CalgaryII

"With time. the PM has steered a steady course winning the hearts and minds of the population" #27^

That is true, but even more impressive to me, has been the retention of her political support base. The centrist path she chose, mollifying, emasculating and avoiding 'the mud' with significant and powerful elements of the opposition, while retaining that support, seemed impossible to me. But she continues to do it.

Blimey!........ I would agree that Yingluck has done her best but even for calgaryll this is fulsome praise indeed.

LOL

I keep trying to figure out what some video showing furtive and limited instances of protester fighback is supposed to achieve. Does it suggest that protesters shouldn't have done what protesters do? That the armed pro-coup people who protesters were protesting against, should not have been opposed? What else would anyone have expected from protesters? This was not a Mahatma Gandhi type situation. BirdP's description in Post #129 ^ pretty well sums up the protesters capabilities, ".....maybe a few rogue opportunists with rudimentary weapons, but certainly no armed militia". So what is all this indignation about protester fightback all about? What else was expected? Questions, questions, questions. What non-simplified cause were protesters so up-in-arms-about and defending to the death by over 90 of them, is more pertinent IMHO. Everything else was par-for-the-course as far as demonstrations are concerned.

That is true, but even more impressive to me, has been the retention of her political support base. The centrist path she chose, mollifying, emasculating and avoiding 'the mud' with significant and powerful elements of the opposition, while retaining that support, seemed impossible to me. But she continues to do it.

All of this stuff about Red Shirt protesters fightback at R'song it seems to suggest that 'fightback' was bad, and coup defence was good. What does anyone think anti-coup protesters do, if not resist the coupists. It seems more apropo to discuss their reasons for protesting, and not their methods. To get a handle on that, one needs look no further than last year's election, which could be viewed to be anti-coup in part.....Elections validated their reasons and invalidated those who suggested narrow, mindless motives - Not complicated.

Just have the Thai lady buy it. How the hell will they know who it is for. Some of this is unclear. Is it really true this only applies to Farang geezers and not Thai? Hard to believe. If so, may bring the price down to Thai users level.

Considering his Coup association and R'song baggage, I just cannot envison a 'pathway for his return' to political leadership outside his own narrow political base or via "special arrangements". He embodies 'political instability', so hard to see how he would achieve the opposite. I still see the 'flip flops' with his and Suthep's face on them, being used extensively. Hard to rise from that level politically. For these reasons, I don't understand why the Democrats don't take a page from Western Democracies and go through a Leadership contest, culminating in a Convention. There must be politically untainted, brighter lights in that Party who might shine, going through such a process....To me that is a no-brainer.

Is a rehash of R'song in above Posts related to this thread, or is it off-topic? I wil posit the notion that the R'song event has a direct link to current 'reconciliation' initiatives, which in turn is the subject matter of this thread. So what is the link? I would suggest that as long as the R'song thing is spun as a legitimate exercise of Government power, even when that Govt. was shown to have limited legitimacy by last years' election, 'reconciliation' initiatives today are 'dead-on-arrival'.

Pro-coup apologists will try to highlight armed resistance by the Protesters. Should there have been such armed resistance, other than what BirdP. describes above as " maybe a few rogue opportunists with rudimentary weapons, but certainly no armed militia", surely they do not suggest that there was a clash of 'equal forces" right???? In fact, the armed resistance of the protesters was very anemic comparatively speaking. Considering the protesters were 80% unarmed women, and the number of protester deaths, speak to that alone. They were faced with a professional, pro-coup trained and armed force.

Then the question is, should the protesters have resisted at all? The argument in favor of that is found in last years election. It showed how correct the protesters were, and how well they understood they were the political majority, governed by a political minority, which gained that position via those very same armed forces, and not electorally. Their motive in protesting was therefore clear, in spite of pro-coup apologists characterizing them as a-political zombies blindly following one person, and anarchic for standing up to them.

So with pro-coup apoplogists insisting on their version of R'song, and the electorally majority protesters theirs, is it any wonder reconciliation is not gaining traction. These fault lines are clearly in evidence by the article heading up this thread, namely accusing the Democrats, the primary beneficiaries of the R'song thing, as obstructing reconciliation then and now. It can be persuasively argued that instead of grossly uneven forces being unleashed at that time, could just as easily have been resolved politically. Those protesters were looking for a face-saving excuse to go home. They were tired of being there. Had offers of earlier dissolution of Parliament been negotiated through to a political agreement instead of what happened, would have set the stage for reconciliation then, that has as a result become impossible now, as we are witnessing. And to the naysayers, I would argue that a politcal agreement was not only possible, but in easy reach. An offer is not an agreement in normal negotiation settings.

Could 'reconciliation' and "negotiation" be considered close functional cousins?.....Negotiation did not occur at R'song when one considers the sequence:..... an offer>>>>acceptance subject to modification>>>>an armed response rendering the aforementioned offer a mafia one......... If reconciliation was impossible then, how can it be possible now?....... It cannot, imho.

Political protesters do not terrorists make, although those they protest against will have a number of less-than-complimentary characterizations of them to be sure - terrorists being a mild one and self-servingly portraying them as anarchistic another one.

Maybe when all was said and done, the voters in their wisdom aligned things correctly, which may be a form of reconciliation in its' effect.

But I keep reading about how things are going to hell-in-a-handbasket with Ms. Y's bungling Govt and gross flood disaster mismanagement, amongst other dire screw-ups.....Did those voters know something?

I'm confused

What 'persistent turmoil fuelled by the power struggle"?........ I suppose the Democrats can be forgiven for thinking there must be turmoil if they are not governing, but that is not reality......... Is there more of a 'power struggle' here in Thailand than between the Republicans and Democrats in the USA, or between the Conservatives and Labour in Great Britain? I don't think so. Just normal political discord between competing political forces that elections serve to regulate.

That aside, political conventions following a significant electoral defeat normally include a leadership review. Obviously not in this case, or at least I haven't seen any reference to it.

But the prosecutor said there was no wrongdoing...... I understand this is the reporter who wrote a book, idolizing Mr. Abhisit. Although she protests that she has loftier goals than 'personal grudges', this background should certainly contextualize her actions. If I recall, the story goes that she was not questioning Ms. Y, but rather attacking her in a derogatory manner. Considering that the UDD/Red Shirts have a clear and publicly acknowledged personal mandate to protect this Govt. to prevent it being stolen again, it is perhaps understandable as to their reactions, whether justified or not. These protective actions will be a fixture for the immediate future. Expect them. The UDD/RS are determined not be caught napping again, like they were in 2006.

Having been a Senior official in a national Tourism Authority in a previous life,

Bloody hell mate. Most people reckon they were an Egyptian Pharaoh or Roman Gladiator.

"O, let me tell you about that too............

Having been a Senior official in a national Tourism Authority in a previous life, this initiative is very much along the lines of marketing strategies followed by such organizations. If one scrutinized Marketing plans and strategies of other PATA members, one would see the similarity in operational mode. It really has very little to do with Politics, and everything to do with the normal Economic Development that all nations-states engage in.

Probably paid "an arm and a leg" to some marketing consulting firm to come up with the themes and advertising mode for this tourism promotional campaign. Hopefully it was done in a competitive environment.

At least it has been shown by 'word and deed' who is interested in Reconciliation, and who is not. Those seeking what they cannot get via other means, such as elections, and when that doesn't work, take their 'ball and bat and go home'......... Just put it in a perspective of one-on-one..... If you were a Red Shirt, are you expected to seek reconciliation with a guy who looks down his arrogant nose at you, sees you as a lesser being with zero political sensibilities, a guy who stole your Govt. and beat the sh.. out of you when you objected. What would you say to a guy like that? I won't indicate what I would say to him, but I sure wouldn't bother with any reconcilaition stuff, that is for sure. Maybe I would say, "see ya at election time'.

Everything I have seen associated with this Thai Chamber of Commerce seems an extension of Opposition agenda's, including this one with a Researchy type overlay. This leads me to conclude that these people are 'agenda launderers' for the Opposition, either by design or unwittingly. Meaning having entities other than the Opposition advance their agenda's. Contrarily, and by extension, one could say the same thing for Nitirat, as they certainly advance the agenda of the PTP.

In other national settings, the C. of C. is typically associated with the ultra-Conservative side of the Political Spectrum. This C. of C. is true to that form. The policy statements they support consistently, are therefore as good an indicator as anything, of where the Thai Opposition is positioned on that Spectrum .

One can make unsubstantiated and agenized innuendo about funding all one likes, and denigrate those participating, but one cannot avoid the fact this is going to be a massive citizen movement corroberating electoral results, and repudiating the coupists. If this doesn't give some people pause, they are living in La La land, or ostriching to the extreme.

Utter nonsense. Nothing to do with that because there was no central philosophy and still isn't in the red movement. The red movement is akin to the 700,000 people that "supported" Mussolini which led to those terrible events all those years ago. We may well see history repeating itself here. It is a support base built by what Hitler proposed in Mein Kempf: That was do not build a movement on 'argumentation' but rather on appealing to the emotions. The Red Movement is solely a cross between a fan club and a movement to support one person, created by that person himself (and his cronies). Its about Greed and Power. If the Coup had been there as a long term Government (aka Burma), then perhaps there would have been a real human rights movement that understood and fought for democracy. But the Coup handed over to a Democratic process fairly quickly. Sadly, your exiled Hero has no truck with democracy and democratic principles apart from using the word as an emotional lever. Then there are many lies and rewriting of history in order to paint the post-coup Governments black. Sadly all that nonsense is transparent to all but the most hardened ideologues.

You forgot to mention Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

You see, all the great rants on here start off slowly with the hitler comparison, maybe a mussolini sideline, but gradually build up to mention the local despots, like the aforesaid pol pot and mao zedong. Sometimes we also get a ferdinand marcos mention and if you're talking about Yingluck you can bring his missus in to the rant as well for a double whammy.

I think we've had mention of a hugo chavez which is a bit of a stretch, geographically speaking, but if you've gone that far why not try a thesis on the comparisons between the red shirts and shining path guerillas, I know it's a different country but what the hell it's just a rant, nothing factual..

But anyway, what were you saying, you kind of lost me after "utter nonsense" or was that the content title?

LOL!

But not as long as the politicians are running things

From a practical viewpoint, ...

What are the other options, if not the politicians?

Hey, that gets to the heart of the matter!

Can't wait for the answer.

"reconciliation" is a little like putting a band-aid over a cancerous tumor. It ain't possible to reconcile with those who hold you in contempt and feel the least bit of remorse about R'song. In the face of their arrogance, I would simply walk away, with the words, "See ya at election time buddy".

The question of Sonthi and characterization of him siding with one side is also misleading. A rational and fact-based reconciliation effort would naturally expose the coup reality and their murderous defence of it. A reality that they have tried to obfuscate in smoke ever since. Just because this reality is discussed as it unfolded, doesn't all of a sudden call into question the impartiality of the thing. It is simply stating fact.

For above reasons, the tilting-at-windmills thing called 'reconciliation should just die a natural death. It is not going anywhere...."See ya at election time buddy" is the only reality that counts.

Agree or disagree, the fact remains that this guy speaks for probably the single largest political constituency in the country. Those opposed can denigrate, besmirch and disparage his comments all they want, but they speak from an electoral minority position. Conversely, respecting these perspectives and this political block, would probably be the best starting point to any "reconciliation" process. Easier said then done, when a sense of political inequality by some, is pervasive to their very core. It is just another reason why "Reconciliation" is 'stillborn' as a valid political exercise.

Wow, what entreprenuerial spirit. Good for them.....No travel Agency from here, but just organizers. Three busses filled so far, with no hotel, one day there and back, at 800.00 baht per head. With no interest in seeing Thaksin, I will stay clear of that border chokepoint. Will have a comfortable coffee with a good book at the German Bakery that day instead. Unless some of you want to discuss politics....no problem. I may even spring for a coffee.

Appointees, especially academic ones, are a problem. For example, some appointees proposed may not be subject to rejection, regardless of their history. It is also a well-known fact that beyond Nitirat, academics by and large come from one side of the political divide.

The beauty of Electoral Democracy. Combining the above two statements, capitalizing on a Parliamentary Majority are the deserved fruits of electoral victories and are to be expected, but not honouring the minority will come back to bite at the next election. However, this does not mean giving in to gridlock, so what is perceived by some as dictatorial, shows how much better the Thai system is, as compared to that of the US.

Not sure of the individual agenda's here, but I see little space between these people and Nitirat proposals based on the generalities of this article. These guys suggest no details and lack Nitirat specifics. So as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details" But assuming honorable intentions, above comment about 'reconciliation wars' is correct, and should put reconciliation stuff in the dustbin. Reconciliation means reconciling cause and effect. Effect on the "lives" of those exercising political resistance, and surfacing responsibilities, regardless how uncomfortable the truths might be. There is no commitment to this approach by some powerful elements unless it gains them things they cannot achieve otherwise. This essentially renders the process futile.