below is an excet of an email i receved, it is part of the propagander currently curculating. but this one based on my esperance is Close to the bone.



On 19 May the last episode of confrontation in Thailand came to an end : The red shirts were expelled by the Army from the large zone that they had occupied in the central areas of Bangkok. What was left was the picture of a torn society, and a tragical list of dead and injured.

Thailand is now facing the consequences of a social and political division, that has brought the country into a situation of instability which it seems unable to overcome. Two main characters dominate the Thai scene: the first is an old, charismatic monarch, revered by the overwhelming majority of his subjects ; the second is a business tycoon turned into politician, whose legacy has divided the country into two equally stubborn opposite sides.


I.- Yesterday.- Thailand’s problems of today can only be understood from a historical prospective. The Cold War presided over the beginning and consolidation of the long reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), who ascended to the Throne at the age of 18, after the mysterious death of his elder brother, King Ananada Mahidol (Rama VIII), and who has been the longest reigning king in Thai history. Besides the traditional semi-religious charisma of Siamese kings, Bhumibol has given a unique tonality to his reign. He was able to revitalize an ailing institution, and now it is feared that his moral authority would not be fully transmited to his presumptive heir. Thai monarchy will have to go through a meaningful reform process to adapt itself to a very different context in the near future.

In this sixty three years many constitutional changes have taken place. Military coups and juntas have taken frequent turns with generally short-lived civilian, democratically-elected governments The country has gone through violent outbursts in 1973, 1976 and 1992. Military dictators and elected prime ministers have replaced each other sometimes quite franctically.

The only element of continuity in these 63 years has been precisely King Bhumibol, whose universally respected figure has given stability to the country. The consolidation of a modern and strong democracy is still unfortunately pending, but it must be acknowledged that during the present reign Thailand has experienced an outstanding process of economic development, even if the benefits have been unequally distributed between the urban middle classes and the large rural masses.

II. Today.- The XX Century ended in Thailand with the great financial crisis , in 1997-1998. Even if Thai society showed a great amount of resilience, the effects of the crisis were transferred to the political system.

In 1997 the most democratic Constitution of Thai history was adopted. Its aim was to put an end to the long period of weak civilian governments, arising from parties based on locally oriented patronage , and generally subordinated to the hegemony of a long-standing, Bangkok-centered aristocratic-military-bureaucratic elite. But this constitutional attempt was unable to foresee the emergency of a new political phenomenon, thaksinism. Thaksin Shinawatra is a successful businessman from Chiang Mai, of Chinese ancestry, who started with a family business in silk to develop a huge business conglomerate, the Shin Corporation.

On this large financial platform Thaksin was able to build a political tool through a new party, Thai Rak Thai (TRT) which, as a reaction to the consequences of the financial crisis, got a stunning victory in the elections of 2001. By buying- literally –the support of smaller parties, Thaksin started to build a solid power platform,and launched populist policies such as rural debt rescheduling, a basic fee medical scheme –the first in Thai history-, and rural development measures. These policies brought him the strong, unconditional support of the large rural masses from the North and Northeast regions, the most populated in the country, that had always been despised and ignored by the ruling Bangkok elite

The progressive component of this aspects of Thaksinism do not match with his political exercice of power in the areas of civil liberties, clean government and basic rights. Thaksin obtained power through democratic channels, but his rule was authoritarian, intolerant and unfair. He mixed public and private interest in his own and his cronies’ benefit. He egregiously violeted basic human right with the extrajudicial killings of around 4,000 people in the so-called “anti-drug war”: He brutally repressed the insurgence in the southern provinces, with a Malay-Muslim majority. Besides , he muzzled the media and he tried to emasculate the judiciary and other independent institutions.

The consequence was that, while the rural masses and the urban working classes were logically thankful to the only politician that took care of their concerns and interests, and offered him a very strong electoral constituency, other sectors in the country from different origins –the traditional ruling elite, the educated urban middle classes and the populations of the Southern areas- formed a kind of opposite bloc. The division was served.

The anti-Thaksin groups adopted yellow,as to show their loyalty to the King and the Royal institution. The Yellow Shirts of the so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD) started the mass mobilizations that originated the infamous military coup of Sept. 19, 2006 that overthrew Thaksin’s government. The pro-military sectors inspired the Constitution of 2007, that remains in force today.

In militant opposition to the pro-military government of Surayud Chulanont (2006-2007), supported by the “yellows”, the red-shirted movement called “Union for Democracy against Dictatorship” (UDD) was formed. In this period Thaksin remained in exile, leading and financing his partisants from the distance

Both the reds and the yellows are heterogeneous groups, in which legitimate claims coexist with dark power-oriented motivations. The pro-Thaksin reds are dominant in rural areas and the urban proletariat, and they are hegemonic in the North and the Northeast. The yellows come fundamentally from the urban upper and middle classes, and from the traditional Bangkok ruling elite.

The yellows are stronger in Bangkok and in the South…They are predominant in the Army, whereas the reds are majority in the Police. But in each region, institution or social sectors there are minorities from the opposite camp. The division of the country is very complex. And, as many times has been said, nothing in Thailand is exactly what it seems to be…

After the elections of December 2007 the new pro-Thaksin party Palang Prachachorn (PPP) won a simple majority. But the yellows stated their mobilisations all over 2008, with the takeover of Government House, the downfall of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, the astonishing occupation of Bangkok’s two international airports, and the demotion by the Supreme Court of the government led by Somchai Wongsawat, the brother-in-law of Thaksin.

In December 2008 the present governement was formed by the Democratic Party with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, through a military /palace sponsored coalition with minor parties and some defectors from Thaksinism .

The most recent events are too well known; if the yellow shirts confronted and overthrew two governments in 2008, the red shirts swore to take revenge and started to fight the new coalition government from the beginning. The last episode of this longstanding confrontation has brought the sad result of 88 dead and almost 2,000 injured.

III.- Tomorrow. The scene that dominates Thailand nowadays is one of sadness and desolation at the sequels of confrontation and division. The reds should consider the need to break its dependence from such a murky character as Thaksin; on their side, the yellows should give up once and for all their anachronistic feudal and reactionary links, arising from a system that has become clearly out of date.

Dialogue and reconciliation are absolutely essential. Some experts have suggested the convenience of establishing a government of unity, that would promote the required constitutional and legal reforms needed to open a free and fair electoral process, whose results should be solemnly accepted in advance by all sides, This conciliatory approach is even more necessary,as Thailand is at the final period of a reign that, with lights and shadows, has defiend the essential characters of its recent history.

Facing future uncertainties, Thais should make good use of their traditional virtues: rejection of violence and confrontation, solidarity among relatives, neighbours and compatriots, mutual help, compassion and harmony; in one word , the essential message of Theravada Buddhism, which is followed by the great majority of the population.

In the last term it will be to the Thai people to take in their hands their destiny , and to decide in freedom and peace about their own future .