March 3, 2026: It’s not his departure from the People’s Party, but “how” he left it.
Piyabutr Saengkanokkul has been a respected figure at the party, a spiritual guide if you will. But with or without his presence, the party was functioning unaffected. Many supporters, rivals and critics of the Orange party have not said much about him, actually, and his name only returned to the news during the election campaign when the People’s Party needed all the help it could get.
So, it should have been that whether he stays or goes does not matter much. It’s not the case, apparently. His “goodbye” this week has come in the form of an online message that sharply criticised the party. Just when it needed a “Keep going, my dear colleagues” sort of sad but inspiring farewell, the People’s Party got a stinging parting shot.
He said “no theory for a mass party that I have studied” favoured free-for-all operations and taught that groups of alphas were unnecessary. This is a subtle remark, as the People’s Party certainly has its own leadership structure. He might be referring to the existence of “spiritual leaders” whose political roles have been limited by legal bans.
Those “spiritual leaders” were active just before February 8 but, by and large, they had kept a low profile. Piyabutr’s comment suggested that they did not get the respect they deserved within the Orange apparatus. The remark indicated he he was sulking.
Not only that. The “farewell” lambasted leading People’s Party members lashing out against one another on a weekly basis. Disagreement is common within such a big organisation, he admitted, but adding that it should have been dealt with within its walls, and any public comment should have come after thorough internal debates and considerations.
There’s more. Piyabutr’s post said “the mass party theory” never favoured a caste system that virtually elevates senior members into some kind of elite. He said the party must never become “a vehicle” for anyone’s hidden purpose to get a higher status. (Whom he was referring to is the million dollar question. Was he attacking certain leaders? Or was he talking about some that sought to be the party's election candidates?)
Also, he bemoaned poorly-planned decentralization of party powers that made some satellite units “uncontrollable”.
Last but not least, the screening. He said it wouldn’t help if the party had a large number of members but they did not have its core ideology in their blood. Election candidates and those rejected as election candidates are also a focus on his criticism.
He said now that he had done all he could for the party, he would now concentrate on writing and giving lectures. Such a “farewell” was not his first, but it was the last thing the People’s Party needed after February 8.
American logic
March 2, 2026: Can you shoot a man because you think he’s strong or will be strong enough to harm you?
It’s different from shooting a man fearing he will imminently rob you. That’s preemption, and what matters is whether he was actually plotting to do so or not.
Shooting a man because he has the capacity to hurt you _ he may have acquired a gun or is planning to definitely buy it, and everybody knows he has been hating you for ages _ is different. Yes, he may have got or will get a gun. Yes, he has been heard cursing you. But no, you are not fearing he “will” hurt you. You are just fearing he “might” hurt you maybe two years from now.
So far, “Iran might …” is the American logic behind the attack that started it all. Several reports quoting US intelligence information itself said no evidence has been found indicating an imminent Iranian aggression toward the United States. What matters in this case, therefore, is the question whether Donald Trump’s White House can strike Iran and wipe out its leaders without consulting Congress.
Trump’s supporters are asking what’s wrong with removing a potential threat. Critics are saying that anyone can have suspicion, and if you can kill someone based on suspicion alone, anybody can kill anybody and what we have is a full-blown anarchy, and by this logic, Russia justifiably invaded Ukraine because of fear that the smaller country would one day become a threat, with NATO obviously supporting it.
The US Constitution and laws are vague about wars and military actions that could protect American interest. A full-scale war absolutely needs congressional approval, whereas the president has powers to go unilateral when it comes to lesser military plots to protect the country. (This is also a big subject for debate, because while it might allow America to attack others without declaring a war, the Cambodian government, for example, cannot send warplanes to Thailand and tell the world it just wanted to bomb a military base that might cause Cambodia problems in the future.)
With the consequences of Trump’s decision now threatening to endanger the world’s stability, he has obviously embarked on something as big as declaring a war (even from Trump’s own words, it’s not an in-and-out secret military operation), many people are saying Congress should have been consulted.
It’s a hair-splitting legal exercise in the United States. Justifiable fear? Unfounded fear? Thinly-veiled claims designed to re-engineer the political structure of a major Muslim country? And so far, previous tweets of Trump have not even come into play yet. Unmistakable records show him predicting online that former presidents would be using military actions against other countries to boost or re-boost their local popularities. What Trump had said earlier, that it would be a crying shame if those presidents did not consult the Congress, will come back to haunt him.
Meanwhile, Thailand’s major opposition party is urging “restoration of world order” and respect for international law.
The People’s Party was apparently the first Thai political camp to indirectly criticise the attacks on Iran by America and Israel and Tehran’s response. The inexplicable strikes on Iran, which led to global criticism against the superpower and its major ally and widespread legal debate in the United States on whether an American political leader has illegally put country and world interest in danger, and the Iranian reaction are fanning fears of a big multi-national war.
The Orange party’s carefully-crafted statement did not openly call out Washington and Israel, but, in it, the party all but pointed out that the world order was being dangerously twisted. The party stated that the UN Charter needs to be respected in a world simmering with high geopolitical tension. This is a subtle criticism of the United States, which should be responsible for keeping that tension at a manageable level, not heightening it.
“Amid extremely-high and uncertain geopolitical tension, to be firm on the world order based on international rules of the UN Charter, and to respect all sovereignties equally will be a great shield,” the People’s Party’s statement said. It added that Thailand would benefit from that kind of respect.
The statement calls for measures to ensure safety of Thai nationals and immediate ceasefire.
When mask comes off, there’s no putting it back
March 1, 2026: Fear and respect can co-exist, but most of the time the former cancels out the latter.
Most of the time you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the Bible on one hand and gun on the other. You can’t kill and turn a blind eye to the sufferings of countless innocents and then succeed in convincing people that you love peace.
You can’t activate warplanes, deploy aircraft carriers, drop bombs or launch missiles and seek the Nobel Peace Prize. You can’t call others “dictators” when you yourself don’t ask those who matter around you.
You can’t rule by fear and tell everyone you are a nice guy. You can’t call yourself democratic when the most fundamental part of democracy is kept in the dark while you carry out your secret agendas. You can't pretend to care about some but ignore others when they all are basically the same.
You of all the people must know all of the above. You have just made a definite choice to remove all the doubts about your image. What the world is gaping at is you saying “No more respect? Fine, then so be it. How about this?”
Daily updates of, and opinions on, local and global events
