• Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Stan G on Preah Vihear Phra Viharn
    Get The Facts on Preah Vihear Phra Viharn
    Stan G on Preah Vihear Phra Viharn
    Koen Gutscoven on Preah Vihear Phra Viharn
    Charles on Rectification of names
  • Advertisements

Why Samak was so popular

This is just an attempt at putting some thoughts together to see if they make sense.

First, the background for 1973-1976 developments is Sarit’s regime and Sarit’s legacy. Though there’s not much good to say about him, he nevertheless instilled some very deep values in the generation that played a major part in how 70s turned up for Thailand.

Sarit was a strongman in every sense, completely dominating political scene. In fact he simply outlawed politics altogether. With a man like Sarit in charge there was no need for things like parliament, and there was no need for any checks and balances. He was incorruptible, dedicated, selfless servant of the nation and the King. Whether he lived up to this image is not the point – people believed it and they cherished it. Sarit brought the monarchy back into the center of “Thainess”, making it a symbol of the state and everything good in the world, monarchy was again inviolable and indispensable. Sarit also showed no mercy to “troublemakers”, I think he even executed a few himself. Sacrificing troublemakers lives for the betterment of the nation, in the name of unity and the King, was deemed acceptable and no one gave it a second thought.

Sarit’s reign also coincided with Americanization of the country, when the US made Thailand it’s strongest ally in South East Asia. In exchange Thailand got growing investments, then Vietnam war brought in even more, and good times rolled. The country boomed, Americans built roads to Eastern borders and with that came even more development, spreading deeper into the countryside. Everything was on the up, up, up.

Then Thanom-Prapas took over, continuing in the same vein, but without Sarit’s charisma and public presence.

Middle classes expanded tremendously during those years, people really started to think they could climb up the social ladder and get rich. Education was also booming with university enrollment doubling and tripling every couple of years. Middle classes thought their kids would really really make it big, any moment, aspirations were set really really high.

Then the reality asserted itself.

First there were allegations of corruption against Thanom and Prapas. Perhaps people didn’t want a repeat of embarrassment of disclosure of Sarit’s assets after his demise, perhaps it was toying with democracy in the form of national assembly (Thanom-Prapas staged a coup against their own government and dissolved the parliament), but they were not going to tolerate these two one way or another, then Thanom’s son married Prapas daughter and it became Thanom-Prapas-Narong evil trio.

That brought 1973. While the movement was spearheaded by the students, the vast majority of protesters were middle class, respectable citizens. When half a million of well dressed and well mannered people took to the streets the establishment couldn’t ignore it. So there was “people revolution”, it was exhilarating, but while the notion of benevolent dictatorship has quietly disappeared, people were not prepared to ditch its values, and they had no idea where to go from there, and so from then on it got only worse.

First there was the worldwide oil crisis that drove inflation up and the investments and land speculation down, and the boom as people knew it was basically over. Then Americans started losing the Vietnam war, Thais were left to themselves, and it wasn’t very promising. Then Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia fell into communist hands and Thais were really scared they would be next as communist insurgency was raging through the countryside.

Internally, students who were leaders of 1973 uprising were taking a very anti-American stance, following their counterparts on campuses in the US. That was alarming.

Another major problem is that culturally students didn’t turn out as middle classes expected them to be. In Sarit’s days “student” was a status symbol, students were supposed to enter the sacred halls of bureaucracy and become model citizens. Instead middle classes were confronted with generation of free thinkers who didn’t display any outward respect to the monarchy and analyzed reverent Thai history in terms of class struggles and parallels with Europe. That was shocking. This new generation was very anti-establishment, the same establishment parents groomed them to be the best part of.

The growth in student population during economic crisis also meant many of them were unemployed, or even unemployable.

Another disturbing feature of post 1973 period was tremendous growth in labor strikes. In Sarit’s days unions were outlawed, strikes were unimaginable, and punishment was death. Instead middle classes were forced to endure personal inconvenience, losses in profits, increased wages, absolute impunity, and some unkempt, good for nothing layabouts arguing that this is the way it should be.

It’s in this soil that the right-wing establishment planted the seeds of 1976 crackdown. They came up with their own propaganda – people should unite around Nation-Religion-King triplet and good old values so that the country can pull through the crisis together and fight off communist malaise.

There was nothing scientific or rational about it – the country was supposed to be saved through faith and sacrifices, the country was punished and it needed to be put back on the straight path.

It worked brilliantly. It appealed to people’s core values and memories, and it strengthened itself by offering a “full package” in form of various Village Scouts, Red Gaurs, Nawapon and other popular organizations. Many of those groups were acting as social clubs where disillusioned people got their doze of nationalism, monarchism, traditional culture, songs and stage performances etc. The leaders were local pooyais and hi-so and I suppose membership was somewhat prestigious.

When crisis fully hit and they were told horror stories about what’s to come, and there was a need to blame someone for it, guess who was at the top of their list, edging out Chinese and Vietnamese? Students and the leftist movement in general.

That strategy assured middle class support for the crackdown. The muscle itself came in the form or Nawapon and Krating Daeng (Red Gaurs).

For Nawapon the establishment recruited vocational students, playing up on their second class status and higher unemployment rates. They were offered a chance to get back at their “superior” university counterparts, and they were enticed with the offer of the same goodies their parents wanted them to enjoy – money, booze, brothels, good life. For some reason violence was in these guys nature, when not fighting leftists they were busy bashing each other (and they still do, in 21st century).

Red Gaurs were established by Border Patrol Police, had people close to royal family, and they were driven by pure ideological hatred.

Nawapon and Red Gaurs were armed to the teeth and between 1973 and 1976 they attacked and killed a number of students and leftists, and the police couldn’t touch them. They were practically flaunting their untouchable status.

Ideological connection with middle classes prevented any serious public backlash, and so the right wing was fully prepared to unleash the horror of 6 October, 1976.

People like Samak, with unquestionable loyalty to the Nation-Religion-King, resolute and merciless to enemies were the heroes, and people voted for them with their hearts, and it stayed in their memory for decades – Samak won over a million of Bangkok votes in 2000 elections, people still don’t care about several hundred dead students.

Samak was literally the voice of their hearts back then, and he was no doubt articulate, witty, and intelligent, and they couldn’t accept that he might have been wrong.

After 1976 Nawapon and Red Gaurs were sent off to fight communists, and Village Scouts disappeared themselves, as far as I know. The whole massacre episode was rather embarrassing and was left unspoken, a quiet admission that it was a mistake. Thais don’t do soul cleansing very well, it’s not Christianity with it’s value of confessions, people deal with sins in a different way here.


11 Responses

  1. Samak was “articulate”? Can you cite some examples?

    • That’s common knowledge. If you want to bust it as a myth – knock yourself out, let’s hear it.

      I think I mentioned that Samak was on Thammasat University’s debating team, btw.

  2. “That’s common knowledge” is not a good answer.

    In his short time as PM I never heard an articulate comment from him. All I heard was blustery. For example, responding to a reporter’s question that he didn’t like by asking her if she’d had illicit sex the night before. That was neither articulate, intelligent, nor witty.

    • I rely on opinions of people who have heard him speaking in his native language during his forty years in politics.

      “Did you have illicit sex last night” comment doesn’t translate in English at all, we don’t have a word for sex that is supposed to affect the way you relate to others the next day, we don’t have such a concept, so how can you judge if it sounded articulate or witty in Thai?

      It was probably rude, inappropriate, and not very intelligent to speak to a journalist that way, but it doesn’t mean that the answer was not witty on other levels. Perhaps some Thais even admired him for not being politically correct on such occasions.

  3. OK, I guess you’re not going to cite anything except “common knowledge” of people whose opinions you rely on.

  4. Is that not enough?

    Find a Thai expert who thinks Samak was not witty or articulate, then we can weigh that opinion against “common knowledge”.

    Stripped of political animosity, Samak was a very charming and very knowledgeable man on all things Thai.

    You can’t get 1.2 million votes in Bangkok if you have nothing to show for it. Samak had his moments, no matter how much you (and I) detest him politically.

  5. My original question was about examples of Samak being “articulate”. You have simply asserted that that’s the opinion of unidentified people you rely on. As for whether that’s “enough”, frankly no, it’s not. And it clearly does not answer my question.

    As usual, you have gone off on tangents, like asserting that he’s “charming” and “knowledgeable” and popular. You originally asserted that he was “articulate” and I asked for examples. Can you provide them, or not?

    • The only way to judge someone’s proficiency in a language foreign to you is to ask the natives.

      I’m not giving you examples because, frankly, I don’t know what is it you want exactly. Do you expect “Best of Samak” DVD with English commentary?

      • Stan, you’re the one who said he was “articulate”. I’m only asking why you said that. If you meant it, and weren’t just jabbering, you must have had examples in mind, but you won’t give even one.

        Now you act as though as though you never said he was articulate, saying only “the natives” can explain why he was “proficient in a language.” Again, you’re the one who said it, and you were not referring to opinions of “the natives”. I didn’t ask for the “best of Samak”. Just one example, to support YOUR assertion. Got one, or not?

  6. I hasten to add that one example is not enough to demonstrate that someone is “articulate”. Even a great quote from Obama would not be proof that he is articulate. It takes a pattern of good speaking to establish such a talent. Which only underscores the significance of the fact that you cannot cite even one example to support your original assertion that Samak was “articulate”.

  7. How about the fact that Samak was a member of Thammasat University debating team? Or the fact that he rose to fame by speaking on the radio, or the fact that his cooking program was called “Cooking and complaining”, ie they wanted him to TALK, or his previous TV programs where he was a political commentator?

    One needs to be an articulate speaker to land any of those gigs, especially the debating team, alongside Chuan and Uthai.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: