The bloody and confusing events of 10 April in Bangkok reveal vividly the character of Thailand’s chronic crisis of political legitimacy. Though many commentators are understandably focusing on the minutiae of the enigmatic violence of 10 April which led to the death of 25 people and injuries to over 800 more, these events also expose the labyrinthine nature of power play in Thai-style conflict and the continuing potency of the “third’ hand (whether real or fictitious) in fomenting violence in moments of crisis. For many analysts, the central ghost in the machine remains Thaksin Shinawatra who has allegedly bankrolled the whole red shirt movement and determined its direction, and without whom they believe the ongoing agitation would be impossible. However, the red-shirt movement now represents far more than Thaksin, as others have noted. Most critically, the recent events expose the continuing clash of ideologies unleashed by the coup of 2006 and the overthrow of elected governments by organized conservative crowd action and judicial fiat during 2008. Since coming to power by parliamentary vote in December 2008, the Democrat-Party has tried in vain to squash politics back into the parliamentary box. The unprecedented crowd action of the People’s Alliance for Democracy in paralysing the country in late 2008, tolerated by the military and exploited by the Democrat party to step into power, is the precedent that the red-shirt movement has followed in its street politics. Thailand is now reaping the whirlwind.
In mid-March 2010, what seemingly began as a festival of popular democracy among crowds of red-shirt supporters demanding the dissolution of the Democrat Party-led parliament and new elections, turned into a bloody confrontation on 10 April as troops attempted to clear the core rally area around the Phan Fa bridge and the Democracy Monument in central Bangkok. In the aftermath of the fatalities and injuries (to both troops as well as demonstrators) caused by mysterious gunmen and bomb-throwers, the blame-game continues between red-shirt leaders and the Democrat-led government as to who was responsible for the targeted killings that occurred. However, this bloody confrontation was already foreseeable for a number of reasons. First, it was predictable in the diametrically-opposed positions of the protagonists from the beginning; second, it was predictable in the calibrated escalation of provocation among red-shirt leaders (modelled in many ways on the Yellow shirt crowd action of October 2008); third it was inevitable because Prime Minister Abhisit had to affirm control of the situation at numerous levels — including the pragmatic domain of limiting crowd activity and the symbolic domain of affirming legitimacy for political survival. As happened with the clamp down on red-shirt demonstators in March–April of 2009, the government and the military leadership, armed with emergency powers and control over radio and TV media outlets, attempted to control the narrative of events and interpretation of the violence and its black-clad perpetrators. They are now demonizing the red-shirt movement (in particular its leadership) as a fundamental threat to the nation and its highest institution of monarchy. They have opened a space for the People’s Alliance for Democracy to emerge (disguised as a variety of non-aligned networks) once more on the streets in the name of the “the nation” to legitimize a hardline crackdown on critics of Thailand’s established power structure.
It is not possible here to provide a blow-by-blow description of events as they have unfolded over the last eventful month. Some themes, however, are important to underline. Political theatre, rhetoric, rumour, dissimulation and innuendo have been prominent over this period among parties in the conflict. During the major rally at Phan Fa bridge beginning on 14 March the rhetoric of red shirt leaders (particularly of the master orators Nattawut Saikoe and Wira Musikaphong) intensified beyond a condemnation of the “amart” (aristocratic bureaucrats) and the government’s “double standards” to a full blown rhetoric of class war, drawing on the evocative identification of the red shirts as “phrai” (bonded serfs in the pre-modern Thai social structure). It was a brilliant piece of symbolic self-identification serving to contrast red shirt identity with that of powerful historical enemies. After two weeks of escalating protests (which forced the virtual besiegement of Prime Minister Abhisit in a military camp) negotiations were brokered between both sides and televised. During these sessions Prime Minister Abhisit gave an impressive display as a statesman, willing to engage with the red shirt leaders in continuing talks about their ongoing concerns. He offered the appearance of concessions by offering a house dissolution in nine months, though not 15 days as demanded by the red shirts. For their part, the red shirt leaders needed to display resolution to their own audience, and pressed for a quick dissolution, not trusting the wily Democrats to guarantee a process of dissolution because it would be contingent upon a referendum in advance. Though Abhisit’s therapeutic self-presentation in the televised negotiations was alluring, he chose to ignore the fact that to the red shirts he was not a neutral player in the game of political reform, but a major part of the political problem. Further, his argument that he wanted to see the political atmosphere calm down before elections were held was the complete reverse of red –shirt logic, that the Democrat government was the product of an outrageous political rape that had been committed on the people: effectively the product of a second “silent” coup in December 2008. Perhaps the offer of a six month time-frame, as recently proposed by the Democrat’s coalition partners, may have done the trick and taken the wind out of red shirt leader’s sails, but this was not forthcoming from Abhisit. Soon after the failed negotiations, the red shirt leadership expanded the rally to the busy retail district of Ratchaprasong, defying the government’s attempts to eject them. Red shirts were emboldened by the army’s reluctance to utilize weapons. Despite the affirmation of peaceful protest, red-shirt rhetoric of defiance escalated, explicitly anticipating a messianic confrontation with the authorities in emotional proclamations such as “we will stay here until we die.” Though understandable as a necessary retaliation against Aphisit’s refusal to quickly dissolve parliament, the rhetoric complemented aggressive red shirt crowd action that followed.
As with all crowd-government confrontations since 2008, the threat and the reality of violence have been a critical ingredient in power play and discourse. As with the clashes of October 2008 and April 2009, the party that was demonstrated to be the instigator would lose all political capital. Put more bluntly, though culpability has always been contested in crowd-government confrontations since October 2008, the party that can project innocence to both the international world (in simple terms the U.S. State Department) and the Bangkok middle class wins the symbolic legitimacy game. This time the red shirt leadership and its supporters affirmed their commitment to peaceful protest, but such commitment was compromised from the beginning by a string of bombings on military installations and other public places. As in April 2009 the red shirt leadership claimed that their peaceful protests were being discredited by a “third hand.’ For its part, the government and the military could not locate the culprits of these bombings, despite the finger being pointed to the maverick Thaksin-supporting general Khattiya (“Sae Daeng”) Sawasdipol. While the Abhisit government has continued its mantra of upholding the law, the incapacity of the authorities to convincingly identify and apprehend culprits of attacks well before the 10 April clash raised questions about both the capacity of the authorities and the unity of the army itself.
As with all previous clashes, controlling the narrative of culprits and victims has been imperative. The government began this when it declared a state of emergency on 7 April after red shirts broke into the parliament building to demand an immediate dissolution. On the following day the signal of the red shirt cable TV channel (People Channel) was blocked, as were a number of key web news sites reporting on the red shirts. All television channels explicitly critical of the red shirts, including the PAD yellow shirt station ASTV, remained untouched. The government’s main TV channel, NBT, stepped up its condemnation, most stridently in its talk shows, which were hosted by ardent enemies of Thaksin Shinawatra, such as Chirmsak Pintong. In the afternoon of 10 April, troops moved into the Rachdamnoen Avenue area to pressure protestors, but by dusk mayhem had broken out with confusing accounts of shootings of both red shirts and soldiers (including senior officers, and the death of a Japanese photographer) at the Kok Wua intersection. Video footage the following day revealed shadowy black-clad figures firing war weapons. Other clips indicated that firing was coming from above surrounding buildings. The exact identity of these figures is still obscure, but the government narrative is that these were “terrorists” connected to elements of the red shirt movement, bent on creating chaos. This does not account for the larger number of red shirt deaths. As for the believability of official version that soldiers played no role in shootings, skepticism has been stimulated following a change in the military spokeman’s information from an initial statement (11 April) that soldiers only fired live rounds in the air, later changed to an admission (13 April) that some soldiers had fired live rounds in self-defence. A number of scenarios are possible in explaining the shootings and identifying perpetrators, which also includes the involvement of serving military personnel engaged in their own covert conflict with superiors. Though the popular choice for the main bad guy is “Sae Daeng,” military sources close to the government have suggested to me that the shooters are former rangers commanded by another shady former officer (“Sae “Ice”, Gen. Trairat Inthat) and that Sae Daeng is just a decoy figure.
Over the whole period of the red shirt demonstrations, the military command has shown a singular lack of capacity in identifying and apprehending those responsible for violent attacks. This allows for room for rumour and speculation about collusion in exacerbating the violence. Not surprisingly, the red shirt leadership is blaming the military for fomenting the shootings. Regardless of all this, the 10 April events have given the government the upper hand to proclaim elements of the red shirt leadership as allied with “terrorists.” This has served to besmirch the red shirt movement as a whole. Ordinary red shirt supporters are being counselled to leave the rally site (now centralized at the Ratchaprasong intersection) for their own safety. The other major development is that the paranoid discourse of the “nation and monarchy in danger” has been encouraged to flourish. Following the declaration of emergency , on 8 April TAN cable TV’s “Political Hot Pot” show featured Sophon Ongkara lambasting the government for doing too little and too late, and condemning red shirt protestors as “just a bunch of thugs” and “working for Thaksin’s agenda to get rid of the monarchy.” And on the evening of the 10 April clashes a major gathering of the PAD was held in Krabi province and televised by the so-called “Esan Channel.” With no sense of the irony of his pronouncements Chamlong Srimuang condemned the red shirts for breaking the law. He vindicated the PAD’s own previous illegal efforts by claiming that this has been done for a higher good, unlike the red shirts, who acted as minions of Thaksin. He and others slammed both the government and army for their weakness, promising that the yellow shirts would step in if the government didn’t do anything.
From 16 April, several networks proclaiming that they represented non-aligned citizens, with some led by noted yellow shirts (including the so- called “Network for Protecting the Nation”) demonstrated in front of the 11th Infantry regiment headquarters (where Abhisit is based) to oppose the dissolution of parliament and urge the government to apply sterner measures of martial law against protestors. This development is significant and contrasts with the period of demonstrations in 2009, when an official government militia, the “blue shirts” were recruited to oppose red shirts. Now the popular red shirt opponents are supposedly ordinary non-aligned citizens, which may be the case for some. But the slogans of many, however, betray their conservative yellow shirt ideology which brands the red shirt movement as a traitorous plot to destroy the monarchy. The latest development has been a meeting of the PAD at Rangsit University (19 April) where its leadership has announced a 7-day deadline for the government to arrest UDD “terrorists” and to end the red shirt activity, or it will step in. Though this highlights widespread criticism of Abhisit’s government among conservatives for being too soft, it can only aid the government in providing the pressure it needs to force the military to act strongly against remaining red shirt demonstrators, a development already foreshadowed in recent statements of the military as they prepare to protect the Silom area from a planned advance of red shirt demonstrators. Not surprisingly, many concerned observers in Thailand are now comparing the atmosphere of conservative backlash to the paranoia that accompanied the massacre of protesting students in October 1976.
[Marc Askew is Senior Fellow in Anthropology, School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, University of Melbourne. He is currently resident in Thailand on an extended period of fieldwork. He is editor of the forthcoming volume Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand, to be published by Silkworm Books and King Prajadhipok’s Institute.]
40 responses so far ↓
1 Ralph Kramden // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:11 am
Marc writes of: “8 April TAN cable TV’s “Political Hot Pot” show featured Sophon Ongkara lambasting the government for doing too little and too late, and condemning red shirt protestors as “just a bunch of thugs” and “working for Thaksin’s agenda to get rid of the monarchy.”
NM might be interested in the really horrid piece of work by the same “journalist” today in the Nation: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/20/opinion/Another-crackdown-more-bloodshed-expected-30127428.html
This has to be on a par with the calls for murder in 1976 or perhaps some of the extreme fascist writings during the war in the former Yugoslavia that resulted in atrocities on a pretty grand scale.
How does one condemn this stuff when the writer is like a pitbull who has tasted blood?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
2 Nigella // Apr 20, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for the Nation link, Ralph Kramden. Sophon Ongkara’s rhetoric exemplifies the irony of anti-UDD critics fatuously comparing Thaksin with Hitler. After all, many of Thailand’s conservative status-quo fans, like Sophon, often sound just like Goebbels, Hitler’s communications czar! (Of course there are many other reasons that the comparison is specious, but I don’t have time to list them right now.)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 Juan Carlos // Apr 20, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I often affect a flippant tone when commenting on Thai matters in this forum and elsewhere. However, I have to register my disgust regarding this despicable Nation article. Henceforth Nation to be known as ‘Samak Herald’ perhaps?
But we already knew they were the yellowest of yellow press (in at least two senses).
On a broader note, for a long time I felt that the monarchy deserved some slack given that despite the iniquities justified in its name, its special brand of magic helped preserve at least the Thais from the semi-order-of-magnitude greater horrors of communism back in the day.
However, back in the day is just that. Back in the day.
Apropos of nothing, I thought I should quote Oliver Cromwell’s Address to the Long Parliament:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4 Maratjp // Apr 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Juan Carlos,
Of all people to quote? Cromwell? The Lord Savior of Catholic Ireland?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Polyphemus // Apr 20, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Juan Carlos,
To quote Cromwells royalist contemporary Thomas Wentworth:
“He who meddles in the affairs of kings will ne’re put things back he way in which he found them!”
Opinions on the sentiment may vary but Thaksin as Lord Protector? God help us all! Chavalit as Sir Thomas Fairfax? And I really can’t cast Newin!
We all know the pressures bought to bear on the Levellers by Cromwells parliament and I don’t see it being different in this age. Swap a monarch for a dictator. How will the corrupt power elite be sidelined in any “new age” of politics? Who will institute checks and balances where will a non-corrupt judiciary, police and “New Model Army” rise from?
Most interesting comparisons tho.
What we really need now is Richard Harris! Ha Ha
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6 BKK lawyer // Apr 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm
This is a terrific, balanced summary of the political situation by Marc Askew.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 Juan Carlos // Apr 20, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Polyphemus: I fully agree with you re Thaksin. He’s a Bad Egg. I do not like him. I also agree that stirring the pot and peturbing the status quo is a dangerous game. However, in the affairs of men, sometimes pots do come to a boil whether we like it or no.
The Contention is that there is a Putrescent Boil or Three (be thinking Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch here) upon the Very Fundamental of the Thai Body Politic which is Needful of Lancing. I speak not of Amputation.
Eventually, via a commodius vicus of recirculation, the Thais will arrive back at the year 1688. Hint to Thais: in the last 1688 you got that one quite wrong
. What *do* you guys learn at Oxford, Cambridge, LSE?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
8 MCSING // Apr 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I was in Thailand last week and saw another episode of “Political Hotspot’ on TanTV. Apart from Sophon Ongkara there was also journalist called Paisal Sricharatchanya who said esssentially that there was a ‘difference in civilisation’ between the red shirt protesters and everyone else. Can anyone tells me who owns/controls Tan TV which is trying to become an ASEAN station?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
9 David Brown // Apr 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Polyphemus #4
did anyone mention that democracy has accountability to the people
provided everyone accepts the rules then all the politicians must face the people on a regular basis
it is at elections that the people control the “dictators” that you fear
when the rules of democracy are over-ridden, who controls the powerful?
the redshirts are trying to get Abhisit and all the current MPs to throw themselves on the mercy (or otherwise) of the people
when challenged by the yellowshirts in 2006 Thaksin called an election… quite right and proper in a democracy, he was prepared to fight hard to win but, if the Democrats and others had tried to be useful to the country instead of just falling back on the old military dictatorship they had their chance to displace Thaksin
the ongoing issue for Thailand is how to make the military accountable… currently noone can control them, they avoid responsibility by claiming they support the monarchy not the people and through Prem the monarch is not willing/able to control them!
Thailand needs a strong democratically elected leader who with the authority of the people can reduce the military budget, sack most of the generals, interfere with their reshuffle, ban all serving soldiers from involvement in any business and politics, and prohibit any involvement internal to the country (except humanitarian disasters to keep them busy).
Who do you think might be up to this task?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
10 Polyphemus // Apr 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I’d like to add that Cromwells interregnum, like Pibulsongkrams was followed by a popular return to monarchy for much the same reasons and I see the Thai peoples need for a popular monarchy will be remain undiminished likewise for many generations to come. The only alternative would be a Kim Il Jong at worst or Lee Kwan Thaksin at slightly better.
Life within “The Matrix” is much to be preferred to life outside of it by most folk. Few in Thailand can see any sanuk in western stoicism, atheism, puritanism or marxism. So bread, circuses, nai and nak leng will continue their stranglehold on social development whether or not the commonly perceived Bangkok elites remain enfranchised.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
11 Juan Carlos // Apr 20, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Polyphemus:
I posted a reply suggesting that Thailand needs to work its way toward a post 1688 settlement. i.e. William & Mary. aka A Ring In.
History being the beast that it is, you don’t get to 1688 without your Cromwells and your Restorations and your digging up and desecration of signatory corpses, and so on.
I also included a little quip to the effect that the Thais had their own Inglorious Revolution in 1688, and perhaps might wish to look to the English version (peaceful and by no means republican) next time around.
Unfortunately this prior posting seems to have been censored by the censors who do not censor.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
12 Arthurson // Apr 20, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I quote the most important variable and unanswered question mentioned in Mark Askew’s essay: there remain unresolved “questions about both the capacity of the authorities and the unity of the army itself.”
The events of Friday 16 April, in which the government badly botched their highly publicized attempt to capture the top Red Shirt leaders, tell us two things: (1) that there are Red Shirt informants within the military command structure, and (2) the police and Army really have no stomach for following orders that will result in another violent confrontation with the demonstrators resulting in a greater loss of life.
Now it is possible that the so-called elite units that have been brought in will ruthlessly go about the business of shooting the rabble when ordered to do so, but the larger question remains just how the rank-and-file troops will respond to that. Perhaps Sae Daeng was correct when he claimed that, except for the top military commanders, the Army is full of Red Shirt sympathizers. It is after all a conscript army made up mainly of the rural poor. Do the commanders really trust their troops?
I recall that in October 1973 it was not the student demonstrators themselves, but gunpoint to gunpoint confrontation with the Thai Navy, that stopped Narong’s column of tanks from entering Bangkok and further slaughtering people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
13 Dion Peoples // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I don’t have a shirt color… but I remember only ONE thing that was agreeable to me, by the former policeman turned businessman, turned politician, turned prime-minster, now fugitive/criminal — he stated: “Democracy is not the GOAL.”… this was many years ago, and under a different context, but I often reflect upon this utterance from the Doctor of Criminology. Sure, the people should persuade the government in many issues, but if democracy is to head towards UNIFORM COLORS… we are all in a wicked-mess. Thailand, though, is a nation that loves rank and uniformity… I write as an ex-SSgt in the USAF, there is some comfort in a militarized society for me; but there is never any surprises in this nation – I write this as a scholar of Thai Studies [MA: Chulalongkorn University]… we’ve seen this activities throughout history, as mentioned above… but more and more, I find myself urging my wife [a non-participating yellow-shirt supporter] to find more solace in the principles of the Buddha [mentioning that, as I have recently earned my PhD in Buddhist Studies...]. As I mentioned, or suggested, democracy was not the goal of the ousted ex-PM. It’s just really funny to see all these supporters risking their life for him… but, yes, people did the same for GWB, Hitler, Stalin, Selassie I, Ho Chi Minh… people love these charismatic people…
May I ask a humble, respectful question, to anyone: If Thaksin returns… does he become PM, and a thousand flowers bloom in a new heavenly utopia-nation? Another question: does he kill anyone who was unsupportive of him, as he did with the 3000 druggies? Thaksin has a lot of blood on his hands… more-so than anyone else involved currently.
While my wife [a life-long Democrat supporter] mentioned a few days ago: Why are they all not dead yet? {in reference to the red-shirts} – I’m beginning to wonder which shirt-color would look best on me… is there a party that would eliminate the poverty-situation that my family is enduring… prices go up, but my university salary stays unchanging. Result: the family may disintegrate due to economic-struggle… I welcome any shirt color to save our situation!!!
To conclude: Mr. Askew wrote: “Since coming to power by parliamentary vote in December 2008, the Democrat-Party has tried in vain to squash politics back into the parliamentary box.” –isn’t this were it is supposed to be… people in my neighborhood or the customers in my wife’s salon all love Abhisit… everything seems to be fine from “our perspective”!… Like I mentioned, I’m neutral, but would urge any government to help out with this family-economic crisis, that many are suffering from!
Anyway, I was just writing to wonder about things… I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m just humble and curious, although I’ve been living here in Bangkok since 2002, with a year break in 2003 – almost consecutively. I’m just not feeling good with any shirt color.
I wish all of these people understood Buddhism better… and worked out their problems like Buddhists should do!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
14 Richard P // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Thanks you so much Marc for a wonderfully balanced piece on the current situation (and thanks too NM for putting it up).
I’ve got some of your works (on Bangkok and also the deep south), and have always been impressed with your insightful analysis. Keep up the good work!
I wish more people on this forum, particularly those who profess to be academics, were as insightful and even-handed in their commentary…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
15 Marco // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm
@MCSING:
TAN used to be ASTV2 (I think that number’s correct), the English sister channel of Sondhi’s ASTV
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
16 Richard P // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Thanks also to Juan Carlos for posting Oliver Cromwell’s address. Can’t think of anything more apt to describe the average Thai parliamentarian.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
17 David Brown // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Polyphemus #9
“whether or not the commonly perceived Bangkok elites remain enfranchised”
just a minor point… the redshirts just want to be included in the ability to choose a government
noone is suggesting that the elites be disenfranchised, excluded from the political process
of course democracy assumes equality …
on a per capita basis not by wealth or land-holding … which I suppose comes to the heart of the issue
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
18 Marco // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I might add that ASTV2 transformed into TAN just before the Asean conference in Pattaya last year. It was going big on promoting the Asean meeting and interviewed the manager of the hotel Arisman et all later stormed.
Typical of their lousy programming, the day AFTER the red shirts stormed the Cliff Hotel, TAN again ran the interview, with the manager boasting about the wonderful facilities and rooms the Asian leaders would enjoy during the summit.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
19 anonymous2 // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“Richard P // Apr 20, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Thanks also to Juan Carlos for posting Oliver Cromwell’s address. Can’t think of anything more apt to describe the average Thai parliamentarian.
“
Nor me. Pretty much sums it up really. Especially the last bit, to which I would add…
Your time has been and gone. For God’s sake go – while you still have a choice.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
20 Leah Hoyt // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Richard P,
The Cromwell quote applies equally to everyone who is running this country. Parliamentarians are one of the groups. You can figure out who some of the others are.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
21 michael // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Thanks, Arthurson #11, for the timely reminder re. 1973.
Setting aside the whole question of whether it is justifiable for a modern state to turn its troops, whose existence should be for the sole purposes of defending against external threats as well as assisting in disaster relief, against their fellow citizens, there is also the very obvious evidence of their extreme incompetence. For a military force with something near 700 Generals (correct me if you can provide reliably sourced figures), there seems to be a definite lack of understanding, awareness of the special needs of situations like this, competent planning, informed decision-making, & just plain basic training. This is attested to by the extreme clumsiness & miserable failures of similar operations in the South, as well as Bangkok, over many years.
It is arguable that the Thai military behaves like a terrorist rabble, promoting fear & divisiveness amongst the populace. They are supported in this by a hideously biased & irresponsible local MSM & a rapidly growing number of people who, accepting this behaviour as the norm, are now desensitized, & have lost their basic humanity. I am frequently shocked by vicious & infantile remarks made by local workmates & neighbours, which suggest that the answer to problems in the South or the current situation is to “kill them all.” I have a growing feeling of hopelessness, with nagging suggestions that I may be living amongst a society that is being enculturated as evil, moronic sociopaths. I’m appalled at the comments in the press, in blogs, & on facebook, immediately following the events on 10th April.
Today, BBC news has had the disturbing news that the troops which have been taking up positions on high buildings around Rachaprasong & in Silom, will use live ammunition “if the Redshirts are armed.” Does that mean that they will intelligently discriminate between those who are & those who aren’t? Of course not! How can they?
The army, it is reported, has intelligence (!) to the effect that Redshirts are stockpiling home-made weapons. If they have this info, how is it they are doing nothing about it? Where are these stockpiles? Surely they can stop them getting the parts through the many roadblocks? If not, why not? I went for a walk in the Siam-Rachaprasong area on Saturday evening & my shoulder bag was checked by Redshirt security people 3 times in the space of an hour and a half. (I’m not a Redshirt or an Any-Other-Colour shirt. I simply wanted to see what is going on. I assure you that it was not remotely like what I had been told by local media to expect. It was absolutely non-threatening.)
Why has the army not recalled all the Tahan Pran? Can’t they control their own forces? How are these paramilitaries able to just leave their areas WITH MILITARY-ISSUE WEAPONS, & wander off to pursue their own agendas? What kind of army is this?
Shame on Thailand!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
22 john francis lee // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:53 pm
…the 10 April events have given the government the upper hand to proclaim elements of the red shirt leadership as allied with “terrorists.”
This has served to besmirch the red shirt movement as a whole.
Ordinary red shirt supporters are being counselled to leave the rally site (now centralized at the Ratchaprasong intersection) for their own safety.
“Given the upper-hand” in a gamesmanship sense… there is no justification for such a proclamation. Is the “game” being critiqued here? Is that what’s “playing out” in Thailand?
And “served to besmirch the red shirt movement” in the words issuing from the stenographers of the Thai MSM only, thence picked up lazy “journalists” world-wide. The charge of “terrorist” leveled at the red shirt rank and file is in reality vile and absurd.
And “being counselled to leave the rally site for their own safety” is neither more nor less than an unveiled threat on their lives… and the only real “terrorism” I see in this account or that I’ve seen of late in Thailand.
The professional assassins at the crackdown were military whether clad in black or green. But military terror is somehow “expected” and “accepted”… a “time-honored” tradition in Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
23 Minx // Apr 20, 2010 at 11:44 pm
A very comprehensive and insightful summary of the current situation. Thank you. What’s interesting – and deeply worrying – in the intensifying conflict is the nature of narrative that has become an all out war of words between the red shirts and the yellow (now multicolored) shirts.
The contents and tone of the rhetoric especially of the pro-government forces give you a nightmarish deja vu – from dubbing the red shirts as ‘terrorists’ and ‘traitors’ bent on overthrowing the monarchy, right down to recycling of the old song /nak paen din/ (‘Heavy on the Land’) that was used to rouse Thai people against the communists in the 1970s. The song now has a new rendition /rok paen din/ (‘Clutter on the Land’) – suggesting, of course, that the heavy weight and the clutter need to be cleared so that the Land would be lighter and orderly once again.
The vile and hateful words that are flying out of many Thai mouths these days would horrify most who believe Thais are a polite people. But then Thailand has no concept of hate crime – so publicly wishing for opponents’ (or their parents’) death is fast becoming a national past time. This site collects the vocabulary of words, insinuations and epithets along with political keywords in Thai color-coded politics: http://tinyurl.com/y5t4nej.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
24 Leeyiankun // Apr 21, 2010 at 1:16 am
I must ask you to provide me with the evidence of 3000 drug-related killings and Thaksin’s Order of it. The further I read about it, I feel as if I’m out of the loop in this matter. How is it that I, a Thai citizen in this country, does not have the evidence of it? Yet you guys have, and is utterly convinced that he’s the man behind it?
IMO, there’s one faction that could be the culprit in the Drug killings, is solely to blame for it, and yet got away scott free for years. But you guys wouldn’t want to get 18yrs for discussing it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
25 Ricky Ward // Apr 21, 2010 at 1:26 am
Also am I interested to read Cromwell’s speech but nonplussed by the motive behind the quote, as the aspersions made would fit well many a parliament today, in a world run by that anti-royalist creation bourgeois democracy.
Cromwell was also anti-royalist but parallels between him and the royalist yellow shirts and their military government can be seen in the quote below from Wikipedia:
“. On 20 April 1653 he dismissed the Rump Parliament by force, setting up a short-lived nominated assembly known as the Barebones Parliament before being made Lord Protector of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland on 16 December 1653. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, but when the Royalists returned to power his corpse was dug up, hung in chains, and beheaded.
Cromwell has been a controversial figure in the history of the British Isles – a regicidal dictator to some historians .. and a hero of liberty to others ..”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
26 chris beale // Apr 21, 2010 at 2:53 am
Marc – I’ll echo BKK Lawyer – excllent, balanced analysis.
Congratulations – not least for your comments on military manoueverings, “Seh Daeng” as decoy especially.
And I was also particularly interested in your reference to “Esan” Channel TV – a misnomer, if ever there was one.
So – a couple of questions :
1)’“phrai” (bonded serfs in the pre-modern Thai social structure)’.
Why do you write “Thai”, when in fact it was Siam ?
2) re. the televised talks – do you think that there was any real possiblity of a breakthrough if Abhisit had not insisted on a referendum BEFORE a general election ?
It seems to me this revealed his insincerity.
He may have a case that the budget/”stimulus” package has to be passed first. But a referendum FIRST – why ?
I’m still trying to grasp where the concept of “udomkan” fits exactly into all this, but anyhow enjoy
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
27 Nuno // Apr 21, 2010 at 3:13 am
I know that yesterday the military decide to silence the media fearing that they could “misinform” the public but why today no one report one single line about the tear gas that was used in Silom between 2.45 and 3.30 pm.
Me and most of my colleagues witnessed by hearing the shots seeing the smoke and hearing the screaming of the people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
28 Thailand Krise i Thailand - Asiaforum.no // Apr 21, 2010 at 6:04 am
[...] [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
29 MediaWar // Apr 21, 2010 at 7:01 am
@Arthurson #12
you’ve made a very good point indeed.
also, you’re correct in reminding about :
I was just reading about it few days back. it was one of commanders Gen. Krit Srivara who has stopped mad dog Narong then, not students.
I think it is also interesting that situation now and in past 4 years somewhat similar to that time, if just change few names and dates (I add in [ ] ) :
rings the bell ?
amazing, isn’t it – that seemingly history repeats itself after some 30-35 years all over again.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
30 Tarrin // Apr 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm
MediaWar – It does ring the bell, don’t forget to mention about the formation of Red Gaurs and NawaPol (Yellow/Pink) in the 1976. However, the situation is vastly different as the number of people involved is much larger and was fought on a totally different ideology. Although I have to admitted that the remnant of the ex 1976 students who are still hold grudge against the establishment is running deep within the red themselves.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
31 Pharris // Apr 21, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Sir:
Your analysis is thick and difficult to follow. I don’t see your thesis or get what you mean by “right-wing backlash.” Do you mean the PAD’s response to the early April protests that you mentioned in your last two paragraphs? From those paragraphs, the Yellow Shirts’s response is thus: What the Red Shirts did was illegal; the government should forcibly stop them; and if the government won’t do it, we will. That seems to be a pretty mild and predictable response if you ask me. I mean shouldn’t an opposition party respond when antagonized?
I don’t get it. This piece seems to be mere ramblings of a partisan observer disguised as possibly scholarly work. If so, that’s very consistent with this blog. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, I just ask that you be more coherent.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
32 The Frog // Apr 22, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Two interesting points of reference:
The first is from Thai Political Prisoners http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/chamlong-on-civil-war/:
“In The Nation (21 April 2010) People’s Alliance for Democracy leader Chamlong Srimuang is reported as saying that the government “has no choice but to rein in the red shirts in a speedy and effective manner via law enforcement, otherwise the situation will degenerate into a civil war…”. He chastised the government of Abhisit Vejjajiva for being too slow and not decisive enough.
Chamlong warned that if the government didn’t act, then [his] people would rise up and do it, taking “the law into their hands.” Sounds like 1976, where Chamlong played a shady role in the massacre at Thammasat University.”
Former mercenary Chamlong thinks that it would be all over in “no more than two hours” if the military moved against them. Hang the cost in human lives, for “the risk is worth taking to safeguard the country.” He added that if the government or military didn’t act, the “PAD would step out to restore peace…”, joining “hands with all patriots to safeguard the monarchy…”.
—-
The second is a link to Manit Sriwanichpoom’s provocative pink man series featured previously on NM.
http://www.rama9art.org/manit_s/pink5.html
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
33 Plop // Apr 22, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Re : 1973 comparison.
I was in Sanam Luang in 1973 and witnessed the hangings from trees, and one guy repeatedly beating an already dead kid whilst others stood around and watched. How can the army be so cruel, I thought. It wasn’t until years later that I learnt of the involvement also of the ‘village scouts’.
Thammasart students were killed, and those that didn’t escape were rounded up and taken to ‘camps’. Parents grieved missing offspring, and Puey Ungaphorn who had been labeled a communist fled to the UK. Outrage followed and the then prime minister/army commander Thanom, his son Narong, and Praphas also fled from Thailand. More or less overnight the controlled news media turned to free reporting.
So if history is to repeat itself, can we not skip the angst and bloodshed and just accept the end result; better to resign now and let another game start rather than drag this one on until it’s deathly end. Or perhaps the game from 1973 is still ongoing…..albeit over time under different ideological names. And it’s destined to continue until the populace’s vote is unequivocally upheld.
Another historical comparison; is Ratchprasong Thailand’s Tiananmen? There are many parallels, media blackout, tent style encampment in a prestigeous even symbolic part of the capital, (Mao Tse Tung’s image was as always looking down), peaceful demonstrators organising and cooperating amongst themselves, similar demonstrations in other parts of the Country, unequal distribution of GDP, etc. The bloody outcome is well remembered yet it has been purged politically ever since. (Ask a Chinese student nowadays about the Tianamen massacre….eh,eh?. There may be a slight shift though as per this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/asia/16china.html
So if indeed any such historical comparison exists, how will Thailand, ‘the land of the free’, address it’s Tiananmen, . And what sort of Government does Thailand really have?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
34 Royal reds, reds, and rebel reds // Apr 22, 2010 at 9:57 pm
[...] Askew recently wrote an excellent piece for New Mandala on the dangerous situation developing in Bangkok. He also drew attention to the [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
35 Labyrinthine « CultivatingSheahans // Apr 22, 2010 at 10:10 pm
[...] [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
36 StanG // Apr 22, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Plop above has mixed up events of 1973 and 1976 into one, bending his parallels to merge.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
37 Things // Apr 22, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Does anyone know if any international or legal monitoring by human rights groups is going on?
If the army do start shooting against civilians and set-off a massacre it is a clear breach of the Rome Statutes and army commanders and Thailand’s political leaders must be held to account internationally.
This is not 1973, 1976 or 1992.
The Cold War is over and Yugoslavia, Israel and Rwanda has taught the world that those who lead massacres against civilians can be held criminally responsible even if some of the perpetrators are yet to be brought to justice.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
38 Steve // Apr 23, 2010 at 12:01 am
@ Dion Peoples (#13)…..
Actually, the much-repeated “quote” is ‘Democracy is not my goal’.
I say “quote” (i.e. in quote marks) because it’s one of those great examples of how a newspaper’s headline can become what’s remembered and quoted ad infinitum – as if it were a] all that was said and b] an accurate representation of what was said by the speaker.
The newspaper in question? The Nation. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=90343
As you’ll see from the article text, there is some significant nuance in what Thaksin was saying – particularly as it was on Constitution Day. Needless to say, none of that nuance made it into the headline – and it’s only the headline that people remember and quote now.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
39 Andrew // Apr 23, 2010 at 12:35 am
Excellent assessment of the larger picture in this crisis, insightful and revealing Marc, it would help if more of the ardent reds and anti-reds read this (no pun intended), however, a separate study of the typical Thai character traits and shortcomings towards problem solving and resolution is also essential.
As we can see from the latest salvo in this ongoing crisis I’d like to volunteer the following observations;
1.Typically, those involved in political conflict prefer to up-the-ante than explore common ground towards compromise and peaceful solutions, with a misguided belief that their way is the only way.
2. Protagonists (third parties included) generally exercise poor judgement and diplomacy in deciding what is right and acceptable for the larger population as a whole, preferring selfish goals
3. Too many hidden agendas and lack of sincerity, with the belief that ultimately they can get away with it (ie trying to exonerate Thaksin, or trying to influence politics from the outside – e.g Military).
4. Failure to see the high road and low road options down the line (e.g. an immediate election is likely to return a PT govt that will soon draw PAD on to the streets when they effect a free-Thaksin policy).
5. A history of poor law enforcement in Thailand which both sides know they can take advantage of, and similarly a culture of impunity with no accountability, meaning neither the Yellow or Red shirt leaders fear prosecution, due to bad precedents set.
Also key to the most recent turning point (the failed talks), it’s critical to note that although the Democrat govt are guilty of ‘political theft’, they have shown far more effort and willingness to talk reconciliation with some modicum of sincerity (compared to PPP), and compromise on a time scale to dissolution, and the UDD leaders (tacitly dictated by Thaksin) would hear nothing less than ‘immediate’ dissolution. We all know the hidden agendas behind this, but the UDD should be damned by the public for taking such an uncompromising hardline when the state is teetering on the brink of civil war. One has to question their motives, perhaps a civil war is what they want afterall, but that is a whole new discussion.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
40 Dion Peoples // Apr 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm
To Steve – Entry #38:
Yes, I remember reading that, the morning it came out. Thank you for the recollection/find. I want to say again, or imply again: I don’t think anything is changing. Thaksin used the words “tool” – and can it be too obvious to see that the shirt-colored people are tools or pieces in the chess-game? These pieces are even moving from block to block!
Oddly, this again, is maybe one of the only times I agreed with Thaksin, because I sensed the honesty of the utterance. It made a lasting impression!
Thank you, again.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
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.