Three years to the day that the events of April and May, 2010 culminated in the red shirt crackdown and the surrender of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship's leaders, Thai society remains deeply divided. Some 92 people were killed in the crackdown, from protesters to innocent bystanders, journalists to security personnel.
More than 1,000 people were injured and billions of baht worth of damage was wrought on properties; provincial halls were torched as were buildings in Bangkok, including the CentralWorld shopping centre.
Murder charges were laid against then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is looking into the allegations. Meanwhile, terrorism charges were filed against UDD leaders and several protesters.
Mr Abhisit gives his version of the events of those two tumultuous months in The Simple Truth, currently available in Thai and with an English version to follow late next month. In it, he aims to set the record straight and dispel what he calls the lies that are rampant in accounts of April and May, 2010. On the third anniversary of the red shirt crackdown, Spectrum spoke to Mr Abhisit about his book and his own role in one of the most violent chapters in modern Thai history.
How much pressure do you feel from the DSI?
Let me put it this way: If I'm guilty, then execute me. But what about Thaksin [Shinawatra]? What responsibility is he taking?
In the book, you say the public has listened to enough lies and now it's time for them to hear the truth. Who has been lying?
Let's not list names. The important thing is not who's lying, but the lie itself, which leads to misunderstandings. For example, in 2009, the lie began that it was only the government killing people. But people also died at Nang Lerng at the hands of protesters [During the Songkran riots in April 2009, the government claimed that residents in the Nang Lerng Market area confronted red shirt protesters, who opened fire on them. Two Nang Lerng locals were killed in the incident and one was injured.] Then there's the high-tech lie in doctoring my voice onto a tape, saying that I ordered the people to be killed. They still play it today. [An audio clip circulated on the internet in which someone who sounded like Mr Abhisit ordered a violent dispersal to end the Songkran violence. Mr Abhisit claimed he issued no such instruction and the tape was doctored.] I don't care who said the lies, but I care that the lies led to misunderstanding and hatred.
Also there were more minor incidents like in 2009 [when protesters stormed the Interior Ministry], people doubting whether Suthep and I were in the car [that was attacked by protesters]. Sometimes they said we weren't in it, other times they said we were. Sometimes they claimed 'fake' red shirts attacked the car. Then I showed a photo of Suporn [Atthawong, a red shirt leader] outside the ministry and tapes of him and Nattawut [Saikuar] telling protesters to go get me. They changed their tune and said my car rammed into the protesters first, so they retaliated. It doesn't matter who told the lies; the lies distort history. All of these lies were used to motivate the rally in 2010, including lies about Thaksin's asset seizure case and others.
What then is the truth?
DEATH ON THE STREETS: A soldier surveys the scene as a man lies dead following the crackdown. Abhisit Vejjajiva says clashes between protesters and the military were orchestrated to cause deaths.
The simple truth is that if there were no armed groups, such as the black shirts, no one would have died. The deaths started because of the protesters. For example, on April 10 there was a grenade attack on soldiers that killed Col Romklao [Thuwatham], which led to a clash and more deaths. After that, we decided not to disperse protesters, but only to contain them by using military checkpoints. Then we were attacked again, more clashes resulted and people died. This is the simple truth.
You say the deaths started because of the protesters. Are you implying that the alleged men in black were an acknowledged part of the protest and supported by the red shirts or should we differentiate between them?
Most of the people at the rally probably didn't know about them. But if you were to ask the leaders, the instigators, and the big boss whether they knew, I'm confident they did. There were announcements made even before the protest by Arisman [Pongruangrong] and Seh Daeng [the late Khattiya Sawatdiphol] and others [about armed groups]. Today the court has concluded that there were armed groups, so I ask what side could they have been on?
Are you also saying that Jatuporn [Prompan], Nattawut and Tida [Tawornseth] also knew about these armed groups?
Let me put it this way. When we were supposed to negotiate on April 18 and 19, I told them that before we speak, they should stop the armed attacks on military checkpoints. Of course, Nattuwut said: 'I don't know who they are, but I will tell them to stop when I'm on stage.' It was clear they were attacking security forces. Like I said, don't make things too complicated; this is easy to figure out. The simple truth is that the clashes were orchestrated to cause the government to collapse or to cause deaths, and then use either for political gains. This is the simple truth.
Well there's the truth and then there are the differing colour-coded views of what happened. Do you hope that red shirts or those with no allegiances will accept your version of the truth?
I believe whoever listens, reads and researches information on both sides will make that decision. The only people I can't do anything with are those who only take one side and refuse to listen or read.
THE SIMPLE TRUTH : Published by Post Publishing.
Would you also call the findings of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission [TRC] lies?[The commission was set up by the Abhisit government in 2010. Its final report, released in September 2012 was rejected by both the Democrats and the Pheu Thai Party.]I believe the investigators did a good job of finding the truth, but only on one level. There's other information that they weren't able to find, but in terms of the big picture I think they found the truth.
So you are saying your book is more truthful than the TRC's findings?
Well I can't say that. All I can say is that everything in the book is the truth that I've experienced. It is my personal experience. For example, if you were to ask me how Seh Daeng died, in the book I said I don't know. I don't have that information. But this book tells only the truth. The accusations against me are lies _ there are many things I don't know. But I can speak on the role of the troops, the orders given by the government and policies because I know what they were.
In the book you say that the red shirts allowed themselves to be Thaksin's tool.
I did not say that. I said that Thaksin used the red shirts as a tool, which is different. I'm saying Thaksin's strategy in 2010 was to use the protesters as a human shield and cause casualties, whether protesters or security personnel, for his own personal gain. And when Thaksin told the red shirts, 'I will lead you,' what happened? You show no responsibility for your supporters. You know there will be clashes. You know people will get hurt. For me, this is very cruel, very cruel.
Going on this line of thinking, one can be accused of implying that the red shirts are easily manipulated or, the term that is often used, 'buffalo'.
I never said that.
But people will accuse you of implying it.
I don't support this line of argument _ one side says you are a buffalo, the other says you're a cockroach. I don't believe in it. But I think the method employed by Thaksin and the red shirt leadership is very cruel. Those who were imprisoned for defaming the court; let me ask, who cheered them on to do this? No one wants to go to prison. Belief in their leaders led them to do this. There was a former judge who went on the red shirt stage and told protesters that if they see security forces personnel, they should run them over in their cars. To me, this is very cruel. If someone actually did that, would that judge have taken responsibility?
Would you say that Thaksin is the big boss and 'head terrorist or would that be too harsh?
Well, terrorism charges have already been filed against Thaksin.
In the book you say that you have made peace with an incident in March 2010 when protesters hurled bags of blood at your home. What did you mean?
No one likes it when something like that happens to their home. But if doing that prevented them from doing something worse, such as spilling blood through violence, then I'm at peace with it.
In the book you say that prior to the clashes on April 10 your government spoke on the phone to a Pheu Thai Party leader to reach an agreement. Who did you talk to?
I don't want to reveal that. But the person we talked to knows well.
Wouldn't this mean that Pheu Thai members were directly involved in the protest?
I think even today Pheu Thai would not deny their connection with the red shirts. They share the same skin until the red shirts break the law, then the Pheu Thai would say they are two separate entities.
If Pheu Thai is behind the protest, shouldn't the people you spoke to be charged with terrorism?
UNHOLY HAUL: Security forces with ammunition they say they found at Wat Pathum Wanaram after red shirt demonstrators left the temple where they had taken refuge from the riots following the May 19 crackdown.
We can't say that. Terrorism charges should be laid against those who used weapons and those who intimidated people and instigated violence. The people we talked to on the phone were more like go-betweens, coordinating, and there were many of them. I believe that they had good intentions. But every time negotiations broke down, it was because the big boss said, 'No.' Every time it went back to the same thing: the results of our talks did not satisfy the big boss.
What did the big boss want?
The 46 billion baht [of Thaksin's assets seized by the Supreme Court]. Amnesty. No jail time. What he still wants today. It has nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with addressing double standards, nothing to do with helping those who suffer.
You say in the book that soldiers were always attacked first. Does that include the events of May 19?
What happened on May 19 was that we received information about a stockpile of weapons. We moved in to seize them and only advanced as far as Sarasin Road. After that, the leaders decided to surrender on their own.
In the book, you said that the government can't be blamed for the shootings at Wat Pathum Wanaram? Why not?
They [red shirt leaders] told me they wanted Wat Pathum as a safety zone for women, children, the injured and the elderly. I said no, as the temple was in a red-controlled area. I asked them how would we know whether the men in black would be there? I asked them to use the area across Phayathai Road which was not controlled by the red shirts, but they refused. Then they agreed to send protesters home before surrendering, but they surrendered first. After that, there was no way to control the protesters. That led to the burning of Siam Square and CentralWorld, clashes took place and then Wat Pathum happened. The soldiers had to go in to protect the fire trucks that were under attack. Then they were shot at.
In your last chapter you talk about 'power above the constitution'. Does such power still exist today?
Thaksin, he's trying to be above the constitution.
Some people would say the military is above the constitution.
I don't see it that way. The military has always acted according to the rulings of the court and under the constitution, just as they did in all actions carried out in 2010.
This does not include the 2006 coup, right?
Yes, yes. That was tearing up the constitution. It's not the same thing.
Many would say the Democrat government was created from the military barracks with the backing of the establishment. They would then consider all actions by your government illegitimate, including those in 2009 and 2010.
That's not true. I was elected by the members of parliament. If that were true, would it mean the military was in charge for the whole two years? That all the MPs voted under the direction of the military? Even in no-confidence debates? That is all just a fairy tale.
There's a chapter on Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. One picture has Thaksin tightly embracing him. The other has you simply shaking hands with Hun Sen. The chapter is about Hun Sen being 'inside' Thai politics. Could you elaborate?
Premier Hun Sen follows Thai politics very closely. He watches ASTV, or has someone watch it for him and reports back, for example.
You're not implying a special relationship between Thaksin and Hun Sen, are you?
Well, I don't know who Hun Sen's news source is, so I can't say. But he does have a lot of information about Thailand.
Three years have passed and divisions remain deep. How can this book improve that situation given that you are quite harsh on the red shirts in it? Isn't it liable to make things worse?
I've never condemned the protesters. I've always said that most were there because of a belief, of a certain understanding, and had no intention to break the laws. But there's a group that did have that intention. I don't believe reconciliation is possible in a society without the truth. In the end, all those who have suffered want the truth. What I want to tell the people is that the ongoing conflict has nothing to do with democracy or double standards. It's all about one person still not getting what he wants.
'The Simple Truth' is published by Post Publishing.
BLAZING RAGE: Fire tears through the ground floor of the CentralWorld shopping centre before engulfing other parts of the building on May 19.