Acharn Ji sets Khun Samak a history exam

26 June 2000

Every few months, the events of 1973 or 1976 flash back into the news. Now it is Ji Ungphakorn’s call for Samak Sundaravej to admit his role in the 1976 massacre. A few months ago, it was the controversy over a school textbook covering the events of 1973. Further back, Chuan was challenged for approving a decoration for Thanom Kittikhachon, the last of the dictator-generals. Before that, the issue over a monument to the democracy martyrs. And back to 1996, the emotional commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the 1976 events.

The veterans of 1973-6 have matured in age and risen in influence. Their generation is now at its prime. Look at the top ranks of many institutions in Thailand today, and you find them. In the cabinet and parliament. Among top figures in the media. In the ranks of professors and teachers. On the boards of leading companies. They are found almost everywhere you don’t have to wear a uniform.

If Thailand today has democracy, press freedom, human rights then that is the result of these historical events. Need proof of that claim? Look at Thailand’s Southeast Asian neighbours. In Indonesia, the process of removing the dictators has only just begun, one generation later. In Burma, it has been blocked, with awful results. Other neighbours are effectively one party states with (at best) carefully managed parliaments and very limited freedom of speech. Thailand’s democracy and human rights - however imperfect - did not arise by accident or by the drift of history. They were won on the streets - by incidents which shifted the course of history, changed people’s lives and mindsets, and left behind a cost.

But then there’s a big question. How come the society seems so reluctant to recognise this truth? How come it won’t embrace this history, and be proud of it?

These issues were laid out in the controversy over the Education Ministry’s proposed school textbook about the 1973 events. The historian, Charnvit Kasetsiri, was a member of the committee to review the book’s draft. In his review, he set the Education Ministry a little exam. Q1: How come the ministry asked a poet to write this book rather than a historian? The verses decorating the text were a lot better than the text itself. Q2: How come the book was not based on primary sources? Much of the narrative was plainly wrong. Q3: How come a son-in-law of one of the general’s brought down by the 1973 events was a co-member of the review committee? He can hardly be disinterested. Q4: How come we need such "authorised" textbooks? Maybe it’s time for a more free market in historical knowledge for schoolchildren.

Behind all of Charnvit’s exam questions was one big query: is this an attempt to open up the truth, or to keep it buried.

Despite these limitations, the events of 1973 are at least creeping towards the light. Those of 1976 are still much more deeply plunged in darkness. In a famous piece on the growth of Thailand’s constitutional democracy, Anand Panyarachun acknowledged the importance of 1973 and 1992, but slid past 1976 as if the year was not in the calendar. Nobody is talking seriously about a textbook on 1976.

1976 is much more difficult to manage for two main reasons. It was much more violent. Some of those involved in unleashing the violence are still alive and still important today.

Of these, Samak Sundaravej is one of the most prominent. Hence Acharn Ji Ungphakorn’s little exam for him. Q1: Did he back the radio station which was screaming "Kill them, kill them" on the eve of the massacre? Q2: Did he claim the Thammasat students were working for the Vietnamese communists? Q3: Did he, basically, approve?

The answers to this exam are easy. Samak’s major role in these events is well-known.

Through late 1976, he was instrumental in splitting the centrist parliamentary coalition which was trying to control the slide towards polarisation and violence. To cabinet colleagues at the time, it seemed he was acting like a spoiler, probably on behalf of military friends. He spoke in cabinet justifying General Thanom’s furtive return from exile, which triggered the endgame. The centrists’ counter-manoeuvre to drop Samak from the cabinet on 5 October led directly to the awful events on the following day.

After the horrific violence had taken place, he helped build an argument to justify it - that the students were led by or manipulated by Vietnamese communists engineering the overthrow of the country. This began on the day of the massacre itself. The authorities spread rumours that armed Vietnamese were inside Thammasat. A dead body was identified as Vietnamese on the evidence of an amulet with writing that "might be Vietnamese". Dr Puey Ungphakorn recorded all of this in the memoir written after he was forced to flee in fear of his life. His son, Ji, claims to have heard Samak repeat these rumours when speaking overseas.

Samak could easily answer the questions and pass with full marks. It wouldn’t harm his chances in the Bangkok mayor election at all. Instead he has responded with a libel suit. This knee-jerk reaction betrays his admiration for the less-than-democratic states among Thailand’s neighbours. He accuses Ji of working for one his rivals. Since there is only significant rival, does Samak think the unreformed socialist Ji is working for the capitalist doyenne, Sudarat?

More importantly, Samak asks his own question: why bring all this up now? It’s history. It’s a generation ago.

But Ji is part of that history. Not simply is he the son of a father who was one of the most poignant victims of the 1976 events. But he has resurfaced in Thailand complete with the courageous outspokenness which his father used to taunt and shame the dictators. He proudly embraces the socialism which many hope had passed into history. In an age where ideology has become unfashionable, he is a startling and important voice.

His challenge to Samak hides an unspoken question. How come someone who opposed the transition from dictatorship to democracy should benefit from this transition, while so many supporters suffered martyrdom or exile? Samak’s career now is on the slide. Indeed, it has been all downhill since he was Interior Minister in the post-1976 government, which was so reactionary even the army was embarrassed. But still, Samak wants one more democratic triumph. Ironically he is contesting an election which he himself banned when he had the dictatorial power to do so.

Samak’s response to Acharn Ji’s exam deserves an F. But he’s not the first or last to fail. The events of 1976 won’t leave Samak or anyone else alone because it’s history that has been not been allowed to rest. Thongchai Winichakul called it "a ghost from the past in our mind". As long as it cannot be discussed, absorbed, settled, then the ghost will continue to walk through the nation’s public conscience at regular intervals.