jayboy

The question of who foreigners support and why is actually quite an interesting one though this thread so far is sadly short on perception and fair mindedness (and dare I say it intelligence).For those who are prepared to transcend cliched stereotypes and consider some home truths, not always comfortable for either side of the divide,Danny Unger's article in Asia Times is compelling.It certainly made me think hard.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LD07Ae01.html

Sadly, I agree.

Abhisit is coming out of this far too wishy washy.

Just read a quote of his translated speech, which basically says that because more people joined the mob, it was impossible to enforce the law

<deleted> is all that about?????????

I am afraid that Abhisit is being far too soft, and the red shirts can see that. They are behaving like a naughty child whose parent keeps saying "If you do that one more time, you will get a smack". And the smack never comes!! Its actually becoming a rather embarrassing joke.

Actually what is embarrassing is the sight of expatriates baying for blood - without much knowledge, without context and certainly without understanding.

So far Abhisit hasn't put a foot wrong.Unlike sadly many forum members he has a profound and wise understanding of recent Thai political history.He knows that to over react would be fatal and is showing admirable patience.Sooner or later the Reds will go home and will understand that they were treated in a civilised and non-patronising way.In Thailand violence and thuggishness is always just beneath that she surface.Abhisit has resisted all that.He should be proud and his detractors on this forum ashamed.

My Thai wife said: "What a brainless idiot. But then again that's why she only sells flowers."

There will I expect be different ideas of who is the brainless idiot in this revealing little anecdote.

For those who missed it Sae Daeng the other day spelt it out. Thaksin has ordered the reds into top gear to finish it. That is what we are seeing. It is just a matter of who prevails now but a good guess will be that it wiont be Thailand or its people but one power elite or the other.

The issue is, that as long as the army won't let Abhisit dissolve parliament because of the upcoming shuffle, the only outcome should the reds appear to prevail is a coup. And I don't believe that the army won't do it if it means saving their own skins from a potential UDD controlled parliament. They need Abhisit to stay in for at least 2 terms to get rid of the spectre of Thaksin.

So it is virtually impossible for the reds to prevail.

The issue is that Abhisit doesn't want to dissolve parliament, not that the military won't let him. The few thousand people roaming Bangkok now do not represent the wishes of the entire country. Fourteen million people voted for the Democrats in the last election and when you add the votes for the coalition parties that is the real majority of this country. Since this government represents the majority of the people in the country, they do not have to do what the minority wants.

To my mind this is all a bit confused.Firstly this is a legitimate government (one can argue about its "guided" path to power but that's a different matter).A government should govern and this often means defying the majority.If the majority don't like a government they can vote them out an election and choose one more to their taste.Abhisit is the legitimate leader of the government and commands a majority in parliament.He does not have to hold an election for some time.The Reds have no right to demand a dissolution now.I suppose more accurately they have the right to demand anything they like but on this matter Abhisit should hold fast.Actually as we know he has actually reached out half way in terms of offering a dissolution early next year.

You have lost me when you talk about the government doing or not doing what the majority wants.That's not what government is all about.Who wants the tyranny of the majority?As far as the numbers you quote it's all very subjective.You can slice or dice electoral numbers in a thousand ways.The test is who wins seats and who can form a government (uninfluenced of course by politicised court decisions, heavy handed military interference etc - not of course that ever happens here).What the Reds sense I feel is that they and their allies are in pole position.They should go home and wait it out.

Isn't Thaksin part Chinese?

Yes. So is Mark, Chuan, Banhan, Chatchai, Samak, Somchai, etc....

Even the man that I cannot name here is half Chinese.

The issue in Thailand is about the rich and the poor.

It has nothing about race at all.

Nothing at all except for the awkward fact that most of the rich are Chinese and most of the poorest are not.

Pretty low chance I think Korn would go to New Politics Party.

Korn is potential PM material if we ever go to a real democracy here; he doesn't need to go mix with the pig food like PT, New Politics, et al.

Steve you're right Korn is really high quality and could represent Thailand superbly well at the highest level.He needs however to be a little careful to project that he is a man for all Thai people, not just Bangkok sophisticates.Even his close friends agree those Facebook musings "only the wealthy can understand moral issues etc" were ill judged.There's general agreement he's morally clean wealthy,smart and well educated but he needs to develop a broader political base if he is to escape the technocrat straitjacket and transcend that Bangkok upper middle class world.In a sentence he needs to take a leaf out of other posh boys like Boris Johnson or David Cameron.I'm not suggesting he hug a hoodie or two ( but presumably there's a Thai equivalent).Seriously he doesn't have to pretend to be what he isn't but he needs to get out a bit more.

These are minor criticisms.He's done a fantastic job as Finance Minister and time is on his side.

Maybe you would like to advise your hero Mr Thaksin of the other countries which would be happy to offer refuge to wanted criminals who wish to remain active in their criminal activities. as opposed to quietly retiring.

We get your point since you have made it multiple times to the point of boring everyone silly.You think that anyone who expresses sympathy for all or any aspects of the Red cause is a Thaksin dupe or apologetic, even if it's made clear there are multiple reservations or even contempt for the man.That's about it, right? So enough already!

Moving on mercifully to a less shrill and one note analysis here's an excellent article by Dennis Gray in the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0200488_pf.html

Although I think the ethnic issue is meaningless in these current political dynamics ...

I assume that what you mean here is that you attribute little if any significance to it.That's a reasonable viewpoint though not one to which I fully subscribe.It can't by definition be meaningless when a group of largely one ethnicity is pitched against another group of largely one ethnicity.To use your expression in the current political dynamics it's a potentially complicating factor not a main driver.For this we should give credit where credit is due namely the orderly assimilation of different ethnic groups into the Thai family, with the glaring exception of course of the Southern Muslims.

Where were you the the yellow shirts disrupted International Air Travel? Were you as vociferous then as you are now?

Yep i was actually I was against them taking over Govt House and i was against them taking over the Airports. I am not a Yellow, neither am i a Red.

I know some people seem to think if you are anti-red then you must be a yellow supporter.

It's irritating and illogical, I agree.It's exactly the same as those who suggest that because one's sympathies are broadly red (as in my case) one is a Thaksin supporter or apologist.

What does the ethnic factor, as you put it, have anything to do with this?

I assume, because I generally respect your insights, having asked the question you have now figured out the answer for yourself.If you really want me to spell it out I'm happy to.

Thanks for the complement, but I don't think you will ever persuade me that the ethnic factor (Chinese) adds to a potentially dangerous clash. It is a gross generalization at best and racist at worst.

Yes it's a generalisation for which I make no apology.The reality is that the pink/yellow groupings are by and large of Chinese or part Chinese ethnicity.The red grouping by and large is not, though this is changing fast.Perhaps this undeniable reality does no more than reflect the nature of rural and urban Thailand.I agree it's uncertain how significant this division is but it's certainly a factor.At the PAD rallies in Bangkok as you know there was a very identifiable "sons of China" feel, along with some fairly unpleasant rhetoric directed at Thais of Lao and other non-Chinese origin.Personally I believe that assimilation in Thailand is a remarkable achievement, and doubt whether any of this will have a lasting effect.But to deny the division exists is perverse.And to suggest that someone who points these matters out might be "racist" is simply baffling.

What does the ethnic factor, as you put it, have anything to do with this?

I assume, because I generally respect your insights, having asked the question you have now figured out the answer for yourself.If you really want me to spell it out I'm happy to.

"Rent-a-crowd" is a definition we've heard recently

Really? The expression is nearly 40 years old invented I believe by "Peter Simple" in his famous and conservative Telegraph column.He also invented the infamous motorist Bonington Jagworth, an early avatar for Jeremy Clarkson.

Whether rent-a crowd has much application in Thailand I'm not sure.One often hears that the Reds are mainly motivated by payment but even a cursory understanding undermines that way of thinking.(How much easier it would be if the current problems were entirely down to Thaksin and those paid for following him).Unfortunately it's nonsense.To be fair I don't think there's any evidence that opposing crowds of whatever colour are motivated for pay.

The reality is that alot of country folks don't understand the important of education and remove themselves from the school system at an early age. I guess they are too stupid? Unfortunately this is the way it is. Now there are exceptions; for example alot of girls do see the value in education and stick at it, while alot of the boys are to stupid (or not encourage by stupid parents) or too arogant. So alot of the girls get good jobs (although not at the higher level), while alot of the boys become taxi or motorcycle taxi drivers. Hence alot of the red shirts are of these uneducated group. So thus Thailand is divided by those who are educated and those who are not, with the majority being uneducated (primarily through choice/ignorance). How does democracy in this situation? The Taksin way where you buy peoples votes or the educated way (making coherent decisions); since the educated are in the minority how can an 'educated party' ever win?

It is the same in many countries. Poor farmers, with no alternative sources of income, require their young sons to leave school early and help in the fields. It is not about lack of intelligence, but rather economic need. I've seen it time and time again.

I really don't buy any of this.It's not that there isn't a need to improve the standard and national coverage of education.It's just that in political terms to suggest that the "educated" urban class has a greater sense of moral values - or an understanding of what's best for the country - simply doesn't pass any credible set of tests.We know that in Thailand resources are unfairly skewed to the urban minority whether it be education, health or infrastructure.The deep aversion of the "educated" parties is not that the reds are "uneducated" but that there is now a very real prospect of resources being shared more equally.Furthermore there is a dread at the fact that the traditional deference in Thai society is changing.Add to this an ethnic factor (most though not of course all of the "educated" are of Chinese ethnicity and you have a potentially dangerous clash ahead.)

For those who have studied history or read widely none of this is surprising and none of it is unique to Thailand.What's odd in Thailand is that the struggle has come very late in the day and that for various reasons there has never been a proper debate.However the question posed "how -in a democracy - will the educated party win?" is one that has been asked in almost every society over the last 150 years.The answer of course is that the "educated" party, not that there is one in Thailand, cannot be guaranteed to prevail.The nearest thing to an educated group in Thailand was the PAD movement yet no serious commentator would argue that this movement had the interests of the whole country at heart.Politics is about struggle.In reality if the example of other countries is any guide the red movement leadership will gradually be taken over by middle class intellectuals and liberals.Gradually a consensus will emerge on all sides on what is important for Thai prosperity and security.

I say congrats to the government keeping things as peaceful as they have. In the United States this would have been broken up by tear gas and riot police once they started taking over bridges without permission or marching to disrupt traffic without the proper permits. Not to mention with all the threats leveled there would be a bunch of people in jail.

That is a good point. However, the people in Bangkok wont sit back and let the government do nothign for ever. At some point they will denmand their democratic rights to go about their business are protected. That is when things get difficult for Abhisit. Quite how difficult depends on whether the reds start to be seen as going too far by the majority

Don't forget however that the demonstrations have been generally peaceful and orderly reflecting well both on the reds and the government.

As a commentator elsewhere points out

"It's worth noting that, despite all the mainsteam media's scare-mongering that the Red hordes might unleash violence across Bangkok, so far the only recorded cases of politically motivated violence at protests have been a hi-so kid ramming his Daddy's Porsche into some Reds' parked motorcycles and the UDD-supporting motorcyclist attached by Pink shirts yesterday. Plus the ominous images (the Red shirt dangling from a tree; the sign with 1976 anti-communist, pro-monarchist lyrics on) apparently stemming from Pink shirts brimming with righteous indignation...Maybe the Pinks are finding it harder to control their anger because they're more used to having things their own way?"

So many utter wrong things it's hard to begin.

"keep spouting this nonsense and eventually you will actually believe it."

Well it seems you have already been convinced by the PR machine

to Thaksins spurious world view. So sad actually.

So where do we begin with you and your endless venom, ignorance and insulting behaviour? Actually Tonywebster's post was perfectly reasonable even though one might not agree with every point made.Clearly he was trying to find a way through to a position of compromise.Nevertheless you conclude with an patronising post lamely suggesting that anyone who takes a different view has been fooled by Thaksin's PR machine.

Odd, isn't it -- Thailand's political upheaval doesn't seem to dent the baht, but minor worries about the UK's political direction send shivers through the pound.

Not odd at all, and the worries about UK politics are not minor.

The concern in the UK is that in a hung parliament there will be constraints and delays in initiating the massive cuts in expenditure needed to bring public debt down to acceptable levels.All parties have agreed that cuts are needed of an order much greater than those made under Mrs Thatcher.If slightly against my expectations David Cameron achieves a working majority in the House Of Commons I would anticipate the Pound stabilising in the range 1.5-1.6.If there is a hung parliament and dithering on the painful cuts needed there's a real risk of a sterling crisis, that is a decline against most currencies of another 20% - over and above the 25% drop already taken place.

Having said that there's rather too much pessimism about the UK economy at the moment.There are some very real strengths which haven't been dissipated by the recession.But the immediate political outlook is a worry.

True.

Kasit for all his faults also didn't share the stage with people like Arisman or Sae Daeng. The PAD wasn't calling for armed insurrection. They never threatened to burn BKK down. They never threatened grenade attacks that then happened etc etc.

Again, the PAD were not saints and those that participated in violence need to have a day in court, but they never participated in the violent diatribes that the reds have.

Why should the PAD called for armed insurrection? They (the Thailand equivalent of Lenin's "useful fools") and their backers already had effective control.What they objected to was the mainly rural majority's increasing political influence.They have served their backers purpose now and have been muzzled like a feral dog.

As to violence you are either very naive or spectacularly ignorant in believing this wasn't a weapon in the PAD armoury.Those young thugs weren't there for decoration purposes, nor was that PAD moron who blew himself up ferrying explosives around town.

As to Kasit I tend to agree.He's no criminal, merely a blowhard with shoddy judgement.But it's a disgrace he's FM.

Regarding #402 Chang Noi

He ( as usual) fails to mention how much has been spend to mobilize these people, none of the "protesters" has a genuine political agenda, if so, Thailand wouldn't be where it is right at this time, err'... I mean where the people allow being led to, for some money and endless empty promises....!

This is the genuine sad part of this soap opera!

People sold their votes, their voice and now they sell their dignity, they would sell all, if asked....!

Chang Noi fails to mention who is behind all this, who is the man who stirs al this up and what his agenda is!

Sorry, Chang Noi, get real!

Some may feel that Chang Noi,a distinguished and perceptive political commentator who has led the charge in skewering Thaksin, is a more reliable guide to current events than your stale and ignorant repetition.

I choose not to read The Economist because i've read it enough times - thanks to the frequent promoting it gets on here by red sympathisers - to know that i personally I don't like being spoon-fed someone else's agenda. Perhaps it tastes good for some.

You have a point about the Economist, specifically that it is rather didactic in tone.I must admit I cancelled my subscription sopme time ago because I got tired of being lectured to. I think that aspect is partly house style but also perhaps a rather inflexible attitude in favour of free markets and limited government.Nevertheless it is highly intelligent and widely read by the influential, so worth monitoring.My main reservation on the Economist relates to it's sound judgement.

As to its Thailand coverage the Economist certainly seems to have the proverbial bee in it bonnet with a scatter gun approach against a range of targets.Sometimes it's quite hard to connect the dots.I have the impression that there is an editorial view that some subjects must be aired because they're not properly discussed elsewhere.This is a legitimate viewpoint but is it responsible journalism?

Basically I take the view that when intelligent adults are treated like children and told this or that is a subject which cannot be discussed, the pressure in the cooker just increases.In Thailand quite a few need to take heed of this.

Opinion

CHANG NOI

Witness the death of deference

Published in The Nation on March 22, 2010

FOR MANY REASONS, Red March has been very, very disturbing. It hasn't conformed to expectations. It hasn't confirmed prejudices. It has been new and different.

For a start it has been unsettling for many people because it was simply so big. The crowd did not approach the dreamy promise of a million people, but as the sun-baked BBC correspondent breathlessly exclaimed, it was the biggest political gathering in Thailand for over three decades. This was no small feat given the obstructions. It's not so difficult to stage a rally when attendees only have to change their shirt and take a short taxi hop from the office. The logistics are a lot more difficult and expensive when the rally site is hundreds of kilometres away. Provincial governors were ordered to obstruct the movement of people. Police set up countless checkpoints. Pro-Newin elements in the northeast laid on entertainment and issued threats to deter people from leaving for the capital. The media carried reports about money distributed to protesters to move. None carried reports about the money spent to prevent them moving. Despite all these efforts, downtown Bangkok was a sea of red. The 10-kilometre column from Rajdamnoen to Phaholyothin broke records.

Red March was unsettling also because (so far) it has truly been non-violent. The laborious police searches of buses and trucks turned up next to nothing. The TV news was reduced to showing the shock discovery of a handful of rounds of ammunition. A massive number of people roamed all around the capital for a week with no more than a few scuffles. Bangkok motorists looked on grumpily, but the sheer carnival atmosphere of the protests tended to keep tempers in check. Partly this orderliness is due to the police who invested enormous efforts in keeping the traffic moving. This effort betrays considerable sympathy within the force for the red-shirt cause — another thing that is unsettling. The lack of violence is all the more remarkable given the disorganised state of the redshirt leadership. These were supposed to be the rural hordes, the barbarians at the gates, the great unwashed, red in tooth and claw. But there was no sign of ploughs beaten into swords, let alone barbed wire, gun-toting "guards", or piles of used golf clubs.

Red March was worrying also because of the number of pick-up trucks. The protesters were supposed to be the downtrodden. And the thing about the downtrodden is that they really are trodden down into resignation, passivity, deference. They can usually be ignored or easily managed. But these were the aggrieved with assets. Of course many foot soldiers of the movement do count among the least well off. But the social range of the protesters is much wider than the simple analysis of the poor against the privileged. In the far north and the northeast, it is not just the poor who support the red shirts but just about everybody.

Most of all, Red March was disturbing because of the enormous show of local support in Bangkok. From the moment the columns of pick-ups began arriving in the city, people gathered on the pavement to clap and cheer and wave in welcome. Some of these fans were taxi drivers and motorcycle taxi riders, the movement's staunch allies. But others were true-blue Bangkokians. All along the route to Phaholyothin people came out of shops and offices to line the street and cheer. Chang Noi happened on the column after it had left Abhisit's house in Sukumvit. It was like being at carnival. Jolly luk thung music was blaring from loudspeakers, augmented with a lot of extra ching-chap, chanting, and cheering. On the trucks, people were waving, singing, and giving the thumbs-up. Not one unsmiling face. Alongside, people had come to windows, or onto office balconies, or out from shops onto the pavement. Most had snatched up anything red to wave along — a tie, a towel, a hat, a piece of paper. The press and the pundits have played the conflict as the provinces against the city. But how does that analysis fit with these pavement scenes?

In Chang Noi's neighbourhood, there's a worker community. They used to be pro-Democrat because the local Democrat politicians helped them to get residence rights and basic services. They served as Democrat canvassers in several elections. They are now deep red. In the evenings, the kids come out to play on the street. For a year now, one of their favourite games has been "street protest." They march up and down and wave flags. They shout "No more double standards," "Down with amat ," and "Abhisit out." They are not in any hurry to move off the road to allow a car to pass. Their average age is around ten.

A decade ago, Chang Noi predicted that the city folk would have to build a wall around Bangkok, or float the city away into the Gulf of Thailand, a bit like Singapore. Of course, that has not happened. Instead they have tended to brick up their own eyes and their ears. While this extraordinary event was unfolding in the city, the mainstream media made heroic efforts to ignore it. No vox pops. No atmospheric scene painting. Few pictures. Only when the blood campaign caught the eye of the foreign media (and had an implied element of violence) did the coverage get more enthusiastic.

Instead of reportage we got endless predictions of a bad ending. The numbers are increasing, so it will turn violent. The numbers are dropping, so it will turn violent. The temperature is high, so tempers will snap.

Red March has been disturbing because it has messages so striking that they slip through the walls. Despite government efforts using taxpayers' money, it was huge. Despite the chaotic state of the red movement's leadership, it held together through fellow feeling. Despite the conventional analyses, the support spreads far beyond the rural poor. Hard to ignore despite those bricks.

After all the rest pointed out so much that would explain WHY people would expect violence out of the reds and your little quip making seem like I would be disappointed by trouble not occuring changed the whole meaning of what was written.

I'm so sorry.I misunderstood your meaning.If you are in fact not disappointed that the demonstrations passed off peacefully that does represent progress of a kind.I suppose I was thrown off by your statement that you still expected trouble.

The debate isn't really all about Thaksin.

You're terribly naive jayboy.

The debate is only about Thaksin. The red cult could have anything they wanted if they simply disavowed their saviour. The reds are trying to make people believe it is about something else, because defending a convicted felon is an extremely difficult proposition. But no solution will be acceptable to them unless it includes the exoneration of Thaksin.

That isn't to say that individual people don't have legitimate concerns, but those CAN NOT be addressed through the red movement. Those concerns can only be addressed after Thaksin, and by extension the red movement, is eliminated.

Show me a group of reds who have publicly denounced Thaksin continuously and vocally, and I will accept your argument that it is not about Thaksin. Otherwise, you are simply spreading disinformation.

I've been accused of many things but "naive" is a first.

I STILL expect trouble before this is said and done.

Well perhaps you and people who think like you won't be disappointed after all.

Pass the bag Alice.

You are just looking for cute ways to back up your hero Thaksin.

Looking for the high ground when you are an ideological bagman for Thaksin can't be easy.

Another example of the irritated apologists for authoritarianism, disappointed there was a non violent and peaceful assembly.

And when in doubt drag in Thaksin (the normal substitute for hard thinking about a complex subject), accuse your critics of being in his pay or in this case an "ideological bagman."

What in my statement is biased. 1. we were told Bangkokians would be angry and might attack the demonstrators (I observed no anger or attacks.) 2. most of the bystanders many of whom I would expect to be Bangkokians were waving and cheering on the demonstrators. Where is the bias? Those are factual observations.

Regards,

You are right.There was a good deal of hysteria, partly whipped up by the government, about the prospect of violence.There wasn't any.Possibly some members are disappointed at this.

My guess is that most people in Bangkok are somewhat irritated at the inconvenience of the Red incursion but there's been no evidence of violent animosity against the Reds, indeed a surprising degree of support (i wouldn't say a majority though)

Basically there are a quite a few on this forum who were hoping for trouble and in some cases predicting it.They are looking foolish now.