Every once in awhile you write a really "decent" article HG. Well said. And I am not implying that your other stuff is in anyway "indecent". I just like this stuff better. Even though there's nothing funny about it. Life is actually not a joke, or a least I prefer not to consider it so.

Thanks (again) HG, for reminding me of the 'unique' right to be mass-murdered for more than thirty years with all the perpetrators walk away with impunity. The minimum requirement for this privilege is 'Thai style democracy' or something worse. It's something unimaginable to westerners. Some perpetrators even get 'praise' and well respected, that's wonderful, isn't it?

This kind of ludicrousness is strictly reserved for certain countries only. So proud to be in one of them.

I like yr humour here Dr J. many times (dark) humour can challenge things and encourage people to think and be more aware much more than violence (i.e like the one Myth seemed to embrace a few days back, verbally at least).

Frank Anderson's latest article is a nice companian piece for HG's.

I admire how JFL (and Frank) can remain so serious about life - I am unable to sustain such an attitute for long without getting depressed, so I need to treat it as a joke sometimes, just to cope.
(unfortunately its often a sick joke - and not only regarding Thai politics:)

Thanks for the link Hobby. Here is from the article u linked to:
"Such was the case when the son of Thailand's former Minister of Interior Chalerm Yubamrung flew the coop after allegedly shooting and killing a police officer at Bangkok’s Club 20 in 2001. The son, Duang Yubamrung, escaped to Malaysia, and told the Thai media he wanted to wait until Thai society reformed and learned how to deal with the “truth” before he came back."

I actually used the word 'truth' in my earlier post!!!Is this ironic (or maybe an ironic coincidence)? (or maybe i use 'ironic' in the wrong sense? Never knows what this word exactly mean.

Thanks Joy, though I myself find it's hard to recognise the humourous part of my comment. It's one of the few things in my life that's can't be easily let go.

Regarding stanG's article, I have a lot of arguements. Samak's comment concerning the Oct 76 massacre was not a white lie, though the whole world had already known what's exactly happenning that day. He needed some rationalization to keep his ego intact, even lying to himself sometimes. For the tyrants trio(Thanom, Prapas, Narong), they weren't demonized overnight by some students. Actually they're ousted by their rivals esp. those generals in the same army who kept their dissents towards the trio for years. In other word, there's an unannounced coup in Oct 73, that getting rid the trio NOT the masses uprise.

I agree with StanG for one thing, everybody has good parts and bad parts. For Samak, his good parts are, he's a man of his words, a family man, his straightforwardness. He's going to 'live' in my thought til I'm done. He's already had a place in my personal historybook, one of my (personal) legend of all time.

There must be defense argument for millions of Thais who supported the establishment and even joined Krating Daeng and Nawapol but who didn't personally participate in any violence.

To what degree do you hold them responsible for the massacre? To what degree the society should hold them responsible? Or maybe they WERE the society? Who should be the judge administering justice then? The UN?

>>>

I do not know if Samak screamed "kill them, kill them" on the radio, I've never seen exact content of his speeches.

I don't believe you need any evidence that student movement in 1976 was in a tiny minority, both before the massacre and after, when they took the arms and joined Maoist insurgency.

I mean - what better justification could they give to Samak for his pre-massacre speeches about them being rebellious commies?

StanG/Trep says, "I do not know if Samak screamed "kill them, kill them" on the radio...", twisting words yet again. I didn't say "screaming"; I said "chanting". I have never heard or read a report that said he was screaming.

StanG/Trep is currently being thoroughly barbecued @ New Mandala for similar crimes: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/11/16/saturday-red-sunday-yellow-the-temperature-rises-again/

Such obsessive nitpickery by a novice, should not go unrewarded. I predict that he will end up being tried for Crimes Against Humility.

In 1973 half a million people took to the streets and the military was doing the shootings.

In 1976 only about 4,000 students were at Thammasat and the killings were perpetrated by fellow Thais, the army and police stood by and watched.

Every account of those years I've seen admits that anti-communist propaganda centered on protecting the nation and the monarchy had a mass appeal, the country had a population of about 40 million.

Every account also says that students were branded as "commies" unfairly, but it didn't help their cause when they actually took the arms and went into the jungle.

It doesn't matter that not all of the survivors joined CPT, I bet it was enough for Samak to say "I told you so".

Michael, I don't care if Samak screamed or chanted, I want to know if he really say "kill them".

StanG:

In 1976 only about 4,000 students were at Thammasat and the killings were perpetrated by fellow Thais, the army and police stood by and watched

Those fellow Thais of yours must had been fully armed and had had loads of military arms. For there were thousands and thousands of bullet-holes in the walls all around Thammasat, apart from countless bombs. These fellow Thais did had the capability comparable to the Thai army, I can assure you as a living witness of the scene. Some police officers did fire into Thammasat, there're a lot of film footages recorded.

Every account also says that students were branded as "commies" unfairly, but it didn't help their cause when they actually took the arms and went into the jungle.

Students were FORCED to join the CPT in the jungle, because they had no other choices left. After the massacre, all those who survived the incident were under tight scrutiny, being constantly watched, followed 24/7, from homes to schools, to colleges, to everywhere they went. They fled for their lives.

Though communism and socialism were interested, studied, discussed among students. That's just an expression of freedom, after decades of oppression. Only a handful of them were genuine enthusiasts.

Samak and many other ultraroyalists at that time didn't say "kill them"(except Kittivutho ). Just simply ranting their propagandas relentlessly, claiming these students were commy, the country was on the verge of communist's siege. What should fellow compatriots do? Get rid the threat. Was "killing" also a way to eliminate the threat too? So what's the difference, shouting "kill them" or not, the meaning was exactly the same.

Say whatsoever you like, this is (supppose to be) a free country. But for me, this kind of opinion is nothing more than a cheap propaganda. What a effective propaganda machine ? still rolling after 30 years.

BTW, thanks michael and JFL for the responses abt the Cheshire cat.