Anti-Government Protest in Bangkok - Who are they?

The anti-government protest, the 'Whistlers' as they called themselves, have been protesting in Bangkok for over two months. They are calling for the government led by Yingluck Shinawatra to resign and end the corruption and the influence of her brother Thaksin in Thailand. They are people from all walks of life and from every regions of the country. They are people of all creed, religion, occupation and social standing in Thai society. They are people of all political spectrum, from the opponents of the government, to former supporters who once voted this very government into office and now suffer the consequence of its empty promises, mismanagement and corruption. The protest started off as a peaceful movement, and continue to remain so till this day. By day, they march around the capital, gathering support and shutting down governmental offices. By night, they stay at the camps, eating and sleeping on the streets.

But now they are under attack. Domestically guns and grenades are weapons of choice, and they are used more and more regularly both day and night. And internationally different kind of weapons are being used against them. These weapons are words, misinformation and lies. They are used by reputable media outlet to lend these words some degree of credibility to undermine everything the anti-government protest have stood for and came to represent. The words like 'anti-democratic', 'violent', and 'militant' are used to falsely describe the protesters.

Out of the many lies disguised as journalism, one by Time magazine stands out the most to me. For the author and the editor to allow this propaganda piece to be published is the final push over the edge that force me to respond in defense of the protesters.

Below is my open letter to Time magazine, expressing my sentiment.

Dear Time magazine,

Having read your article and its poor attempt to explain the situation in Bangkok, I can't just sit still but respond with my own thought and experience on the event unfolding at my doorstep.

The most pressing issue and one that I personally take offense to is your characterization of this protest movement being violent in nature. We (I consider myself part of this protest and support its goal) have been called many things from being rebels (which we happily accept) to militant by your peer the Washington post. Here I would like to directly address your false accusation of our peaceful movement and take apart your idea of 'Violent'.

America, the country where your once esteemed publication is based in, is no stranger to violence in real life and on a regular basis. On the domestic front, police brutality and use of excessive force is becoming a norm, many of which resulted in death of innocent civilians. Your law allowed an armed man to shoot and kill a teenager, and quite literally let him get away with murder. On a global scale, you are currently in a war that you started by have no plan to end it. Your drone strikes commit act of war that border on war crimes in the eyes of the international communities. If I could I would be more specific and detailed, providing proper sources and citations. But, unlike you, I'm not a paid columnist with any training in journalism, so I am not bound by any such obligation. But you and your writer of this particular attack piece must be held to the highest standards of journalism and integrity, both of which you have failed to display in your published article.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: you either have a twisted sense of what peace and violence is, or this article its intentionally biased with ulterior motive of undermining our peaceful movement in exchange of or, for financial or political favor from parties involved. You called the Red Shirt protest peaceful but very conveniently fail to mention that they held the city of Bangkok hostage for two months before setting buildings on fire as ordered by their leaders. It's that your idea of 'peaceful'? At the same time, any act of violence the protest are involved in, we see the one on the receiving end of that violence. So far one has died, close to a hundred injured, many in critical condition. Nothing justify you or any other media calling us 'violent' or 'militant'. Calling us violent is categorically false. It's like you blaming Poland for starting World War 2 when Nazi Germany invaded it.

Besides, you should back up your words and prove to the readers of how much of a violent lawless mob this protest has been so far. From my own experience, I have never felt safer among them. The same cannot be said of the Red Shirt protest, where I was confronted when trying to take a photograph of them carrying weapons and marching the street.

A once reputable publication like yourself have the power to influence public opinion, for better or worse. You clearly have chosen to take side that no longer serve the public interest. And for that I'm calling you out. You calling a peaceful protest 'violent' is no difference than accusing them of a crime they did not commit. Shame on you.

Shown below are some of the photographs I took as I joined in their protest. With their number reaching the peak at around 5 millions, I simply cannot photograph every faces in the crowd. All I can do is to try show some of these faces that hopefully represent the faces of the nation. To see more visit here and here.

Taking a Look Back: Red Shirt Protest in Bangkok 2009 - 2010 (Part 3)

In the third and final part of my retrospective of 2009 - 2010 Red shirt protest in Bangkok, I will show you the aftermath of the military crackdown on May 19, 2010. You can catch up on my first two parts of the account here and here. The photographs shown here were taken on 20 and 21 of May 2010. This time, it's best not to let words get in the way, so I will ask more the photographs tell the story.

May 20, 2010

Right: Thaksin-loving People, left: Abhisit, murderer

Foot Massage

Red shirt leaders, many would take prominent position in Yingluck's government,
including the man who order the mob to burn the city (top-right)

May 21, 2010

Improvised shield

Same place as the day before...

...but the fire's still burning

For scale, notice the men on the left

One of the most popular shopping street in Bangkok...completely empty

So why do I only publish this now, when the biggest anti-government protest recently took place and more protests, including 'Shut down Bangkok', are being planned and about to be carried out in a matter of days?

Recent events generated lots of debate on the legitimacy of the current anti-government protest. While unprecedented number of people publicly support the movement, there are others who are against the protest or are on the fence on the issue. Some of the arguments that are frequently being presented to explain their position are there are no difference between the Red shirt protest and current anti-government protest. Both teams are disruptive to the lives of the people in Bangkok, interrupting work, school, business, traffic and general livelihood for everyone in the city. Some would say it is better for all sides involved to sit down and talk this over to find a peaceful solution and end this massive and prolonged protest altogether.

Here are my response to the detractors and the skeptics. Firstly, I can't help but feel that they are naive and ignorant beyond belief. Given the current situation and the culture of the people of this country, civic discourse is not possible. It is not possible with the on-going protest and it was not possible in time of peace. It never has been. Civic discourse or any political discussions have never been part of the Thai culture. We simply do not engage in important conversation. Reasons? It's rude, impolite or it's an inappropriate topic for discussion. Best not to rattle anybody's cages or ruffle anyone's feathers. So we keep our silence, until we can't stay silent anymore. And the only way for the government to listen and take notice is to protest, make a lot of noise and make ourselves heard. So if you still think talk is the solution, ask yourself when was the last time you really talk about it to someone.
 
Then there are people who flat-out stated that there is no difference between the Red shirt and the current anti-government movement. But as the protest gains momentum, they accuse the protesters of being forcing their ideas on others and being self-righteous, challenging their motives and legitimacy along the way. This is like saying that during World War II, both the Axis and the Allied forces were wrong because they both fought in the war. Both groups of protesters came to Bangkok and made a lot of fuss (to put it lightly) along the way, but that is where the similarity ends. The anti-government protest are made up of Thai citizens from all walks of lives, the rich and the poor, urban and rural, 'Thai' Thai and ethnic Thai, Buddhists and Muslims, even former Red shirt members who now see and understand the corruption and wrong-doings of the current government. We are peaceful and come unarmed, except for whistles. We are open and honest about the motives and objectives behind our demonstration and would love to have all Thais to join us, from ordinary citizen, Red shirt, Yellow shirt, the private sectors, government officials, even the police and the military. We do this because we believe in hearts of hearts, that it is the right thing to do and the future of the country depends on it.

So far I may sound really harsh and critical of the opposition to the anti-government protest. But I am not here to publicly shame or attack them, but to provide counter argument from my point of view. Who I really want to publicly shame and attack is the member of both local and international press and media for failing to perform their functions to inform the public. The state media intentionally manipulated facts and figures regarding the number of protester turnout at every major demonstrations. The international press, and I'm referring to major, big name news organizations here, consistently over-simplify and misrepresent the nature of the political situation, the conflict and the people involved, failing to provide any context or in-depth analysis to the international audience. For that, it is difficult for the protester to gather any support from the international communities but instead are being viewed as anti-democratic. The free press are supposed to be the greatest tool of democratic process for the people, but here it has utterly failed. The proof of this failure is the some of the opinions that are so misinformed they can contribute nothing of substance to the discussion.

Wow... that turned out to be quite a rant...

The protest is not yet over. And I feel there are still a lot to talk about and discuss over before this comes to an end, whatever that end may be. This is a complex issue that cannot be explained in detailed by one person in an article. But with this series of posts I made here will set the record straight, clarify any misconception of the characters of the two very different protest groups, or at least start a conversation.

Thank you for reading.
      

Taking a Look back: Red Shirt Protest in Bangkok 2009 - 2010 (Part 1)

The articles are based on my own personal experience photographing the Red shirt protest, conflict and its aftermath in Bangkok between the year 2009 - 2010. The first part presented here covers the event in April of 2009, Bangkok, Thailand.

My first experience covering political event in my hometown of Bangkok involved a protest by the Red shirt when they moved in to the city. It was in the middle of April in 2009, just before the Songkran festival. At that moment I already had an idea who they were and what their ideology were supposed to be; namely they support Thaksin Shinawatra as the rightful leader of the country, and they were against the Democrat government. I was going in to the protest with an open mind to listen to what the Red shirt had to say, what did they stand for, what they believed in and why they were against the government. I went in expecting an exercise in democratic process with the people speaking out against the wrongdoing of the government, social injustice or a concrete demand for change.

The Red shirt protest gathered at Victory Monument

The message I got could be summed up in a few very simple points.
"We (the Red shirt) are right."
"They (the government) are wrong."
"We are a peaceful protest."
"We will win."

Thaksin Shinawatra; their rightful leader & idol.

"Thaksin...Come back!"; the Red shirt's top priority

After spending sometime among the mob and listening to their rhetoric, it was very clear to me that what I thought the Red shirt were and essentially what everybody had been saying about them was true. It was all about their leader Thaksin Shinawatra. There never was any real substance to their accusation of the government being dictatorial or undemocratic. Their issue with the government was that it was not the government they wanted.

That was early in the afternoon.

Later in the afternoon was a different story. 

As I moved away from the Victory Monument, the Red shirt also started to move as well. We happened to be going in the same general direction, towards the historic part of Bangkok. The mob as I saw them at that moment was a whole different animal from the one just a few hours earlier. There are only a few photographs that I can show here because the mob was starting to get hostile...at least towards a photographer like me. As they were marching to their destination, I started to notice weapons being carried by many members of the mob. Many of the weapons were improvised like clubs and shields made from whatever stuffs they could get their hands on. Another piece in their arsenal was a curious, strangely-colored liquid in plastic bottle, Molotov cocktail??? I could not take photographs of the mob carrying their weapons because if they saw me taking a photograph, other members would came up to me demanding that I stopped and deleted any photos I had. That was the first time the Red shirt mob stopped me from photographing, but it wouldn't be the last. I remembered vividly being scared for my life.  

The mob manning the road-block and re-directing traffic

Foreign press covering the event

"Peaceful Protester"

In the evening nothing eventful took place. But the real violence started the following morning. As far as I'm concerned, this is how the Red shirt protest will operate from then on; organize a demonstration, publicly announce that they are peaceful and finally commit random act of violence and set something on fire before they leave.