Written by Thongbai Thongpao
Translated by Tyrell Haberkorn
Illustrated by Supawich Weesapen
Thongbai Thongpao was arrested by the Special Branch Police as he alighted from a plane at Don Muang Airport on 20 December 1958. A lawyer by training and a journalist by profession, he had spent the previous four months in the People’s Republic of China with ten fellow Thais as cultural ambassadors. The trip had been made with the approval of the government, but everything changed while they were abroad. Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, who had launched his first coup on 16 September 1957, carried out a second, autocoup, against his own regime on 20 October 1958. Overnight, any remaining space for dissent, already spare, vanished in the service of fighting the grave danger of communism, which was the primary raison d’etre of his coup.
Thongbai was one of approximately one thousand people arrested in the early days of Field Marshal Sarit’s regime and one of approximately three hundred who were accused of violating the Anti-Communist Activities Act (ACAA) and detained in Lad Yao Prison. Those arrested came from all over the country and a wide range of professions. In addition to many journalists and lawyers, like Thongbai, there were also doctors, farmers, workers, students, politicians, civil servants, and government ministers. Actually being a Communist was not necessary to be arrested under the ACAA and Thongbai and many of his fellow political prisoners were not. Instead, they represented a wide range of possible left and dissident positions, including socialists, democrats, supporters of Pridi Banomyong, as well as card-carrying and aspiring Communists.
Most of those detained, including Thongbai, were never convicted of violation of the ACAA or any other laws. But the ACAA’s repressive provisions, combined with Field Marshal Sarit’s executive orders, provided the state with extensive powers and stripped those accused of their rights. Revolutionary Council Announcement No. 12 permitted indefinite pre-charge detention of those accused of violation of the ACAA while Revolutionary Council Announcement No. 15 placed all ACAA cases in the jurisdiction of the military court.
Thongbai was charged in one specious case of violation of the ACAA and revolt, related to forming a national committee following the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Conference in Cairo in December 1957. When the case finally made it to the military court, the charges were dropped because the government itself had also attended the conference. Thongbai spent nearly eight years behind bars before he was acquitted and released.
The rambling, expansive Communists of Lad Yao is his account of this period behind bars. Villa Vilaithong comments that the title is Thongbai’s critique of the government’s arbitrary accusations. They were Communists of Lad Yao, because many were only Communists when they were accused of being so and incarcerated in Lad Yao. First published in 1974 during the brief period of open politics between the 14 October 1973 movement for democracy and the 6 October 1976 massacre, and then for a second time in 1991, Thongbai assembled the book from the notes he kept during his detention. He provides an account of the various legal struggles against arbitrary detention, the protests for better living and health conditions, and the intellectual-cultural activities of the Communists of Lad Yao. He describes the sporting events and festivals they organized, including a May Day celebration in 1960, and the lyrics and notes for songs collectively written. Thongbai offers an extended account of the life and writing of Jit Phumisak, the revolutionary and intellectual later assassinated by the state who is probably the most well-known among the Communists of Lad Yao.
The authorities were so busy arresting and locking up dissidents that they seemed to forget that dissent does not disappear behind bars, but often instead simply takes another form. Most compelling and challenging of these forms of dissent was the Lad Yao Commune. The commune, referred to in Thai by the English word written in Thai script – คอมมูน – was a collective living experiment engaged in by many of those imprisoned. Prison itself is already an experiment in collective living, but one over which those imprisoned have little control. The Communists of Lad Yao took control back by demanding land from the prison that they then used to grow vegetables, create fishponds, and raise chickens and ducks. They created a range of units: Production, Education, Sports and Music, and Detainee Well-being. They created the commune to improve their lives behind bars. But it was also an important form of ideological dissent: they even had a sign up inside the prison announcing the commune for a time. For close to three years, between the beginning of 1960 and the end of 1962, the commune existed.
But the Lad Yao Commune fell apart, partially due to harassment from the prison authorities and partially due to its own internal problems. To reflect on the possibility, and ultimately the impossible, of the commune, three selections from Thongbai’s account are translated below. The possibility and impossibility of the commune, and many forms of radical social and political transformation in Thailand, were condensed in the Production Unit. Who was going to do the difficult, unrelenting labor of growing and raising food for the members of the commune? In the first section translated below, Thongbai offers accounts of the members of the Production Unit. The second and third sections are about the obstacles faced by the commune. Beyond harassment by the prison authorities, the largest obstacles, although Thongbai never uses the words, were class and accumulation. Rural farmers and workers felt as though they were expected to do the hard, physical labor of planting and harvesting the food for the commune. They resented the expectation and wanted the intellectuals and urban dwellers among them to pick up hoes and shovels. Then, once the commune’s fish ponds were productive, some people wanted their own personal fish ponds. And, almost as an afterthought to the other obstacles, Thongbai notes self-critically that he struggled to let go of his control of the commune to let it be fully communal.
For additional background information on the arrest and imprisonment of Thongbai Thongpao and others unjustly accused under the ACAA, please see the following:
- Thongbai Thongpao, Communists of Lad Yao (first edition: Bangkok: Khon Num, 2517 [1974]; second edition: Khao Fang, 2534 [1991]) [ทองใบ ทองเปาด์, คอมมิวนิสต์ลาดยาว (พิมพ์ครั้งแรก: กรุงเทพ: สำนักพิมพ์คนหนุ่ม, 2517; พิมพ์ครั้งที่สอง: กรุงเทพ: สำนักพิมพ์ข้าวฟ่าง, 2534)].
- Villa Vilaithong, The “Punishment” of Jit Phumisak and Political Prisoners (Bangkok: Matichon, 2556 [2013]) [วิลลา วิลัยทอง. “ทัณฑะกาล“ ของจิตร ภูมิศักดิ์ และผู้ต้องขังการเมือง. กรุงเทพ: สำนักพิมพ์มติชน, 2556].
- Suthachai Yimprasert, The Plan to Plunder the Thai Nation: On the state and Opposition to the State during the Second Regime of Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram (2491-2500 B.E.) (Bangkok: 6 October Commemorative Press, 2553 [2010]) [สุธาชัย ยิ้มประเสริฐ, แผนชิงชาติไทย: ว่าด้วยรัฐและการต่อต้านรัฐ สมัยจอมพล ป.พิบูลสงคราม ครั้งที่สอง (พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๑-๒๕๐๐) (กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักพิมพ์ ๖ ตุลารำลึก, ๒๕๕๓)].
- Saranyou Thepsongkhro, The Carceral State: The Power to Punish in the Modern Era (Bangkok: Matichon, 2568 [2025]) [ศรัญญู เทพสงเคราะห์, รัฐราชทัณฑ์: อำนาจลงทัณฑ์ในยุคสมัยใหม่ (กรุงเทพ: สำนักพิมพ์มติชน, 2568)].
from Communists of Lad Yao
The Production Unit
This unit was the most productive and successful of our commune. This unit produced enough not only for the commune, but sufficient to sell. The sale of vegetables, ducks, and chickens generated cash that functioned as circulating capital for the commune.
Those responsible for the Production Unit were Mr. Noi Chantha, Mr. Suban Chanthakaew, Mr. Jit Phumisak, Mr. Phan Sanlim, Mr. Rit Sae Sue, Mr. Yungfa Sae Lau, Mr. Sang Pachabutr, Mr. Puaynguan Sae Tang, Mr. Prasit Chuatrakul, Mr. Heng Sengkung, Mr. Noi Sae Jiw, Mr. Yaomin Sae Lee, Mr. Bunseng Sae Yee, Mr. Duang Pleerat, Mr. Chit Dechaphichai, Mr. Bunlap Methankul, and Mr. Niphon Chaichan. I was the backup.
The Production Unit had the hardest and most arduous work in our commune. I would like to express my regards to everyone in this unit, especially the university students, youth, and merchants who dedicated themselves to production for the collective without concern for their own sweat. I think that the success of the Production Unit was based on the sacrifice and dedication of the youth filled with zeal. I did not anticipate that the young men would be the most dutiful and diligent sons of our commune. These individuals included the following:
Phan Sanlim, an upright and green bookseller from Betong, Songkhla. He was arrested on 26 October 2501 [1958], when he was 23. He was indicted in 2506 [1963] and released the following year.
Rit Sae Sue, a young man from Mae Sai, Chiang Rai Province, who was 19 when he was arrested. His arrest was due to possessing several Chinese language books from Mainland China. He could not speak or write Thai when he was arrested. After years in Lad Yao, he could write and speak Thai. He was released in February 2504 [1961]. Taciturn, Rit rarely spoke and possessed a subdued, feminine air. But he worked without any thought of exhaustion. He was the epitome of diligent hard work. As a result of his exertion, he became a good-looking young man when he got out of Lad Yao. His arm muscles were beautifully-defined and he had a six-pack below his chest. He was our little brother. He was released without being indicted in any court.
Tang Puaynguan, a merchant from Hat Yai, Songkhla. He was arrested in October 2501 [1958]. His skin was like that of a mandarin. But he lived his life the opposite of a rich boy. Puaynguan, or Puy, which is what we called him, was the most hardworking person who dedicated himself to the commune both physically and emotionally. He was responsible for taking care of the ducks and chickens, hundreds of them, for the commune. When he entered prison, he knew nothing about chickens or ducks and never imagined he would raise them. “I only have experience selling things. I’m the manager of a big store that sells books and sporting equipment in Hat Yai. I don’t know a thing about growing vegetables or raising ducks or chickens. But if I am assigned and entrusted with this work, I will do it.” And Puy did it, with beautiful results. Puy became the most expert of those who raised chickens and ducks. He was our chicken veterinarian. He cared for them when they were sick and injected medication. Puy could do it all. All of his knowledge came from books that he studied in Lad Yao. He was excellent proof that, “There is nothing that you cannot know, only things that you do not know yet.” Puy demonstrated that humans are the most brilliant of beings. Any topic can be studied, if only we decide to do so.
Jit Phumisak, a young graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Chulalongkorn University. He was a professor at Phetchaburi Phittayalongkorn Teachers’ College. He was arrested in the first round on 21 October 2501 [1958] and detained. It took until 2506 [1963] for the indictment to come. The court dismissed the case and released him on 30 December 2507 [1964]. He was a hardworking person and the head of a production team. His earnestness caused people to say that he monopolized the work.
Prasit Chuatrakul, a young shoe-seller with a chiseled face. He was a fiery youth who loved justice. He was well-off and had never worked in agriculture. But when he joined the commune, he did so with faith and love. He dedicated himself to the work in a most admirable fashion. The first day he picked up a hoe to dig in the earth, his hands were blistered and bruised. “My hands were totally sore, older brother,” he subsequently told me, “But since all of my friends could bear it, I thought that I should be able to bear it as well, and I can bear it now.” He stopped for a moment to hold up his weathered palms for me to see. “It’s nothing for me now. I can do everything that my fellows can do.” I squeezed his hands with pride and love. The brotherly love among us in the Production Unit was very tight, especially among the youth. Such close bonds, it was as if we had been born in the same family, even though we came from different regions of the country, different families, and different levels of education. But we loved each other as close as could be. He was released on 23 May 2505 [1962].
Heng Sengkung, a young teacher who was slender like a woman. Near-sighted, but cheerful, calm, and prudent – appropriate for being a role model of the nation. When he was arrested, the police told the newspapers that he was the head of the communists in the central region and an instigator involved in propaganda dissemination and infiltration. But when he was arrested and interrogated, it was like the other communist detainees. The dictators’ police fabricated the account to make him seem imposing, frightening, and terrifying. All of this was for political benefit and offered as an excuse by a dictatorship that was not founded in the law or the rules of the country. Sengkung was hardworking and beloved by all. He had never held a hoe or a trowel before. He had never stood out in the sun or toiled in the rain and mud like those of us who were farmers. But wouldn’t you know it, when he picked up a hoe to dig in the earth, when he insisted on scooping the water out of the flooded vegetable fields, he was a beautiful sight. So strong and resolute! He was the most vigorous worker of the commune. Sengkung was never indicted. He joined every one of our struggles, including when we famously took the matter to the courts. Sengkung never trembled in the face of oppression and intimidation from the dictatorship and those calling the shots from behind the scenes. Many people criticized and opposed the struggle in the court on the basis that it would cause the dictatorship to retaliate, that it would cause the police to refuse to release us. But Sengkung and Rit were among the first petitioners to both the Civil Court and the Criminal Court, and were released before those who did not submit petitions to any court.
Sang Pachabutr, a farmer who was the most hardworking in our Production Unit. Originally Sang was a rice farmer who fled the prospects of bankruptcy to Bangkok to drive a pedicab like so many of our Isan countrymen. Since he was a rice farmer from birth and his life was a rough one filled with hardship, i.e. pedaling the pedicab, his body was rippled with muscles and sinew. He had strong arm muscles, fully-filled-out calves and thighs. His back and shoulders – even Hercules would have been unable to subdue him. Sang was a true expert in farming. He was a key force in planting crops of our commune.
Suban Chanthakaew, a young farmer from Khusod village in Srisaket, like Sang. He had been a defendant in a previous political case, the Peace Rebellion case, in 2495 [1952]. He was sentenced to 13 years and 4 months by the court. But he received an amnesty in 2500 [1957]. After he had been free for not so many years, he was once again arrested on the same accusation: Communist Activities and subverting state security. Suban was tough and strong like all Isan people. In addition to being diligent in his work, Suban was an excellent singer in Isan. He was an outstanding molam. The verses he composed and performed on various occasions were rich both in meaning and in sound. Suban was one of the standouts, a most important force of our commune.
Noi Chantha, former headman and alumnus of the 10 November Revolt, or the Peace Revolt. He was sentenced to 13 years and 4 months like Suban, and was pardoned on the 2500th anniversary of Buddhism. But his freedom lasted only a few years before another arrest and imprisonment. Headman Noi was the head of our Production Unit. He was the person in charge of all production.
Rawi Chaichan, former elementary teacher and former alumnus of the 10 November Revolt, or the Peace Revolt. He was sentenced and then pardoned on the 2500th anniversary of Buddhism like other defendants in the Peace Revolt. Rawi was arrested again on 17 January 2502 [1959] and was indicted in a case of Communist Activities and national security violations,the same case in which Mr. Thep Chotinuchit was Defendant No. 1. This case was known as the Srisaket Revolt, or the Revolt against American Imperialism.
Yungfa Sae Lau, a young worker from Ubon Ratchathani who grew up and worked in Bangkok. He was one of the most hardworking and self-sacrificing workers of our commune. His short, compact body was rippled with muscles. He was an athlete who played well according to Lad Yao standards at both volleyball and basketball. Yungfa was arrested in the same case and with the same accusation as Supachai Srisati, who was executed. He was one of the three taken to meet with Sarit and slated for execution. But when the executioner only took Supachai’s life, Yungfa survived and became a force for our commune.
Noi Sae Jiw, a rubber plantation worker from Songkhla Province. Before his arrest in a Communist Activities case, Noi was a committee member of a labor union. Noi was a manly man. His build was big, tall, and well-proportioned with ripped muscles. He was strong, sturdy, and diligent in working. Noi was an anchor of the commune’s crop growing effort. I will never forget him, especially during the rainy season when the fields of the commune were faced with flash floods. We had to mobilize to build a levee and bail out the flooded fields so that the vegetables would not drown and go to waste. The bailing out of the fields had to be done immediately. Some days, our sweat was yet to dry after we had bailed out the fields and the rain would pour from the sky again. We could only watch in tears as the fields of vegetables we had just bailed out flooded once more. I remember Noi because every time we had to bail out the water, he was tenacious and strong at a level that would be hard to find anyone to match.
Yaomin Sae Lee, a young man from Songkhla, like Noi. He sold noodles before he was arrested. He was an excellent athlete who was a co-captain of the basketball team. He was good at both basketball and volleyball. Yaomin had a beautiful, strong physique that was striking enough to easily go on screen. But he came to star in Lad Yao with us and was a strong worker of the commune. He was a self-sacrificing worker. He was a chef of the commune who made delicious food; the noodles were particularly tasty, as he used to do that professionally. His face still looked very young. But he already had five children whom he was providing for when he was arrested. He was put through the wringer until he had to admit to things he did not do to protect his wife and children. Yaomin explained that when he was arrested, a Westerner, whose nationality he did not know, came to take a look at him. This Westerner arrogantly said to him, “You, younger brother, come out with it. I can help you.” Yaomin stared at the pock-marked face of this Westerner with disgust and answered in Thai, “I am a Thai. Those who interrogate me will be Thai officials. You have no right to interrogate me.” The foreigner’s ugly face turned pale in seething rage.
Bunseng Sae Yee, formerly a coffee vendor. He was a co-captain of the basketball team. He was arrested and accused of being part of the leadership in the group of Communist defendants from Songkhla. When he was arrested, he was tortured like many other defendants from the South. They were told that they would be shot and their bodies dumped, or threatened with being stripped of their nationality so that they would confess. He was chained up by the police for 8 days and 8 nights. But even though he came from a merchant background, he was an important and strong force of production in our commune.
In addition, the Production Unit had other young men, such as Mr. Chit Dechaphichai and Mr. Duang Pleerat, former teachers from Nakhon Sri Thammarat, who were responsible for raising fish.
These were the essential workforce of the Production Unit of the commune, which yielded fresh vegetables as well as occasional cash of 100 baht or more for our commune [~1,200 baht in 2026, adjusted for inflation].
Producing vegetables for the commune required diligence and significant interest in the work, because one thing was for certain: there were very few free rai for planting vegetables or engaging in production, not even a handful. Those engaged in production had to use their judgment about what to plant. Which vegetables would be ready for consumption most quickly? Which would grow the fastest with the highest yield? Which could be planted in every season, whether hot, rainy, or cold? There were over a hundred consumers in the commune. But the area for planting was paltry.
As a result, the vegetables cultivated consisted of morning glory, cabbage, kailan, sponge gourd, eggplant, and beans. Sometimes we also planted corn and cassava.
In addition to the small amount of land, the weather was an obstacle to our cultivation. For example, in the hot season, the vegetables we cultivated didn’t come up, rotted in the ground, or died due to the sun. We had to find vegetables that could withstand the sun and were easy to plant. Such vegetables inevitably included morning glory and spinach. In addition, during the rainy season, we faced many obstacles, such as the destruction of the vegetables by the rain. White cabbage cannot withstand the rain. Moreover, flooding was a problem because Lad Yao is in an area of low-lying land and the topsoil had already been dug out and sold. Flooding was a significant issue for the Production Unit. Our method to solve it was to dig a drainage ditch and build a tall levee on one side of the fields. But any day with heavy rainfall led to flooding and we had to work extra hard on those days. We had to mobilize people to bail the water out of the vegetable fields. Bailing the water out had to be done swiftly. Vegetables will die if they are left to soak too long. The work of the Production Unit was very tough. Sometimes while we were bailing out the fields and it was nearly cleared, the rain would fall down once again. We nearly cried. Or some days, the fields were dry after we bailed out the water, then rain fell again that night. We had to mobilize people to again bail out the fields. The weather played a game of cat and mouse with us, but there was nothing fun about it. The obstacles and severe hardship that we faced made us cherish our vegetables and place a very high value on our labor.
“Sometimes I’m in tears when I see people discard vegetables. The vegetables that we send to the kitchen are those that we have harvested and clipped to what we think is a good size. And yet those eating them throw away half and then some,” Jit told me in pain. Well, he was one of those who labored long and hard; naturally he bemoaned the waste of his arduous labor.
One obstacle in our commune was the issue of sacrifice. I acknowledge that I overestimated our capacity for sacrifice. In actual practice, the level of self-sacrifice for the collective was lower than I expected, both in terms of money and labor.
In terms of money, at first, we determined that no fewer than 40 people among us were in a position to sacrifice 30 baht per month [~360 baht in 2026]. But when the time really came, fewer people contributed. Or the full amount was paid for the first few months, but then it shrunk. Or those who we observed had the ability and position to really sacrifice wouldn’t sacrifice. This made the finances of the commune a bit shaky. But generally, we were able to collectively eat better food in comparison with the food consumed by other prisoners.
In terms of labor, I couldn’t believe the obstacle that arose, especially among our group of highly educated and conscientized people. When we announced a call for volunteers for the Production Unit, which at first involved cultivating vegetables and later expanded to raising poultry and fish, there was an insufficient number of people willing to sacrifice and join the Production Unit. Out of 100+ people, only 15 volunteered, including myself. I was a regular working in every arena from the vegetables to the fish (so much so that some people who didn’t think that we were lacking in labor accused me of monopolizing the work). The reason why the Production Unit lacked staff gives me pause: I thought that cultivation would be appropriate work for the rice farmers, all of whom had worked the fields and planted crops before, but it turned out that very few rice farmers volunteered for production. One reason is that they were probably fed up with having to bend over and plant rice their entire lives. But the other reason is rather harsh: their impression was that we encouraged them to do cultivation because we looked down on them. “You see that we’re rice farmers, so you want to force us to wallow in the mud.” This left me speechless, because that wasn’t our thinking at all. All we had in mind was the hope that we would have good, fresh food to put on the table for us all to eat well and live well.
Additional reasons why the commune dissolved:
1. Unwillingness to sacrifice and dedicate oneself to the commune: We could not collect the dues, and it was difficult to find people willing to sacrifice and do the work. Those who did so labored until they nearly dropped dead. Those who did not labor reaped the same benefits. On top of that, those who worked hard because other people did not volunteer were accused and attacked as monopolizing and taking the work of others. This made those who worked themselves to the bone nearly lose all will.
2. Accumulation of private assets: People accumulated private assets and claimed, initially, that it was to foster unity between groups. That is, the Southerners and the people from Srisaket jointly dug a fishpond as a shared asset. They did so even though the commune existed and had its fishpond. They did so even though this action was opposed and criticized as setting a bad example, that after a while, such-and-such and so-and-so group would follow suit and invoke the same rationale to which we would not be able to object because we, who claimed to be exemplary, were doing so ourselves. But these fellows would not believe it. So subsequently, various groups split off to accumulate their own individual or group assets. For example, the Southerners’ fishpond, the Rice Farmers’ fishpond, the Cuba fishpond, etc. These individual fishponds all had people who looked after them but we could not find anyone to look after the commune’s fishpond. Ultimately, the vegetable unit had to look after the fish and catch the fish as well.
Following all of this, MP Taweesak Treeplee, who aimed to deride society, dug his own fishpond. MP Thaweesak’s fishpond was at the foot of the stairs in front of the cells of the Southern detainees and the rice farmers. The fishpond was 2 by 3 cubits, and about 1 cubit deep. He raised only a few hardy, difficult-to-kill tilapia. This fishpond was a mockery directed at those around him. “If they can make their own individual fishponds, so can I,” MP Thaweesak proclaimed sardonically. After the movement to create group assets had started, then came individual assets. Living and eating in the commune grew lifeless with no possible resolution. One by one, various groups exited the commune. Udom left, then the Southerners, then Khun Sang’s group. The last holdouts until the commune breathed its last breath were the youths and the Srisaket farmers. They were the remaining 20 and some who ate in the commune on its last day.
3. Some people claimed that I was one of the reasons for the end of the commune. I was the manager and held sole power as the secretary of the Commune. People thought we should change the secretariat from an individual to a group that we called a troika. I said yes, I’ll welcome it. Propose it officially and we will call a meeting or an election. But after a time, there was no proposal. There were only whispers that went nowhere. I myself probably have flaws, like monopolizing the work as I was accused; I don’t know what to say to defend myself.
Truth is, I worked the same amount as anyone involved in production. I cultivated vegetables, took care of fish, and caught fish with them every time. When it rained and the vegetables flooded, I went to bail out the water with them. When there were fishponds to dig, I dug with them. I took my turn ladling out the food and setting up the dining table with them. I did the dishes with them. How could I not do it when I held the commune to be my life? On the matter of written work, on petitions, and law, I did it with them. I am a lawyer, a journalist. I am capable and the matters that I raised had to do with the subsistence and welfare of all of the detainees. How could I not do it
There were people who accused me of working without consulting others. I will say that there was nothing special about the work I did every day or anything outside the scope of the commune for which the committee had not already set policy. It was daily work – what was there to consult or propose about it? This is how I see it. And there weren’t any instances of me failing to consult people for work that required consultation nor any formal accusations for me to respond to. The issue was only discussed amongst the people who had already split off.
My fellows, just like myself, regret very much that our commune dissolved. But it gave me sufficient lessons and I learned a lot about working.
Our commune lived for about three years. It began at the beginning of 2503 [1960] and dissolved at the end of 2505 [1962]. All that remain are lessons for our memories.