The day of the last battle went without any casualties, thanks to the enormous restraint by all parties – the police, the pro-government United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and the anti-government People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Several explosions were heard in the morning hours of 24 November, raising fears of another day of escalating violence. But in the end casualties were avoided and there was only slight damage.
Several things though are rather clear by now. The UDD seems to have managed to begin transforming their previous image of upcountry thugs into a peaceful pro-government movement that holds large monthly meetings. The gathering at Wat Suan Gaeow was attended by about 23,000 people, many families, mostly from Bangkok and surrounding provinces. I do hope that they keep on with this strategy that was begun at the Muang Thong Thani meeting, and followed with the Rajamangala event.
The PAD clearly fell short of their aim of gathering more than 100,000 supporters, and also there was not the announced masses joining the “final battle”. PAD managed to gather about the same number of supporters as the UDD, many driven in from distant provinces.
24 November 2008, however, had a few small incidents that should be looked at seriously by the PAD. One ugly incident was reported at Don Muang, where a police colonel was attacked, beaten and pushed over by several women. Another very serious incident was the arrest of 5 PAD guards that had hijacked a public bus, and were armed with one illegal shotgun, a ping-pong bomb, several machetes, bullet proof vests, and other assorted weaponry. These guards were clearly still active guards – they had guard IDs, and several mid-ranking PAD leaders, not very happy about the incident, appeared at Nang Loeng police station where the guards were detained.
So far the PAD as a group has failed to distance itself clearly from their more violent elements. Many ordinary PAD supporters are not aware of the arming of some of the guards, and follow the claims of their leadership that any shooting incident that happens is to be blamed on the “third hand”. Others are appalled by the martial behavior of some of these guards. Most, I am sure, are not aware of how many arms there actually are around.
A movement that defines itself as “non-violent” cannot afford to have violent incidents. Two shootings in recent weeks can be attributed to PAD guards – one person was killed about one hour after a grenade was launched at PAD guards on 30 October. The second victim, injured in the shoulder on 2 November, was the driver of a car with 5 young people who had a night out in Banglampoo and took a wrong turn on their way home. They ended up at PAD barricades and were shot at by a PAD guard. Several bullets were fired at their car. Police were not allowed to investigate the crime scene during the night of the incident, but I have interviewed the victims, and there was more than sufficient evidence to support their story.
Several bombs were launched against PAD, costing the lives of two people. But in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.
While the UDD has begun to clearly distance itself from the violent government supporters, that trend is still somewhat missing in the public statements by the PAD. Rejection of the accusations made against them and blaming the “third hand” or infiltrators does not stand up to clear proof and overwhelming evidence.
Both groups have to understand that nobody can win this conflict by violence. It will in the end only alienate the average citizen, and the country will descend into a circle of violence that might bring it to the brink of civil war. Especially in a country like Thailand, where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition, leaders of such protests groups have to make sure that they find ways to discourage these elements within their own ranks.
If PAD guards cannot be disarmed completely, and that means also that demonstrations are not anymore led by hooded men holding sticks and iron bars, then these people have to be expelled from the PAD. The PAD has to clearly distance itself from these groups. And, ideally, PAD should redefine itself, leave Government House, and return to a constitutional form of protest.
It would also be prudent that the so called independent organizations that have expressed support for PAD by calling them a non-violent protest might hold back with their support when faced with clear evidence of the opposite, until the PAD has indeed returned to the path of non-violence.
Nobody can deny the PAD the right to protest against the Government within the means of civil disobedience. What we have to now is a very unhealthy mixture of ordinary protesters mixed up in something that is closer to criminal disobedience.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Joy Ember // Nov 25, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It is time to realise that the PAD is also fighting for power and not simply an anti-Thaksin/PPP movement. I find it really strange that PAD has never listed potential PMs or caretaker governments in their list of requests for the government. Instead, it is protests against PMs and the ruling coalition without stating what it requires explicitly. By bringing in such a strategy, PAD is not in power but is controlling it by the amount of protests it can stage. Let assume that Somchai steps down and another caretaker PM, whoever he is, takes over (as I have pointed out earlier, PAD has never stated what they want in a PM other than bashing Samak/Somchai as puppets of Thaksin). Do you think the PAD will stop protesting? PAD does not have a clear goal of what it wants despite its claims.
Obviously this support for PAD is slowly dwindling as we can see from various sources and articles. While considering the future of PAD and Thai politics is important, it is also crucial for us to look into the causes of the dwindling support. Is it because of ideological divides between the PAD? Or is it because of the toil of the economic situation? Whatever the case, it may jolly well point to the fact that at the end of the day, the PAD is just a selfish organization seeking power while ignoring “morals” (which they claim they are fighting for) and the plights of its own “supporters”.
It is perhaps also more useful to treat Thai politics from a different perspective. It is not simply a “lose-lose” situation for the government and the PAD but rather, a “i lose and therefore you cannot win” situation.
2 Neilson // Nov 25, 2008 at 5:04 pm
You fail to point out, however, that being anti-Thaksin has absolutely nothing to do with supporting PAD’s lunacy. As far as I’m concerned, the fight to prevent a common criminal from again becoming PM has nothing to do with PAD’s popularity. Especially as … Sonthi was once part of the Thaksin parasitic regime. Indeed, I’m almost inclined to let Thaksin return on the grounds that he will almost certainly wish after that he had stayed in some couldn’t care-less place like Dubai , China or the Bahamas. Many Non-PAD people are also stubborn in their resolve to acheive something better than the current political chaos. And lest we forget, it was Thaksin who fomented this mess. he only has himself to blame.
3 rookie // Nov 25, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Good photo shots, Nick, and thanks for them, especially the first one showing the megalomaniac PAD boss Sonthi standing with arms akimbo. From the way he stands, we can understand what he thinks — he thinks Thailand belongs to him and he does not care what happens to the country as long as he gets what he wants. The same is true with other PAD leaders especially Chamlong, the misguided holy ascetic that even his old buddy Panlop has decided to abandon him
As I am writing now at 6:20 pm local time, we can see on tv how PAD is trying to block the new airport while poor foreign tourists have to get off their vehicles and walk to catch their flights. Is this the kind of democracy that Sonthi wants ? Anyway, we need lots of support from democratic people outside Thailand in case another coup takes place within a few days’ time.
4 David Brown // Nov 25, 2008 at 11:24 pm
hi Nick,
thanks again for your excellent diligence in being there and in reporting clearly and fairly!
just a couple of requests for information….
“gathering at Wat Suan Gaeow was attended by about 23,000 people, many families, mostly from Bangkok and surrounding provinces.”
where did the estimate of 23,000 come from…
I was there and this is a plausible number, the people were spread through the bush so real hard to count… except at the (2?) entries
and
“in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.”
do you have sources for the clear evidence, were you there doing your on the spot checking?
and I think I have to repost my statement about illegal protests…
After the Nov 7 tragedy at Parliament House, the Police have been
subject to an unfair campaign by the media and the NHRC to claim that the powers of the Police to disperse armed and violent protests must be limited to non-violent methods.
The Administrative Court made five judgements after that event, 3 of
them declaring that:
the PAD protest was illegal, armed and not peaceful and
the police were authorised to disperse them.
Also, in the last 2 judgements, the court did not say that violence
could not be used, it said: ;
police actions must be proportionate.
To my knowledge the media (and the NHRC) have not published anything of the first 3 judgements which directly contradict claims repeatedly made by the PAD.
Regarding the last 2 judgements, the media, the PAD and even the NHRC have variously stated that the Police cannot use force against the PAD.
All these judgements are important, because in International practise
the actions of police for dispersing peaceful and unarmed protests are
limited.
But where protestors are armed, police actions must be extended to
whatever is necessary to achieve the dispersal.
Protesters must expect that lethal weapons will be available to the
police and will be used by the police if any of the protesters use
lethal weapons… glass balls from sling shots and machetes are lethal
in the right circumstances and, as we know sadly, a sharpened stick can also be lethal to kill a policeman.
I notice that Khun Chamlong has announced he has ordered his guards not to be armed while protesting today. So he is obviously sensitive to the legal and physical risks.
But, we have already seen video that show guards carrying weapons, so either the guards are ignoring his orders or there are secret instructions.
I believe the police were shocked at the effects of the “weapons grade”
tear gas last time, but armed protesters must expect tear gas to be used.
Was this “faulty tear gas supplied and used by the Border Patrol Police, which are under command of the military and have an infamous history?
Protesters must expect water cannon to be used.
The BMA permitted the PAD to use fire trucks for training so they should now be available to the Police?
Protesters must be fully aware that even just sitting where they are,
because they are associated with an armed insurrection, what they are doing is illegal.
5 polo // Nov 26, 2008 at 3:22 am
I have generally appreciated Nick Nostitz’s observations but I think he has gotten a little too emotional this time, or written too quickly, to make sense, especially in these graphs:
“Both groups have to understand that nobody can win this conflict by violence. It will in the end only alienate the average citizen, and the country will descend into a circle of violence that might bring it to the brink of civil war. Especially in a country like Thailand, where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition, leaders of such protests groups have to make sure that they find ways to discourage these elements within their own ranks.”
“If PAD guards cannot be disarmed completely, and that means also that demonstrations are not anymore led by hooded men holding sticks and iron bars, then these people have to be expelled from the PAD. The PAD has to clearly distance itself from these groups. And, ideally, PAD should redefine itself, leave Government House, and return to a constitutional form of protest.”
In fact the language of PAD leaders has been to stoke violent feelings, warning of clashes and threatening clashes. I would go so far as to say hoping for violence that they hope would lead to a (1) coup or (2) conflagration. And (3): they have a jihad-martyr complex which requires provoking a violent end to themselves — and that is clear throughout Sondhi’s and Chamlong’s speeches.
Nick is exhorting them to break from the viiolent side but in fact they are dependent on the threat of a violent outbreak. This is brinkmanship as the busienss of the protest, not non-violence.
“These people have to be expelled from PAD” — what does that mean, that they aren’t part of it. They absolutely are. PAD has never been a movement away from these goons. (An I am not a Thaksin backer, BTW). They are just a part of it as much as the committed no-violent elements — and the DO NOT include Sondhi, and in my view not even Chamlong.
Furthermore, what does this phrase mean: “where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition,”
What “tradition” of violence? On whose side? (If I recall, the police/military attacked protestors in Oct 1973, Oct 1976, and May 2001.) In fact, Nick himself denies this — he warns of a breakdown toward civil war. That is a break from the recent past, only “traditional” if you refer to 1933 and the 1975-78 national split.
I hope Nick will go back to his detailed descriptions of what is happening in the streets and back off the emotional interpretation and calls for PAD to do this or that.
6 Ralph Kramden // Nov 26, 2008 at 9:23 am
Nick, nice report – really looking forward to the next one! Question on this: “Several bombs were launched against PAD, costing the lives of two people. But in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.” What’s the evidence?
7 Marty // Nov 26, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hi Nick…
I was going to email you to get an up to date report for today’s show but now I don’t have to as I just read it.
polo – I’ve known Nick for a number of years and he’s the consummate professional and never gets too emotional but he does have deep feelings and that is to be expected because of the situation he often finds himself in.
Later, my friend.
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.