At the last PAD press conference after the Udon clashes Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul announced that the PAD would now have the right to take up arms to protect themselves as the police would collaborate with pro-government mobs.
This somewhat counters their Ghandi-esque claims, and comes closer to the reality that they are not that much different from their counterparts in their acceptance of violence, as these photos clearly show. Not just their ‘guards’ were armed, but also ordinary protesters, such as the children shown in the photos.
A further step into escalation has now been reached, with both sides now openly showing arms, and their willingness to use them.
The photos were taken on 29 July 2008, when a small group of unarmed Bangkok-based pro-government protesters passed by the PAD camp. No violence occurred. The police were present to prevent possible violence from either camp.
76 responses so far ↓
1 Observer // Jul 31, 2008 at 9:23 pm
That was before Samak was given an Interior Minister from above. Much harder to attack the police now.
Much like it is much harder to talk about Khao Phra Viharn now that the new FM is in place.
Interesting stuff
2 Sidh S. // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:21 pm
With more court verdicts in the next 2-3 months that could significantly affect PMThaksin/PPP (the first verdict in the lower courts came out today finding Khunying Potjaman guilty of tax evasion – the first personal blow to the Shinawatras), it is probably a sound idea to be armed – at least as a deterent against an increasingly desperate (angry/mad) UDD, who have revealed (to the Thai and global public) that they are willing to resort to violence with impunity…
Ofcourse, the armed forces are also worried – as it seemed the’re not at all eager for another coup. They are pressuring the police that ‘if you can’t handle the situation, we’ll help’. I think it is critical here that the security forces, resist being politicized and remain neutral and uncompromisingly enforce the peace. If they can achieve that (two very hard tasks indeed – neutrality amidst increasingly angry/mad Thais from both sides) over the cause of the court verdicts, things could actually get much better by the end of the year – and, it is hoped, very long beyond that…
3 Srithanonchai // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Thanks for showing us the PAD’s proud and heroic warriors of non-violence! They had proven their potential when tasked to “non-violently” break through the police barricades surrounding Government House. So, these people supposedly don’t belong to the “uneducated rural gullibles,” right?
# 1 Yes, it seems that the Samak government has gotten an unofficial new coalition partner…
4 kuson // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Analogy: “Even If I were a peaceful country, I still would prefer to have Armed Force. ” Don’t you think so? Perhaps you can think of PAD like the Swiss Army, or the Defense Force of any country especially where Sheriffs side with the Bad Guys.
I would agree with you is, it becomes easier to de-stabilize a situation. No Defense is fine if you are a party with none or few enemies in vicinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)
) which after Udon does not seem to be the case.
As in England with the Bobbies (Policemen) who before only carried Batons, now that the English Bad Guys carry guns and lots of police died because of that, it didn’t take much for the police to arm themselves with Guns: if not to stop the Thugs, for prevention and self-defense purposes.
In any case, I would definitely doubt whether a PADite would ever start a fight (See my view in “Thuggery and madness”) since their aims is to help the Country (including many of the clueless Reds themselves), not exploiting people to destroy it. Also, starting a fight will de-legitimize them even further, which is not the point.
5 kuson // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:46 pm
How about changing the title to “PAD- Ready for Self Defense”?
Sure the guys are sinister looking, but it wouldn’t look cool and preventative of violence to the bad guys if they dressed up anything short. (Good to note on your 5th picture, PAD are also ready for Count Dracula — you never know what you’re gonna get (or what money can buy!) hahaha).
6 karmablues // Aug 1, 2008 at 10:25 am
ok, so the Article is once again very “academically” (ie. here in NM means pro-Thaksin propoganda) written. Let me just show you:
1. they are not that much different from their counterparts in their acceptance of violence
Hmmm, you mean “not much difference” between:
1. arming oneself to prepare to defend against an attack from armed and brutal aggressors
Vs
2. arming oneself to deliberately launch a brutal attack against unarmed, peaceful protesters
For me (non-academic guy), there is a BIG difference between the acceptance of violence in situations 1 (PAD) and 2 (Reds) above.
Also, the basic right to self-defence is recognized everywhere and from a legal point of view the exercise of this right provides complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced.
2. with both sides now openly showing arms, and their willingness to use them
Again, just want to distinguish between:
Reds = “willingness” to use arms to launch brutal attack.
PAD = “willingness” to protect themselves with arms in the event they are attacked by armed Reds (and remember an actual very brutal attack has already occurred where the authorities were complicit in allowing the violence, so naturally the PAD are very afraid for their own security and safety)
Also, would like to note the difference in weapons .
Udorn Reds = axes, machetes, knives and iron bars,
PAD (in the photos shown here, which anyways I’m sure the blogger already chose the ones he thinks is the worst looking) = bars, bats, sticks and slingshots.
3. Not just their ‘guards’ were armed, but also ordinary protesters, such as the children shown in the photos
Well, I don’t believe that the PAD would deliberately arm children as suggested by the article. My take would be that the children were with their parents and got the bats and sticks to play around with. Obviously, if there was an attack by the Reds, I am sure the children would be rushed away from the scene immediately.
And just to add some perspective to the situation a little, the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to own and carry firearms (yes, GUNS) in a peaceful manner. AND THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATE DOING ITS JOB IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS WITH POLICE PROTECTION. So is it really that big a deal for the PAD to be able to own and carry bars, bats, sticks and slingshots in a peaceful manner IN THE CONTEXT OF VERY POSSIBLE ATTACK BY LARGE GROUP OF ARMED AND BRUTAL REDS AND POSSIBLE LACK OF PROPER POLICE PROTECTION.
7 kuson // Aug 1, 2008 at 12:52 pm
#3, Srithanonchai, “I think intentionally breaking through the barriers to go through to the other side” is a different kind of violence than to “intentionally hitting the Thai Bobbies and wanting their bodily harm rather than just breaking through the barrier” — which the latter is not a PAD aim.
I think you can think as your PAD “violence” of breaking through the barrier like any contact sport such as Football or Aussie Rules Footie- the aim is to put the ball into the goal (though contact can happen, but that is not the point of it all) and not to maim the opponent players. And ofcourse, football sport is more violent than snooker sport.
8 manning sawwinner // Aug 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The People for Anarchy and Dumbness (PAD) movement is now revealing its true self. No one in his right mind is surprised, though. This movement is indeed led by veritable thugs who think they are above the law of the land. They have now blocked a roadway under the guise of peaceful protest and let out despicable “peaceful” verbal attacks against anyone they believe does not support their heinous cause.
9 Observer // Aug 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Karmablues,
Yes, we do hear reports that the PPP supporters had machetes, knives, iron bars, spiked clubs and all manner of cruel weapons.
But when 750 of them attack 150 protestors, the only injured the PAD can roll out is one guy without an obvious wound that I can see, and a wheelchair that is an obvious prop.
I’ve seen fights with two people in which neither have weapons and there are more and worse injuries.
I suggest that the conflict here was much, much more subdued than you imply.
10 kuson // Aug 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm
[AN ASIDE TO THIS DISCUSSION]
#3 ref your mentioning of “uneducated rural gullibles”, some comments:
a) I do not use that term (with the word “rural”), but only “uneducated gullibles” because even though most of this subset of Reds are in the north/north eastern region but definitely some in the City. So I used “uneducated gullibles” for those people, and hope they can be turned around to “see the light”
b) Some Reds are not “uneducated gullibles” however; People who have no conviction but are paid to maim/kill for a pay is a “thug”, imho.
c) and in this context, the PADs you see in the picture (and we can only guess but not concluede), I do not think are “uneducated gullibles”. If you’ve been to one event (out of the 60+ days), its very easy to become reasonable and thus ANYONE, sinister looking or not, can be very reasonable, as thus a right to self defense.
11 Srithanonchai // Aug 1, 2008 at 4:55 pm
The PAD could stop insisting on being non-violent (verbally they have never been, even leading to a complaint to the PAD by the Thai chapter of Amnesty International), then the above pictures would not draw criticism based on the protestors claims. Choosing a non-violent approach limits your choice of means, and thus has its drawbacks that you will have to accept. For example, you will have to rely on the police for protection. You can’t have it both–non-violence and weapons in the hands of potential thugs acting as guards.
Moreover, the PAD’s violent attacks of police barricades on their march on government house can by no means be construed as having been done in self-defense against the police. Gandhi would just have sat down in front of the police cordons. Rather, the police had to act in self-defense against the “brutal” (according to one policewoman treated in hospital with a broken arm) PAD attackers. Note that, in legal terms, demonstrators using their constitutional right of peaceful assembly are obliged to follow police orders and are not allowed to go against the orders of legitimate state authority (here expressed by the police barricades). Any such act will result, as the last means, in the arrest of the instigators (here Chamlong, Sondhi, etc.). In order to prevent the worst from happening, the police finally retreated, instead of using the full force of the law, that is water cannons, a full-fledged street fight with the PAD thugs (because they were prepared to do so rather than follow the orders of the police to disperse and return to their previous gathering point), and the arrest of the instigators.
This approach in dealing with the purposeful provocation by the PAD might have been based on some orders from higher up (as Chang Noi suggested), or just be due to the realization by the field commanders that the police did not have sufficient (and sufficiently trained and equipped) forces in place to prevent the violence-inclined PAD stormtroops from breaking through the police lines. Overall, the police acted admirably.
It has to be mentioned in this context that, unlike in many other countries, the Thai audience is not yet used to scenes of street fighting between protestors and the police. Rather, the events of 1973, 1976, and 1992 are always invoked–the spilling of Thai blood by the Thai authorities–to gain discoursive hegemony. Similarly, in Thailand, such incidents are construed as directly impacting on the government, while in other countries, such things are mainly seen as an issue concerning police strategies of crowd control.
Finally, it would be welcome if the PAD stopped claiming that its activities were sanctioned by the constitutional article that guarantees freedom of assembly. The PAD’s activities have nothing to do with it, even if highly respected people such as Anand Panyarachun repeat this line. Freedom of assembly, in a parliamentary system, is designed to give voice to the people, as a remnant of direct democracy. It is not designed to exert pressure by assembling a mass of people to overthrow an elected government. This right is fulfilled if you have marched through the streets for some hours, making speeches at some points. At the end, you go home. PAD had fulfilled the purpose of the article guaranteeing the freedom of assembly after its first day of protests.
But, then, this was not the point. Rather, PAD has been working for the overthrow of the democratic order and acquiring power by other than democratic means (which happens to be prohibited by article 68 of the 2007 Constitution). This has been justified by the claim that the election was rigged and bought and thus illegitimate. Consequently, the resulting government was illegitimate. Therefore, the self-proclaimed PAD saviors of the nation (ku chart) had the right to set the expressed goal of overthrowing the elected Samak government, and of applying all possible means to achieve this end.
Chang Noi (in the Nation of July 21, 2008) was spot on when he said, “The PAD is flirting with the old agent provocateur’s technique of placing its own crudely armed gangs in places where they will be attacked by enemies. This creates violent incidents, apparantly initiated by their opponents, though in truth a result of the inherent violence of the PAD itself…. PAD is an anti-democratic movement … that exploits the fears of the priviledged and a deliberatly anti-rational nationalism, and flirts with militarism and violence.”
12 Sidh S. // Aug 1, 2008 at 8:24 pm
A rationale argument, Srithanonchai #7 – can you also give us a rigorous analysis of the “Reds” or the UDD (or DADD – I’m not sure what they are called)?
Even better, start telling the whole story instead of half-truths. Let’s have the whole chain of events from the 1997 Constitution, then TRT abuses, then PAD protests, then 2006 coup, then UDD protests, then PPP abuses, then PAD protests, then UDD attacks…
If you want to paint PAD as the “bad guy”, then let’s put it into a complete Thai context. An isolated exercise that you wrote tells us nothing more than a very personal bias…
13 nganadeeleg // Aug 2, 2008 at 10:35 am
Srithanonchai, Observer & Manning: I suggest you need to revisit the comments and actions/inactions of people like Kwanchai Phraipana, Uthai Saenkaew & Chalerm Yoobamrung, to get a better understanding of why PAD feels it needs to defend itself.
14 karmablues // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Re #9
But when 750 of them attack 150 protestors, the only injured the PAD can roll out is one guy without an obvious wound that I can see, and a wheelchair that is an obvious prop.
Well, guess what, the ones who were critically injured are most likely still hospitalized and undergoing treatment (it’s only been about a week since the incident occurred), so naturally, the ones that are able to come out and who are no longer in shock and can give interviews would be the ones who suffered minor injuries.
15 Srithanonchai // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Sidh: You don’t really expect me to put a book-length treatment as a comment on New Mandala, do you? I didn’t paint the PAD as the bad guy. I raised a number of issues that seem to have been lost in this “discussion.”
Do I understand it correctly that “a complete Thai context” means that your views must be shared, and that those who don’t share them are either farang (automatically) or Thais who somehow lack the “completeness” of your priviledged Thai insight?
Just as a joking aside, your “complete Thai context” somehow reminds me of the “correct class standpoint” of times past.
16 fall // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Arming a mob is not the wisest of idea. In the end, when things get heated. No one with a bat in his hand would look to see if his opponent have an equal weapon and judge whether to use the bat. That’s why they call it a “mob”…
The logic of arming oneself against one opponent due to police inadequate protection is twist. Or else all mechanic student in Bangkok are justify to carry firearm and pipebomb.
The PAD could wear yellow, anti-PAD could wear red, and everyone else in between could wear shocking pink. But when yellow wearer call for overthrow of elect government, a sanction coup, and appoint senate… the color code is out of context.
The PAD goal at this stage is quite simple. They want a martyr…
17 Bob // Aug 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Non-violence means non-violence, whether you are faced with violence or not. If you’re going to fight back, then stop claiming you are ahimsa.
So when the PAD went straight into the Isaan heartland to instigate violence, the PAD were not to blame at the least. They had a right to protest. But when the PAD arm themselves (against their so-called policy of ahimsa), the fault lies in the government, the UDD, and everyone else. Do the PAD have a right to carry weapons in a public gathering now?
Stop being naive here. The PAD can protest and the government should protect them, but you all are being hypocrites if the PAD are always faultless and the government is entirely evil.
The PAD has more than its fair share of ugly scenes, ugly rhetoric, and ugly ideas.
18 karmablues // Aug 2, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Re: #9
By the way, if you were referring to the interview of the PAD protesters injured in the Udon incident held by PAD at Makawan Bridge on 28 July, well, then that’s just 4 days after the attack happened. I am very glad the critically injured (who must have still been very traumatized and in shock and undergoing treatment) were not dragged out of the hospital and transported to Bangkok to do a long interview on stage. The Thaksins would have found it easy to do such thing though since we’ve already seen that sacrificing thousands of lives were worth it for some publicity. Luckily the PAD are no where near that kind of cruelty.
19 karmablues // Aug 2, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I think a lot of people here are being somewhat incompassionate toward what happened to the PAD protesters in Udon.
The PAD Leaders may say a lot of extreme things and do things like stoke unreasonable nationalism, etc, but we must also bear in mind that the individual protesters who number in the tens of thousands are the average, typical Thai person who you would meet in the market, food stalls, bars, spas, shopping malls, MTR, bus, beach, or wherever and who are there at the protests simply because they really believe it is the right thing to do. You may think it is a misguided belief, but is that alone enough to say, well, let’s just let them get beat up to near death by the Reds like what happened in Udon. They are now just wanting to protect themselves and their friends (families turn up together to the protests a lot also) against further possible attacks. Why let your hatred for the PAD Leaders (if you happen to hate them and believe they are doing all this for self-interest) destroy the compassion for the average Thai protesters who don’t actually mean any harm to anybody and just doing what they think is right and are not doing it for self-interest.
As far as I am concerned, the people who may get injured in the future, could well be my friend who is a keen PAD supporter. She’s just the average nice, honest person, (and yes, it is possible for someone to believe that Preah Vihear should be Thai property and at the same time work in charities helping underprivileged children) and truly believes she’s doing what’s right for the country. Maybe she will get beaten up in the future if the Reds launch another attack and the police turn a blind eye. But perhaps in such situation if the PAD Guards could protect her, then she would be fine.
As far as I am concerned, it is the duty of the government to protect its citizens. In the circumstances, that duty requires the government to ensure proper police protection for its citizens (regardless of race, religion or political views) and to halt the organization of unlawful militias who are formed with the specific purpose of terrorizing and attacking other people (yes, the PAD protesters are “people”).
20 Srithanonchai // Aug 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Maybe, less compassion, ie. less emotional confusion, will lead to a clearer understandings of what has been happening?
21 Sidh S. // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Srithanonchai #15, no need for book-length treatment. The length of your #11 comment should suffice.
There’s no “privileged Thai insight” as there is no network monarchy (on the other hand, there are prejudices and biases – which is what I associate your “clearer understanding of what has been happening” in #20). As karmablues mentioned in comment #19, many individual Thais (of both sides, I add) are worried and angry about issues and events since PMThaksin took the helm in 2001. I understand it is within their democratic rights to come out on the streets to protest without threats of violence. However, it is a crime if you beat up someone because he/she has different believes and I find it ironic here that you raised the issue of “shared views” in #15 without having compassion for PADites beaten at Udon just because they have different views to UDD. Is this emotional confusion on your part Srithanonchai?
22 Nick Nostitz // Aug 5, 2008 at 12:08 am
“Karmablues”, post #6:
No, this is not an Academic Article, as i am a Photographer. And no, i did not “chose the worst ones” – there were several people armed with nail spiked clubs and other ingenious weapons designed to maim. Already taking these photos drew some negative comments by some PAD guards, and faced by people armed this way i preferred not to overstay my welcome. I have managed though after these photos were published on NM to take pictures of PAD guards doing baton training, on another day.
In addition to that – the PAD is armed with swords and knifes as well, mostly hidden, or camouflaged – by hiding swords in the handles of their flags, or having pieces of cloth wrapped around the blades. This is well known, i would advise asking the police on the scene for confirmation.
The PAD has not just been armed now, but was armed at least since the first after-coup Thammasat meetings. This was now just the first time i have seen weapons openly displayed.
As to the children on these photos – i have severe doubts about the parenting abilities of their guardians, taking children to potentially volatile demonstrations, regardless of which political side they may be on. This simply is not a place for children, especially not carrying arms.
And the US constitution is not a reference to Thai specific problems. I am not a legal expert, but carrying arms in public is as far as i know not legal (by either side). Disarming them though might cause riots, so there is little the police can do, underfunded, under equipped, and under trained as they are regarding crowd/riot control.
I also want to take the chance here to completely reject the accusation of making “pro-Thaksin” propaganda. I have shown photos here that i believe are important to understand what may come, that the PAD is not what it has so far presented itself to be. If one has to take any side – there are still more sides to be taken than the rather simplistic either pro-PAD or pro-Thaksin side, and nothing in between.
Also the many groups that make the UDD, or groups that are outside of this umbrella organization and still oppose the PAD (such as the individuals that make up the “Sanam Luang voice”) are worthy of deeper analyzes regarding their backgrounds and aims. This is not just unilateral support for Thaksin, but multifaceted groups that range from fanatical Thaksin supporters to early Thaksin opponents who reject the extreme nationalism of the PAD.
Also the PAD, as Thongchai Winitchakul has shown very well, is a alliance of former Marxists and extreme Royalists/Rightists, yet now with clear common aims and no dissent – overthrow of the elected government (ineffective as it may be – still, it was elected), and a political agenda that has very little to do with what i understand under ‘democracy’.
And yes, the UDD rallies have also a large spectrum of Thais from “all walks of life” in their audience. One of them, for example, is a taxi driver that is my neighbor. And one of the PAD guards is an ex-boxer with whom i have trained in the same gym about ten years ago. For me it is a very sobering thought that people i do know and like will maybe soon fight each other on the streets.
Personally – taking photos since three years of all these events, including the Prem compound clashes which have been mostly completely misrepresented by the medias (only Asia Sentinel has a report that does correspond to what i have seen) – the PAD is for me as a photographer one of the more intimidating groups, where i am most careful what i say, as my impression after these three years is that dissenting voices, discussion or debate are not tolerated there.
Yet, on UDD rallies, or TRT events i have never made a secret out of the fact that my support for Thaksin ends at the fact that he was elected, and that i oppose much of his politics. You may be surprised, but there are many TRT/PPP Sor Sor that support him only as the lesser of the many evils here, and not because they support his politics. These sort of compromises are inescapable part of the Thai political landscape.
This is my equally non-academic view.
23 Srithanonchai // Aug 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Nick: Thanks very much indeed for this very informative addition to your previous post!
Sidh: First, I have observed and researched the entire process in Thailand since the drafting of the 1997 Constitution until now, that is the period you want me to summarize in a comment as long as my previous statement. And, sorry, but I don’t think that I can do justice to it in a text that is of the length you have in mind.
Second, I will probably never understand why a political analyst has to break into tears on seeing events such as those in Udon in order to verify his analysis.
Third, as to your statement, “I understand it is within their democratic rights to come out on the streets to protest without threats of violence.” You are perfectly right as far as the events in Udon are concerned, even if one perceives the PAD’s rally as a deliberate attempt to provoke violence and bloodshed to further its stretegic ends. These issues are unrelated, since the right to such demonstrations is constitutionally guaranteed, irrespective of their deeper intentions. As far as the PAD’s protest in BKK is concerned, please refer to my longer comment.
Fourth, I don’t really understand where my bias lies when I merely try to add questions that you dislike.
24 karmablues // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Re #22
I also want to take the chance here to completely reject the accusation of making “pro-Thaksin” propaganda
It is within your right to do so (reject the accusation), but at the very least from the face of the article, I still believe that it was written in a biased and unfair way against the PAD, which I had already explained why at length in my #6
As to the children on these photos – i have severe doubts about the parenting abilities of their guardians, taking children to potentially volatile demonstrations, regardless of which political side they may be on. This simply is not a place for children, especially not carrying arms.
Well, if your concern was about “parenting abilities” this was not what was conveyed in the Article. My understanding is that the Article is saying that the PAD are deliberately arming the children to fight, which I don’t believe is a reasonable speculation as I already explained in my #6
And the US constitution is not a reference to Thai specific problems.
My reference to the US Constitution was to make the point about how important the basic right to self-defence is. In the US and in the context of the states providing proper police protection, a large number of states allow citizens to carry guns in public, usually it must be concealed though and most states require that one apply for a permit. So I just wanted to contrast the situation, with the PAD who should be able to have a right to self-defence and carrying must less harmful weapons than guns, and in the context of armed militias which had been set up to attack them and also possible lack of proper police protection.
As for your statements regarding the PAD concealment of weapons, since these are “hidden”, I could equally speculate that perhaps they were also hiding bazookas, grenades, and machine guns which they got from the military. But that would be just speculation.
Now, I just want to end off by saying this. There are many things about the PAD which are bad. The irresponsible parents who bring children to the protests, yes that’s bad. The PAD Guards (let’s assume it’s true), who hide swords and knives, that’s bad. The PAD Leaders who encourage the reclaiming of Preah Vihear, that’s bad. But just like there are
some blacks who are murderers, drug lords, burglars, etc, that DOES NOT make all blacks bad and evil. Even the blacks who are bad and evil, they too are entitled to proper police protection, they too should not be allowed to get inhumanely beaten up.
I hate Thaksin very much and most of the “ugly duckling cabinet”. But I would NEVER find it even remotely acceptable for a group of thugs to storm into Thaksins house with axes, machetes, etc. and beat him to near death, or to storm government house and beat the living daylights out of the cabinet ministers. No, that is just unacceptable.
The PAD is a very big group (ie. tens of thousands of people). Some are probably the very violent type who would hide sharp weapons and things but I believe these types do no represent the average protester who number in the tens of thousands; these violent types are probably only the small minority.
The most important point I want to make is, go ahead and hate them all if you want, but please don’t forget that they are humans and deserve to be treated as such as I explained in #19.
[PS. I also want to record my protest of a comment which I tried to post in the "The king, the courts and the former PM" thread, which the webmasters had rejected and I believe that that comment did not fall within one of the stated criteria for rejection.]
25 Sidh S. // Aug 5, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Srithanonchai, I will never know if my question was too hard or you simply dislike it. I thought, being an academic, you are trained to be able to write abstracts of complex subject matter in 300-500 words. However I understand that it is very hard – often impossible – to see your own biases or prejudices. And the same applies to me, your biases/prejudices is so obvious to me – which probably only reflect my own. I read both Nicks and most of karmablues post – they are both highly articulate and rationale, but at the end of day, they see what they want to see (or they see what they are looking for)…
Just for fun – nothing serious – I will speculate the kind of academic work you do from your views. Are you a laboratory scientist who bring selected bits of the world to investigate in petri-dishes?!
I say that because I think it is too easy to remove the PAD from it’s Thai context and conclude that it is evil, dangerous for Thai democracy. It is as easy to do the same for the monarchy, the military, the police, the elected politicians, the judges, the bureaucrats – even the Thai voters for that matter – and say that, in their respective hands, Thai democracy is doomed. I maintain – as I always had – that those views/analysis will get you very far from lived realities of Thai politics, which is a very complex and dynamic interplay between all those institutions and individuals mentioned and much more.
The mix can be potentially violent I will not deny that – but at the same time, might just resolve itself, balance off rather beautifully – to the spectator’s amazement…
26 Nick Nostitz // Aug 5, 2008 at 9:39 pm
in response to “Karmablues”:
Biased? You are reading more into the few lines i wrote to the pictures than there is. You have accused the PAD opponents of having set up ‘armed militias’. I would rather classify the “Udon lovers” as thugs, and not a “militia”. A militia needs a proper command structure, and i cannot see this (yet) with the pro Thaksin groups. Groups such as the “Udon Lovers” are more a band of thugs than anything else.
Yet – the PAD guards are what i might call the beginning of a militia, as they do have the command structure in place, and increasingly a uniformed appearance.
You write that you “hate” Thaksin and the present cabinet, and still find much wrong with the PAD. It appears to me that your emotional response towards Thaksin hinders you from a proper analyzes of the present political situation.
It is not speculation that PAD members are armed with swords and knifes – it is a fact that can be easily verified by speaking with police. Also on Thai TV this has been shown briefly, on the occasion of Sondhi Limthongkul surrendering to the Lese Majeste charges.
Again – there is much wrong with Thaksin, but that does not equate having to support the PAD. The PAD is the noisiest anti-Thaksin, anti-government pressure group, but given the many wrongs you have also listed (and including the ‘new politics’ debate) – the PAD is maybe further from the ideals of an egalitarian and democratic society than Thaksin ever was. No surprise that the two most powerful PAD leaders were early Thaksin supporters, and from the political right – Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang – throughout the drug war killings and other assorted violations they have spend considerable effort to promote Thaksin’s politics.
Supporting this group means that you have to share their political ideals, and not just share their “hate” of Thaksin and the government. Otherwise your position might be seen as somewhat lacking logic. Especially because there are more choices available to support than those two sides.
Closing – i would wish that instead of emotional based response logical analyzes is applied here to asses the situation. Take the photos for what they show – civilians in arms which can hurt, maim, and even kill, members of a group that has always presented itself as ‘non-violent’.
In whatever violence that is, and will possibly come – you will have to hold both sides equally responsible as both sides are part of the circle of escalation.
27 Sidh S. // Aug 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm
A good article in Bangkokpost on violence in Thai politics from AjarnNidhi Eoseewong:
BARBARITY IN POLITICS: Breaking the vicious cycle of violence
in
http://www.bangkokpost.net/060808_News/06Aug2008_news24.php
28 Sidh S. // Aug 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Today’s Bangkokpost editorial on PPP’s proposed amendment of Article 63 which directly targets PAD’s protest:
A direct threat to basic rights
in
http://www.bangkokpost.com/070808_News/07Aug2008_news019.php
29 Srithanonchai // Aug 7, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Sidh: It is not laboratory research that I am involved in but rather the application of ant social life (following in the sociobiological steps of Wilson) to Thai politics. This approach must have been too complicated for me, thus making me unable to summarize 10 years of “very complex and dynamic interplay” in meaningful 300-500 words. Note that my previous comment was about a very small issue of all that interplay. Since you have such a good grasp of this period, and are probably not involved with ants, perhaps you are in a better position than me for doing this job. Moreover, you also seem to be extremely unbiased. Good luck.
30 kuson // Aug 7, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Conclusion?
Point 1: Nick Do You Have “Red Army” Photos?
I thank Nick for the pictures. But taken the quite over-reaction of the NM guests on pictures of boys and sticks, Maybe Nick (or anyone) can do some pictures of the “Red Guards” and I hope we can all denounce violence in any form and close this thread. IMHO picture representations of “Reds” bashing photos is important, if NM site is to correctly represent violence or the situation fully.
Point 2: PAD’s Safety First is Anyone’s Common Sense
Taken probable violent times [Thaksin in the Cornered Spot, "The Law" -- Government Police willing to let the "Red Guards" terrorize, and the Red's position], it would be quite * dumb * for PADites not to be more and more careful and simply stupid if PAD does not have any self protection mechanisms.
Not having any self protection mechanisms simply could Provoke the “Red Guards” to commit to more violence and so in this case, as people will probably call you dumb and stupid if your house was burglared because you told everyone you practiced non-violence and you left your house unlocked.
Point 3: PAD is not Gandhi, & Not Perfect
“Gandhi should be Gandhi, and his Non-Violence means was examplary and special on own rights” . Even though for PAD the principle is towards “Not Being Violent”, I am sure that there are some violence are displayed (NM guys have talked alot about it on this thread- pushing this and that, etc) but should not be blown out of proportions here.
Perhaps we should close this thread?
31 Nick Nostitz // Aug 8, 2008 at 2:27 am
“Kuson”
Yes, i have many photos of the UDD and affiliated groups as i have followed them closer than the PAD (they are not just “the Reds”, or the “Red Armies” – they are very diverse and independent groups). Only in Bangkok i have followed them though, and there i have never seen these groups openly carrying weapons. I am aware that they do have access to weapons, but i can’t take photos of something that is not openly carried.
I have photos of a splinter group of the UDD throwing water bottles at PAD protesters at the first PAD Thammasat meeting, but that was only thirty seconds before police managed to get the PAD guys back into Thammasat, and UDD to stop throwing bottles. Both PAD and the UDD splinter group had weapons stockpiles (mostly rocks and wooden clubs, according to Special Branch), but they were hidden.
I also have photos of PAD protesters who attacked lone Thaksin supporters during the pre-coup protests, and who were saved by plainclothes police officers.
Anyhow, the reason why i have just posted the PAD pictures, at this time, was that violence of the “Udon Lovers” was well known, well portrayed in the medias.
Yet until today the arming of PAD guards and protesters seems to have mostly escaped the local media. The international medias, for whom i am working, are simply not interested in Thailand’s comparably small problems until a bloodbath has happened already. This is my attempt for a bit more balance and not a theses on the different political groups opposing each other in contemporary Thailand.
32 Srithanonchai // Aug 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Kuson: “simply stupid if PAD does not have any self protection mechanisms” >> Still, one should keep in mind that the constitution only guarantees assemblies that are “peaceful and without weapons.” In addition, the weapons of the PAD are not mainly directed against attacks of the “Red Army” (do you really expect that this “army” would attack the PAD on its march on Rajadamnoen Road, for which reason the PAD’s march had to be led its uniformed own “PAD Army”?) They are directed against the police in case it tried to dissolve the protest.
33 karmablues // Aug 8, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I just want to put in a few thoughts of mine on this:
Still, one should keep in mind that the constitution only guarantees assemblies that are “peaceful and without weapons.”
I think we also need to keep in mind that when the drafters wrote this provision, their assumption was that the state would be providing police protection for the protesters, ie. don’t carry weapons guys, because the police will protect you.
So, since the state has proven itself ready to collude with the Red thugs in acts of terrorism against the protesters, the situation is different to what the drafters of the constitution had contemplated. In any case, the basic right to self-defence is one which can be exercised independently and can be seen to supplement the right to freedom of assembly in this context (where there is good reason to believe that the police will not do its job and there is a group of armed thugs ready to launch attack).
Also, since evidence of the PAD Guards bearing weapons is clear, the only reason why the government has not instituted a legal case against the PAD, I suspect, is because they are afraid of putting themselves and their best buddies (i.e the Police) in the hot seat. Because, in any accusation of bearing weapons illegally, the PAD would immediately argue that they have a basic right to self-defence (moreover, the job of the PAD Guards is also to protect the “weak” people such as the elderly and women, so they can also be seen as a Team of Bodyguards, making their existence even more justified). And this could lead to a court-ordered inquiry about the police and who was behind the organziation of the armed Reds, which of course the government and police don’t want since they know they are wrong and are the ones who should be blamed for this.
do you really expect that this “army” would attack the PAD on its march on Rajadamnoen Road, for which reason the PAD’s march had to be led its uniformed own “PAD Army”?
Though not very likely, I think there was a possibility. Look what happened in Udon. There were over 700 people who were not afraid of the law and commited brutal acts of violence in front of TV cameras without shame and without fear. These guys are not afraid of the law. I suppose most of them right this very moment are still walking free.
They are directed against the police in case it tried to dissolve the protest
I believe that is not the case because the police did not have a policy of dissolving the protest that day. I think it was more to deter an attack and to defend if there is an attack by the Reds.
34 Sidh S. // Aug 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Srithanonchai #29, interesting research! I hope to have the honor of reading it.
“Moreover, you also seem to be extremely unbiased” – complimenting or sarcasm?! I am fine with both.
Kuson and Karmablues, as Nick said, the barbarism of UDD is globally renown already – and photos/videos of their thuggery are widely documented and available (from World Trade, PMPrem’s house, Thammasat Udon etc.). Although I agree that a more evenhanded treatment would have been preferred – but I have been engaging in NM long enough not to expect that. However, I do appreciate that you are bringing your views to balance the biases in NM.
PAD have already taken responsibility and end their rallies at TRT/PPP strongholds. That the government and security officials could not convict anyone despite incriminating evidences already speaks volumes. That they also refuse to guarantee the safety of such rallies settles it. This I feel that this is extremely sad for Thai democracy which, as we know, will not be raised as a blog here. And here I point the finger at the PPP government, who’s responsible – if they REALLY ASPIRE for the ideals of democracy – it is up to them to open up society to debate and opposing view points, in a facilitated and peaceful manner.
What this reveals is a government that want to protect its ELECTORAL MONOPOLY of sections of society with every means possible – even if illegal and violent. There are ample evidence of that and because of that, PAD should protect itself. I will say that the strategy of openly showing their weapons (for Nick’s camera in this case) is brilliant. We all are grown-up enough to know the psychology of schoolyard bullies. You stand up to them, you show them that you are willing to fight back, they often back away and pick on the weaker and more timid… (I hope Nick can prove me wrong, but I suspect that the violent thugs at Udon are the same kind of hired thugs that tear down slums and markets – or, in extreme cases, murder grassroots activists standing up against capitalist mafias)…
35 Nick Nostitz // Aug 9, 2008 at 1:46 am
“Sidh”:
Lots to answer here. Lets start with your assumption on the UDD having proven their violence already. You do simplify here a very complex issue. First, during the World Trade Centre brawl, there was no UDD. The UDD was only formed from several smaller and larger groups, both pro- and anti – Thaksin, during the times of the military coup.
I was not present during the World Trade Center brawl, therefore i will not comment on it other this was brought way out of proportion.
I was though present during the clashes at Prem’s residence, and there the situation was very clear – the police attacked the protesters on orders of the army, and not as you suggest – protesters attacked police, or Prem’s residence.
UDD protesters in the early afternoon marched from Sanam Luang, pushed through understaffed police barricades (police gave way) – there was neglegible violence of a few overexcited protesters which was stopped straight away by their fellow protesters, and reached Prem’s compound at about 15.00 to 16.00. There they sat down, built a mobile stage, and held speeches.
At about 20.00 the police then attacked the protesters, trying to disperse them, and the protesters refused. Altogether protesters fought back three attacks, and left themselves at the fourth attack, as it was rumored that behind the police line armed soldiers were marching.
At no time during the clashes the protesters tried to get into Prem’s compound, they only built barricades to lock police into the compound. They threw bottles and stones into the compound, and same came flying out (i was nearly hit by a bottle that came flying out of Prem’s compound.
When police receded, the protesters themselves stopped attacking police. There was, for example, a small group of police that has lost contact with their fellow officers at the first attack, and stopped fighting. That group was then left alone by the protesters (during the fourth attack these officers gave me water to wash teargas out of my eyes).
I spoke with several police officers after the event, both high and low ranked, and all said more or the less the same – they did not want to attack the UDD demonstration as the protesters would have eventually left anyhow, but were ordered so by the army.
I am a bit astonished how you can find the arming of the PAD ‘brilliant’, followed by a somewhat strange analogy with ’schoolyard bullies’ justifying such. What i see is a political pressure group whose ‘democratic’ credentials are very doubtful, which has a proven track record of being agent provocateur, now taking up arms in preparation of street violence, be it against their political nemeses, or against police.
What is ‘brilliant’ about an increasing lawless society? Because carrying arms in public without the necessary permits is still illegal in Thailand.
Yes, it is a sad fact that the government cannot guarantee safety for demonstrations, but in my experience that has less to do with the government’s willingness than with its ability to control provincial vested interests. This is a sad fact for Thai democracy, and has been since a very long time. But that a political pressure group can take up arms, as the PAD is doing is as sad, and furthers the present deterioration of Thai society.
The PAD and the pro government thugs are just two sides of the same coin – foot soldiers for vested interests of competing power networks, none of them progressive.
36 nganadeeleg // Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 am
The PAD and the pro government thugs are just two sides of the same coin – foot soldiers for vested interests of competing power networks, none of them progressive.
We all know there are ‘pro government thugs’, but did you mean the thugs within PAD, or are you implying all PAD are thugs?
IMO, only a minority of the PAD protesters are thugs, whereas I am not so sure that can be said for the pro government protesters (as distinct from pro government supporters).
37 Sidh S. // Aug 9, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Nick, the World Trade event was not way out of proportion as there was clear evidence to show that the police did not do anything to stop the thugs in black beating up an old protestor and a women. Unless you are from the likes of Zimbabwe, I don’t think such action (by both police and black thugs) is acceptable anywhere else.
Let us say that for the UDD protest in front of PMPrem’s house, only you and Asian Sentinel got it ‘right’ against all the watching Thai TV and newspaper medias (do you think they are just backward, suppressed, third world media Nick?), why didn’t you post your photographs in NM then (in mid-2007)? Who were the “agent provocateur” here specifically aiming at one of the most respected figure, at least in the ruling military? Remember that this event occured during a Thai coup government which traditionally had NO QUALMS about killing protesting citizens… For me this is unprecedented.
For the Thammasat event, you probably have photographs of the UDD man who displayed his private parts in protest against PAD. Most will find that kind of action quite threatening – at least rather uncomfortable (not just for the PAD, but also for fellow UDDs or any neutrals watching).
For Udon event, I stick to my ’schoolyard bully’ analogy. There is a high likelihood that if PAD where armed then, the Udon-lovers will have second thought about attacking. The PAD misunderstood that the 500 or so police would provide protection. And we are talking about a democratically elected government who TURNED A COLLUDING BLIND EYE to this “LAWLESSNESS” to use your word.
You seem to forget that it is the GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that protests are PEACEFUL. In failing to do that, they create the conditions for lawlessness. Look Nick, ALL IT TOOK is for students, teachers and parents of a nearby school to file a complaint against the PAD at the courts and they complied (even if with a little initial resistance)…
And besides, if UDD don’t like what they hear, there’s no need to listen nor intentionally confront the PAD. There are many pro-government TV and radio channels anyway. It is also within their democratic rights to set up stage somewhere else to air their anti-PAD, pro-Thaksin views. You’ve mentioned that you’ve followed the UDD more closely – can you let us know exactly what transpires in their rallies to get some “balance” viewpoint against the many people who see the benefits of having the PAD?
38 Nick Nostitz // Aug 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“nganadeeleg”:
As the decision to openly carry arms was announced by the leadership of the PAD during a press conference – i do see this therefore as official policy of PAD, and not just a decision of a few thugs within the PAD.
The PAD has by now morphed into a highly cohesive group with a clear policy and a leader oriented philosophy that leaves very little space for discussion and debate outside the small leadership group.
In addition to this, i would suggest reading on Prachathai the article on Sonthi Limthongkul’s position regarding the Preah Vihear issue, where he advocates highly aggressive strategies, not even excluding going to war with Cambodia.
This is further proof that the PAD is not a non-violent group, but an extremely nationalistic organization which openly advocates unconstitutional means to topple the government.
I suggest also to read recent statements regarding the PAD by people that have a proven record of being critical of the government, people such as Supinya Klangnarong, Pravit Rojanaphruk, Giles Ungpakorn, Thongchai Winitchakul, and many others.
The evidence is overwhelming.
39 karmablues // Aug 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Ok,
PAD Leaders = advocate aggressive strategies to reclaim Preah Vihear (no deaths or serious injuries yet), advocate unconstitutional means of toppling government ( bloodless coup i think u refering), arming bodyguards in self-defence
TRT/PPP Leadership = implementing aggressive strategies to deal with Southern violence (leading to many deaths of fellow Thais), implementing war on drugs (thousands of fellow Thais dead), hiring of thugs to maim peaceful protesters (many seriously injured, perhaps one dead)
which is the more violent and lawless organization?
yes, the evidence is overwhelming indeed
40 Nick Nostitz // Aug 9, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“Sidh S.”:
Again – i will not comment on the World Trade Center event as i was not present.
As to the Prem Clashes, i was there, that is what i have witnessed. I have sent my photos to my agency, but i have no control over what international magazines or newspapers decide to publish. In this event – as usual – nothing was published. I was interviewed though by ASTV, and i have stated exactly what i have stated here.
Why other media outlets in Thailand have reported differently is most likely because during that time all media outlets still had military censors in their offices.
There were very few foreign reporters at the scene – Nirmal Gosh from the Straights Times was briefly there, after i called him, one foreign AP photographer i also saw briefly, and a correspondent of a Vietnamese Agency. This event has escaped the attention of most foreign correspondents.
I have at that time not posted my images at NM as i have at that time not seen NM as an outlet that might wish to see my photos, because i am not an academic.
So, here i have now posted my account on the Prem compound clashes, and i hope you do not imply here that i do misreport these events. I am a in Thailand accredited photojournalist, i do take the ethics of my profession serious, and i comment here under my real name.
Yes, i do have photos of the man displaying his private parts. Personally – i did not feel threatened by this display of a not exactly impressive wiener. He is of a rather lunatic fringe of the pro government protesters known for outrageous stunts.
Again – the UDD is not a very cohesive group – it is an umbrella of many groups with widely differing agendas that was formed as a reaction to the military coup. Within that group there are fanatical pro Thaksin organizations and groups that have always opposed Thaksin. You have staunch royalists there, and also opponents of the monarchy. I am not an academic, but i would welcome field research on these groups.
The more serious issue you raised is the events of the “Udon Lovers” and why the government cannot guarantee the security of protesters upcountry. This is often translated as active government collaboration with those actions.
I would slightly differ though here, i think that this is a dangerous simplification of the event and its underlying mechanics. I have difficulties to summarize my view in a few words here, but my attempt for an explanation is that the real system of Thailand is a complex web of partly competing and partly collaborating semi-independent networks of power.
No government in Thailand can govern the country without those networks, and has to engage in very uncomfortable compromises. The Democrats have done so by forming coalitions with political parties representing those networks, and TRT has incorporated them. These networks are existing, are a huge problem, but dismantling them is very difficult and will take a very long time.
One leader of one of the groups under the UDD has expressed the Udon events to me in this way: “The PAD is well aware that these upcountry networks are the weak point of this government, as of every government, and has purposely provoked this incident, knowing that the government is not able to control those networks.”
Also, my police contacts have confirmed to me that intelligence was relayed to the PAD that attacks were planned, yet this was ignored by the PAD.
The events in Udon have to be seen not just in relation to the ongoing political crises but also have to be set into context of the politics of patronage and informal power networks that make up Thailand’s general socio-political landscape, where extreme violence lurks in every aspect of life here in the Land of Smile.
Also the PAD has to be seen in this context, regardless their self portrayal as a politically conscious group of modern citizens. The PAD is as entrenched in the patronage system, appearances of Puyai such as Gen. Saprang and other high ranked members of Thai society are testament of this.
Thailand outside metropolitan Bangkok is a very difficult territory, informal power networks overshadow formal power distribution. One does not have to look far here – the industrial suburbs of Bangkok are a perfect example.
One day i may attempt a post that somehow reflects this situation as i have extensively photographed there over many years.
Unfortunately there is a lack of academic research into elementary aspects of key developments of contemporary Thailand. You will find research into any folk dance in hinter-Isaarn, but very little recent material i am aware of on the newly developing proletariat in the suburban industrial belt, ongoing migration patterns into the cities, development of political consciousness of those sectors, and how traditional power networks adapt to these developments.
Such research would be eminently important to analyze the ongoing political conflict in Thailand, and the larger social changes behind these conflicts.
My photos cannot replace academic research, but i hope they may inspire such, or give an element of atmosphere to dry data.
41 Nick Nostitz // Aug 9, 2008 at 8:09 pm
“Karmablues”:
Good. Now we start moving into shades of grey – a far more realistic view.
The drugwar was clearly not just TRT policy, but a collaboration of all power networks existing in Thailand in order to react to a social problem – military, police, civil service, and even the palace. Here i wish to cite a key speech, the 2003 birthday speech of H.M. the King, Bangkok Post translation:
“Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drugs trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs.”
The war down South: Not just TRT policy, but again the response of the Thai state. The Kru Sue attack was ordered by Gen. Panlop Pinmanee, an outspoken opponent of Thaksin against the orders of Gen. Chavalit to solve the standoff by negotiations.
The Tak Bai deaths were accidental, and not ordered by the government, or anybody. The comments of Thaksin afterwards were indeed of very bad taste, and reflect the attitude of the Thai state. Nevertheless, Prem’s refusal to follow the recommendations of the NRC, such as introducing Yawi as a second official language in the three southern provinces show the same.
During the coup, the tactics against the insurgents were more aggressive even, and the arming of militias were even accelerated. Some militias are not under control of regular army or government, but only under palace control, such as the mostly Buddhist Or Lor Bor.
The issues are far more complex than the simplified versions propagated by PAD.
42 nganadeeleg // Aug 9, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Nick: Thanks for the informative photo’s.
You are not prepared to comment on the World Trade Center event as you were not present, however you have made extensive comments on the Udon & Prem house events, so presumably you were present at those events – would you care to publish some of those photo’s as a companion piece to the one’s you posted above?
(real violence, not weaners!)
I also am somewhat surprised that you find the crowd at the PAD protests so intimidating, yet you think the UDD/pro government mob just has a lunatic fringe – that certainly is a different perspective to the one I am used to hearing, and hopefully there is no bias in that opinion.
I am not a fan of Sondhi L, and do think the PAD have gone too far lately, but unfortunately they are the main opponent to Thaksin, and without them Thaksin would probably still be practicing policy corruption, tax evasion & maybe even extra-judicial killings.
The issues are far more complex than the simplified versions propagated by PAD
I will agree with you on that point.
43 karmablues // Aug 10, 2008 at 12:31 am
The drugwar was clearly not just TRT policy, but a collaboration of all power networks existing in Thailand in order to react to a social problem – military, police, civil service, and even the palace
I would have to disagree. My view is that Thaksin and his government implemented the war on drugs out of its own free-will ie. nobody forced them to do it. It is, therefore, clear to me that the resulting bloodshed and gross violations of human rights of thousands of people was a result of government policy.
Take a look at Human Right Watch’s report on the drug war. It is easy to see that Thaksin and his government were to blame for this.
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/thailand0704/4.htm
Also, I am not sure why you cited the King’s speech. Perhaps you agree with what he said? Anyways, I think this is a perfect opportunity for me to accept the King’s open invitation for constructive criticism. And I will have to say that, with due respect to the King and whatever his intentions may have been when he made the comment, my view is that you cannot justify the murder of thousands of lives (many of whom it seems were not even related to drugs trade which included children and a pregnant woman) for Thaksin’s so-called war on drugs.
I don’t think it takes a drug expert to be able to work out that there must be other alternative approaches to solving a country’s drug problems, an approach that respects the people’s human rights. But Thaksin’s preferred approach evidently is one that is brutal, inhumane and cruel.
The war down South. Not just TRT policy, but again the response of the Thai state.
Yes, there are other contributing factors to the escalation of the violence down South, but my view is that Thaksin’s mishandling of the situation (the hardline, tough measures) clearly made things worse. Perhaps Prem got it wrong too and the coup government, but that doesn’t make what Thaksin got wrong, right.
44 Sidh S. // Aug 10, 2008 at 12:34 am
Thanks for your more detailed explanation Nick. Having been around Thailand alot, I think you have highlighted many different geographic-specific aspects of Thai society – from city fringes to provinces – truly worth investigating in greater detail. I look forward to seeing more of your photographs and reports on NM.
I am also glad that you acknowledge the complexity of the situation – and raise the fact that the UDD is a mixed bag of people. The same can be said of the PAD, I have seen photographs my family and friends sent me and they are a significantly different bunch from how you have intentionally representing them here in NM – especially when, as many has noted, they haven’t intentionally physically attacked any other groups with different views (which could not be said of UDD). It was, I observed, almost a carnival atmosphere.
However, I am sure you have seen and heard much more and know more than me. Maybe you can tell us more about the respective UDD and PAD rallies. How often are each held? Where are they held? How many people in attendance in each on average? What kind of socio-economic mix? What proportion are armed? What is the content of the speeches? Who are your sources telling you is supporting/financing each group?
I notice you are generally on good terms with the UDD and, in contrast, felt threatened by the PAD. If you are a farang, I understand that shouldn’t be the case . You know that all you need is a disarming smile, a few words of Thai and most Thais will treat you like a VIP. You also probably won’t start with “Who is funding you?” – and I’m sure as a skilled journalist, you can easily gain informants’ trust…
I also do not buy into the your UDD informant’s justification of the violence in Udon. For me, no violence against peaceful gatherings/protests are justified, as no corruption and lawlessness is justified – nor should they be tolerated. I don’t think any of us here will disagree on that.
Whether they are under some powerful, provincial clique , the government has no excuse not to deal with the violence – as they have no excuse not to respect and follow the written law (and thus are not entitled to change to law to suit their crimes – which has resulted in all these PAD protests in the first place!). It is their job to enforce the law, if they don’t do it then they are fully responsible. It’s the least a Thai citizen should be able to expect from them…
Whether the palace endorses PMThaksin’s War on Drug policy is not relevant here – many of my family and friend also did to my dismay (a natural middle-class reaction I find). PMThaksin initiated the policy and gave the directives and is thus legally accountable – along with all those subordinates who carried out the policy – for the extra-judicial killings in the War on Drugs. The same applies for the Southern crimes – which is even more disappointing as he had appointed a fact-finding committee that advocated peaceful means of conflict resolution. Unfortunately PMThaksin chose the ‘eye for an eye’ path (quite predictable for a trained policeman)…
45 wi // Aug 10, 2008 at 6:00 am
What’s happining here? Is there anyone who really knows Thiland here? Interesting site. Really.
46 Nick Nostitz // Aug 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“nganadeeleg”:
I was present at the Prem compound clashes, not at the Udon incident. I have though asked a lot about the Udon incident. I have not done so about the World Trade Center incident, therefore i just do not feel competent enough to comment.
I will ask NM if they are interested in posting photos of the Prem compound clashes. But these photos are not that different than what was seen already, the only photos i have that were not widely published are a few images where UDD protesters Wai to police, and where UDD protesters hold back their fellow protesters from attacking after police have been beaten back already.
“karmablues”:
Yes, Thaksin was not ‘coerced’ into the drugwar, but it still was a collaboration between the different networks of power. As proof of this i have cited the speech. And regarding PAD – at the time of the drugwar, Sondhi Limthongkul’s media machine was one of the main supporters of the drugwar killings. I do clearly remember that Sondhi Limthongkul chided Thaksin at the first Royal Plaza speech for having given up on the drugwar.
Also Chamlong Srimuang, at his first speech after openly joining the PAD, has called Thaksin an excellent Prime Minister for the the first four years (those were the years during which all the severe human rights violations happened).
The military installed government was not one bit less hardline than Thaksin in the southern provinces, even the person responsible for the Krue Sue attack, Gen. Panlop Pinmanee, was elevated to Special Advisor to ISOC. The main thing that Thaksin has done was to give the South back to police control. That may have been a mistake, but there were very clear reasons for this as well – the massive corruption and collaboration with the smuggling and illegal logging operations down there.
I do not want to defend Thaksin here. I only want to introduce facts into the debate. For all of Thaksin’s shortcomings and failings – many of the things that radical opponents make him responsible for, he simply isn’t. Better concentrate on what he really did wrong, and who has actively collaborated at the time. Many of those collaborators and beneficiaries are now some of the loudest opponents. You also should analyze the agendas of his loud opponents, and really think hard if their aims correspondent to what you would wish for Thailand’s future.
“Sidh S”:
First of all, i am not a very skilled journalist, i am foremost a photographer. I can’t pretend what i am not, and my style of interviewing is trying to draw out people, draw them into a conversation, i like to provoke them slightly with criticism, and see how they react.
In this way, i felt a lot less intimidated during UDD or TRT events. Most there have accepted without a problem that i have said that i am not a supporter of Thaksin, and this has generally led to very interesting conversations about Thailand’s difficulties, patronage networks, and similar topics. A very common view especially under the more simple people was that they knew about Thaksin’s corruption, but felt that for the first time that they have under his rule also benefited from the state.
It is not my style to use the “farang” benefit. I think that this is using an unfair advantage, and it will not lead to meaningful conversation. I don’t want people to compliment me on my language abilities, i want them to converse with me an an equal footing. And there i found the majority of the PAD not reacting very well to any sort of criticism, or uncomfortable questions. Negative reactions tell me more than meaningless compliments, or “VIP” treatment.
So were the comments of the UDD person about the Udon incident not an excuse or justification, but an explanation. And that is all i can give here as well – explanations, not excuses or justifications.
The UDD rallies are not very regular anymore. I am not aware of any bigger event since the coup, only one at Lumpini about the constitution change. From what i see – the main leadership holds itself back at the moment. The relatively regular rallies are now just held by small splinter groups. Their attendance is not more than 50 to 300 people. At their heyday during the coup there up to 20 000 protesters. Most of the daily events drew about 2000 to 5000 people.
The socio economic make up was clearly lower than PAD, i would say most were lower middle class and working class.
The PAD supporters have changed though a lot compared to pre coup days. Pre coup it was more people, up to 80 000 at the largest events (the at that time reported figures were exaggerated), while now there are a few hundred to 2000 at regular days, and maybe 10 000 to 20 000 at larger events such as marches.
Also some of my contacts told me that many of the present PAD supporters now are dependents of army supporters of the PAD sent there.
I do not listen too much to the public speeches of either, they bore me to death, generally. What i listen to at the PAD events though is an increased praise for the military, extreme nationalism. The UDD splinter group events are mostly rather repetitive praises for Thaksin (the more able speakers such as Jakrapop Penkair, Mor Weng, Nattawut, Veera Musikapong or assorted academics are not appearing at the present time – during the coup days they have held some very intelligent speeches).
A very interesting facet now is the so called “Sanam Luang Voice”, or “Siang Prachachon”, who have built the stage at Sanam Luang. Unfortunately only Da Torpedo reached notoriety because of her mostly incoherent rants. But there are others who have surprising views on things here. It is a tiny group of individuals, and most of their spectators are Sanam Luang bums (and some very independent thinkers).
Anyhow, these are just my impressions – i am foremost a photographer. It would be very helpful, also for me, if there would be some independent academic research on these groups. I personally find them fascinating. Especially under these groups which are generally lumped together as “reds” there is a mostly unreported multifaceted developing political consciousness that regularly breaches the limits of forbidden territory. It started as a mostly pro-Thaksin/anti-coup movement, and has morphed now into surprising fields of thought.
I would wish that academics take these groups as serious as the different intelligence services do.
47 karmablues // Aug 11, 2008 at 4:47 am
Ok, Nick, so you mention some PAD Leaders again. I am not so concerned about these guys. They may have supported the drug war and Thaksin before, and now they are supporting reclaim temple, 70/30 thing, etc, but the fact is these PAD Leaders have no chance to become next PM. So just don’t listen to their rantings and they can’t annoy us.
As for the Average PAD Protesters, I do have great sympathy for them as I have always shown, especially because I am free-riding them, as they are the ones who are living off the streets and risking their personal safety to protest against the Thaksin Empire.
In terms of PAD as a group, my view is similar to nganadeeleg. I think PAD should continue its protests, to act as whistle-blower for government wrong-doings and keep the public and media’s attention on these wrong-doings especially any attempt to white-wash crimes. There is no alternative group to do this job as effectively.
As for your mention of coup-installed government mishandling of South, I am sure they got some things wrong on this. Anyways, the situation now is that the military have shown many times it will not stage another coup. The military’s true commitment to this, it seems, has provoked the Thaksin camp’s Udon tactic. So for me there no risk of military intervention, EXCEPT, if Thaksin camp do another Udon-style thing. The PAD has done their share with halting the rallies in the provinces, but the question remains whether Thaksin camp will unleash Red thugs on PAD in Bangkok. Let’s hope not, especially for the well-being of the protesters.
As for Thaksin’s mishandling of South, there’s more to it than just the police control thing. His heavy-handed counterinsurgency policy emphasized the use of excessive force, arbitrary arrests and mistreatment of people. A lot of cases of disappearances and torture have also been reported. The injustice and oppression caused a lot of anger and resentment by the people there and thus violence escalated.
For all of Thaksin’s shortcomings and failings – many of the things that radical opponents make him responsible for, he simply isn’t
Ok. Wondering whether Brad Adams, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch is a “radical opponent” when he said this:
“Based on his record, Mr. Thaksin does not appear to us to be “fit and proper” under any reasonable definition of that term. His past actions should lead to him being subjected to investigations by impartial police and prosecutors , not welcomed into the club of owners of the most popular football league in the world…. The rules concerning who is “fit and proper” should ensure that serious human rights abusers are not among the league’s owners.”
Also, wondering whether Chris Baker and Pasuk are “radical opponents”:
- If you look about what he’s done over the last five years, he’s taken the 1997 constitution, which was supposed to be the best constitution that Thailand has ever had, and he’s fundamentally sabotaged all the checks and balances in that constitution .
- “It’s like Moscow before the fall of the Berlin Wall,” says Chris Baker. “There is absolutely nothing but the government view on electronic media. The talk shows are all ministers and officials. There is no discussion. It’s really bleak.”
- “The key political institutions are now the party, the inner coterie, and especially the premier himself. Checks and balances, human rights, critical scrutiny, and parliamentary opposition are discarded as barriers to realisation of the leader’s ambitious vision. With this new electoral mandate, Thaksin is in a position to change Thailand’s politics in a structural way.”
- “Thaksin has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development and hopes to transform Thailand from a beacon of democracy in South-East Asia into another illiberal one-party state ”
- “Thaksin’s economic vision may be fixed on the future and the first world, but his social vision is medieval ”
How about Michael Connors when he said this:
“Thaksin will be remembered for stacking independent institutions such as the Electoral Commission of Thailand with preferred candidates. He allegedly bought influence in the Senate. He gobbled up minor parties to ensure absolute parliamentary dominance. He bought media organisations that criticised him.”
48 nganadeeleg // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:32 am
Nick: I agree that Thaksin gets blamed for many things he should not be blamed for, and he is definitely not the only problem in Thailand, however he is still being given unconditional support by many, which in my view is cause for a great deal of concern and does not bode well for future improvements in the country.
(Likewise, giving PAD unconditional support is also very troubling, although no one ever elects them so IMO they can be swept aside at anytime the word is given from above)
Regarding the drug war, I condemn all those who supported extra-judicial killings.
Like many, I abhor drugs & drug dealers, but there is no way I can condone the way that drug war was conducted.
I think you are going a bit soft on Thaksin’s role in the war on drugs, and think Vichai N says it best with the following comment he made on the Thaksinskeptic blog http://thaksinskeptic.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/mitigating-factors-arguing-thaksins-case-ii/#comment-15
“Let me add a few points that would suggest that Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage was inspired by megalomania and that Thaksin was a psycopath. Thaksin is/was a well educated police lt. colonel, who possessed a Ph.D. in criminal justice from Sam Houston University at Texas, USA. And during all the time that the anti-yaa baa war was going on, from start to horrific finish, the FACE of this war had always been Thaksin Shinawatra(Thaksin wanted the glamor of the kill, so to speak) Thaksin Shinawatra therefore, by his police background and educational achievement, and by his position of PM of Thailand should have insisted that RULE OF LAW should be observed religiously while his war on drugs raged on. At no time, when the reports of abuses and extrajudicial killings were coming out did Thaksin hesitate to investigate or to ask for a pause in the killings. That famous “The United Nations is not my father” outburst of Thaksin Shinawatra was the highlight of exactly where Thaksin Shinawatra stand was in the extra-judicials; e.g., he wanted the Thais and the world to know he was the Maestro.
And further, Thaksin Shinawatra as PM of Thailand at that time, and possessing overwhelming unassailable majority in Thai parliament could have authored the most punishing anti-drugs laws, but DID NOT, but instead chose to deliver shoot-to-kill entertainment to the guillible Thai rurals. That certainly allowed Thaksin Shinawatra to feed his megalomaniac lust to be god-like . . . unfortunately at the expense of horrific carnage to many innocents.”
49 Nick Nostitz // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:37 am
“Karmablues”:
You should be concerned about the leaders of the PAD, because they set the political course the protesters support. Obviously.
And, no, there are no “red thugs” in the way you imagine. There are many different groups with very different political aims and backgrounds.
I have elaborated in other comments on these. Please reread them.
The best research on the PAD i have read is Michael Nelson’s “People’s Sector Politics in Thailand: Problems of Democracy in ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra”. Also Thongchai Winitchakul has written some excellent articles criticizing PAD, and so did Giles Ungpakorn. Read Pravit’s article on Prachatai – something like ‘Where are the moderates in the PAD’?
Lets discuss these, please, and not just throw around with highly selective quotes that tell us nothing because they are taken out of context.
50 Nick Nostitz // Aug 11, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“nganadeeleg”:
I have to disagree on both counts.
I am not very troubled by many people still supporting Thaksin. I am of the view that this a positive sign for the development of Thai democracy when you analyze the reasons for his support. Some may argue that he is supported because he bought votes and introduced “populist” schemes.
Yet, in line with Andrew Walkers research, i believe that the issue of vote buying is far more complex, and nevertheless the spent money – people did mostly vote for Thaksin because their perception was that they have benefited from the state under the government of Thaksin/TRT. “Sufficiency Economy” clearly did not find much support under the population.
In this sense, i view this as an important stepping stone towards democratic development of Thailand – that people vote for a party that actually works for them, and have been therefore drawn into the political process instead of just being ruled over.
One day, if another political party will develop better alternatives, they will then vote for such. The problem here is though more with the Democrats, who have not managed to present itself as a feasable alternative.
I do very much disagree with the very polemic comment on the drug war you cited. I do agree that the killings were absolutely disgusting. But the drug war was not only killings. For the first time a rough discrimination was made between user and dealer, and users were sent to rudimentary therapies.
Increased budgets were given to counter cross border trafficking.
Of course many of these policies were implemented badly, but they were a step in the right direction.
The uncomfortable fact though is that the drug war as a whole did significantly improve the terrible hold drugs had over large sectors of the population. And no, i want to emphasize here clearly that i do not justify the killings in any way – people i have photographed over a long time, and liked, did needlessly disappear during those terrible days.
I only want to show that the drug war was a very complex issue, and to some extend justified because drugs have clearly became a major destructive force.
51 Sidh S. // Aug 11, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Nick #46. Thanks for your elaboration on both your methods and what you experienced. I find a lot of it insightful. And hence, I point the finger at the TRT/PPP governments for failing the 1997 Constitution and have not created neutral public forums where all these very rich, diverse viewpoints can be openly aired and discussed. It is one of the reasons why Thai society is so polarized today. People of different views cannot come together to have a decent conversation, debate anymore – something that needs to be remedied quickly to mend the rifts especially if PMThaksin REALLY retires from Thai politics (which will truly be a new dawn of sorts)…
And you have misunderstood my points. A disarming smile and a few words of Thai is merely a starting point towards meaningful conversation (it works amongst Thais too, believe me). This is not about being disingenous – it is about establishing some sort of relationship and a degree of respect first, a well known Asian practice. Look, I won’t be surprised if you run into the likes of Karmablues, Kuson, Nganadeeleg. They are probably angry (like me), but they won’t beat you up. Once calmed, they are more than able to have good debates with you…
On the other hand, if you already have an agenda for instance like many in NM and have a deep dislike for any shades of yellow (monarchy), it can easily cloud/color your reading of Thai society and politics. For me it is like the many extreme atheist/secularist dismissal of any form of religion. Very logical and scientific, yes – but also rather unhelpful as it also rejects many basic human conditions – not to mention the cultural charms and material beauty of devotion (the vast majority of which is not violent). My apologies if my suspicions are wrong – and that you only sincerely believe the UDD’s path will lead us to a vibrant liberal democracy and a robust rule of law. Maybe you can articulate the views of the “independent thinkers” in UDD and the likes who held back other protestors from beating up the police further.
Nganadeeleg,
I might add that the War on Drug also exploited the lower socio-economic class in the most discriminating and inhumane way. What I find most tragic is the willingness to massacre 2,000+ small timers and let the Godfathers totally off the hook. If PMThaksin/TRT were sincere and serious about the War on Drugs, catch the small-fry peddlers, the drug-addicts to QUESTION them (not KILL) to get to the bigger boys up the drug-network heirarchy – until you reach the topmost (some likely embedded within the parliament, police, military etc.). No, whatever many in NM try to portray/interpret/twist this, this is DEFINITELY NOT a path towards democracy and the rule of law…
52 Nick Nostitz // Aug 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
You are right in criticizing Thaksin/TRT in the way that they have not created spaces for open discussion, and have clearly contributed to the present polarization. Yet Thaksin has introduced measures that have helped previously neglected sectors of society.
I believe though that the polarization is also result of differing political ideologies competing since before Thaksin has played a role. Also the Royal issue should not be underestimated, as discussion was never encouraged and possible, especially after the events of the 70’s. And such a discussion is also incredibly dangerous, given the cult status of the institution and the person.
The polarization in my opinion is not only because of Thaksin, but contains historical and social components, and the inevitability of change in Thailand, especially in light of a soon to be coming succession crises, and how people deal with this uncertainty.
In all the turmoil now i do see pockets of very open debate and discussion. For one, in the academic field now enormous amounts of studies have been published that also contain the previously forbidden or circumvented topic of the impact of Thai monarchy – both by Thai and western scholars. Noteworthy here are from the Thai side Ajarn Porphant’s research into the CPB, Ajarn Ji’s papers, from the foreign side of course Handley, McCargo, and Andrew Walker’s research into Sufficiency Economy.
But also in the many groups under the UDD, and related groups there is an amazing amount of debate and discussion going on. I have seen Royalists discussing with opponents of the monarchy, i have seen very Royalist groups developing into harsh critics of the monarchy over the course of the events. I personally find this fascinating observe.
Of course i have no idea where this might lead – into a intelligent discussion and progress, or into senseless violence between the different factions. I don’t know. I understand though that the authorities are very observant, behind the scenes. More than 70 years history cannot be simply wiped away without severe consequences, and too radical anti monarchism will draw dire results.
The only thing i can state with confidence is that previously depoliticized sectors of society start to develop political views, topics that i have previously never heard debated, are in those venues debated.
The authorities presently are watching (unless they are forced to deal with the issue such as in the Da Torpedo case), but i have the impression that they have not yet decided how they are going to handle these new developments. Lets wait and see.
These aspects might be a beginning of a more vibrant and liberal democracy. Of course groups such as the ‘Udon Lovers’ are clearly not – they are dangerous and potentially murderous thugs led by the most unscrupulous godfathers.
On the other hand – i have found the pre-coup “Caravan of the Poor” fascinating. I have visited them first at their campsite at Navanakhorn, and several times more at Chatuchak. I have had some very interesting conversations there, especially about the motivations for their support for Thaksin. I have not encountered the fanaticized masses that blockaded the Nation, and threatened Nation staff. I have found impoverished villagers that had surprisingly subtle reasons for their support, and also accepting that Thaksin had clear failings. Yet do do accept that the same people have behaved in a very thuggish manner at the Nation building.
But i also think that PAD agenda is also not the beginning of a vibrant and liberal democracy, but not very well hidden attempts to return to “guided democracy” and disenfranchisement of the rural sectors of Thailand , such as the “new politics” debate clearly shows, with the use of very dangerous extremist nationalism – the Preah Vihaer issue. Many liberal Royalists are increasingly appalled at the open attempts by PAD to draw the monarchy into political trench fights. This is a very dangerous path the PAD and their backers are taking there.
I will not even think of entertaining any sort of discussion on royal topics during PAD rallies. I am not mad.
Because i do believe that the potential for violence is very clear to see there, as almost everywhere in Thailand. During the pre-coup anti Thaksin protests there were a few cases where lone Thaksin supporters appeared in the crowd, and were brutally attacked. If the ever present plain cloth police officers would not have whisked them away quickly, i have no doubt whatsoever that the crowd would literally torn those brave lunatics into little pieces.
I have spent considerable time taking photos here in areas of town where one wrong look from the eye can result in disgustingly brutal machete attacks or shootings, i have seen and photographed victims of such attacks killed or maimed for no apparent reason other than perceived slights.
Therefore i am extremely careful in how i confront “angry” people here, especially when i know that they are armed. Some may calm down, and others may not. This is not a gamble i am willing to take.
Anyway, and whatever, there are no clear answers here, no easy solutions. Thaksin’s government and its effects will stay enigmatic and disputed for the considerable future. I refuse though the simplistic demonization of Thaksin so prevalant under his outspoken critics, especially in the PAD.
53 nganadeeleg // Aug 12, 2008 at 9:12 am
I refuse though the simplistic demonization of Thaksin so prevalant under his outspoken critics, especially in the PAD
What an understatement!
You cannot even condemn the Doctors role in the the way the drug war was conducted, so I suppose there’s no use bothering trying to mention tax evasion, use of nominees, tax havens, manipulation of state officials & institutions or policy corruption.
Thaksin/TRT did do some good things, and have contributed to changing Thailand for the better, but I would like to know how continuing to overlook (sometimes deny or even justify) their wrongdoings (by the likes of you and Andrew) contributes to improving things further?
54 Nick Nostitz // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“nganadeeleg”:
What use it to “condemn” Thaksin’s role in the drug war killings, while the system that enabled those killings is still in place and untouched, regardless of who holds political power?
As long as their is not even open public discussion possible on the system of informal power networks and patronage, blaming Thaksin for structures that have been in place long before he played any role in Thai politics is a diversion tactic which will not lead to any change in the structures that have not just enabled the drug war killings, but also the many other state sponsored human rights violations in Thai history.
Lets first properly analyze what led to the drug war, who participated, collaborated, and what happened during the drug war, and then start attaching guilt. The by you propagated supposed chain of commands and events is a simplification that does not go more than skin deep into basic structural problems of Thai society.
All evidence points to a Thai typical collaboration of elitist power networks, supported by the majority of the population, to counter a threat to society in a not unprecedented fashion of utter brutality. The way how all blame is now shifted to Thaksin alone, enables the system and structures to remain untouched.
Thaksin never was the initiator or solely dominating factor of this system, only one replaceable wheel within that structure of many wheels.
The drug war killings could have happened without Thaksin, as did many such human rights violations in recent Thai history, because there is a faulty system in place that enables such. If you want to “condemn” – then condemn the structural problems that lead to such.
Researches such as “the likes of Andrew” (and many others) try to factually highlight the structural problems of this society, so that maybe one day these enabling factors can be changed by office holders.
55 nganadeeleg // Aug 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Researches such as “the likes of Andrew” (and many others) try to factually highlight the structural problems of this society, so that maybe one day these enabling factors can be changed by office holders.
How is putting on blinkers regarding Thaksin’s wrongdoings going to help bring about the change?
56 Colum Graham // Aug 13, 2008 at 1:44 am
Nganadeeleg, you say How is putting on blinkers regarding Thaksin’s wrongdoings going to help bring about the change?
I think you are misconstruing priorities for being blinkered. What you are looking for is a moral good, and in politics one must be sure that a system can be maintained and functional for all citizens in spite of the moral dispositions of whoever is at the head of the system. As we have seen, this is not the case in Thailand. To have change in Thailand one must have a system that gives power to all, and this means that the maintenance of a democratic system takes precedence over the moral capacity of it’s leader. Within a democratic system, the capacity for a common morality to be felt by all citizens is much higher than in feudal kingships. The state must be owned by all who live in it, and not blinkered to a few hereditary elites and those who wish to climb the greasy pole.
57 nganadeeleg // Aug 13, 2008 at 9:16 am
Do you really think a common morality that condones extra-judicial killings will result in making the system any better?
I suppose you guys will now have to start justifying Thaksin’s decision to run away from the courts, and of course it will have had nothing to do his being guilty on any counts.
I can hear it now: The system is flawed, so why should one person be singled out? (especially if the person being challenged is somebody you like, or a somebody who opposes someone you do not like)
I prefer a system where all are subject to the rule of law, and the path to getting a better system involves taking down high fliers which serves as a deterrent to all in future – precedents have to start somewhere .
58 karmablues // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:52 am
in politics one must be sure that a system can be maintained and functional for all citizens in spite of the moral dispositions of whoever is at the head of the system.
Agreed. It’s called a system of checks and balances. And thus Thaksin’s sabotage of all checks and balances, his absolute parliamentary dominance, his undermining of independent bodies, his bribery of the courts, his buying off the media caused the system to malfunction to the detriment of the people, i.e. Thaksin’s immoral decisions could be wielded at will with impunity leading to the gross violations of human rights on extraordinary scale and the rampant corruption in government.
this means that the maintenance of a democratic system takes precedence over the moral capacity of it’s leader.
we cannot talk about “maintenance of a democratic system” when there wasn’t a real democracy in Thailand during Thaksin. In fact, it was his immorality which led Thailand down an authoritarian path. As the Times put it aptly (describing what they say is the views of millions of Thais), “Thaksin demolished Thai democracy; the tanks rolled in over its ruins.” Now this time, the tanks won’t be rolling in and it is a time to start rebuilding democracy in Thailand.
The state must be owned by all who live in it, and not blinkered to a few hereditary elites and those who wish to climb the greasy pole
It was well known that Thaksin had deliberately, through his enormous wealth, developed close relations (i.e. “climbed the greasy pole”) with the male heir. It is also widely recognized that the better heir would be the female one (who is Prem’s favoured choice) particularly because she obviously scores much much higher in terms of morals.
Now, in a scenario where Thaksin was to stay in power, and the male heir ascends the throne, how would they joining hands in their “common morality” (or more accurately, common immorality) bode well for the future of Thailand?
59 Nick Nostitz // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“Karmablues”:
The system was faulty long before Thaksin played any role in Thai politics. Thaksin’s rise was only a logical result of the structural weaknesses, and not their originator. Thaksin’s ouster by an elitist coup was another logical result of those inherent weaknesses, and the present witch hunt won’t change a thing.
Please don’t try to make out as if Thailand was all nice and dandy before Thaksin decided to stand for elections.
You may concentrate on the human rights violations, but it should be clear by now that there simply is no will to fully investigate and prosecute the drug war killings. The military government’s sham investigations have made sure of obscuring what happened there.
A full investigation into the drug war killings would be a start, but this won’t happen the same way as a full investigation into ‘76 and it’s aftermath hasn’t happened, and the investigation into ‘92 is still kept secret.
The results of such investigations could possibly damage the system beyond repair. Such is the devil’s circle that Thailand has maneuvered itself into over the course of the last decades.
60 matty // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I still fail to see how Nick’s broken-record repeating “faulty or imperfect Thai political system” exonerates Thaksin?
Pick any political system in Asia or around the world and flaws and faults easily manifest themselves. And many worldly political leaders distinguish themselves despite the system flaws. And just as many unethical flawed leaders unleash their totalitarian, kleptomaniac and psychopathic bent (while championing the poor and democracy of course) even in more perfect systems.
Nah! I won’t blame Thailand’s flawed system nor the Thai elite for Thaksin’s downfall. Thaksin’s undoing was his, and his responsibility alone. And those equally unethical, unprincipled and kleptomaniac gang of ‘yes’ TRT men Thaksin assembled do too share the blame but the Maestro was Thaksin, and no one else.
61 Nick Nostitz // Aug 13, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“matty”:
Where have i “exonerated” Thaksin? This statement is pure conjecture from your side. I vehemently reject such impolite accusations.
I have pointed out that many crimes that are attributed to Thaksin have in equal measure been committed/collaborated in/initiated by many others, and are neither mentioned nor prosecuted. And i reason that therefore an enabling system is primarily to blame.
I also point out that during Thaksin’s government also substantial improvements were initiated, besides the obvious failures.
Thaksin should be prosecuted, but only together with the aforementioned. If Thaksin alone is blamed, than all this is an entirely fruitless exercise that achieves nothing else than whitewashing and justifying this system that has been in place long before Thaksin played any role.
If you are of the opinion that Thaksin was the sole “Maestro” – then you make a fundamental mistake of thought. You ignore the nature of Thai politics, of which TRT was symbolic, you ignore the nature of the informal power networks and their inner workings, you ignore the core mechanics of Thai society, and you ignore history.
Pick any advanced democratic system, and it does work somewhat, regardless of the respective moralities of their elected leaders, can bounce back from a “bad” leader. Thailand never worked along those lines, not before Thaksin, not during Thaksin’s government, not now, and it will not unless the enabling system, that is far greater than one elected prime minister, is modernized into a more egalitarian system.
And that is all i can say about this.
62 Colum Graham // Aug 13, 2008 at 7:06 pm
karmablues, you say: Agreed. It’s called a system of checks and balances. And thus Thaksin’s sabotage of all checks and balances, his absolute parliamentary dominance, his undermining of independent bodies, his bribery of the courts, his buying off the media caused the system to malfunction to the detriment of the people, i.e. Thaksin’s immoral decisions could be wielded at will with impunity leading to the gross violations of human rights on extraordinary scale and the rampant corruption in government.
If the people who make up the greasy pole valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to overthrow him and the whole system. The system would have evolved empirically due to Thai citizens experience with Thaksin. After the coup, that system was unable to evolve because it no longer existed – not because it was inadequate. Instead there were greasy pole cronies designing a new constitution which, so far, hasn’t really allowed for the evolution of Thai politics because the experience of elites having an overriding control keeps perpetuating itself.
we cannot talk about “maintenance of a democratic system” when there wasn’t a real democracy in Thailand during Thaksin. In fact, it was his immorality which led Thailand down an authoritarian path. As the Times put it aptly (describing what they say is the views of millions of Thais), “Thaksin demolished Thai democracy; the tanks rolled in over its ruins.” Now this time, the tanks won’t be rolling in and it is a time to start rebuilding democracy in Thailand.
Who are you to say there wasn’t real democracy in Thailand under Thaksin? One citizen? A democracy is subjective and isn’t static, you could similarly say the USA doesn’t have a real democracy under Bush. You are the one saying there wasn’t democracy under Thaksin, so I guess you’d be partly responsible for that since you know what a real democracy is. This time the tanks won’t be rolling in? Why not? Experience suggests otherwise! Who controls the tanks? Who has the balance of power in Thailand? Until an elected government has more power over the military than the military commanders, then you can’t assure anything.
It was well known that Thaksin had deliberately, through his enormous wealth, developed close relations (i.e. “climbed the greasy pole”) with the male heir. It is also widely recognized that the better heir would be the female one (who is Prem’s favoured choice) particularly because she obviously scores much much higher in terms of morals.
Good for Thaksin. He could have been voted out last year and Thailand could have moved on. If Thaksin is your devil, stop telling everyone else so he’s theirs too.
matty, ‘Pick any political system in Asia’
Look at the politics of Taiwan over the last 3 years. Taiwan has had the same constitution in-tact for the last 17 years! Chen Shui-Bien is a criminal, remained briefly in power, was voted out and yet the system was maintained and Taiwanese politics moved on with it’s people potentially wiser. Sure there are faults in democratic systems, but citizens are there to iron them out – not elites who throw away the shirt altogether and irrationally buy a new one designed by their good friends.
63 matty // Aug 13, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I am glad Nick N. bristles at the suggestion of ‘exonerating’ Thaksin for his crimes against the Thai nation (btw Nick: which particular Thaksin crime, and Thaksin had committed numerous, you think unpardonable and unconscionable?). We agree therefore Nick that Thaksin & Potjaman and his cronies, along with other non-TRT men including Vatana etc., should be punished to the full letter of the law, ok?
You did make an accusation to the effect that “many crimes that are attributed to Thaksin have in equal measure been committed/collaborated in/initiated by many others, and are neither mentioned nor prosecuted.” Now that is a big accusation and for your accusation to really have any weight, you have to be more specific and you have to give names and circumstances.
Because I specifically condemn this preposterousness that Thaksin Shinawatra should not be prosecuted for corruption, tax evasion, conflict of interest, malfeasance, extra-judicial exuberance, and speed driving (among a few) because many other Thais guilty of similar offenses somehow still remain scot-free and untouched.
If that is your line of logic Nick N and many others, it just won’t hold anywhere. Because Nick N you are just again broken-record repeat playing the Thaksin lame defense that he is no more corrupt or dishonest than the next Thai businessman or politician.
No siree Mr. Nick! Mr. Thaksin is a class all by himself, when all Thaksin excesses are counted all together or singly by itself. If Mr. Thaksin now appears to be receiving “special judicial attention” is because after all Mr. Thaksin was formerly Thai PM (a failure as a role model) and because being in a unique criminal class all by himself invited all this special Thai judicial scrutiny. In short: Thaksin invited all these Thai judicial attention on himself and his family.
Colum: you did mention in your Taiwan example that the politico bad apple Chen Shui-Bien was VOTED OUT. Yes, I agree with you that Taiwan’s political system seems to be working.
64 Sidh S. // Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“Please don’t try to make out as if Thailand was all nice and dandy before Thaksin decided to stand for elections.”
It wasn’t “all nice and dandy” Nick – but it was much nicer from my many Pre-Thaksin decades in Thailand. And it was certainly looking very bright for the country after the passage of the 1997 Constitution until he came along (and , to be fair, he was great in his first 1-2 years ofcourse, DREAM TEAM cabinet line up, great policies, quick action etc.). Besides, I’ve never seen so many angry fellow countrymen in my life – both for and against the one and only PMThaksin. He was a truly unique politician/phenomenon. Honestly Nick, I do miss the good old days – but I also honestly believe that a (truly) post-Thaksin Thailand will become a much better place.
Thai society, and its components/stakeholders, has always changed since I remember and is still changing – even the military has changed (the police probably changed least unfortunately)…
65 Colum Graham // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:20 pm
matty, indirectly voted out at the legislative election.
Are you a sensationalist writer for The Nation? I think Nick is saying that there are inconsistencies in justice. You’re dramatizing semantics. I specifically condemn this preposterous behaviour!!!
Law and Order: New Mandala Unit
66 Colum Graham // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Nganadeeleg, Do you really think a common morality that condones extra-judicial killings will result in making the system any better?
No, because they’re extra-judicial. However, I wouldn’t really call the drug ‘war’, if that is what you are talking about, a case for common morality, because of the diverse opinions on the subject amongst Thai citizens.
I suppose you guys will now have to start justifying Thaksin’s decision to run away from the courts, and of course it will have had nothing to do his being guilty on any counts.
I’m not justifying the actions of Thaksin at all. I’m justifying the observance of an ideal system of governance despite its practical flaws.
I can hear it now: The system is flawed, so why should one person be singled out? (especially if the person being challenged is somebody you like, or a somebody who opposes someone you do not like)
I prefer a system where all are subject to the rule of law, and the path to getting a better system involves taking down high fliers which serves as a deterrent to all in future – precedents have to start somewhere.
Good.
67 Nick Nostitz // Aug 13, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“matty”:
The most severe violation that happened under Thaksin were in my opinion the drug war killings. Yet, the investigation under the military government came to the conclusion that there is no direct link provable between the orders to kill thousands of people and Thaksin. Which is a very convenient result.
I have in several posts here argued that the drug war killings were only possible because of the active collaboration between all different power networks in Thailand, both formal and informal – military, police, civil service, politics and palace – as has been tradition in Thailand whenever a real or perceived threat to society arises and won’t disappear by itself (there are several historical precedents).
I have already quoted once a key speech commenting on the drug war killings specifically, again – the 2003 birthday speech of H.M. the King:
“Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drugs trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs.”
I hope i don’t need to explain any further how complex this particular issue is.
The assorted Human Rights violations in the South were also notable. Yet, the person who has given the order to attack Krue Sue Mosque – Gen. Panlop Pinmanee – has even been made special adviser to ISOC under the military government. The responsible officers for Tak Bai were also not tried during the time of the military government, so their only punishment remains which was dished out during Thaksin’s government – a whopping sent off to inactive posts until things calmed down.
As to the other pending court cases, and how questionable they are, you should read following article from Asia Sentinel:
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=536&Itemid=31
Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.
I understand it is easy to apply such an impertinent tone from the position of anonymity, but it will not lead to a productive discussion. So, please, for the sake of the discussion, be more civil, please.
68 karmablues // Aug 14, 2008 at 3:31 am
Colum:
If the people who make up the greasy pole valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to overthrow him and the whole system.
If the people who make up the TRT valued democratic systems of governance, they would have had no need to sabotage checks and balances, done away with the rule of law, abuse people’s human rights on large scale, suppress freedom of expression, and steal excessively from the people…. they would not have screwed up the whole system in this manner.
Who are you to say there wasn’t real democracy in Thailand under Thaksin? One citizen?
No. Many people said it.
This time the tanks won’t be rolling in? Why not?
ok, maybe they will roll in, if Thaksin camp do another Udon-style brutal attack on the protesters. I forgot, we can never underestimate the Thaksin camp. Sorry.
If Thaksin is your devil, stop telling everyone else so he’s theirs too.
Yes, I’ve described a lot of Thaksin wrong-doings. I’ve quoted Human Rights Watch’s condemnation of him as a “serious human rights abuser” who should be put on trial, and views of respectable scholars such as Baker, Pasuk and Connors on his dismantling of democracy. But I do find it surprising that you would from all this come to the conclusion of “devil”. My own guess is that most would say, “Gosh. What a horrible person. Hope he goes to jail like the rest of the other criminals.” or perhaps some may say, “Thailand surely deserves better than this!” But, that you – a seemingly keen Thaksin supporter – would conclude “devil” after hearing about his wrong-doings is rather surprisingly if I may say.
69 nganadeeleg // Aug 14, 2008 at 9:24 am
“Much of what Thaksin did was at least questionable, and inappropriate – i believe nobody here disputes that. But it was in collaboration with many that are now his outspoken opponents, who raise his questionable actions into levels of crime they might not belong, or, where they clearly belong, they are not prosecuted, and his collaborators and beneficiaries are not even mentioned.
Demonizing Thaksin, by distorting facts, and going on a witch hunt does not serve Thailand or its people – it only serves his opponents who benefit from the same system that allowed Thaksin to rise.”
I basically agree, except I’m not so sure about the “nobody here disputes that” bit.
I think the emphasis should be placed on pushing for them all to have their day in court (instead of defending Thaksin just because others are untouched)
70 Nick Nostitz // Aug 14, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Sidh S”:
You said:
“And it was certainly looking very bright for the country after the passage of the 1997 Constitution until he came along (and , to be fair, he was great in his first 1-2 years ofcourse, DREAM TEAM cabinet line up, great policies, quick action etc.).”
Well, that is a question of perception. While things in the city indeed started to look nicer soon after the crises, the situation in the villages deteriorated badly.
Many villagers position would be: ‘First came the financial crises, and we lost all our jobs in the city, and had hardly no income at all back in the village, and then came the Democrats along, and did nothing for us.’
Don’t you remember the arrogance many urban dwellers who stated that they were hit much harder by the crises because they can’t keep up with their payments for their cars while villagers supposedly could always go to the village, plant rice and scavenge for food? What a incredible misconception of these people’s lifes, in line with the later idea that SE would be accepted by those villagers (Andrew’s research has clearly proven the opposite).
Basically, after the ‘97 crises the drugs have taken such a firm hold in many villages that in several i am aware off you could not find anybody below the age of 40 who was not a regular user. For many of those villagers Thaksin was and still is a hero – he stopped drugs, he introduced the first universal healthcare scheme (and didn’t just talk about it), and he initiated micro loan schemes that enabled those people to take loans with comparatively low interest.
I personally did not like Thaksin, not during the first one or two years, as many civil liberties were taken away. I was shocked when after the second year it came to the drug war killings.
After the second election i felt that things started to normalize again somewhat, no more gross human rights violations. I was sort of happy first when Sonthi Limthongkul started his TV shows from Thammasat, but only until i heard his first speeches, and i was revolted by the extreme nationalism.
Only then, with the formation of the PAD did i realize that Thaksin’s most outspoken critics were far more anti-democratic than TRT. It has been a learning curve for me.
It’s not that i like Thaksin, but i dislike his most noisy opponents even more. I nowadays view Thaksin as a precursor to democracy and a more egalitarian system, in the way that sometime after Thaksin, if he would not have been ousted by a coup, people one day would have voted him out of office as soon as another party would have been a viable option.
Right now i see a step back into the weak governments of the 90’s, maybe even into premocracy, if PAD gets their way. Or even worse – a possibility of descending into the political and social instabilities of the 70’s, yet on a larger scale with more social sectors involved.
I am sorry, i do not share your optimism. I think it will take a long time before Thailand gets back to political and social stability. Why is the PAD still out there sprouting extreme nationalism, and their infantile “new politics”?
Thaksin has left the house, and there are far more immediate problems to take care of. A weakening economy, huge price rise of basic necessities, and a police force whose most capable officers are bound up in observing these demonstrations, while drugs are making a huge comeback, and these officers would be desperately needed to fight that.
And doing that they have to listen to the worst insults slung at them from the PAD stage, while the equally corrupt military is praised by the PAD. They have to watch and can’t do anything while the PAD is parading with metal bars, golf clubs, baseball bats and slingshots.
Have you any idea how many police officers from all over town are busy round the clock with especially the PAD demonstrations, and to a smaller part with the counter demonstrations – officers who would be needed to fight drugs and the rise in crime?
71 Colum Graham // Aug 14, 2008 at 10:39 am
karmablues,
for your first response, you could just as easily be talking about the privy council. Therefore, you only highlight that there are many instances of injustice in Thailand, Thaksin being one.
for your second response – I should have made REAL italicized. You are one person of many saying that Thaksin corrupted Thai democracy. That you refuse to acknowledge anyone other than Thaksin and the TRT as responsible for corrupting Thai democracy only serves to lessen your appreciation of a -real- democracy.
Thailand hasn’t given democracy a chance to flourish because the system is not respected by you, one citizen of many. Go on say “but Thaksin didn’t respect the system” again!! Why weren’t you better than Thaksin by preventing a coup out of your respect for the system? You -one citizen- of many, are accountable. You cannot argue that getting rid of one constitution and replacing it with another is respectful. It would be tantamount to saying “I drowned our child in the bath peacefully because it had been corrupted! Now a year later, we have a new updated model.” The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.
for your third point, if supporting a democratic system means to you that I am a Thaksin, TRT or PPP supporter, then theres nothing I can say.
72 matty // Aug 14, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Colum Graham are you whining “improper decorum” by yours truly? But you think Thaksin’s past decorum impecable . . . . ?
“Dramatic semantics” I will take as a compliment. And ‘you think’ Nick N was talking about ‘inconsistent justice’ – - – so what? You think Thaksin’s injudicious extra-consitutional police killings were ‘consistent’? Educate me man . . . educate me!
73 matty // Aug 14, 2008 at 12:37 pm
To Nick N and Colum G, if the world is to wait for the ‘perfect system’ or ‘consistent justice’ before judicially prosecuting Thaksin Shinawatra (who taught himself a genius at exploiting ‘imperfect political systems’ and ‘inconsistent Thai justice), Thailand would be facing even more monstrous Thaksin copycats in its future.
Nothing extenuates Thaksin’s transgressions against his Thai people . . . nothing! That Thaksin helped millions of Thai villagers with his populist policies is true. But it is also unconscionable and unpardonable that Thaksin’s politics was maliciously divisive and deeply corruptive.
It is difficult to ‘respect’ any political system with a Thaksin Shinawatra (or a Marcos or Mugabe, et al) leading, directing, and eroding Thai judicial institutions and checks & balances. That perhaps explain, but not excuse, the flowers and the garlands that was Bangkok’s gleeful Thai welcome to General Sonthi’s tanks.
It is moronic for Colum G (#71) to chide a Thai with his puerile “The constitution should have the same level of respect that you would have for your child (because that’s whose should inherit it), not a hard drive that an elite formats when things aren’t working.” Colum G should have directed his elementary lesson about the Thai constitution to a certain Thaksin Shinawatra and his gang of TRT bullies.
74 matty // Aug 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Nick N yes it bothers me that a certain assassin named Colonel(now General) Panlop Pinmanee managed to carry out his “assasinations” with impunity before, during and maybe continuing still after Thaksin’s rule.
Thaksin and leaders before Thaksin had clearly employed Panlop’s deadly talents that allowed this mad dog to remain untouchable.
Who knows? . . . Perhaps when Thaksin’s judicial trial begins, Thaksin Shinawatra himself will ’sing’ about Panlop and many others and they would all go down together.
75 Colum Graham // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm
matty: How could I possibly fend myself from such accurate accusations! I prostrate myself before you! I plead guilty to patronizing a Thai about constitutional value because clearly, erronous was I in thinking that perhaps Thailand had no time for constitutional appreciation. I also plead guilty to the most despicable crime of supporting Thaksin Shinawatra, Robert Mugabe, Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies inadvertently. I await your sentence wearing an expensive yellow silk shirt and, re-educated, I will join the PAD upon release if you will have me.
76 Andrew Walker // Aug 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm
OK. Enough. I think the various opinions on this post have now been well and truly canvassed. Unless comments have something new to say I will be very inclined to delete them!
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.