Much of the international press and media has romanticized the events in Bangkok as some kind of grassroots democracy at work, in which the poor rural masses have come to Bangkok to confront the cruel ruling classes. This is utter nonsense. Thailand is being torn apart by gangs of hoodlums masquerading as democrats and pretending they are embarked on the pure quest for fresh elections. Mobs of “red shirts,” proclaiming allegiance to exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, are in command of a glitzy hotel and shopping district close to Bangkok’s main financial area.

[...]

There is big money backing the red shirts, with large numbers of demonstrators being paid 1,000 baht a day, five times the agricultural wage, and their leaders having recourse to the comforts of five-star hotels. The red shirts have also shown good planning and organization and the support of modern weaponry. Some Red leaders have said they are going to wage “war” against the government.

[...]

If it is war against the government, this is not democracy. It means that the only democracy the demonstrators will accept is theirs. A BBC correspondent in Bangkok claimed that Thaksin had “empowered the poor.” Other Western commentators have painted Thaksin as some democratic hero turfed out of office by military thugs acting on behalf of Thailand’s elite vested interests.

[...]

Any civilized government would find it impossible to accept what the red shirts are doing. The mobs move in convoys, randomly blocking all traffic, and storm Parliament, threatening to lynch the prime minister, then go to his house and throw excrement and threaten to kill him. When authorities move in to disperse them, they fire rocket grenades and snipers use laser guidance to pick off officers.

There is a tendency for some international observers to overromanticise the red shirts, as Rafferty points out in the article. We need to have a realistic assessment of the reds, just like how we look at the government and other groups.

Yet, there is also a danger that the government will exploit the negative press surrounding the reds and instigate another round of crackdown. As the latest negotiation between the reds and the government has failed (see here and here), another violent clash looks more likely day by day. And who knows what will happen this time…

By the way, if the red shirts have been paid to join the rally, why does the government not pay them to go home? Mob dispersal would never have been so simple.

Note: Please look for the Japan Times article yourself. As it touches on certain sensitive subjects I cannot provide the link.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Dr Prawes: Five Types of Red Shirts
2. Giles: What Have the Red Shirts Achieved?
3. Somsak Jeamteerasakul on Red Shirts and Thaksin

Dr Prawes Wasi (photo credit: Bangkokbiznews)

Note: This blog post is partly based on Dr Prawes’s article (in Thai, available here) and also on a response to his article by “Nak Pratya Chai Kob” (also in Thai, available here).

Dr Prawes Wasi, a generally well-respected Thai public intellectual, recently argued that we need to see the red shirts as a loose alliance of people with different aims and aspirations. He points out that the reds can be categorised into five groups:

1. Thaksin himself: Prawes speculates that Thaksin seeks to avoid prison sentences and punishment, wants his money back, and wishes to return to power. Thaksin is said to be the main emotional and monetary driving force behind the red shirts since organising such a massive political movement certainly costs a lot of money.

2. Those hired by Thaksin: According to Prawes, it is no surprise that there are people willing to offer their service to a wealthy guy like Thaksin.

3. The “idealist” reds: Here, Prawes refers to the leftists who want a fundamental structural change in Thai society in their quest for fairness. These people, he argues, still bear the pain of the 6 October massacre and need to be rehabilitated. They need to be offered an opportunity to cooperate with the nation as part of our development efforts.

4. The violent extremists: Prawes notes that these are a small minority and their operation needs to be curbed.

5. The poor, both from the countryside and the inner cities, and their sympathisers: The poor, Prawes points out, are typically held in low esteem. They are perpetually trapped in poverty as a result of structural unfairness. Accordingly, when Thaksin came along and offered something to them, they fell in love with him even though his policies did not tackle the true structural problems. Thaksin is their vehicle for their battle. The word prai (commoner) strongly resonates with them. The poor, lacking in opportunities and feeling they are looked down upon, will only continue to join this movement in ever greater numbers. Prawes further argues that unless we reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, one day the poor may murder the rich. Thaksin would not be involved in such a circumstance, however. He is, after all, one of the wealthiest individuals around.

—

My thoughts? One thing is clear: Prawes does not see any true democracy lovers in the reds.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Japan Times on the Red Shirts
2. Giles: What Have the Red Shirts Achieved?
3. Red Shirts: All About Money and Thaksin?

During the weekend, Prof Borwornsak Uwanno made a visit to the UK to speak at a seminar at SOAS (organised by the Thai Embassy) as well as at the Samaggi Academic Conference the following day. New Mandala has already put up a report on the SOAS event. Copies of a booklet written by him were also distributed at both events.

The booklet, titled “Lèse-Majesté: A Distinctive Character of Thai democracy amid the Global Democratic Movement”, is basically a collection of Borwornsak’s earlier essays in defence of the LM law in Thailand. The essays first appeared in the Bangkok Post a while back (see here, here, and here) and there seems to be no alterations made in the booklet version. Nonetheless, for those of you who have not read them yet, you can get a general idea of his argument from the extract below.

Conclusion and Recommendations

As a Thai and a lawyer, this author believes that the three groups of insult and defamation laws in Thailand, including the lese majeste law, are consistent not only with the principles of international law and constitutional monarchy, as well as with the principle of criminology on criminalisation of acts in accordance with democratic principles. They also place limitations on freedom of expression which reflect the ethical and cultural norms that most Thais adhere to, and which are not inconsistent with the human rights principles enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[...]

As the Buddhist law of impermanence states, everything, the lese majeste offence included, arises, exists and perishes, as the society’s ethical and cultural norms evolve also in accordance with this same Buddhist law. Nothing is permanent. “The only permanent thing is impermanence.”

- Extracted from Borwornsak Uwanno (2009). Lèse-Majesté: A Distinctive Character of Thai democracy amid the Global Democratic Movement, Nontaburi: King Prajadhipok’s Institute.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Thailand Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Council
2. Only in Thailand: When Your Job Title Means Nothing
3. It’s Thaksin’s Fault!

The Royal Household Bureau issued its 35th announcement saying His Majesty The King is now well. The bureau said His Majesty is recuperating as he undergoes physical therapy at Siriraj Hospital.

Thais should be celebrating the coming New Year in better spirits now.

No related posts.

Khamnoon Sitthisaman, ASTV Manager columnist and non-elected senator, gave a brief history of how Hun Sen came to power, and concluded it with the term ‘Hun Sen model’: getting support from a foreign military power [Vietnam], supporting an ‘unprepared’ royal to become king, having the new king appoint him a royal, using a communist organizing system to control a political party and the people to take power under the guise of western democracy (elections), centralizing political and economic powers and opening the country for western capitalists to exploit its natural resources.

[...]

He speculated that Thaksin would intensify his political campaign from December this year to early next year, when Parliament is closed.  The red shirts would also intensify their movement, besieging or even seizing Government House.  Thaksin would probably take a ‘long march’ from Cambodia, enveloped by a red-shirted mass. All this would be supported by the ‘underground operations’ of a certain retired general [another classmate of Gen Chamlong, Gen Panlop Pinmanee, who has switched sides from the PAD to support Thaksin].

The fact that PAD-aligned senator Khamnoon himself went on the stage to speak about this is remarkable in itself. As Thammasat academic Somsak Jeamteerasakul points out in this Thai-language forum post, Khamnoon is not a public speaker. He usually prefers to remain behind the scene, writing articles for ASTV-Manager and developing key strategies for the PAD. Very rarely does he address the crowd at a PAD rally. By making an appearance himself, it is highly probable that Khamnoon, along with other PAD leaders, intends to play up this theory and use it to attack Thaksin for a prolonged period from now on. Given the sensitivities surrounding the succession issue, this strategy of the PAD could lead to some very nasty things.

Note 1: The PAD has tried to spread a few Thaksin-related conspiracy theories before. Probably the best known of them is the so-called Finland Plot.

Note 2: A video clip of Khamnoon speaking at the rally and a complete Thai-language transcript of his speech are available here.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. The King’s Health: King ‘Is Well’
2. Red Siam Latest: Mainstream Reds “Lack Coherent Objective”
3. Wassana Nanuam Becomes Latest Victim of Thai Media Intimidation

Now, in the run up to the planned red-shirt rally on 19th September, the ex-communist Surachai has come out to criticise the mainstream reds, in particular the leadership of the ‘Truth Today’ trio (Veera Musikgapong, Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Prompan).

Thai-language news sites ASTV-Manager and Krungthep Turakij report that Surachai questioned the logic of the reds’ upcoming rally to mark the three-year anniversary of the 2006 coup. Having been informed that the reds were planning to once again march toward the residence of Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda, he asked why it was necessary to do so. “If the aim of going there is only to verbally abuse Prem, it is simply pointless”, he said. He also urged the red leadership to develop a more coherent strategy and provide the movement with a clearer objective.

Surachai proposed that instead of organising a purely anger-fuelled rally against Prem, it would be more beneficial for the reds to hold an ‘educational’ event, informing the public of the people behind the coup and putting forward suggestions of how to cure the country of its ongoing political malaise.

He also warned that, as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will be out of the country on the day of the rally, it would be difficult to hold him accountable in case any violence occurred. With this in mind, the reds would need to be extra careful during its demonstration and try their best to avoid triggering chaos.

One last notable thing is Surachai’s remark that the Red Siam group are strong advocates of the monarchy while maintaining that the main goal of the group is to eliminate the ‘Amarts’ (influential aristocrats and bureaucrats). In this sense, the Red Siam is not too different from the mainstream UDD which has always insisted that its campaign is limited to attacking Prem and his cronies.

Is everything Surachai said true, or was he hiding something due to the public nature of this appearance before the press?

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Split in the Reds: When Differences Become Intolerable *UPDATE*
2. Somsak Jeamteerasakul on Red Shirts and Thaksin
3. Launching TumblerBlog.com

Exiled UDD leader and former cabinet minister Jakrapob Penkair was reported to have broken away from the main red-shirt movement in order to form a splinter group called “Red Siam”. Joining him was Surachai Sae-Dan (Danwattananusorn), another red-shirt keyman known for his strong Communist beliefs. The reason behind the split appears to be ideological differences, particularly over the red shirts’ recent petition for a royal pardon for Thaksin Shinawatra.

The split has not been amicable. In his recent article in a pro-red newspaper, Jakrapob launched a stinging criticism of the red-shirt leadership, especially the ‘Truth Today’ trio (Veera Musikgapong,  Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Prompan) who played a key role in getting the petition signed and submitted. Jatuporn responded by reminding Jakrapob that when the former minister was facing lese-majesté charges, it was the red shirts who stood beside him through thick and thin.

Looking back, the potential of a split in the red shirts was always evident. While both the Thai and foreign media tend to portray the reds as a chiefly pro-Thaksin movement, such a portrayal ignores the considerable diversity in their views and fails to explain the true motives of some of their leaders. True, what people see in the news most often about red-shirt rallies are the phone-ins of Thaksin, but to say that the reds are purely about Thaksin is akin to saying that the PAD is only about Abhisit.

Rather than seeing the reds as a movement for Thaksin, it is probably more accurate to think of them as a movement against the ‘Amarts’ (roughly translated as the aristocrats and the influential unelected bureaucrats) who the red-shirts say have crippled the development of Thai democracy. But the complexity does not stop there. For one thing, the reds have not been able to give a clear and consistent answer to the question “Just who exactly are the Amarts?” While mainstream UDD leaders continue to insist that they are fighting for a system of constitutional monarchy and thus their campaign is limited to attacking Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda and his cronies, certain factions within the reds have quietly been prepared to go beyond that.

The royal pardon campaign, then, was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. When the campaign was first launched, it triggered a flurry of furious debates and arguments among the reds on various Internet discussion boards (see ThaiENews for some examples in Thai). As Prachatai (in Thai) reports, some red-shirt leaders also voiced their reservations about the petition. The aforementioned Surachai Sae-Dan even revealed that he had refused to attend any meeting with other leaders since the start of the royal pardon campaign. While the leaders attempted to maintain the image of harmony in their ranks, it has become increasingly difficult for people like Surachai to remain with the mainstream reds.

Jakrapob’s defection is perhaps a tad more surprising. The former TV presenter was one of the original leaders of the UDD during its struggle against the 2006-07 military junta and has often lavished praises on Thaksin in rallies and interviews. But one could later see the signs of his radical politics when he gave a speech about Thailand’s ‘patronage system’ to the audience in an event at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand. That speech later led to charges of lese-majesté being filed against him. After he fled overseas following the April riot, he even hinted at starting an underground insurgency against the Amarts. Other red leaders swiftly distanced themselves from him.

A related question is: Does exiled academic Giles Ji Ungpakorn have any role to play in this split? Incidentally, “Red Siam”, the name of Jakrapob’s splinter group, is the same as the name of a manifesto Giles wrote after fleeing to the UK. Giles himself says he does not support Thaksin, and he was comparatively late in joining the reds.

(UPDATE: Giles wrote here that he has no connection with the Red Siam group.)

All in all, the implications of this split are not yet clear. It remains to be seen how Thaksin will react and whether the Red Siam group will be able to draw large crowds in their rallies and activities. One thing that is clear, however, is that the reds are not all mindless, stupid followers and cronies of Thaksin as the media paints them to be.

p.s. I will be away from home for the next 10 days. Apologies in advance for the lack of updates.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Red Siam Latest: Mainstream Reds “Lack Coherent Objective”
2. Giles: What Have the Red Shirts Achieved?
3. Dr Prawes: Five Types of Red Shirts