• 
• 

Published on February 1, 2008

It was not Samak Sundaravej who primarily went on air to urge people to "put down" so-called leftist activists, as they were then branded.

October 6, 1973 was carefully orchestrated by a group of young military colonels, among them, Chamlong Srimuang, while the suave voice constantly on air to drive the mass into a frenzy of killing belonged to Utarn Snidvongse.

After the "stamp down", the person who came out to justify and, indeed, praise the action on nationwide television was one Uthis Narksawat, a professor at Kasetsart University, who said that the activists had "asked for it" and sent many other hate messages best forgotten. He continued in his role as mouthpiece for the then regime, but lived in continual fear of retribution.

On the same programme the same evening was Lt General Chumphol Lohachala, then Police Commissioner - or was he deputy director-general of the Police Department? Obviously distressed by the turn of events, and sensitive enough to realise that "young activists" did have parents who cared for them, Chumphol assured the distraught on air that the young students were safe and sound at the Police Cadet School in Sampran and that worried parents should collect them as soon as possible. After that heartfelt information, General Chumphol was never encouraged to talk to the people again, and was moved to push papers in other capacities until his ignominious retirement.

Samak Sundaravej, was too streetwise a politician then, to be seen to be involved in the affair. Or perhaps he still had a conscience then. His crime at that time - particularly in the eyes of the media - was to order the permanent closure of several newspapers he considered too vocal, including The Nation. He remains, to this day, an arch-enemy of the press. He knew their ways, how to goad them, and then punish them. He was media Enemy Number One and has remained so, until his political fall from grace.

If we define democracy with a Western mindset, then we run the risk of being disappointed. With this election, I do not see anything twisted about it, as mentioned in Tulsathit's column. It is just the result of democracy at work - in the Western mind's eye. But in Thailand, we vote for a leader and can also get rid of him. Is that not full democracy?

In my mind and memory, three popular people's uprisings - albeit mostly Bangkok people - have toppled unpopular regimes. The first, of course, was October 14, 1973, when we gained a real constitution and a batch of politicians with ideology. The second was in May 1992 against the appointment of General Suchinda Kraprayoon, led once again by Chamlong Srimuang, having changed his stance to be on the side of the people. The third was the September 2006 ousting of Thaksin.

That is why we came out to give flowers to the soldiers with their tanks. We had been successful and wanted to thank them for their role. If they had botched it ... then we know there is always another time.

Sunida

Bangkok

-----------

Last throw of the dice for Thaksin and co

Re: "The harsh new lesson: no place for ideologies", Opinion, January 30.

This article was particularly thought-provoking. Nothing is forever. Not Samak, not even Thaksin. Abhisit and the Democrats are getting stronger and stronger compared to the previous two elections. I really feel that this is Thaksin's final circus act, his last gamble, and he will soon lose. In the next election, people will forget Samak and Thaksin forever.

Things change.

Chetan P Tanna

San Diego, California

-----------

Bad weather indicates the quality of the leader

On Wednesday morning the weather in Bangkok was unusually turbulent. There was unexpectedly heavy rain. According to Burmese belief, when the weather is irregular, it is an indication that the new head of state does not follow the 10 precepts of charity, religious practice, benefaction, fairness, gentleness, keeping the "Sabbath", benevolence, avoidance of cruelty, patience, and avoidance of conflict.

It is noticeable that once Samak Sundaravej became the prime minister of Thailand, the weather suddenly changed the following day.

Konmari

Bangkok

-----------

We are too irresponsible for nuclear power

I watched the "Chipa-jorn-Lok" programme hosted by Suthichai Yoon last week concerning nuclear power.

There are advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power, but in sum, I don't think the advantages outweigh the risks we are taking. The main reason is that we, as a nation, fail to accept responsibility and accountability. In every profession, accountability is of the utmost importance. Administrations here come and go, but none show any accountability. The government here can't even deal with air pollution in Bangkok.

Most people have no idea what radioactive materials are, or the harm they can do. A good example came a few years ago when scavengers in Bangkok picked materials from an industrial garbage dump to recycle for cash. They were exposed to cobalt 60 that had been recklessly discarded by a manufacturing company. One of the scavengers died, one lost both his hands, and the rest are dying slowly. Who was accountable for this? Who accepted responsibility?

Many nuclear plants in developed countries are at the end of their 40-50 year life spans. Authorities still don't know which methods are best to store the radioactive waste. Send it into space? Bury it under the seabed or deep in the earth? Does Thailand have the ability for such tasks? Where will the money come from?

Our country is near the equator; we have free energy falling from the sky all year round that could be trapped in solar cells to produce electricity. The cost would be cheaper than for a nuclear power plant. They do it in California. Why can't we do it here? I think every new house should be required to install solar cells.

Surasak Piputtana

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation