New Mandala

19 responses so far ↓

• 1 David Brown // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

  hmmm… “violence is intrinsic to politics”

  this is like saying we are all cavemen

  politics is an very important factor in determining what sort of life we lead… the decisions made by a government affect us all, either inirectly or directly

  the government decides we will have traffic rules or not, it decides if we will pay tax or not it decides whetehr its oK to kill out neaighbours or not, it decides whether we go to war or not….

  and, being human each with our own free will, we will agree on some things and disagree on others. sometimes we will “violently” disagree…. if we are civilised we will strongly express ourselves in words, if we are not then we may come to blows, and bloodshed

  depending on our choice of society, the government can introduce rules like… protests are aright, but only if peaceful and unarmed and do not unreasonably affect the right of others

  the Thai government did this and even the (trained to violence) military CNS kept these rules in the law and the constitution

  so, our government introduced some civilised rules but we wait to see if the rules are enforced… another test of how determined the society is to be civilised!

• 2 amberwaves // Dec 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  This raises an interesting question: Could the PAD have won (let’s accept their claim of victory) without the use of force?

  Were the several violent showdowns just fate that worked to the group’s benefit, or were they part of the leadership’s calculations all along? Or did the turn of events make the increasing use of thugs a fatal attraction?

  I think the invasion of NBT, marking the start of the “General Uprising,” shows an awareness that muscle was needed to back up any moral authority they laid claim to.

  I’m not so sure things didn’t get out of control, with the tail starting to wag the dog.

• 3 LDohrs // Dec 9, 2008 at 7:26 am

  “Chang Noi” makes some surprising omissions in his column on the use of political violence. The turning point for the PAD was not the period between the successful 2006 demonstrations and the 2008 movement. The turning point was July 24th, 2008 in Udon Thani when an entirely peaceful group of PAD supporters were set upon by hundreds of thugs armed with iron bars, clubs and swords. Some were beaten nearly to death. Police and local authorities stood by and did not intervene. The vicious beatings were video-taped and photographed, the evidence clear for all to see.

  In subsequent days, weeks and months, the government took no action against those who committed the violence in Udon. None. Steadily in response the PAD built up its defensive capacities. Is it right to blame them? Is it appropriate for a writer who purports to be an academic expert, as “Chang Noi” does, to ignore the Udon incident, just because it is inconvenient to his thesis?

• 4 R. N. England // Dec 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  Compare the shining example of the heroes of Udon Thani with the cowardice of police commanders, and the perfidy of generals, who have since allowed fascist thugs to destroy what was left of Thailand’s reputation. Those few brave men stood up and fought, and checked a filthy plague that threatened to overrun rural Thailand.

• 5 R. N. England // Dec 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  Please correct a serious omission in my last post, which should have read, amongs the rest, “..the perfidy of generals, judges, and politicians…”.

• 6 amberwaves // Dec 10, 2008 at 12:10 am

  LDohrs said: The turning point was July 24th, 2008 in Udon Thani when an entirely peaceful group of PAD supporters were set upon by hundreds of thugs armed with iron bars, clubs and swords…Steadily in response the PAD built up its defensive capacities.

  This is a reasonable point to bring up, but would be even better if the writer didn’t shave the truth a bit himself. The idea that myth turned into conventional wisdom could stand inaccurately as history really disturbs me.

  The PAD began arming itself with iron bars, clubs and swords _ I admit I can’t swear to recalling the swords _ before the confrontation in Udon. I remember talking to people who saw the weapons and seeing photos at the time, and there was some (not much) coverage in the Bangkok press.

  I wouldn’t want you to have to trust my memory, however. Please start following the trail with these items:

  http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/thin-yellow-line.html
  (links to:)
  http://www.thairath.com/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=91252

  and

  http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/pad-protecting-itself.html
  (with more links)

• 7 LDohrs // Dec 10, 2008 at 8:34 am

  Thanks to amberwaves for the comment. I wouldn’t want to be seen claiming that there were no guards, no security for the PAD prior to the Udon incident. My own observations at Makhawan in late June/early July were that there were modest levels of security, similar to going to a typical rock show.

  Just after Udon, the security level rose, but at that time it was still amateurish, and included a close friend, a middle-aged architect who’s never been in a fight in his life, wearing a motor-bike helmet and carrying a golf-club. It got more professional after that. But again, I think it’s reasonable to argue that PAD security was beefed up largely in response to threats, both realized and unrealized, from outside.

  Chang Noi should review again the videos from Udon, showing easily indentifiable individuals beating, stomping and kicking people who were already semi-conscious or unconscious on the ground. And reflect on the fact that the government never even hinted at providing justice for the victims. The message was clear, “You’re on your own.”

  To claim that the PAD in these circumstances was the group/institution that was taking a “dangerous step away” from a tradition of political non-violence, as “Chang Noi” does, seems like quite a stretch.

• 8 Charles F. // Dec 10, 2008 at 10:17 am

  There’s alot to be said for a nine iron wielded by an intent person.

• 9 chang noi // Dec 10, 2008 at 11:51 am

  To: LDohrs

  You’re right. The Udon incident should have been mentioned. And many others. But the “thesis” of the piece was that PAD was a very violent departure from a non-violent culture of protest in the past. Mentioning the Udon incident would not change that observation. Many past demonstrations have been attacked far more viciously than the PAD in Udon but the reaction was not the same.

• 10 LDohrs // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Re the effectiveness of a duffer with a golf club. How do you reckon it does against a grenade coming in from an m79 at 76 meters/second?

  From the record, it doesn’t appear the PAD had the quality of golfer needed to accomplish that task.

  Not even including the injuries and death caused by the bumbling police/tear gas incident, the strong preponderance of injuries and deaths were suffered by, rather than caused by, the PAD.

  In context, the PAD can be characterized as a “fairly non-violent” or “relatively non-violent” movement, and “very violent” is inaccurate.

• 11 amberwaves // Dec 10, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  For once, everybody seems to be in loose agreement on the facts of the situation, and it appears to be more a matter of how to interpret them. The debate seems to be: who upped the ante?

  Relatedly, Ldohrs mentions the videos from Udon, showing easily identifiable individuals beating, stomping and kicking people who were already semi-conscious or unconscious on the ground.

  That description captures just as accurately what PAD guards did to DAAD supporters on Sept. 2. (Well, maybe not an exact parallel — some PAD guards were not “easily identifiable” because they wore balaclavas and bandannas to hide their faces.)

  In fact _ little-acknowledged fact _ a DAAD supporter was beaten to death in that incident.

  Would that constitute justified “payback” for the Udon incident? Or perhaps it is just a realpolitik PAD approach to defending themselves — beat the other fellows so savagely that they won’t come back?

  (I’ll acknowledge that the DAAD was marching to confront the PAD. You can use the word “attack” if you like, though contrary to the overheated accounts in Thai media, it looked to me _ from channel-surfing the footage all that night _ that there was a marked disinterest on the DAAD’s part in approaching the PAD lines too closely. Staying at a distance to throw bottles and other objects seemed to be the main action, until the PAD launched its “counterattack.”)

  (Re: that night, also recall that it came a few days after some not particularly nasty street confrontations between police and PAD supporters that saw howls of police brutality come from some elements of the press and civil society, some of whom called on police to vacate the area around the occupied Government House. The PAD had also pushed out a contingent of police who had been encamped inside the compound. I bring these points up because I feel they show the claim of the PAD and sympathizers (not Ldohrs) that police made themselves scarce that night to allow a DAAD attack somewhat hypocritical.)

  I realize that these comments stray somewhat from the larger point raised by Chang Noi and Ldohrs, but I think it is important to chip away at what until very recently was the (shoddy and ill-informed) conventional wisdom so that a full and robust narrative is out there.

• 12 amberwaves // Dec 10, 2008 at 10:19 pm

  Ldohrs said:
  My own observations at Makhawan in late June/early July were that there were modest levels of security, similar to going to a typical rock show.

  Sounds like you must have been near the stage at the free Stones concert at Altamont back in ‘69. Funny, you don’t look that old :-7

• 13 polo // Dec 10, 2008 at 11:43 pm

  Chang Noi: But it was only a departure if you count from about 1978. (Or maybe even from the mid-1980s, after the Thai army battles with the CPT were over.) If you go back further, you get to 1976, when — like this year — some of the goons behind the civilian-on-civilian violence had military or police backgrounds and enjoyed police/military support.

  But of course, maybe that is your point: Thailand hadn’t faced that kind of violence since 1976, the country’s “Year of living dangerously”. And of course, what was the underlying tension of 1976?

• 14 foreign correspondent // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  What were the PAD doing in Udon Thani? Was this part of their whip-up-a-nationalist-war-with-Cambodia period? I’m not trying to justify the violent attack against them, btw. Just recall the context.

• 15 Ari Observer // Dec 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  What is interesting about the Udon example is that LDohrs and other PAD supporters seem to have been surprised by the violence on the other side. One of the biggest surprises of recent months in fact has been that the reaction to PAD has not been more violent. You have a PAD leader (Sonthi L) openly insulting the intelligence of rural people day in, day out on his radio and TV stations – messages that are being taken in, day in, day out by “engaged” representatives of that rural mass (taxi drivers, vendors, etc.). Then you hold a rally in the midst of the region with the biggest concentration of the people you have been insulting, and you are surprised you are not greeted with flowers?

  LDohrs’ friend with the motorcycle helmet and golf club may very well have been a reasonable, right-thinking individual who believed he was joining a non-violent movement against corruption. And there is no doubt that many of the red-shirts, especially those who committed violence against the PAD, are paid thugs. But the naivete and self-righteousness of the middle-class PAD followers sometimes beggars belief. They truly have no idea how they are viewed by people in the North and Northeast. In their unique world view, opponents are simply either brainwashed or paid by Thaksin.

  We should again note the date of the rally in question – July 24. This was after Sonthi L had been denigrating the rural population for months, and after PAD leaders had openly called for measures that would restrict the voting rights of the majority of the Thai population. This was after PAD leaders had used the most crude nationalism to whip up a long-dormant conflict with Cambodia. This was after PAD had used slander and threats of violence against its Thai critics (including friends of mine). And this was long after it was very clear who the primary backers of this movement were.

  No doubt by late July there were many right-thinking people still attending PAD rallies. But by this point anyone who was both right-thinking and reasonable should have been avoiding PAD like the plague.

• 16 Nick Nostitz // Dec 12, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  “LDohrs”:

  You are absolutely wrong by saying that authorities have not taken any action against Udon Lovers in the aftermath of the attack. Evidence was gathered from the video footage, culprits were visited in their homes, and charged. Last week i was in Udon, and spoke with several of them, who all had charges filed, and will have to defend themselves at court.

  PAD has tempered with evidence, and for some unknown reasons was allowed to refuse police entry to crime scenes, both several of the bomb explosions, and the murder of one man that can clearly be attributed to PAD guards at their barricades on Oct. 30th or 31st.
  Also the attack on the 5 youths on Nov 2nd, which left one with a bullet injury in his shoulder, was not possible to be properly investigated for the same reasons.
  PAD guards that were arrested with weapons were bailed out the same day, including the 6 that have hijacked a public bus, carried one illegal shotgun + ammo, one ping pong bomb, and several machetes.
  One Srivichai warrior that was arrested in a sting by Din Daeng police with one gun and one Uzi stolen from a special branch police station in Government House was also bailed out.

  Additionally – PAD carried weapons openly after the Udon attack, but has previously stashed weapons as well.

  And lets not forget – the first person that was murdered was a Red Shirt, he was beaten to death by PAD guards during the clashes at Sept. 2nd.

• 17 ATM // Dec 12, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  The PAD went looking to get a bloody nose.

  Look at the ridiculous headlines in the papers on Oct 8th.
  Black October… or something like that.
  I would not be surprised to learn the casualties on the PAD side were self inflicted.
  Somehow, the local press glossed over the PAD, kidnapping the Reds, shooting at cops, running them down in trucks, throwing acid, pingpong bombs, slingshots, spears…an arsenal.

  The PAD leaders are a bunch of cowards that hide behind women and children and then taunt the Police.

  Thaksin will be back.

• 18 nganadeeleg // Dec 13, 2008 at 9:37 am

  Continuing the theme of selective memories, I hope Kwanchai and Uthai are included in those interviewed and charged – it should be a clear cut case as I seem to recall Kwanchai admitted doing it, and basically warned the PAD to stay away or they would be attacked again.

  I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.

• 19 Srithanonchai // Dec 13, 2008 at 5:07 pm

  # 18: “I’m all for locking up a few ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ leaders, so the rest of the country can get on living with and tolerating each other.”

  Charging the PAD leaders and putting them into jail for, say, 15-20 years each, was not amongst the 13 demands that the PAD has put to the Abhisit government. Fat chance it will happen. And what about all the often-photographed protest participants? Will they be subjected to criminal and civil charges? Suriyasai still insists that all the PAD’s actions were based on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly…

Leave a Comment