The Hunt for 'truth' continues

Do you believe that the red-shirt fighters for democracy, mostly unarmed, ended up being brutally slaughtered by the Army?

Or does your version say that red-shirt thugs, manipulated and bought by Thaksin Shinawatra, wanted to overthrow the monarchy and were deservedly removed from the Rajprasong intersection only to set Bangkok on fire?

Or is your belief something in between? Also, how can you be sure that your version is definitive and real?

There exists one primary fact: 90 people died during that period and 36 spots in Bangkok were set ablaze on May 19. People are still arguing as to who was responsible for most of the deaths and who, for example, was "really" behind setting CentralWorld ablaze.

Then there is the second type of "truth" - the one seen in the context of the events.

Why did the reds take to the streets to begin with? Why was it necessary to use lethal weapons against the protesters? And were the men in black good or bad?

Your answer will most likely depend on your view of Thaksin, the September 2006 military coup, your ideas about Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and those supposedly "behind him".

Opinion, interpretation and the editing out of some inconvenient truths is unavoidable, and these are bound to conceptualise the primary facts you hold. Without such interpretations, the facts you hold are almost meaningless - like a photograph without a detailed caption.

Two recent special publications depicting the events best illustrate that the "historical truth" is not straightforward.

The first publication, produced by the Naew Nar newspaper, said in its cover: "Historical Records of Red Terrorists Burning the City on Destructive May 19, 2010".

Another publication, this time by Khao Sod newspaper, said: "May 2010 Records, Truth from 'Khao Sod' - 90 Deaths, the Truth Never Dies - a Collection of Pictures and Behind-the-Scene Stories of the Deaths and Victims of the 'Crackdown'."

It's no surprise that Khao Sod listed the names of those killed and missing, while Naew Nar concentrated on the 36 spots burned down on that day.

To make matters more complicated, we have competing discourse thrown in by both sides. Are some red-shirts really "terrorists" as alleged by the government? Did they really want to overthrow the institution of monarchy? Did the Army really crackdown on the protesters or did it merely cordon them off?

From one camp, we get discourses about "class war", amataya or old bureaucratic elite, the invisible hands etc.

Here the government has an edge. They have shutdown the red-shirt media and are monopolising the discourse on what took place.

The red shirts may have lost the battle, but the war continues, even with the emergency being constantly extended and dominant, dovish red shirts like Sombat Boon-ngam-anong being detained.

Imagine what Thai history would look like if we had ended up becoming a part of Burma after failing to repel the invaders two centuries ago. Surely we would all be studying a very different version of history.

And so the battle for the memory of what occurred in April and May continues, subjected to writing and rewriting by competing groups - depending on who has the upper hand in terms of political power and number of supporters for the time being.

Resistance is always there and it's so much easier to put people behind bars than delete what's in their memory.