Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand

22. The Strategy of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship on “Double Standards”: A Grand Gesture to History, Justice, and Accountability

David฀Streckfuss 274 22 THE฀STRATEGY฀OF฀THE฀฀ UNITED฀FRONT฀FOR฀DEMOCRACY฀ AGAINST฀DICTATORSHIP฀ON฀ “DOUBLE฀STANDARDS” A฀Grand฀Gesture฀to฀History,฀Justice,฀ and฀Accountability David Streckfuss The day 10 May 2010 may come to stand out as one of the most significant dates in Thailand’s legal history. It was the day that the National United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) issued its defiant demand: no amnesties. An amnesty would forgive the perpetrators of the violence of a month earlier, 10 April, when twenty-one UDD protestors — largely unarmed, according to their leaders — were killed in a government crackdown on their protest. On that latter date, then, the UDD made a clear choice: to risk going down on terrorism charges in exchange for the possibility that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban would go down for murder. 22฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀274 10/3/11฀฀฀2:08:36฀PM The฀Strategy฀of฀the฀UDD฀on฀“Double฀Standards” 275 Historically speaking, such a call for government accountability is quite rare in Thailand. But it does echo a long-lost past challenge issued by a young member of a Thai parliament that had been abolished by a military dictatorship, a spirit who for the sake of justice and truth called a coup by its real name: rebellion, an illegal overthrow of a popularly constituted government. That man was Uthai Phimjaichon. He was, with two of his colleagues, sentenced in 1972 to ten years in prison for the insolence of speaking the truth.1 His actions forced those in power to justify their actions. Uthai thus opened the logic of dictatorship for public scrutiny. It was only after fifteen months that the full import of his heroic deed became clear, as the diminishing legitimacy of the dictators, the exposure of their machinations, finally led to their great tumble from power in the face of the popular uprising of October 1973. 10 May marked the turning point of what might have started as a struggle for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and a call for new elections that was transformed instead into a call for justice and equality under the law. 10 May was the one-month mark, at which finding legal recourse to the perceived brutality of the government became the rallying call. 10 April had redirected the protest’s main aim from a call for new elections to a demand for government accountability. UDD protestors up-country distributed CDs portraying the bloodshed of that night, and huge posters of gruesome scenes of the dead hung silently over the continuing protest in Bangkok. The nightly announcement on the Ratchaprasong stage on 10 May made fully clear the transition in the UDD leadership’s strategy. “Justice for more than 20 of our people who lost their lives is most important”, UDD leader Natthawut Saikuea proclaimed, “while dissolution and election are a very small issue”.2 When asked whether the UDD was ready to end its protest, Jatuporn Phomphan, another core UDD leader, said no, “if authorities still are not pursuing these cases [against Abhisit and Suthep]. For me, I would prefer death.”3 10 May saw the UDD accept “unconditionally” the five points of the “reconciliation road map” proposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva one week earlier. But it added two of its own demands, the first of which was to unblock access to the UDD’s PTV channel (or to block the ASTV channel of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, or PAD). The principle: all media should be governed by a single standard. 22฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀275 10/3/11฀฀฀2:08:36฀PM David฀Streckfuss 276 The second demand was curious and historically atypical: a demand that there be no amnesty for either the government or for its opponents. As part of this demand, the UDD leadership called on Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, responsible for security forces on 10 April, to respond officially to the many complaints filed with the police by relatives of those who had died or been injured in the government crackdown. The UDD wanted Suthep to turn himself in to the authorities for processing on charges of murder and inflicting injury on 10 April. The UDD leadership apparently pictured Suthep being treated like any other murder suspect: turning himself in to hear charges, being indicted, and brought before the court in a bail hearing. The...