Monarchies in perspective

We are sure that many readers will have noted the recent reports regarding then honorary president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund, King Juan Carlos of Spain fell over and injured himself while on an elephant shoot in Botswana.

At Digital Journal it is stated that WWF is supposedly an international environmental organization that advocates, amongst other things, the protection of the African elephant. That their honorary president was blasting away at elephants on safari, got some attention, and the king quickly resigned his position.

The same report says that this hunting mishap is no surprise as the king “has been hunting all of his life, it is hardly a secret. In fact in 2006, it emerged the Royal had allegedly shot a domestic bear fed honey-laced vodka, to slow its reactions during a hunting trip in Russia.”

But there is much more to this story, with some remarkable links to Thailand, both in terms of similarities and differences. We thanks the regular reader who sent us in search of this material.

On the basic story, while there are now hundreds of articles available, the one at the Christian Science Monitor is a reasonable place to begin.

The story tells us that in “the first public apology by a Spanish monarch in history,” King Juan Carlos apologized for “taking a lavish hunting vacation amid sharp austerity cuts” at home. His apology amounted to 11 words.

Obviously, royals in many places live in the lap of luxury and ideas about austerity seem far removed from their lives, even if they do occasionally speak of the need for others to be more careful (as in Spain) or to make do (as in Thailand). They still enjoy their wealth, supplemented by public funds.

In the case of the safari for Juan Carlos, apparently he was being feted by a wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman. The pictures of the king posing with a dead elephant are everywhere (see below).

In Spain, there have been a series of recent scandals that are said to “have tested popular faith in the monarchy, seen as a unifier in post-Franco Spain.” That too sounds a bit like the “eye-opening” events seen in Thailand in recent years, from political meddling and coup plotting to lavish spending and locking people up for “insulting” the monarchy.

The royal apology only came after “several days of intense public pressure,” something unimaginable in Thailand because of the draconian lese majeste law.

At least Spain doesn’t regularly use such a draconian law to suppress commentary, even though it continues to exist there:

The uproar triggered extremely rare criticism that mushroomed quickly, from discreet comments by political leaders to popular chatter on Twitter and condemnation on talk shows. Several politicians openly called for his the king’s abdication – a demand not made in nearly a century, and one that is rocking the pillars of an already shaky establishment.

Not in Thailand…. Lese majeste does have a function in suppressing this kind of criticism.

Like the king in Thailand, “King Juan Carlos is much more than a figurehead monarch. He is credited with being a unifying presence in Spain and is, to most, a guarantor of Spanish national identity.” Very familiar royalist nonsense seen in most places where this political anachronism persists against the tide of history.

Royalists in Spain argue that the criticism has allowed the king to realize that he has made a “big mistake.” Such criticism is unimaginable in Thailand.

Juan Carlos is Spain’s first king since the monarchy was restored in 1978 after the death of Fascist dictator Franco, who had personally selected Juan Carlos for the job.  Spaniards abolished the monarchy in 1931, after voting in a republican government.

Juan Carlos is “credited with saving the country’s fledgling democracy in 1981, when he went on television and condemned an attempted military coup and privately demanded that those involved give up.” While the king in Thailand is often credited with being some kind of democrat, he has never criticized a coup, except when it seemed to be against his selected prime ministers, as in 1977 and 1981.

Even if Spaniards have usually been rather coy in criticizing the monarchy, ” the image of the monarchy has been consistently diminished for years. Spaniards gave the monarchy an unsatisfactory grade in the most recent poll, taken in October 2011…”. Again, that would be unthinkable in Thailand. And, that poll came prior to recent poor publicity.

Those scandals include:

the king’s grandson was injured lightly in his foot in a shooting accident, and his parents could be legally liable for allowing a child to use a firearm. There is also an ongoing trial against the king’s son-in-law, who is accused of embezzling millions of euros in public funds, a particularly egregious thing amid the country’s extreme economic hardship.

On the shooting of the prince earlier in April, the Daily Mail Online reported:

The 13-year-old grandson of Spain’s King Juan Carlos is recovering after accidentally shooting himself in the foot with a shotgun….Felipe Juan Froilan was doing target practice outside the family home north of Madrid, when he misfired into his foot as he walked…. Under Spanish law, it is illegal for children under 14 to possess or discharge firearms…. A palace official declined to comment on the infraction.

Most injuries to Thai royals are carefully kept secrets and even speculating on royal health has led to lese majeste investigations.

But then the report goes on to mention an earlier gun accident when the royal family was in exile in Portugal and that has haunted the Spanish royal family:

In March 1956, Juan Carlos was handling a gun that accidentally went off and killed his 14-year-old younger brother Alfonso…. The king, then 18, was reported to have been completely shocked and devastated and was said to have told family and friends that he ‘felt responsible.’

That event will rings bells for those with an interest in Thailand’s royal history. But first, some background from Wikipedia.

It tells us that on Maundy Thursday in March 1956 the brothers Alfonso and Juan Carlos were at their parents’ home when the former “died in a gun accident.” As Wikipedia explains, the Spanish Embassy in Portugal issued a communiqué, which sounds remarkably similar to the same kind of event at Bangkok’s Grand Palace a decade earlier:

Whilst His Highness the Infante Alfonso was cleaning a revolver last evening with his brother, a shot was fired hitting his forehead and killing him in a few minutes. The accident took place at 20.30 hours, after the Infante’s return from the Maundy Thursday religious service, during which he had received Holy Communion.

The Wikipedia account continues:

Very quickly, however, rumours appeared in newspapers that the gun had actually been held by Alfonso’s brother Juan Carlos at the moment the shot was fired. Josefina Carolo, dressmaker to Alfonso’s mother, said that Juan Carlos playfully pointed the pistol at Alfonso and pulled the trigger, unaware that the pistol was loaded. Bernardo Arnoso, a Portuguese friend of Juan Carlos, also said that Juan Carlos fired the pistol not knowing that it was loaded, and adding that the bullet ricocheted off a wall hitting Alfonso in the face. Helena Matheopoulos, a Greek author who spoke with Alfonso’s sister Pilar, said that Alfonso had been out of the room and when he returned and pushed the door open, the door knocked Juan Carlos in the arm causing him to fire the pistol.

Unlike, Thailand where royal secrecy and decades of cover up has led to speculation and rumor, Wikipedia states:

Most historians agree nowadays that the pistol was fired by Juan Carlos by accident. After the accident, the father, Don Juan de Borbón, sent Juan Carlos back to Spain immediately after the funeral and, because of pain and anger against Juan Carlos, did not talk to him for a while.

There have been various stories about the origins of the pistol. The most frequently repeated is that it was a gift to Alfonso from General Franco.

Such statements are, like so much else associated with a monarchy that thrives on a lack of transparency and scrutiny, unthinkable for Thailand. For Thailand, the most recent account of the shooting in 1946, which includes some interesting new documents, can be found at Zenjournalist (and our pics are mostly from that site).

The story of the tribulations of the Spanish monarchy, re-created by military Fascists and claimed to be democratic and enjoying the fruits of monarchy, seems to fit Thailand’s circumstances  in ways that are  uncanny.

Updated: For ultra-royalists, Nitirat is very scary

It seems that, after its second big meeting, the Nitirat group of lawyers and supporters are looking very, very scary for royalists. At The Nation, the royalist attacks are detailed.

It also seems that the idea of “proposing charter amendments that would require a new head of state to be sworn in and vow to abide by and protect the constitution before assuming his post” is just too much for royalists.

Revealingly, Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha demands that “the police should look into the matter and determine if there was any legal violation.”

PPT can well understand his position. After all, he is a coup planner and maker, so he has a record of not abiding by or protecting the constitution. Rather, he trashes them, trampling under his large military boot.

Prayuth seems more concerned that this suggestion by Nitirat is demeaning to the monarchy rather than “illegal.”  He says:

I have always called for people to help protect the monarchy. Everybody should lend a hand, particularly the mass media…. People should follow the law. If what they are doing is not against the law, it is fine.

Even so, his point is clear. We can only wonder why he hasn’t said the same thing about People’s Alliance for Democracy’s (probably illegal) call for a military coup to protect the monarchy. Well, no, we don’t really wonder.

Komsan Phokong is a law lecturer at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and a supporter of the Sayam Prachapiwat group, making him an ultra-royalist and yellow shirt. He has decided that the best way to attack Nitirat is to yell that they are red shirt, Thaksin-supporting, Thaksin-funded republicans. He doesn’t use all those words but it is what he means.

Komsan said the Nitirat proposal “appeared to be intended to reduce the status of the monarchy.” Komsan said Nitirat “seemed to campaign in a manner that complemented the ideas and desires of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his red-shirt supporters.”

In an innovation – for us at PPT anyway – an ultra-royalist has used the 1932 revolution that overthrew the absolute monarchy as a negative, horrible event. Komsan says:

This proposal is aimed at changing the political system. It is similar to that of the Khanarat, which staged a coup in 1932″ to overthrow absolute monarchy….

We understand that some ultra-royalists want to turn back the clock to an absolute monarchy. We understand that much of the history of political struggles over constitutions going right back to 1932 have been efforts to roll back change. However, using the Khana Ratsadorn (People’s Party) as a denigration is new to us.

Komsan then demanded that Nitirat

disclose the source of funds used in its active campaign for constitutional amendments and changes to Article 112 of the Penal Code involving lese majeste.

The inference is that Thaksin is funding them. Konsum says that his call “is for the sake of transparency so that people can be assured the campaign has no hidden agenda…”. We don’t have a problem with transparency, but PPT doesn’t recall Sayam Prachpiwat revealing its funding. Nor to we recall Komsan calling for PAD to reveal its big-time funders.

Jumping on the fear train, Senator Kamnoon Sidhisamarn, an ASTV/Manager journalist appointed to the Senate by the military junta’s constitutional rules and yellow shirt fanatic, agreed that “politicians” were the root of all evil and Nitirat’s proposal would lead to “parliamentary dictatorship.” That’s PAD-speak for opposing free elections.

Kamnoon then rambled on about how the king was a really good guy, unlike all the nasty politicians of the last 60 years. In other words, an absolute monarchy would be so much better.

There can’t be many countries where political debate is circling on the question of monarchy versus democracy. Nitirat seem to be scaring the hell out of the ultra-royalists by proposing a version of constitutional monarchy.

Update: Over at New Mandala there is a related post on the way the extremist yellow shirts view Nitirat and the “threat” posed by its modest proposals. In part, the vehemence of threats and name-calling is reflective of the deep malaise amongst yellow shirts who are unable to get electoral support for a ridiculously antiquated political ideology. Related, it is also reflective of a long-held suspicion of political change inculcated by military and palace ideological campaigns over the past five decades. Combined, this is potentially fertile ground for dangerous and destabilizing fascist ideas.

PAD says “anything but elections”!

While the People’s Alliance for Democracy doesn’t have the same large numbers of people mobilized now as it did in 2005 and 2008, it continues to have enough support, including from elements in the military and elite to maintain a presence on the streets and in the media. At present it seems that PAD is again promoting its non-democratic form of conservatism. PPT mentioned Sondhi Limthongkul’s position in a recent post.

More recently, lawyer Praphan Khoonmee, who participated in the popular uprising on 14 October 1973 and joined the Communist Party after 6 October 1976 has spoken to PAD’s followers urging a system of government akin to Fascism. He is reported in Prachatai to have “contested general elections twice in 2005 and 2007 under the Democrat Party, but failed. He was appointed a member of the National Legislative Assembly after the 2006 coup. Currently, he is an executive member of the New Politics Party, and a host of an ASTV weekly programme.” He was even appointed an official adviser by the current Democrat Party-led government in 2009.

His elite and royalist connections are clear from his time as “a close aide of Squadron Leader Prasong Soonsiri.” Prasong is a well-known figure, a staunch royalist, anti-Thaksin activist, constitution drafter, behind-the-scenes PAD adviser, former security master and former appointed minister.

On 21 March, Praphan told the assembled yellow shirts that he “will accept any means to let good people govern the country, saying that it is their right to have a better political system.” He claims that, since 1932,  “Thailand had been more ruined under elected governments than under military juntas and appointed governments.” This is all reactionary bilge.

He lists a bunch of military dictators and royal appointed leaders to back his claims, including Sanya Thammasak, Anand Panyarachun, General Prem Tinsulanonda and General Surayud Chulanont. He claims that all of these leaders – a long list, including People’s Party revolutionaries – produced less corruption than the evil, elected prime minister – Thaksin Shinawatra.

PPT has no idea how Praphan does his sums, but accuracy is not important for his is a call for an authoritarian, preferably military, regime. Dictators, he says, produced better results, and Thailand “flourished better under appointed PMs…”.

The former communist lauds all of the corrupt and dictatorial rulers he formerly hated, all in the name of opposing Thaksin and the idea that voters can make a reasonable decision on who should govern them.

Not surprisingly, he gives special attention to Privy Council President Prem. He says “elected politicians were in awe of military power” meaning that Prem could make Thailand a “country was full of happiness, without the need of elections.” Of course, there were elections and attempted coup, but Prem retained the support of the palace.

The elected politicians, including Abhisit Vejjajiva, he says, were all hopeless and corrupt: “This is the system of elections! A sham democracy!” He says “anybody” would be better than “the current politicians.” He adds: “And if you ask what system we want if we don’t want elections, we will accept any system which does not let these scoundrels govern. Any system which lets good people govern will do. We’re not seeking a system which will threaten the nation, religion and king.”

He calls on soldiers, police, and government officials to “stand up for the good of the country.”

PAD seem back to their undemocratic best. In our earlier post, we asked: Who is supporting PAD and keeping it on the streets? We also noted that Sondhi and his retired military backers were steering a course to the extreme right. Praphan confirms that. Will this have traction? Will the military buy in?

With major updates: Absurdly banning everything red

The Bangkok Post tells us that the creeping Fascism of the Abhisit Vejjajiva regime has reached yet another level of absurd political repression.

The “Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation has banned souvenirs and other materials considered offensive to the monarchy and pandering to disunity which were made available at the red shirt rally in Bangkok on Friday.” Yes, dangerous souvenirs are banned even if they are free!

CRES “issued a number of orders to prohibit the sale or free distribution of rally materials including shirts, photographs, illustrations and printed texts apparently aimed at sparking disunity in society.” Of course the definition of what is unacceptable is left with the uniformed fascists who serve the military-civilian authoritarian regime who could “confiscate those materials and take action against violations of the ban.”

The arch-royalist army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha signed the order that would put “offenders” in jail for two years and a fine of 40,000 baht. As a good royalist and fascist, Prayuth was apparently “upset when he came across T-shirts and sandals carrying photos mocking important figures.”

How shocking! Mocking the higher ups! Ban the lot! PPT is at a loss as to how to describe the revulsion at seeing such authoritarian measures seemingly uncontested by so-called human rights groups.

Special Branch Police reckon about 7,000 people turned up for the red shirt rally – see the Bangkok Post photo here -looks like an under-estimate, as usual.

Truth is under threat in Thailand by the alliance of the military with royalists in a regime of repression that is now only challenged by the red shirts.

Update 1: More details here.

Update 2: The theater of the authoritarian absurd in Abhisit’s Thailand continues, with yet another “dangerous” flip-flop seller arrested. Prachatai tells us that “Police arrested a flip-flop vendor at the red shirt rally at Ratchaprasong intersection, and confiscated about 100 pairs of flip-flops bearing the PM’s face… at 9 pm on 19 Nov…”.

Kornkamon Pornhit “was selling flip-flops printed with the face of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong intersection, and confiscated about 100 pairs.  Pol Maj Gen Ronnasilp Pusara, Metropolitan Police commander, said that the police made the arrest to check whether the flip-flops were considered items prohibited by the announcement of the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) or not. However, he said that the vendor might probably be fined only for obstructing the footpath.”

Obstructing the footpath!? Seriously? Dear General, take a walk down any street in Bangkok and see where you and your men make much of their illegal wealth by organizing vendors on footpaths.

More seriously, this is yet one more example of the extremist measures being taken to “protect” the royalist hegemony. Earlier posts on similar arrests here and here.

Update 3: The Bangkok Post reports that Abhisit is re-thinking the idea of the CRES banning “items, which include T-shirts and sandals bearing images of prominent people.” Why? Not because the whole idea is absurd but because it might lead to more “disunity.”

Abhisit reveals: “I understand the CRES issued the order because it was concerned about acts which could offend the monarchy…”. In fact, the arrests appear related to his picture. Abhisit calls for arrests and vigilence and says this can be done without the bans.

Remarkably, because they are usually silent on human rights violation by this regime, “Human Rights commissioner Niran Pitakwatchara has also criticised the CRES order. He said it was improper because it breached people’s rights to freedom of speech and did not conform with democracy.”

In fact, “What democracy?” might be the appropriate question. See the Bangkok Post’s editorial, where it also confuses Abhisit’s military-civilian regime of royalists with a democracy. It says: “The ban is problematic for several reasons. To begin with, by what authority does the military, in this case through the CRES, have the power to arbitrarily decide what is lawful and what is not and set penalties?”

Well, Prayuth effectively runs security as a military operation. Civilian politicians barely matter. With the emergency decree, judicial decisions are hardly necessary. This is simply an authoritarian regime. This is what is required to protect royalist rule.

The Post continues: “A second question is why the monarchy was brought into the ban. Clearly materials with photos, graphics or text offensive to the monarchy would already be covered by the nation’s lese majeste laws. No such materials have been reported. This seems to be part of a disturbing trend to equate criticism of the government with criticism of the monarchy.”

Exactly, and that is because the regime is doing nothing but protecting the monarchy.

Becoming Fascist

When can we start to really call a society Fascist rather than use the term as some kind of throwaway epitaph? Perhaps it is when its rulers use right-wing nationalism to shape children into warriors for the cause. We know that the Thai state has done this for many decades, most closely Fascist in the 1910-20s and late 1930s.

We wonder about the report in the Bangkok Post, that says that “Ayudhya Allianz CP, in collaboration with King Rama IX, The Great Foundation, and National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (Nectec), is running the Thailand Animation Contest 2010 to boost animation skills in the younger generation.” State, private sector and monarchy getting together for this. Sounds reasonable enough, but there is more: “Patchara Taveechaiwattana, Chief Officer of Market Management and Corporate Affairs of Ayudhya Allianz CP Life, said this year’s topic is ‘Be grateful, treasure, and give back to our motherland’ to encourage young Thais to express their patriotism via animation.”

Patriotism. How’s that going to be expressed? Patchara says: “It is time for Thais to share ideas about solving problems peacefully. The basic idea is the importance of appreciating that Thailand is our motherland and has always been our place of happiness. The winning entry will be published on CD and distributed to schools nationwide.” They are asked to be creatively patriotic. Dr. Goebbels would easily recognize this.

And, to round off the sorry story, it seems only appropriate that the winners should “receive the trophy of Her Royal Highness Maha Chakri Sirindhorn and scholarships worth a total of 250,000 baht.”

If it isn’t Fascism, it’s on the road to it.

Scary story of repressive state action

Saritdet Marukatat, who is news editor at the Bangkok Post has a forgettable story in the Post, if it were not for this:

The names of the people who took part in the two-month rally are in the hands of the authorities. The list is divided into three groups: hardcore red shirt members, UDD members (especially those who went through the UDD school of politics) and those joining the rally without no agenda at all [sic], including those who did so for purely financial reasons. [PPT: The hardcore yellows still believe this.]

Their homes will be visited by the authorities to give them the other side of the Thaksin picture.

PPT first saw this at Bangkok Pundit, and we wonder if it is true. Hopefully the people calling won’t be wearing brown shirts and insisting that “hardcore red shirts” wear identifying markers on their clothes…. If it’s an accurate story, the road to Fascism is now identifiable.

Pining for the Imagined Past; Preparing for the Repressive Future

We have blogged before about the writings of people like Stephen Young—one of many conservative romanticizers of a Thai past that never existed—who seem unable to extricate themselves from the regressive truisms they learned to invoke in the Vietnam War era. At the present moment of crisis, with severe repression by the Thai state being the urgent issue of the day, it might seem that dismantling another such absurd proclamation is a bit beside the point. But a recent editorial in the Globe and Mail by David Van Praagh, “Thailand’s Real Road to Freedom Starts Here” (May 19), seems to us worth noting, not because it says anything credible or intelligent, but because it might nonetheless be representative of the kinds of intellectually and morally bankrupt arguments we are likely see produced over and over again in the days ahead, as the Thai state and its reactionary backers desperately attempt to justify their remarkable savagery.

Van Praagh, listed as a former Globe and Mail correspondent in South and Southeast Asia, as well as a professor of journalism at Carleton University and the author of a book on the life and times of M. R. Seni Pramoj, asserts that the entire red shirt uprising of the last two months has been nothing more or less than a coup attempt by Thaksin against the government and the monarchy, and that with this threat now banished, Thai society, the “Land of the Free, can begin working, again, to live up to its name.”  To begin building a better future, however, “Thais—and non-Thais—who care about their country need to understand some facts that have emerged in recent days.”

The first of these, according to Van Praagh, is that “the Thai army acted not above the law or on its own but on the orders of the elected coalition government led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of the Prachatipat or Democrat Party…” Van Praagh has an interesting notion of what constitutes a “fact.” Technically speaking, the military certainly did not act on the orders of the coalition government but on the orders of military commanders, especially, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, working through the hastily assembled Center for Resolution of Emergency Situations (CRES), which itself was legitimized by reference to the State of Emergency the Abhisit government declared when it decided to deem what would have otherwise been legal protests illegal. Indeed, as we and many others have reported, Abhisit and more powerful Democrat Party boss Suthep Thaugsuban, tried repeatedly to push military commander Anupong Paochinda into launching the military attack that finally came, with Anupong—who is perhaps only slightly more law-abiding than the Democrat Party leadership—resisting this and calling for a political settlement. Only when some yet-to-be-fully revealed maneuvers within the military and the palace had been completed, allowing the hardline Sansern to emerge in charge of operations and the threat of internal conflict within the military was sidelined for the time, did the troops begin the slaughter.

Even more obviously, however, if Van Praagh considers the Democrat Party to have been “elected” he is either woefully ignorant or wilfully deceptive. To most readers of the Globe and Mail, Canadian or otherwise, an election means a popular plebiscite, where the general population is allowed to determine who they would like to govern. The Democrats did not win and have never won such an election, and it is the fact that they know they are unlikely to do so any time in the near future which has conditioned their firm resolve to reject the red shirt call for a dissolution of the current parliament. Van Praagh and others who utter this nonsense apparently consider the vote of the parliamentary representatives themselves, after the new coalition was already arranged by Anupong, to constitute the equivalent of a popular plebiscite—a perfectly rational view, we suppose, for those who think the population cannot be trusted to vote properly and should have their chosen political representatives “vote” on their behalf (Cf. the New Politics proposal.)

Van Praagh’s second “truth” is remarkable enough in its intellectual and moral barbarity that it needs to be repeated in full: “what the world has seen in the weeks of confrontation is nothing less than an attempted coup d’état by Thaksin Shinawatra, prime minister from 2001 to 2006, who was convicted of corruption and had about $1.5-billion of his assets seized by the government. Mr. Thaksin, now in exile, aimed to provoke a bloody massacre of so-called Red Shirt demonstrators by the army that would have led to civil conflict – the only way for him to return to power and end the monarchy that holds Thailand together. The coup failed when the army showed extraordinary restraint until it was no longer possible to allow the ruination of Bangkok’s business and shopping district. Even then, casualties were comparatively low.”

Like others who assert that a Thaksin coup attempt against the government and the monarchy was the source of the entire uprising, Van Praagh does not feel compelled to provide evidence for this “fact.” But the problem is not merely the lack of factual evidence. Indeed, under the current situation, with untold numbers of prisoners in detention, suffering who knows what unspeakable treatment, it would be shocking if we don’t very soon have a detailed Thai government account, based on statements by someone or other in custody, explaining how Thaksin bought and paid for the entire red shirt movement. And, if so, such “factual” evidence will be worth just as much as everything else pronounced by Abhisit’s mendacious government, not solely because the “facts” produced by it under these conditions cannot be taken seriously by any impartial observer without access to the information and the process by which it was elicited, but because the entire intellectually shabby foundation of the argument would be dismissed out of court by any serious social analyst. “Big men” theories of history, the sort that government officials like to propound in order to individualize their enemies and reduce complex events to simplistic morality plays, have no credibility, and certainly not when they assume that hundreds of thousands of people are no more than sheep, willing to walk unthinkingly to their deaths on promise of a few baht. (Well, we should note that some scholars, like Van Praagh, appear amazingly willing to sheepishly follow whatever ideological line those with power would like them to follow, but then again these people are rewarded for their sheepishness, not threatened with death.)

There is a remarkable arrogance in Van Praagh’s claim that the red shirts were merely trying to sacrifice themselves en masse for Thaksin’s alleged coup attempt—in this case, classist, racist, and imperial arrogance all at the same time—implying as he does that we should simply ignore what the red shirts said they were trying to achieve (dissolution of the parliament) and instead interpret events according to the “facts.” Once again, these “facts” are never presented—and can’t be—but perhaps divination or communication with higher powers is a better description of how Professor Van Praagh discovers reality? As to the claim that the military exercised great restraint and that the casualties–at least 80 people dead and nearly 2,000 injured) “were comparatively low”–one must wonder what number of casualties imposed on overwhelmingly unarmed civilians Van Praagh would consider “comparatively high.” The moral savagery of this claim is stunning, all the more so when the military violence is made to seem acceptable and inevitable because of the “ruination”—another “fact,” here—being imposed on “Bangkok’s business and shopping district.”

Fact number three for Van Praagh is that “Mr. Thaksin’s hard-core Red Shirts turned out to be not a force for democracy but for what can only be called a Thai strain of fascism.” Here Van Praagh’s already limited “analysis” degenerates into a flood of virtually incoherent assertions: “This was first evident in the 1920s, when King Vajiravudh created the ultranationalist Wild Tiger Corps. It became dominant when Marshal Pibul Songgram, an admirer of Hitler, Mussolini and especially Japanese imperialists, ruled Thailand before and during the Second World War. It re-emerged in the 1970s, when King Bhumibol Adulyadej ordered ruling generals into exile, and military officers and well-to-do civilians reacted viciously in the name of nationalism.” Setting aside the issue of how one should define fascism—does a regime that comes to power by military and judicial coups, refuses to hold elections, and guns down civilian protestors qualify?—or the stylized misrepresentation of the King’s role in Thai history, one might ask what any of this has to do with the red shirts. Van Praagh’s answer: among the red shirts, “some call themselves Black Shirts – modern-day Wild Tigers beholden to Mr. Thaksin.” We take it as unnecessary to say more about the “facts” that have been established by this line of argument.

The fourth and final “fact” is merely the usual blathery line about the monarchy being “above politics” but needed as “Thailand’s political mediator of last resort”—a ludicrous notion that we have addressed too many times to bear repeating here. From this point Van Praagh’s “argument” rambles forward to a happy conclusion: “Thailand is an innately conservative Buddhist nation. Thais’ great sadness must soon give way to their usual smiles.”

We don’t wish to speculate about what planet Van Praagh must live on in order to maintain this perception. But two things seem worth noting: first, although we’re firmly in favour of freedom of expression and congratulate the Globe and Mail for publishing a letter betraying how remarkably infantile are some of the best arguments Thailand’s “friends” are mustering at the moment, we also have to note the disgraceful level of intellectual culture that must exist on the world’s political right to enable “analyses” like these. Second, as we said at the outset although a performance like this might be best ignored, the fact that this seems to stand for some on the right as a credible kind of argument needs recognition. It is not only people like Van Praagh who make such bankrupt arguments. Democrat Party leader and one-time intellectual Kraisak Choonhavan, in an interview on al-Jeezeerah, demonstrated his own decline into intellectual and moral bankruptcy as he bent over backwards to represent the red shirt movement as a mere puppet of Thaksin. Conveniently forgetting that the red shirts rallied a year ago, demanding exactly what they demanded this year (dissolution of the parliament), Kraisak asserts that the entire uprising was a response to the seizure of Thaksin’s assets by the Thai courts. And, like Van Praagh, Kraisak insists that the Abhisit government is in fact elected, as he knows because he was there for the vote!

The degeneracy of these kinds of arguments and presentations of the “facts” will not prevent them from being heard, and probably accepted by those who wish to believe. They will certainly not convince those who have been shot at, those whose friends were killed, those who are now detained or hunted, or the millions of supporters of a movement that faces daily the fascist repression of the most undemocratic government Thailand has seen since the era of Cold War dictatorship.

Why we struggle

Bangkok Pundit has posted perhaps the most disturbing, and foreboding, image to emerge in the current crisis in Bangkok.  Taken during a pink shirt rally in Lumphini Park, the image recalls an image of a lynching of a student activist by right-wing para-state actors on the morning of 6 October 1976 at Thammasat University.

Look at the image here, and then do whatever you can do to struggle against the silencing of speech, the destruction of peaceful protest, and the rise of authoritarian fascism(s) in Thailand.

Organizing the anti-red shirt movement

PPT understands that there are a lot of red shirts who continue to have faith in Thaksin Shinawatra. Likewise, we understand that there are numerous people who hate Thaksin. Many of these people don’t need to be organized with funds from their respective sides to demonstrate their love or hate. As the mainstream media continually points out, some are organized and funded. However, this claim is usually only made for the red shirts. PPT is continually amazed at how dumb or just ridiculously biased that media is when it comes to Thaksin opponents.

Pravit Rojanaphruk has argued that the mainstream media displays bias but also displays elitist attitudes. PPt thinks they are also sometimes racist attitudes towards “country bumpkins” who are dark-skinned, lazy and stupid. Racism and class warfare – and it is these same people who say class analysis is misplaced for Thailand. Such arrogance is breathtaking.

PPT wants to look briefly at the sudden flood of stories over just a few days claiming the rise of an anti-red shirt movement, while also claiming this “movement” is somehow unbiased, neutral or representatives of the “silent majority.” The most recent of these stories are in the Bangkok Post and The Nation on 1 April 2010. They amount to either exceptionally poor journalism or are simply propaganda.

The Nation writes of a “rapidly expanding network of academics, businessmen and civic-society organisations has urged peace-loving citizens to join forces tomorrow in a bid to counter the red-shirt protesters.” The Bangkok Post tells its readers that the Federation of Thai Tourism Association opposing the red shirt rally. Apparently the “federation insisted yesterday it was not taking sides but it could not stand still while the country was in limbo.” The Post also writes of another group called “People Who Love Peace” who have “issued a statement voicing their disagreement with the red shirts’ demand for a dissolution of the House and what it said was an attempt to amend the constitution to whitewash wrongdoers.”

Sounds like the development of a “movement.” But is it something more? It is widely known that Kraisak Choonhavan, Panitan Wattanayagorn and other members of the Democrat Party have been reported to be working together with these groups to arrange protests and to assist them with strategy.

The venue for one of the organized rallies is to be Chulalongkorn University. In recent years, the administration of the university has become the major academic bastion of yellow shirts and other royalists, and the links between the palace and the university have been greatly enhanced. The administration is unashamedly politically aligned to royalists and the Democrat Party. Imagine then allowing a red shirt meeting!

A spokesperson for the event at Chulalongkorn is Three-dao Aphaiwong, a lecturer, who says that the 2 April “rally was aimed at all citizens, businessmen and civic-society organisations who support the cause of peaceful conflict resolution. She stressed that the movement was non-partisan and “color-blind” as far as the current political rifts were concerned.

A “council of civic-society organisations in Bangkok” is also attending. It is made up of “1,800 self-defence, civil-rights and other communities in Bangkok.” These groups are already shown (www.prachatai.com/english/node/1688) to have been strongly associated with People’s Alliance for Democracy activists.

What are the objectives of the unbiased, peace-loving, color-blind “movement”? Here they are:

* “A show of unity for peace against some groups of people.”

* “People who have occupied public roads and the right of way are asked to disperse, as Bangkok residents have been held hostage by their fight against the government in the past several weeks.”

* “People who have insulted the monarchy are asked to stop doing so.”

* “the movement is against a House dissolution at an inappropriate time.”

* “The movement is against amending the Constitution to benefit wrongdoers.”

No bias there…. Just the platform of PAD and the Democrat Party combined. At least the Bangkok Post manages to see this coalition as anti-red shirt.

Color blind means wearing pink: “Please wear pink. (If that is inconvenient, please wear any colour except red),” said the organizers. Pink is the Chulalongkorn University’s color and it is also the currently most popular color for royalists.

The unbiased Three-dao Aphaiwong is, in fact, closely aligned to the PAD (see this web page, in Thai, where anti-Thaksin activities are prominently listed). It is appropriate that the family name Aphaiwong is included here. The lords of Battambang are well known politicians and business people. Thira Aphaiwong is vice president of the Bangkok Bank. Khuang Aphaiwong was one of the founders of the Democrat Party and its first leader. Ironically, his third term as prime minister and first at the head of the Democrat Party began following the 1947 military coup and produced the most royalist government and constitution since 1932. Abhisit Vejjajiva might see some relationship to his own rise to the premiership.

So these groups are not necessarily independent, unbiased or organic. The mainstream media should not paint these groups in these terms when they are biased, royalist and yellow. PPT knows that there are true believers on the yellow/pink side. But at the same time, reporters should not be seen to be playing fast and loose with facts and unashamedly promoting “their side.” Is there a risk that this elitist opposition to red shirts, with military support and media connivance is mining a deep-seated fascism lurking amongst particular right-wing groups?