I guess most people have been in a situation where they hear an old friend or colleague has done something terrible/crazy/surprising and asked themselves "What was he thinking?".
I've never met Chamlong, but my wife has. Yet the same "What is he thinking?" moment has been bugging me this week following the actions of Chamlong and the PAD.
In his book "Chamlong Sriamuang and the New Thai Politics" Duncan McCargo argues that a study Chamlong's biography exposes a man who may have high ethical standards, but performs most of his political manoeuvres strictly in self interest.
I can't find any other reason for the fascist actions of the PAD this week. Storming a TV station and taking hostages and invading government house.
I've always argued that Chamlong's anti-corruption ethic makes his own self interests unimportant, he was good for Thai politics. But the actions of the PAD this week are based around a simple logic - if you don't like the democratically elected government, use force and intimidation to make them either resign or spark a coup. That is the undoubted thought process involved.
In the last few hours the courts have issued arrest warrants for he PAD leaders. Sonthi is considered the overall leader, he will need all his cash and business contacts just to avoid the death penalty. But Sonthi and the other leaders do not share the respect and (in some circles) public admiration Chamlong has.
Sriamuang has recently inferred that at his age, he doesn't have to worry about what happens to him. As I type this, the PAD leaders sit in the rain outside government house, daring the police to wade through the crowds and arrest them. It's a scene eerily reminiscent of 1992, but the crucial difference is that last time around, the majority of right thinking people supported Chamlong, this time around, they don't. What is he thinking?
No comments:
Post a Comment