Page 1 of 2 ASIA HAND What Sondhi really wants for Thailand
By Shawn W Crispin
BANGKOK - Whether one is for him or against him, media mogul and
anti-government protest leader Sondhi Limthongkul has indelibly changed the
course of Thai history. Now encamped at a swelling protest site around
Government House in Bangkok, he is trying to redefine the way Thailand's
fragile and flawed democracy works.
Sondhi's People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) movement was instrumental in
setting the stage for former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's military ouster in
2006. Reconstituted in May this year, the PAD now aims at toppling Prime
Minister Samak Sundaravej's administration, which the PAD's leaders claim is a
proxy for Thaksin's interests and has tried to subvert
investigations and legal processes underway against the exiled former premier.
The PAD unexpectedly ramped up its protests on August 26, including raids on
government ministries and a state-run television station, a fortnight after
Thaksin became a fugitive from Thai justice in Britain. The protest group has
since laid siege to Government House and refused to budge unless Samak resigns.
After pro- and anti-government groups clashed, leaving one dead and dozens
injured, Samak last week declared a state of emergency, which is still in
effect but until now without soldiers on the streets. Televised images of those
and earlier bloody clashes between protestors and police carried by Sondhi's
ASTV satellite television news station were beamed nationwide.
Judging by the increasingly large crowds that have gathered since at Government
House, it appears those images, which harked to some to previous Thai
government crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators, have won a wider support
base for the anti-government movement, which Bangkok's middle classes had
previously shied away from.
At the same time, the PAD's call for "new politics", a proposal viewed by many
as reactionary and anti-democratic, has been met with circumspection in the
local and foreign media. In an interview, Sondhi says the "new politics" he
envisions is all about deepening democracy rather than retreating from it.
But democracy, he says, needs to be tailored to Thailand's particular context,
and not follow blindly the generic version promoted by the West. Facing treason
charges and threats to his life, Sondhi insists the PAD remains a "non-violent"
movement. He stole away from the PAD's Government House protest site over the
weekend to explain to Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor Shawn W Crispin
for what and for whom he is really fighting.
Asia Times Online: Last week Prime Minister Samak issued an emergency
decree, but army commander General Anupong Paochinda hasn't yet responded to
his call to disperse your protest movement. Why?
Sondhi Limthongkul: I get
the feeling that Anupong has heeded the King's
advice ... not to hurt the people. That's the reason Anupong decided not to
disband us.
What is even more interesting is that Samak told him to close down ASTV and
Anupong refused, saying that if I close down ASTV then I have to close down
[Prime Minister's Office-run] NBT too, because both stations are instigating
riots. That prompted Samak to issue a de facto second emergency decree, which
pulled all the powers back to him.
ATol: The situation has now reached what many fear could be a dangerous
tipping point. How did it come to this?
Sondhi: The situation became more severe recently when Samak decided to
use force to disband the crowds. The clubbing of the people happened when he
cited the court order to disband us, but he forgot on the same day the court
had reversed its verdict and said we could stay. Still, again they used clubs,
clubbed women and children, and we have evidence showing all this.
The breaking point came in two incidents. That same day, at night, they clubbed
children and women. Then more and more people start joining us, hundreds of
thousands of people. Twenty thousand people decided to surround the
metropolitan police station [on August 29] requesting a serious inquiry into
who clubbed the women and children.
Instead they fired tear gas out to disperse the people. And then Samak lies
outright, saying the crowd fired the tear gas, which is ridiculous. What's more
important is that Thai PBS has footage that shows clearly that the tear gas was
fired from inside [the police station]. And the last incident was when the
government sponsored hoodlums led by its MPs and joined by the deputy
communications minister.
They marched openly with knives, clubs, weapons. And interestingly enough they
hired people from upcountry, around 15,000, supposedly brought to Bangkok to
celebrate the Queen's birthday, which Samak set up. They marched to where we
had set up a barricade to protect ourselves. The news footage, BBC footage,
shows that a plainclothes policeman drew the gun and shot at the crowd and we
saw one dead. There were big skirmishes and one of theirs died too. There were
around 50 injuries.
So the whole country has seen the brutality of the police, which was initiated,
ordered and commanded by Samak. That's why more and more people, more
professions, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and the final touch, the university
students, have finally joined us. Forty universities finally declared that
Samak is no longer fit to run the country. This is the latest.
ATol: What's the best-case scenario out of the crisis? Would the
establishment of a royally endorsed government of national unity be a way out?
Sondhi: The question would be who is going to be the prime minister.
Would the King appoint a prime minister using [constitutional] Article 7? I
doubt it. The King has never done that in the history of Thai politics. The
only time he nearly did was [after the military crackdown on] October 14, 1973,
when he appointed Sanya Thammasak. But even then it was done through a third
party, not directly by the King.
So there has to be someone who is actually handling this. You see Samak and
Thaksin have guarded against this by making [Thaksin loyalist] Newin Chidchob's
father the speaker of parliament, because under the constitution only the house
speaker can appoint a prime minister. So there is almost no way we will get
someone from outside to run a national government.
So our stance is very firm: Samak and this government need to go first before
we will sit down and negotiate with anybody.
ATol: Towards a government of national unity?
Sondhi: Whatever. We are willing to sit down and talk, but not before
Samak is out.
ATol: Who, to your mind, would be an acceptable compromise premier?
[Former prime minister and Chat Thai party leader] Banharn Silpa-archa?
Sondhi: Not Banharn. We don't want old politics.
ATol: What role has the palace or royal advisory Privy Council played
behind the scenes in negotiating between your movement and the government?
Sondhi: I think the Privy Council is very worried about the status of
Thai society. On the one hand, they don't like the situation which has been
escalating. On the other hand, we have to be realistic that the Privy Council
does not trust Samak's government because it is a nominee of Thaksin.
This actually goes back to the same old theory that Thaksin is against the
King. It's the same old play again and again and again. Only this time Thaksin
is using Samak and this time Thaksin is outside Thailand and is clinging onto
an elected prime minister to try to get international support.
ATol: Has your PAD movement been misinterpreted, in your opinion?
Sondhi: The international community and the international media hardly
understand the real issue in Thailand. All the foreign journalists ... ask the
very cynical question: Samak is an elected prime minister so what right do you
have to seize Government House? Why don't you just form a political party and
go against him?
I've told them this is "new politics". Old politics doesn't give channels for
people who have grievances to air. No matter how we do it, it's been blocked.
Corruption charges have been brought against this government, but only under a
no-confidence vote in parliament, despite the evidence that shows clearly
Samak's hand.
Then Samak simply doesn't answer the questions after he's been grilled for
about 12 or 14 hours and says let's put it to a vote. If I win the vote, that
means I'm clean. This is no way for a democracy. The West always looks at
democracy in its form, but not in its substance.
ATol: The PAD is now promoting a so-called "new politics", apparently
where 70% of parliament would be appointed and 30% elected. What is the
thinking behind this?
Sondhi: The 70%-30% is only a model. The whole thing is happening in a
vicious cycle because we are in the old politics. What I'm saying is, let's
find a way to customize democracy which would fit Thailand. Let's not get
democracy as you would go to McDonalds and order a hamburger, because democracy
is still a Western export.
The academicians who got their degrees from Germany, from England, from the
United States, from France, always use a mix-up between what they learned from
these countries and invented a bloody constitution which does not work for
Thailand. What I'm trying to say is let's sit down together, find the flaws of
our old politics. Do we want old politics to continue like this? Most would
agree the answer is ''no".
Then let's find something else. Maybe we don't need a 100% elected parliament.
Maybe 70% [appointed]-30% [elected]. Note the word "maybe". Or maybe we should
reduce the number of MPs from 480 to 240, which means we would still have
elections in every province. But maybe two or three MPs from every province
would be enough. [For] the rest, we could find new ways to get more people
participating in politics from all walks of life. That's new politics.
ATol: Do you think the old politics are flawed because provincial voters
lack political maturity or because they lack good electoral choices?
Sondhi: The provincial, rural people lack access to the right
information because whoever is in government always controls the media. The
reason the [PAD] movement is successful is because of ASTV. Without ASTV, there
is absolutely no way this movement is feasible. ASTV is the only channel that
has the courage to stand up and tell the people exactly what this government
has done to the country.
The government has literally used former Channel 11 and changed it into NBT
[National Broadcasting of Thailand] to propagandize issues. They completely lie
every day about what they did, about what we did. So people start to wonder who
is right and who is wrong. But as times goes on, more and more people are
joining us.
So access to the right information is very crucial [to democratization of the
provinces]. We have never had that before, never. Secondly, we have to find a
way where the organizations and commissions that are supposed to be set up to
check and balance the political process must be free from political
interference, which is very difficult to do, very difficult, because they keep
buying the people.
The whole thing happened because the Election Commission has never done its
job. They closed one eye and took bribes and let cheating MPs into the
parliament.
ATol: Your vision of "new politics" in some ways mirrors some of the
constitutional amendments made by the military-appointed government in the wake
of the 2006 coup, including their move from a fully to a partially elected
Senate. Are your "new politics" in line with what they were promoting?
Sondhi: To tell you the truth, I don't know exactly the details of "new
politics". I am feeling and everyone in our movement shares the feeling that
we've had enough of the old ways of life. Let's sit down and find a new way of
life, a better way of life so that we can have everlasting peace. So we don't
have to have another military intervention.
If the military intervenes again, this time it's because the old politics
allowed them to intervene, because the old politics allows the incumbent to
abuse its own power because there is no good check and balance system. And some
of the checks and balances can still be bought - which is why people feel
disgruntled. That's why the military could take this opportunity and come in
again. So "new politics" for me is the real democratic politics.
It would give a role to the military. I'm talking about definite roles that
would be put in the constitution and in the people's minds that the military
can only intervene in three matters: first of all, when there is a threat to
the monarchy institution; second, concerning the sovereignty of the nation;
third, when there is gross mismanagement by the existing government regarding
human rights, liberty and corruption.
Apart from that, the military has no role. Nor will politicians be allowed to
manipulate the military. The military should be separate from the defense
minister. All military appointments should be decided by the Defense Council
and then go straight to the King. Then it's his prerogative whether he agrees
or not with the new line-up. If he doesn't agree with the new line-up, then he
has the right to change it. So we separate the King, who would have his own
base, which is the military.
And the people involved in politics should just go about managing the country.
ATol: Should the military have a role in appointing the people who are
appointed to a "new politics" parliament?
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road,
Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
the King's
advice ... not to hurt the people. That's the reason Anupong decided not to
disband us.
