Tongue-Thai'ed! Part XIII: A coup (de main) for national unity
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 24, 2012 “Tongue-Thai’ed!” encapsulates the most baffling, amusing, confusing, outrageous and appalling quotes from Thai politicians and other public figures – in short: everything we hear that makes us go “Huh?!”. Check out all past entries here.
The General Sonthi Boonyaratglin of 2006 is very different from the Sonthi Boonyaratglin of today. The former was army chief and led the 2006 military coup that toppled the government of Thaksin Shinawatra and created one of the first pivotal moments of the current political crisis. Sonthi has since retired from military service, hung up his uniform in exchange for a business suit, became a MP and leader of the Matubhum Party. And for some utterly inexplicable reason, he also heads the House committee on national reconciliation. When pressed to reveal who's really behind the coup, Sonthi swore to take his secrets to the grave.
For the chairman of a committee to evaluate the roots of the political crisis and find solutions for the much heralded reconciliation (which nobody has properly defined it yet), a former army chief that led a military coup wouldn't be the first choice to my mind.
Recently though, he at least revealed the real reasons for the coup...
พล.อ.สนธิ กล่าวว่า ระบบชนชั้นถือเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย เพราะยึดติดบุคคลมากกว่าองค์กร ขณะเดียวกันไม่ว่าใครมาเข้ามาบริหารประเทศก็จะยึดติดอยู่กับเรื่องการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจ แต่มองข้ามเรื่องความรักความสามัคคีของประชาชนในประเทศ ซึ่งความขัดแย้งของไทยมีมาตั้งแต่ปี 2475 และขัดแย้งรุนแรงสุดในปี 2549 จากการปฏิวัติรัฐประหาร แต่แท้จริงแล้วเหตุผลของการปฏิวัติ คือต้องการให้เกิดความสามัคคีเพราะเหตุหลักๆไม่มีรัฐบาลใดที่จะสร้างความเข้มแข็งในกรณีดังกล่าวนี้ จนถึงปัจจุบันนี้ก็ผ่านรัฐบาลมาแล้ว 5 ชุด ซึ่งส่วนใหญ่ก็ยังเน้นแก้ปัญหาในเรื่องเศรษฐกิจ การเมือง และการปกครอง แต่ในการพัฒนาสังคมทำน้อยมาก
General Sonthi said: "The clash of the classes is a barrier for the development of democracy because it is dependent of individuals rather than organizations. No matter who comes to serve [in the government] is only focused on politics and economy but overlook the [issue of] unity of the Thai people. Thus, divisions have existed since 1932, and the 2006 coup has caused the most - but the real reason of the coup is the need for unity because no [civil] government whatsoever has created a strong enough one. To this day, we had five governments that mostly have focussed on solving the problems in economy and politics, but very little in the development of society."
"“บิ๊กบัง” ชี้ ระบบชนชั้นเป็นอุปสรรคในการพัฒนาประชาธิปไตย", Daily News, April 20, 2012 - translation by me
Gen. Sonthi seems to get lost in his own words: On one hand, he acknowledges the severe consequences of the military coup that did more harm than good. But then on the other he still insists that it was the only legitimate way to restore national unity among all Thais! To put it in simpler terms: to restore 'democracy' they had to stage a non-democratic coup!
Nevertheless he faces strong criticism from those who are still supporting the coup, accusing him of being in cahoots with the Yingluck government to give Thaksin a clean slate for a return. It seems that the Sonthi of today is really a different one from the General Sonthi - so much so that, according to a satirical cartoon in Manager/ASTV, his 2006-self shoots himself in the head in shame of his current self.
Note: coup de main [ˈˌku də ˈmeɪn]: noun, "a sudden surprise attack, esp. one made by an army during war."
If you come across any verbosities that you think might fit in here send us a email at siamvoices [at] gmail.com or tweet us @siamvoices.
Saksith Saiyasombut is a Thai blogger and journalist currently based in Hamburg, Germany. He can be followed on Twitter @Saksith and on Facebook here.
After the tsunami scare: The failure of Thai TV to inform
Originally published at Siam Voices on April 13, 2012
At 3.38pm (all times local) April 11, 2012, an earthquake occurred at the bottom of the Indian ocean west of Sumatra for a mere few minutes. The order of magnitude however was originally recorded at a very strong 8.9 (subsequently downgraded to 8.6). At 3.45pm, the Hawaii-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami warning for essentially the entire coastline along the Indian ocean, who predicted the arrival of the waves on the Thai islands of Phuket, Kho Phra Thong and Kho Tarutao in a timespan of two hours beginning at 6.18pm local time. The Thai authorities issued their own warnings in six provinces and many coastal areas were evacuated, as people were urged to move to higher ground.
However, on Thai television there was hardly a hint about it. All Thai terrestrial TV channels were covering the funeral ceremony of Princess Bejaratana Rajasuda, a cousin of King Bhumibol and the only child of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), throughout the afternoon until they switched over for "breaking" news coverage. These TV channels were facing criticism over their failure to inform people about what was going on at the Kingdom's Andaman coastlines during an emergency situation, where up to the minute information could have been crucial. But how could that happen?
All terrestrial TV channels (Channel 3, 5, 7, MCOT, NBT and ThaiPBS) were broadcasting the TV pool live footage produced by a joint venture of these aforementioned channels and the Royal Palace exclusively for this occasion and not, as some have suggested, by the government or a similar agency. When the first warnings about a potential tsunami were issued, all TV channels stayed on the ceremony.
Viewers were at best informed by an occasional ticker at the bottom of the screen (it could be argued that this should have been run not only in Thai but also in English, considering the many foreign tourists at the beaches) or, like in many such cases, by local radio stations and social media (and a few cable or satellite news channels like Nation Channel and Spring News) - the latter heavily criticizing the lacking TV coverage. It took two hours since the first tsunami warnings before ThaiPBS decided to pull out of the royal coverage at 5.42pm, shortly followed by a few others after 6pm.
In attempts to clarify the situation, it was explained that the Royal Palace actually allowed the TV directors to cut away from the royal ceremony "at any time." (as mentioned here in a ThaiPBS report) Also, the National Broadcast & Telecommunication Commission (NBTC) has directly approached the TV stations and asked for their cooperation (as seen here in a letter tweeted by now-NBTC board member Supinya Klangnarong), since a regulation in such emergency cases is reportedly still being drafted.
So what prevented the broadcasters from pulling out of a royal ceremony to cover an urgent emergency situation, even though they had the apparent freedom to do so? ThaiPBS deputy director Vanchai Tantivitayapitak wrote on Facebook that the decision to pull out of the royal ceremony coverage required "presence of mind and courage" - a clear hint at a deeper-lying problem.
Since this was a funeral involving a member of the royal family, it was social pre-emptive obedience that prevented the terrestrial TV channels from reporting on the tsunami warning anytime sooner. In these times, where public loyalty to the royal institution is being demanded and any perceived move outside the norm is being heavily scrutinized (and at times punished), it is difficult to put the priorities desired by some over the essential priority to inform.
The relief, when the tsunami warnings have been lifted, was no doubt high among all involved. However, this should not dillute the failures of Thai television to comprehensively inform and report on a developing story and an emergency situation. The fears of social retribution and stigma has shown this time how restrictive they really are, even considering what would have been at stake. At least the outcome of this media episode, and its unprecedented amount of criticism, would be clarity, should such a situation happen again.
Thai "Macbeth" movie banned over fears it causes 'disunity'
Originally published at Asian Correspondent on April 4, 2012
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair."
(Three Witches, Act I, Scene I)
The Tragedy of Macbeth is a famous play by William Shakespeare that tells the story of a man and a woman on their bloody path to the throne of Scotland and their violent downfall, driven by arrogance, paranoia and death. The 400-year-old story has been adapted and re-interpreted countless times, even spanning movie versions from Japan and more recently from India.
A Thai adaptation named "Shakespeare must die" (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) has also been produced — touted by its directors Ing K. and Manit Sriwanichpoom as the first from the kingdom — set to be released later this year.
Set in an alternate Thailand ruled by a "superstitious, megalomaniacal and murderous dictator," a theater group plays their adaptation of Macbeth. As it can be seen by the trailer below, the movie's themes borrow heavily from the volatile current political climate, with street protests and burning effigies (but also notably a visual reference to the Thammasat Massacre).
However, this will not happen, according to the producer's press release:
This afternoon the Thai Film Censorship Board, under the Department of Cultural Promotion, Ministry of Culture, ruled to ban ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, the first Thai Shakespearean film, a horror movie adaptation of William Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’.
To quote the Record of Film Inspection (see scanned attachment): “the Board deems that the film Shakespeare Must Die has content that causes divisiveness among the people of the nation, according to Ministerial Regulations stipulating types of film, BE 2552 [AD 2009], Article 7 (3).
Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer "Shakespeare Must Die", April 3, 2012
It is the second movie (the first one was 2010's "Insect in the Backyard") to be banned from commercial release under the Thai Film Act of 2008. According to Matichon, the board was about to determine the age rating for the movie. However, it did not reach a consensus and asked the directors to edit or cut some scenes. The director duo refused and thus the board decided to ban it.
"Those he commands move only in command, / Nothing in love (...)"
(Angus, Act V, Scene II)
What is noteworthy is that the movie got financial support from several government initiatives and funds (as seen in the last seconds of the trailer), namely the Thai Khem Khaeng Initiative, the Creative Thailand Project under the previous Abhisit administration, the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture and the now-defunct Ministry of Culture’s film fund. Surely, all these organizations must have been submitted with a pitch for the movie and a rough outline of the synopsis.
The producer continues:
It seems strange that the cultural ministry would ban Shakespeare, in the form of a film that the ministry itself had funded. It’s as if we’re actually living under a real live Macbeth. There are cinematic versions of Macbeth from all over the world—India, Japan, Taiwan, you name it. This is the first Thai Shakespearean film and, for reasons of national security, it is deemed too dangerous for Thai people to see!
Press release by Manit Sriwanichpoom, Producer "Shakespeare Must Die", April 3, 2012
"Make all our trumpets speak; give them all breath, Those clamorous harbingers of blood and death."
(Macduff, Act V, Scene VI)
According to director Ing K.*, the production has been plagued by many problems, most notably during the 2010 red shirt protests:
Our cast and crew motto was: Fight Fear with Art; Make Art with Love. It’s not an easy one to live by but very inspiring. (...) We needed a brave set motto, since in the making of the film we faced literal hell fire (red shirt occupation and riots in 2010 which closed down the filming for two weeks, made it a hassle for everyone to get to work, especially Lady Macduff who was daily and nightly harassed by red shirt guards so that she had to move, and once on 28th April stranded us in Rangsit when the highway back to Bangkok was cut off when violence broke out and a soldier was shot dead by a sniper) and literal high water (postproduction interrupted by the flood of 2011).
Director’s Statement by Ing K., co-director "Shakespeare Must Die", March 13, 2012
This might also have colored the director's bias against the red shirts who describes them as "violent, unreasoning, fanatical morons (...), courtesy of the alchemical spin of the Thaksin machine."
She also reveals that he has shot actual footage of the May 19 crackdown on the red shirts, in particular the burnings of Central World and other buildings that have been edited into the movie - which is reportedly one of the scenes objected by the film board, fearing that the viewers would be too stupid have difficulties to distinguish fiction from reality.
But may be it could have also been the end that was very contentious (spoiler warning!):
In the world of the theatre, the tragedy ends with their deaths, but in the real world of the film, the tragedy begins as Dear Leader’s fanatical followers burst into the playhouse and, enraged by this perceived affront to their idol, massacre everyone present. Amidst sounds of cheering, the play’s director is hanged;
Synopsis of "Shakespeare Must Die"
This scene is a thinly veiled reference to the various personality focused cults in the Thai political history and their potentially violent consequences as seen most recently by the controversy over the Nirirat group and the threats made against them.
"When our action do not, / Our fears do make us traitors"
(Lady Macduff, Act IV, Scene II)
Art has been always been used to reflect and comment on society in various ways, sometimes exaggerated, sometimes painfully accurate. This little art project dared to paint the Thai political crisis with a broad brush and with the story of Macbeth, the creators are re-telling one of the most important stories about the striving for power, the paranoia of holding on to it and the downward spiral madness when it is unchallenged and out of control.
This movie might have not been the best to tell this, but with the commercial ban this project gets more attention than its creators would have ever imagined. Thus, it is unsurprising is the reason that the movie causes "divisiveness among the people of the nation" - a non-sense, empty urge for national 'unity' at all costs that has been far too often said in this political crisis, while being completely oblivious that the key to move forward is the co-existence of different views and idea(l)s.
*UPDATE: A reader has pointed out this profile on co-director Ing K. and her past work - least to say, she's somewhat of an enfant terrible in the Thai movie scene...!