Thaksin was the victim of a military coup : Jaran

Q : Was the use of violence by red-shirt DAAD protesters considered a failure on part of the movement?

 A : It was a deficit and enabled the government to order the army and police to disperse the crowds. It also led to disapproving public sentiment and those who used to be sympathetic were no longer so. But I wouldn't call it a failure because we had no intention to use force. If we intended to use force from the outset, [the outcome] could have been better or worse.

 Q : Former Deputy Premier Chaturon Chaisaeng recently said the DAAD leadership lacks good planning in its strategy. Do you agree?

 A : Well, it's true. We didn't have detailed planning in a systemic fashion. What we had was a broad plan, call it master plan if you will. We didn't [go into the detail] as to what to do when that many people turned up. We simply thought if many showed up there would be change. But even if we really had a detailed plan, I would still wonder how it would look.

 The red-shirt movement is seen as anti-monarchist and if it made a slight misstep,it would be stepped on. The media and the business sector are on the government side. All we have is the people.

 If we think like an adventurist and say,"Let's take over Government House..." But then what's next?

 Q : Is it necessary to denounce DAAD leader Jakrapob Penkair's idea of a possible use of force in future struggle?

 A : In principle we're non-violent. That's because we believe we can keep the struggle going if we remain non-violent and could expand the movement. There are people in the movement, and not just Jakrapob, who proposed the use of force. But we should first adhere to non-violent principles; violence would only be used in self-defence when being cracked down upon. Secondly, Thailand had a lesson [in violent struggle]. I don't think we have to go that far. We fight for democracy and to use force to take over the state in the name of democracy is self-contradictory.

 Q : What did you personally learn from the April incident?

 A : A few things. First I learnt that the government is willing to suppress, even if hundreds of thousands people turn up [on the streets]. But we must ask who ordered the government and the military to do so? This crackdown will be cited as a precedent for future crackdowns and not just on red-shirt protesters.

 Second, it was like October 6, (1976) when the media [took a side]. If pro-red D Station and community radio were not taken off air, many more people would have turned out. A majority of the media reported news that gave legitimacy to the crackdown. Third, in a fiercely contested situation, we need to be more organised and plan on what different groups [of protesters] should do. We tried [but] failed.

 Q : Why have all the DAAD leaders, yourself included, failed to even issue a statement expressing regrets for the two lives lost in the  Nang Lerng area - largely believed to be killings committed by red-shirt protesters?

 A : In fact, when we issued our first press statement [after the incident] I told the person who wrote the statement to express regret for the loss of lives on both sides [but he or she failed to do so].

 I personally feel sad and thought it unfortunate and shouldn't have happened; but I haven't had the opportunity to speak publicly yet. I believe the other leaders feel so too... But people also tell us that the Nang Lerng area is filled with PAD people and those organised by the Democrat Party.

 Q : Many can't bear the fact that the DAAD is supporting Thaksin. You yourself were a former National Human Rights Commissioner so how could you justify working with someone who has an established record of human rights violations?

 A : First, whether you see Thaksin as right or wrong, and I have criticised him in the past, we must recognise that he's a victim of a military coup. From here on I separate the issue and I don't see it as one. I have always opposed coups d' etat and I can face up to the fact that Thaksin is part of the [DAAD] movement.

 Those who attack us on the issue of Thaksin are naive, deceitful as we all have relationships with bad people [one way or another].

 What's more, without [our] talking about Thaksin, only 300 or 400 would have turned out [to oppose the coup and join the movement]. What is wrong with these people [who supported Thaksin]? They are Thai citizens and don't they have [political] rights?

 Q : Is the red-shirt movement hurting the country, as a group of campaigners currently claim?

 A : Those who joined the [stop hurting Thailand] campaign mostly hurt Thailand themselves over the past few years. People like Bowornsak [Uwanno of King Prajadhipok Institute] drafted [the military-sponsored] charter. And the Thai Journalists' Association, these people are liars.

 Q : Some say both red and yellow media are brainwashing people?

 A : I agree. The word "brainwashing" may be too harsh though. Allow me to use the expression, [such media is] creating a societal consensus that is lacking in logical grounding. The two opposing sides are at odds and don't much rely on facts.

 But both the government and the society must permit them [to exist]. Even though I have problems with ASTV or ASTV-Manager daily but I still think of them as being mass media. At times it spilled propaganda but it's still within their rights to express their opinion. But the government is very tricky... It's now trying to curb freedom of expression on community radio.

Q : Do you feel personally guilty about the recent sacking of editors of Matichon daily newspaper and Matichon Weekly - as one of the reasons cited is that they once went into the jungle [to join the Communist Party of Thailand] and are close to you?

 A : In fact Sathien [Chantimatorn, now ex-editor of Matichon Weekly news] was very careful. We're careful even while talking on the phone. The allegation is false, however. There's no conspiracy but he had a [pro-DAAD] idea beforehand.

Q : You said at a seminar recently (Uplifting red-shirt movement, at Chulalongkorn University) that the new red-shirt movement should be prolonged. How many years do you expect for the next movement before achieving 'victory'? 

 A : I expect more than five years. It's a prolonged strategy. We will manage to have a short-term plan and a long-term plan. For example, the short-term plan would apply for three years during the Abhisit government, which, I expect, can complete its term.

Q : You said at the same seminar that the movement should explore other approaches, too, not only demonstration. What other approaches do you suggest?

A : The new approaches should stress education and building up of our ideology. For example, we should establish an organisation of red shirts that holds a political seminar, being a political school for the red shirts. However, I still don't know what the organisation would be like. Moreover, like the yellow shirt's New Politics, we will create a model of democracy that is genuinely suitable for Thailand. However, we still have to stage a demonstration sometimes when it comes to some issues, such as constitutional amendment.