Font size: 
Early that evening the Thai police -- equipped with tear gas and Orwellian black trucks lined up to transport soon-to-be arrested protest ringleaders and followers -- stood by waiting for orders to proceed. Protestors, who had been on the streets for a week, listened as Peoples’ Alliance for Democracy leaders instructed them on how to deal with tear-gas attacks.
There were loud declarations, “We are not afraid to die!” and “This corrupt government has to go!” The prolonged shouting continued by thousands of men and women, gathered not in response to paid political participation but because they were, once again, growing tired of a corrupt, ineffective government.
PAD leaders read several announcements from their affiliates in southern provinces. The first was from the popular tourist resort of Phuket: “If the police force the PAD demonstrators in Bangkok to disperse, we will close the airport!” Immediately after, another airport closure warning was received from Krabi, then another from Songkla, and a fourth from the southern province of Hatyai. Thailand’s political chessboard pieces were on the move, blocking off a knight, preventing a rook from moving.
The Samak government reluctantly let it be known that there would be no dispersing that day. In a surprising interview with the media later, the country’s Interior Minister Chalerm Ubumrung said, “Even if I am assigned to disperse the crowd, I won’t do it.”
One battle was won by the protesters.
An earlier victory had been won the day before with the resignation from the Thai Cabinet of the highly unpopular government spokesman, minister assigned to the prime minister and hard-line Thaksin Shinawatra advocate, Jakrabhop Penkhair. He had worked himself into a corner by several statements in the United States and back in Thailand that have now been interpreted by normally Thaksin-friendly Thai police as lese majeste – insulting the king. If Penkhair is found guilty he could go to prison for three to 15 years. The lese majeste allegations against him had become stronger and stronger over the preceding week. Most of the focus-of-attention credit goes to the PAD.
The government spokesman found his mentor, Thaksin Shinawatra, sending him messages suggesting he resign so former TRT party executives could remain unlinked to earlier accusations that Thaksin was part of a conspiracy to topple the Thai monarchy. After telling the Thai nation he would not resign, Penkhair finally gave in, with the caveat, “I did not do anything wrong.”
It seems that Penkhair is out of the picture. But machinations inside and outside the current Thai government bring to light the subject of a 2002 article in the Far Eastern Economic Review. Dated Jan. 10, it was titled “A Right Royal Headache,” and strongly hinted at conflicts between Thaksin and the royal household. At the time, as prime minister, Thaksin reacted predictably and quickly, denying any involvement in the police actions orchestrated against the two FEER writers.
Thaksin also lashed out at U.S. President George W. Bush when he expressed concern about Thailand’s prosecution of the two writers for lese majeste. He reminded the United States that “Thai sovereignty was Thailand’s business.” After Thaksin was ousted on Sept. 19, 2006 by a pro-royalist military and police junta, further evidence came to light that the FEER article may not have been far off.
Knowing how damaging such evidence could be to his ability to stay out of jail, Thaksin has reportedly been acting behind the scenes – through his proxy People Power Party government – to ensure that allegations against him never get to the prosecution stage. This includes current criminal charges of evading taxes on a US$1.9 billion stock sale, and persistent efforts to have him charged with lese majeste.
The Samak government’s insistence that the 2007 Constitution be amended is part of this effort to keep Thaksin unscathed. With various charter provisions out of the way, Thaksin and other TRT members would be cleared. They could then officially sit in Parliament and Cabinet seats now occupied by family members, friends and crones.
If anything in Thailand is coming to light, it may be that unless there is a genuine revolution in the country’s political infrastructure, rampant corruption and continued exploitation of the country’s oppressed will continue ad infinitum. As well, there are disturbing parallels between Thailand and Burma.
Although Thailand has been cited by no less than The Freedom Forum as being a democracy, the country’s corrupt electoral performance and resultant corrupt elected politicians plundering national resources undermine short and long-term economic and political stability. They are much more of a threat to national security than today’s democracy activists demanding that the government resign.
To these demonstrators – and certainly to top power brokers in Thailand – the current government is a bona fide puppet government manipulated by Thaksin for his interests and by osmosis for the personal benefit of cooperative Cabinet ministers and administration-friendly officials throughout the country.
As obstinate as their Burmese counterpart next door, the Thai government will not budge a centimeter unless forced to do so. Goodwill is in short supply and determination to stay in office is paramount. So the pro-democracy protests persisting in Bangkok will likely continue.
A challenge to democratic reform and protest success is, of course, the unstoppable object meeting an immovable object adage. Just how long can protests last, how much pressure can the Thai government resist, and how much longer will it be before the protests coalesce other anti-government sentiment in the country to bring about another government resignation?
Thailand’s armed forces and police, acting together with its ruling elite, have an established tradition of not allowing genuine fundamental social restructuring that would permit democracy to permanently take root. Completely avoiding discussion of a need to fill Thailand’s democracy vacuum, coup leaders justified their 2006 overthrow of the government by saying, “We did not know what would happen.”
The rationale was that if they stood by while the pro- and anti-Thaksin factions settled things, there was certain to be bloodshed and damage to the country’s interest. But more important was the traditional elite ruling coalition that stood to lose a great deal. This elite employed or allowed to be employed mass violence in 1973, 1976 and 1992, using foreign military hardware, and are easily able to do the same again if things get out of hand. The elite, the government, and all foreign nations trading with Thailand are watching how the kingdom handles the current standoff.
The People’s Alliance for Democracy is planning to continue demonstrations in Bangkok and now in other provinces until Samak Sundaravej resigns from the premiership and various PPP politicians come around to fighting for the interests of the constituents who voted them into office rather than their own.
The PAD has been calling this “Our last struggle,” underscoring that this is the last time that Thailand will put up with the kind of corrupt government that it has put up with in the past. Whether this boast can be made good and the so-called Thaksin system be finally eradicated depends on Thai society itself – so far not standing out for selflessness.
If things in Thailand do revert to normal, they are likely to be back at Square One. That’s a scary prospect for democracy activists inside and outside Thailand, as well as for Thailand’s uninformed, manipulated and nearly destitute masses that remain pawns rather than free masters of their own destiny.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post -- www.thekoratpost.com -- he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
