Pad Rallies At British Embassy In Bangkok

[animatic]

I've read this poll results in the paper today.

They mention that PAD support has dropped and give percentages. Unforunately they forgot to mention WHEN the first poll they comparing to was taken.

They also confusingly say that these current results are from before Oct 7.

There is one school of thought that goes something like this:

When the military move to smash Thaksin's apparatus in Thailand (ie his government, UDD and assorted other militias) they must be seen to be not be taking sides. They do this by also taking out the PAD. People see the the military as saving Thailand from two lunatic fringes hel_l bent on massacring each other and say thank god for that.

If there is any truth to this, it could work if it is believable. However, it will be bloody to some extent. Whether there is any truth in it remians to be seen as only people higher up the ladder than us will know what is planned and counter-planned.

I suspect if the Gen. S. asked them to leave, PAD would pack and go, to a more neutral site.

I think they would go without squabbling, they respect the army more as a solution, less than a provocation.

DAAD might not want to be so reasonable... No doubt Thaksin feels the army is against him also.

Police vs Army, and maybe some Thaksin army factions gone mutinous? He has been playing chess

with the army and police lists for years... has it been enough moves for him to make a BIG move.

Or is is ego and anger such, that he can IMAGINE he has enough pawns in place

and just causes a conflagration, that he loses...?

Biggest loser; the country of course.

I have a feeling he MUST be neutered in the next year or so,

or things will go VERY, VERY bad.

Edited November 11, 2008 by animatic

[hammered]

I've read this poll results in the paper today.

They mention that PAD support has dropped and give percentages. Unforunately they forgot to mention WHEN the first poll they comparing to was taken.

They also confusingly say that these current results are from before Oct 7.

There is one school of thought that goes something like this:

When the military move to smash Thaksin's apparatus in Thailand (ie his government, UDD and assorted other militias) they must be seen to be not be taking sides. They do this by also taking out the PAD. People see the the military as saving Thailand from two lunatic fringes hel_l bent on massacring each other and say thank god for that.

If there is any truth to this, it could work if it is believable. However, it will be bloody to some extent. Whether there is any truth in it remians to be seen as only people higher up the ladder than us will know what is planned and counter-planned.

I suspect if the Gen. S. asked them to leave, PAD would pack and go, to a more neutral site.

I think they would go without squabbling, they respect the army more as a solution, less than a provocation.

DAAD might not want to be so reasonable... No doubt Thaksin feels the army is against him also.

Police vs Army, and maybe some Thaksin army factions gone mutinous? He has been playing chess

with the army and police lists for years... has it been enough moves for him to make a BIG move.

Or is is ego and anger such, that he can IMAGINE he has enough pawns in place

and just causes a conflagration, that he loses...?

Biggest loser; the country of course.

I have a feeling he MUST be neutered in the next year or so,

or things will go VERY, VERY bad.

The conventional wisdom is that if the military move it will not be good for Thaksin. It is a long time since he appointed anyone to any power position and control of the battalions is where it counts and not too long ago Anupong rotated these to stuff them with loyalists to him and Gen Prayuth, who is very powerful.

The convetional wisdom is something along the lines of if it comes to it Thaksin will attempt to stir up massive civil unrest and resistance in certain areas of the country although whether this can actually be achieved is not so clear.

I think you are right that if the military move the UDD will resist but the PAD will do what is told to them. However, if the military do move, they need things peaceful as possible in oreder to impose control and government. That means they will almost certainly seize a few PAD leaders and charge or imprison them to show evenhandedness. My feeling is that if Chamlong distances himself from the PAD this will become a lot easier as he has connections which provide protection. Of ocurse if the military intervene and disband the government or at least the bits they dont want and the PAD then the PAD wins by achieving its goal but at least it looks evenhanded and a few PAD leaders end up in jail or lifelong monkhood along with some UDD leaders.

[Scott]

I am beginning to think that this is more of a personal struggle between Sondhi and Thaksin. Unfortunately, everyone else is just a pawn. The loser will likely be Thailand.

[Smithson]

Support for new politics is also growing, btw.

Is it? It hasn't even been properly defined.

[animatic]

Support for new politics is also growing, btw.

Is it? It hasn't even been properly defined.

The phrase regardless of clear definition has come to mean:

ANY cleaner government that doesn't allow an continuation of

the same old <deleted> that got us into this mess.

That it lacks definment, or is, or is NOT, what PAD has thrown out

for consideration doesn't mean the CONCEPT "New Politics"

doesn't have a positive resonance with much of the Thai public.

They are largely in a 'throw the bums' out mood. If they have an opinion.

Scott no doubt the reason Sondhi wanted to run the show large was

his hatred of the devil he knows too well, Thaksin.

But the reasons he was ALLOWED to run the shgow large are

MUCH more varied and larger than his personal grudge.

Yes, his Thaksin hatred made him a perfect point man for this,

but in an army platoon the leader is most often NOT the pointman.

[Smithson]

Support for new politics is also growing, btw.

Is it? It hasn't even been properly defined.

The phrase regardless of clear definition has come to mean:

ANY cleaner government that doesn't allow an continuation of

the same old <deleted> that got us into this mess.

That it lacks definment, or is, or is NOT, what PAD has thrown out

for consideration doesn't mean the CONCEPT "New Politics"

doesn't have a positive resonance with much of the Thai public.

Is this your definition? Support for a cleaner government has always had a resonance with the Thai public, nothing new about that.

[animatic]

Support for new politics is also growing, btw.

Is it? It hasn't even been properly defined.

The phrase regardless of clear definition has come to mean:

ANY cleaner government that doesn't allow an continuation of

the same old <deleted> that got us into this mess.

That it lacks definment, or is, or is NOT, what PAD has thrown out

for consideration doesn't mean the CONCEPT "New Politics"

doesn't have a positive resonance with much of the Thai public.

Is this your definition? Support for a cleaner government has always had a resonance with the Thai public, nothing new about that.

Now it seems push is coming to shove in that direction.

The actions vs inaction, are the new element.

[Smithson]

The New Politics definitions are getting vaguer than ever.

On another thread, Plus was defining NP as representatives from different groups being elected by their peers. According to him there would be a group for doctors, farmers and gays (as well as others I assume).

[JetsetBkk]

I am beginning to think that this is more of a personal struggle between Sondhi and Thaksin...

"Vengeance". Doesn't do the country much good though, does it?

[LaoPo]

I am beginning to think that this is more of a personal struggle between Sondhi and Thaksin. Unfortunately, everyone else is just a pawn. The loser will likely be Thailand.

Oh, absolutely it is; since the end of their friendship it's a fight by a frustrated, bitter and hatred Sondhi to destroy everything related to Thaksin, right or wrong.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his true feelings for the country and the Thai population because he doesn't give <deleted>.

But...he is a master in 'playing' the crowds for his own cause.

LaoPo

[jackspratt]

Oh, absolutely it is; since the end of their friendship it's a fight by a frustrated, bitter and hatred Sondhi to destroy everything related to Thaksin, right or wrong.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his true feelings for the country and the Thai population because he doesn't give <deleted>.

But...he is a master in 'playing' the crowds for his own cause.

LaoPo

So he and Thaksin have a lot in common then?

[animatic]

Oh, absolutely it is; since the end of their friendship it's a fight by a frustrated, bitter and hatred Sondhi to destroy everything related to Thaksin, right or wrong.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his true feelings for the country and the Thai population because he doesn't give <deleted>.

But...he is a master in 'playing' the crowds for his own cause.

LaoPo

So he and Thaksin have a lot in common then?

Ain't it the truth. LOL

[younghusband]

On the other hand, what about this huge elite conspiracy that keeps Younghusband going like Energiser Bunny? Does it mean that PAD soldiers will be sacrificed with elites staging the coup against themselves to grab power?

I think that if we were to categorise members by their harping on about one or two familiar themes there would be quite a few bunnies on this forum.I'm not sure that I would describe the elite's strategy as a conspiracy simply a rather blatant attempt to defend vested interests.Any student of history will have seen this scenario played out a thousand times in one form or the other.The end result is always the same.in any event my concern in the last year or so has been more to focus on the gruesome and dangerous PAD leadership.

Your suggestion that the New Politics is becoming more popular is so bizarre as to pre-empt comment.If you have any evidence let's hear it.

I attach a useful summary (edited to adhere to forum rules) by Acharn Thongchai, one of the most distinguished Thai historians, which was recently posted on New Mandala, identifying the constituent parts of the PAD movement.

"Anti-democracy in Thailand

Thongchai Winichakul, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Thailand is facing one of its biggest threats to its still-fledgling democracy. The anti-democratic movement led by the militant People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) - a misnomer if ever there was one - is pressing for the end of traditional electoral democracy. The succession crisis looming once King Bhumibol Adulyadej passes makes the turmoil a “perfect storm” with no end in sight.

The turmoil began with the unprecedented success of Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire politician whose party won landslide election victories twice, in 2001 and 2005 (and again in 2006 but was nullified by a dubious court’s ruling). His success was due primarily to his “populist” policies that benefited the lower-class majority of the country. Thaksin’s administration, however, was marred by human rights violations and corruption scandals, exacerbated by demagoguery and intolerance of criticism.

The PAD emerged in early 2006 to fight Thaksin. It supported the return of power to the monarchy - usually seen as the highest moral authority in the land - to clean up corrupt politics. The instability created by the PAD’s protest paved the way for a military coup in September 2006. The coup regime took various actions aiming at preventing Thaksin and his people from returning to power, including questionable legal actions and court rulings, a new constitution and a closely-monitored general election in December 2007.

Despite those measures and a barrage of anti-Thaksin sentiment in the media, Thaksin’s party easily won that 2007 poll. The PAD took to the streets again, this time occupying the grounds of the prime minister’s offices, vowing to stay and fight until the elected government was ousted and a new political system implemented.

The PAD is the convergence of at least four socio-political forces, with different reasons for hating Thaksin so much.

The first is, generally speaking, the Bangkok and other urban elite. These people fought the military for parliamentary democracy at various points from 1973 to 1992. They have enjoyed political influence over several governments, exercised through the mainstream media and politically active intellectuals. But the strong economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, and indeed the blossoming of electoral politics, has brought forth the rising power of the rural and urban poor, and the lower middle class, who form the electoral majority.

Elections and politicians representing them are their channel to get a fair share of the country’s resources and power. Thaksin’s success reflected this social change, as his party built up its strong mass support among the rural folks despite the increasing scorn poured on him and his supporters by academics and the media. The disgruntled urban elite believe that the rural folks are, in their words, too ignorant and stupid for democracy. Electoral democracy, to the elite, is not suitable for Thailand because money can allegedly buy a ruling majority. This “class” factor is the reason for strong support to the PAD among the urban middle and upper class, including the mainstream media and academics, many of whom become fanatics of the PAD.

The second political force is the “bureaucratic power.” Before 1973, under military rule, the country was run by soldiers and technocrats who dominated the upper echelon of the bureaucracy. They believe that they represent the public interest better than elected representatives, because they consider the latter to be naturally corrupt. Democratization and elections since 1973 have opened the door to people outside the circle of these bureaucrats, who consequently have lost some of their power. They believe that democracy breeds endemic corruption and that Thaksin was taking the country down to the abyss.

The third force that operates the PAD is activists from various civil society and labor organizations, and a media empire owned by the leader of the PAD, Sondhi Limthongkul. Led by former leftist radicals who are veterans of the struggles for democracy of the 1970s and 80s, these activists bring an anti-capitalist ideology into the 21st century with a conservative twist, rooted in nationalism. They consider Thaksin emblematic of “evil capitalism” and globalization that would harm the country. Fighting the “evil capitalism” has been one of the PAD’s slogans, and radical songs of the 1970s were common at the PAD gathering, although Sondhi’s Manager Media Group, which includes a daily newspaper both in print and on-line, a radio broadcast and a satellite television (ASTV) is highly influential. Not only does it often set the headlines for the entire country, but the PAD also builds up its base of supporters via the ASTV. The PAD’s propaganda runs around the clock every day, feeding the public with their ideology, concocted news and information, and rumors and lies that serve their political agenda and viciously destroy their critics. The PAD’s demagoguery is more dangerous than Thaksin’s by far. But it is effective; the PAD is now like a cult, with hard-core followers who think and speak alike close-mindedly, and becomes increasingly militant. As they claim political righteousness, they defied laws, dehumanized critics and opponents and intimidated them too, and armed.

The last but perhaps most important element of the PAD is the monarchists. They are a network of the powerful conservative, royalist elite with varying vested interests.

The monarchists saw Thaksin as a serious threat at various levels: a patron of some royals in line for the throne and therefore a dangerous kingmaker (literally speaking); a competitor to the monarchy for popularity and a pretender himself; and the mastermind plotting a republic. The general belief in Thailand is that the president of the Privy Council was behind the 2006 coup. As the succession looms, the paranoia among these powerful monarchists escalates. They cannot allow Thaksin, or any politician, to be in an advantageous position. At the same time, various factions among the monarchists are jockeying for advantageous positions for the upcoming transition. The monarchists and the succession concern turn the brewing hatred against Thaksin among the other groups into a perfect political storm. The PAD is probably honest when they say that they are fighting for the monarchy, except the former leftists in its leadership who can sing the royal anthem louder than the royalists if doing so helps them achieve short-term goals.

Some of the allegations against Thaksin are justified, while others are specious. Yet Thaksin opponents have gone all out to get rid of Thaksin, his political machine, and his mass base. The judiciary went out of their way to destroy Thaksin by several questionable rulings including one that relied on a dictionary rather than laws, and one that involved a serious violation of the proper judicial process. In doing so, they damaged their credibility and put the future of the justice system at risk. The PAD also instigated the nationalist hostility against Cambodia that led to clashes between the two countries.

The PAD makes clear that its goal is to replace one-man, one-vote electoral democracy with their “New Politics,” aka “Thai-style Democracy,” with only 50 percent of the country’s lawmakers being elected. The PAD is clear in their intent to dilute the voice of the majority. Some power would be given to the monarch or the Privy Council, in order to balance the power of corrupt politicians. This idea of “Thai-style Democracy” was originally hatched in 1906 when King Chulalongkorn, an absolute monarch, argued against the emerging ideas of democracy. The elite’s distrust in people never goes away.

The PAD’s strategy and tactics are to provoke violent confrontations, with unrest to serve as the pretext for military or royal intervention. Despite its violations of laws and highly aggressive actions, the PAD’s accumulation of arms and its increasing militancy have been condoned and excused by academics, the media and several human rights organizations, including the National Human Rights Commission, because their common enemy is Thaksin. They help provide an intellectual shield for the group.

The PAD behaves as if they are above the law because, after all, as many in the country know but cannot openly say, their ultimate supporters are among those in the highest places in the nation."

[Plus]

Not another piece from New Mandala.....

"...money can allegedly buy a ruling majority..."

I'm quickly losing respect for Thongchai.

In his la-la land money and politics have nothing in common.

What a self deluded idiot!

Next.

[dumball]

I am beginning to think that this is more of a personal struggle between Sondhi and Thaksin. Unfortunately, everyone else is just a pawn. The loser will likely be Thailand.

Is this not in fact what ails Thailand in general on an ongoing basis ? The few controlling the majority for their own end instead of what is good for the country as a whole , the 'Power mongers' have no consideration for any one except themselves , an exercise in total futility if you ask me , but then , who realy cares ?

[Plus]

For all it is worth (and I mentioned that it comes from polls earlier):

http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/in_news/2551/thenation101108.pdf

"Backing for New politics and Civic politics rose to 5.58, from 5.42 on October 18."

Poll was conducted in 18 provinces, so it's not only Bangkok.

[younghusband]

Not another piece from New Mandala.....

"...money can allegedly buy a ruling majority..."

I'm quickly losing respect for Thongchai.

In his la-la land money and politics have nothing in common.

What a self deluded idiot!

Next.

His analysis is rather astute on in my view.If you are prepared to argue your position rather than bluster, I'd be genuinely interested to know -specifically on his breakdown of the PAD movement.

"Self-deluded idiot" because you don't like what he's saying.How very PAD like!

[younghusband]

For all it is worth (and I mentioned that it comes from polls earlier):

http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/in_news/2551/thenation101108.pdf

"Backing for New politics and Civic politics rose to 5.58, from 5.42 on October 18."

Poll was conducted in 18 provinces, so it's not only Bangkok.

You're having a laugh, surely?

Your comrade in arms from Sri Racha has only recently rubbished ABAC polls, hasn't he?

[Plus]

As I said, take the poll results for what they are worth.

>>>

"...money can allegedly buy a ruling majority..." - that one of the most idiotic statements on Thai politics. Beats even Giles. I don't want to read any further. The rest of it might appear astute, but if he is coming from that angle, it's not worth the effort to sort out "astuteness" from "foolishness".

[animatic]

On the other hand, what about this huge elite conspiracy that keeps Younghusband going like Energiser Bunny? Does it mean that PAD soldiers will be sacrificed with elites staging the coup against themselves to grab power?

I think that if we were to categorise members by their harping on about one or two familiar themes there would be quite a few bunnies on this forum............

I attach a useful summary (edited to adhere to forum rules) by Acharn Thongchai, one of the most distinguished Thai historians, which was recently posted on New Mandala, identifying the constituent parts of the PAD movement.

.....................

"Anti-democracy in Thailand

Thongchai Winichakul, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison

...............

Some of the allegations against Thaksin are justified, while others are specious.

Yet Thaksin opponents have gone all out to get rid of Thaksin, his political machine, and his mass base.

The judiciary went out of their way to destroy Thaksin by several questionable rulings

including one that relied on a dictionary rather than laws, and one that involved a serious violation of the proper judicial process.

In doing so, they damaged their credibility and put the future of the justice system at risk.

Right then,

let's just make up a definition for the 'word' in the law,

rather than consult a dictionary and be sure of the definition.

Legislatures are notorious for bad wording in need of defining by courts.

This is one of the functions of a good court system.

Of course he never says WHY the other ruling is a serious violation of process.

It's clear he is pro Thaksin and using his ivory tower to appear above it all and knowledgable.

Yes, opponents have gone out of their way to annul Thaksin's power.

But Thaksin himself gave them more than enough ammunition to do it with.

He has been his own worst enemy.

[Bangyai]

Disjudge is not a word that I have heard of.

Dictionary suggestions: Reference suggestions:

Misjudge

Disedge

Discage

Disgage

Disjune

Disgorge

Dislodge

Side judge

Disusage

Discure

Disgorge

Dog judge

Disguise

Well Animatic old chap, I just get back from an 8 day beach break and I see this. Nice to see you're still in fine fettle. May I humbly add to your list :

Disavow .........sort of fits nicely ??

Diss ............. very in vogue at the moment with the young generation

Dildo .......... ????? .....Nahh...maybe not.

Ah well...off to bed with a dictionary again tonight.

But before I go I have to say I kinda agree with fidelio about sitting on the fence. In the end its not our struggle and the Thais will have to work it out for themselves. All they need from us is our money ....our allegiance is not required.

As for Anand....as a buddhist he would have heard of ' The Middle Way '

[LaoPo]

Oh, absolutely it is; since the end of their friendship it's a fight by a frustrated, bitter and hatred Sondhi to destroy everything related to Thaksin, right or wrong.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with his true feelings for the country and the Thai population because he doesn't give <deleted>.

But...he is a master in 'playing' the crowds for his own cause.

LaoPo

So he and Thaksin have a lot in common then?

Most good friends have a lot in common.

The line between love and hate is thin...very thin.

LaoPo

[Plus]

As for Anand....as a buddhist he would have heard of ' The Middle Way '

Yeah, give him a lecture.

[Smithson]

For all it is worth (and I mentioned that it comes from polls earlier):

http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/in_news/2551/thenation101108.pdf

"Backing for New politics and Civic politics rose to 5.58, from 5.42 on October 18."

Poll was conducted in 18 provinces, so it's not only Bangkok.

Would be interesting what question ppl were asked, as clear details on New Politics are pretty much non-existent. The devil is in the detail.

[Plus]

What is the reason for your obsession with details? It's a proposal for civic socitey to start working with, not a constitution draft.

What would be the criteria to satisfy these endless requests for defininitions?

[cmsally]

On the other hand, what about this huge elite conspiracy that keeps Younghusband going like Energiser Bunny? Does it mean that PAD soldiers will be sacrificed with elites staging the coup against themselves to grab power?

I think that if we were to categorise members by their harping on about one or two familiar themes there would be quite a few bunnies on this forum.I'm not sure that I would describe the elite's strategy as a conspiracy simply a rather blatant attempt to defend vested interests.Any student of history will have seen this scenario played out a thousand times in one form or the other.The end result is always the same.in any event my concern in the last year or so has been more to focus on the gruesome and dangerous PAD leadership.

Your suggestion that the New Politics is becoming more popular is so bizarre as to pre-empt comment.If you have any evidence let's hear it.

I attach a useful summary (edited to adhere to forum rules) by Acharn Thongchai, one of the most distinguished Thai historians, which was recently posted on New Mandala, identifying the constituent parts of the PAD movement.

"Anti-democracy in Thailand

Thongchai Winichakul, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Thailand is facing one of its biggest threats to its still-fledgling democracy. The anti-democratic movement led by the militant People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) - a misnomer if ever there was one - is pressing for the end of traditional electoral democracy. The succession crisis looming once King Bhumibol Adulyadej passes makes the turmoil a “perfect storm” with no end in sight.

The turmoil began with the unprecedented success of Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire politician whose party won landslide election victories twice, in 2001 and 2005 (and again in 2006 but was nullified by a dubious court’s ruling). His success was due primarily to his “populist” policies that benefited the lower-class majority of the country. Thaksin’s administration, however, was marred by human rights violations and corruption scandals, exacerbated by demagoguery and intolerance of criticism.

The PAD emerged in early 2006 to fight Thaksin. It supported the return of power to the monarchy - usually seen as the highest moral authority in the land - to clean up corrupt politics. The instability created by the PAD’s protest paved the way for a military coup in September 2006. The coup regime took various actions aiming at preventing Thaksin and his people from returning to power, including questionable legal actions and court rulings, a new constitution and a closely-monitored general election in December 2007.

Despite those measures and a barrage of anti-Thaksin sentiment in the media, Thaksin’s party easily won that 2007 poll. The PAD took to the streets again, this time occupying the grounds of the prime minister’s offices, vowing to stay and fight until the elected government was ousted and a new political system implemented.

The PAD is the convergence of at least four socio-political forces, with different reasons for hating Thaksin so much.

The first is, generally speaking, the Bangkok and other urban elite. These people fought the military for parliamentary democracy at various points from 1973 to 1992. They have enjoyed political influence over several governments, exercised through the mainstream media and politically active intellectuals. But the strong economic boom of the 1980s and 1990s, and indeed the blossoming of electoral politics, has brought forth the rising power of the rural and urban poor, and the lower middle class, who form the electoral majority.

Elections and politicians representing them are their channel to get a fair share of the country’s resources and power. Thaksin’s success reflected this social change, as his party built up its strong mass support among the rural folks despite the increasing scorn poured on him and his supporters by academics and the media. The disgruntled urban elite believe that the rural folks are, in their words, too ignorant and stupid for democracy. Electoral democracy, to the elite, is not suitable for Thailand because money can allegedly buy a ruling majority. This “class” factor is the reason for strong support to the PAD among the urban middle and upper class, including the mainstream media and academics, many of whom become fanatics of the PAD.

The second political force is the “bureaucratic power.” Before 1973, under military rule, the country was run by soldiers and technocrats who dominated the upper echelon of the bureaucracy. They believe that they represent the public interest better than elected representatives, because they consider the latter to be naturally corrupt. Democratization and elections since 1973 have opened the door to people outside the circle of these bureaucrats, who consequently have lost some of their power. They believe that democracy breeds endemic corruption and that Thaksin was taking the country down to the abyss.

The third force that operates the PAD is activists from various civil society and labor organizations, and a media empire owned by the leader of the PAD, Sondhi Limthongkul. Led by former leftist radicals who are veterans of the struggles for democracy of the 1970s and 80s, these activists bring an anti-capitalist ideology into the 21st century with a conservative twist, rooted in nationalism. They consider Thaksin emblematic of “evil capitalism” and globalization that would harm the country. Fighting the “evil capitalism” has been one of the PAD’s slogans, and radical songs of the 1970s were common at the PAD gathering, although Sondhi’s Manager Media Group, which includes a daily newspaper both in print and on-line, a radio broadcast and a satellite television (ASTV) is highly influential. Not only does it often set the headlines for the entire country, but the PAD also builds up its base of supporters via the ASTV. The PAD’s propaganda runs around the clock every day, feeding the public with their ideology, concocted news and information, and rumors and lies that serve their political agenda and viciously destroy their critics. The PAD’s demagoguery is more dangerous than Thaksin’s by far. But it is effective; the PAD is now like a cult, with hard-core followers who think and speak alike close-mindedly, and becomes increasingly militant. As they claim political righteousness, they defied laws, dehumanized critics and opponents and intimidated them too, and armed.

The last but perhaps most important element of the PAD is the monarchists. They are a network of the powerful conservative, royalist elite with varying vested interests.

The monarchists saw Thaksin as a serious threat at various levels: a patron of some royals in line for the throne and therefore a dangerous kingmaker (literally speaking); a competitor to the monarchy for popularity and a pretender himself; and the mastermind plotting a republic. The general belief in Thailand is that the president of the Privy Council was behind the 2006 coup. As the succession looms, the paranoia among these powerful monarchists escalates. They cannot allow Thaksin, or any politician, to be in an advantageous position. At the same time, various factions among the monarchists are jockeying for advantageous positions for the upcoming transition. The monarchists and the succession concern turn the brewing hatred against Thaksin among the other groups into a perfect political storm. The PAD is probably honest when they say that they are fighting for the monarchy, except the former leftists in its leadership who can sing the royal anthem louder than the royalists if doing so helps them achieve short-term goals.

Some of the allegations against Thaksin are justified, while others are specious. Yet Thaksin opponents have gone all out to get rid of Thaksin, his political machine, and his mass base. The judiciary went out of their way to destroy Thaksin by several questionable rulings including one that relied on a dictionary rather than laws, and one that involved a serious violation of the proper judicial process. In doing so, they damaged their credibility and put the future of the justice system at risk. The PAD also instigated the nationalist hostility against Cambodia that led to clashes between the two countries.

The PAD makes clear that its goal is to replace one-man, one-vote electoral democracy with their “New Politics,” aka “Thai-style Democracy,” with only 50 percent of the country’s lawmakers being elected. The PAD is clear in their intent to dilute the voice of the majority. Some power would be given to the monarch or the Privy Council, in order to balance the power of corrupt politicians. This idea of “Thai-style Democracy” was originally hatched in 1906 when King Chulalongkorn, an absolute monarch, argued against the emerging ideas of democracy. The elite’s distrust in people never goes away.

The PAD’s strategy and tactics are to provoke violent confrontations, with unrest to serve as the pretext for military or royal intervention. Despite its violations of laws and highly aggressive actions, the PAD’s accumulation of arms and its increasing militancy have been condoned and excused by academics, the media and several human rights organizations, including the National Human Rights Commission, because their common enemy is Thaksin. They help provide an intellectual shield for the group.

The PAD behaves as if they are above the law because, after all, as many in the country know but cannot openly say, their ultimate supporters are among those in the highest places in the nation."

Very astute and concise analysis of the situation. For anyone who disagrees just keep in mind that you are probably analysing a sideshow or a smokescreen, and that you haven't been able to see the whole picture.

[Plus]

One more thing - Thongchai talks about PAD's threat to electoral democracy, yet the so called "acharn" fails to notice that PAD's proposal is a direct challenge to money politics.

Thonchai thinks it exists only "allegedly" and so he gets himself in a middle of the war where he thinks warring ideologies do not exist, and then he dares to provide "analysis".

Living in the la-la land.

[younghusband]

What is the reason for your obsession with details? It's a proposal for civic socitey to start working with, not a constitution draft.

What would be the criteria to satisfy these endless requests for defininitions?

This reply is beginning to look very threadbare.Each time a specific aspect of PAD ideology is raised, say the multiple voting rights for various PAD determined groups or more generally the PAD perception of most rural Thais as stupid and corrupt, hands are held up and one hears cries of "it's all just for discussion".If PAD policy can't be defined it can't be taken seriously.Of course I recognise there is a core element of good citizenship in PAD worried about corruption, but they have been badly served by the gruesome PAD leadership.Furthermore the PAD supporters (I'm talking about the ones with at least some residual sense of moral integrity)) just won't summon up the moral courage to face up to the disgusting nature of their leadership.This issue won't just go away.

Don't invoke the need to end money politics.Everybody accepts that as the Thai equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, and in any case one has to accept that universally politics and money are interconnected.The aim surely is to reduce it to an acceptable level.

[Plus]

Each time a specific aspect of PAD ideology is raised

I don't see anyone raising any specific aspects here, no specific allegations, maybe five pages back somewhere, I don't remember.

PAD perception of most rural Thais as stupid and corrupt,

New politics solution is to put farmers directly into the parliament instead of allowing them to be fooled by local feudal lords and mafia figures. Is that so bad?

They point to the problem - rural folks can't shake their feudal slavery vie electoral democracy, and they propose a solution - bypass local pooyais altogether.

What exactly is the problem with this solution? How's that "undermocratic"?

Don't invoke the need to end money politics.Everybody accepts that ...

Except "ajarn" Thongchai. It's all "allegedly" to him.

[Smithson]

What is the reason for your obsession with details? It's a proposal for civic socitey to start working with, not a constitution draft.

As stated earlier, the devil is in the detail. It may not be a constitutional draft, but it's seeking to replace the constitution. The PAD is asking ppl to support a supposedly revolutionary idea without providing proper information.

What would be the criteria to satisfy these endless requests for defininitions?

Something written, such as a policy document, firm proposal etc.

The most thorough details I've read are those from you, stating the certain groups would select representatives. The groups include farmers, doctors and gays. What other groups would there be? Is there a list? What about Muslims, Christians, lesbians, professional athletes, 'hostesses', which of these groups would be able to select a representative?

Edited November 12, 2008 by Smithson