International Media Reports On The Demos

[clausewitz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7998243.stm

By Jonathan Head

BBC News, Bangkok

Nobody won. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the chaotic events in Thailand over the past few days.

Certainly not the red-shirted United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), whose attempted uprising degenerated into a series of chaotic clashes with the army that left a wake of destruction on the streets of Bangkok.

Not Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva either. Although he clawed back a lot of his authority through the successful military operation to disperse the UDD protesters, the promise he made on taking office four months ago to promote reconciliation in his country now looks hollow.

Not the army, which carried out the unpleasant task of clearing the streets with growing confidence, and surprisingly light casualties.

Its decision to suppress these protesters, when it did nothing about the equally damaging actions of the yellow-shirted People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) last year, makes a mockery of its claim to be a neutral force.

That and the 2006 coup that deposed Thaksin Shinawatra have irrevocably tarnished its image with a sizable part of the Thai population.

Not the police, who are now such a diminished and demoralised force that almost no-one in Thailand expected them to play any role in the recent disorder.

When confronted by a few thousand unarmed protesters at the Asian summit in Pattaya, they offered only token resistance. In Bangkok they were essentially invisible. Without a functioning police force, the rule of law that Mr Abhisit has talked of so often becomes very precarious.

And finally, not Thaksin Shinawatra, whose melodramatic call for a people's uprising fell flat, and who is still stuck in exile, without a secure place of refuge.

Polarising figure

Three years of intractable political conflict are taking a debilitating toll on Thailand. Emotions are now very raw.

Some of the ugliest scenes in recent days did not involve the army; they occurred when local residents came out to confront the rampaging red-shirts. Shots were fired, two people died, and some were savagely beaten.

It is difficult to explain why Thailand, a country once seen as a paragon of stability and social harmony, has become so polarised.

The division between Red and Yellow cuts across many lines; it is not simply just rural-versus-urban, or poor-versus-rich. Spend long enough with either group and you meet people from very varied backgrounds.

Multi-millionaire Thaksin is both loved and hated in ThailandBut there is one issue that clearly divides the two camps.

That issue is Thaksin Shinawatra, the man who shattered the traditional mould of Thai politics through his brilliant campaigns, winning him two record election victories in 2001 and 2005.

Not all the Reds love this brash and controversial figure.

But they pretty much all think he was unjustly removed from office by the 2006 coup, and that the various legal cases brought against him - he was sentenced to two years in jail in absentia last year for an abuse of power - are without merit.

They also believe in the power of his populist agenda, the key to his party's mass following.

Not just because it improved the lot of the rural poor - economists have questioned the efficiency and long-term benefit of many of his policies - but because for the first time it gave poorer Thais a sense that their vote mattered, that voting for a particular policy platform could bring you tangible benefits.

The Reds felt Thaksin gave them a voice in Thai societyThis approach politicised a previously neglected class of people in Thailand, and made them a powerful, new force.

These people are the reason Mr Thaksin did so well in elections, and the reason his allies were returned to office in 2007, in the first election held after the coup, even though Mr Thaksin and 110 of his top party officials were banned from running.

They are now the mass base of the red-shirt movement. And they believe, passionately, that their side has been treated unfairly.

Festering grievances

The many, well-founded criticisms made of Mr Thaksin's style of government do not affect that view: that he was autocratic, fatally weakening Thailand's fragile democratic institutions; that he presided over a sharp escalation of human rights violations; that corruption continued to flourish under his administrations; that he shamelessly promoted on the basis of loyalty, not competence.

The Yellows say Thaksin was both corrupt and autocraticThese are points made tirelessly by the PAD during their anti-Thaksin protests last year, and they are hard to refute.

But because so many poorer Thais saw this flawed politician as their champion, they resented it bitterly when forces aligned with the wealthy elite decided to bend the rules to kick him out of office.

It was ultra-royalist generals who led the coup. But they were cheered on by conservative judges and bureaucrats, wealthy business tycoons and many urban, middle-class Thais. Mr Thaksin's followers felt robbed.

That sense of being robbed continued last year when they saw the governments they had voted for harried by the PAD, and then disqualified by bizarre court decisions.

And they felt patronised when PAD activists said - as they did repeatedly - that the only reason the poor voted for Mr Thaksin was because he had bribed them to.

These grievances continue to fester, and deepen the divide in Thai society.

Go to a red-shirt rally and you will hear the same mantra; "We are grass-roots people, fighting for democracy, against the ruling class".

Go to a yellow-shirt rally and you will almost inevitably hear a different mantra; "We are educated people, fighting against corrupt politicians who abuse democracy".

PM Abhisit Vejjajiva has failed to draw support from rural votersThere appear to be no towering, Obama-like figures in Thailand, who can win the respect of both camps. Certainly not Mr Abhisit, who often looks uncomfortably out of place in the rural, red heartlands of the north and north-east.

How he deals with the leaders of the "red uprising" now - and how that compares with the treatment given to last year's "yellow uprising" - will be an important test of his promise to uphold the rule of law impartially.

So the conflict which erupted so spectacularly in Bangkok and Pattaya over the past week will probably rumble on, steadily eroding the confidence of investors, tourists and the Thai people, in a stable future for their country.

[clausewitz]

This article from the local press makes similar points:

Red shirts more than just a bunch of Thaksin's supporters

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Published on April 7, 2009

"Fifty-fifty", was the response of a key member of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) when asked about the chances of his red-shirt movement overthrowing Abhisit Vejjajiva in the not-too-distant future.

The figure is as much a guesstimate as it is a description of the uncertain political situation in which Thailand finds itself at this juncture in political history - fifty-fifty. Anything is possible.

Tomorrow, DAAD paramount leader in exile, convicted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, hopes his followers will fight to restore "democracy" by showing their force in a sea of red. Those who show up tomorrow will include many more than passive Thaksin supporters and those organised by former Thai Rak Thai politicians from upcountry. It will be an unholy alliance of many groups wanting to tear down the old political order.

First are those opposing the September 2006 military coup which, incidentally, ousted Thaksin. Some of these people were never Thaksin fans. This writer knows of one female member, formerly very actively supporting the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). But the coup convinced her that the military and the aristocracy who pull the strings were the greater of the two evils and had to go. Those with long-enough memory will also recall that DAAD co-leader Weng Tojirakarn was more than once on the PAD stage ranting against Thaksin too.

Many young reds who opposed the coup felt military intervention should have been consigned to history, as they had only a faint memory of the 1991 coup that ousted then premier Chatichai Choonhavan. They have a contempt for military adventure in politics.

Group two are those who feel Thailand needs to move away from a semi-feudal system where politics is orchestrated behind the scenes. They also want to see the monarchy institution truly outside politics.

A group of netizens, calling itself FARED (First Aid Red) have volunteered at the Government House rally site to offer first aid despite the fact none was trained in medicine. However, they have hired a nurse or two to teach them.

Some educated red shirts want to see a much more limited monarchy institution, like those in Great Britain or Japan, and have vented their frustrations on the Internet. A string of arrests and jailings, such as that of Suwicha Thakor, who got a 10-year term last week for lese majeste and for breaking the computer crime Act, have made it clear there are people unhappy about the current arrangement. The crackdown and the counter-reaction continues as police are eyeing to arrest more. With the Internet coming under close surveillance, one resorted to spreading attacks on the monarchy by distributing leaflets and was reportedly arrested on Saturday in Khon Kaen. These people pose a challenge to the commonly accepted belief that all Thais revere the monarchy institution and they want change.

The PAD's New Politics, which proposed limited electoral rights, and their seizure of the airports, also provided a turning point for others who have joined the red-shirt movement.

Group three are fuelled by general insults handed down by a large section of the press describing the protesters as a hired lowly educated mob who don't know what voting and democracy is all about - only serving to make more working class red and angry. These people can be found riding the bus back home from rally sites late in the evening, hating the anti-Thaksin media as well as PAD's New Politics which they regard as insulting and elitist.

So this is a war between new money, represented by Thaksin and his associates, some die-hard leftists, a young middle class fed up with old politics, educated as well as lesser educated middle and working class versus the PAD - which claims to represent the monarchy and moral politics and is run by the few and supported by the military, the bureaucracy, old money and old elites.

Now that Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanond has been openly dragged into the feud through Thaksin's allegation that he's behind the coup, the battleground is even clearer.

The PAD's momentum surged when it attracted people from many walks whom Thaksin had made his enemy during his abusive and egocentric rule as prime minister. Now the red DAAD have attracted many diverse groups who feel upset about the old powers and are willing to use Thaksin, and let Thaksin use them, to achieve victory.

This unholy alliance is getting stronger by the day as more and more people feel emboldened by the sheer numbers challenging the old establishment. And it's definitely more than just about Thaksin or PAD, Sondhi Limthongkul or even Prem.

[clausewitz]

The Financial Times Limited 2009

Thailand's slide into mob rule

Published: April 14 2009

Ever since the autumn 2006 coup that deposed populist prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has given every impression of having succumbed to mob rule, an impression only somewhat relieved by putting a young Eton- and Oxford-educated premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, at the front of the house.

Events like last weekend's cancellation of an Asean summit, with leaders such as China's Wen Jiabao evacuated as "red shirts" protesters loyal to Mr Thaksin overran the coastal venue of Pattaya, are beginning to paint Thailand in the colours of a banana republic.

Before that, of course, Thailand ran through a brace of Thaksin proxy leaders, toppled by "yellow shirts" royalists who brought the country and the economy to a standstill under the indulgent eyes of the police and the army.

At the root of this now chronic instability is the complete inability of Thailand's ruling class to come to terms with the political implications of Mr Thaksin's constituency.

Thais emerged from the 1997-98 east Asian financial crisis looking for a strong but democratic champion of their interests. What they got was Mr Thaksin. A tycoon with deep pockets, he addressed for the first time the needs of the rural poor of the populous north-east. He was also ruthless in riding rough-shod over institutions from the central bank to the courts, and using blanket repression against Muslim unrest in south Thailand and death squads against drugs dealers.

But it was not just Mr Thaksin's pluto-populism that alienated the urban elite and elements from the army, bureaucracy and the court. They simply could not tolerate the shift in power to political out-castes.

This became clear when the 2007 constitutional reform was rejected by a big majority in the north-east. No wonder. It was a gerrymander to prevent the new actors from the countryside ever again taking political centre stage. Bans on Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) party – the only party ever to win an absolute majority – and its successors reinforced the message.

While Thailand ostensibly has a strong unifying force in King Bhumibol Adulyadej, there have been 18 coups under its constitutional monarchy. Like any other complex and dynamic society, Thailand needs more than a regal umbrella: it needs solid modern institutions.

Mr Abhisit, who came to power in a murky parliamentary vote, can justify his position by recognising Thailand's new political players are here to stay, and by making its institutions work to accommodate them. And he should seek a proper mandate through new elections.

The Financial Times Limited 2009

OMG as if Abhist would ever agree to elections. All last year he screamed that the govenrment of Samka and Somchai must dissolve parliament and have new elections but as soon as he got pwoer he said that will never happen now. We all know why..

[myauq]

This article from the local press makes similar points:

... and without the massive advertising banner plastered over the top of it

[dee123]

BBC has a "campaign against gobbledygook"......so they try to communicate by not puting in unecessary long words or trying to impress with their grammatical skills.Therefore making it easier for every reader/viewer to understand,...as the news is targeted at the general public.As usual the BBC's piece makes much easier reading than The Nation.The Nation article is similar to an undergraduates essay trying to impress.