Stealing a march or two
The military regime should tread carefully in dealing with civic groups conducting a civic march which began on Saturday from Thammasat Rangsit campus to their destination in Khon Kaen. Eight social activism heavyweights, including well-known environmental lawyer Surachai Trongngam, and prominent social activists like Nimit Tienudom, were leading the march, known in Thai as Dern Mittraphap, which they said was aimed at highlighting the state’s failure to address problems and public grievances in four areas: environmental and natural resources, agriculture, food security, freedom and liberties.
Especially freedom and liberties, as the civic march follows an unsuccessful petition by social activists for the military to lift a number of draconian orders, mostly issued under Section 44 of the interim charter, that effectively trample on freedom of expression, including a ban on gatherings of five people or more. Such orders have been used wrongly to muzzle critics, they say.
The network insists it has no intention of pressuring the regime but merely wants to convey to the public how state policies regarding the four issues adversely affect people.
One of the leaders, Anusorn Unno, dean of Thammasat University’s Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, said the march should have given people an opportunity to express their opinions and make their voices heard.
On Saturday, Ayutthaya and Pathum Thani police tried in vain to disrupt the march and eventually issued arrest warrants for its eight leaders. The move fuelled public anger and intensified pressure on the regime.
Yesterday, government spokesman Lt Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd stepped up to defend the police move. He insisted police officers were obliged to enforce the law or face punishment for dereliction of duty. He stressed that the civic march was against junta orders and, if allowed to continue, would “set a precedent”.
Lt Sansern said the regime “is ready to listen” about the problems. However, the spokesman should realise that the offer is too little, too late and that there is no guarantee the regime would respond positively.
If anything, the march is a sign of frustration with and dwindling tolerance for the military regime after a series of scandals including the flashy watches worn by Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon and his unconvincing excuses. The reactions of certain agencies, in particular the National Anti-Corruption Commission, has depleted trust and faith in the regime and state mechanisms.
It’s unfortunate that the regime has allowed the misuse of such orders which has only made matters worse. A case in point is the charges against well-respected Chiang Mai scholar Chayan Vaddhanaphuti and several others for their display of frustration against military action at an academic seminar.
The state’s reaction to several other cases indicate that it has an inability to listen.
The heavy-handed measures against anti-coal protesters from Songkhla’s Thepha district while marching to meet the prime minister during his trip to the southern province last year indicated that the state has no understanding of the rights of locals regarding natural resources issues. Tough action against forest dwellers regardless of their ancestral rights is lamentable.
Not to mention the failure of the state to pay heed to concerns over the revised law on the environment that allows the business sector to ride roughshod over important processes, including environmental and health impact assessment studies.
Lt Gen Sansern’s fears are not exaggerated. But it would be wrong if he thinks the state can solve problems with old repressive and/or time-buying tactics.
The spokesman is right in suggesting discussion is a way out of conflicts and helps diffuse what could be a political time bomb. But he must convince the regime that it must do whatever it can to make sure that the talks will be turned into action.