Jump to content

The politics of funding the red shirts' protest


Flashermac

Recommended Posts

Bangkok Post

25 Jun 2010

 

 

Opinion by Thitinan Pongsudhirak

 

 

That the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) has blacklisted several dozen companies and individuals as alleged financiers of the recent red shirt protest is unsurprising.

 

Substantial funds were certainly involved in organising such an extended mass rally in the heart of Bangkok. At issue is whether these presumed funds were attributable to all of the 83 entities and individuals to the tune of 152 billion baht.

 

Has the CRES cast too wide a net to catch not just red shirt funders but also political opponents and other pro-red sympathisers?

 

The initial list from the Anti-Money Laundering Office stipulated 86 names but somehow these were trimmed down by three. As the "Bangkok Pundit" blog has dissected, the 14 companies alone were responsible for almost 80% of the entire amount in question. [color:red]Of the remainder, the Shinawatra family glaringly took out 11 billion baht.[/color] That leaves a host of other individuals with relatively small cashflow amounts.

 

Somyos Prueksakasemsuk, who was put under detention at an army base for violating the emergency decree, was listed for 300,000 baht of deposits and withdrawals for the eight-month period leading to the May violence. Yet another individual was tagged for a 12,000-baht deposit and 90,000-baht withdrawal.

 

What the money trail does not show is the various destinations. It is incumbent on the CRES to prove which amounts ended up in the red shirt uprising and which did not, unless the civil-military council can show that all of these sources and funds underpinned the March-May protests.

 

What if some of the withdrawals went into personal consumption, capital flight to safety abroad, and other preferences? Just because a lot of people and companies made a lot of withdrawals does not mean they all ended up funding the red shirts.

 

How can those named on this list seek justice for mistaken or motivated inclusion?

 

The immediate implication from the blacklist and the accompanying freeze of assets and transactions is the nature of the red shirts. Are theirs a movement that is completely devoid of genuine grievances about social injustice and solely lubricated by dubious funds?

 

This may be the CRES' insinuation. Are our unaccountable civil-military bosses undertaking a disassembling exercise?

 

If they think the red shirts have no genuine cause for protest, they should come out and say so openly.

 

[color:red]Protests require money and organisation. Loudspeakers, stages, food and other paraphernalia have to be paid for. The red shirts in Thailand, as were other stripes and symbols in similar movements elsewhere, were definitely financed by their backers. Few would doubt that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra contributed to red shirt funding. But are the red shirts the only social movement in the recent past to have received funding from backers and masterminds?

 

Cracking down on red shirt funding would gain legitimacy if all colours faced similar crackdowns. Otherwise, red is just the colour in the "wrong", whereas other colours are in the "right". If such is the case, then the CRES and the sitting government under its guardianship should say so openly.[/color]

 

Interestingly enough, blacklisting pro-red funders can be an ingenious way to curb corruption in Thailand. Stocks and flows of bank accounts of ministers and MPs can be subjected to the same scrutiny.

 

If this happens, cabinet members should not have money more than their salaries and perks appearing in their bank accounts after their assets declarations, and MPs can be required to follow the same line. If the government is serious about the CRES' blacklist, perhaps it could be extended and converted into law to minimise corruption and graft among elected officials.

 

As the CRES is poised to continue its operations in view of the likely extension of the state of emergency, more arbitrary actions to intimidate, coerce and suppress those who do not toe the current official line for a wide variety of reasons, are likely. Its actions under virtual impunity may become increasingly akin to military coup councils of yesteryear, but this time under ostensibly democratic guises.

 

Making the pro-red funding accountable is understandable for the damages over the past few months. It also yields the side benefit to the authorities for its implication that the reds' cause is illusory, that the recent protests emanated entirely from money. Along with moves to keep the reds' leadership on a leash and an upcoming stream of official pacification campaigns and populist policies to placate their rank-and-file, the sapping of financing is intended to weaken and subdue their fury.

 

Whether this concerted manoeuvre by the CRES and the government succeeds will depend on the true nature and strength of the red shirt movement.

 

Beyond the culpability of red shirt funding, the glaring question in Thailand's mounting pile of unspoken issues that is not being asked concerns the accountability of the CRES's own funding and payout.

 

How much budget has the CRES used thus far and for what items and to whose pockets has it gone? Are CRES members and their spokespersons paid extra on top of their regular salaries each day? If so, how much?

 

==========================

 

 

The writer is Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

 

 

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will the BKK POst do a similar expose of the Yellow shirts funders otherwise the public will smell a rat , a large double standards rat

 

 

The article was written on behalf of the Reds. In comparison, to the Yellow Protestors, things are not one in the same, as the writer would have you believe. Close to a hundered, ended up dead, and more than a thousand injured.

 

When you break the law, bring slingshots, molotov cocktails, tires to burn, Grenades and Rifles, exiting the situation burning 31 buildings. With leaders of the movement, encouraging violence, from the stage, its not a protest, its terrorism.

 

IF you support terrorism, you are a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are joking about the article being written in support of the reds. I know Thitinan Pongsudhirak and, unless things have changed radically, he is not a red. He is refreshingly candid and can see both sides of an issue. He also knows Abbhisit.

 

The one thing that has always struck me about the chart that allegedly depicts how the reds were funded is how little it shows. Money went in and out of accounts. OK. Who transferred money to whom? Some of the character on that list are really small fry.

 

It really looks like an act of political desperation and kind of silly. How many really doubt that Thaksin helped fund the protests? I certainly don't. But so what. Poltical movements need funding and the bulk of the protestors weren;t in Bangkok only because of Thaksin funding. So all the chart proves is a point that has never really been disputed but always considered a irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view the exposure as if anything an attempt to discourage the "offenders" from doing it again.

 

@Cheekyboy

 

<< will the BKK POst do a similar expose of the Yellow shirts funders otherwise the public will smell a rat , a large double standards rat >>

 

 

The Bangkok Post did NOT do any exposure. A respected university prof wrote an opinion CRITICAL of the CRES. But you missed that, since you view the world through red coloured glasses.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are joking about the article being written in support of the reds. I know Thitinan Pongsudhirak and, unless things have changed radically, he is not a red. He is refreshingly candid and can see both sides of an issue. He also knows Abbhisit.

 

The one thing that has always struck me about the chart that allegedly depicts how the reds were funded is how little it shows. Money went in and out of accounts. OK. Who transferred money to whom? Some of the character on that list are really small fry.

 

It really looks like an act of political desperation and kind of silly. How many really doubt that Thaksin helped fund the protests? I certainly don't. But so what. Poltical movements need funding and the bulk of the protestors weren;t in Bangkok only because of Thaksin funding. So all the chart proves is a point that has never really been disputed but always considered a irrelevant.

 

I do not have a horse in the race. Nor do I care who Khun Thitinan knows, or what his reputation might be. If he or anyone else can not see that the violence is the reason, this can not be classified, as just a protest. This was a premeditated plan to bring about anarchy, and qualifies as terrorism.

 

Other corruption, who is funding the CRES, or anything else, is not the issue. The leadership, of this movement and who funded it, is the only issue. Surely, DSI, is holding back, much of what they actually know, about the mechanics of it all. Once a few of the high flyers face conviction, and serious jail time, they will squeal like pigs at a slaughter house. The whole scheme, will shatter as you would expect from a windshield, hit with a boulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The leadership, of this movement and who funded it, is the only issue.

 

Well, this chart certainly does little to address that issue. All it shows are withdraws and deposits. It doesn't show who transferred money to whom. It doesn't show how the funds were used. It really doesn't show anything.

 

More important, is simply helping to fund a protest an act of terrorism? It's not quite that simple. I am sure many of the protestors did have financial support (this lasted months), but that doesn't mean they only joined the protests because of the funding. And most weren't "terrorists" in any recognized understanding of that word.

 

It's pretty clear that many of the protestors had legitimate grievances. There is a serious split here. Thailand has a serious problem. But that doesn't mean that Thaksin also didn't fund armed paramilitary types to throw gasoline on the fire. (Indeed, a security analyst from Australia identified the likely source of the Red's "armed guards" - I will see if I can find the link again.) I suspect he did, but the chart and evidence in the papers doesn't show this.

 

Also, it's fair to ask why wasn't similar attention paid to funding for the yellow shirts protest? There is more than one side to this dispute, and the claim "double standards" is constantly raised. If funding of one protest is investigated, why isn't funding of the other also protested?

 

And if there is an investigation, make it thorough and do a good job. The stuff that has come out recently is easily recognized as nothing more than fluff and propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many really doubt that Thaksin helped fund the protests? I certainly don't. But so what. Poltical movements need funding and the bulk of the protestors weren;t in Bangkok only because of Thaksin funding. So all the chart proves is a point that has never really been disputed but always considered a irrelevant.

 

Nothing personal Gadfly but I would venture that your irrelevancy claim would be disputed by many.

 

Eg., if Thaksin's funds hadn't been seized (or even better yet, if some sort of backroom deal had been made with him), do you really think the protests would've occurred? He may have lost some of his influence over the course of events -- but irrelevant? Don't think so...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Thaksin is irrelevant, but I also don't think the protests were just about him or - more important - that he had or now has absolute control over the red movement. Unfortunately, however, many in the more yellow parts of the government and Bangkok saw the continue to see this as a struggle with the devil incarnate in the person of Thaksin and are totally dismissive of the legitimate grievances to which the red movement has given voice.

 

It's much more complicated than that. One view you hear often is that Thaksin tanked the peace deal that the more moderate reds clearly wanted to accept because there was nothing in it for Thaksin. That shows Thaksin is relevant and has some control over the reds, but it also shows that there are moderate reds and that the reds are not all about Thaksin.

 

By reaching out to the more moderate leaders of the UDD rather than demonizing the movement as a whole I think this government could drive a hard wedge between Thaksin and the more moderate (and less mercenary) reds. Instead, by pandering to the yellow shirt faction and dismissing the movement as a whole as nothing more than Thaksin proxies the government strengthens Thaksin's hand in the red movement. That is why I liked the suggestion (in the other article I linked) that the government ignore or at least tone down the attacks on Thaksin and reach out to the less mercenary members of the red leadership. Attacking Thaksin only strengthens his hand within the red movement and adds to his legitimacy among the rank and file reds.

 

But that doesn't seem to be happening. Why? I think it's because the more reactionary yellow shirts don't recognize and appreciate that there is a real rift in Thai society and that their days of near absolute hegemony over Thai politics are over. Why else would they think they could away with a proposal that two-thirds of the Parliament be appointed (by them, of course)?

 

If this government was truly neutral and intent on real reconciliation, they would prosecute the yellow shirts who led the occupation of the airport with equal vigor. But nothing has happened. Why?

 

As long as nothing happens and double standards continue to be applied, Thaksin's hand is strengthened and real reconciliation is a pipe dream. I suspect many in the current government know this, but are powerless to do anything about it. Actually, this is not just my suspicion. An author quoted in this thread has suggested the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think examining both sides vigorously for corruption would be a good thing, though don't know how realistic it is.

 

I don't doubt that, in a general sense, there is a greed-driven and complacent elite in Thailand that wields much power. Issues with that are legitimate.

 

It's what the red-shirts became and tainting of that group by violent opportunists that changed my perception of them. Something just as bad or worse than what they were supposed to be against.

 

Starting off with Thaksin as your sponsor and fighting to secure his personal fortune is not the best thing to intertwine yourself with if you want to define yourselves as fighting corruption.

 

But you make good points and I don't disagree with a lot of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...