Interview with the Coordinators of 19 September Network Against the Coup

Uchane Chiangsaen, Chotisak Oon-Soong, Ubonpan Krajangpho

10 July 2550

 

Interviewed by Mutita Cheuchang, Napak Sereerak

Photo by Kim Chaisukprasert, Jiranan Hanthamrongwit

 

When the 19 October 2006 coup happened, some were happy, some were shocked, some hesitated and some just remained silent. However, you may remember clearly the 19 September Network Against the Coup, a gathering of a few that disapproved of the coup d'état, who were the first group to come out campaigning against the coup with the radical slogan of "no participation in any activities with the coup plotters", while most people were ready to compromise or even glad to accept high positions as if they had nothing to do with the coup.

 

Later, this collective of anti-coup activists split into different directions due to differences of opinion in terms of campaigning with other allies. The group then faded away from anti-coup campaigns for a while.

 

Today, the 19 September Network is back and has initiated a campaign challenge to "Reject the Draft Constitution". The network's wide-ranging strategy includes a newspaper campaign, thousands of campaign posters, stickers, and booklets, and the launch of a new website at www.wevoteno.net. We have rarely seen such interesting campaign strategies in the work of civil society.

 

Apart from questions directed at the group on where their funds come from and whether it is an appropriate strategy to campaign against the coup, questions also arise about advocating such things as refusing to vote or destroying ballot papers. Most important is the question about the impact of acceptance or rejection of the draft constitution on deciding the future of Thai politics.

 

"Prachatai" invited the 19 September Network coordinators to express their opinions - to discuss their motivations, campaign strategies, and their analysis of Thai politics in recent times when information has been restricted before decisive decisions must be made.

 

 

Right after the coup, you announced that the 19 September Network would not recognize the Council for National Security (CNS) and would not participate in any activities with the coup plotters, and now the network is campaigning to reject the constitution. What is the position of the network and does this campaign amount to recognition of the CNS?

 

Uchane - When we read Article 32 of the 2006 Interim Constitution, we knew that we will eventually have to face a referendum. In fact during our campaigns against the CNS, we came to realize that our group will not be able to overthrow the CNS, due to our limitations. While other parts of civil society were setting up a new regime with the military, what we have done in the first place is to prove that a coup can happen, even in a situation where nobody would think it could happen.

 

On 10 December 2006, we made a clear declaration that we will not accept any constitution drafted by the military-appointed assembly and we called for the reinstatement of the 1997 People's Constitution. This is in line with our rejection of the coup d'état as well. We will never allow a military regime to be established in this country.

 

On the question whether we have changed our standpoint, we would say no. At this moment, we have a clear position that the rejection of the constitution is not just because we do not agree with the contents, but we are also talking about the process that created this constitution. Many people think we have changed because they compared us with pro-Thaksin groups. This could easily be misinterpreted.

 

Chotisak - We have not changed. We have never participated in any activities that involve negotiations with, or petitions to the CNS. Although we accept that the referendum is a process set up under the military regime, this is another way to depose the CNS, just like holding demonstrations. In this campaign, we are not speaking to the military but to the people and we encourage them to vote "reject the constitution".

 

Ubonphan - We have been against the coup since it took place. And since the contents of the constitution and the drafting process are undemocratic, we have to reject them as well. The referendum is a space for us to resist and we can use that space easiest through the media. If we can get rid of the charter, it means that the whole country does not accept the coup. But even if we lose, we definitely will continue to fight.

 

Professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul argues that since the referendum is controlled by the CNS; the campaign will lapse into accepting the procedures set up by the CNS.

 

Uchane - This argument is reasonable but we see it differently because we are confident that under this campaign: 1. we can criticize the both the charter and the referendum process together, as being an unfair way of tying peoples hands; 2. we see it as a means for people to show their rejection of coups d'état.

Before that, we already had disagreements among ourselves and then we came back and discussed it together once more. We have seen many arguments in the webboards such as proposals to tear up or spoil the ballots. We acknowledge that Prof. Somsak‘s explanation is also in line with what we discuss but we cannot campaign like that because we could be jailed, and that could jeopardize our campaigns by causing us trouble. Besides, a spoiled ballot is voided and will not be counted in the referendum. It would be great if they were to reveal people write on the ballots to spoil them, but it is impossible.

Prof. Somsak's "don't go to vote" proposal would also not be counted. He says that our "rejection of the charter" campaign will face two problems. 1. We will definitely lose. 2. If we lose, we will have to accept the result, which will be a very tough task for us and we will have a price to pay.

However, we do not think that we will definitely lose. People will vote no for many reasons. We just hope that our reasons will be the first in their minds when they write their X in the rejection box. Campaigners have to believe that those rejecting the charter can win and if the people reject the charter, it also indicates that the people reject the CNS.

 

If you lose, you will accept defeat and then play buy the rules of those who set the agenda?

 

Ubonphan - No, It's just one of the spaces we use to promote our movement to the public. Whatever the result, we have to continue to expose the undemocratic drafting process.

 

Chotisak - If the draft is approved, we would recognize and be reminded that people can still accept the coup and its consequences. However, to admit the result of the referendum is one thing and accept the coup is another. For me, I may accept losing because we are not cheating and we are not using taxpayers' money for advertising so that people receive one-sided and incomplete information.

 

Uchane - Losing is normal. We have just what you can see; we struggle with everything we have, staff and resources, while the game is unfair. What we have to do is to expose the procedures in drafting the constitution, and campaign. We have to thank Acharn Somsak for his warnings on this.

 

Ubonphan                                          Chotisak                                                 Uchane

 

Is there any inconsistency; unfair procedure but you still campaign?

 

Chotisak - Right now, there are two strategies for this struggle. One is that of United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) which emphasizes demonstrations and rallies. However, our strategy emphasizes a "rejection" campaign on the referendum. The UDD has been blocked by many methods, wherever you are, whatever you do, you will face injustice. We may disagree with them on some points and we have different capacity but we think that the UDD, and anyone else, is now fighting in an unfair situation. Therefore, we have been trying to tell society that we need to have a level playing field for this. For example, we have talked and asked the Rector of Thammasat University, the Mass Communication Organization of Thailand (MCOT) and the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) to set a venue for debate from both sides.

 

How could you campaign outside Bangkok?

 

Ubonphan - We have tried many ways. For example; at the Assembly of the Student Federation of Thailand (SFT) which was held couple weeks ago, many friends from upcountry attended. In the seminar on the Pak Moon Dam held at Chulalongkorn University, we contacted activists and asked them to assist in distributing campaign materials. These people know how bad the coup is.

 

What about the atmosphere in the universities, are they open to the campaign? There have been reports that your posters posted by the Dome Daeng (Red Dome) Group were destroyed at Thammasat University.

 

Ubonphan - This happen at Chula also; at the Welcoming Day for freshmen, the university administration said no group or club involved in politics would be allowed to enter Sala Prakiew (where the senior students can meet with the freshmen), so we had to campaign outside. The students at Chula might see us as radicals because the atmosphere there was never energetic; nevertheless this should have some stimulating effect. We handed out leaflets and booklets against the coup which attracted numbers of students. They picked up and read the booklets. The following week they came back asking our reasons for opposing the coup and we held a discussion together.

 

How about at Thammasat?

 

Uchane - We have football team against the coup! People who have never done any activities but disagree with military control have joined us and we called ourselves as "Dome Daeng Group". Half of the Faculty of Political Science are against the coup and they sometimes help us distribute leaflets. Some Bachelor degree students campaign with us when we organize protests or help us stick up posters around the universities. We do want to arrange something big but the Thammasat University Students Union (TUSU) has been inactive politically for a long time and there are no political groups, but we met a lot of individuals that are not members of any group all over the place. It doesn't seem a big thing but the importance is we have learned and worked together.

On the question if we win or lose, personally I think that we must condemn activists or anyone claiming to be "civil society" or "pro-democracy activists" who cooperate with the military regime. We also will not accept a rector who is a member of National Legislative Assembly - the military-appointed legislative body. Those people can be condemned by students and civil society. We have to create norms and culture that no matter what happened in the democratic system, soldiers are not the answer.

 

Chotisak - If we look at the bigger picture, we used to do a huge number of publications but only academics and activists ever read them. Now, after the coup, we have more chance to spread our ideas to the public. In the past, whenever we had any action, the media would only publish a few pictures with a bit of copy and that could not explain much what we want to tell people. Now our booklets against the coup and others materials have spread to the villages, our network and to the local Tambon Administrative Organizations.

 

Do anti-coup groups have space in the mainstream media? And how would you evaluate the role of media in the current situation?

 

Ubonphan - In my perspective and as a member of the Peoples Coalition Party, we do not care much about the mainstream media but we want to communicate directly to our target groups. For example, in the campaigns against the privatization of universities, our direct targets are students. We also have been working with Labour Unions in the Rangsit area and Triumph Labour Union. A few days ago, we went to distribute leaflets around Phrapadaeng Industrial Estate but the guards chased us away so we had to distribute them outside. A couple of days later, the military asked the people in the area who we were and what we were doing there.

 

Uchane - When we talk about the media we have to understand the context. The coup did not just simply happen, it is because civil society really hated Thaksin and accepted anything which would get rid of him and the media took sides with the anti-Thaksin groups. It is not surprising that today everyone is afraid of Thaksin's return. Their suggestion is to get rid of Thaksin no matter what would happen to the Thai political system. We are calling this "Thai democracy on a temporary break".

 

Therefore, opposing the coup is to bring the democratic system back. In one aspect, Mr. Thaksin needs to be guaranteed protection as well. We have to admit that the Constitutional Tribunal and the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) were appointed by the military so they must carry out their goals, which are to get rid of Thaksin. Therefore it is not strange that all the anti-coup groups are simply labelled as Thaksin supporters fighting for his return, but in fact there are lots of people who do not accept the coup for tons of reasons. The Pro-Thaksin group is just a part of them that has been able to unite people more than the others.

 

Our question is if you are the media and the military prohibit protesters from attending a demonstration, how would you feel? When you fought for your freedom, you were shouting that "the media's right is equal to people's right" but when pro-Thaksin people were threatening, nobody cares. Are they still citizens of the country? Or once someone ties on a Love Thaksin headband, is that the end of their political rights?

 

I think he quality of the Thai media are now the worst. There are some columns that are still alright but on an overall assessment they are having problems, as well as their culture of accepting censorship or self- censorship. The media are for-profit enterprises. They have political attitudes/standpoints but that is not a problem, the only thing is they must simply report all the facts, not reporting when there is a demonstration that villagers came in their hundreds when in fact they came in their thousands.

 

Right now when I hear the media talking about the press freedom, I want to be sick and throw up.

Sometimes the root cause is that Thai society does not believe in equal rights. No matter how different our political views are, we all need equal rights and everybody's rights need to be protected. If the activists or academics can't explain why people love Thaksin and just simply claim that they were paid, I think these people should quit their jobs.

 

Many columnists criticize both pro or anti-referendum campaigns as propaganda. Do you think what you have been doing is propaganda?

Uchane - Please look at our first publication that included Prof. Nithi Eawsriwong's quote saying what we would gain if we reject the charter and compare that to the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) which states "support the charter to have election". This is simply rubbish because it the 2006 Interim Constitution clearly says that the government has to choose another earlier constitution to promulgate and the election must be held in 30 days. We campaign to reject the constitution in the sense that we reject the coup and we quoted Prof. Nithi's comments in trying to express our goal, is this propaganda? I think it is totally different.

 

You have to separate this. The government is using taxpayer's money to campaign and it can be proved that they are misusing information. On the other hand, we do it with our own money trying to encourage people to reject the charter. It is normal and this is very important in the referendum process; dropping the ballot into the ballot-box is the last step. Therefore, we should have a widespread debate. The "Support the Charter for Election" campaign is a threat to the villagers but what we have been doing is just persuasion.

 

And it is very annoying because we published our quotation only in Matichon newspaper but the government campaign appears in every inch of the country. Actually, the media's standpoint is not a problem. In a situation of a really bad referendum, the media must report every position. Why can't the process and the origin of the charter be used by the media as a reason to approve or reject it?

 

People are curious about where you receive the funding from, to produce so many campaign materials and publications?

Uchane - In the past, civil society has not been serious about campaign publications, they only focus on holding press conferences. What we do is direct communication to the people. Despite the advertisements of the CDA, people said our publications are striking and nicely done. So why can't we, a small group of people, do this, even though many other people have creativity and capability?

 

The 19 September Network had no money at the beginning, the actions we have done in the past five to six months came strictly from donations. For this campaign, we have talked to our friends especially business people who do not want to give their names because they do not know how what threats or retaliation they could expect. We have about two million baht and we are using this to fight the CNS which has billions of baht from peoples' taxes. The problem of Thai society is when they saw that our publications are effective, even the professors at Faculty of Political Science asked of our source of funding. Why can't they believe that there are some people who are ready to invest their resources to do something like this with every single baht used efficiently?

 

Chotisak - And now we are requesting donations to produce more, please look for the account details on our website (laugh).

 

Why are you publishing the campaign only in Matichon? Are others not allowing you?

 

Uchane - Thai Rath asked for about 300,000 baht per piece, Matichon asked on average 200,000 per piece and if we calculated based on the target group, Matichon is better value, since it is the most open space we have. We knew that there must be some negative reaction but it shows that there are voices like us. In fact, we think a lot. We actually want to rent a billboard on the street and see how much it costs, how many days it would be on; we are thinking of hiring an advertising car with our posters on it and with speakers to make announcements along the street. We want our information to reach as many people as we could. Now we have a seminar every Sunday as well as other campaigns in many places calling to other organizations. We need to arrange the debate and every group must have the opportunity/space, not only the 19 September Network.

 

Do you expect that NGOs, academics and member of the upper class who once spoke of "democracy and freedom" will join the campaign?

 

Chotisak - I do not expect any organizations that have the word "democracy" in their name to join because they are the ones who have been participating in the coup by playing the role of "consultants" from the beginning. We only expect them to erase the word "democracy" from their names. Just that!

 

What about other organizations, what do you expect?

 

Chotisak - We do not expect that much with our "charter rejection" campaign. The proposed Internal Security Act (ISA) is a very concrete sign of authoritarianism and we have seen groups coming out against it. One the one side, I am happy that there is a number of people disagreeing with the ISA and we have more people who are against the coup. On the other side, I am disappointed that these academics just realized what the coup is when the concrete effects come out in the open. But when this began on 19^th September, couldn't these people guess what was coming?

 

Uchane - NGOs aren't just the big name ones in the newspapers but there are also other NGO groups who may have been affected by the Thaksin regime. Over the past nine months, has the situation got any better? If there is some argument and exchange of information, I think now many more NGOs are active and realize how important democracy really is. In an open democracy, there should be a democracy where we can demonstrate, calling the government to solve our problems, and this is also the sense of democracy that the villagers understand.

 

On the other hand, people accept the coup because they see through the so-called globalized capitalism's trick, so they are really worried by Thaksin.

 

Chotisak - I do not think Thaksin is scary; at least we could criticize and condemn him. If he wanted to do something, he had to be concerned about the people who voted for him. This is contrary to military regimes or masterminds who we daren't touch. So we have to prioritize who is the scariest. For me, Thaksin is just an ordinary person. We don't use economic standards but political standards. We didn't agree with his policies, his behaviour and he did lots of bad things but we fought with him as an ordinary and equal person.

 

At the peak of the anti-Thaksin movement, the entire pro-democracy movement did not have a clear answer about how they would deal with the huge powers of capital.

 

Uchane - I do not think democracy and capitalism are the same issue. Capital can grow and change power relations but if we insist on the issue of freedom and liberty, we can oppose it. Do you think Thaksin is a giant?

 

The first term he won a lot of support but in the second term his support decreased. If political space is open and people have freedom with equal rights, anybody can join you but if not, people will just walk out. Just before the coup, Thaksin was almost not functional; he failed in running the country so he had to dissolve parliament. The point is could you get the military out of power like this? In history, what methods have we had to use to chase them away and what do we have to sacrifice? There is a big difference between people who are elected and people who are not.

Capitalists are citizens and they have political rights. We have to make politics more and more just and fair. There is no such thing as pure democracy but we need to get as close to it as we can.

 

Chotisak - I see Thaksin through the perspective of democratic development. It is not just about capitalists playing politics, but the change from coalition governments to a single party government which then led to politicians holding excessive powers.

 

However, what came later is the check and balance system which I would like to call the "counter attack" from the people and then there was the house dissolution. The April 2^nd general election continued with no competitors to Thai Rak Thai. Later the court ordered the election invalid and called for another election. If the proposed election could have been held in October or November, the coup would not have happened, Thai politics would have been changed as the majority voices in the parliament would care more about the minority, while under Thaksin, the majority completely overlooked the minority.

Uchane - The democratic system could fix itself as time progresses. If Thaksin wins another general election, he could not behave in the same way. You have to understand that Thaksin was so arrogant because we have people like Dr.Pravase Wasee, Dr.Sem Pringpoungkeaw, Sondhi Limthongkul, Dej Phoomkacha and others who supported him. There are some groups of people who are egocentric and destroy the system of the rule of law.

 

In the hidden asseta case, there were petitions from the "black buffalo knights". Some parts of civil society had supported Thaksin without thinking. To get something done, you need support from outside the parliament to supplement the strong majority you have in parliament. And when these people support one person, they would not be aware of anything. On the contrary, if they are not satisfied, they will just chase you away and also not care about anything, even laws and regulations.

 

In the past, democracy in theory and democracy in real life have contradicted each other; Thaksin proclaimed that he had a majority and everything he did followed democratic process. What do you think about this?

 

Uchane - This problem has been discussed, debated but it has been distorted, especially on the issue that Thaksin is democracy purely in style. You cannot cling to this kind of logic. If we do not have an elected government, if the procedure is not democracy, you cannot think that the content will be democratic.

So we need to see if all this process is in line with democratic principles where the power of people is sovereign. We also need to examine how power is being used.

 

If we focused on democracy through elections, how could we develop the content or process of using power by those who win the election?

 

Uchane - If we are not satisfied, we can go and demonstrate. We as a small group could send an appeal, or Mr. Suriyasai (Secretary-General of Campaign for Popular Democracy) could establish a party to compete. You have open up the process. We cannot give a complete answer about how we could develop the process but right now we do not agree with this political system. One thing you have to remind yourself is that we can not get everything we hope from democracy, there is no such thing. Because people have their own positions, the benefits from politics which is very complicated. So how can we live in diversity, conflict and make our decisions reasonable.

 

Chotisak - I think when we say "Thaksin is not democratic", it sounds funny because he, himself, is an individual, his government is just a government but when we talk about democracy it means the power of every individual. If Thaksin is not democratic then we have to look back and ask why he is not democratic. Is Thaksin guilty?

 

Look at the hidden assets case for example, it is obvious that the problem is not Mr. Thaksin himself but civil society that together decided to censor themselves. When the government's problems emerged, there was a the process of checks and balances. There were demonstrations, and there was resistance which could reflect democracy in this way.

 

If we resist Thaksin too much he would not bring out the tanks but would dissolve parliament. If an election was held, he would win fewer votes which means that his power would diminish. There must be a government with a majority vote. The point is how people can manage and control them.

 

What is the reaction to this campaign?

 

Ubonphan - The 1550 Labour Assembly has a very clear standpoint which is that they want neither the coup nor Thaksin. But for the general public, it is hard to estimate. If we are not being obstructed by the government, we could do much more than this. Some trade unionists have been threatened with dismissal by their employers. For students, we have been distributing anti-coup leaflets and booklets. Some took the leaflets and agreed with us, while others gave them back to us because they disagree with us (laugh). However, if we are campaigning against the coup, we also need to have other proposals in front of the public. We have a proposal for a welfare state which has been proposed repeatedly by the People's Coalition Party. The 1997 Constitution is good to a certain degree but not completely, we need to go further than that.

 

What is the next step?

 

Uchane - The main goal is counter the people who promote acceptance of the charter. Next, we have to campaign to reinstate the 1997 constitution. I also agree that the 1997 constitution has a number of problem but at least it is legitimate. Our proposal is the return of 1997 constitution but it raises the question of how to write the preamble or amendments. We insist that the main content should not be changed and we propose what is needed should be inserted into the preamble in terms of its relation to the election.

 

If the UDD or pro-Thaksin groups would like to join the 19 September Network campaign, what would you say?

 

Chotisak - At this moment, a number of people have been coming to us asking for our publications but the UDD may not have yet asked from us directly; the Phola Muang Wiwat Group (Thai Say No Group) did come and asked for a lot of the documents from us.

The question of formal cooperation is another issue. If they ask for our publications, we are pleased to give to them as well as to other groups. Even the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) or pro-CNS groups who have changed their minds, and would like to have our publications to campaign for rejection of the draft charter, we would be happy to give them as much as we can.

 

Uchane - Each group has differences in details but every group has the same target which is directed at the draft constitution. Therefore, we would network and work in coalition with other groups. Prof. Nithi said if we cooperate with Thai Rak Thai then so what? How is it so bad? It is because all of us disapprove of the charter.

 

If someone tries to explain or describe this action, it would be another matter. When you ask would we join this movement, I will say we could have joined fro the beginning if we wanted. But we want to have our own space to propose our ideas without having to keep our mouths shut.

 

How important is the "charter rejection" campaign for Thai society? Is this a peaceful means to push the military back to their bases, as many have said?

 

Uchane - If we let this charter pass, it will establish a new political system through the constitution. The politicians who will be elected would have a limited role and power and would have to share power with bureaucrats. Senators will be appointed by the judges. This is the succession of power under the constitution. Also, through certain laws or acts, power would be handed over to the military. Prime Minister would be insignificant when compared to the Army Chief. For the military to remain in power would not solve problems in a democratic way; if they understood democracy, there would never be a coup d'état.

 

Hence, they can only keep using the same methods, suppression, and this makes it hard to avoid violence. Then people will not stand for it and they will reject it. If we win this time, next time the coup would be put down and at last a new political reform will start.

 

Does this campaign have any lessons for Thai society or the campaigners?

 

Ubonphan - From the student aspect, this campaign would incite the student movement to be more active. For civil society, it might urge people to reconsider whom is the cause or who has supported the coup.

 

Uchane - Perhaps, we need the explanation of Hegel that Prof. Somsak used to criticize us that "The only lesson we learn from history is that nobody learns lessons from history". We do not know what others have been thinking, but we have proved that even little people could follow their intentions and escape from fear.

 

Chotisak - For the coup itself, people are already aware that conflict is normal in politics. Coups cannot solve conflicts, corruption, economic crises, and the unrest in the south.

 

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri and Wassamon Oon-anant