Red Shirts' Planned Rally Worries Pm

[LaoPo]

And where are the surrounding tigers? Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos? Only Malaysia is running well, but only by Chinese/Indian/Arabs and because the have Oil.

The 4 or 5 (if 5, including Thailand) tigers are: South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, according to most sources.

And, I don't think China and India are running well because they have oil as you put it. Arabs ? yes.

LaoPo

I think I need a new map, really can't find them surrounding Thailand......

You don't need a new map, just a new vision of what's happening in the world around you, in this case Asia, with it's more than 4 Billion people.

LaoPo

[Plus]

..Thai history shows in the last 30 years 18 or more military coups...

Where did you get your history????

The problems will be resolved when the country is firmly controlled by the electorate.

Ha ha ha, like that is going to happen.

Every country on earth is controlled by elites who get endorsed by the electorate.

Reds are politically isolated, they have absolutely no one on their side. It's Thaksin vs the rest of Thailand.

vs the rest of thailand?

Every little bar girl still loves thaksin and some ppl in the north also.

Putting your attempt at opinion poll aside.

Thaksin is just one man, he's got his fan club, just like any other politician of any size. Out of nearly ten parties going into elections, not one is aligned with his PPP. Some of their own MPs vote against them in parliament.

[middlepath]

There's no way it could have been the "red shirts" because they had black shirts on. wink wink

[luvU2much500THB]

Putting your attempt at opinion poll aside.

Translated it into german, still dont know what you mean

i did not attempt anything^^

[webfact]

RALLY ON SUNDAY

Govt may have to invoke security law

By THE NATION

Published on August 25, 2009

Suthep, Abhisit fear red shirts plan to blockade Govt House, incite unrest

The government had no choice but to invoke the Internal Security Act to maintain peace during the red-shirt rally on Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said yesterday.

Cabinet is expected to debate the move today and approve enforcement of the draconian security measure under which the military plays a key role in crowd control.

"I have spoken to the prime minister about security concerns and measures to prevent riots because I don't think society will tolerate any more mayhem," Suthep said, following a meeting with PM Abhisit Vejjajiva.

He said he wanted every contingency measure to be put in place to handle unruly crowds.

Judging by remarks made by certain red-shirt leaders, he said, the protests were being organised as a pretext to cause disturbances instead of making genuine demands.

So far, the government had not ignored any demands, and yet the red shirts were determined to carry on protesting, he added. Suthep also voiced suspicion that the red shirts might try to repeat a blockade of Government House because they planned to gather at the Royal Plaza nearby.

He said he did not wish to cast doubts by saying the red shirts sought to incite riots, but it was his job to brace for all eventualities.

With regard to ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's attempt to bring the red shirts together for a beef-noodle lunch, which he meant to host via a video linkup, Suthep said all Thais wanted to see unity in society.

Abhisit, meanwhile, said he was concerned about the upcoming rally because certain red shirts were determined to instigate violence.

He said he had instructed Suthep and Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan to have measures ready to rein-in disruptive crowds.

Though the PM would not go into details about security measures, he said his bottom line was that the protesters should in no way be allowed to disrupt work at Government House. The government would not impose a deadline on how long the protest could last, but a repeat of the mayhem in April would not be allowed, he said.

He reminded red-shirt rally organisers that a number of them were obligated to abide by their bail conditions.

Senate Speaker Prasobsook Boondech said the government should not invoke security measures ahead of the rally because it would become a pre-condition for the red shirts to mobilise mobs.

However, the government should be ready to invoke the security law should violence erupt, he said.

He said rival camps should have learnt a lesson from the Songkran mayhem. He did not expect the red shirts to provoke another riot

-- The Nation 2009/08/25

[Scott]

"Every country on earth is controlled by elites who get endorsed by the electorate."

This country is firmly controlled by the military, not the electorate. Who and when the electorate endorse someone is irrelevant unless the military and it's power-elite decide it's OK.

[Plus]

What is the biggest difference that those 6 countries have?

Respect for education and increasingly or completely liberalised investment and financial markets. They have their networks but someone with a good education can expect to have a long, successful and well remunerated career in a myriad of positions in either domestic multinationals or foreign MNC's. They are embracing the rest of the world, whilst Thailand frets over foreign husbands owning houses and some land through their wife.

As if it doesn't happen in Thailand.

Take a look at this list of recent Prime Ministers:

Banharn Silpa-Archa - son of Chinese immigrants, some even argue he doesn't have the legal right to the the PM.

Chavalit - unremarkable family from Bangkok

Chuan - dirt poor family from the South

Thaksin - immigrant merchant family from upcoutnry

Surayud - son of communist insurgent killed in a battle with government.

It's a myth that there's no social mobility in Thailand.

Reds are politically isolated, they have absolutely no one on their side. It's Thaksin vs the rest of Thailand.

vs the rest of thailand?

Every little bar girl still loves thaksin and some ppl in the north also.

Nearly every thai i spoke so far likes thaksin, so you must be completly wrong normally!

That's the attempt at opinion poll I was talking about.

This country is firmly controlled by the military, not the electorate.

Another myth - where is any evidence of that? Where was the military when reds stormed Pattaya? Where was Anupong when reds were trying to kill Abhisit on Sunday? Who set up the emergency center to quell red riots? Abhisit himself.

Where is the military in the latest row over police chief?

Where is any evidence of military controlling anything in the past nine months?

[Thai at Heart]

What is the biggest difference that those 6 countries have?

Respect for education and increasingly or completely liberalised investment and financial markets. They have their networks but someone with a good education can expect to have a long, successful and well remunerated career in a myriad of positions in either domestic multinationals or foreign MNC's. They are embracing the rest of the world, whilst Thailand frets over foreign husbands owning houses and some land through their wife.

As if it doesn't happen in Thailand.

Take a look at this list of recent Prime Ministers:

Banharn Silpa-Archa - son of Chinese immigrants, some even argue he doesn't have the legal right to the the PM.

Chavalit - unremarkable family from Bangkok

Chuan - dirt poor family from the South

Thaksin - immigrant merchant family from upcoutnry

Surayud - son of communist insurgent killed in a battle with government.

It's a myth that there's no social mobility in Thailand.

I wasn't meaning that ordinary people obtain well paid and prosperous careers in POLITICS. If you believe that in itself, politics should be seen as a career move, that is your perogative, but I don't. Ironically, in your quoted people, several of them are accused of being horrendously corrupt, and also several if not all of them started and finished their careers in state organisations such as the army or police.

That is one of the biggest problems Thailand has. People perceive that joining the army or police is an economic career as opposed to career of serving the people.

I have worked in most of the countries you mentioned at the top, and it people's ability to succeed is far more geared to what they know instead of who they know and only becoming more so.

Ironically, I wonder how economically successful and prosperous any of these people would have been if they had lived their entire lives on their civil service pay packets alone.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Insight]

This country is firmly controlled by the military, not the electorate.

Another myth - where is any evidence of that? Where was the military when reds stormed Pattaya? Where was Anupong when reds were trying to kill Abhisit on Sunday? Who set up the emergency center to quell red riots? Abhisit himself.

Where is the military in the latest row over police chief?

Where is any evidence of military controlling anything in the past nine months?

Well said Plus. Just a few silly myths circulating about a silent, silent coup. Can only hazard a guess where they originated from...

[wayfarer108]

I don't think the country's problems are going to go away until they follow the rule of law and that means prosecuting wrong doers--all of them, whether they are yellow or red. It means prosecuting politicians as well, all of them. It doesn't mean endless sentences. It means prosecuting military and police who commit crimes as well. It can mean fines, jail time and a criminal record if what they did is a crime.

The problems will be resolved when the country is firmly controlled by the electorate.

Scott, no country is governed by its electorate, it's governed by representatives who may or may not have been chosen by majority vote. Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means. Without good representatives, without good governance, elections are useless.

[Publicus]

"........as he feared violence would damage the country" --------- Normally that is called "imputing negative motives where none are indicated".............Perhaps a comment on the stated purpose of the rally would be more productive. Stonewalling on electoral demands is self-serving enough.

2/3 of the remaining article tries hard to smear the pro-democracy movement even more. Again imputing negative motives to a group of people by insinuation, where none are indicated.

Also, placing the yellow shirts into a motherhood-and-apple pie situation..................

Thaksin is not a democrat nor is Thaksin pro democracy. The Sept 19, 2006 coup was triggered because Thaksin had organized and paid a gang of goons to bust up a Sondhi anti government rally the next day so that Thaksin could declare a national state of emergency and seize complete control of the government. Hence the coup deposed the despot.

Thaksin at the time was Acting Prime Minister with no parliament as the massively corrupt TRT victory had been annuled by the electoral authorities but only after the Thaksin appointed Election Commission had been discharged, later to be put on trial and ultimately incarcerated.

Indeed once the coup began Thaksin, in NYC to address the annual UN General Assembly, did in fact declare a state of emergency but instead of it being against Thailand it was thrown in the face of the army and spit back at him.

Shortly before, towards the end of Thaksin's first term with victory clearly in sight, Thaksin finally felt enuff hubris to state openly, "Democracy is not my goal."

The so called 'pro democracy' Red Shirts are as pro democracy as the Brown Shirts and the Black Shirts of an earlier terrible era in another part of the world. Their apologists use the same approach as back then, which is to repeat the same line consistently and frequently in the false conviction that people will believe the Reds are pro democracy if the lie is big enuff and is stated enuff. This principle is your basic Orwell 101 of Big Brother and the one party dominated state.

[mc2]

Thaksin is not a democrat nor is Thaksin pro democracy. The Sept 19, 2006 coup was triggered because Thaksin had organized and paid a gang of goons to bust up a Sondhi anti government rally the next day so that Thaksin could declare a national state of emergency and seize complete control of the government. Hence the coup deposed the despot.

any proof of this ridiculous claim ?

[mc2]

This country is firmly controlled by the military, not the electorate.

Another myth - where is any evidence of that? Where was the military when reds stormed Pattaya? Where was Anupong when reds were trying to kill Abhisit on Sunday? Who set up the emergency center to quell red riots? Abhisit himself.

Where is the military in the latest row over police chief?

Where is any evidence of military controlling anything in the past nine months?

when a gun is aimed at you, it doesn't need to be fired to have an effect. the threat is enough.

fact is, Scott is spot on. sadly, the military are FIRMLY in charge

[Publicus]

Thaksin is not a democrat nor is Thaksin pro democracy. The Sept 19, 2006 coup was triggered because Thaksin had organized and paid a gang of goons to bust up a Sondhi anti government rally the next day so that Thaksin could declare a national state of emergency and seize complete control of the government. Hence the coup deposed the despot.

any proof of this ridiculous claim ?

Publicly reported in the mass media at the time and confirmed by people in the government to include the police. Thais themselves knew what was going on and what was in the works, to include Sondhi and Co. Why do you think the King met with the coup leaders at the Grand Palace WHILE the coup was in progress? It might have had something to do with a somber reminder to the military, given their actions underway, of their responsibility to restore peace and order for a while to offer the country a time to regroup and settle down to facilitate a return to electoral democracy.

If you were in country at the time, and perhaps you were, you could've spoken with any Thai who was connected to the grapevine as most Thais I knew in Bangkok at the time were, and continue to be. Thaksin at the time was caretaker prime minister without any parliament (election annulled because of massive TRT electoral fraud). Thaksin's record is that of an autocrat who hasn't any respect of democracy.

Thaksin tried to buy Thailand. After that attempt clearly had failed, he had decided to seize control of it. Now Thaksin would destroy Thailand rather than see it prosper democratically without him. One can understand Thaksin's present desperation due to the fact Thaksin is a man without a country. That's a self inflicted kick squarely in the pants and not on the backside either.

Nonetheless, knowing Thaksin's present accelerating desperation doesn't excuse or mitigate his bent to destroy Thailand. It's legtitmate to be concerned that Sunday's Red Shirt mob realistically could create another Pattaya or another Songkran. Thaksin and the Reds will do anything against Thailand at this point.

It's reasonable for the incumbent government to prepare for the worst on Sunday.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Publicus

[Plus]

What is the biggest difference that those 6 countries have?

Respect for education and increasingly or completely liberalised investment and financial markets. They have their networks but someone with a good education can expect to have a long, successful and well remunerated career in a myriad of positions in either domestic multinationals or foreign MNC's. They are embracing the rest of the world, whilst Thailand frets over foreign husbands owning houses and some land through their wife.

As if it doesn't happen in Thailand.

Take a look at this list of recent Prime Ministers:

Banharn Silpa-Archa - son of Chinese immigrants, some even argue he doesn't have the legal right to the the PM.

Chavalit - unremarkable family from Bangkok

Chuan - dirt poor family from the South

Thaksin - immigrant merchant family from upcoutnry

Surayud - son of communist insurgent killed in a battle with government.

It's a myth that there's no social mobility in Thailand.

I wasn't meaning that ordinary people obtain well paid and prosperous careers in POLITICS.

These people rose to the highest positions in the country, having passed all the stages on the way. Do you want me to provide examples of not so famous folks who didn't raise to the very top, and not in politics but in business? Nitpicking, that's what it is.

The guy who runs King Power group or the other guy who runs Amata Industrial parks, first came to mind.

Look at Bangkok, look at how it changed in the space of about two generations - they don't have enough "elites" to account for all this newly acquired wealth.

when a gun is aimed at you, it doesn't need to be fired to have an effect. the threat is enough.

fact is, Scott is spot on. sadly, the military are FIRMLY in charge

More nonsense - what guns pointed to whose heads? What did Anupong do last year when Samak refused to listen? Where were his guns? It was a pathetic attempt at "TV coup" that was brazingly ignored.

[tominbkk]

Could be the PAD stirring up sh*te like they usually do.

Hmmmm....

Red shirts love stirring up anger and hate:

---bashing innocent celebrating gay people in Chiang Mai

---shooting innocent people at their homes

---burning buses and destroying property

---attempting to attack and assassinate visiting dignitaries

---attempting to attack and assassinate the prime minister.

A lovely group of people,,,,,

[MaiChai]

Publicus is spot on. This is exactly what happened. Anyone in Thailand in 2006 will remember what happened. The dictator needed to be removed. As simple as that.

[h90]

edit: replying a stupid posting with a stupid answer isn't a good idea so I deleted it myself.

Edited August 25, 2009 by h90

[Scott]

It is not a myth that the military exercises a great deal of control. Unless of course you wish to dispute whether or not there was a coup and a military installed and backed gov't. Why didn't they do anything at Pattaya? I don't know, maybe being in control and exercising control are two different things--maybe they didn't expect, maybe they wanted to make the police look bad.

I also did not use the word democracy in my previous post. The electorate being in control doesn't mean that the process isn't implemented through representation.

Thailand needs to find it's own way through the current situation. Existing models of gov't may need to be modified to meet the unique needs of the people and culture. However, ignoring the wrongs and the wrong doers probably won't work. It may delay the problem, but it won't solve it. Change needs to occur in an orderly fashion. If it occurs to rapidly, it's called a revolution and history points to many of those being less than peaceful.

As far as the statement about 'the dictator had to be removed,' I disagree. Long before the coup, the courts let him take control after he had concealed his wealth--as I recall, something about giving shares to the maid and driver. This was the point where the full force of the law should have been applied.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Siripon]

Could be the PAD stirring up sh*te like they usually do.

Hmmmm....

Red shirts love stirring up anger and hate:

---bashing innocent celebrating gay people in Chiang Mai

---shooting innocent people at their homes

---burning buses and destroying property

---attempting to attack and assassinate visiting dignitaries

---attempting to attack and assassinate the prime minister.

A lovely group of people,,,,,

I've yet to see anything written by britmaveric come true, and I hope for his sake it remains that way as presumably he's British and Thaksin has promised Britain will feel 'great sorrow' (if he returns)!

[Siripon]

It is not a myth that the military exercises a great deal of control. Unless of course you wish to dispute whether or not there was a coup and a military installed and backed gov't. Why didn't they do anything at Pattaya? I don't know, maybe being in control and exercising control are two different things--maybe they didn't expect, maybe they wanted to make the police look bad.

I also did not use the word democracy in my previous post. The electorate being in control doesn't mean that the process isn't implemented through representation.

Thailand needs to find it's own way through the current situation. Existing models of gov't may need to be modified to meet the unique needs of the people and culture. However, ignoring the wrongs and the wrong doers probably won't work. It may delay the problem, but it won't solve it. Change needs to occur in an orderly fashion. If it occurs to rapidly, it's called a revolution and history points to many of those being less than peaceful.

As far as the statement about 'the dictator had to be removed,' I disagree. Long before the coup, the courts let him take control after he had concealed his wealth--as I recall, something about giving shares to the maid and driver. This was the point where the full force of the law should have been applied.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're quite right, the 7-3 guilty verdict with 4 abstentions and some judges admitting their verdict was based on political grounds, ie he had just won a landslide so we can't upset the people, was controversial to put it mildly; and I believe it was the point when Thaksin thought,' I can do anything!' Money and popularity can take me anywhere'. If legal criteria had ben used by all, he would have been banned from 2001 to 2006.

[Plus]

It is not a myth that the military exercises a great deal of control. Unless of course you wish to dispute whether or not there was a coup and a military installed and backed gov't. Why didn't they do anything at Pattaya? I don't know, maybe being in control and exercising control are two different things..

So, which one is it?

Emphasis mine.

I say it's a myth that military exercies a great deal of control. I don't see any evidence of that.

It's been two years since CNS dissolved itself, and "military installed" Surayud was superior to any of the coup makers, as former Supreme Commander and member of the Privy Council.

[Scott]

When a police officer is standing on the street and a motorcycle driver goes by without a helmet and he doesn't stop him it's because:

A) He doesn't have the power to stop him.

He has the power but doesn't chose to exercise it.

C) He's busy doing something else.

On a constant basis we experience the difference between having the power and exercising power.

I have trouble believing that anyone thinks for a moment that the military doesn't have the power.

[hammered]

It is not a myth that the military exercises a great deal of control. Unless of course you wish to dispute whether or not there was a coup and a military installed and backed gov't. Why didn't they do anything at Pattaya? I don't know, maybe being in control and exercising control are two different things..

So, which one is it?

Emphasis mine.

I say it's a myth that military exercies a great deal of control. I don't see any evidence of that.

It's been two years since CNS dissolved itself, and "military installed" Surayud was superior to any of the coup makers, as former Supreme Commander and member of the Privy Council.

A good few months back one old general was quoted as saying things in the military arent the same as they used to be. People used to be scared of generals and when they spoke they were listened to. Now people just ignored them and laughed at them. Cant remember who said it.

The military is also full of factions and can only act as a whole when a big majority of factions agree. That isnt easy. The military also worry more about what the outside world think now. Look at Honduras their government is recognized by less countries than those two breakaway bits of Georgia.

The influence of the military is less than it used to be. In the current government you have the BJT and Suthep close to the military brass and trying to smooth them and Abhisit and most Dems trying to show he is distant by doing his own thing. That is the heart of the police chief stuff. In the past that would have led to a coup to out Abhisit (sorry to the all those who naively think government is Dems and military in a loving embrace).

Elsewhere I have read detailed analysis of exactly what military branches and units support who. It is divided and rumours of an averted coup in April due to division could well be near the truth. Events could change this though.

Note after the extemley well publiciised unity speech how every military and police leader of any note were seen publically at Prem's birthday.

However, what the military do have at the end of the day is the power to launch a real coup. However, that would now likely be bloody, unpopular and opposed by both reds and PAD as well as ruinous in world terms. However, if the army boss feels he is going to lose his job............

Edited to add: the power behind the scenes in Thailand is a bit like in many countries - a combination of groups: bureacracy, judiciary, legislature, media, executive, military, police, industrialists, aristocracy, financiers and bankers, power brokers, etc etc. In Thailand right now there as a a rebalancing of these groups going on and now we dont know how the new balance will eventually come out. That will then set the scene for elected government to govern within the new agreed (or possibly forced) status quo

Edited August 25, 2009 by hammered

[Siripon]

At Songkran Abhisit was saved by trops from Korat, loyal to General Prem, as mentioned in hammered's post, there are factions in the army- and the police, hence the importance of who is the next police chief.

[Scott]

Hammered thanks for that informative and inightful post.

[wayfarer108]

It is not a myth that the military exercises a great deal of control. Unless of course you wish to dispute whether or not there was a coup and a military installed and backed gov't. Why didn't they do anything at Pattaya? I don't know, maybe being in control and exercising control are two different things--maybe they didn't expect, maybe they wanted to make the police look bad.

I also did not use the word democracy in my previous post. The electorate being in control doesn't mean that the process isn't implemented through representation.

Thailand needs to find it's own way through the current situation. Existing models of gov't may need to be modified to meet the unique needs of the people and culture. However, ignoring the wrongs and the wrong doers probably won't work. It may delay the problem, but it won't solve it. Change needs to occur in an orderly fashion. If it occurs to rapidly, it's called a revolution and history points to many of those being less than peaceful.

As far as the statement about 'the dictator had to be removed,' I disagree. Long before the coup, the courts let him take control after he had concealed his wealth--as I recall, something about giving shares to the maid and driver. This was the point where the full force of the law should have been applied.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're quite right, the 7-3 guilty verdict with 4 abstentions and some judges admitting their verdict was based on political grounds, ie he had just won a landslide so we can't upset the people, was controversial to put it mildly; and I believe it was the point when Thaksin thought,' I can do anything!' Money and popularity can take me anywhere'. If legal criteria had ben used by all, he would have been banned from 2001 to 2006.

Exactly, and these facts beg the question, which was the real 'judicial coup'?

Thaksin and his followers can't have it both ways.

[Scott]

I think this is the endemic problem that faces the country. The country doesn't make the difficult decisions in the first instance and then fails along the way to deal with problems. They know have an unwholly mess on their hands.

Neither side wishes to talk about the original judicial decision because that would show that the judiciary are able to be influenced. My difficulty with the abuse of power case is that it's hard to believe this wasn't influenced by factors other than the facts of the case. And over the years, of all the things that have happened, poor old Samak gets busted for a cooking show!! This doesn't leave the judicial system looking good. I am not questioning whether or not they were guilty--I am questioning all the people that were never brought to justice.

Justice needs to be applied equally and blindly. It doesn't appear to be.

[animatic]

Publicus is spot on. This is exactly what happened. Anyone in Thailand in 2006 will remember what happened. The dictator needed to be removed. As simple as that.

Seconded.

We had a very similar discussion last week face top face.

[mc2]

some photos from last weeks meeting