A few thoughts and questions

Photo from nationmultimedia.com

It's hard for me to comment on the ongoing crises as so many other bloggers do it much more promptly, often I would be simply recycling their own links and comments. That's why I tend to stick to longer, more thoughtful blogs where I can at least add my own considered opinions into the matter.

It seems to be a generally accepted fact in Thailand - even more so than elsewhere - that politics is played out behind the scenes, while the general public just get to see small parts of the script. Whilst there seems to be a large debate concerning excessive police force and the possibility of grenades being used, I see this as - in one sense at least - specious.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor violence and violent people. Yet the fact is this - the protesters knew what was coming. They had been warned and they responded by surrounding themselves with arms and security guards. Regardless of whether the PAD are right or wrong, the fact is they knew that their ideology and demands meant they had to challenge the police and receive a police response. Still, the guy who drove that car at the policemen should be locked up.

A more intriguing question for me lies in the thoughts and actions of General Chamlong. Nobody can doubt he knew he would be arrested but what were the circumstances? Were the police tipped off (if so, by which side?) or did they follow him? Did Chamlong strike a compromise? Did he even want talks with his long term acquaintance Chavilit to be successful? Did he want the PAD response to be violent? Did he expect so much bloodshed?

Thai politics is always a complex, tortuous affair, but it seems to be particularly exacerbated by intrigue right now. Yet throughout the twists and turns, I struggle to disagree with the person who observed that it boils down to a struggle between just two people. Yet even if we can accept such a simplification, my mind echoes with an even greater thought: what are their children thinking?

The last days of the PAD?

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?

The truth about Chamlong

I feel the need to reply to Fearless' recent blog "Class 7 are back again". I have noted that Fearless often uses claims or adjectives that I personally find to be shockingly unfair, in fact I am often surprised that they are not removed for fear of libel action.

However the last blog I felt to be so inaccurate as to be obscene. To that end I felt the need to make some responses, I realise the subject matter will appear dull to most but, in fact, the life of Chamlong Sriamung is anything but dull.



"It is not only weird but plain wrong that we still do not read in Thai history books what the role was of the killers of Class 7, led by the likes of Prem Tinsulonda, Kriangsak and Chamlong."


This implies that the men were old buddies. In fact Chamlong is notably younger than Prem and they did not serve together. Chamlong did not work with Prem until Prem was PM.



"They all had in common that they were just like the old bullies educated by foreigners. In this case the Americans employed them. They gathered intelligence (we all know what Americans mean with gathering intelligence in times of war or looming war) for the Americans in South Vietnam"

Again, Chamlong was not working with Prem at this time. Chamlong served in Laos and Vietnam. He was working for the Thai volunteer division in Vietnam, and Thailand were US allies just as S Korea and Australia were. The Thais were employed more for their knowledge of Jungle warfare than anything else though, and by his own account Chamlong was in an office most of the time .

I'm not aware that Prem even served in Vietnam.


"Chamlong, Prem and Krangsak did so with as most visible and know achievement the mass murder at Thammasat University at 6 October 1976. "
This is the reason I have been moved to write. The events of Thammasat were horrific - people were burned alive, raped and simply beaten to death while people looked on and smiled. To make flippant, unproven comments about such an event is shocking.

Chamlong did partake in right wing rallies before the events of Oct 6th. His military unit did take part in the coup after the event but there is no evidence to show that he or his men had any part in the violence itself. I am not aware of any source that links Prem with the violence either.

I believe that there is more to be learned about these terrible events but people should use evidence, not blind accusations, to make the case.




"Poor people after all will in general show leftist behaviour. Being robbed by the likes of Chamlong from their dignity they want a honest piece of the economic cake" If there is one thing Class 7 cannot stand is democracy and certainly not democracy influenced by the masses that smells like coming from the left side of the political spectrum. "

During his first run for governor of Bangkok, Chamlong received huge support from food stall owners who felt he had spoken up for them. Chamlong won two Bangkok elections by a considerable margin including votes from many of the working lass.

In his first run as governor, Chamlong would actually go out at night and use his salary to buy food for road sweepers and check they were in good health. He did this not once or twice but many times. He did this not in the eye of the media but in private.



"Make no mistake, the Class 7 alumni are killers, they have showed their disrespect for human life over and over again. Negotiating is not their strongest point. They were behind the mass murder in the 70's and in the 90's. If Chamlong and his friends do not get their way, they will deploy their thugs to get their way. "

Again I find this hard to take. It's one thing to express opinions but words like "killers" and "disrespect for human life over and over again" are not things that should be thrown around lightly simply because you disagree with someone. I think it reflects very poorly on the writer.

In the 90's Chamlong was leading a rally against a dictator who clearly was deeply unpopular. Fearless, how can you call Chamlong undemocratic and a hater of the poor and then blame him for leading a rally that clearly received widespread support against a dictator? You then blame him for the army opening fire on them?



"he blew up his Palang Darma party, after winning a stunning 318 seats in parliament in 1988"


Actually they won only fourteen seats.

"half of them were from his Chanti Asoke sect, unimaginable in any developed country) "
Only one of them was from Santi Asoke.



"he was spit out by the people when they learned about his role in the Thammasat massacre. "

Actually he had spoken publicly about '76 when he first ran for governor. By the time he was PDP leader that was an old issue. He retired from politics twice, both times due to internal issues within his party. I've never heard of him being 'spat out' or of '76 as being an issue in his retirement.




I also feel that if making strong accusations we should be careful with our facts.


Yes, the old elite - especially Prem - have a huge amount to answer for and
Chamlong Srimuang is far from perfect and I do not support the PAD in all doing right now but I do support the protest against amending the constitution.

When we consider that the typical politician - especially in Thailand - is someone whose main interests in life are money, money, more money and perhaps some power in the way, ask yourself who would you prefer? More of the same or a guy who sleeps on a straw mat, gives away the gifts and salary he gets to poor people and spends days on end meditating or running around checking the street sweepers are OK?

Give me the second choice every time.

Countdown to a redux?

Nationmultimedia.com has a live update on PAD movements as the group prepare to move towards government house. Key unions have joined the protest and various photos depict lines of riot police making final preparations.

Tensions are high, and amidst all of this Chavalit Yongchaiyudh has helpfully suggested that Samak could resign to ease the situation or a coup could achieve the same.

Of course, in either of these situations we would then need someone to step in and aid “national reconciliation”. Perhaps someone with both military and political experience. Perhaps Mr. Chavalit has someone in mind?

This could get nasty

The PAD announce a plan to "take" government house.

Samak responds by calling an urgent meeting and confirming the PAD will be blocked by police. Chamlong responds by saying the PAD will simply return.

I'm a fan of Chamlong (I was neutral on Sonthi before, but I will never forget him printing the address of Choksak on his web site) and I abhor Samak, but this is plan wrong.

How can a self proclaimed democratic group "take" government house? For what? What democratic mandate do they have? The belief that they are right? That's called dictatorship.

Keep watching.

Score one for the PAD

Source: gettyimages.com

Samak's comment that he would "disperse protesters with force ('if you want to try to resist, go ahead')" was a botch. Chamlong and co know well that the PM is famed for his temper and ill chosen words.

Chamlong responded to the threat by instructing PAD protesters (did I mention they are back on the streets?) to take cameras with them to the protest to capture any use of force for the world to see.

CNN reported it, and the PAD scored some propaganda points.

Samak left it to the equally charming Natthawut Saikua to spin it as "a tactical move, not a real threat"

What is Chamlong thinking?

This was a piece I wrote a while back and I never got around to posting it. As Pundit has pointed out some highly critical articles on the PAD lately, I thought this article was worth throwing into the mix:



I've long singled out Chamlong Srimuang as one of my favoured Thai politicians. Chamlong has a history of taking unusual and often brave stances on issues when his peers have simply chosen to jump ship and/or switch sides. For example, he was a key leader in the protests of 1992 against the military dictatorship of Gen Suchinda, even going as far as a public hunger strike. Chamlong of course, received a reprimand from His Majesty The King for his outspokenness against Suchinda and his power ploys.

Srimuang has a military background but unlike most veterans he has chosen to remain aloof from most military politics and instead focus on his religious group, the Santi Asoke affiliated "Dharma army". The group - labelled as 'strange' or even 'cult like' by some - are representative of Srimuang's values, including his celibacy and his vegetarian diet. In my opinion, Chamlong's religious stance is not cause for concern but, conversely, is actually what makes him better than most other politicos. It enables him to take a tougher stance on corruption and cronyism.

But I must confess, I'm getting concerned. When Chamlong first entered the anti-Thaksin group known as the PAD, (People's Alliance for Democracy) it was an excellent move. At that time the leader Sonthi Lithimongkul had provided funding and important contacts to facilitate the group's activism but supporters were only too aware of some of Sonthi's shortcomings, such as the fact that a far from squeaky clean businessman was protesting against another businessman's dodgy deals.

Cynics had suggested that Sonthi's ego would not allow another leader to share power or media time and that this would limit PAD clout. All that changed when Srimuang stepped forward to become joint leader and announced ( in reference to his former partnership with Thaksin) "Thaksin was my mistake". A politician admitting his mistake? Another reason why this man is different.

But my doubts surfaced after the 2006 coup, when Chamlong accepted a position on the Constitution Drafting Committee for the junta. At the time it seemed that perhaps Chamlong and PAD leaders were looking to protect the interests of Bangkokians in the new constitution, but when PAD personnel including Chamlong slowly lost their voice over time, it did not bode well.

And now things are looking even bleaker. The PAD have announced their plans for possible protests at the return of Thaksin Shiniwatra to Thailand this week, and, sitting at the front row of a PAD press conference was none other than the general himself.

Why is this a bad thing? Simple, it's a tactical calamity. While there can be no doubt that the PPP have already raced to subvert justice and ensure a clean return for Thaksin - who will no doubt renege on his promise to interfere in politics - for the PAD to launch protests now would be suicide and simply play into the hands of their opponents. PPP members will play it up as "undemocratic" and "not helpful to reconciliation". Neutrals or undecideds will view it as trouble causing and, most importantly, the protests will attract far fewer activists than last time. When the PAD last hit the streets, many were indignated by the S[h]in Corp sale by Thaksin. This time the only interest is in seeing what happens after he returns. The PAD will receive far less funding, support and interest than last time and as such it will be seen as far less of a democratic movement and more like one of those infamous "invisible hands" we so often hear politicians talk about.

And this is where Chamlong becomes important. The general is held in high regard by many Bangkokians as integral and reasonably honest and open in his movements. For Chamlong to play along with what promises to be mutated and possibly self defeating protests by the PAD will lead many to question his motives. It will be suggested that he has lost his influence or integrity that won him popular support in the first place, and the PAD will go down with him.

It may be that justice will be subverted, it was grossly twisted for MP Pracha Prasopdee to threaten to "drive PAD members out of the country" in the knowledge that such a move would be unconstitutional, but the fact is that now is not the right time for the PAD to hit the streets again. I hope Chamlong realises this and finds another way to speak for PAD members.