(photo credit: Ratchaprasong on Flickr)

Chang Noi writes in The Nation about another red-versus-yellow battle in the upcoming Bangkok by-election (to be held on 25 July):

[…] In short, this constituency is a true marginal and so the result will be heavy with meaning.

And that meaning is colour-coded. Panich Wikisreth is not so much a Democrat as a yellow, a protégé of Kasit Piromya, a fanatical yellow-shirt. The New Politics Party was somehow persuaded to exit the contest so that the yellow vote would not be split.

Kokaew Pikulthong is not so much a Pheu Thai member as a red. He took a prominent role in the recent demonstrations, and is now in jail on the ridiculous terrorism charge. Panich has a background in local government and fully qualifies as a member of the establishment, an ammat. Detention confirms Kokaew as a member of the unfree masses, a phrai. The symbolism is exquisite.

Pheu Thai pretty much wrong-footed everyone else when they picked Kokaew to run in this by-election. Earlier they even contemplated choosing the more high-profile Natthawut Saikua but some technicalities stood in the way. Nonetheless, that the party decided to make a prisoner their candidate for a public office at all is quite astonishing in the Thai context. And of course, the symbolism wouldn’t be complete without a reference to Bobby Sands, which was duly made by the (still free) red leader and PT MP Jatuporn Prompan (see here).

If the choice of Kokaew shows how close the red shirts and Pheu Thai are to each other, the PAD’s withdrawal from the contest reveals how close the Democrats still are to the yellow shirts. Despite the occasional verbal spats between the two, it’s pretty much undeniable that — in Bangkok at least — the PAD and the Democrat Party rely on broadly the same support base. As Chang Noi points out in the article, the presence of a candidate from the PAD’s New Politics Party in this by-election would unnecessarily split the anti-Thaksin vote.

One thing is clear: it is reassuring to see the two colours, for once, willing to stay calm and allow people to speak their mind at the ballot box. Here’s hoping that the result will be honoured and respected by all sides.

h/t on_off_course

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Implications of Abhisit’s ‘Road Map’
2. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
3. Kasit and Foreign Diplomats

Thai academics are well-known voices on television and radio as analysts and commentators providing lively debate on politics. But broadcasting freely is no longer a simple and safe matter since the government crackdown against Red Shirt protesters in May.

[...]

“Many professors are reluctant to take sides, often they censor themselves. If I talk about linguistics I have to be [politically] neutral,” said Suda Rangkupan, a lecturer in linguistics at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University.

[...]

Prestigious Chulalongkorn University in the heart of Bangkok sought to distance itself from comments made by its academics. In a letter, the university said they should not refer to their university affiliation when commenting on broadcast media or in interviews.

“We are not allowed to say we are from Chulalongkorn. The university authorities believe people will be convinced by what we say because we have respect in society as academics of this university,” Suda said.

[...]

“(…) In the second week of June I found in my mailbox an official note from the head asking for cooperation from every faculty member not to talk about politics in classes and not to encourage students to join the [red shirt] movement.”

So Chula did not say it would totally forbid its professors from airing political views; they only need to make sure they don’t “refer to their university affiliation” when they do so. Oh sure, the audience aren’t ever going to find out who they are.

Also, Suda Rangkupan is a red shirt supporter. It was not clear from the report whether any similar warnings were sent out to yellow shirt academics.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Audio Clip of Thongchai Winichakul’s Lecture at CMU
2. Wassana Nanuam Becomes Latest Victim of Thai Media Intimidation
3. Launching TumblerBlog.com

Bangkok’s Democracy Monument (photo credit: minikin on Flickr)

The Nation’s Thanong wrote this on Twitter (h/t Bangkok Pundit) :

Don’t be misled by Freedom, Human rights, Democracy, globalisation and other crazy fashionable ideas. They are poisonous and hollow.

And this is what PAD’s Sondhi Limthongkul said on ASTV two months ago :

Sondhi also opines that he does not believe in the majoritarian system because Parliament is a place of evil. He will fight against the one-man-one-vote system because he wants a ‘Dharma-ocracy’ instead. If Mr Abhisit cannot achieve it, there should be a military coup. He adds that no one is bloodthirsty; people are just doing their duties.

Look, people like these two actually deserve some credits for speaking their minds so clearly. As a friend told me a while ago, these openly anti-democratic folks are much, much more tolerable than those confused, delusional politicians and elites who claim to stand for democracy but whose actions suggest otherwise.

Adding to that, ‘democracy’ is a loaded term anyway, and there are plenty of perfectly valid criticisms that can be made against what we perceive as a democratic system of government in today’s world. Is representative democracy the best system of government out there? Do politicians really listen to the people? Do ethics matter in politics? Some of what people like Sondhi say may sound crazy, but one should not be so quick to dismiss all of them as irrelevant or outdated. What Thailand really needs today is a serious, honest debate about the kind of politics we want to see and why. Everyone, at least within reasonable limits, should be free to voice their opinion without any inhibition or threats. I would encourage more of those who share Thanong’s and Sondhi’s views to similarly speak up rather than continue to pretend to love democracy for whatever fuzzy reasons they can think of.

p.s. In Sondhi’s case, why he still remains a co-leader of a movement that calls itself an alliance for “democracy” is beyond me.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “…purely about the fight for democracy and justice”
2. Sondhi Back with a Bang
3. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion

(Source: Full page ad in Bangkok Post, June 1, 1995. Via 2bangkok)

As everyone knows, the mentor and disciple eventually went their separate ways. Thaksin’s tenure as Palang Dharma’s leader was brief but disastrous, as the party failed to replicate the electoral successes it had earlier enjoyed under Chamlong.  Thaksin later co-founded the Thai Rak Thai party and promptly won the 2001 election by a landslide. The rest, as they say, is history.

Meanwhile, Chamlong ran for the Bangkok mayorship in 1996 but lost to Bhichit Rattakul. He subsequently retired from electoral politics but remained semi-active as a political campaigner. In 2006 he joined the PAD and was instrumental in the downfall of Thaksin.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Thaksin ‘Does Not Trust Chavalit’ – PAD Spokesman
2. The ‘Hun Sen Model’: PAD’s Latest Ploy
3. The War of Colours Resumes at the Ballot Box

Sondhi also opines that he does not believe in the majoritarian system because Parliament is a place of evil. He will fight against the one-man-one-vote system because he wants a ‘Dharma-ocracy’ instead. If Mr Abhisit cannot achieve it, there should be a military coup. He adds that no one is bloodthirsty; people are just doing their duties.

นายสนธิแสดงทัศนคติด้วยว่า ไม่เชื่อมั่นในเสียงสวนใหญ่ เพราะรัฐสภาเป็นแหล่งของความชั่วร้าย และเขาจะต่อต้านระบบ one man one vote แต่ต้องการให้ปกครองในระบอบธรรมาธิปไตย หากอภิสิทธิ์ฯ ไม่ทำก็ขอเสนอให้ทหารออกมาปฎิวัติ พร้อมกล่าวด้วยว่าไม่มีใครกระหายเลือด มีแต่หน้าที่ ต้องปฎิบัตตามหน้าที่เท่านั้น

Interestingly, the ASTV founder has also quit as leader of the New Politics Party and is said to be renewing his focus on his media role (see Bangkok Post).

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Think Democracy is Nonsense? Say It out Loud
2. New Politics Party – Part One: 3 Reasons Why It Will Succeed
3. Coups and Elections: Honduras’s Parallels with Thailand

Gen. Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Peua Thai Party chairman (photo credit)

Panthep Puapongphan, PAD spokesman and former close aide to Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, in an interview with Thai Insider (in Thai):

Q: As a former close aide to Big Jiew (Gen Chavalit’s moniker), what do you think about the role he is currently playing?

Panthep: I believe Gen Chavalit is someone who Thaksin still does not trust. [...] Gen Chavalit once declared his intention to serve as a mediator [between the opposing sides in the conflict]. When that became impossible, he said that as he failed to be a mediator, he would instead take side with one camp so that he could deal with the problems in the other camp. Because of his actions and behaviour, Gen Chavalit is never fully trusted by anyone – not by the PAD, not by the Peua Thai Party and not even by Thaksin. It is difficult to read his actions, and I can’t conclusively tell you what he has in mind. It’s been several years since I last met him.

Q : ในฐานะที่เคยทำงานร่วมกับบิ๊กจิ๋ว (พล.อ.ชวลิต ยงใจยุทธ ประธานพรรคเพื่อไทย) มาก่อน มองบทบาทในช่วงนี้ของบิ๊กจิ๋วอย่างไร

A : ผมเชื่อว่าพล.อ.ชวลิต ยงใจยุทธ ก็ยังคงเป็นบุคคลที่คุณทักษิณ (ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี) ไม่ไว้วางใจ [...] พล.อ.ชวลิตก็เคยประกาศว่า เป็นโซ่ข้อกลาง เมื่อเป็นไม่ได้ ผมจำคับคล้ายคับคลาว่า ท่านพูดว่า ถ้าเป็นโซ่ข้อกลางไม่ได้-ก็จะเลือกอยู่ข้างใดข้างหนึ่ง เพื่อไปจัดการปัญหาอีกข้างหนึ่ง เพราะฉะนั้นพล.อ.ชวลิตก็จะถูกระแวง ด้วยท่าทีลักษณะแบบนี้แหละ ระแวงจากทุกฝ่าย ไม่เว้นแม้แต่พันธมิตรฯ ไม่เว้นแม้แต่ในพรรคเพื่อไทยกันเอง ไม่เว้นแม้แต่คุณทักษิณ บทบาทพล.อ.ชวลิตอ่านยากครับ คงจะสรุปไม่ได้ว่าพล.อ.ชวลิตคิดอย่างไร เพราะไม่ได้เจอมาหลายปีแล้ว

Q: So Gen Chavalit’s ambiguous role is the reason Thaksin doesn’t trust him?

Panthep: When I was still working for Gen Chavalit, it was evident – judging from the the tasks he was given by Thaksin – that Thaksin did not trust him. I believe this lack of trust still endures today. Even now, the person rumoured to be Peua Thai’s candidate for the PM job is Chaturon Chaisang (former acting leader of Thai Rak Thai) rather than Gen Chavalit. I think this is quite illuminating.

Q : ที่คุณทักษิณไม่ไว้ใจ เพราะบทบาทของบิ๊กจิ๋วที่ยังคลุมเคลือ

A : ในสมัยที่ผมรู้จักพล.อ.ชวลิต ทำงานร่วมกัน ดูจากตำแหน่งและอำนาจหน้าที่ที่คุณทักษิณเคยมอบหมายให้ มันสะท้อนชัดเจนว่า ไม่มีความไว้วางใจ ผมก็เลยเชื่อว่ามันเป็นทัศนคติที่แม้กระทั่งวันนี้ ก็ยังมีข่าวว่าคนที่เป็นแคนดิเดตนายกฯของพรรคเพื่อไทยในอนาคตก็คือ “จาตุรนต์ ฉายแสง”(อดีตรักษาการหัวหน้าพรรคไทยรักไทย) ไม่ใช่พล.อ.ชวลิต มันก็สะท้อนถึงวิธีคิดอะไรบางอย่างพอสมควร

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. More Red-Shirt Infighting: Jatuporn vs Panlop
2. Meet The ‘Traitors’
3. Somsak Jeamteerasakul on Red Shirts and Thaksin

1. PAD-Democrat split becoming clearer. The PAD are advocating a hardline stance against the reds, calling for a tough ‘enforcement of the law’ on the protesters. Many of their prominent members have come out to criticise Abhisit and some have accused the government of selling out to the red ‘terrorists’ and Thaksin. As the PAD and the Democrats draw their support from largely the same groups of people, the PAD’s public display of hostility toward the Dems is a huge gamble for them. One can imagine that the more radical supporters of the Dems will switch their votes to the PAD’s New Politics Party in the next general election, thus splitting the anti-Thaksin votes and potentially paving the way for an easy win for the Thaksin camp.

2. Is dissolution enough? We all remember that the reds’ initial demand in this round of protest is a house dissolution. From a strategic point of view, house dissolution is a much more meaningful and visible goal than the vague notion of “overthrowing the Amarts” which was the publicised aim of their past rallies. Yet last month it was the reds who broke off negotiations when it appeared that the government was ready to cut its term short and offer an early dissolution. This time the reds again appear not entirely satisfied with Abhisit’s offer to hold elections in November, which makes one wonder whether an early dissolution is what they really want. It would not be a surprise if the reds came up with a new demand tomorrow and continued their encampment at Rajprasong. In 2008, the PAD also suddenly changed their aims from preventing the amendment of the constitution to ousting the PPP-led government.

Of course it could be argued that the situation has changed since the start of the protest. The 10th-April violence was a turning point which, some reds feel, has greatly weakened Abhisit’s position and therefore these people believe the reds should take this opportunity to finish off  the PM once and for all.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
2. Thailand’s Continued Unrest: Implications on the Region
3. Banyan on the Latest Situation

The incident took place early last week, when Puea Thai Party invited the diplomatic community to hear its side of the story.

[...]

The diplomats who visited Ratchaprasong did so with no intention of harming their relations with the government, they only wanted first-hand information from the ground level rather than through the media.

So sensitive was this issue for the government, especially for Minister Kasit, that he called out the dean of the Bangkok diplomatic corps, Philippine Ambassador Antonio Rodriguez, and blasted the actions of the diplomats.

Not happy with calling the dean, Mr Kasit went to Indonesia late last week, where he once again took up the issue and held a press conference.

[...]

The ambassadors’ presence at the protest site was construed as giving legitimacy to people acting illegally by trying to bring down the government through violent means, the dean’s statement quoted Mr Kasit as saying.

And just to demonstrate Kasit’s (and the current government’s) famously short memory:

The fact that the diplomats visited the UDD’s Ratchaprasong protest site is nothing new; I know that many diplomats visited the various protest sites of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (the yellow shirts) but the government at that time did not make any fuss about those visits.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
2. The War of Colours Resumes at the Ballot Box
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

(credit: motifake.com)

Federico Ferrara, an academic from the National University of Singapore and regular commentator on Thai politics, has written a Facebook note speculating whether there will be a civil war in Thailand. He argues that while a full-scale civil war is unlikely, there is real potential for more violence and street fighting. Key excerpt:

Is Thailand at risk of finding itself in this situation? Possibly. The risk, however, is less of a war between civilians (yellow v. red) than it is that of a war between different parts of the Thai state. Most ominously, the violence on April 22 and on April 10 shows that there are deep splits within the security forces (between most of the police and parts of army on one side and the rest of the army on the other). Given the firepower and strength of the two sides, the conflict definitely has the potential to create mass casualties.

That being said, I don’t think that a real “civil war” per the definition is especially likely, in the sense that the two sides of the security forces are unlikely to engage in open warfare with one another. The greater likelihood is that there might be more acts of sabotage by one/both groups but only sporadic and relatively low intensity fighting between one another in riot situations.

I do not know whether the full text has been published elsewhere, so for the time being you can read the rest of his note on Facebook here.

UPDATE: Bangkok Pundit has now got the full text of Ferrara’s note, so head here to read the rest.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. GT200 Dowsing Rod Update: Gen Anupong Bans Further Purchases Pending Investigation
3. When Being Thai Means Believing Suthep

In the 2008 book How East Asians View Democracy by Chu et al., the editors compile results of many ground-level studies in several Asian countries on the topic of people’s attitudes towards democratic values*. Of all the findings reported in the book, the one that particularly strikes me is the respondents’ answers to this question:

“Do you agree or disagree: People with little or no education should have as much say in politics as highly educated people?”

The replies, grouped according to countries, are presented in the table below. The figures represent those who agreed with the above statement.

Yes you read that right. Only 15% of Thai respondents agreed that people with little or no education should have as much say in politics as highly educated people. What is most interesting here is not really the shockingly low figure but the fact that respondents had been chosen using a sampling procedure random enough so as not to create a bias toward either the urbanites or the countryside inhabitants. Most importantly, the Thai part of the study was done way back in 2001, when Thaksin was actually a hero for many in the Bangkok middle-class fed up with the previous Democrat regime. No one was complaining about stupid villagers back then.

So what does this actually mean? I would say that one conclusion we can reasonably draw from this finding is Thais, whether from urban or rural areas, tend to over-value education, believing that people with degrees are the most capable of solving political problems. Readers may still remember the notorious clause in the 1997 Constitution which required MPs to hold at least a Bachelor’s degree. The finding also shows that this distrust of the uneducated is part of the Thai mindset which began long before the Thaksin era, although arguably the rise of Thaksin exacerbated it.

Of course, the way the question was phrased may have been a problem. The “have as much say in politics” part may have been interpreted by respondents as “to have the same amount of input into discussions” or “to be given equal importance in policy-making” rather than something more concrete such as “to have equal political rights” (which the PAD’s 70-30 plan explicitly set out to undermine). Yet it does not change the fact that education (or more specifically, degrees) forms an unreasonably big part of most Thais’ judgement of a person.

Complete a doctorate from abroad, and you are set for a life of joy and easy success  in the Land of Smile.

——————————-

NOTES:

* In the book, the authors reveal that the Thai part of the survey was carried out by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute, which they describe as “an independent, publicly-funded research institute chartered by the Thai Parliament.”

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Giles: What Have the Red Shirts Achieved?
2. “…purely about the fight for democracy and justice”
3. “Thais are Lucky to Have Abhisit as Prime Minister.”