Siam Intelligence Unit

http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 :

 ก กก)

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 team”1

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

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

1
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 Kruger’s “The Devil’s 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
Pridi’s 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 Pridi’s 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 d’état 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 d’état. It was supported by part of the Navy, but failed.
The attempted coup d’état 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 d’état, 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

2
50 years – 17 February 1955, by Somsak Jeamteerasakul, http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-
post.html
3
Pajarayasarn, 32: 1 (September-October 2007), pages 80-82
4
Evolution of the power of Thai Soldiers (1932-Present), Prajadipok Archive,
http://www.kpi.ac.th/kpidb/inc/download.asp?file=../download/political23_

ก2475-
 .pdf

2
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 the
Communist 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

5
Puey 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 phone
away 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 Salang’s claim (that he went to protect Puey).
Puey Ungpakorn, Wikipedia, http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
_ก
6

3
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 d’état 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 d’état. All of them could return to
Thailand, 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

4
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 have
disappeared from an army arsenal.9

The return to political power of Thaksin for the first time after the coup d’état on 19
September 2007 is not a matter of coincidence alone. Those that are close to him, such as Mr.
Newin Chidchob’s faction, have important posts in Samak Sundaravej’s cabinet and Mr.
Yongyuth Tiyapairaj is Speaker of the House. Many of Thaksin’s 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 People’s Power Party which is
the leading faction of the current government.

The clearer truth that shows the close relationship between Mr. Thaksin and the People’s
Power Party was the distribution of the Thaksin VCDs were during the last general election10,
and Thaksin’s 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

7
The three leaders who faced a situation similar to Thaksin’s were:
(1) Pridi Banomyong went into exile after he was framed of involvement in the assassination of King Ananda
Mahidol and his failed attempt coup d’état. 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 power
between 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 peak
revolutionary period. After the internal disintegration of the CPT, Wirat’s 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 15
9
Matichon Newspaper, Murder Weapon, Friday 29 February 2008, page 11
10
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

5
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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

11
During Thaksin’s 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. People’s 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 country”
12
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=234564
13
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

6
Siam Intelligence Unit
http://www.siamintelligenceunit.com

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 are
not covered. To look at politics in a realistic manner, the groups in opposition to Thaksin’s
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 people’s 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=2008-02-29§ionid=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