Thai ‘n’ Die?
By F
Issue 64, Spring 2004
I remember very well the day that I felt the club I’d grown up with and loved had gone, and it wasn’t that sad, sad day in the spring of ’94. It was 19th August 1995; Stan’s first game. I was in the Upper Centenary - the first and only time I’ve ever been there - and about 10 minutes after the start of the second half George came on the Tannoy with the following announcement: "can Mr X from KP Foods, please meet Mr Y from Ford after the game in the Carlsberg lounge". First of all I was gobsmacked that anyone would ask for that to be broadcast in the middle of the game. It wasn’t one of those legendary announcements that someone ought to contact a maternity ward, or that someone’s five year old was lost.
Nope, just two meathead businessmen who needed to "make the wires connect" after the game. And then of course there was the seemingly endless stream of corporate names. It seemed to me at the time we had sunk as low as it was possible to go where selling our heritage and soul was concerned. Sadly however, I was wrong and naive. There was so much farther we could go.
And now it would seem that we are contemplating going that extra distance. If the rumours of the Thai PM buying a share of LFC are true, we stand at a fork in the road. One of the roads is marked "global branding". It’s a one way street, there’s nowhere to pull over and there’s no speed limit. The only rule is that you have to keep going faster all the time.
I don’t pretend to have any better knowledge of what it is that would happen should the Thai PM buy part or all of our club, but then the nice thing about a fanzine is that I don’t have to have ‘extra knowledge’ for me to have an opinion on whether it’s a good idea or not. In having my little rant, I’ll leave aside any issues which may or may not stem from the nature of the man in question. Not because they’re not important - they are - but because the things I want to get off my chest are independent of the individual.
So first off, no one in this day and age is going to put zillions of pounds into buying a football club unless they think they are going to make a return on their investment. How are they going to do that? Well, there’s only one way, and that’s by selling things: TV rights, and all manner of ancillary memorabilia - whoever it is certainly won’t be satisfied with gate receipts. You might argue that, actually we already do that, so what’s the harm? Fair enough. But don’t forget the seminal essence of the capitalist monster is growth.
Rockerfeller was asked how much money was enough, and answered "a little bit more". So it will be with Liverpool. We’ll have to sell more shirts, more Owen duvet covers, and, above all, more TV air-time. People on the forum have pointed out that we are effectively the Thai national team, and so buggering us up would be tantamount to political suicide. But that argument doesn’t take account of the difference between what the population of Thailand and the population of Liverpool may think of as buggering us up. So there are millions of Thai reds fans. Good for them. Trouble is that they’re not going to be overly bothered about us playing at Anfield are they - certainly not if the alternative was for us to end up in some sort of global franchise league where we played proper competitive games in Thailand. Now I hear you say it’s far-fetched, and maybe it is, but then just think about how much of what used to be the European Cup has changed in such a short time, and how much closer it is to a league proper. And rich and powerful people don’t usually get all that wealth and power from being overly sentimental. To them a football club is just an asset like any other, capable of conversion into hard cash should it take their fancy or if the need arises. I could go on and on, but I think that you get the picture.
In any case, there are those, quite understandably, who
ask how on earth we are going to catch up with the Mancs if we don’t take the global brand route - Thai benefactor or otherwise. It’s a valid question but I’m not going to answer it. You see I don’t believe that catching the Mancs up is the most important thing. I’ve alluded to this several times on the forum, but to me this club is as much about Liverpool the place as football. I used to get a tingle when 11 men ran onto the pitch all in plain red with just collars and cuffs trimmed in white; I swear that strip had magical qualities, and to me it was no coincidence that, sponsorship aside, we were the last by some distance to arse about with it. By today’s standards our ground is frankly shite. But that didn’t stop me getting a lump in my stomach on big European nights walking down Belmont Road, knowing in a minute I’d see the Kop, all the time thinking what on earth teams like Benfica must think - the kings of Europe having a ground stuffed into a load of old houses.
Maybe it’s sad and I ought to have got myself a life sooner, but I felt proud. Again I could go on. These things, and more besides, all fused together to mean Liverpool - FC, City, people and culture. Everything that was good about the place symbolised by eleven men in red. I agree I’m playing fast and loose with history in a sense, because we had those fucking pinstripes as far back as 1982. Truth is that while we were still winning it was easier to bear them (and the other clown outfits after that). But now I find it increasingly hard to take.
So you see I’d just as soon ditch shirt sponsorship, the big money superstars, and all of the razamattaz that now accompanies football and take us back to 11 men in red supported by fans who are at one with them. Even if, as Big Ed suggested in The Power and The Glory, they do end up playing in the Nation-wide.
Now I know that quaint little image is as likely to become reality as a Gerard Houllier press conference containing the phrase "I was wrong", and although I really do mean it, I’m using it to make a point. In spite of what I thought back in 95, we haven’t yet sold everything. In some indefinable way I still sense something of the essence of what I always felt the club was about. And that’s what we have to lose by getting bought - by the Thai PM or anyone of his ilk.
No one gave me the right to decide (oh I wish). And in the end the fans may not have any say in whether something like this eventually comes about. However, one thing’s for certain, not saying anything will make sure you don’t have a say. If this particular story, or a subsequent one, turns out to be true, then more than anything else I really really hope that whatever happens in the end is what most of the fans and the city actually wants. Make no mistake, whether you make your voice heard on this issue, or whether you don’t, you’ll end up with the club you deserve.
by FARMER’S BOY
There is also the small matter of just who you get into bed with. Just as anti-racist groups would have descended on Anfield to protest about Lee Bowyer, Amnesty International would target Liverpool FC for any financial dealings with Shinawatra, that’s for damn sure.
*********
1st article
Amnesty International today expressed grave concern about hundreds of reported killings of drug trafficking suspects by the Thai security forces since 1 February 2003 -- the day when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced a "war on drugs". The effect of the government’s campaign against drugs trafficking has been a de facto shoot-to-kill policy of anyone believed to be involved in the drugs trade.
"It is a sad fact that after 10 years of significant improvement in Thailand’s human rights record, the government has now taken a big step backwards. Encouragement for extra-judicial killings has been given at the highest level with law enforcement personnel under heavy pressure to "produce results" or lose their jobs," Amnesty International said.
The government claims that only 15 of the almost 600 shot dead in the past three weeks were killed by the security forces, and the rest were as a result of drug dealers shooting one another. The authorities are not permitting pathologists to perform autopsies and bullets are reportedly being removed from the corpses.
*********
2ND ARTICLE
In February 2003, Kham Pan Suksai, a village headman and farmer well known for his attempts to prevent logging in his community’s forests, was cooking food for local villagers in Chiang Dao town. As he conversed with locals he was shot dead by a passing motorcyclist. Despite a confession from a forestry official, no one has been charged with his murder. As Justine Vaisutis reports, unfortunately Kham Pan Suksai’s story is not isolated.
Encroaching globalisation is taking a heavy toll on the rights and quality of life for many Thais, particularly marginalised people, rural communities, ethnic groups and migrant workers. Somsri Hananuntasuk, a Board Member of Amnesty International Thailand, warns that appealing for labour rights or voicing opposition to dam projects and deforestation is becoming increasingly perilous.
"The economy is improving but the human rights situation is worsening, in the view of civil society. The Thai government doesn’t see those human rights violations as an urgent matter or serious problem and the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said to us that Thailand has no need for NGOs (’trouble makers’) in the future - they will be unemployed."
The Thai Government has perhaps demonstrated this attitude most in its ’war on drugs’. Since this war began in January 2003, there has been widespread concern regarding the measures and evidence used by the authorities to compile ’blacklists’ of suspected traffickers. A.I. Thailand is particularly concerned about the increased deaths and arrests. "We are keeping an eye on the extra-judicial executions and the death penalty. More than 40,000 people were arrested and about 2,500 people killed last year; this number is from the Human Rights Commission in Thailand, not the government. Right now we have nearly 1000 people on death row; more than 50% are drug offences."
The relationship between socio-economic rights and human rights is felt most by women in Thailand. Statistics sourced from the Royal Thai Police indicate a woman is raped or molested every hour and on average, two girls under the age of 15 are raped every hour. Thai law states that "any man who abuses his own wife is favoured by law", and A.I. Thailand will be drawing on the global ’Violence Against Women’ campaign in 2004 to change this.
"The government should improve women’s conditions and amend the laws and we will have this issue discussed in public, together with NGO women’s organisations. We plan to have 100,000 hands stamped on a five kilometre-long canvas to stop this violence. We will have vans campaigning in 20 strategic provinces (out of 76 provinces) and will ask the ruling and opposition parties’ members to stamp their hands too."
Thai human rights defenders perhaps have a personal insight into the struggle for improved human rights in Burma, having effected democratic change in their own country 11 years ago. A.I. Thailand has been prominent in its support for Burmese refugees in Thailand and prisoners of conscience through a series of urgent actions. In 2003, members of A.I. Thailand’s refugee team visited the refugee camp of Mae La (Mae Sot), bringing with them basic necessities and human rights education. Somsri Hananuntasuk tells us however, that this work is hindered by the Thai Government’s attitude.
"We have a UNHCR head office in Bangkok but the Thai government doesn’t want to ratify the refugee convention and they do not want to be officially responsible for this issue in the UN community. (Also) our government doesn’t want to break its relationship with any neighbouring countries even though (Myanmar’s) government is a dictatorship. A.I. Thailand still wants the Thai government to ratify the convention and this will be our task."
Since 1996, A.I. Thailand has been raising awareness of this and other human rights issues through its Human Rights Education (HRE) programmes. Somsri Hananuntasuk says HRE’s strength is in the schools and other educational institutions. The program has resulted in presentations at Bangkok schools, pilot courses in conflict resolution and an alliance with UNESCO-affiliated schools.
"We are doing this work in the provinces because somehow people in the villages listen to us better than in urban areas, and it is good to initiate these activities on this level. We also want to have HRE in our formal curricula. The plan for HRE will continue, especially to the middle class and that will be through universities and schools as well".
*********
Sounds like a really classy guy, right? People may say "yeah, but Chelsea never said ‘no’ to Abramovich did they – and look what they’re doing now", but what’s that got to do with anything?
Liverpool really ought to have distanced themselves from this guy on day one. Screw all that ‘treating this rumour with the contempt it deserves’, if we had an ounce of humanity we’d have said no immediately.
But I suppose that might jeopardise any future lucrative pre-season tours, wouldn’t it? Just as showing any solidarity whatsoever with the club’s supporters over their disgraceful treatment at the hands of the Sun would have endangered revenue from Murdoch-owned Sky Sports?
Will there ever be someone at this football club who will say "Fuck the money, let’s do what’s right"?
I’m right naïve, me.
|
