'An individual behind the bloodbath

[suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: 'An individual behind the bloodbath'

Local & Politics 

     'An individual behind the
     bloodbath'

     IN A surprise statement, Pichit Kulavanijaya,
     who led official investigations into the May
     1992 bloodbath, says his probe has
     unmasked the ''third party'' that contributed to
     violence during the crisis. Excerpts from the
     interview: 

     Is it appropriate that the government has
     disclosed a summary of the Black May
     uprising? 

     As a matter of fact, it is classified army
     information that needs to be kept undisclosed
     for a minimum of 10 years. I don't know why
     it has been disclosed. Has somebody been
     pressuring for its disclosure? This kind of
     [sensitive] information will only cause division
     upon disclosure. It is not appropriate. 

     How complete is the disclosure? The
     published information has not identified the
     soldier who permitted the troops to open fire,
     how many deaths occurred or how the dead
     were disposed of. 

     The disclosure is complete. I mean that I
     have completed my duty of investigating the
     incident. But as for how many deaths the
     incident caused, or where the bodies were
     disposed of, the investigative committee [I
     headed] was not meant to probe into those
     matters. The panel's function was to verify
     whether the appropriate course had been
     taken. As has been reported, former prime
     minister Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon was
     over-confident in his righteous application of
     jurisprudence. 

     May I remind you that on the date on which
     Suchinda was inaugurated into office, the
     then army commander-in-chief Gen
     Issarapong Noonpakdi marched officers in to
     pledge their allegiance. He declared he was
     200 per cent confident the army would rally
     behind the premier. That was the kind of
     allegiance pledged. Army intelligence did not
     help with such misinformation. 

     The intelligence chief was a man under
     Issarapong. What's significant is that in giving
     commands he (Issarapong) did not have a
     habit of consulting the general affairs

     directorate. Tui (the nickname of Issarapong
     Noonpakdi) would call the shots all alone. He
     was my [former] student. This is Issarapong's
     characteristic style. No one could offer
     opposition when the army chief played the
     game himself. 

     The report attributed the uprising to
     instigation by a third party and by certain
     other parties. 

     Yes. The incident involved a third party. And
     my investigations have confirmed the work of
     a third party. The third party set the Revenue
     Department, the Public Relations
     Department, and the Nang Loeng
     metropolitan police station on fire. I used to
     hold the man (the third party) in high regard.
     But this was no longer the case after the true
     colours of the man emerged as investigations
     went on. It was no use denying that it was
     this man, or saying that he had nothing to do
     with the incident. I hate the ploy he used to
     make room for fulfilling his political ambitions
     -- upon the dead bodies of the people. 

     What grieves me more has been the fact that
     I brought the matter to then prime minister
     Anand Panyarachun's attention. I did not go
     to then defence minister Gen Banchop
     Bunnag for fears that they were of the same
     clique, and because I felt more at ease with
     Anand because of our frequent matches at
     sports between Anand as president of the
     British University Alumni Association, and
     myself as president of the American
     University Alumni Association. 

     I kept Anand informed of the third party and
     asked him to investigate the matter. He
     promised me he would give the matter his
     attention. But he did not keep his promise. I
     do not know why. I guess that perhaps he
     was too considerate to dare hurt the feelings
     of Dr Weng Tojirakan, Dr Sant Hatthirat, and
     Khun Pratheep Uengsontham Hata. When we
     subsequently met, Anand gave a hurt grin,
     knowing that I do not forgive him for this. 

     Does Khun Anand know who the man is? 

     Yes, he does. He knows who the man is. I
     feel sympathy for Gen Chainarong Noonpakdi
     for being made the scapegoat for all this. He
     has lost prospects for advancement in his
     promising military career. As a matter of fact,
     commands were properly given at every
     stage. The deployed troops showed a lack of
     readiness. The ninth division had blank
     ammunition in use and were trained a la
     Korean anti-riot troops. But they did not
     change plans as circumstances changed. And
     when a Molotov cocktail was hurled into
     troops they lay prone on the ground and
     began to shoot. 

     The Nation