Prapart Pintobtang, lecturer at Chulalongkorn’s Political Science Faculty and advisor to the Assembly of the Poor, speaks frankly about the latest moves by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Years of having supported the causes of the poor have made him no stranger at all to some PAD leading members who are from the so-called ‘people’s sector’. Yet, finally, he touches on issues which in the past couple of years have become acrimonious among NGOs and people’s movements, and on which many ‘people’s sector’ insiders have chosen to have reservations.

Prapart was among 137 academics who recently proposed the drafting of a whole new constitution as an alternative to the polarized politics. As one among people with ‘2 No’s’—No Thaksin and No Coup—he earlier signed a petition against the Samak government’s unfair transfers of civil servants, while he was also among 130 academics who condemned the Manager Group for instigating human rights violations. (See 130 activists and academics condemn Manager media group)

Now he talks about the PAD rally in such a way that the PAD will probably see him as yet another enemy, because he does not want to see another coup.

Backward and fanatically nationalistic

He went to see the PAD rally on May 25.

‘I felt what I saw was a war of hatred. The theme was the monarchy, or the trinity of Nation, Religion, and Monarchy, with all the rest being linked to this theme. Under this theme, anybody who doesn’t identify with the PAD is pushed to the other side among those who are destroying this ideology and are trying to build what the PAD calls a republic.’

The PAD seemed to go far beyond being a force to provide checks and balance on the government, and Prapart is afraid it will lead to violence or another coup.

‘The constitutional amendment has become a minor issue under the theme. At first, the PAD insisted that the government had to withdraw the amendment motion and call for a referendum, but when the government announced a referendum and the motion was likely to be withdrawn, the PAD then shifted to ousting the government and claimed to fighting a plot to establish a republic instead.’

The lies were pure fabrication. For example, one PAD speaker, Prapan Koonmee, told the crowd that anti-coup academics Somsak Jeamtheerasakul and Thongchai Winichakul were conspiring at a restaurant around the Samsen area. The fact is both individuals would never sit and talk to each other, and Thongchai has been in the US.

Prapart sees problems in the details of the government’s announced referendum on constitutional amendments, saying it should not be rushed in the 45-day timeframe, and should have more public participation. However, this issue was hardly addressed by the PAD speakers.

‘There is hardly any food for thought up on the stage of the PAD. It’s like a profanity contest to find out who can deliver the most scathing expressions, calling people who they dislike stray dogs or scoundrels. This is uttered by educated people, some of them professors or holding doctorate degrees. [They] fabricate a lie about people who allegedly want to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. The atmosphere is so divisive; with us, the loyalists, and them, Fah Diew Kan (Same Sky magazine), Prachatai and the pro-Thaksin side. [The PAD] has come to the point where it can be called backward and fanatically nationalistic.’

‘People’s sector’: heads without a body

‘It’s obvious that the protesters consist mainly of ASTV fans and members of Santi Asoke. The so-called people’s sector has only ‘heads’, without ‘body’. There are only a few leaders [joining the PAD right now], and the people’s sector and NGOs have jumped ship. It can be said that there’s no real ‘people’s sector’ in this round of protests.’

During the rallies to oust Thaksin before the coup in 2006, parts of the people’s sector split when the PAD chose to turn to the Royal Prerogative under Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution. Now more and more of them have shied away, as they do not want another coup.

‘We’ve just had the lesson of almost two years of the military regime. We’ve had the Internal Security Act. Rural people had soldiers in their villages. They could not make any move. They could not negotiate on their problems. The situation has remained awful until now, under such polarized politics. I think we’ve learnt those lessons; so many people have not joined [the PAD]. But it’s different with the ‘heads’; they must have their own reasons.’

The war of hatred might work with particular groups of people, but it limits itself in terms of quality, and shuns other groups.

The number of protesters on May 25 was at best just over 10,000, not a hundred thousand as claimed by the PAD, says Prapart.

Ushering in another coup

Prapart says the PAD had better stop the rally, instead of trying to oust the government.

‘Sondhi [Limthongkul] has vowed this is the last war, and the PAD will not give up until victory. This only leads to what we do not desire. If they don’t back off now, it’s obvious what they want to happen. And the public will see that the issue of constitutional amendments and other things are just their gimmick.’

There are real economic problems, and people are really in trouble, but the PAD has yet to be able to link up with other movements or groups of those who are suffering. They have tried to do so by inviting, for example, some labour leaders to come up on stage. But their base can hardly expand because of their trinity theme, which already determines the path, Prapart says.

‘If they back off now, they can still claim victory. The Assembly of the Poor would stop after acquiring something, to make an assessment. We never push to the extreme end. If the PAD pulls back, and say they were able to stop the government’s unjustified constitutional amendments, I think they would get applause. Or they can claim victory over Jakkrapob’s resignation. After scoring some points, social movements should stop and develop their issues further in the long term. That would be good for society and the movements themselves.

Elements of people’s sector in the PAD should withdraw.

Prapart says elements of people’s sector should withdraw from the PAD, as some of them once declared that the PAD was over. Instead they should push for issues that really concern the people’s welfare, or issues of government accountability.

‘Obviously they must be the issues of economic problems, or labour wages, for example. These issues would lead to broader-based movements. And mega-projects being pushed by Samak are likely to bring people together.’

With the elements of the people’s sector pulling out, the ASTV fans and Santi Asoke group would still remain, and continue functioning as an interest or pressure group which could benefit society by keeping the government accountable.

Trinity theme a breaking point

One contentious issue and a possible breaking point concerns the case of Chotisak Onsoong not standing for the royal anthem in a cinema. (See Chotisak no show at forum due to threats from Manager Radio) Chotisak is an active anti-coup activist who says no to both Thaksin and the coup—2 No’s. The Manager Group, the PAD’s main media outlet, raised the case to attack anti-coup activists, assuming all of them being pro-Thaksin, and incited physical violence against Chotisak.

‘In fact, the Chotisak case happened long ago. It would not have been an issue, if the PAD had not wanted to exploit it. (See Oct 6 massacre redux in the making by Manager-PAD) This points to the PAD’s theme of Nation, Religion, and Monarchy which has come to the point of absurdity.’

New movements without the PAD?

Prapart believes new movements are building up. There have been several discussions and forums. Slum people, for example, are collecting information on the impacts of the oil crisis and the higher cost of living. The Alternative Agriculture Network has been organizing forums on their issues.

He is not sure whether some PAD leaders are still counted in the people’s sector. Under the new banner, they would probably find it difficult to join because of their perceived association with the PAD and Sondhi Limthongkul.

‘If this rally leads to violence, no matter if the PAD wins or loses or another coup happens, no matter which side will win, we all are the losers.’

Translated by Ponglert Pongwanan