Thaksin’s popularity to be in the 23% range, and that is a far cry from where it was just a few months ago. There is no doubt the democrats are gaining ground.
The fact that Thaksin has made more phone-ins in recent days to a variety of places to gather as many supporters as possible in Bangkok, clearly shows a full on push to rally big numbers to attend. The more of Thaksin supporters in Bangkok, the more eyes will be watching, and that includes top military brass.
The other news in recent days was about a potential Thaksin staged coup attempt, and if there was ever a time to try and pull it off, it would be during the rally. A significant number of troops will be deployed to the rally, leaving the barracks on the lean side.
There is still a significant number of people in the military who are still loyal to Thaksin, and what they will be doing during the rally needs to be closely observed. Connecting the Dots has no idea where they are in their present assignment, but we can clearly see a potential of a coup during this distraction.Thaksin has made sure as many players are watching the rally as possible. He has brought up the privy counsel again in efforts to distract them. He has cited a so called conspiracy to oust him from office. Although in reality this for the most part is ancient history as there have now been 4 Prime Ministers after Thaksin. It is like still arguing over an umpire call for the 1999 World Series, in short who cares the game is over.
These are all actions consistent with a ruse, and a Thaksin lead coup is by no means beyond Thaksin psychotic ego.”
Is it lese majeste to complain how a royal procession holds up traffic? This traffic halt is really aggravating upcountry. During these few days Sia O and his wife and son are in Songkhla for the Commencement at Rajabhat Universities as well as visits to some local hot spots. What annoys local people is that traffic is made to halt for half an hour or more to wait for a royal procession to pass, and when it comes no one can catch a glimpse of anything as it goes so fast to not even accommodate a fly. Maybe this is out of the fear for the life of somebody. But should there be a tire blowout, for example, some life may be lost all the same. And how do we reconcile this to the spirit of rapport between royalty and commoners? If speed is required, a helicopter might be more appropriate and hamper traffic much less. It seems that the people come last when it comes to welfare.
…. ‘the Avudh Panananda’, it was to be ‘the Nation’, but I thought it was better to put the authors name. Yes, I must exonerate myself from the typo curse! Perhaps I was a little damning of Thaksin. I love all of these accusations!
So how will revealing the tangled web play into Thaksin re-entering the fray? Surely by doing this he is getting his hands dirty again, going back on his promise to keep clear of politics. I wish he revealed this while he was in office with more weight attached to his words. Is he viewed as too much of a bleating goat to be of use to the UDD?
Here are the key parts of Thaksin’s speech in Chiang Mai on Sunday
—————————————————————————
Remember in 2006, at the election we won mightily, 377 MPs in parliament. One day, my defense minister said to me, ‘I fear we’ll be tired. I heard from a journalist who said, the Democrat Party as an opposition is so weak, so few seats, the journalists will join together to act as the opposition. I was perplexed, why should journalists act as the opposition, their role is to tell the truth, what is right and what is wrong.
Later I heard from the son of a newspaper-owner, I asked why his father’s paper was bashing me, bashing the government. He said, ‘Can’t help you.’ A privy councilor dined with his father (I’ll say the name later) and said, claimed, the palace won’t have me anymore, wants me removed from the position.
I was perplexed. Then I was still prime minister. I did not know what was happening. Then there was news of attempts on my life, and finally the car bomb in August.
I heard later from General Panlop Pinmanee, who came to see me recently in China that in early 2006 he was called to meet General Surayud Chulanont at a house in a Sukumwit soi. General Surayud said he had been with two privy councilor to an audience with 901 [the king’s radio code] to inform that they would work for His Majesty because I was not loyal. How could I be disloyal? I believed this was a fabrication. Because out king is elevated, does not get involved in politics. So it was just a fabrication, made to deal with me. Panlop went along with it, but didn’t do anything.
Two attempts were made on my life, but my fate was to survive them. Then the attempt to get rid of me with the car bomb. General Panlop said he knew about it, and his subordinates were used, but he was not involved. Those who did it were the coup group.
Do you remember Ja Yak [Sgt-Maj Chakrit Chantra, an ISOC driver who confessed to taking part in the plot]? Ja Yak told the police when I was still prime minister that if I didn’t die from the car bomb, there would be a coup, and if the coup was successful, the premier would be Surayud….
Remember, in October 2002, I moved General Surayud to be Supreme Commander. The reason was not because I was angry or had anything against General Surayud…. But the reason I moved him, never told before but today I must tell it, was not because he was a bad man. But when the Burma number 2, Mong Aye, who had not come to Thailand for a long time, I invited him, and took him for an audience with the king and queen on 18 April 2002. On 25 April the army used force without my knowledge, killing over 300 Burmese soldiers. All when I was trying to negotiate for his help over the drug issue…
So there were attempts to deal with me, by claiming I’m disloyal. Yet I am loyal over one million percent…. These people who sound off on the street, how can they be more loyal than me?
To overthrow a government that is very powerful, the easiest way, the barami of the king is the supreme thing for all Thai, so they allege disloyalty. This is the origin of the political turmoil down to today….
I became prime minister under the 1997 constitution, that I did not draft. The person who drafted it was Anand Panyarachun, and the concept or idea was laid down by Dr Prawase [Wasi]. Prawase said, politics in the past, governments were weak, the prime minister lacked the authority of a leader, because he was challenged all the time, making him unable to take decision over the country’s major problems. That was the background of the 1997 constitution. Later both Dr Prawase and Anand undermined my government which was a product of the 1997 constitution they drafted. They said I was too strong, had too much power….
I travel around the world, people say, in English, “Thailand is a joke.” They say Thailand is a joke, a joke in every way. The prime minister does a cooking show on TV for a little money and gets thrown out of office.
The TRT party was dissolved because they decided to dissolve it. A group of the witnesses came to see one of my people. They said they were paid to give false witness. They begged my forgiveness….
This government they call the Drag-Eleven Government, to form the government they used the Constitutional Court to dissolve parties so they could pull away their MPs. Then the army forced groups to form the government. Though Pok [Anupong] denies it until today, Pok was involved totally…
After General Panlop met General Surayuth, and they had talked about dealing with me, another four people came in. One was Pramote Nakhonthap, who invented the story (niyai) of the Finland Plot, a pack of lies. If challenged in court today, there would be no answer. He invented the whole story. There never were the words, Finland Plot…
After that, another three people came in. One was Ackaratorn [Chularat], president of the Administrative Court. Another is Charun Phakdithanakun. Another is Charnchai Likitjittha. This is what General Panlop told me. True or false, go and ask him. He said these three or four met together further, and each accepted assignments to deal with me by alleging I was a premier who was disloyal.
At the time of the coup, news was released that I was behind, was the sponsor, of making the book The King Never Smiles, written by Paul Handley. A book I’d never seen. As soon as I knew, I immediately ordered Surakiat [Sathirathai], who is no longer with me, then a deputy prime minister, to meet Bush the father, who had close connections with Yale University that published the book, to appeal to them that there was a royal celebration in June, appeal for them not to release it yet. And they agreed. And later in April I met Bush the father and appealed to him myself. I also ordered Police-General Kowit Phuwanit [a mistake for Wattana?], then the police chief, to prevent the book entering Thailand….
I will speak out more and more clearly. I’m not angry. I pity the people.
After the 2006 election, there was pressure for the ECT commissioners to resign, until there were only three left. Those who resigned later told me, the people who pressured them to resign were Chamlong Srimuang and Surayud Chulanont. I was still prime minister, so I rushed to see General Surayud in the office of the Privy Council to ask what was going on, but he replied that he was not involved, he was a paratrooper that didn’t kill his juniors, tell on his seniors, or sell his friends.
I think it’s interesting that the Avudh Panananda mentions the King in a political context by saying that it’s not to be done. Or, in Thai, is it written differently? Wouldn’t this fuel the King being thought of in a political context? Does the increasing demonization of the UDD leadership coincide with an increasing public ‘politicization’ of the King?
Because the King is above politics so it was just a fabrication to get rid of me. Panlop went along, but didn’t do anything. – Thaksin (from BKP)
He seems to say that rather flippantly, revering the King as he claims. It’s especially flippant for a former democratically elected leader if his aim is to accuse Surayud and the Privy councillors of manipulating the King’s or His name, as what he says I interpret as more for self-exoneration than justice for Thai citizens.
It’s plain that very few of the sharks in Thai politics would respect the King, a delicate seahorse, in the manner that the goldfish in the rest of the lake do. So, is it silly to ask what’s a lesson a goldfish can teach a shark?
A good point Sidh S #21 re Thaksin’s repoliticising of the military. Thaksin certainly provided the military with the opportunity to jump back into politics proclaiming its traditional role of protector of monarchy, state and religion. Given the sour memories of the previous coup and its tragic aftermath in 1992, it took some doing to catapult the military back into this role. Despite having so much power as PM, Thaksin made no attempt to professionalise the military or diminish corruption there. His energies in that respect were focused entirely on promoting family members and other close political allies to key military positions for which they were not particularly well qualified. These positions were, of course, specially attractive due to the corruption opportunities and it would have seemed pointless to Thaksin to have reduced these opportunities, while he was trying to ensure the loyalty of the incumbents. So perhaps he could be said to have reaped the harvest that he sowed in this sense. His handling of the police was a much worse lost opportunity to introduce desparately needed reform. What better way for a powerful PM to garner widespread popular support than to crack down on police corruption, involvement in organised crime and abuse of human rights in the way that Singapore did in the 60s? Instead the police were encouraged to run out of control by Thaksin who made his contempt for rule of law more than obvious. This makes it difficult to shed too many tears at his complaints about unfair legal processes. At least he is still alive and able to enjoy his liberty and wealth in the countries that will still have him.
“The Nation” is bias against Thaksin, UDD, Giles, Red Shirt movement, consequently it reports different version from other Thai newspapers. It is a serious problem for scholars who cannot read Thai to find out what exactly the news is when one can only read from an inaccurate sources like “the Nation.” When we compare this particular news with other newspaper such as Matichon, Prachatai, Thairath, Komchadluek, we can see that “the Nation” reports news according to its bias agenda against Thaksin.
In Thai language newspaper, all of them reported that General Panlop Pinmanee, the vice-director of the internal security command stated that General Surayudh Chulanont had played a role in the effort against former Prime Minister Thaksin.
In the power struggle for domination, the Monarchy is also afraid of the Military. The fear of the Military had made the Monarchy to recruit General Prem Tinsulanond, Chief of the Infantry Division, and General Surayudh Chulanont, Chief of the Special Forces Division to join the Privy Council in order to control the Military.
“The Nation” is prejudice against Jakrapob Penkair and Veera Musikapong because “the Nation” wants the Monarchy institution as the absolute Fuhrer. “The Nation” is unable to state the fact that General Surayudh Chulanont’s father was a communist insurgent yet he is a Privy Council member.
“hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance”
hmmm… it seemed to me that the military were a little bit involved in politics before Thaksin, I suppose maybe we should not count governments led by Generals Chavalit, Prem, Sarit, Pibul, etc, etc, etc as military or perhaps not political? And perhaps the 18(?) coups by the military were not political?
Anyway, my humble opinion is that the military struck in 2006 because Thaksin was imposing political control over them.
As you can see from my questions in #9 the Thai military are extremely out of control compared to any of the many reasonably democratic countries around the world…
Thai generals:
are involved in business while supposedly in active service,
they attack their own people: bomb, torture, kill with impunity,
they support armed insurgents, Red Gaurs, Village Scouts, BPP, PAD,
advise the King,
manipulate the courts.
Even the over-funded US military is under civilian political control. Why not in Thailand?
Is it the King or the military that benefits from military “protection of the Monarch”?
Joy, if viewed outside the narrow confines of LM and the closely associated elites’ power play, Thailand is quite a pluralistic, open society willing to accept difference – a society that is still opening up with a clear long term liberal trend. The rights of women, children, minorities, the poor has long been enshrined in various constitutions and, through the decades, has been implemented and enforced through both government , NGO, civic mechanisms. Some in NM may belittle the court victories of the ‘little people’ in MaeMoh and MapTaPhut – I see them as highly significant watershed cases, a result of the long societal efforts/struggle and that is consistent with the long term liberal trend. On women’s and children’s rights, gone are the days when the police can close cases in favor of powerful abusers and it is now a common practice where interrogations must be with the presence of sympathetic/empathic third parties (can’t remember the exact terms). It was very different just a decade or so ago. Our tolerance/acceptance of gays are as good as any Western society – maybe even better, at least as reflected in popular culture. There are certainly problems in the deep South, as they are discriminations against the poor/minorities far from the urban centers – but I will argue anytime that a Central Thai Muslim has as good a chance and opportunity in life as his/her Buddhist/Christian counterparts (at least from comparable socio-economic backgrounds).
For me, as I’ve stated before (so yes, it is my ideal and bias), the measure of any good democratic government (whether in Thailand or the more mature Western democracy) is how serious it takes educational reform, that delivers high quality education for all children, regardless of socio-economic background, and lays the foundations for sustainable material development and also a vibrant civil society, local and global. (I’ve included the ‘West’ here as, again for me, the Iraq War has seriously soiled America’s, the UK’s and Australia’s democratic credentials. How can the ‘bomb a country into a democracy’ experiment be considered ‘successful’ in any measure with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions more maimed and displaced and their plights still ignored? How many Iraqi refugees, clearly direct victims of the war, has these three countries accepted? Will America drop bombs on American babies and call them “collateral damage”? There’s clearly a big limitation to the “acceptance of difference” here…).
My view, ofcourse, is also a ‘fringe view’ – maybe not as fringe as LM laws is for the Thais – as it can assumed that any Thai parent would want good education for their child. However, politician’s priorities are often elsewhere and short-term – coinciding with election cycles while education is a cross-generation issue.
Brilliant analysis Portman #4 and #14 and David #16. Thanks for the reports from Chiang Mai too David.
From Portman #14, statements like these just baffles me why AjarnGiles choose to associate with the Reds, when a ‘SongMaiAo’ position is much more valid. It reeks of hypocritical, slick opportunism to me:
“…On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.
And David, thanks for the very rare moments of ‘objectivity’ in NM in my point of view. For me, it is his only positive very significant contribution, albeit unintentional (read with AjarnGile’s above which I also agree with). Arguably, today, Thailand’s political power has never been more dispersed among the politicians, big businesses, bureaucrats, urban middleclass, urban and rural poor etc. Contrary to Hedda#13 and David Brown#15, I hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance – which somewhat almost cancels the “awakening” of the poor. However, being an optimist, I still maintain Thailand has come out potentially stronger democratically (especially if the country can move to a post-Thaksin era) and I hope elected politicians and civil society can effectively harness and balance this broader power base for the greater good:
“Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters.”
John Francis Lee #20. It is hard to imagine that HM is at all happy with the situation but also hard to see a viable solution in the Thai context where even suggesting reducing the force of the LM law may be interpreted as LM. I think Edward VII put an end to criminal libel suits on behalf of British royalty with his famous saying, “Publish and be damned.” Thais find the way the British royals are treated by tabloids as unthinkable, although it certainly prevents them from straying too far from what is acceptable to British public opinion, thereby actively helping prolong their relevance. Asking the monarchy to approve charges directly is not the answer, although that works in Norway, but some sort of committee, say at privy council type of level, might offer a solution and avoid LM being used as a political tool which, as you say, is arguably LM in and of itself .
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
Another evidence from Sondhi Limtongkul (How irony!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRnYDFUvGrM
“We could gather ten thousands of people. Sometimes hundred thousands. So, they were like, ‘the chink Limthongkul is kinda great.’ So, they came to support me. Now, they started. General Surayudth called me. General Sondhi had his close aide call me. In the palace… In the palace we had privilege. Everyone was close to me. They were close to me as hell. (Laughter.) I could reach. You don’t have to ask if I could actually reach. If you have something to say, say it. I assure you that it will reach the King/Queen’s ears (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕гр╕У). I don’t care. So, they started backing our movement.
Until there was a signal sent to me. I was fighting then. There was a gift from the palace, sent through Kunying Busaba, the Queen’s sister. It turned out that, after I had just received it from Kunying Busaba in person, many people called me. Prem had his aide call me. General Chawalit, everyone called me, asking me if it is true.”
UDD – where to?
For Sidh, Portman and others,
You guys have an incredible ability to have amnesia of Thai military – political history pre-Thaksin. perhaps we should start a new calender with AT (Anno Thaksin) calling this year 9 AT or whatever. The rest years BT is simply ancient history and not to be remembered.
The Military has never been out of politics and have never been under the control of the political parties. Furthermore to suggest that Thaksin come back to Thailand to stand trial is a joke – kangaroo court – to paraphrase the Oz. He has less chance than snowball in hell!
In case you don’t remember, the judges and court officials were hand picked by the military and have a penchant to interprete “laws” according to its master’s desires.
UDD – where to?
David Brown #22, Portman #23 has answered your questions. As recent as 1992, the military massacred the protesting urban based middleclasses. In 2006 the military was allied (and still is) with the urban based middleclasses against one Thaksin Shinawatra!!! Let us hear your response to this and Portman’s comments in #23 (with an additional accusation against PMThaksin of messing up the police force as well).
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
FTA: ” And he offers no shred of evidence to link the Privy Council to the political feud. ”
Maybe Sondhi Limtongkul, a main opponent of Thaksin, can provide the “evidence.” Read what he said back then when Surayudh was the prime minister :
http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000057530
Rough translation (I’m sorry for my poor English skills):
“Thank you for those who ask about the PTT. Surayudh once said about the gasoline prices. I’ll tell you. A journalist said to him, “the price of gasoline has exceeded 30 baht/litre.” The PM said, “it’s the nature of it.” I’m very disappointed because the PM knows well that part of the the ousting of Thaksin was him; he urged me to do many things. He knows that PTT is another story. That is, privatize the PTT to the private sector. And that private sector is Thaksin’s people. Those who listen to me will remember this. Even if you give me a chance to speak million times, I will keep saying the same because I stick to the truth. I always say that, you the board of directors of PTT, don’t you know why politicians privatized the PTT? Why they have to give considerable profit to the private sector? Today, PTT is a secret land. No one knows what they are doing inside.”
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
I suggest read some articles, a source, which I find has deep understanding of Thai politics:Quoted from
http://preapism.com/2009/03/25/thaksin%E2%80%99s-other-hand/
“With Thaksin’s popularity slipping significantly in the polls, the sense of desperation is becoming increasingly apparent. The most recent poll showed Thaksin’s popularity to be in the 23% range, and that is a far cry from where it was just a few months ago. There is no doubt the democrats are gaining ground.
The fact that Thaksin has made more phone-ins in recent days to a variety of places to gather as many supporters as possible in Bangkok, clearly shows a full on push to rally big numbers to attend. The more of Thaksin supporters in Bangkok, the more eyes will be watching, and that includes top military brass.
The other news in recent days was about a potential Thaksin staged coup attempt, and if there was ever a time to try and pull it off, it would be during the rally. A significant number of troops will be deployed to the rally, leaving the barracks on the lean side.
There is still a significant number of people in the military who are still loyal to Thaksin, and what they will be doing during the rally needs to be closely observed. Connecting the Dots has no idea where they are in their present assignment, but we can clearly see a potential of a coup during this distraction.Thaksin has made sure as many players are watching the rally as possible. He has brought up the privy counsel again in efforts to distract them. He has cited a so called conspiracy to oust him from office. Although in reality this for the most part is ancient history as there have now been 4 Prime Ministers after Thaksin. It is like still arguing over an umpire call for the 1999 World Series, in short who cares the game is over.
These are all actions consistent with a ruse, and a Thaksin lead coup is by no means beyond Thaksin psychotic ego.”
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
Is it lese majeste to complain how a royal procession holds up traffic? This traffic halt is really aggravating upcountry. During these few days Sia O and his wife and son are in Songkhla for the Commencement at Rajabhat Universities as well as visits to some local hot spots. What annoys local people is that traffic is made to halt for half an hour or more to wait for a royal procession to pass, and when it comes no one can catch a glimpse of anything as it goes so fast to not even accommodate a fly. Maybe this is out of the fear for the life of somebody. But should there be a tire blowout, for example, some life may be lost all the same. And how do we reconcile this to the spirit of rapport between royalty and commoners? If speed is required, a helicopter might be more appropriate and hamper traffic much less. It seems that the people come last when it comes to welfare.
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
…. ‘the Avudh Panananda’, it was to be ‘the Nation’, but I thought it was better to put the authors name. Yes, I must exonerate myself from the typo curse! Perhaps I was a little damning of Thaksin. I love all of these accusations!
So how will revealing the tangled web play into Thaksin re-entering the fray? Surely by doing this he is getting his hands dirty again, going back on his promise to keep clear of politics. I wish he revealed this while he was in office with more weight attached to his words. Is he viewed as too much of a bleating goat to be of use to the UDD?
UDD – where to?
When was the military depoliticised?
Might look at military budgets in the period 1992-2008 and see what happened to them.
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
Here are the key parts of Thaksin’s speech in Chiang Mai on Sunday
—————————————————————————
Remember in 2006, at the election we won mightily, 377 MPs in parliament. One day, my defense minister said to me, ‘I fear we’ll be tired. I heard from a journalist who said, the Democrat Party as an opposition is so weak, so few seats, the journalists will join together to act as the opposition. I was perplexed, why should journalists act as the opposition, their role is to tell the truth, what is right and what is wrong.
Later I heard from the son of a newspaper-owner, I asked why his father’s paper was bashing me, bashing the government. He said, ‘Can’t help you.’ A privy councilor dined with his father (I’ll say the name later) and said, claimed, the palace won’t have me anymore, wants me removed from the position.
I was perplexed. Then I was still prime minister. I did not know what was happening. Then there was news of attempts on my life, and finally the car bomb in August.
I heard later from General Panlop Pinmanee, who came to see me recently in China that in early 2006 he was called to meet General Surayud Chulanont at a house in a Sukumwit soi. General Surayud said he had been with two privy councilor to an audience with 901 [the king’s radio code] to inform that they would work for His Majesty because I was not loyal. How could I be disloyal? I believed this was a fabrication. Because out king is elevated, does not get involved in politics. So it was just a fabrication, made to deal with me. Panlop went along with it, but didn’t do anything.
Two attempts were made on my life, but my fate was to survive them. Then the attempt to get rid of me with the car bomb. General Panlop said he knew about it, and his subordinates were used, but he was not involved. Those who did it were the coup group.
Do you remember Ja Yak [Sgt-Maj Chakrit Chantra, an ISOC driver who confessed to taking part in the plot]? Ja Yak told the police when I was still prime minister that if I didn’t die from the car bomb, there would be a coup, and if the coup was successful, the premier would be Surayud….
Remember, in October 2002, I moved General Surayud to be Supreme Commander. The reason was not because I was angry or had anything against General Surayud…. But the reason I moved him, never told before but today I must tell it, was not because he was a bad man. But when the Burma number 2, Mong Aye, who had not come to Thailand for a long time, I invited him, and took him for an audience with the king and queen on 18 April 2002. On 25 April the army used force without my knowledge, killing over 300 Burmese soldiers. All when I was trying to negotiate for his help over the drug issue…
So there were attempts to deal with me, by claiming I’m disloyal. Yet I am loyal over one million percent…. These people who sound off on the street, how can they be more loyal than me?
To overthrow a government that is very powerful, the easiest way, the barami of the king is the supreme thing for all Thai, so they allege disloyalty. This is the origin of the political turmoil down to today….
I became prime minister under the 1997 constitution, that I did not draft. The person who drafted it was Anand Panyarachun, and the concept or idea was laid down by Dr Prawase [Wasi]. Prawase said, politics in the past, governments were weak, the prime minister lacked the authority of a leader, because he was challenged all the time, making him unable to take decision over the country’s major problems. That was the background of the 1997 constitution. Later both Dr Prawase and Anand undermined my government which was a product of the 1997 constitution they drafted. They said I was too strong, had too much power….
I travel around the world, people say, in English, “Thailand is a joke.” They say Thailand is a joke, a joke in every way. The prime minister does a cooking show on TV for a little money and gets thrown out of office.
The TRT party was dissolved because they decided to dissolve it. A group of the witnesses came to see one of my people. They said they were paid to give false witness. They begged my forgiveness….
This government they call the Drag-Eleven Government, to form the government they used the Constitutional Court to dissolve parties so they could pull away their MPs. Then the army forced groups to form the government. Though Pok [Anupong] denies it until today, Pok was involved totally…
After General Panlop met General Surayuth, and they had talked about dealing with me, another four people came in. One was Pramote Nakhonthap, who invented the story (niyai) of the Finland Plot, a pack of lies. If challenged in court today, there would be no answer. He invented the whole story. There never were the words, Finland Plot…
After that, another three people came in. One was Ackaratorn [Chularat], president of the Administrative Court. Another is Charun Phakdithanakun. Another is Charnchai Likitjittha. This is what General Panlop told me. True or false, go and ask him. He said these three or four met together further, and each accepted assignments to deal with me by alleging I was a premier who was disloyal.
At the time of the coup, news was released that I was behind, was the sponsor, of making the book The King Never Smiles, written by Paul Handley. A book I’d never seen. As soon as I knew, I immediately ordered Surakiat [Sathirathai], who is no longer with me, then a deputy prime minister, to meet Bush the father, who had close connections with Yale University that published the book, to appeal to them that there was a royal celebration in June, appeal for them not to release it yet. And they agreed. And later in April I met Bush the father and appealed to him myself. I also ordered Police-General Kowit Phuwanit [a mistake for Wattana?], then the police chief, to prevent the book entering Thailand….
I will speak out more and more clearly. I’m not angry. I pity the people.
After the 2006 election, there was pressure for the ECT commissioners to resign, until there were only three left. Those who resigned later told me, the people who pressured them to resign were Chamlong Srimuang and Surayud Chulanont. I was still prime minister, so I rushed to see General Surayud in the office of the Privy Council to ask what was going on, but he replied that he was not involved, he was a paratrooper that didn’t kill his juniors, tell on his seniors, or sell his friends.
Rambo and the real war in Burma
Dear Admin, this should be on a new top
Interview Phado David Htaw, a member of the KNU Central Executive Committee- english
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15357
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
I think it’s interesting that the Avudh Panananda mentions the King in a political context by saying that it’s not to be done. Or, in Thai, is it written differently? Wouldn’t this fuel the King being thought of in a political context? Does the increasing demonization of the UDD leadership coincide with an increasing public ‘politicization’ of the King?
Because the King is above politics so it was just a fabrication to get rid of me. Panlop went along, but didn’t do anything. – Thaksin (from BKP)
He seems to say that rather flippantly, revering the King as he claims. It’s especially flippant for a former democratically elected leader if his aim is to accuse Surayud and the Privy councillors of manipulating the King’s or His name, as what he says I interpret as more for self-exoneration than justice for Thai citizens.
It’s plain that very few of the sharks in Thai politics would respect the King, a delicate seahorse, in the manner that the goldfish in the rest of the lake do. So, is it silly to ask what’s a lesson a goldfish can teach a shark?
UDD – where to?
A good point Sidh S #21 re Thaksin’s repoliticising of the military. Thaksin certainly provided the military with the opportunity to jump back into politics proclaiming its traditional role of protector of monarchy, state and religion. Given the sour memories of the previous coup and its tragic aftermath in 1992, it took some doing to catapult the military back into this role. Despite having so much power as PM, Thaksin made no attempt to professionalise the military or diminish corruption there. His energies in that respect were focused entirely on promoting family members and other close political allies to key military positions for which they were not particularly well qualified. These positions were, of course, specially attractive due to the corruption opportunities and it would have seemed pointless to Thaksin to have reduced these opportunities, while he was trying to ensure the loyalty of the incumbents. So perhaps he could be said to have reaped the harvest that he sowed in this sense. His handling of the police was a much worse lost opportunity to introduce desparately needed reform. What better way for a powerful PM to garner widespread popular support than to crack down on police corruption, involvement in organised crime and abuse of human rights in the way that Singapore did in the 60s? Instead the police were encouraged to run out of control by Thaksin who made his contempt for rule of law more than obvious. This makes it difficult to shed too many tears at his complaints about unfair legal processes. At least he is still alive and able to enjoy his liberty and wealth in the countries that will still have him.
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
See http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2007statements/1092/
and
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/prem-allegations-part-2.html#7895927818016297350
and
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0603/286/
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
David – there is a conversation between judges and a government official where Prem’s name came up – see here and here.
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
“The Nation” is bias against Thaksin, UDD, Giles, Red Shirt movement, consequently it reports different version from other Thai newspapers. It is a serious problem for scholars who cannot read Thai to find out what exactly the news is when one can only read from an inaccurate sources like “the Nation.” When we compare this particular news with other newspaper such as Matichon, Prachatai, Thairath, Komchadluek, we can see that “the Nation” reports news according to its bias agenda against Thaksin.
In Thai language newspaper, all of them reported that General Panlop Pinmanee, the vice-director of the internal security command stated that General Surayudh Chulanont had played a role in the effort against former Prime Minister Thaksin.
In the power struggle for domination, the Monarchy is also afraid of the Military. The fear of the Military had made the Monarchy to recruit General Prem Tinsulanond, Chief of the Infantry Division, and General Surayudh Chulanont, Chief of the Special Forces Division to join the Privy Council in order to control the Military.
“The Nation” is prejudice against Jakrapob Penkair and Veera Musikapong because “the Nation” wants the Monarchy institution as the absolute Fuhrer. “The Nation” is unable to state the fact that General Surayudh Chulanont’s father was a communist insurgent yet he is a Privy Council member.
UDD – where to?
Sidh S #21
“hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance”
hmmm… it seemed to me that the military were a little bit involved in politics before Thaksin, I suppose maybe we should not count governments led by Generals Chavalit, Prem, Sarit, Pibul, etc, etc, etc as military or perhaps not political? And perhaps the 18(?) coups by the military were not political?
Anyway, my humble opinion is that the military struck in 2006 because Thaksin was imposing political control over them.
As you can see from my questions in #9 the Thai military are extremely out of control compared to any of the many reasonably democratic countries around the world…
Thai generals:
are involved in business while supposedly in active service,
they attack their own people: bomb, torture, kill with impunity,
they support armed insurgents, Red Gaurs, Village Scouts, BPP, PAD,
advise the King,
manipulate the courts.
Even the over-funded US military is under civilian political control. Why not in Thailand?
Is it the King or the military that benefits from military “protection of the Monarch”?
From the archives: Region of Revolt
Joy, if viewed outside the narrow confines of LM and the closely associated elites’ power play, Thailand is quite a pluralistic, open society willing to accept difference – a society that is still opening up with a clear long term liberal trend. The rights of women, children, minorities, the poor has long been enshrined in various constitutions and, through the decades, has been implemented and enforced through both government , NGO, civic mechanisms. Some in NM may belittle the court victories of the ‘little people’ in MaeMoh and MapTaPhut – I see them as highly significant watershed cases, a result of the long societal efforts/struggle and that is consistent with the long term liberal trend. On women’s and children’s rights, gone are the days when the police can close cases in favor of powerful abusers and it is now a common practice where interrogations must be with the presence of sympathetic/empathic third parties (can’t remember the exact terms). It was very different just a decade or so ago. Our tolerance/acceptance of gays are as good as any Western society – maybe even better, at least as reflected in popular culture. There are certainly problems in the deep South, as they are discriminations against the poor/minorities far from the urban centers – but I will argue anytime that a Central Thai Muslim has as good a chance and opportunity in life as his/her Buddhist/Christian counterparts (at least from comparable socio-economic backgrounds).
For me, as I’ve stated before (so yes, it is my ideal and bias), the measure of any good democratic government (whether in Thailand or the more mature Western democracy) is how serious it takes educational reform, that delivers high quality education for all children, regardless of socio-economic background, and lays the foundations for sustainable material development and also a vibrant civil society, local and global. (I’ve included the ‘West’ here as, again for me, the Iraq War has seriously soiled America’s, the UK’s and Australia’s democratic credentials. How can the ‘bomb a country into a democracy’ experiment be considered ‘successful’ in any measure with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions more maimed and displaced and their plights still ignored? How many Iraqi refugees, clearly direct victims of the war, has these three countries accepted? Will America drop bombs on American babies and call them “collateral damage”? There’s clearly a big limitation to the “acceptance of difference” here…).
My view, ofcourse, is also a ‘fringe view’ – maybe not as fringe as LM laws is for the Thais – as it can assumed that any Thai parent would want good education for their child. However, politician’s priorities are often elsewhere and short-term – coinciding with election cycles while education is a cross-generation issue.
901, royal politics and Thaksin Shinawatra
did I imagine that someone claimed there is a recording of a conversation between General Prem and the senior judge in the asserts concealment case?
unfortunately my filing system has failed me on this one….
UDD – where to?
Brilliant analysis Portman #4 and #14 and David #16. Thanks for the reports from Chiang Mai too David.
From Portman #14, statements like these just baffles me why AjarnGiles choose to associate with the Reds, when a ‘SongMaiAo’ position is much more valid. It reeks of hypocritical, slick opportunism to me:
“…On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.
And David, thanks for the very rare moments of ‘objectivity’ in NM in my point of view. For me, it is his only positive very significant contribution, albeit unintentional (read with AjarnGile’s above which I also agree with). Arguably, today, Thailand’s political power has never been more dispersed among the politicians, big businesses, bureaucrats, urban middleclass, urban and rural poor etc. Contrary to Hedda#13 and David Brown#15, I hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance – which somewhat almost cancels the “awakening” of the poor. However, being an optimist, I still maintain Thailand has come out potentially stronger democratically (especially if the country can move to a post-Thaksin era) and I hope elected politicians and civil society can effectively harness and balance this broader power base for the greater good:
“Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters.”
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
John Francis Lee #20. It is hard to imagine that HM is at all happy with the situation but also hard to see a viable solution in the Thai context where even suggesting reducing the force of the LM law may be interpreted as LM. I think Edward VII put an end to criminal libel suits on behalf of British royalty with his famous saying, “Publish and be damned.” Thais find the way the British royals are treated by tabloids as unthinkable, although it certainly prevents them from straying too far from what is acceptable to British public opinion, thereby actively helping prolong their relevance. Asking the monarchy to approve charges directly is not the answer, although that works in Norway, but some sort of committee, say at privy council type of level, might offer a solution and avoid LM being used as a political tool which, as you say, is arguably LM in and of itself .