The Financial Times (15 July 2010 – readers need to sign-up to get access) has an account of the imprisoned red shirt leaders who are said to “have warned of ‘big, big problems’ if the government pushes ahead with its announced reconciliation plan.” The FT was able to conduct the first interview with Korkaew Pikulthong and Weng Tojirakarn who have been locked up since 19 May 2010. Korkaew is the current Puea Thai Party candidate in the Constitutency 6 by-election in Bangkok.
Both leaders said “they were deeply worried about the future.” Korkaew is the one who suggested big problems lay ahead. Korkaew and Weng “confirmed that the opposition had not been asked for input.” Korkaew said: “I don’t think [the prime minister] has the real intention to reconcile the Thai people…. He has no plan to improve the situation. It is just words, no actions.”
The interview was conducted in circumstances where Weng was said to have had to bend “almost double to shout through the perforated steel mesh, the only way of communicating in the noisy visiting room of Bangkok Remand Prison.”
Korkaew complained about the election situation: “I can’t do anything much, I can’t tell [voters] what is on my mind and have no chance to meet the people to tell them my policies…”.
That’s not quite accurate, for the very generous officials at the Corrections Department have graciously allowed Korkaew to record three 3-minute speeches, one of which the Puea Thai Party may be able to use for campaign purposes while their candidate remains banged-up.
Chatchai Chuiklom, chief of the Corrections Department, is cited in another Bangkok Post story as saying that “Korkaew is not receiving any special treatment because of his candidacy in the by-election. In line with department rules, he is not even allowed to use the internet. Mr Korkaew’s detention under the emer gency decree has been extended twice by the courts. He is appealing to the courts to be released to campaign for the by-election.”
The Post runs the line that the fact that Korkaew is not permitted to campaign is a great advantage because he gets a sympathy vote. On this occasion it quotes former democracy advocate and human rights lawyer turned yellow-shirted anti-Thaksin campaigner Thongbai Thongpao, who claims that a real democrat can get elected from inside jail. It is as if the Post and Thongbai think being in the slammer and being prevented from campaigning is a magical advantage. This is utter nonsense. Even the Post admits that, so far, the “best Puea Thai has managed to do so far is to broadcast a recording of a speech by Mr Korkaew to voters.”
The Post’s headline and some of the items in the story are outrageously biased against Korkaew, while the Post has been highly positive in its coverage of the Democrat Party candidate.
The Puea Thai choice of candidate, however, is undoubtedly meant to be symbolic of the red shirt struggle of democracy versus the anti-democratic Democrat Party-led coalition and its policies.
Democrat candidate Panich Vikitsreth is an acolyte of Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, and Kasit is known to be popular with the yellow-shirted crowd in Bangkok’s middle and upper classes, despite his erratic behavior (or perhaps because of it).
The Democrat Party and its coalition are desperate to win this election. A loss would do incalculable damage to the government. Hence, ignoring the fact that Korkaew is locked up, the Democrat Party is already screaming about “dirty tricks.” The Democrat Party shouts about “vote buying and intimidation hav[ing] already begun…”. PPT recalls that, in the 2007 election, it was mainly army money doing the vote-buying (see also Chang Noi below). In fact, so important is this election that PPT expects the military and the government to be the ones engaged in dirty tricks (in addition to keeping the opposition candidate from campaigning).
For an account of the constituency, see this Chang Noi article: “The previous poll in 2007 was almost a dead heat, so the result this time will signal how popular opinion has been changed by the turmoil of the past two years, and especially by the May events. The implications could be enormous because the government’s parliamentary majority is a lot shakier than it looks.”
Chang Noi concludes: “But if Bangkok 6 swings in the red direction, the medium term impact on Parliament could be critical. MPs in the middle ground will start to worry about how they will be treated by the electorate at a future poll if they are clearly identified with this coalition…. [I]f the Democrats win a solid victory in Bangkok 6, the government will be more secure, and the prospect of a Pheu Thai victory in a future general election less certain. So Bangkok 6 is not just another by-election but a contest that the Democrats and their various backers simply cannot afford to lose. For this reason it may not be at all like a normal poll, and may not be decided by normal means.”
If the Democrat Party wins it will have to be by a massive landslide. Anything less would always be a hollow victory over a candidate locked up, essentially gagged and bound by the government parties
