More ominously could be observed on the peripheries of the manicured grounds were crude arsenals of an assortment of weapons such as spears, golf clubs and Molotov cocktails and improvised shields and motorcycle crash helmets, necessary gear for a mob hell-bent on over-throwing a democratically elected government.

The mob were not party-goers but protestors from the ironically named “People’s Alliance for Democracy” (PAD). Occupying Government House from August 26 2008, these protestors have taken to hanging their washing lines over the neatly trimmed hedge topiaries of the grounds and generally behaving as their brethren throughout the world do – with a menacing proposition to cause mayhem and inflict damage unless their demands are met.

Among the thousands of protesters who have occupied Thai government offices in Bangkok since Aug. 26 is Jantana Klinchan, a street vendor.  She joined the demonstration out of a desire to oust the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, a close ally to Thailand's exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra. Although her animus toward both men is visceral, she, an illiterate street vendor, also takes issue with their policies.

Thaksin and Samak are by no means pure free-traders. They champion a sector of Thai society ignored by the old political elite—impoverished farmers—and practice dual-track economic policies that combine populist perks for the least well-off and greater participation in the global economy. But they are far less hostile to free markets than the PAD, a collection of groups that saw their power and prestige challenged by Thaksin: civil servants threatened by his efforts to trim bureaucracy, trade unions representing industries facing privatization, an urban middle class that resents rural development initiatives and traditional Buddhist groups that fear wholesale Westernization of Thai culture.

PAD founder and media baron Sondhi Limthongkul is leading the protests. In contrast to Thaksin, who often spoke of elevating Thailand to the ranks of the developed world, Sondhi advocates a "reasonable society" no longer burdened by debt and obsessed with "how many cars or washing machines" people own.

The genesis of the crisis is arguably voters' rejection of PAD's austerity plan in December's elections. In early 2006 PAD led mass demonstrations against then Prime Minister Thaksin, which led to a bloodless coup eight months later. The ruling junta quickly fell out of favor for mismanaging Thailand's economy and held elections—which Samak and his People's Power Party won in a landslide. Sondhi promptly soured on democracy. The victors and the electoral system, he says, are corrupt: "Representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand."

Deforestation Watch takes no sides in this Thai tragedy of epic proportions that plays out every couple of years or decades, depending on the issues inundating that relatively young democracy.  What has piqued our interest is the remarkable parallel between the sorry activism of this group of rabble-rousers with the activism of the extreme left leaning environmental NGO’s and the liberal media that appears hell-bent on reining in palm oil.

In our view, if the “People’s Alliance for Democracy” is unhappy with the People’s Power Party’s policies, there’s always the ballot-box.  Stand against the PPP and work towards ousting them in the next election.  That’s the constructive and democratic way!  Could the PAD have chosen this course because they know that they will be defeated in the ballot box?  We also have to ask, just who is paying for all the nightly BarBQ's and beer that has been supplied extravagantly, without pause for close to one month to the thousands occupying the Government House grounds?  

Similarly, if the environmental NGO’s truly believe that palm oil can be more sustainable produced than it already is, it should put its money where its mouth is.  Invest in a sustainable palm oil plantation and hand hold the small-holders and planters and show them the best practices and benefits of sustainable cultivation of palm oil.  That’s also the constructive way.  

After all, the left wing environmental organization, the Rainforest Action Network has annual revenues in excess of US$3.5 million.  The Friends of the Earth is even more formidable.  With total global revenues probably exceeding US$300 million per annum, surely the FOE can do much more to promote the sustainable cultivation of palm oil through good planting practices.  Needless to say, Greenpeace’s global financial resources would probably dwarf the other two, not to speak of the other environmental organizations who’ve hopped onto the anti-palm oil bandwagon!  It is indeed intriguing to consider how much good these organizations can do if they had opted to take the constructive path with palm oil.  Wouldn’t this be more productive than to take the well worn and anarchic route of militant and destructive activism that they appear to automatically gravitate towards, very much like the frustrated “democrats” of the PAD in Thailand?  Finally, it also behoves us to ask, just who is funding the anti-palm oil campaigns of RAN, FOE, Greenpeace and all the rabble-rousers?  Something stinks and it is not palm oil! THE END.