~Meaw & More~

Icon

Reactive blogger (~and more~)

Hints and Allegations

Disclaimer: Since the Sanam Luang People Council claimed that they are insufficiently presented in mainstream media and much of PAD were featured in PAD-streams (PADcast?) and non PAD-streams, and the new website of Thai-grassroots (formerly “hi-Thaksin”). The posts displaying, citing or referring to the sources do not mean that I agree or disagree with the materials or “ideology” (if there are any) presented by the following sources (also PAD or otherwise.) The posts were intended to show that there were people that think different and no matter how we personally view them, they will think different.
——————————————————————————————————————

To deny and question symbolic representation of the institution used by PAD, Thai grassroots presented several articles questioning the “abuse” of symbols such as yellow shirt, a blue scarf worn by Sonthi L. and Chitlada drinking water. The council announced that it intended to “[…]seek clarification from the office of HM’s Personal Affairs and the Royal Household Bureau. Currently, the academic division of the council is assigned to draft letters of inquiry to the agencies in charge. […]”

The website also features a video clip of broadcasted royal speech inMay 1992 with headline “May 1992: Phor Luang led the anti coup movement” The clip was posted on 22 May 2008. It also show the entrance of member of the privy council at that time, including Prem and two targeted audiences of the royal speech.

The burden of proof is now shifted to PAD and its supporters, particularly Sonthi L., who was demanded by Thai-grassroots to publicly announce the source of scarf and justify the manipulation of other related symbols. If the letter to the royal household bureau were actually posted, even silence or an answer would not benefit the PAD movement.

However, Chatupon Phromphan (Partylist, PPP) said he was rather partial to the inquiry. “[…] It is believed that the majority of people understand what is right and what has been going on. [We] should not question [about the scarf and other symbols.] The matter is too sensitive to be questioned. it should be believed without any questions [doubts] that the institution do not involve. THe more we question, there will be doubt and PAD will probably be benefited.[…]” (เพราะเชื่อว่าขณะนี้ประชาชนส่วนใหญ่รับรู้ว่าอะไรเป็นเรื่องที่ถูกต้อง เรื่องราวเป็นมาอย่างไรอยู่แล้ว จึงไม่ควรที่จะตั้งคำถาม เพราะประเด็นดังกล่าวเป็นเรื่องที่อ่อนไหวเกินกว่าที่จะตั้งคำถามได้ ซึ่งสามารถเชื่อได้เลยโดยที่ไม่ต้องตั้งคำถามว่า สถาบันไม่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องอย่างแน่นอน ยิ่งหากไปตั้งคำถามก็จะก่อให้เกิดข้อสงสัยขึ้นมา” แล้วจะกลายเป็นว่าไปเข้าทางของกลุ่มพันธมิตรฯเสียมากกว่า”)

While PAD creates myths, Thai-grasroots and Sanam Luang People’s Council try to demythify and distance PAD from its “symbolic” partnership. Yet, the two movement still strongly rely on manipulation of the untouchable. If PAD “fight for the king”, the Thai-grassroot’s ‘public transcript’ also appeared to say so in its website but it gives many hints to hidden ones.

Advertisements

Filed under: Free speech, Political Sciences, , ,

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: