NATTAYA CHETCHOTIROS
Bangkok Post
For Sondhi Limthongkul, the ultimate goal of the People's Alliance for Democracy movement is to usher in a new order of national administration.
With the political standoff between the PAD and the government beginning to turn ugly, he appears open to a concession, floating demands that could resolve the stalemate.
In this interview with the Bangkok Post, Mr Sondhi insists that it is imperative that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej first exit the corridors of power. Mr Sondhi says the new prime minister could be anyone.
He insists the demands are strictly his own position and would need to be presented for consultation with fellow PAD leaders.
Question: What are the demands to be thrashed out post-Samak?
Sondhi: They (the government) must back away from the self-serving attempt to amend the Constitution.
Two, in the Preah Vihear issue, the joint communique pledging cooperation to Cambodia on the World Heritage listing of the border temple must be brought before parliament for approval after the Administrative Court ruled on its status as a treaty.
Three, the multi-billion-baht mega-projects which were given cabinet green light must be suspended, because they look to be fraught with irregularities. And four, a new political order must be set.
We don't mind what the proportion will be between elected and appointed representatives (in parliament) as long as the people are allowed a direct role in running the country. Even if it's 20% direct participation by the people, it is a victory for us (the PAD).
The proportion is a secondary matter, something tentative. Direct participation will lessen the extra-parliamentary pressure on those running the country. If people are kept out of the equation of power, the pressure bearing down on the administration will be fierce.
The MPs work for the vested interests of political parties and for personal benefits. In other countries, there are lobbyists who speak for people's groups to push their MPs and senators to pass laws, but we have no such system to speak of here.
Thai politics do not represent the diverse needs of the various segments of society. The MPs are no help to their constituents because they answer to the policies handed down by financiers who helped vote them in. The civic sector is also an interest group.
We've never had MPs who are truly representative of the labourers or farmers who make up the majority population. There has been no channel through which these groups could win seats in parliament.
Who in their right mind would spend some 30 million baht buying votes if they weren't intent on recouping that investment once elected?
Q: If the government chooses to dissolve the House, will it be acceptable to the PAD?
A: The dissolution would not be a solution. But let's suppose the House disintegrated and an election was called, the question then has to be: how many MPs the People Power party would be left with? What new name would the party, which is likely to be dissolved, contest under? Its executives could face suspension of election rights and the party will be in tatters.
Q: Word has gone around that Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could replace Mr Samak.
A: Mr Abhisit would still be a far better choice than the PPP if the House remained intact and the coalition partners switched their support to Mr Abhisit. However, Mr Abhisit must abide by our demands and he must be committed to political reform.
Q: But Mr Abhisit would command a very slim majority in parliament.
A: Yes, true. But at least, he is easier to talk to and he will enjoy a smoother administration.
Where the new political order will take root is not our primary focus right now. Educating people about politics as we do now is a way of reforming politics. Empowering people is reform.
A 50:50 proposal has come forth. If 480 MPs is just too many, perhaps we could have two MPs for each province or 152 MPs overall. Another 152 MPs could be appointed. To achieve this, we would have to alter the charter.
Q: So you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you maintain the government must not touch the Constitution, but you also call for political reform which needs charter amendment.
A: Yes, it is contradictory but we have a way around that.
Q: What's your take on Army chief Anupong Paojinda's role?
A: Gen Anupong is in a dilemma. He has shown himself to stand by Mr Samak all along, but today Mr Samak has asked him to suppress the people. Gen Anupong knows only too well that these people are loyal to the monarchy and so he cannot do much.
When he blamed both ASTV and NBT (television stations) for inciting unrest, that could be looked at in a positive light because he effectively denounced the state media.
It goes to prove that state-controlled media was the real problem. It means we're pacifist.
But my fear is Mr Samak will not give in and will heap pressure on Gen Anupong. Mr Samak is a hypocrite with the heart of a dictator. He knew that declaring a state of emergency was a mistake. Mr Samak is also apprehensive that the emergency decree could give Gen Anupong a blank cheque to stage a coup.
Q: What do you think Mr Samak will do next?
A: He will very likely step down in the next few days. If not, the rally will persist while Gen Anupong refrains from suppressing the people and ASTV will remain on the air. Mr Samak will not have his way, as more people continue to join our rally. How can he survive?
The aim of the emergency decree was to prevent the rally from swelling. The reality is that politics has ground to a dead end and if we look closely, Gen Anupong should have followed Mr Samak's order and driven us out and shut ASTV down. But he refused to use force. Mr Samak is swamped with all sorts of problems, with his party's dissolution looming large. At most, Mr Samak will go before the month is out.
Q: What's left for Mr Samak to do?
A: What is certain is that Gen Anupong will never crack down on demonstrators and ASTV will not be busted. The impression is that Gen Anupong has rejected Mr Samak's orders in a most discreet manner.
Q: But won't the PAD lose its supporters by implementing pressure measures such as airport closures?
A: The unions promised they would try to limit public inconvenience from the measures. Even the airport closure is temporary, done only as a symbolic gesture of resistance. It is an act of civil disobedience which Thailand has never seen before.
Q: Why are so many people rallying behind the PAD?
A: Everyone loves our King and despises Mr Samak. No one in the upper strata of society accepts Mr Samak because he is abrasive and rude. Intelligent and well-to-do people, people in the ruling class, doctors, nurses and businessmen and leaders, do not accept Mr Samak. Everyone here at the rally speaks the same language.
Q: If the PAD fails in the end, how do you plan to heal the emotional pain for demonstrators?
A: If we fall due to circumstances beyond our control, then everyone shares in the defeat. It would mean the people's movement has failed.
Q: Over these past seven days, do you consider the situation still positive for the PAD?
A: Definitely. When they declared the emergency decree, it marked the defeat of the government. Even if I could turn back the clock, I would not have it any other way. I cannot stand injustice and we have faith in whatever we do.
With the political standoff between the PAD and the government beginning to turn ugly, he appears open to a concession, floating demands that could resolve the stalemate.
In this interview with the Bangkok Post, Mr Sondhi insists that it is imperative that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej first exit the corridors of power. Mr Sondhi says the new prime minister could be anyone.
He insists the demands are strictly his own position and would need to be presented for consultation with fellow PAD leaders.
Question: What are the demands to be thrashed out post-Samak?
Sondhi: They (the government) must back away from the self-serving attempt to amend the Constitution.
Two, in the Preah Vihear issue, the joint communique pledging cooperation to Cambodia on the World Heritage listing of the border temple must be brought before parliament for approval after the Administrative Court ruled on its status as a treaty.
Three, the multi-billion-baht mega-projects which were given cabinet green light must be suspended, because they look to be fraught with irregularities. And four, a new political order must be set.
We don't mind what the proportion will be between elected and appointed representatives (in parliament) as long as the people are allowed a direct role in running the country. Even if it's 20% direct participation by the people, it is a victory for us (the PAD).
The proportion is a secondary matter, something tentative. Direct participation will lessen the extra-parliamentary pressure on those running the country. If people are kept out of the equation of power, the pressure bearing down on the administration will be fierce.
The MPs work for the vested interests of political parties and for personal benefits. In other countries, there are lobbyists who speak for people's groups to push their MPs and senators to pass laws, but we have no such system to speak of here.
Thai politics do not represent the diverse needs of the various segments of society. The MPs are no help to their constituents because they answer to the policies handed down by financiers who helped vote them in. The civic sector is also an interest group.
We've never had MPs who are truly representative of the labourers or farmers who make up the majority population. There has been no channel through which these groups could win seats in parliament.
Who in their right mind would spend some 30 million baht buying votes if they weren't intent on recouping that investment once elected?
Q: If the government chooses to dissolve the House, will it be acceptable to the PAD?
A: The dissolution would not be a solution. But let's suppose the House disintegrated and an election was called, the question then has to be: how many MPs the People Power party would be left with? What new name would the party, which is likely to be dissolved, contest under? Its executives could face suspension of election rights and the party will be in tatters.
Q: Word has gone around that Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva could replace Mr Samak.
A: Mr Abhisit would still be a far better choice than the PPP if the House remained intact and the coalition partners switched their support to Mr Abhisit. However, Mr Abhisit must abide by our demands and he must be committed to political reform.
Q: But Mr Abhisit would command a very slim majority in parliament.
A: Yes, true. But at least, he is easier to talk to and he will enjoy a smoother administration.
Where the new political order will take root is not our primary focus right now. Educating people about politics as we do now is a way of reforming politics. Empowering people is reform.
A 50:50 proposal has come forth. If 480 MPs is just too many, perhaps we could have two MPs for each province or 152 MPs overall. Another 152 MPs could be appointed. To achieve this, we would have to alter the charter.
Q: So you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you maintain the government must not touch the Constitution, but you also call for political reform which needs charter amendment.
A: Yes, it is contradictory but we have a way around that.
Q: What's your take on Army chief Anupong Paojinda's role?
A: Gen Anupong is in a dilemma. He has shown himself to stand by Mr Samak all along, but today Mr Samak has asked him to suppress the people. Gen Anupong knows only too well that these people are loyal to the monarchy and so he cannot do much.
When he blamed both ASTV and NBT (television stations) for inciting unrest, that could be looked at in a positive light because he effectively denounced the state media.
It goes to prove that state-controlled media was the real problem. It means we're pacifist.
But my fear is Mr Samak will not give in and will heap pressure on Gen Anupong. Mr Samak is a hypocrite with the heart of a dictator. He knew that declaring a state of emergency was a mistake. Mr Samak is also apprehensive that the emergency decree could give Gen Anupong a blank cheque to stage a coup.
Q: What do you think Mr Samak will do next?
A: He will very likely step down in the next few days. If not, the rally will persist while Gen Anupong refrains from suppressing the people and ASTV will remain on the air. Mr Samak will not have his way, as more people continue to join our rally. How can he survive?
The aim of the emergency decree was to prevent the rally from swelling. The reality is that politics has ground to a dead end and if we look closely, Gen Anupong should have followed Mr Samak's order and driven us out and shut ASTV down. But he refused to use force. Mr Samak is swamped with all sorts of problems, with his party's dissolution looming large. At most, Mr Samak will go before the month is out.
Q: What's left for Mr Samak to do?
A: What is certain is that Gen Anupong will never crack down on demonstrators and ASTV will not be busted. The impression is that Gen Anupong has rejected Mr Samak's orders in a most discreet manner.
Q: But won't the PAD lose its supporters by implementing pressure measures such as airport closures?
A: The unions promised they would try to limit public inconvenience from the measures. Even the airport closure is temporary, done only as a symbolic gesture of resistance. It is an act of civil disobedience which Thailand has never seen before.
Q: Why are so many people rallying behind the PAD?
A: Everyone loves our King and despises Mr Samak. No one in the upper strata of society accepts Mr Samak because he is abrasive and rude. Intelligent and well-to-do people, people in the ruling class, doctors, nurses and businessmen and leaders, do not accept Mr Samak. Everyone here at the rally speaks the same language.
Q: If the PAD fails in the end, how do you plan to heal the emotional pain for demonstrators?
A: If we fall due to circumstances beyond our control, then everyone shares in the defeat. It would mean the people's movement has failed.
Q: Over these past seven days, do you consider the situation still positive for the PAD?
A: Definitely. When they declared the emergency decree, it marked the defeat of the government. Even if I could turn back the clock, I would not have it any other way. I cannot stand injustice and we have faith in whatever we do.
