Like it or not, wind of change is coming

Like it or not, wind of change is coming

Parit Chiwarak, second right, and student activists flash the three-finger anti-dictatorship sign during a press conference in which they vowed to go ahead with their rally today. (Bangkok Post photo)
Parit Chiwarak, second right, and student activists flash the three-finger anti-dictatorship sign during a press conference in which they vowed to go ahead with their rally today. (Bangkok Post photo)

All eyes are on the big event this afternoon at Thammasat University.

Tens of thousands are expected to converge at Tha Prachan campus where an anti-dictatorship rally organised by a coalition of student groups will take place. Whether they can enter the campus grounds remains in question.

Earlier, university administrators issued a statement rejecting the organisers' request to hold a rally there, citing lack of compliance with rules for using the university ground.

A group of alumni led by former law lecturer and Senator Kaewsan Atiphothi issued a statement supporting the ban.

City officials also have said the royal ground (or Sanam Luang) across from Thammasat is off-limits to demonstrators as well.

Meanwhile, right-wing government supporters, including non-elected senators, have levelled unfounded allegations against protesters. They say the students are being manipulated by opposition politicians and have received funding from them.

Even more bizarrely, they floated a conspiracy theory casting the US as the foreign mastermind behind the protest, intent on instigating chaos to affect a change of government.

Leading officials, including Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, have also warned about possible outbreaks of violence during the protest.

This is despite the fact that previous gatherings had all been peaceful and well-organised.

A veteran activist, Pibhop Dhongchai of the People's Alliance for Democracy, rejects such insinuations as out of hand.

"Allegations that protesters will foment violence are false. All violence originates from the state apparatuses," he said at a recent discussion.

He added that the government has the capability to prevent violence if it carries out its responsibilities well.

So, the possibility of violence is pretty much out of the question unless the government allows its overly-enthusiastic supporters to do its dirty work.

What, then, is the real motivation for the various attempts to prevent the rally from taking place?

Since issuing the edict to ban the rally, Thammasat administrators have kept mum even though the rally organisers have insisted that they have fulfilled all the requirements of the university.

One of the requirements pertains to "contents (of the rally) and means of expression within the law" to be agreed to by concerned parties, including the police or responsible state agencies.

Such a meeting of the parties never took place. The university failed to respond to the rally organisers' application.

Looking back to the Aug 10 rally at Thammasat Rangsit campus, speakers caused a major shockwave when one of the topics touched on the monarchy. At the end of the rally, one of the organisers read a 10-point proposal to reform the high institution.

Never before had the topic been discussed in such a public manner. Conservative groups unsurprisingly were up in arms. Those in the middle did not know what to make of it.

The possibility of the subject being broached again on stage today was most likely in the back of the university administrators' minds when they decided to close the doors to the rally goers.

But what do they expect to achieve besides pushing the students to another venue where they are more vulnerable to violence?

The organisers have confirmed that monarchy reform will be on the agenda despite vehement opposition by conservative forces and uneasiness by some of their supporters.

Will denying the rally-goers access to the university grounds lead to the organisers to strike the topic from their agenda or the subject being deleted from the public's minds?

Since the Aug 10 rally, the genie has been let out of the bottle, and trying to put it back in is impossible. Before that, most people talked about it in private. We of the older generations have been very effectively programmed to not mention the matter in public.

The mass media, run by equally old generations, have also been programmed to go about it in a very gingerly way, often ending up with self-censorship.

People of younger generations have the advantage of not being programmed so intensely. This is not to say the establishment has not tried.

Are there any good reasons to suppress discussions of this subject? Would it lead to a more peaceful society or state of mind?

I don't think anyone will deny that at one time or another they have talked about the royal family among friends, and not always in a flattering manner. There are certain truths we must admit. Among them is that the royal institution has touched upon the life of all ordinary citizens, sometimes in a positive way, and sometimes, not so.

We must also acknowledge the fact that some people do advocate republicanism. Other countries with monarchies, such as the UK, also have such sentiments, but still manage to live peacefully.

Finally, there are people of goodwill who wish to see the reformation of the royal institution so that it will continue to be the centre of faith and respect.

The issue of public discontent and concern will not be resolved unless we have open discussions in good faith.

Let me end by quoting Anand Panyarachun, twice a prime minister.

"Can we accept the fact that change will occur?" he said at a recent discussion.

"Whether this group [student protesters] exists or not, change will come. Nothing stands still. If we can, it is then the duty of the powers-that-be to ensure that change occurs peacefully and smoothly."

Wasant Techawongtham

Freelance Reporter

Freelance Reporter and Managing Editor of Milky Way Press.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (60)