Both PAD and Samak to blame for causing violence

The majority of opinions and editorials in the newspapers today criticised both the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and the Samak Sundaravej government for choosing to use violence.

Krungthep Thurakij’s editorial said the incident in which PAD protestors broke into the NBT TV station’s building should not have happened under no circumstances.

No matter how biased the TV channel has been and how much the protesters disliked it, it was not justifiable to use such violent approach. Violence was the wrong choice and would make the situation even worse.

Apart from the NBT incident, the other moves of the PAD to lay siege to several other governmental offices yesterday appeared rather violent. Instead of gaining more support from the public, such violent acts of the PAD could lead to a rise in negative feeling against it.

All the same, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej’s announcement to use tough measures to disperse the PAD protestors was tantamount to adding fuel to fire. The government might be able to control of the situation but that would not be the end of conflicts.

The use of force to contain the PAD would result in widening the rift between two political camps in this society. Both the PAD and the government should be reminded about the past lesson learned from the Sept 19, 2006 military coup and stop considering using violence against each other.

Kafae Dum column by Suthichai Yoon, also in Krungthep Thurakij, said the media would not take any side either the PAD or the government because they would never be exploited by neither of them.

Mr Samak said the government was about to hit its limit, whereas the PAD vowed to make this the final war to topple the government. This suggested that confrontation of both sides would drag on and could turn nasty at any moment.

Kae Roi Karn Muang, another column in Krungthep Thurakij pointed out that the best solution should be that the PAD agrees to stop the movements while Mr Samak should resign. After that, a new prime minister should be selected from the coalition parties.

Why did the PAD decide to give the government final ultimatum? The main analysis run on the front page of Post Today said the PAD must realise that Mr Samak would call House dissolution and then push to amend the constitution while being the interim government.

The PAD must have evaluated that if it let that happen, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra would have a high chance to rise to power again after the new election that his party would win again.

To arrest the five leaders of the PAD might not be difficult but to do so would cause the government to fall in to a trap that could result in the fall of the government. To pressure Mr Samak to resign seemed impossible as well.

Therefore, it was up to the army how this predicament would end. If the army could keep staying away from the confrontation between the government and the PAD, the PAD would in the end give up. However, if the government response violently, the army would have no choice but to come out to intervene.

Thai Post’s editorial called on both the government and the PAD to maintain a peaceful approach in no matter what decision they would make. The PAD should stick with its words that it would continue to protest in peace, where one good sign from the government side was that Mr Samak said he would not use violence to disperse the PAD protest.

However, the risk was that the situation could be intensified with the third party attempting to stir up violence and if the police fail to prevent such a prospect, violence could erupt.

Another piece of opinions in Post Today criticised PAD leader Suriyasai Kataksila for lying that the about 80 men who covered their faces and broke into the NBT channel building were not from the PAD. His tale has drawn negative feeling against the PAD.

Matichon’s also agreed that the NBT incident caused the PAD to loose credit to some extent. The PAD’s promise to maintain peace in the fight against the government was already broken. 

On the other hand, a veteran politician like Mr Samak would never fall into the PAD’s trap. He would continue to be patient to win in the end, whereas the PAD would end up being considered a villain.

Thai Rath described the current situation as a game of who makes the first move would lose. It was referring to that any side ever lose its patience first would become the looser in this confrontation.

Kom Chad Luek’s analysis said the PAD has a higher risk of loosing the game with Mr Samak was likely to pretend to stay calm and continue ignoring the PAD. And if the PAD decides to use violence first, it could end up being regarded as rebellion.

Thai Post said the PAD had good reason to give the government an ultimatum, despite saying that it could not agree with the act of breaking into the NBT channel building. The newspapers cited several reasons why the government should go including causing the country to lose territorial sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple land and attempting to exonerate Mr Thaksin.

The newspapers also raised doubts if the 80 men breaking into the NBT channel office were really from the PAD or not.

Naew Na said the time for the Samak government was being counted down and if it was tempted to use violence to deal with the PAD, it time would run out even faster. However, if the government did not anything with the PAD, it would not be able to govern the country.

Daily New pointed out that situation would likely to drag on.