Comments

Hla Oo, # 2

It is incorrect for you to say the protesters are seemingly leaderless mob from upcountry. Have you ever heard the Three Buddies (Sam Kleu — Veera, Chatuporn, and Nathawut) addressing the crowd in Rajprasong on any given evening ? Each one has his own style — Veera being the most senior (former Democrat politician) began the evening with general topics, Chatuporn (currently an MP) spoke with thundering voice, while Nathawut the last speaker with his jokes and knowledge of the Chinese Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sam Kok) always thrill the crowd who see the evening as uneventful without listening to the three in a row.

As former student activist, Chatuporn admitted he was once a follower of Chamlong and fought together against Suchinda in May 1992. He told the red crowd how he became disappointed with Chamlong who now prefers to side with the military dictatorship.

The Three Buddies may not have Chamlong’s charisma but now that Sae Daeng has become a martyr (died only this morning), people have turned their grief into anger and strength. See this pro-military paper Bkk Post’s report this morning that women refuse to leave Rajprasong —

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/37430/women-elderly-refuse-to-budge

Without the leadership of the Three Buddies and others like Dr. Weng (veteran pro-democracy fighter since when he was a student), and even former singer Arisman, and others, the crowd at Rajprasong would have thrown up the towel and gone home a long time ago.

It’s a moot point whether he abuses power or whether power is abused in his name – whichever way, it happens (and he is compliant).
Maybe we could ask Darunee (Da Torpedo) or Suwicha Thakhor which they think it is?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a ‘where were they then’ on some of the politicians of today?

You can’t paint all the “protesters” with a single brush. In fact, the term it self is misleading. The protesters around the Rajaprasong stage appear to be mostly unarmed and conducting their demonstrations relatively peacefully. Yet some of the people fighting the military in the streets have firearms, inlcuding not only assault rifles but grenades and rocket launchers– photos and videos prove this. Others have slingshots, molotov cocktails, rocks and sticks, which are also dangerous weapons not to be discounted. These are facts. Anyone who continues to describe the Red Shirts as nonviolent or unarmed does so in denial or ignorance of the facts.

The government ordered the military to open up those parts of Bangkok that have been closed down by protesters for 2 months. When the army arrived, it met resistance: barricades, burning tires, M79 grenades, and vehicles that had been commandeered and set alight. Indeed, the army has been shooting at those people who have been fighting them in the streets. The army has not been, to my knowledge, shooting at the more peaceful demonstrators at Rajaprasong. I haven’t seen the army shooting anyone who was listening to a speech, singing a song, clapping a clapper, or other activities that can accurately be termed “demonstration.” They’ve been fighting with people who have left the demonstration sites and provoked violence, using weapons both crude and deadly, and setting huge fires on public roads that have in some cases spread to nearby houses and buildings. Frankly, if this were happening anywhere in the world, the public would expect the state to offer protection. In the tension of the moment, most would feel that the state needs to stop the provocateurs, using deadly force if needed. It’s not a pretty picture, but it is true.

However, it is entirely possible–probable,even–that soldiers have used excessive force and even targeted some of the wrong people. This is a characteristic of all armies everywhere when they face resistance. Such incidents themselves should be exposed and investigated, and those responsible must face justice.

One can recognize the duty of the military to protect the public but still hold it accountable for abuses. Likewise, honest observers can acknowledge the legitimacy of some aspects of the Red Shirt movement, but still recognize its flaws and untruths.

Just because the army has been using force, that doesn’t make all the “protesters” innocent or non-violent. While one might try to dismiss the “men in black” as a fringe movement not under direct control of the UDD Leaders, the fact is that they are acting on behalf of the UDD against the state. Nattawut has tripped himself up by simultaneously disavowing any connection to the fighters and offering to pull them back. Also from the stage, UDD leaders have used violent rhetoric, including putting a bounty on the head of Abhisit and Suthep and threatening violence.

Foreign journalists have been quick to bond with the Red Shirts, whose status as a David-vs-Goliath underdog make for a good story and captivating photos. Plus, one tends not to write in favor of those who are shooting at you, and I’m sure that the army has shot at journalists who have taken cover with the rioters. One example is the blog getting a lot of attention from Nick Nostitz, who wrote very honestly about his harrowing experience escaping from army fire. However, he was with a group of men in a declared “live-fire” zone who took refuge in a petrol station. From the point of view of the army, a group of men–perhaps armed, perhaps not–refusing to leave a combat zone and running into a petrol station represents a really serious threat. No one should be surprised that weapons were fired. And the fact that some of the soldiers were gruff and impolite when they caught up to the group is again another unfortunate reality of soldiers everywhere.

The conflict is, in part, an armed confrontation between the state and armed non-state groups, whose activities are illegal. The state sees its role as protecting the public from lawlessness. The non-state combatants seem to see their role as using force to inflict injury on what they call an illegitimate government, and to force the public to accept their own claims to legitimacy.

These events occur in historical context. Thailand has survived until now with a feudal social system, a deeply skewed economy, a profoundly dysfunctional legal system, sham parliaments, weak leadership, and an overall lack of equality and justice. Many of those who have benefited from the disparity are largely apathetic to the plight of those who have not. Perhaps some are even hostile, afraid of losing their privilege in a more open society. And certainly there are other Thai citizens who will call the demonstrators uneducated or backward. But the existence of these inequities and prejudices in society do not automatically equate to some desire to kill of northeasterners.

This is not a massacre or a genocide. Such talk is exaggerated, polemical, and counterproductive to any reasoned understanding of what is happening.

#1
Arnand was appointed chairman of SahaUnion in 1985. Not after the May 92 incident.

Thita, where’s the evidence? if you have none it is better not to mouth ridiculous comments taken from the state’s propaganda machinery (especially media used as instrument of cultural hegemony); Thailand is far sadder place since September 2006

Whether this is a massacre or not, it is clear that thousands of civilians were wounded. Do you want all of them to be dead, so that you can really call this a massacre?

Never mind. From now on, based on what you said, any government in Thailand, could kill up to what? 50 people may be? in order to stop any unrest thay may happen in the future. Let this go on if you think it is right.

Speaking about the UDD’s rejection of your PM’s proposals, you’d better read my other comment. It’s all about sincerity of Abhisit himself.

Paradoxically, I agree with you that we don’t have enough information to judge the situation, and we never will. How obvious the medias in Thailand have been abused. That’s the reason why you are reading Nick’s article here, but you just can’t accept the truth, just because one man in your mindset, Thaksin.

I don’t agree with Handley’s interpretation of delayed intervention by the King as some kind of ‘problem’. Historically the King has not interfered with the daily business of government. His interventions as head of state have been rare and generally as a measure of last resort when the government has broken down.

I would argue that the King’s legal powers are almost irrelevant compared to his moral authority among Thai people, and that it was largely this moral authority that enabled him to defuse the 1992 crisis rather than any legal power.

The King’s moral authority comes in part from a perception that he is above politics and does not abuse power. Handley would not agree, but the point is that most Thai citizens do. An ‘interventionist’ king would lose the perception of neutrality and would not be able to intervene in this way.

So I doubt that the King will intervene while there is a functioning, democratically elected government in place excercising lawful authority to deal with an ugly mess. If the crackdown results in a massacre and a shattered, disfunctional government that won’t let go, perhaps then, but in the meantime the government has to deal with its own problems.

No one deserve to get shot from the different vision of politics. Moral and open mind – the way of real Thai ppl gonna be…