Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Abhisit Faces Foreign Diplomats
2. Suda Rangkupan: Thai Academics Warned for Having an Opinion
3. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand

(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

(photo credit: central_vietnam on Flickr)

The Nation reports:

Bangkok Governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra has vowed to mediate any peace effort between the government and Thaksin Shinawatra if his Democrat Party would allow him to do that.

The only man on the government side who has met Thaksin lately, Sukhumbhand told The Nation in an exclusive interview that reconciliation depends as much on the Thaksin camp as on the Abhisit administration’s efforts.

The keywords are “if his Democrat Party would allow him to do that”. It does not seem likely that this government will enter into talks with a man it brands a terrorist.  It appears that, over the last four or five months, Sukhumbhand has been something of an outcast among the Democrats. When it was revealed that for a while he conducted secret negotiations with key red-shirt figures, virtually no one in his party came out to support what the Bangkok governor was doing.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. Former Democrat Leader: “I Would Give This Government 5 out of 10.”

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

Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban surrounded by reporters (photo credit: Prachatai on Flickr)

When things get tough for you in a debate, accusing your opposite party of being unpatriotic has been a tried and trusted method of ending the conversation – so long as you don’t care how silly that will make you sound.

According to at least three Thai-language sources (see here, here and here), Deputy PM Suthep on Friday had a heated exchange with reporters over the issue of the April-May red-shirt crisis. One particular thorny question was who were responsible for the violence and the deaths. When a reporter asked him what the CRES (the vastly powerful government-military agency set up to oversee the emergency situation) would do about people’s belief that civilians were shot by army troops, Suthep at once pointed to that reporter’s face and angrily asked “Are you Thai?” before quickly disappearing into his office.

As is repeated time and time again, the official version of what transpired during the red-shirt encampment is that all violence was perpetrated by “some” red-shirt protesters and mysterious unaligned paramilitary forces. None of the deaths were caused by the army, who, lest we forget, were authorised to fire live rounds in the protest zone.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Wassana Nanuam Becomes Latest Victim of Thai Media Intimidation
2. Abhisit Too Nice To Lead?
3. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”

If having the armed M-i-B is a consequence of drawing the lesson from last April, then it’s the wrong lesson drawn. It is, in my view, extremely counter-productive politically to have them. Had it not been for the armed M-i-B, the Red movement would have been in a strong position politically [right] now. Instead the gov used of lethal force had not provoked much resistance-protest among people in the middle, largely because of these armed elements the Reds themselves had, while claiming to be ‘peaceful protests’.

[...]
I’m not a pacifist, not even a ‘peace activist’. I still maintain my sypathy for the CPT’s armed struggle of the 1960s-1970s. But the used of arms in [urban] struggle, during political protest that claims ‘non-violence’ as its motto is political suicide. It didn’t really ‘protect’ the rally, in fact it only provoked heavier deployment of lethal force by the gov, which the protesters, however armed, would not be able to counter, and which would [result] – and this is my strongest objection – in lost of lives of innocent demonstrators themselves.

[...]

they are still largely a movement mobilized and organized by (what I’d call) Thaksin-Phua Thai networks. Most of Reds came from the provinces, mobilized throught Phua-Thai MPs or local supporters (“หัวคะแนน”). And the leadership is firmly in the hands of Thaksin-Phua Thai network.

[...]
Thaksin works this way. He has his key supporters competing among themselves (like a CEO has his executives competing) and he would keep them all, especially now that he’s in exile and would gladly accept all the help he can get.

Overall it appears that the reds have paid the price for allowing armed elements to operate in the manner we have seen. Things could have turned out so differently if the reds had exercised more restraints and genuinely stuck to their proclaimed non-violent agenda. But is Somsak’s view representative of all red-shirt supporters? Absolutely not. Some of the UDD fans, including even a number of those in the academia, have been silently advocating and providing justifications for an armed struggle. If the violent wing of the red shirts succeeds in taking over the whole movement, you would not want to imagine where this country is headed…

Also, Somsak’s observation that Thaksin likes to have his subordinates compete with each other is in line with what I have heard from other analysts. The purpose of this is perhaps that Thaksin does not want any of his loyalists to hold too much power either over the reds or the Peua Thai party because an all-powerful figure could easily betray him.

h/t on_off_course on Twitter

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Red Shirts: All About Money and Thaksin?
2. Giles: What Have the Red Shirts Achieved?
3. Dr Prawes: Five Types of Red Shirts

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva (photo credit: Flickr)

Clearly, the conflict over the last couple of months in Thailand has gained considerable attention from the international community. The European Parliament even dedicated a session to the Thai situation and the use of violence was roundly condemned by MEPs. The media-savvy  Thai government obviously knows the importance of international perception, particularly as some of the most prominent news outlets on the planet have portrayed the clashes in a way that is unlikely to please the the Thai state too much…

Eager to win support from foreign governments, the PM called a special press conference on Saturday where diplomats and members of the press were given an opportunity to listen to the ‘official’ side of the story as well as to ask him questions. Video clips of the event are now available on Youtube and the links to them can be found below. There are eight clips in total.

Note that Abhisit only starts answering questions in Clip 3. There are also minor audio problems here and there.

Clip 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-hEoESykk

Clip 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsE6uLQYA0

Clip 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL1GBht7vvY

Clip 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56XUERrfUQI

Clip 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oju0Dt9VjXA

Clip 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptBf5fFVKk4

Clip 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVbj0vOQ9qM

Clip 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8DLa13vOE

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Kasit and Foreign Diplomats
2. Abhisit Too Nice To Lead?
3. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”

[...] But Mr Abhisit, whose term ends in late 2011, said in a speech on May 23rd that his commitment to an election date no longer applies. He would have to wait to see if orderly elections could be held.

Such backsliding, even if founded on a realistic assessment of the risks, is bound to antagonise his opponents. They will take it as proof that he always intended to wriggle out of the offer they rejected. Nor will they set much store by Mr Abhisit’s demand for an independent investigation into the violence. The army, which stands behind Mr Abhisit, has a long history of covering its tracks. That a few red shirts were armed will be used as justification for killing those who were not. Thai media can mostly be relied on to stick to the official narrative. And without an election timetable, all of this will be seen, as a senior Western diplomat puts it, as “window-dressing”.

The rest of the article is well worth reading.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Implications of Abhisit’s ‘Road Map’
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’

(source: here, via this link)

The above photos purportedly show a couple of red leaders, detained and branded as terrorists by the state, looking relaxed and living in reasonably comfortable surroundings a day after they surrendered themselves to the police. They are also seen greeting a group of people,  allegedly well-wishers. Red leaders are said to be detained in the seaside resort town of Hua Hin.

The photos have provoked outcries from those who expected tougher treatment of the red detainees. They also have raised questions. Is this part of some kind of a deal thrashed out beforehand between the reds and the government? Who will take responsibility for putting ‘terrorist’ suspects in such privileged conditions? Does this prove that indeed there are red sympathisers within the police and the military top brass?

Needless to say, this is such an anti-climax.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. The Economist: Collapse of Talks Was ‘Tragic’
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand

The Economist has an article up on its website on 19 May 2010. Key excerpt:

The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has failed to make any headway towards reconciliation. He had already created a terrific obstacle to peace on April 10th, when he hastily sent in troops to clear another protest site; 25 people died but the red shirts remained. But Mr Abhisit may deserve credit for offering a plausible compromise to the red shirts. That the leaders of their United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) failed to grasp this olive branch is tragic. They must bear some responsibility for the lives lost, as do the soldiers who marched into downtown Bangkok.

[...]

As the bullets flew, Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and billionaire telecoms tycoon who encouraged the red shirts after he lost power in 2006 to a military coup, tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his exile, Mr Thaksin denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirts leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin held sway over the splintered, squabbling leadership of the UDD. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets and political network. Though the red-shirt cause outgrew him, his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks.

Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Petition to Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, Regarding the Violence in Thailand
2. “When Abhisit Looks in the Mirror, He Will See Thaksin.”
3. The UN Speaks