A question about the ex-CPT: Why are they showing off their revolutionary past so prominently? Is it an attempt to claim some kind of populist legitimacy in order to counter Thaksin’s? Could it influence anyone today?
Also, I thought there were ex-CPT people on both sides of the recent political divide?
Providing a huge incentive to increase farmers’ exposure to a crop from which it is (otherwise)”not possible to make a good living” is plain dumb in economic terms.
As for it “not being sold yet”, well the govt. is evidently hoping that the losses will be less huge if it waits rather than sell at current market prices.
As the internationally respected veteran economist, Dr Ammar Siamwalla, said earlier this year, “If Thaksin wants to gamble on the price of rice, why doesn’t he use his own money?” i.e. It’s unethical to be making risky speculative investments with taxpayers’ money.
Fully agree with the assessments of street politics.
However, it is necessary to be as precise when it comes to the overall opportunity structures. The game-changer is that in 2006 and 2008, yellow street movements were acting in the interest and with the support of key establishment groups. Today, as Nick rightly indicated, they do not have such support, and act against the interests of key groups, including the military and some palace networks. These groups have guarded their interests with deals with Thaksin, and need stability to manage the succession.
This, more than the aptitude and capacity of the various street movements is the real determinant for the potential success or failure to overthrow the government. Without this ideological, political support and the ability to trigger coercion, street movements (even of much larger size) remain impotent.
I just went for another walk through the occupied area. It still looks exactly as I described above. One thing I would add is that the area is quite well provided for in terms of resources. There is at least one large static electricity generator (all the tents appear to be hooked up), large water tanks, mobile toilets, TV areas and so on.
There are also a lot of parked cars and pickup trucks inside the area, mostly with out-of-town plates. Banning car parking was one of the main justifications the BMA used for sealing off the field three years ago.
The parked cars suggest that the area must have been specifically opened to allow them in. The ‘new’ Sanam Luang is completely surrounded by wrought iron fences. It’s impossible to get vehicles in without having the gates opened. There are scores of them in there – it must have taken an extended period of time for them all to enter.
For reference, here is what MCOT said about the ‘new’ Sanam Luang:
“Political activities, overnight stays and trading are prohibited.
With a budget of 180 million baht (US$6 million) for the facelift, the city administration also installed an LCD lighting system with spotlights and 42 closed-circuit televisions to prevent trespassers enter off-limits zones between 10pm and 5am. Only the walkway will be opened 24 hours.
Some 100 city officials will keep a close watch round the clock to ensure no intruders with folding metal fences and automatic gates around the site.
Violators could face jail terms of up 10 years and/or a fine of one million baht (over $1,600), warned Deputy Bangkok Governor Theerachon Mamomaipiboon.” (MCOT online news)
The 200Billion baht figure is an as yet unproven loss and is based on three years.
So no, it’s no 1.8%.
There are no “facts” available for this as yet in terms of full losses because the rice has not yet been sold. It’s all speculation.
Sure, the govt needs to be more transparent but the bandying about of speculation as “fact” has to stop if anyone is to conduct a proper analysis of this matter.
And if, for example, in the unlikely event rice prices suddenly shot up, the speculated loss might turn into a profit.
I also think the policy has other strategic benefits as it improves Thailand’s food security and re-distributes wealth to wider parts of the country rather than accumulating all with Bangkok-based traders – which will develop the economy more evenly.
But the final analysis should be left to the Thai voters – if they’re unhappy with this they can always reject the party that brought it in at the next election.
Those of you looking for a copy of the article on Thailand in this special issue will find that there are still some eprints available at this link. If you have any problems with the link please don’t hesitate to e-mail me directly, if you’d like a copy. The Burma article, for reference, is, at least for now, available here.
AGM: Please pull yourself together enough to read the final lines of Anusaya’s report:
‘It seems that when it comes to street protests in Bangkok, even relatively small ones, Mr Thaksin is always somehow invoked.’
And in the paragraph before she also says:
‘Many protesters pointed to the behind-the-scenes role of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in what they find to be most objectionable about his sister’s government.’
it is not wrong if you always see only the post-2006 period here?
this clamor for Thaksin as the devil par excellence?
it is not simply the same scam they have always pulled through in order to prevent democracy in the last 75 years?
The game is so dirty and screaming sky
only now it does not seem to work so well …… it really seems to give a lot of the “Sawang daa” – but which seem to be more likely to find on the red side ……
I can not just take the last 7 years – and hide the history …..
Thaksin is really evil – or not is the root where completely different?
everything … for king, religion and country … soooo Thainess …. a Dr. Tull even has found a private Thai gene
over 60 years of a monarchy so incredible to Promote – in a democracy that never could be a – whenever it germinated were – same suffocated again
Such groups, while often highly visible and distinctive, have backers and reasons for attending rallies:
1. They are “invited” through official channels and have to go.
2. They are paid.
3. They really believe in the so-called cause and willingly attend.
4. The affiliation with a group logo, such as the mask or red star hats or yellow shirts or red, makes a point but more so for the group making it rather than outsiders. The group thinks it knows what it wants, or its leadership does. And that’s where the nefarious motivations kick in. The role of the state – guided via traditionalist/military influences – is largely left untouched in most research on Thailand’s political/social problems. Too many blame things on the government or corruption when those things are all in passing but it is the state/state agencies which remain.
Nitirat is playing a far more vital role in reforming Thai society that most recognize, I fear. While it is pursuing its agenda, it needs the support of a brave resolute few who will take defamation and lese majeste cases and the gambit of laws surrounding them into the courts and getting the issues up front. That will, of course, produce yet another gang of masked activists and leading socialites who apologize for the way things are, and the usual hateful denunciations we have come to expect from Thai society, unfortunately.
Yes, I fully understand the constraints of the TV format, and you are probably absolutely right that I should be less harsh, you are by no means the first person to have told me so.
But even taking into account the fact that the ChannelNews Asia report had to be brief and that TV news scripts always tend to be rather superficial and soundbitey, I find it difficult to see anything worthwhile about the story. You say that “there’s only so much Anasuya can cover” but the main problem with her report is not that it (inevitably) had to leave out a lot of important information, it’s that most of the information she put in was at best misleading and at worst totally wrong.
Is it accurate to say the Guy Fawkes protest movement is “new”? No. As Nick says, ultranationalist groups were using the V For Vendetta masks as far back as 2011 at some rallies, and also online, particularly on Facebook among members of groups like Social Sanction and (more recently) Dislike Yingluck For Concentration Citizen. It’s true that we’ve seen a more organised attempt over the past month or so to refocus anti-Shinawatra activism on the streets and online around the symbolism of the Fawkes mask and the Arab Spring. Faced with Yingluck’s unexpected success, and the fading potency of Preah Vihear and alleged threats to the monarchy as issues that can reliably rally mass support, and enraged by Yingluck’s speech on Thai democracy in Ulan Bator on April 29, the royalists are rebranding their movement as a “people’s uprising” against the alleged tyranny and corruption of the Shinawatra clan and their cronies. But the reality, of course, is entirely different, this is far from being some kind of spontaneous anarchic youth uprising drawing on mass opposition to Yingluck and Thaksin (which does not exist at present). It is a conservative, royalist, staunchly establishment movement seeking to undermine a democratically elected government that continues to have relatively high approval ratings. The “Thai Spring” movement was launched by Vasit Dejkunjorn and Kaewsun Atibodhi, both leading veteran ultra-royalists with explicit links to palace circles (an obvious clue to the real character of these “new” movements) and was well covered by Bangkok Pundit (click here to read) and Saksith Saiyasombut (click here to read) among others. Those interested in the subject may also want to take a look at a Facebook debate I had with one of the backers of the Guy Fawkes movement (click here to read).
So the Guy Fawkes and Thai Spring protests are not “new”, they are the latest incarnation of the establishment royalist bloc virulently opposed to Thaksin Shinawatra, which began assembling more than a decade ago and has been openly battling him since 2005. As Ajarn Somsak says (#1.1.1.1.1) these are the same people, broadly speaking, who were Yellow Shirts and then multi-coloured shirts and then supported the Pitak Siam “freeze democracy” debacle. Old wine in new bottles.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the latest rebranding is that they no longer appear to think that ostentatiously proclaiming themselves to be defenders of the monarchy is an effective way of maximising their popular appeal, and indeed they are deliberately trying to conceal their royalism and intimate links to the old elite, and instead are trying to portray themselves as populist renegades who are even more anti-establishment and pro-democracy than the Red Shirts. This really is extraordinary: for decades all sides in Thai political conflicts have gone out of their way to be seen as loyal to the palace and aligned with the king, and suddenly the opposite is the case – the Red Shirts scarcely bother hiding their anti-monarchism, and now even the royalists are pretending not to be royalist. In a particularly surreal twist, ably discussed in Nick’s article, one of the only groups to have made a show of proclaiming its loyalty to Bhumibol over the past month was – of all people – the Communists.
Was Anasuya correct to suggest the main agenda of the Guy Fawkes Group is to pressure “the Thai government … to be more transparent about many of its policies, especially when it comes to massive spending projects”. Absolutely not. This is an anti-Shinawatra movement, pure and simple, and it has little interest in fighting corruption and encouraging good governance in Thailand, beyond the usefulness of these issues as sticks with which to beat the government. Where were they when the Democrat Party (which many of them clearly support) sealed a Faustian pact with the Friends of Newin, who were given the three most lucrative ministries to plunder between 2008 and 2011, and did so with great alacrity? Why do they appear unconcerned with the epic corruption in the military, the dubious deals of the BMA, and so on? It’s because their overriding objective is not combating corruption, but rather sabotaging the Shinawatras.
Is it accurate to say that “unlike the red or yellow shirt protesters before them, they are not rallying around one key demand – instead they voice a variety of views”? No, that is extremely misleading also. Whatever variety of views they may voice, they are a single-issue movement determined to destroy Thaksin’s considerable influence over Thai politics, and they will jump on any bandwagon and voice support for any issue they think will help that goal.
The Red Shirt movement encompasses a far more diverse range of views, because despite being mostly pro-Thaksin it includes a relatively small but influential minority of people who dislike and distrust him, and it also encompasses the full spectrum of opinions about the monarchy, from staunch royalists (a dwindling number admittedly) to outright republicans (probably the clear majority now). Such diversity of opinion is not found in the Yellow movement, which the Guy Fawkes protesters are part of, however much they try to pretend otherwise.
Now, obviously a brief ChannelNews Asia TV script is not going to include all of the detail and nuance outlined above, and that’s fine. But it should not have said the Guy Fawkes protesters in Thailand are a new movement, very different from the Yellows, mainly focused on transparency of government expenditure, but with diverse aims and encompassing a range of views, because all of that is just flat wrong. It implies similarities with Occupy movements elsewhere in the world, but these are illusory: the Guy Fawkes protesters, for all their “V For Vendetta” rebel swagger, believe in order, hierarchy, and respect for authority. They are not against power being in the hands of a small privileged elite, they just object to the fact that a new elite allied to Thaksin is emerging that may wrench power from the hands of the old elite which they represent. They are not battling the privilege and power of the “one percent” – on the contrary, they are Thailand’s “one percent”, plus a significant chunk of the middle class which also fears the growing political clout of the poor.
What she should have said – and could have said in well under two minutes, with plenty of time to spare for soundbites from protesters – is that the appearance of the Guy Fawkes group is the latest development in an epic political conflict between old establishment royalists and Thaksin Shinawatra that has been in full swing since 2005. It should have explicitly noted that the Yingluck administration was democratically elected and continues to enjoy fairly strong support, but that establishment royalists remain determined to one again overturn the wishes of Thai voters. It should have noted the links of the Guy Fawkes and Thai Spring movements to previous efforts to undermine Thai democracy, and explained that underneath their faux-radical symbolism and superficial focus on corruption, their main aim was still unchanged from the earliest Yellow Shirt rallies of 2005 – banishing Thaksin Shinawatra from Thai politics. And it should have mentioned, at least in passing, the fact that Thailand’s conflict is not merely over the influence exerted by Thaksin Shinawatra, it is also a conflict over the appropriate balance of power between the palace, military, judiciary and parliament. To write about a royalist protest movement (albeit one that strives to downplay its royalism) without even mentioning the monarchy at all is just not good enough.
You are a much more polite and charming person than me, Nich, and that’s great, but I have to say your defence of Anasuya’s story, while understandable, has been less than convincing. I was going to ask you what you had learned from the story, but JohnW has already done so. You made a valiant effort to give a credible answer, but let’s be honest, it wasn’t exactly an ringing endorsement. What you say you found worthwhile about the ChannelNews Asia report were the vox pops from protesters, in which Thais at the rally spoke directly to camera. By implication, you didn’t learn anything at all from Anasuya’s script, and her purported insights into the Guy Fawkes movement. That’s just as well, because as I am sure you must be aware, anything you had learned from her input would have been wrong.
Should I be more tactful about saying all of this? Yes, I’m sure I should. Nick Nostitz is a remarkably tactful and conciliatory chap, unlike me, and I’m probably far more irate about the injustice of his situation and the failings of the mainstream media in Thailand than he is. But it really does anger and depress me that Nick struggles to earn a very meagre income as a freelancer despite the superb work he does, while Anasuya has a very comfortable existence and considerable journalistic resources at her disposal, yet the best she can do is produce a profoundly misleading story that was so bad the kindest thing you could think of to say about it was that you learned something from the Thai-language soundbites. Sigh.
Do you have any idea where Anusaya got this from? “… calling for the Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration to be more open about its expenditures”
The only banners I’ve seen either a) call for a military intervention b) call Yingluck a ‘slut / moron’ or c) declare loyalty to the monarchy.
Thailand’s rice subsidy scheme mainly serves as a transfer of wealth. It is not possible to earn a good living from growing rice on a small scale. Increased productivity or higher quality rice will not solve this. Thailand needs to get people out of the agricultural sector into more productive sectors.
I agree that the current scheme is very expensive. To put it in perspective, 200 billion baht is roughly equivalent to 1.8% of Thailand’s GDP. EU spent тВм39 billion in 2010 on direct subsidies and an additional тВм57 billion on agricultural development. In total this adds up to 0.6% of its GDP (this may account for 40% EU’s budget but EU’s budget is tiny).
Well, Khun Ansuya is certainly wrong when she writes: “Unlike the red or yellow shirt protesters before them, they are not rallying around one key demand –instead they voice a variety of views.” Who say they are not “like..yellow shirts”? They WERE yellow shirts (or later so-called multi-colored shirts) and they do indeed “rally around one key demand” i.e. “get rid of ‘Thaksin regime’ (Thaksin himself and his alleged ‘puppet’ sister PM)
Thanks for the reference. I’d only take issue with “… beggars, touts, hookers, hawkers and parked cars…” There certainly were hookers and parked cars – this is Thailand, after all. As for beggars, touts and hawkers – if they were there, they certainly weren’t intrusive. I’ve spent a lot of time in and around Sanam Luang, and I was always impressed by the homeless who camped there: I never felt threatened or harassed by them.
Since the ‘cleanup’ there has been an increase in hawkers and con artists. The bird food sellers are very aggressive – especially with tourists, and there are lots of ‘guides’ claiming that the royal palace is closed.
The poor people who used to be there have moved to the nearby Atsadang canal, and they’re still as cheerful and friendly as ever. I gather the BMA is now planning to chase them out of there as well.
Fair question. For mine, it shows how the protestors talk and think — particularly the second two who are speaking in Thai. Gives an impression of who they are and where they’re coming from. I especially liked the indication that they consider themselves “ta sawang”. I learned something.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
A question about the ex-CPT: Why are they showing off their revolutionary past so prominently? Is it an attempt to claim some kind of populist legitimacy in order to counter Thaksin’s? Could it influence anyone today?
Also, I thought there were ex-CPT people on both sides of the recent political divide?
Coups in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
Srithanonchai – any such articles help those leading the poor, the poor themselves, and THEIR regions, to develop strategies to break free.
What’s brewing in Thailand?
Same old ‘head in the sand’ attitude: It doesn’t take a genius to see the rice pledging scheme was always going to be unsustainable.
But hey, who cares when it’s main purpose is to boost the govt’s own political capital at the expense of prudent economic management?
Bottom Line: We taxpayers will end up paying for its huge losses.
What’s brewing in Thailand?
Providing a huge incentive to increase farmers’ exposure to a crop from which it is (otherwise)”not possible to make a good living” is plain dumb in economic terms.
As for it “not being sold yet”, well the govt. is evidently hoping that the losses will be less huge if it waits rather than sell at current market prices.
As the internationally respected veteran economist, Dr Ammar Siamwalla, said earlier this year, “If Thaksin wants to gamble on the price of rice, why doesn’t he use his own money?” i.e. It’s unethical to be making risky speculative investments with taxpayers’ money.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Fully agree with the assessments of street politics.
However, it is necessary to be as precise when it comes to the overall opportunity structures. The game-changer is that in 2006 and 2008, yellow street movements were acting in the interest and with the support of key establishment groups. Today, as Nick rightly indicated, they do not have such support, and act against the interests of key groups, including the military and some palace networks. These groups have guarded their interests with deals with Thaksin, and need stability to manage the succession.
This, more than the aptitude and capacity of the various street movements is the real determinant for the potential success or failure to overthrow the government. Without this ideological, political support and the ability to trigger coercion, street movements (even of much larger size) remain impotent.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
I just went for another walk through the occupied area. It still looks exactly as I described above. One thing I would add is that the area is quite well provided for in terms of resources. There is at least one large static electricity generator (all the tents appear to be hooked up), large water tanks, mobile toilets, TV areas and so on.
There are also a lot of parked cars and pickup trucks inside the area, mostly with out-of-town plates. Banning car parking was one of the main justifications the BMA used for sealing off the field three years ago.
The parked cars suggest that the area must have been specifically opened to allow them in. The ‘new’ Sanam Luang is completely surrounded by wrought iron fences. It’s impossible to get vehicles in without having the gates opened. There are scores of them in there – it must have taken an extended period of time for them all to enter.
For reference, here is what MCOT said about the ‘new’ Sanam Luang:
“Political activities, overnight stays and trading are prohibited.
With a budget of 180 million baht (US$6 million) for the facelift, the city administration also installed an LCD lighting system with spotlights and 42 closed-circuit televisions to prevent trespassers enter off-limits zones between 10pm and 5am. Only the walkway will be opened 24 hours.
Some 100 city officials will keep a close watch round the clock to ensure no intruders with folding metal fences and automatic gates around the site.
Violators could face jail terms of up 10 years and/or a fine of one million baht (over $1,600), warned Deputy Bangkok Governor Theerachon Mamomaipiboon.” (MCOT online news)
What’s brewing in Thailand?
Chris L
The 200Billion baht figure is an as yet unproven loss and is based on three years.
So no, it’s no 1.8%.
There are no “facts” available for this as yet in terms of full losses because the rice has not yet been sold. It’s all speculation.
Sure, the govt needs to be more transparent but the bandying about of speculation as “fact” has to stop if anyone is to conduct a proper analysis of this matter.
And if, for example, in the unlikely event rice prices suddenly shot up, the speculated loss might turn into a profit.
I also think the policy has other strategic benefits as it improves Thailand’s food security and re-distributes wealth to wider parts of the country rather than accumulating all with Bangkok-based traders – which will develop the economy more evenly.
But the final analysis should be left to the Thai voters – if they’re unhappy with this they can always reject the party that brought it in at the next election.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Can someone please explain to me what’s up with these communists protesting against Thaksin? What specifically were they calling for?
I almost feel the English local papers are intentionally not reporting anything that would make their cause look bad . . .
Coups in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
Hi everyone,
Those of you looking for a copy of the article on Thailand in this special issue will find that there are still some eprints available at this link. If you have any problems with the link please don’t hesitate to e-mail me directly, if you’d like a copy. The Burma article, for reference, is, at least for now, available here.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
just quickly change clothes
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=208478165970241&set=a.192876234197101.1073741826.192846754200049&type=1&theater
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Political Prisoners Thailand post on this weekend’s Guy Fawkes masks protest:
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/yellow-green-multicolor-no-color-white-masks/
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
AGM: Please pull yourself together enough to read the final lines of Anusaya’s report:
‘It seems that when it comes to street protests in Bangkok, even relatively small ones, Mr Thaksin is always somehow invoked.’
And in the paragraph before she also says:
‘Many protesters pointed to the behind-the-scenes role of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in what they find to be most objectionable about his sister’s government.’
Anything misleading about these 2 paragraphs?
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
it is not wrong if you always see only the post-2006 period here?
this clamor for Thaksin as the devil par excellence?
it is not simply the same scam they have always pulled through in order to prevent democracy in the last 75 years?
The game is so dirty and screaming sky
only now it does not seem to work so well …… it really seems to give a lot of the “Sawang daa” – but which seem to be more likely to find on the red side ……
I can not just take the last 7 years – and hide the history …..
Thaksin is really evil – or not is the root where completely different?
everything … for king, religion and country … soooo Thainess …. a Dr. Tull even has found a private Thai gene
over 60 years of a monarchy so incredible to Promote – in a democracy that never could be a – whenever it germinated were – same suffocated again
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Such groups, while often highly visible and distinctive, have backers and reasons for attending rallies:
1. They are “invited” through official channels and have to go.
2. They are paid.
3. They really believe in the so-called cause and willingly attend.
4. The affiliation with a group logo, such as the mask or red star hats or yellow shirts or red, makes a point but more so for the group making it rather than outsiders. The group thinks it knows what it wants, or its leadership does. And that’s where the nefarious motivations kick in. The role of the state – guided via traditionalist/military influences – is largely left untouched in most research on Thailand’s political/social problems. Too many blame things on the government or corruption when those things are all in passing but it is the state/state agencies which remain.
Nitirat is playing a far more vital role in reforming Thai society that most recognize, I fear. While it is pursuing its agenda, it needs the support of a brave resolute few who will take defamation and lese majeste cases and the gambit of laws surrounding them into the courts and getting the issues up front. That will, of course, produce yet another gang of masked activists and leading socialites who apologize for the way things are, and the usual hateful denunciations we have come to expect from Thai society, unfortunately.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Nich #1.1
Yes, I fully understand the constraints of the TV format, and you are probably absolutely right that I should be less harsh, you are by no means the first person to have told me so.
But even taking into account the fact that the ChannelNews Asia report had to be brief and that TV news scripts always tend to be rather superficial and soundbitey, I find it difficult to see anything worthwhile about the story. You say that “there’s only so much Anasuya can cover” but the main problem with her report is not that it (inevitably) had to leave out a lot of important information, it’s that most of the information she put in was at best misleading and at worst totally wrong.
Is it accurate to say the Guy Fawkes protest movement is “new”? No. As Nick says, ultranationalist groups were using the V For Vendetta masks as far back as 2011 at some rallies, and also online, particularly on Facebook among members of groups like Social Sanction and (more recently) Dislike Yingluck For Concentration Citizen. It’s true that we’ve seen a more organised attempt over the past month or so to refocus anti-Shinawatra activism on the streets and online around the symbolism of the Fawkes mask and the Arab Spring. Faced with Yingluck’s unexpected success, and the fading potency of Preah Vihear and alleged threats to the monarchy as issues that can reliably rally mass support, and enraged by Yingluck’s speech on Thai democracy in Ulan Bator on April 29, the royalists are rebranding their movement as a “people’s uprising” against the alleged tyranny and corruption of the Shinawatra clan and their cronies. But the reality, of course, is entirely different, this is far from being some kind of spontaneous anarchic youth uprising drawing on mass opposition to Yingluck and Thaksin (which does not exist at present). It is a conservative, royalist, staunchly establishment movement seeking to undermine a democratically elected government that continues to have relatively high approval ratings. The “Thai Spring” movement was launched by Vasit Dejkunjorn and Kaewsun Atibodhi, both leading veteran ultra-royalists with explicit links to palace circles (an obvious clue to the real character of these “new” movements) and was well covered by Bangkok Pundit (click here to read) and Saksith Saiyasombut (click here to read) among others. Those interested in the subject may also want to take a look at a Facebook debate I had with one of the backers of the Guy Fawkes movement (click here to read).
So the Guy Fawkes and Thai Spring protests are not “new”, they are the latest incarnation of the establishment royalist bloc virulently opposed to Thaksin Shinawatra, which began assembling more than a decade ago and has been openly battling him since 2005. As Ajarn Somsak says (#1.1.1.1.1) these are the same people, broadly speaking, who were Yellow Shirts and then multi-coloured shirts and then supported the Pitak Siam “freeze democracy” debacle. Old wine in new bottles.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the latest rebranding is that they no longer appear to think that ostentatiously proclaiming themselves to be defenders of the monarchy is an effective way of maximising their popular appeal, and indeed they are deliberately trying to conceal their royalism and intimate links to the old elite, and instead are trying to portray themselves as populist renegades who are even more anti-establishment and pro-democracy than the Red Shirts. This really is extraordinary: for decades all sides in Thai political conflicts have gone out of their way to be seen as loyal to the palace and aligned with the king, and suddenly the opposite is the case – the Red Shirts scarcely bother hiding their anti-monarchism, and now even the royalists are pretending not to be royalist. In a particularly surreal twist, ably discussed in Nick’s article, one of the only groups to have made a show of proclaiming its loyalty to Bhumibol over the past month was – of all people – the Communists.
Was Anasuya correct to suggest the main agenda of the Guy Fawkes Group is to pressure “the Thai government … to be more transparent about many of its policies, especially when it comes to massive spending projects”. Absolutely not. This is an anti-Shinawatra movement, pure and simple, and it has little interest in fighting corruption and encouraging good governance in Thailand, beyond the usefulness of these issues as sticks with which to beat the government. Where were they when the Democrat Party (which many of them clearly support) sealed a Faustian pact with the Friends of Newin, who were given the three most lucrative ministries to plunder between 2008 and 2011, and did so with great alacrity? Why do they appear unconcerned with the epic corruption in the military, the dubious deals of the BMA, and so on? It’s because their overriding objective is not combating corruption, but rather sabotaging the Shinawatras.
Is it accurate to say that “unlike the red or yellow shirt protesters before them, they are not rallying around one key demand – instead they voice a variety of views”? No, that is extremely misleading also. Whatever variety of views they may voice, they are a single-issue movement determined to destroy Thaksin’s considerable influence over Thai politics, and they will jump on any bandwagon and voice support for any issue they think will help that goal.
The Red Shirt movement encompasses a far more diverse range of views, because despite being mostly pro-Thaksin it includes a relatively small but influential minority of people who dislike and distrust him, and it also encompasses the full spectrum of opinions about the monarchy, from staunch royalists (a dwindling number admittedly) to outright republicans (probably the clear majority now). Such diversity of opinion is not found in the Yellow movement, which the Guy Fawkes protesters are part of, however much they try to pretend otherwise.
Now, obviously a brief ChannelNews Asia TV script is not going to include all of the detail and nuance outlined above, and that’s fine. But it should not have said the Guy Fawkes protesters in Thailand are a new movement, very different from the Yellows, mainly focused on transparency of government expenditure, but with diverse aims and encompassing a range of views, because all of that is just flat wrong. It implies similarities with Occupy movements elsewhere in the world, but these are illusory: the Guy Fawkes protesters, for all their “V For Vendetta” rebel swagger, believe in order, hierarchy, and respect for authority. They are not against power being in the hands of a small privileged elite, they just object to the fact that a new elite allied to Thaksin is emerging that may wrench power from the hands of the old elite which they represent. They are not battling the privilege and power of the “one percent” – on the contrary, they are Thailand’s “one percent”, plus a significant chunk of the middle class which also fears the growing political clout of the poor.
What she should have said – and could have said in well under two minutes, with plenty of time to spare for soundbites from protesters – is that the appearance of the Guy Fawkes group is the latest development in an epic political conflict between old establishment royalists and Thaksin Shinawatra that has been in full swing since 2005. It should have explicitly noted that the Yingluck administration was democratically elected and continues to enjoy fairly strong support, but that establishment royalists remain determined to one again overturn the wishes of Thai voters. It should have noted the links of the Guy Fawkes and Thai Spring movements to previous efforts to undermine Thai democracy, and explained that underneath their faux-radical symbolism and superficial focus on corruption, their main aim was still unchanged from the earliest Yellow Shirt rallies of 2005 – banishing Thaksin Shinawatra from Thai politics. And it should have mentioned, at least in passing, the fact that Thailand’s conflict is not merely over the influence exerted by Thaksin Shinawatra, it is also a conflict over the appropriate balance of power between the palace, military, judiciary and parliament. To write about a royalist protest movement (albeit one that strives to downplay its royalism) without even mentioning the monarchy at all is just not good enough.
You are a much more polite and charming person than me, Nich, and that’s great, but I have to say your defence of Anasuya’s story, while understandable, has been less than convincing. I was going to ask you what you had learned from the story, but JohnW has already done so. You made a valiant effort to give a credible answer, but let’s be honest, it wasn’t exactly an ringing endorsement. What you say you found worthwhile about the ChannelNews Asia report were the vox pops from protesters, in which Thais at the rally spoke directly to camera. By implication, you didn’t learn anything at all from Anasuya’s script, and her purported insights into the Guy Fawkes movement. That’s just as well, because as I am sure you must be aware, anything you had learned from her input would have been wrong.
Should I be more tactful about saying all of this? Yes, I’m sure I should. Nick Nostitz is a remarkably tactful and conciliatory chap, unlike me, and I’m probably far more irate about the injustice of his situation and the failings of the mainstream media in Thailand than he is. But it really does anger and depress me that Nick struggles to earn a very meagre income as a freelancer despite the superb work he does, while Anasuya has a very comfortable existence and considerable journalistic resources at her disposal, yet the best she can do is produce a profoundly misleading story that was so bad the kindest thing you could think of to say about it was that you learned something from the Thai-language soundbites. Sigh.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Do you have any idea where Anusaya got this from? “… calling for the Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration to be more open about its expenditures”
The only banners I’ve seen either a) call for a military intervention b) call Yingluck a ‘slut / moron’ or c) declare loyalty to the monarchy.
What’s brewing in Thailand?
Thailand’s rice subsidy scheme mainly serves as a transfer of wealth. It is not possible to earn a good living from growing rice on a small scale. Increased productivity or higher quality rice will not solve this. Thailand needs to get people out of the agricultural sector into more productive sectors.
I agree that the current scheme is very expensive. To put it in perspective, 200 billion baht is roughly equivalent to 1.8% of Thailand’s GDP. EU spent тВм39 billion in 2010 on direct subsidies and an additional тВм57 billion on agricultural development. In total this adds up to 0.6% of its GDP (this may account for 40% EU’s budget but EU’s budget is tiny).
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Well, Khun Ansuya is certainly wrong when she writes: “Unlike the red or yellow shirt protesters before them, they are not rallying around one key demand –instead they voice a variety of views.” Who say they are not “like..yellow shirts”? They WERE yellow shirts (or later so-called multi-colored shirts) and they do indeed “rally around one key demand” i.e. “get rid of ‘Thaksin regime’ (Thaksin himself and his alleged ‘puppet’ sister PM)
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Sam,
Thanks for the reference. I’d only take issue with “… beggars, touts, hookers, hawkers and parked cars…” There certainly were hookers and parked cars – this is Thailand, after all. As for beggars, touts and hawkers – if they were there, they certainly weren’t intrusive. I’ve spent a lot of time in and around Sanam Luang, and I was always impressed by the homeless who camped there: I never felt threatened or harassed by them.
Since the ‘cleanup’ there has been an increase in hawkers and con artists. The bird food sellers are very aggressive – especially with tourists, and there are lots of ‘guides’ claiming that the royal palace is closed.
The poor people who used to be there have moved to the nearby Atsadang canal, and they’re still as cheerful and friendly as ever. I gather the BMA is now planning to chase them out of there as well.
White masks, red masks and royalist communists
Thanks John,
Fair question. For mine, it shows how the protestors talk and think — particularly the second two who are speaking in Thai. Gives an impression of who they are and where they’re coming from. I especially liked the indication that they consider themselves “ta sawang”. I learned something.
Best wishes to all,
Nich