When We Are Cursed With an Incomplete Memory of History

8/9/2019 When We Are Cursed With an Incomplete Memory of History

1/7

Siam Intelligence Unit

http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

1

When we are Cursed with an Incomplete

Memory of History

Kan Yuenyong : Siam Intelligence Unit

Translated by : Pokpong Laowansiri : Prachatai

(Translated from original article at Prachatai : F)

On Monday the 7th of last month, at a seminar on What the National Counter

Corruption Commission should be like from the perspective of the government, the private sector

and the people. General Pasit Sonthikhan, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Office of the

National Security Council said this in his opening remarks:

Before, there were many problems, but we can say that Thailand is like this is because

of one person. In the past, many politicians had to go into exile outside the country such as Ajarn

Pridi Banomyong and Ajarn Puey Ungpakorn although they did not commit any wrongdoing.

Currently both of them are respected as statesmen. It could be that in the past there were

different thoughts within society. After the two leaders left the country, although people

encouraged them to come back, they did not for the sake of national peace, they never asked

anyone for a chance to return. They made a sacrifice. It was no pleasure for them to live in exile

because they did not have trillions of baht and did not have the money to buy a football team1

These words of General Pasit are not only interesting in terms of historical perspective in

that he gave the wrong memory regarding Dr. Pridi Banomyong and Dr. Puey Ungpakorn. But

when I read the news and comments from main stream Thai media on the return of Thaksin

Shinawatra to Thailand, which is the hottest news currently, that news and commentary also

share the fact that historical memories in Thai society are incomplete. It therefore leads to

conclusions that do not reflect the reality of Thai politics and create illusions for the Thai middle

class, which have been consuming the news constantly. I will elaborate more on this.

It is interesting that General Pasit accepted that both Pridi and Puey did not do anything

wrong and are both respected as national statesman. However, in the historical context, Pridi was

forced into exile on the charge of being the mastermind behind the assassination of King

Ananda Mahidol. This is a serious charge which concerns other defendants who were also

alleged to be involved, namely Boos Patamasarin, Chit Singhaseni, and Chaliew Patumros. The

1General Pasit Condemns Buriram Mobs as Inapproprate, Naew Na, http://www.naewna.com/news.asp?ID=89892


2/7



2

hypothesis was that Pridi was behind the three of them. Under the assassination charge, the

three defendants were given death penalty after they had been detained for eight full years.2

In reality, Pridi had to fight accusations from his enemies both in legal battles and

through print media for a long time until it was accepted that he was innocent in the case of the

assassination of King Ananda Mahidol. The charge against Pridi was so harsh that even Sulak

Sivaraksa also believed that Pridi was involved in the assassination of King Ananda Mahidol.

Sulak wrote a commentary in Social Science Review on Rayne Krugers The Devils Discus,

criticizing Pridi and the Kruger. Recently, Sulak wrote in Pajarayasarn that the reason he had

written the commentary criticizing Pridi was that he believed in the propaganda that Pridi was

behind the death of the King. Later, he compensated by writing a book about Pridi which was

later translated into English. The book was called Powers That Be: Pridi Banomyong through

the Rise and Fall of Thai Democracy.3

What is more peculiar is that since society later accepted

Pridis innocence (in the views of Sulak or General Pasit), why has the case of Boos, Chit, and

Chaliew not been thoroughly reviewed, like the case of Pridi, since the charges against three of

them are closely connected to Pridis case (Pridi was alleged to be behind three of them)

On the next point, the information of General Pasit that neither Pridi nor Puey

returned to Thailand is still incorrect. (The case of Puey is a separate and different issue, since

he did return to Thailand later. I will discuss this later). After the coup dtat in 1947 which

overthrew the government of Rear Admiral Thawal Thamrong Navaswadhi and which Pridi had

supported, the coup plotters appointed Mr. Khuang Abhaiwongse as Prime Minister. (The coup

plotters later pressured Khuang to step down and Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram was appointed

Prime Minister). Two years later, on 26 February 1949, Pridi came back and attempted to

regain power back by staging a coup dtat. It was supported by part of the Navy, but failed.

The attempted coup dtat by Pridi was later called Royal Palace (Wang Luang) Rebellion.

The incident forced Pridi to live in exile until he passed away. (Prior to that, Pridi had tried to

stage a coup dtat, which was led by Major General Somboon Saranuchit, Major General Net

Khemayothin, Colonel Kitti Tattanont, and Major Phayom Chulanont. However, on 1 October

1948, they were all arrested before they carried out their coup. This attempt was called the

Chief-of-Staff Rebellion since most of the officers involved were in the Office of the Chief-of-

Staff)4

250 years 17 February 1955, by Somsak Jeamteerasakul, http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-

post.html3

Pajarayasarn, 32: 1 (September-October 2007), pages 80-824

Evolution of the power of Thai Soldiers (1932-Present), Prajadipok Archive,

http://www.kpi.ac.th/kpidb/inc/download.asp?file=../download/political23_2475-.pdf


3/7



3

In the case of Puey Ungpakorn, after the massacre of students by right wing groups on 6

October 1976 and the threats that he received from those in power, Puey had to choose to live in

exile.5

The allegation of the right wing groups was that Puey had connections with theCommunist Party of Thailand (CPT). Perhaps because the issue of the CPT was not given much

focus later on or because of the CPT political and military loss to the Thai government, Puey was

able to return to Thailand for the first time on 1 April 1987. This first visit was well received by

those that still respected him highly. Puey later returned to Thailand three times, in 1993, 1995,

and 1997, before he passed away on 28 July 1999.6

Pictures from newspapers in the1970s alleging connections between Puey Ungpakorn and the

Communists. The photos were taken from Sarakadee Magazine Special Edition Puey Ungpakorn (1916-

1999), page 106

5Puey Ungpakorn gave his account of the incident where was harassed by then Pol Lieutenant Colonel Sarang

Boonnak. [Salang] approached the writer [Puey] when I was talking on the phone. He acted in a vulgar manner by

knocking the phone from me. He was cursing the writer on and on. He said that he would arrest me and take me to

the Director-General of the Police Department. The writer did not retaliate or say anything. The memory of Pol

Lieutenant Colonel Salang is different. I then walked to where Dr. Puey was talking on the phone and asked the

Professor to please go inside. I told him twice but he continued talking on the phone. I then knocked the phoneaway from his hand and pulled him into a room of the airport. After we were in the room and I deemed it safe, I

wai-ed him and introduced myself as his student at Thammasat. I explained that I had taken a rough attitude

towards him for those outside to see that I was not with him. Dr. Puey told me and other airport staff, including

the customs and immigration officers, that the reason he was on the phone was that he did not have any money

with him Many officers said they were his students and many collected money to give to him. Later he accepted

the money Although the information from the two are contradictory, it shows that threats from the right wing

were imminent. See Who is who in 6 October, Somsak Jeamteerasakul,

http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2007/special/vivata/samak4.pdf. Somsak points out interesting acts that cast

doubts on the role of Salang who claimed to be running around Bangkok all night and circumstantial information

that could disprove Salangs claim (that he went to protect Puey).6

Puey Ungpakorn, Wikipedia, http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/_F


4/7



4

We can say that General Pasit created an incorrect historical memory about both Pridi

and Puey. Both of them did come back to their motherland after their exile. In the case of Pridi,

he attempted to stage a coup dtat but failed. After that he had to remain in exile for the rest of

his life. Although Puey could return to Thailand, he passed away when he was outside Thailand.

I still believe that General Pasit came to a wrong conclusion because Pridi did not come back

the sake of national peace; they never asked anyone for a chance to return, but in truth Pridi

could not return to Thailand because he did not have political allies to support him or the

ruling class still saw him as a player that could put them in political danger. In the case of

Puey, I pointed out that the reason he could come back was the different political situation. He

was no longer a threat to the ruling class anymore. This reason is valid if we look at the case of

other political leaders who were ousted from power or by coup dtat. All of them could return toThailand, whether Thanom-Prapass, the leaders of the Young Turks, or General Chatichai

Choonhavan. Although these people were exiled to other countries, they were later able to return

since they no longer posed a threat to the ruling class.

Puey Ungpakorn and his mentor, Pridi Banomyong. This picture was taken at Imperial College, University

of London during 1974-1975. From Sarakadee Magazine Special Edition, Pridi Banomyong Free Spirit,

Page 77


5/7



5

Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra is the fourth political leader who had to live in exile but his case

is different than other political leaders who were able to return since they did no longer posed a

threat to the ruling class.7

(Perhaps I should say that the ruling class no longer saw those particular leaders as

threats to them anymore). The case of Thaksin is a different case. He was able to return to

Thailand after living in exile for 527 days, even though the ruling class still sees him as a threat,

which means that the situation could turn out politically beneficial to him. All in all, we cannot

conclude how this will end since when I was writing this article, political conflict was still at its

peak and it appears unlikely to end easily. We can see that Thaksin is still very cautious as he

chose to reserve the 33rd, 34th, and 35th floors of the Peninsula Hotel, altogether 11 rooms at a

cost of 106,000 baht per room, making the charge 1,166,000 baht per night.8 At the same time

there is a rumour that three Swiss-made (SIG Sig Sauer SSG 3000) sniper rifles havedisappeared from an army arsenal.

9

The return to political power of Thaksin for the first time after the coup dtat on 19

September 2007 is not a matter of coincidence alone. Those that are close to him, such as Mr.

Newin Chidchobs faction, have important posts in Samak Sundaravejs cabinet and Mr.

Yongyuth Tiyapairaj is Speaker of the House. Many of Thaksins close aides, such as Dr.

Surapong Suepwonglee or Mr. Somchai Wongsawat have given important post in the Samak

cabinet. These are signs that Thaksin is still very influential in the Peoples Power Party which is

the leading faction of the current government.

The clearer truth that shows the close relationship between Mr. Thaksin and the Peoples

Power Party was the distribution of the Thaksin VCDs were during the last general election10

,

and Thaksins media interviews during the last stages of the election. This shows that Thaksin

has never stayed away from politics only that he did not run in the election or serve in the

7The three leaders who faced a situation similar to Thaksins were:

(1) Pridi Banomyong went into exile after he was framed of involvement in the assassination of King AnandaMahidol and his failed attempt coup dtat. He passed away quietly from a heart attack while he was

writing a book at his home outside Paris on 2 May 1983 when he was 82 years old.

(2) In a later period when he was in power, Field Marshal Phibunsongkhram failed in trying to balance powerbetween Police Major General Phao Sriyanond and General Sarit Dhanarajata. He was ousted by General

Sarit. He was in exile in Japan until his death on 11 June 1964. He died at Sakami-o sub-district, Tokyo,

when he was 66 years old.

(3) Wirat Angkathawon was the political leader of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) during its peakrevolutionary period. After the internal disintegration of the CPT, Wirats brain was affected by high blood

pressure. He was treated in a hospital in Beijing (a special hospital reserved for executive members of the

Chinese Government; Deng Xiaoping was also a patient at his death). In 1988-1989, he suffered a seizure

and was unable to move his body. He passed away at dawn on 16 June 1997 when he was 76 years old.8

Matichon Newspaper, Friday 29 February 2008, page 159

Matichon Newspaper, Murder Weapon, Friday 29 February 2008, page 1110

See the charges filed against 30 PPP MPs by the Democrats who claimed the distribution of the Thaksin VCD was

illegal: http://www.matichon.co.th/news_title.php?id=1101


6/7



6

government. When he kissed the ground at Suvarnabhumi Airport, it was more than a political

act since every newspaper published the picture the next day (even when he bought members of

the Manchester City Football Team, it was also for political purpose).

This is not politics?

Therefore, even though Thaksin has declared over and over again that he will not be

involved in politics and would retire from politics11

, but this is a long way from persuading the

opposition to believe his declaration.12 The general media are also doubtful if Mr. Thaksin will

really retire from politics. It has been said that if Thaksin wants a stable situation, he should

retire from politics as he has declared and let the political mechanisms function.13

11During Thaksins press conference at the Sakultara Room, Peninsula Hotel on 28 February 2008, he stressed once

again a similar message that he will retire from politics. He stated clearly, Is it not ordinary for politicians to come

and meet me? I played a role in bringing many politicians into the political arena. Is this not Thai culture? When I

have not met them for long time, in Thai culture they have to come to greet me, but this does not mean I will be

involved in politics again. I have returned today, but I do not want to get involved in politics again although there

are sceptics who fear that I will come back to compete in the political arena. I want them to be assured that I will

spend my life peacefully and creatively with my family. I am 59 years old now. Peoples lives are not long. I have

worked hard for the country; therefore I want to stay with my family. In my last part of my life, what I want most is

to do good things for the country12

For example see the comment from Prasong Soonsiri in Prasong makes fun of Thaksin paying respects to the

earth, http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2008/02/29/WW03_0301_news.php?newsid=23456413

For example see the editorial in Krungthep Turakij, Thaksin should remember a political lesson where no side is

victorious http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/2008/02/29/WW12_1237_news.php?newsid=234370 , Suwapong

Janfangpetch in Matichon Daily


7/7



7

The view of the media if taken superficially could seem positive since it shows that the

media can understand the behaviour of the former Prime Minister. However in reality it shows

how the media could not see the broader picture of politics where not all political elements arenot covered. To look at politics in a realistic manner, the groups in opposition to Thaksins

camp has also been following the same tactics, which is political intervention and influence

despite not being involved in politics (electoral politics). Since this is so, it reflects that the

media is acting innocent in calling for Mr. Thaksin to retire from politics, because in reality he

will never retire from politics ever, since the opposition will never retire from politics either.

The media however should not be blamed. If individuals like General Pasit, serving as

Deputy Director of the Secretariat of the National Security Council, still has an incorrect

memory, how can we expect the mainstream media to look at the political picture thoroughly?

Although they can look at the picture from different perspectives, but they cannot present it all,which is another problem. Errors in presenting political information to the public could lead

them to an incorrect analysis since they cannot compare the elements thoroughly.14

It is not rare to see the news reporting resemble a ping-pong ball, when reporters gather

to solicit comments from politicians. The questions that are asked indicate that the reporters have

not done enough research. Since the information has been manipulated from the start and the

news consumers want general information, newspapers and reporters can only offer what the

market wants.

It is a tragedy that we cannot understand politics in detail. Many then become disgusted

with politics, calling it repulsive.15 If all sides have been analyzed and presented, we can see that

there is no side that is fair and impartial and this could affect basic political thought. If a genuine

evaluation can be made which would lead to the peoples political participation, basic structural

changes could happen.

Lasswell and Kaplan once made the remark that democracy will only grow when its

citizens become politicized. This means that the citizens have to (1) care about political events;

(2) have the perspective that citizens need to be involved with politics either directly or

indirectly from birth to death; (3) believe that politics is as important as other things that they

should dedicate their time to.16

How could this kind of democracy grow if society still

manipulates and blocks some information and lacks systematic criticism?

http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/matichon_detail.php?s_tag=01col02290251&day=2008-02-29ionid=0116

has similar comments.14

What is more ironical is the recognition that the international media have a better understanding of the Thai

political situation than the Thai media or Thai people.15

The latest evidence is the refusal to discuss the 6 October incident in detail.16

See further comments in Thai democracy: can it be sustain?[sic] by Tier Etat

http://patvc74.blogspot.com/2008/02/thai-democracy-can-it-be-sustain.html

Documents

When We Are Cursed With an Incomplete Memory of History