Reports of the interview by I’m-not-a-proxy-PM Samak on CNN’s Talk Asia are deeply disturbing. The full transcript of the interview does not appear to be up on CNN’s web site yet but it has been widely covered on various media outlets. If the reports are correct, Samak’s performance is a disgrace. For once, I am happy to let the Bangkok Post (Editorial, 13 February 2008) do the talking:
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej should be ashamed for declaring to the world in an interview with CNN over the weekend, that only one person died in the 1976 massacre of anti-dictatorship protesters at Thammasat University.
Former student leaders Surapong Suebwonglee, Chaturon Chaisaeng and other key Thai Rak Thai members who now support Mr Samak must have really cringed; their friends died that terrible day.
With his blatantly inaccurate statements to a worldwide audience, Mr Samak has shown disrespect to everyone who has fought for democracy in this country and embarrassed the nation at the same time. In an exchange with correspondent Dan Rivers, Mr Samak reduced the Oct 6, 1976 massacre to a mere ”movement of some students” and kept on insisting that only one person died that day, even if Mr Rivers presented him with the official death toll of 46 and the possibility that the actual number of casualties could be much higher than that.
Against what went down in history, Mr Samak feebly claimed that there was no massacre that day, only ”one unlucky guy being beaten and being burned in Sanam Luang”.
It is one thing to have taken part in moves to quell pro-democracy protests in the past, it is another trying to deny not just one’s involvement but the entire event. What Mr Samak was doing in this interview goes beyond the pale, and even calls into question his ability to govern the country. Not only is Mr Samak not condemning the events or expressing the faintest bit of regret, he is denying that the crime perpetrated by the state against its own citizens ever took place. This is frightening. It runs contrary to photographic evidence that clearly shows dozens of students lying dead on university grounds. For any Thai citizen to give such an answer to an international audience that runs contrary to very clear evidence is disgraceful, but for the prime minister to do so is downright shocking.
Many Thais don’t know the full extent of what happened in October 1976 as the brutal incident has been whitewashed in many history books. Mr Samak, however, knows well what went on because he played a key role in whipping up anti-Communist sentiment that played a key role in the events that led to the lynching and killing.
No government has ever tried to look back and make sense of what happened or who was doing what during the events that culminated on Oct 6, 1976. But evidence clearly shows that paramilitary groups like the Village Scouts and the Border Patrol Police, as well as the Red Gaur and Navapol _ two ultra-rightist groups trained by the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc) _ played a key role in the brutality.
In response to allegations that the Thammasat students were communists who had insulted the monarchy, on Oct 6 the militant rightists stormed the university grounds with heavy weapons. Some students tried to flee by jumping into the Chao Phraya River but were further shot at. Some of those that stayed and surrendered were beaten, hung from trees or set ablaze.
The official estimate put the death toll at 46, or 45 more than Mr Samak would admit. Many survivors claimed the brutal attack took more than 100 lives.
It is one thing for Mr Samak to downplay the horror. It is quite another for him to bury his head in the sand and ignore photographic evidence. He justifies his role in stirring the pot by claiming that he was protecting the throne. But Mr Samak’s insensitive, inflammatory and plainly inaccurate comments only serve to damage his reputation, the country and the monarchy he claims to protect.
The leaders of this country are fond of rewriting history for their own benefit. But it is time to stop the gross inaccuracies. Only with a full understanding of what occurred in the past can we build up a stronger democracy in the future. It is very hard to see how Mr Samak can lead us there.
46 responses so far ↓
1 BangkokDan // Feb 13, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Hmm … and this during the first week in office.
A foretaste of what’s to come I gather.
A few more blunders like this and HE Samak seriously has to run for cover.
2 Srithanonchai // Feb 13, 2008 at 7:12 pm
And this doesn’t concern only Samak. The PM office minister, the health minister, the interior minister, and the minister of science all came out with knee-jerk policy proposals. Chaloerm even dared talking back to Samak. There also is the issue of secretaries and advisors to ministers. So, it wasn’t that a brilliant start of the Samak I cabinet.
3 Grasshopper // Feb 13, 2008 at 7:18 pm
On a day of acknowledgment here, there is a great deal of irony witnessing denial so callously on display from a leader there.
4 Grasshopper // Feb 13, 2008 at 7:22 pm
… actually, maybe a coup will be organised to prevent Samak proclaiming incidents in the name of the monarchy again? Another poisonous leaf in the kettle soon to be called black by the pot.
5 rikker // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:06 am
The whole interview is just embarrassing. Rivers gives him a clearcut opportunity to condemn the October 6 massacre, and Samak’s response is to summarily dismiss it, but not without lying about it first. Just astounding.
He also gives us this gem when asked whether he thinks Thaksin is guilty:
“I don’t think anyone can do something wrong if they don’t think it is wrong…”
At least now it’s clear that he’s equally inept with the media in both languages. His favorite tactic is to evade a direct question by replying with another question, either rhetorical or off topic, or both. Remember the “sinful sex” incident?
I’m frightened.
6 Srithanonchai // Feb 14, 2008 at 1:30 am
BTW, the editorial is headlined “Samak shocks, shames nation”. I wonder how people at the Bangkok Post can know what the “nation” thinks about Samak’s statement.
7 Srithanonchai // Feb 14, 2008 at 1:37 am
Chermsak Pinthong: The first to fall?
Chirmsak stops hosting radio talk following threat
Former Bangkok senator Chirmsak Pinthong Wednesday gave up hosting in his daily radio talk show after he criticised Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej for allegedly covering up the Thammasat University massacre of October 6, 1976.
PM’s Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair, who supervises the Public Relations Department, telephoned production house Fatima Co to give notice that he might not extend its airtime contract, a company source said.
The explanation given was that the show’s content had to be adjusted to match the new programming schedule, the source said.
The company asked Chirmsak about Jakrapob’s reason. He understood the situation by withdrawing as a radio host, the source said.
“Chirmsak’s Views” was broadcast from 89pm on FM105, which is under the PRD.
The Nation 13 February 2008
8 K.B. // Feb 14, 2008 at 2:04 am
Samak is a complete and utter embarrassment for Thailand.
The video is up on U Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuoqLiLSgnI
9 Jotman // Feb 14, 2008 at 7:22 am
“He justifies his role in stirring the pot by claiming that he was protecting the throne. ”
Do you suppose this “stirring the pot” line is in reference to Samak’s right-wing activities in 1976 prior to the protest, or in reference to a statement he made defending himself in the last day or so?
10 nganadeeleg // Feb 14, 2008 at 9:53 am
Looks like it was not just a ’slip of the tongue’ because the comments appear to have been repeated in at least 2 separate interviews.
However, Samak is Samak - we know what to expect, and if anything might just end up pleasantly surprised.
Jakrapob on the other hand is a worry - what a hypocrite!
DAAD/UDD/PTV drama queen to media watchdog for fairness.
(I shudder to think about what would happen if he rose even further to a position of real power)
I agree with KB that Samak is not a good look for Thailand, but then again neither was Thaksin (apart from his money).
Whatever you think about Surayud’s government, at least he gave the appearance of a statesman to the outside world.
11 Observer // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Grasshopper,
So the military would have a coup to protect the monarchy from people who acted on behalf the the miltaries previous crimes in the name of the Monarchy. Lot’s of glass houses, or glass residences of other sorts. I don’t expect that there are a lot of people at the top who want Thai and int’l media sniffing around 1976 too much. Paul Handley’s treatement of the period is certainly informative.
Srithanonchai,
Not sure if you are approving or disapproving Chirmsak’s removal. It is hardly a surprise. It is a safe bet that all junta stooges appointed for the purpose of cementing junta power and harassing Thaksin will not be removed and replace by Thaksin’s stooges appointed for the purpose of cementing Thaksin’s power and harassing the junta (and their allies).
12 Awzar Thi // Feb 14, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Thanks to K.B. for putting the You Tube link of an interview that he also did with 101 East.
I thought it is better to put some of it on the record, as they don’t keep transcripts on the Al Jazeera site.
Topics covered here:
1. Killings in Narathiwat in 2004.
2. Thammasat, 1976
3. Corruption allegations as Bkk governor
Interview with Samak Sundaravej
101 East, Al Jazeera, 9 February 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuoqLiLSgnI
Part 2
Start: 3:41
Your predecessor, Thaksin Shinawatra, was criticised for a pretty brutal campaign against Muslim fighters in southern Thailand. Many people who were innocent were caught up in that violence. Do you support his policies in southern Thailand?
Actually, he doesn’t mention any policy. The wrong that he committed, somebody says that… ahh… he says that it… ahh… it’s not quite so important mandate, and that’s all. That is what he mentioned.
But if we refer to Tak Bai, the Tak Bai incident, when many young Muslim men were beaten and rounded up and their bodies were stacked into trucks, many of them suffocated and died…
Where?
At Tak Bai.
Tak Bai? Ohh… You have heard about that incident? Did you?
Of course, we’ve seen the footage.
Ahh. There’s a group of them make a violence there in the south. Thirty-two of them. And they fled to live in the mosque. And then the military asked them to come out. They doesn’t come out. So the military must get in. So the mosque is a clean place, that the dirty man, any kind of weapon, cannot get in. But they just going there, so they just killing from outside. So… 32 of them die. And then that is in the Krue Se. And in Tak Bai they just come to make a shouting. To make a shouting and then any kind of thing to bring six people out from jail. So the whole day, this is the time of the, they don’t eat anything, they don’t eat in the daytime. So, thousands of them just going there around the police station and something like that. So they end up with the… they say that, ok, we’ll let them have the preparation to bring them back, the six people, but they don’t, they, in the evening time, so they make a roundup (cough) for all those people and put in the truck.
Many of the families would suggest that there were very innocent people rounded up there amongst the…
Aww, the innocent people. When that type of movement, around that thing, is innocent or not, I have no idea, but those people going fled in the truck, if they strong enough when they standing in the truck, it’s ok. But they spent the whole day, doesn’t eat, doesn’t drink water, doesn’t even swallow any kind of thing, because in the month of that thing, so, they just fall on each other. And 78 die, from so many truck, loading, running by… [?] So that’s it. It’s a tragedy. It happened. Nobody intend to kill them. They die because of their physical. But they has been caught just to get into the barrack. So, so what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with that? What is the execution of that? What is it?
What is wrong with innocent people dying?
What is the incident that had happened? Everybody in the country know what had happened. And seventy… they fall down on each other. And then 78 died.
So you’re saying they died because they fell on top of each other?
Yes. Nobody kill them. Everybody knows it was…
Not because they were packed into trucks without enough air?
When people get in the truck, in the good shape, and running, actually nobody think they will be like that, but if they people happen not to eat, not to drink, not to swallow, and then somebody fall down the other on the top… So 78 died, out of 1300.
Ok. I’d like to go back to 1976 and the Thammasat University protests, where hundreds of students were beaten, shot, lynched and burned. Historians…
Yeah, where did you get that report?
Historians suggest that you on your radio programme urged mobs of people to turn out and attack the students…
How old are you at that time?
(Pause)
How old are you?
Let me refer to…
Do you born yet?
Do you deny that…
I haven’t got any concern. They write some dirty history to me. I brought the case to the court, so many of them, all time to time. The three incident of that time, only one guy died in Sanam Luang, because somebody beat them and burn them by the… by the… by the… by the wire, uh, by the… by the… by the tire. And this only one. Three thousand student is in the Thammasat University. So they were caught there, and then the military would like to bring them out. So they take the shirt, and like this, like that, uh, like the, bring the shirt and put it on [gesturing to tie hands behind back with opened shirt]. Three thousand lying on the ground of Thammasat University football field. So that they bring all the truck to bring them, put in the shirt and put them on, and then going to let them out to the barrack. Then the only way not to let the people being harmed. Three thousand of them. And then they going out there and so many afraid they fled into the jungle, so many go back home. And then, nobody die in Thammasat University. And the student try to go to the barrack… [?] just to bring the… Nobody die, not…
Well with all due respect, historians refer to it as one of the worst atrocities in Thailand’s history.
That is a dirty history. Somebody did it. Somebody write something dirty like that.
Well with all due respect, I’ve actually watched the footage…
What the footage?
Of that incident…
The killing?
Yes, I have seen…
It’s impossible.
I have seen people being beaten…
Yes, true, in Sanam Luang, yes.
…their limp bodies on the ground…
Yes, that’s true, that is one guy.
You’re saying one…
Yes.
Human rights groups would suggest it was dozens of students, possibly in the hundreds.
For me, eh, for me, eh, if I am dirty, I am concerned with many thing, I cannot come this far. This dirty history always come. I just have a, a lady like you come from far away, asking this question. Even the Thai, they dare not ask this question to me. If I am a dirty man like that, I cannot get, when I run as the governor of Bangkok, somebody bring this case again. “Oh, a murderer with the blood in the hand cannot run as a governor.” I bring the case to the court. So the judge says that, “Khun Samak, we are going to run, eh? Please forgive them, that misunderstanding, just forgive them and withdraw the case and then a good thing to you.” So I just think, I agree with the court, with the judge, so I withdraw the case. And when I ran, eh, I got over million vote in Bangkok. Never before. The highest anyone get is 700,000. I got over one million. And then, how about a man, a dirty man like that being elected? The ward is two million something. I got over one million, and the rest, somebody got one hundred, uh, five hundred thousand. And, is not a proof that the people of Bangkok, educated people, four million voters, they come to vote with two million, one million, over a million voted for me, and the rest, chose a small fraction for others.
Alright, you are facing corruption charges over your term as Bangkok governor…
And then the corruption charge, can they do anything to me yet? So it’s a dirty trick that they… [?] I sue the chairman of the two court. So until now the case run for two years. Why two years cannot bring me to the court yet? Not the, the case is not to the court yet. Any case, bring, three years ago, with the putting a garbage, anything. The cost may be 9000 but that last for ten years. But it finish for three years until now. It’s nothing wrong with it, but they want to destroy me. Somebody, I call it a dirty hand, a black hand nobody sees, an invisible hand, want to destroy me. Now, you must stay long enough. Even for anywhere in the world, can you, can see that, must I be in jail with this case or not? It’s a dirty trick to Samak to put it in. If a man like I says that, “You, this reporter, you are lousy girl, you kill someone, you are [?]”, will you be like that? No. No.
Alright, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for speaking…
No, do believe me. Frankly speaking, you must [?] like that. Someone put a dirty [?] on someone. If I’m a dirty man like that, if I’m corruption, why I was elected?
Alright, we have to leave it there…
Why this party get 233 seats? Why? Why the one who is very clean get 165? Why? Just ask me the question… just answer the question to me.
Alright Mr. Prime Minister, we have to leave it there. Thank you for talking to 101 East.
Thank you for coming, but please, uh, do some homework. Don’t get some information and ask the question. If I am not real, uh, I cannot come this far. Thank you for coming. That’s enough.
Thank you.
End: 12:58
13 “Tak Bai? Ohh… you have heard about that incident? Did you?” « Rule of Lords // Feb 14, 2008 at 4:18 pm
[...] also: Samak’s disgrace (New Mandala); Only 1? (Bangkok [...]
14 Sidh S. // Feb 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Very shocking indeed…
And taking AjarnChirmsak off air just after a week or so in office is a very bad sign.
The message is increasingly clear here of entrenched self-righteousness PMSamak’s “I was 1000% right in 1976″ continuing PMThaksin’s “I was 1000% right (save for the “honest mistake” in 2001) 2001-2006″ practices and policies.
No lessons learnt here. No compromises. Democracy is again equated with the ballot box which gives the government complete licence to appoint who they want and implement whatever policies they want. Eventually they might even wear down the self-righteous Bangkokians, tired of the fight, turning them into ‘good’, ‘passive’ citizens with mega-projects all round.
The silence from the October people such as Surapong and Chaturon is as shocking… Or is this all PMThaksin’s puppet show as the Thairath political news team seem to subscribe to: the grand return of the Master (”NaiYai”). By then Bangkok MUST SEE that he is the best option they have between Coup and Nominee governments. Only he can provide political stability and steriods to economic growth.
The Democrats can only stick to their ‘ideals’ for so long. The longer time they spend in opposition in this atmosphere, the more they will bleed (again). And who dares finance the losing horse and anger the Master who is slowly gaining back his lost powers (taken briefly by a group of nice soldiers)? (Here, the semblance to a very popular children’s novel is unintended)
15 jonfernquest // Feb 14, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Maybe they should decide democratically whether this is important for Thailand as a whole among the people who just elected Samak or whether it’s just something that worries a small minority of intellectuals who want to have a higher weighting for their opinions in the implcit averaging effect of electoral democracy.
Whether Samak is vindicated or not, he still faces potential jail time if the two years he
was sentenced to for the last time he couldn’t control his mouth is upheld.
The only times I heard or saw anyone at all interested in 1976 in Chiang Rai was at a photocopy store across from the technical college with walls plastered with photos from the 70s protests as well as Caribou paraphernalia and at the annual festival at the old airport there was a guy selling every imaginable 70s and Caribou paraphernalia. I bought a Jit Phumisak book and a CD with a documentary on 1976. Frankly it seems to be only a minority that thinks or talks about these 70s issues at all.
Should democracy prevail or not? Or is this a special case?
Comments by maha setthi Public Health minister Chaiya on global pharma are also very inspiring: “Drug companies aren’t as rich as I am. Come and have a look at my house and see.” Surely, effective will shortly follow, if only because he can afford them.
Or if this sort of thing is important, and if what VIPs say is actually related to what they think and the potential policies they’ll come up with, maybe Abhisit should have just been appointed PM.
16 Awzar Thi // Feb 14, 2008 at 9:59 pm
nganadeeleg — However, Samak is Samak - we know what to expect, and if anything might just end up pleasantly surprised.
Samak is Samak but Samak is also now the Prime Minister. It is one thing to speak any rubbish as a private citizen, even on TV, it is another thing to do it as Head of Government. He made these remarks as the representative of the state and on behalf of the citizens of Thailand, not in his personal capacity. That is the important difference between Samak then and Samak now.
17 Grasshopper // Feb 15, 2008 at 1:03 am
Observer,
Isn’t it the norm that you become a homicidal politician AFTER you’ve been elected? What do you think will look worse for the monarchy, this catastrophic buffoon as their countries PR man or for a glass house to shatter only to be rebuilt again after indirect, or publicly leaked, insurances that Samak presumed their will in relation to the protests and other incidents?
18 Srithanonchai // Feb 15, 2008 at 2:24 am
Observer: You don’t really think that I condone the muzzling of mass media, do you? BTW, Jakkraphop is sort of an obsessed confrontational extremist and thus potentially dangerous.
19 Jotman // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:01 am
I took some photos of the red stone monument to the massacre. It’s times like this that you realize that monuments really do matter.
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/02/thais-dare-not-ask-this-question-to-me.html
20 Jotman // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:12 am
FROM EDITORIAL:
“It is one thing for Mr Samak to downplay the horror. It is quite another for him to bury his head in the sand and ignore photographic evidence. He justifies his role in stirring the pot by claiming that he was protecting the throne. But Mr Samak’s insensitive, inflammatory and plainly inaccurate comments only serve to damage his reputation, the country and the monarchy he claims to protect.”
LINE THAT BAFFLES ME:
“He justifies his role in stirring the pot by claiming that he was protecting the throne. ”
MY QUESTION;
Does anybody reading this know if the “stirring the pot” line is in reference to 1) Samak’s right-wing activities in 1976 prior to the protest, or 2) in reference to a statement he made defending himself earlier in the week after the interview? I asked this question because if it is 1), then it would appear to point to Samak having admitted somewhere to having played some role in stirring up the bloodthirsty mob in the first place; and if it is 2) I do not understand why Samak would by dragging the throne into his defense of his stupid remarks — which seems an even more stupid thing than the interview remarks — because it leads one to ask: Protecting the throne from what?
21 Teth // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:41 am
What a disgrace this man is.
When will he die and those perpetrators of 6 October along with him? (Of non-violent causes, of course).
22 Dickie Simpkins // Feb 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Teth,
Nice to know we agree on something.
How does it feel, knowing what you know now to have backed the horse Samak and the man who nominated him into making the Prime Ministershit?
23 nganadeeleg // Feb 15, 2008 at 8:00 pm
He made these remarks as the representative of the state and on behalf of the citizens of Thailand, not in his personal capacity. That is the important difference between Samak then and Samak now
I agree.
It was a stupid comment, but I wonder how much the electorate cares?
For example: Did they care about Thaksin’s handling of (and his comments on) the WOD - Judging by the ballot box results, I doubt it
(PPP/TRT still seem to gets lots of votes)
24 Teth // Feb 15, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Dickie, I voted for Abhisit. I believe I’ve disclosed this a while back.
When expressing support for PPP, though, I express that support against the military. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I suppose. And since they’ve won the election, I’ve refrained from criticizing Samak until he has a chance to prove himself, which he is gradually proving the fact that he has not changed. Still better than a military junta, though. Because above all, this Prime Minister faces scrutiny from an elected Parliament and must answer to the electorate.
25 Land of Snarls // Feb 16, 2008 at 2:53 am
Letter from Thursday’s Bangkok Post:
Thursday February 14, 2008
POSTBAG
Oct 6, 1976 fatalities
At the time of the Oct 6 events and subsequent coup in 1976, I was an active member of the Coordinating Group for Religion in Society (CGRS), which had become the first indigenous human rights organisation in Thailand. As well as assisting all those who were subject to arbitrary arrest and campaigning for their release, we tried to compile as accurate information as possible on those who had been killed or arrested on Oct 6 and subsequent events.
According to our best estimates, 300 people were killed and 11,000 arrested as a threat to society (phai sankom). We were certain about the 11,000 arrests as we managed to get a list of all of these and where they were being held. We were less certain of all those who we thought had been killed, as a few of those on our list might have escaped to the jungle unknown to us.
We produced a quarterly Human Rights in Thailand Report where these findings were recorded. In each of these we reported four or five cases of extra-judicial killing of some of those who had been involved in social movements. These quarterly reports were widely distributed inside and outside the country. I am sure that copies can be found by any historian interested in re-creating a record of the awful events of that period.
NICHOLAS BENNETT
Phuket
26 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm
wow! I am almost moved. I didn’t realize so many people care so much about 6 Tula, people like the Manager Group, the Nation and even the editorial writer of Bangkok Post. I was inspired by you all so much so that I was - as the Thai would say - สมองกระฉูด I sat down and wrote the following letter. No, no, no, not a letter to protest Samak, but one to Mr.Reivers himself, suggesting who he should interview next to make the truth about 6 Tula come out even more. I hope you all who care so much about 6 Tula, as is shown here, would join with me in urging Mr.Rivers to carry out this historic task, or - better sitll - you all should start a campaign to call for those I mention in the letter to review their opinion and their role during those infamous events.
Here’s the letter (sorry, in Thai only):
เรียน คุณ Dan Rivers ดีครับที่ถามสมัครเรื่อง 6 ตุลา
แต่ผมขอเสนอว่า มีคนที่น่าจะขอสัมภาษณ์เรื่องนี้อีกครับ อย่างน้อย 2 ท่าน ดังนี้…..
ผมดีใจครับ ที่คุณ Rivers ถามสมัครเรื่อง 6 ตุลาให้ แม้ว่าโดยส่วนตัวผมจะไม่รู้สึกตื่นเต้นอะไรกับคำตอบ พูดตามภาษานักข่าวคือ ไม่เป็น news เท่าไร เพราะเห็นสมัครพูดประมาณนี้ หรือแย่กว่านี้มานานแล้ว
แต่ถ้าคุณ Rivers ซีเรียสเรื่อง 6 ตุลา จริงๆ และต้องการจะถาม public official หรือ public figure ที่ยัง active อยู่ เกี่ยวกับบทบาทและท่าทีของพวกเขาในกรณีดังกล่าว ผมขอเสนอ 2 กรณีครับ รับรองว่า จะยิ่ง “เป็นข่าว” กว่ากรณีสมัครอีก
กรณีที่ 1
ผมขอเสนอให้คุณ Rivers กราบบังคมทูลขอพระราชทานสัมภาษณ์ จาก สมเด็จพระเทพฯ ครับ
ว่า ที่หลังเหตุการณ์ไม่กี่วัน ท่านไปร่วมงานศพของลูกเสือชาวบ้านคนหนึ่ง ที่เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของกลุ่มที่บุกเข้าไปในธรรมศาสตร์ในเช้าวันที่ 6 ตุลา และตายในเหตุการณ์นั้น และท่านได้ทรง “กล่าวสดุดีเกียรติคุณ” ลูกเสือชาวบ้านผู้ตายว่า
“การปฏิบัติหน้าที่ครั้งนี้ [เป็นไปตาม] คำสัตย์ปฏิญาณที่ได้ปฏิญาณไว้กับลูกเสือชาวบ้าน สมควรแก่การเชิดชู เพื่อเป็นตัวอย่างแก่ลูกเสือชาวบ้านต่อไปในด้านมีความจงรักภักดีต่อชาติ ศาสนา และพระมหากษัตริย์” (เดลินิวส์, 22 ตุลาคม 2519)
ผมขอเสนอให้คุณ Rivers กราบบังคมทูลถามท่านว่า ปัจจุบันท่านจะยังยืนยัน พระราชดำรัสดังกล่าวหรือไม่ ว่า การกระทำของผู้ที่บุกเข้าไปในธรรมศาสตร์ในเช้านั้น เป็น “การปฏิบัติหน้าที่” ที่ “สมควรแก่การเชิดชู เพื่อเป็นตัวอย่าง…” และ เหตุใดท่านจึงมีพระราชดำรัสเช่นนั้น เพียงไม่กี่วันหลังเกิดเหตุการณ์นั้น? และในทางกลับกัน เหตุใดท่านจึงมิได้ทรงกล่าวถึงสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นกับนักศึกษาประชาชนในธรรมศาสตร์?
กรณีที่ 2
ผมขอเสนอให้คุณ Rivers ทำเรื่องขอสัมภาษณ์ ธานินทร์ กรัยวิเชียร ที่ขณะนี้เป็นองคมนตรี แต่สมัยก่อน 6 ตุลา มีบทบาทในการ “ปลุกระดม” ทางทีวี ต่อต้านขบวนการนักศึกษา ไม่แตกต่างจากสมัคร และหลังเหตุการณ์แล้ว ก็เข้ารับตำแหน่งนายกรัฐมนตรี ทำการปราบปรามกวาดล้างผู้ที่รอดตายจากเหตุการณ์นั้นต่อไป
อยากเสนอให้คุณ Rivers เรียนถามท่านว่า ท่านรู้สึกอย่างไรกับสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในเช้าวันนั้น เท่าที่ผมเคยอ่านสัมภาษณ์ของท่าน ไม่เคยเห็นว่า ท่านธานินทร์จะได้แสดงความรู้สึกอะไร ต่อสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นกับนักศึกษาในธรรมศาสตร์….
I also posted the following comments on the current attack on Samak over the 6 Tula issue (again in Thai - sorry):
ความเห็นต่อท้าย
การ “อัด” สมัคร เรื่อง 6 ตุลาครั้งนี้ เช่นเดียวกับการ “อัด” ครั้งก่อน เมื่อ 8 ปีที่แล้ว ส่วนใหญ่ที่สุด มีลักษณะ 2 อย่าง คือ ลักษณะ “กระจอก” และ ลักษณะ “ขี้ลืม”
ลักษณะ “กระจอก” คือ เป็นการ “อัด” “ตัวกระจอก” ในกรณี 6 ตุลา คือสมัคร เพื่อปกปิด ความ “กระจอก” ของคน “อัด” เอง ที่ไม่กล้า “อัด” ใครที่ใหญ่กว่าสมัครแล้ว สมัครนี่นอกจาก”กระจอก” ในกรณี 6 ่ตุลาแล้ว ยัง”อัด” ง่ายมาก เพราะปากไม่ดี “อัด” แล้วก็ค่อนข้างปลอดภัยด้วย
ลักษณะ “ขี้ลืม” คือ การ “อัด” สมัครว่า หลงลืมความจริงเมื่อ 6 ตุลา เพื่อปกปิดความ “ขี้ลืม” ของคน”อัด”เอง ที่ลืมไปว่า ตอน 6 ตุลา ใครบ้างที่สำคัญจริงๆ ใครที่เป็น”นาย”ทางการเมืองของสมัครจริงๆ ใครทำให้สมัครได้ดิบได้ดีหลัง 6 ตุลา
สรุปแล้ว การ”อัด”สมัคร ส่วนใหญ่ในขณะนี้ ทำให้คน”อัด” รู้สึก “ดี” ทำให้หลอกตัวเองได้ว่า ตัวเองไม่”กระจอก”และไม่”ขี้ลืม” (”เราไม่ลืม 6 ตุลา” อะไรทำนองนั้น)
แต่ความจริงแล้ว การ”อัด”สมัครแบบ “กระจอก” และแบบ”ขี้ลืม”นี้ สะท้อนความ”กระจอก”และความ”ขี้ลืม” ของคน”อัด” มากกว่า
27 Johpa Deumlaokeng // Feb 17, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Methinks it is almost a disservice to post the transcript of this interview here as some might then miss the absolute, yet admittedly guilty pleasure of watching Samak make a total fool of himself in the interview while all the while the interviewer is so clearly trying hard not to laugh out loud from the witlessness of the Samak’s responses to her questions. I would watch and wince when the interview focused on Samak and then break out in laughter every time the camera focused on the woman interviewer who seemed to be so desperately holding back her own contemptuous laughter at this buffoon. Who needs to wait for Godot when we have the absurdity that is Samak: “Tak Bai? Ohh… You have heard about that incident?” and “How old are you at that time?…(Are) you born yet?”. You really can’t make this stuff up. Shall we laugh or cry?
The interview is also a textbook example of how, in Thai culture, one is expected to accept the reality of the “face” presented. Politics and “dirty” lies aside, hopefully this interview will remain on YouTube for many years as a wonderful teaching tool.
28 Republican // Feb 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Given the current circumstances, on this issue maybe we need to separate moral outrage and political necessity. Those who want to see the neutralization of the royalist-military forces after the debacle of the last 17 months should be hoping for a strong PPP-led government. In this respect what Samak said in the CNN interview could actually work well for Samak himself and the PPP (including the former student activists).
(i) Samak’s comments will give him credibility with the military leadership, which is important for him as the new defense minister. If the “ekasan lap” is a true indication of the feelings within the upper echelons of the military about PPP-TRT’s ultimate intentions it would be just as well for Samak to demonstrate that he does not share their version of history or ideology (or at least that of the former student activists in the party). He and the PPP need to have a good working relationship with the military in the early days of the government. The royalists will be trying their utmost to destroy the government’s stability since they are fighting for their political survival.
(ii) Samak re-emphasizes his credentials (at least in terms of rhetoric) as an unreconstructed rightist-royalist. This helps him gain some confidence from the royalists, smarting from their big defeat following the formation of the PPP government.
(iii) I don’t know whether the former student leaders-leftists-communists in PPP-TRT would necessarily “cringe” at Samak’s statements, as the Bangkok Post says. Rhetoric is just rhetoric. But in terms of power politics Samak has just helped them defeat the royalist-military-ratchakan state in an important battle (of course, not the last). They are back in power, partly because of Samak. In politics winning is everything. Moreover, Samak coming out with a statement like this ironically works well for them because it focuses attention on October 6. This ought to terrify the royalists, since any “full understanding” of October 6, as the Bangkok Post says it wants, would have to admit the responsibility of the king in the massacre. If this truth became more widely known, coming on the heels of the king’s support for the September 19 coup and the CNS regime, it would severely damage the legitimacy of the monarchy and by implication the royalist establishment. This would presumably translate into greater support for the PPP.
(iv) As Somsak pointed out above, we will witness yet again the hypocrisy of the anti-PPP groups, many of whom supported the royalist coup and the CNS regime. They will come out and express their outrage at Samak’s comments while remaining silent on the role of the king and the royal family in the October 6 massacre.
Anyone wishing to see an end to the manipulation of Thai politics by the king and the royalist-military establishment should welcome the renewed public interest in October 6, whatever Samak says. At the same time, however, they should be hoping for a strong PPP government.
29 Srithanonchai // Feb 18, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I actually was inclined to think that the interview was made up, simply because it looked too much like a persiflage of Samak.
30 fall // Feb 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Reply - Somsak’s letter to Dan River.
Very good point. Why stop at Samak?
But that would means thai newspapers would have to report the whole truth.
And I think that would seriously breach the current thai journalism standard of half-truth and who-say-what.
31 Bangkok Pundit // Feb 18, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have translated Ajarn’s Somsak’s statement in this post and also an op-ed from Ajarn Thongchai.
32 Dickie Simpkins // Feb 18, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Republican said:
“on this issue maybe we need to separate moral outrage and political necessity”
slimy…
very very slimy…
so much for idealism.
33 Land of Snarls // Feb 19, 2008 at 2:27 am
Republican:
“…credibility with the military leadership…”; “…credentials …as an unreconstructed rightist-royalist…”; “…I don’t know whether the former student leaders-leftists-communists in PPP-TRT would necessarily “cringe” at Samak’s statements…”
My God!!! Are you kidding? Crawl out of your burrow.
And yes, Dickie-boy: RIGHT ON!
“on this issue maybe ***we*** need to separate moral outrage and political necessity”
Who is this “we”? I’M not a sociopath.
34 Land of Snarls // Feb 19, 2008 at 3:43 am
And furthermore, Republican- “moral outrage” be buggered.
We’re not talking about an interesting hypothetical concept here, or somebody pinching an office-worker’s bum; we’re talking about a Head of Government lying to the world about the massacre of possibly hundreds of talented and well-intentioned young people who were unarmed & peacefully stating their opposition to the return, IN ORANGE ROBES, of a brutal dictator, who had 3 years previously been responsible for the murder of 77 (official figure); diminishing the massacre of 78 Muslims who were suffocated by being stacked up like carcasses in the back of a truck on a very hot day, by inferring that it was the victims’ fault for engaging in such a strange religious practise as Ramadan, which made them weak; and the slaughter of 38 Muslims who had taken sanctuary in a mosque.
“Political necessity”? Get a grip!
35 Srithanonchai // Feb 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm
It could be interesting to watch Jakrapop’s handling of his government job.
“Jakrapob said he did not intend to show off his power over permanent officials but it was necessary to evaluate their performance in adhering to government policies.
‘They will be evaluated on that basis only. It’s not about personal matters, or about the past, or whether they supported the dictatorship. It is about the present, because we are a democratic government. We need to clean the germs. But what are the criteria? Where are germs? We will take one month for the evaluation,’ he said.”
The Nation, February 21, 2008
“Mr Jakrapob blamed the media for pushing the country into a crisis that eventually led to the coup in Sept 2006. Mr Jakrapob said the government would not allow politicians and activists to use media freedom as a front to hide their attempts to abuse the country.
‘The media has no right to [talk about] protecting its own freedoms while at the same time abusing the freedoms of others,’ he said, adding that the media must accept that a lot of news coverage is biased and emotional.”
Bangkok Post, February 21, 2008
36 Canazei // Feb 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Referring to comment #28.
Very insightful analysis, Republican. While most people, me included, are just outraged by what Samak had said, you go further and position Samak in a historical/political context and point out different ways to look at the situation. Thank you.
37 Srithanonchai // Feb 22, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Doesn’t Samak know when it is time to yom phae? He makes things needlessly worse (from the perspective of his government), while one wonders how he will manage to exit this corner he has driven himself into.
Samak becomes pale when shown his picture taken with Prapass
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej became pale when reporters showed him his picture s which he took with Field Marshal Prapass Jarusathien following the massacre of student activists on October 6 1976.
“Is that me? I didn’t know I took this picture. I didn’t know when I post for this picture and why,” Samak exclaimed when seeing the picture.
Reporters showed him the picture when he was giving a weekly interview to Government House reporters.
The reporters asked him to comment on the opposition’s plan to demand him to tell the House of his role during the October 6 event.
Samak insisted that only one student was killed at Sanam Luang and said he could not remember why he told Thai students in France that many students were killed.
The Nation 22 February 2008
38 rikker // Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Is the Nation mixing up 14 October 1973 and 6 October 1976?
According to his Thai Wikipedia page, Field Marshal Prapass died in 22 August 1976. I can’t seem to find any other web page that will corroborate that death date. However, it’s known that he fled to Taipei after the events of October 1973, and sites like this one, with day-by-day accounts of the events leading up to October 6, mention his coming back to Thailand during August for medical treatment for glaucoma (โรคต้อหิน) and what I think means enlarged heart (โรคหัวใจโต). Students protested en masse, and the last it mentions of him on any web page I can find is that he fled Thailand again amidst the protests, on 22 August 1976, the day Wikipedia reports as the day of his death.
Can anyone else help sort out?
39 Viroj NaRanong // Feb 23, 2008 at 2:08 am
Definitely, the Thai Wikipedia page had it wrong (hopefully someone would correct it soon). Both Generals Prapas and Thanom lived long after the Oct 6 ‘76 event. As I recall, Prapas even became Matichon columnist for a year or so.
40 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 23, 2008 at 11:48 am
Prapass died in 1997(2540). He was royally cremated in January the following year. (He had an audience with KMK and/or MHQ shortly before he died. I used to have a photo but can’t find it now.) His return to Thailand in August 1976 sparked off a protest rally at Thammasat in which a protester died from bomb thrown by right-wing thugs on August 21. (Prapas left the next day.) Looking back, I believe this was a “test-run” of the final assualt of the right-wing forces, culminating in Thanom’s return and the 6 Tula events. Prapas’s memoirs - fak wai hai luk lan (roughly translated: what I leave behind for my children and grand-children) were serialized in Matichon weekly and later published as book by the same publisher in 1991.
Thanom passed away just a couple of years ago, i.e. in 2007 or ten years after Prapas. He was also royally cremated presided over by the Queen; the photos of the cremation ceremony have again been distributed on the net just last week, perhaps by pro-Thaksin activists, to counter the attack on Samak over the 6 Tula interview.
41 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 23, 2008 at 11:52 am
SORRY. The year of Thanom passing should read 2004 (2547 - the conversion to Farang calender confused me!). Or just seven years after Prapas.
42 rikker // Feb 23, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Excellent. I suspected Wikipedia had it wrong, I was just having trouble finding a source for the real death date. Armed with your new info, I found it: 18 August 1997, and I corrected Thai Wikipedia accordingly. Thanks!
43 Sidh S. // Feb 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Updating Srithanonchai’s #37 (in what I see as the move toward’s PMThaksin grand return):
Sunai Manomai-udom, head of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), was removed from his position yesterday. The big moves are starting as PMSamak and Chalerm self-combusts. Before the whole PPP house burns down, the urgent task left is to free the 111 banned politicians and manipulate PMThaksin and co’s corruption cases. PMThaksin could return to head the resurrected TRT and sweep to an easy election victory, distancing himself from his director’s role of the PPP demise (PMThaksin knows both the strong and weak points of his pawns and his oppositions - ask PMSurayud and watch how PMSamak is quickly being dragged down into the gutters in the media). If his gamble plays out rightly, he’ll come back very strong (but probably significantly less than at the peak of his powers in 2005 - but who knows what else he is capable of).
At that time, how will Thai democracy be re-defined by PMThaksin (or do we really think he will be inclusive?)? How will Thai democracy including key events of 1932, 1973, 197 6 , 1992, 1997, 2004-2006* be re-written, re-framed under a ‘reformed’ (or vengeful) PMThaksin?
(*Here I include PMThaksin’s War on Drugs, Krue-sae and Takbai as some of the darkest days of Thai democracy comparable to 1973 and 1976. It could be a generation gap here as I ‘lived’ through those events while I was only a child in 1973 and 1976)
On the other hand, the gamble could go terribly wrong. At this point it will depend on how the relationship between the man-in-power and the power-behind-the screens pan out. PMThaksin will not want PMSamak as his enemy while Samak heads the government… I suspect if he (PMSamak) is to go down, he will try to bring PMThaksin down with him. Just by dissolving parliament without lifting the ban means PMThaksin will have to piece together another very expensive nominee government.
44 Land of Snarls // Feb 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm
More revised figures & interesting logic from PM Samak:
“He said he was informed that there were only 59 drug suspects killed by the police and others had been killed by those in the same drug gangs.
Had they been innocent, they would not have been killed, he said.
Mr Samak suggested that those who had lost their relatives during the anti-drug campaign lodge complaints with police so wrongdoers could be taken to court.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.php?id=126099
and
“Speaking to Interior Mini-stry executives, provincial governors and district chiefs, Chalerm said it would be natural if more than 2,700 people were killed during the upcoming crackdown. “
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/02/23/headlines/headlines_30066235.php
45 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
For all those who show outrage against Samak’s disgrace, here I suggest another similar - indeed more relevant - case to show your high morality: Thanin Kraiwichian.
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear enough last time, for no one who shows outrage at Samak’s disgrace seems too eager to take up my sugggestion. So let me make the point even clearer: Here’s another case concerning a “Disgrace” about the 6 Tula events. It’s also an ONGOING case. I’m speaking of Thanin Kraiwichian.
Like Samak, Thanin went on TV regularly befor Oct6 to promote hatred of the student movement.
Even more than Samak, Thanin was the architech of the coup d’etat that took place on the night of October 6. He drafted a “plan” for a post-coup government more than six months before the eventual coup. (It was he who, in all probability, coined the term “Khana patirup kan pokkrong phaendin” - the name of the coup group.) He was also the drafter of the post-coup constitution which proclaimed a 12 year dictatorial regime. (Thankfully, it ended just after a year!)
Even more than Samak, Thanin after the coup assumed the top government post of PM using his power to hunt down, arrested survivors of the 6 Tula massacre. He also used the Article 21 of the Constitution he drafted to punish people including with execution, outside any juditial process.
Even more than Samak, Thanin after loosing his government job, has assumed a highly prestigeous position, richly paid by public money contunually for over 30 years now.
As regards the last point, if anyone would say without thinking that Thanin’s position is insignificant and powerless, let me ask: Isn’t it all the more reasonable to dis-continue spending public money on him given that his position has no importance? If he has had no power, then you all would surely be “safer” to mount a critique of him, wouldn’t you? Even more reasons to show outrage at his continution in the position.
So, how about that? Let’s start a campaign.
Who first?
46 nganadeeleg // Feb 26, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Maybe Samak is trying to emulate Thanin - he’s already PM (also after being personally selected), so after a bit of ‘hunting’, he might be be on to the Privy Council.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.