Sunday Redshirt Rally Postponed

[Thai at Heart]

reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup. it was only after the yellow shirts and so called "elites"/military expelled the elected governments of samak and somchai and orchestrated the current coalition that the reds saw the injustice and decided to make their voices heard.

Just a quick recap:

There were plenty of regular protests after the coup, it was so hated that sometimes even 300 people would show up. On the biggest Consitution day rally there were easily 5,000. There was no color designation at that time yet.

Red movement started with a massive rally at Sanam Luang in 2007, with Thaksin's first phone in. It wasn't long before when reds tried to storm Prem's residence leaving two hundred policemen injured. When PPP formed the government after teh elections they dissipated.

Then, in 2008, when PAD held their first seminar, indoor, I might add, red movement came back. They threw bottles and plastic bags with urine and excrements at PAD buses, and one proud red displayed his genitalia to express his outrage at other people holding their meetings.

As PAD protests grew pro-Thaksin forces realised that they need to counteract them with their own "mass-movement" to take control of the streets. People were mobilised from all over the country. That eventually led to a drunken red mob, armed with machetes and clubs, storming smaller and less protected PAD camp in the middle of the night. PAD guards quickly regrouped and beat them back. One attacker lost his life.

After that PAD rallies were attacked all throughout the country, most notably Udon Lovers mob severely beating about a dozen PAD members unconsicous while they were preparing their rally. The stage was completely destroyed, and they used Thai flagpoles, among other weapons. The leader was offering monetary rewards to anyone who could kill a PAD leader. He was on the PPP govt payroll at that time.

After a spate of such attacks PAD leadership was forced to concentrate in Bangkok and give up on holding any meetings upcountry. Red power was rising.

In Bangkok red leaders held training camps where they taught their foot soldiers to use weapons and throw grenades. Shortly after that PAD camps were bombed almost nightly. Our resident red, Koo, was saying that if PAD refused to obey by Red demands, bombing them into submission was the right thing to do.

Then late in 2008, Reds had an image makeover with highly publicised and peaceful rally at Hua Mark that featured Thaksin's video appearance (or phone in, I don't remember). From that point on reds started telling everyone how peaceful they were and that lasted until Songkran mayhem.

>>>

Please don't try to list all PAD examples of violence to change the subject - it's not PAD who is going to oust the government now and keep everyone worrying, it's reds.

It doesn't hold water to say that the reds have been the only one's with weaponry during their protests. One can split hairs about offensive and defensive, however, seeing the yellow supporter under the expressway near Don Muang shows that neither party has been innocent in their actions during their protests.

We can argue about the scale of the violence and it is true that the reds over Songkran were awful. However, the PAD never had to face the army did they.

[Hardy99]

Invoking the ISA is no mealy mouthed effort. It is a very serious piece of law which grants very extreme powers to the army and the government.

I don't know how many people they were hoping to get at the rally, but having soldiers sitting around with guns "hidden" and a large crowd is a very volatile situation.

Yes it is serious and also completely justified. Did you see what happened in Pattaya and Black Songkran, or not? Thaksin openly advocated REVOLUTION. No government in the world would sit back for that.

@"Jingthing" (I wonder what about your post should be jing at all....

That you are colored yellow a blind can "see"! Thailand should clean up with the mess of the yellows first! Occupy and block Airports, Streets, violate hundreds of thousands uninvolved people, seizure the goverment house for month... and.. and.. Did you get that all that crimes still run free?? ..whilst others close a road or demonstate for their labour union members get JALED !!!!!! Can you read newspapers.. not only the tinted BKPost or Nation? You would read that the world writes Thailand is slipping in political sump as Myanmar! If you feel "think" thats democratic.. up to you! To give you a chance to write something make sense not only blabla.. just list up a few things under the Abhisit Goverment has beeing done for the wellfare of the country.. (your list will be empty)!! Its much easier to complain about others then do something... every bad thing happens Mr. Thaksin has to stand for it, its a big joke, thats it!

[Plus]

It doesn't hold water to say that the reds have been the only one's with weaponry during their protests. One can split hairs about offensive and defensive, however, seeing the yellow supporter under the expressway near Don Muang shows that neither party has been innocent in their actions during their protests.

We can argue about the scale of the violence and it is true that the reds over Songkran were awful. However, the PAD never had to face the army did they.

It doen't serve any useful purpose to point at the other side as an excuse for your own actions.

I repeat - it's not PAD protests that leave people worried now. It's the possibility of reds throwin the countruy into turmoil again, and for no good reasons - no one outside red camp can identify with their current agenda.

[Maiya]

Invoking the ISA is no mealy mouthed effort. It is a very serious piece of law which grants very extreme powers to the army and the government.

I don't know how many people they were hoping to get at the rally, but having soldiers sitting around with guns "hidden" and a large crowd is a very volatile situation.

Yes it is serious and also completely justified. Did you see what happened in Pattaya and Black Songkran, or not? Thaksin openly advocated REVOLUTION. No government in the world would sit back for that.

@"Jingthing" (I wonder what about your post should be jing at all....

That you are colored yellow a blind can "see"! Thailand should clean up with the mess of the yellows first! Occupy and block Airports, Streets, violate hundreds of thousands uninvolved people, seizure the goverment house for month... and.. and.. Did you get that all that crimes still run free?? ..whilst others close a road or demonstate for their labour union members get JALED !!!!!! Can you read newspapers.. not only the tinted BKPost or Nation? You would read that the world writes Thailand is slipping in political sump as Myanmar! If you feel "think" thats democratic.. up to you! To give you a chance to write something make sense not only blabla.. just list up a few things under the Abhisit Goverment has beeing done for the wellfare of the country.. (your list will be empty)!! Its much easier to complain about others then do something... every bad thing happens Mr. Thaksin has to stand for it, its a big joke, thats it!

In full agreement Hardy99....well said!

[mca]

Not inventing conspiracy theories, just that "reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup" seems like a strange statement to make.

Well unless the majority of voters were suddenly going to swap sides it seems cut and dried they'd win again. Look at the measures the anti-Thaksin lot had to make to sure that nobody associated with Thaksin would be in power. They knew another political party couldn't win if their lives depended on it. And I speak as someone who loathes Thaksin.

Well, it wasn't the majority, only 36%,

OK. The majority of voters who voted for Thaksin's party.

[Maiya]

I keep harping away on here, about getting away from describing the political divide by referencing affinity colors of their clothing. This is so shallow and simplistic, and shows no respect to the ideological basis of each. They have passionately held opinions and platforms. Show them some respect and not dismissively by referencing them by colors. They have a belief system. Get away from the Thaksin-hating stuff, and begin to discuss this political divide according to what separates it ideologically........that is the thinking person's approach. Dividing this national political dialogue into pro-democracy and anti-democracy camps works for me. I can put most political elements into one of those two categories, even those who say all politicians are bad, and a pox on all their houses.

You say it's so it's so shallow and simplistic to divvy the two factions in to colors (tho newspapers and commentators do it), yet you divvy them in to pro-dems and anti-dems. Look who's calling the kettle black.

Democracy isn't pretty, and even in some of the best functioning democracies, there are screw-ups (example: Gore losing to Bush in 2000, even though Gore had more votes). Democracy in Thailand, with its stratified social order and lack of democratic traditions, is more difficult. It's possible, but they're not quite there yet.

Because it's a small country, and the populace is used to being told what to think / how to vote (rote learning, do as you're told mentality) it's also relatively easy to pay for votes. Thaksin did win votes, but his legacy, as manifested by Red Shirt leaders, is twisting things in uglier directions. They're now a lot closer to mob rule than democratic principles.

Cool heads should prevail. All colored and non-colored shirt wearers should prepare for subsequent elections. Join a party they like, campaign hardily (and legally), and accept who wins, even if it's not their candidate of choice.

T was run out of office by a bloodless coup because too many Thais had gotten beyond their tolerance point regarding his many many illegal and harmful acts. The coup wasn't democratic but, like a body with cancer throughout, sometimes extreme surgery (outside of what's prescribed in medical manuals) is needed to save a patient.

Also, you'll notice that during and right after the coup, there were no complaints and no resistance. It was only months later, after T saw his ill-begotten assets getting frozen, that the Red Shirt movement got started. Between the coup and the asset freezing motion, T had repeatedly announced, "that's it, I'm out of politics." uh huh, that statement rings about as true as any of the other dozens of lies he's trotted out in the past 7 years.

Not sure if this thread is still valid. It sure is long.

You indicate that 'Red' and 'yellow' are simplistic and shallow in defining the political divide, and then you tell me that I am committing the same error by defining the political divide as "pro-democracy' vs. 'anti-democracy'

At least Brahmburger, I place the two sides into a political context. You must agree that group affinity colors say nothing.

My point, that is exactly what the anti-democracy people want - to say nothing. They dont want the international community, or anyone else for that matter, to think there is a struggle for democracy in Thailand.

You will notice they have low-keyed the 70-30 concept completely. As long as people focus on colors, and not 70-30 vs. one-person-one-vote electoral politics, gives them the space to strategize toward their goals.

So Brahmburger, how would you, or others on this board identify this political divide......The elite vs. the egalitarian, the paternalistic vs. the electoral?

Any sincere attempt at defining the political divide into a political context would be great for future discussions. Anything to get away from hiding political realities behind simplistic and shallow color descriptors would be an improvement.

As long as one can avoid diverting into anti-Thaksin hatred diatribes that is the only political commentary many on this board are capable of, it would be nice to reach some sort of consensus on defining terminology.

My contribution is the pro-democracy movement-PDM (in favor of one-person-one-vote elections) VS. the anti-democracy movement-ADM (the advocates of a paternalistic 70-30 concept). That may not be a perfect dichotomy, but I think it comes close.

[Thai at Heart]

It doesn't hold water to say that the reds have been the only one's with weaponry during their protests. One can split hairs about offensive and defensive, however, seeing the yellow supporter under the expressway near Don Muang shows that neither party has been innocent in their actions during their protests.

We can argue about the scale of the violence and it is true that the reds over Songkran were awful. However, the PAD never had to face the army did they.

It doen't serve any useful purpose to point at the other side as an excuse for your own actions.

I repeat - it's not PAD protests that leave people worried now. It's the possibility of reds throwin the countruy into turmoil again, and for no good reasons - no one outside red camp can identify with their current agenda.

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here. I am not excusing anyone and I think the PAD and the UDD protests have been ridiculous and both violent, but to treat one as completely disconnected to the other without context is missing the point. This is not as simple as PAD peaceful v UDD violent discussion.

A lot of reds are probably genuinely frustrated with the fact that rent a mob got "their" government overturned. The lack of support among many of the police and armed forces to disperse the PAD has not been forgotten.

Invoking the ISA before a possibly peaceful protest doesn't help and doesn't go any where to defusing the long term problems the country faces. It simply postpones them to a later date.

[Ricardo]

It's very easy to get on the Thaksin bahing bandwagon, but I'm quite confident that if he came back to power and gave Farangs land ownwership and easy visas, we would see a swift change of attitude, then Thaksin will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Surely the Thailand Elite Card idea, prop. and creator PM-Thaksin, gave its members exactly these two promises, although it fairly quickly became clear that the promises wouldn't be delivered.

Yet you think we might all fall for it a second time ? Sorry, but I don't think we're that trusting.

[Plus]

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here.

It WAS on of their reasons back before Songkran.

Now it IS disconnected.

[fxe1200]

reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup. it was only after the yellow shirts and so called "elites"/military expelled the elected governments of samak and somchai and orchestrated the current coalition that the reds saw the injustice and decided to make their voices heard.

Do not forget to mention, that the EC has ruled that the PPP elected government is illegitimate due to vote buying. And this government needed seven month to step back, and did not do so until the yellows finally "upraded" their demonstrations, ending in the occupation of the airport.

With a little understanding of democratic rules and in honour of the current Thai constitution, the whole trouble could have beeen avoided, by the PPP stepping back in the first place.

So, dear collector of academic titles, open your other eye, see the whole truth. This definitely is helpful when writing a dissertation.

[Thai at Heart]

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here.

It WAS on of their reasons back before Songkran.

Now it IS disconnected.

Very strange argument. As though the actions of the last 3 years have absolutely no bearing on the issues today or even less tomorrow. On one hand we sit and discuss Thailand from the context that it is a nascent democracy of only 80 years or so and it is having teething troubles, and yet we must discount the momentous events of the last few years that have directly contributed the most to the situation today.

How should we handle it when trying to understand why the country is in the situation it is in? Discard the last 3 years and try to explain it only using history prior to 2006? People have memories and no matter how hard people are pushed, don't tend to forget if they feel wronged. This is a living breathing situation, not a series of unconnected events. The winners often get to write the history as they see fit, but people will still remember.

[animatic]

Anybody will be flogging a dead horse here.

Our all knowing westerners ( Expats ) could all do a better job of running Thailand................ Get a few western bankers in and Thailand will be a success....

I wonder why westerners didn't run the west so well ?

It's very easy to get on the Thaksin bahing bandwagon, but I'm quite confident that if he came back to power and gave Farangs land ownwership and easy visas, we would see a swift change of attitude, then Thaksin will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Expats are a fickle lot, and the reason thay are so fickle is cos they can afford to be, think about the poor Thai people who have no choice in anything, I bet they would love your passport !

Thaksin comes back and gives Farangs land ownership rights and long term visas without all the hoops to jump through..................................... if you could, would you vote for him ?

In a word; NO.

[mca]

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here.

It WAS on of their reasons back before Songkran.

Now it IS disconnected.

Very strange argument. As though the actions of the last 3 years have absolutely no bearing on the issues today or even less tomorrow. On one hand we sit and discuss Thailand from the context that it is a nascent democracy of only 80 years or so and it is having teething troubles, and yet we must discount the momentous events of the last few years that have directly contributed the most to the situation today.

How should we handle it when trying to understand why the country is in the situation it is in? Discard the last 3 years and try to explain it only using history prior to 2006? People have memories and no matter how hard people are pushed, don't tend to forget if they feel wronged. This is a living breathing situation, not a series of unconnected events. The winners often get to write the history as they see fit, but people will still remember.

People usually dismiss stuff when they haven't got a real reason to refute you.

[animatic]

Also, you'll notice that during and right after the coup, there were no complaints and no resistance. It was only months later, after T saw his ill-begotten assets getting frozen, that the Red Shirt movement got started. Between the coup and the asset freezing motion, T had repeatedly announced, "that's it, I'm out of politics." uh huh, that statement rings about as true as any of the other dozens of lies he's trotted out in the past 7 years.

Interesting point- so if Thaksin did get his money back would he stop meddling in politics or even have more money to finance the red shirts? Thaksin knows that even if he were to come back, there's no way he can be PM again (aside from the obvious fact that he now has a criminal record) so this fight is just for his money. I feel sorry for so many of the red shirt being blinded by the fact that they are just tools for Thaksiin to get his money back.

It's about the money, but ALSO the POWER.

Even if not PM,

he can be put permanently in the cabinet and effectively dictate to a PTP fool in that PM seat.

He is a born dictator personality, he can't help himself, it's, sadly, his only form of self-validation.

Thaksin wants his pile of cash for sure, but he LUSTS for power, REAL power,

which returns him lost face, money is just for keeping score at this point.

[mca]

It's about the money, but ALSO the POWER.

Then you get the women. Sorry. Scarface moment there for a second.

[Insight]

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here.

It WAS on of their reasons back before Songkran.

Now it IS disconnected.

Very strange argument. As though the actions of the last 3 years have absolutely no bearing on the issues today or even less tomorrow. On one hand we sit and discuss Thailand from the context that it is a nascent democracy of only 80 years or so and it is having teething troubles, and yet we must discount the momentous events of the last few years that have directly contributed the most to the situation today.

How should we handle it when trying to understand why the country is in the situation it is in? Discard the last 3 years and try to explain it only using history prior to 2006? People have memories and no matter how hard people are pushed, don't tend to forget if they feel wronged. This is a living breathing situation, not a series of unconnected events. The winners often get to write the history as they see fit, but people will still remember.

People usually dismiss stuff when they haven't got a real reason to refute you.

Like it or not, myself and many other people in Thailand connect Thailand's troubles today to one man. The red shirt's, PTP's inability to function effectively without the involvement of this man speaks volumes about this assumption.

Time will tell how right we are on this...

[Maiya]

It doesn't hold water to say that the reds have been the only one's with weaponry during their protests. One can split hairs about offensive and defensive, however, seeing the yellow supporter under the expressway near Don Muang shows that neither party has been innocent in their actions during their protests.

We can argue about the scale of the violence and it is true that the reds over Songkran were awful. However, the PAD never had to face the army did they.

It doen't serve any useful purpose to point at the other side as an excuse for your own actions.

I repeat - it's not PAD protests that leave people worried now. It's the possibility of reds throwin the countruy into turmoil again, and for no good reasons - no one outside red camp can identify with their current agenda.

I believe that one of the reasons for the reds escalating their actions was the uneven handed manner in which the PAD protests were handled. We aren't talking about something that is completely disconnected here. I am not excusing anyone and I think the PAD and the UDD protests have been ridiculous and both violent, but to treat one as completely disconnected to the other without context is missing the point. This is not as simple as PAD peaceful v UDD violent discussion.

A lot of reds are probably genuinely frustrated with the fact that rent a mob got "their" government overturned. The lack of support among many of the police and armed forces to disperse the PAD has not been forgotten.

Invoking the ISA before a possibly peaceful protest doesn't help and doesn't go any where to defusing the long term problems the country faces. It simply postpones them to a later date.

You are right on, Thai-at-heart. This uneven security force handling of two groups from the two sides of a political divide sits heavily in the pro-democracy " grievance" listing. The fact a relatively small group could occupy an international airport for over a week unmolested, shows the official instigation and support to overthrow the last democratically elected Government Thailand has had.

Stonewalling perfectly reasonable demands for date-definite scheduling of the next election to clear up this perception of an unrepresentative Government is unreasonable.

To employ security forces way out-of-proportion to a rally to press these electoral demands is not smart.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Maiya

[animatic]

reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup. it was only after the yellow shirts and so called "elites"/military expelled the elected governments of samak and somchai and orchestrated the current coalition that the reds saw the injustice and decided to make their voices heard.

An incorrect hagiographic re-write of history.

Samak and Somchai governments cheated based on existing laws from BEFORE

the election, their arrogance mis-led them to ignore those laws, and they lost that bet.

They broke the laws and got caught, they had the choice to NOT break the laws,

but I guess they didn't 'trust' their vaunted HUGE plurality of voters to win their seats...

without cheating... oops mistake.

Samaks argonace caused him to ignore his own lawyers advice and continue

his political talk show with cooking, and THEN HE LIED IN COURT...

he could have been re-selected by PPP as PM right away, but Thaksin choose Somchai.

You really ought to stop this spurious propaganda talk,

it makes you consistently look less than a well considered mind.

Post actual truth about your glorious leader and MAYBE

you can be taken seriously in the matter.

[animatic]

Not inventing conspiracy theories, just that "reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup" seems like a strange statement to make.

Well unless the majority of voters were suddenly going to swap sides it seems cut and dried they'd win again. Look at the measures the anti-Thaksin lot had to make to sure that nobody associated with Thaksin would be in power. They knew another political party couldn't win if their lives depended on it. And I speak as someone who loathes Thaksin.

If it was so 'cut and dried' a return to power, then why oh why

did PPP feel such a need to CHEAT in the election???

Said cheating which brought them to dissolution.

Same for TRT in the 2006 elections, seemed pretty darned worried they would NOT get the votes,

and that was with Thaksin still at the helm.

Running scared, with a face full of bravado and chutzpa seems to fit both scenarios.

[mca]

Like it or not, myself and many other people in Thailand connect Thailand's troubles today to one man this assumption.

And like it or not an equally large number of people think the "old school" in Thailand (be it army or whoever) want them to be under their control tugging their forelocks to their "superiors" with no chance of a person they voted for staying in power. Ignore the red shirt rabble and I feel this is the crux of the anti government grievances.

For the sake of argument let's say Thaksin had been squeaky clean and did everything in his power for the benefit of the country and it's people. Let's say he didn't kowtow to the Puu Yai but was his own man. Let's say his popularity shook their "patronage" lifestyle and the normal folks started failing to show them the proper deference they thought was their right. Let's say they thought "They genuinely respect him rather than the mock respect they show us because that's how they've been conditioned"

Does anybody in their right mind think the powers that be wouldn't find a way to oust him?

[noithip]

Not sure if this thread is still valid. It sure is long.

You indicate that 'Red' and 'yellow' are simplistic and shallow in defining the political divide, and then you tell me that I am committing the same error by defining the political divide as "pro-democracy' vs. 'anti-democracy'

At least Brahmburger, I place the two sides into a political context. You must agree that group affinity colors say nothing.

My point, that is exactly what the anti-democracy people want - to say nothing. They dont want the international community, or anyone else for that matter, to think there is a struggle for democracy in Thailand.

You will notice they have low-keyed the 70-30 concept completely. As long as people focus on colors, and not 70-30 vs. one-person-one-vote electoral politics, gives them the space to strategize toward their goals.

So Brahmburger, how would you, or others on this board identify this political divide......The elite vs. the egalitarian, the paternalistic vs. the electoral?

Any sincere attempt at defining the political divide into a political context would be great for future discussions. Anything to get away from hiding political realities behind simplistic and shallow color descriptors would be an improvement.

As long as one can avoid diverting into anti-Thaksin hatred diatribes that is the only political commentary many on this board are capable of, it would be nice to reach some sort of consensus on defining terminology.

My contribution is the pro-democracy movement-PDM (in favor of one-person-one-vote elections) VS. the anti-democracy movement-ADM (the advocates of a paternalistic 70-30 concept). That may not be a perfect dichotomy, but I think it comes close.

Just to get this clear Maiya, if you ask any red-shirted farmer, (which most of them are) what is so great about Thaksin, you'll see the answer will mostly be something like : He cared about, us! How? He gave us money!

So there you have your "struggle for democracy", people simply fell for the populism of 1 million per Moo Ban, 30 Baht Health care skeem (scam), aso. The main thing is the million, they want this million more than everything else, democracy, come on, who gives a dam_n?

Thankfully people are too uneducated, and ignorant to realise that this money didn't come out of the pocket of their "beloved PM" but out of their own pockets. So all in all it's just populism, which the less educated and political-economical knowlegeable people fall for so easy.

There are endless examples how he was acting smart to win over people by spending money, which was not there. Otherwise he wouldn't have been in such a hurry privatising the hel_l out of thailand. And there we come again to the point that some educated people around realised, that without stopping him at that point, half of the country would be in foreign hands. and I'm not talking about hotels in phuket, I'm talking about railways, TOT, electricity board, and many more.

I know some years have passed, but don't forget why people where digusted at the time. He was selling out his own country! (to make the poor farmers that wouldn't know what was going on in the first place, think he is throwing around millions out of generosity)

Get real! Most people in this whole pro-democracy movement, don't give much about democracy but they love their "elected PM" for the money, he seems to have so much of!

Maybe soon it will be "nung phet do moobaan" (one diamond per village) sounds good and would come cheaper!

[Maiya]

I keep harping away on here, about getting away from describing the political divide by referencing affinity colors of their clothing. This is so shallow and simplistic, and shows no respect to the ideological basis of each. They have passionately held opinions and platforms. Show them some respect and not dismissively by referencing them by colors. They have a belief system. Get away from the Thaksin-hating stuff, and begin to discuss this political divide according to what separates it ideologically........that is the thinking person's approach. Dividing this national political dialogue into pro-democracy and anti-democracy camps works for me. I can put most political elements into one of those two categories, even those who say all politicians are bad, and a pox on all their houses.

You say it's so it's so shallow and simplistic to divvy the two factions in to colors (tho newspapers and commentators do it), yet you divvy them in to pro-dems and anti-dems. Look who's calling the kettle black.

Democracy isn't pretty, and even in some of the best functioning democracies, there are screw-ups (example: Gore losing to Bush in 2000, even though Gore had more votes). Democracy in Thailand, with its stratified social order and lack of democratic traditions, is more difficult. It's possible, but they're not quite there yet.

Because it's a small country, and the populace is used to being told what to think / how to vote (rote learning, do as you're told mentality) it's also relatively easy to pay for votes. Thaksin did win votes, but his legacy, as manifested by Red Shirt leaders, is twisting things in uglier directions. They're now a lot closer to mob rule than democratic principles.

Cool heads should prevail. All colored and non-colored shirt wearers should prepare for subsequent elections. Join a party they like, campaign hardily (and legally), and accept who wins, even if it's not their candidate of choice.

T was run out of office by a bloodless coup because too many Thais had gotten beyond their tolerance point regarding his many many illegal and harmful acts. The coup wasn't democratic but, like a body with cancer throughout, sometimes extreme surgery (outside of what's prescribed in medical manuals) is needed to save a patient.

Also, you'll notice that during and right after the coup, there were no complaints and no resistance. It was only months later, after T saw his ill-begotten assets getting frozen, that the Red Shirt movement got started. Between the coup and the asset freezing motion, T had repeatedly announced, "that's it, I'm out of politics." uh huh, that statement rings about as true as any of the other dozens of lies he's trotted out in the past 7 years.

Not sure if this thread is still valid. It sure is long.

You indicate that 'Red' and 'yellow' are simplistic and shallow in defining the political divide, and then you tell me that I am committing the same error by defining the political divide as "pro-democracy' vs. 'anti-democracy'

At least Brahmburger, I place the two sides into a political context. You must agree that group affinity colors say nothing.

My point, that is exactly what the anti-democracy people want - to say nothing. They dont want the international community, or anyone else for that matter, to think there is a struggle for democracy in Thailand.

You will notice they have low-keyed the 70-30 concept completely. As long as people focus on colors, and not 70-30 vs. one-person-one-vote electoral politics, gives them the space to strategize toward their goals.

So Brahmburger, how would you, or others on this board identify this political divide......The elite vs. the egalitarian, the paternalistic vs. the electoral?

Any sincere attempt at defining the political divide into a political context would be great for future discussions. Anything to get away from hiding political realities behind simplistic and shallow color descriptors would be an improvement.

As long as one can avoid diverting into anti-Thaksin hatred diatribes that is the only political commentary many on this board are capable of, it would be nice to reach some sort of consensus on defining terminology.

My contribution is the pro-democracy movement-PDM (in favor of one-person-one-vote elections) VS. the anti-democracy movement-ADM (the advocates of a paternalistic 70-30 concept). That may not be a perfect dichotomy, but I think it comes close.

Sigh, sigh...........Impossible I guess..........impossible to discuss political conceptual thinking without reversion to Thaksin stuff as subsequent postings have shown..........Is that because there is a paucity of independent and in-depth political thought here, or is Thaksin an all-enveloping presence permeating every fibre of political life in Thailand?.... I dunno..........sigh, sigh.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Maiya

[animatic]

reds knew their government would be back in power after the coup. it was only after the yellow shirts and so called "elites"/military expelled the elected governments of samak and somchai and orchestrated the current coalition that the reds saw the injustice and decided to make their voices heard.

Just a quick recap:

There were plenty of regular protests after the coup, it was so hated that sometimes even 300 people would show up. On the biggest Consitution day rally there were easily 5,000. There was no color designation at that time yet.

Red movement started with a massive rally at Sanam Luang in 2007, with Thaksin's first phone in. It wasn't long before when reds tried to storm Prem's residence leaving two hundred policemen injured. When PPP formed the government after teh elections they dissipated.

Then, in 2008, when PAD held their first seminar, indoor, I might add, red movement came back. They threw bottles and plastic bags with urine and excrements at PAD buses, and one proud red displayed his genitalia to express his outrage at other people holding their meetings.

As PAD protests grew pro-Thaksin forces realised that they need to counteract them with their own "mass-movement" to take control of the streets. People were mobilised from all over the country. That eventually led to a drunken red mob, armed with machetes and clubs, storming smaller and less protected PAD camp in the middle of the night. PAD guards quickly regrouped and beat them back. One attacker lost his life.

After that PAD rallies were attacked all throughout the country, most notably Udon Lovers mob severely beating about a dozen PAD members unconsicous while they were preparing their rally. The stage was completely destroyed, and they used Thai flagpoles, among other weapons. The leader was offering monetary rewards to anyone who could kill a PAD leader. He was on the PPP govt payroll at that time.

After a spate of such attacks PAD leadership was forced to concentrate in Bangkok and give up on holding any meetings upcountry. Red power was rising.

In Bangkok red leaders held training camps where they taught their foot soldiers to use weapons and throw grenades. Shortly after that PAD camps were bombed almost nightly. Our resident red, Koo, was saying that if PAD refused to obey by Red demands, bombing them into submission was the right thing to do.

Then late in 2008, Reds had an image makeover with highly publicised and peaceful rally at Hua Mark that featured Thaksin's video appearance (or phone in, I don't remember). From that point on reds started telling everyone how peaceful they were and that lasted until Songkran mayhem.

>>>

Please don't try to list all PAD examples of violence to change the subject - it's not PAD who is going to oust the government now and keep everyone worrying, it's reds.

It doesn't hold water to say that the reds have been the only one's with weaponry during their protests. One can split hairs about offensive and defensive, however, seeing the yellow supporter under the expressway near Don Muang shows that neither party has been innocent in their actions during their protests.

We can argue about the scale of the violence and it is true that the reds over Songkran were awful. However, the PAD never had to face the army did they.

Don't change the subject, this is a red discussion.

Besides one incident of a truck under attack by dozens of reds,

vs several dozen Red vioolence incidents is not on parity.

Apples and oranges.

[mca]

If it was so 'cut and dried' a return to power, then why oh why

did PPP feel such a need to CHEAT in the election???

Are you saying that the Democrats didn't cheat in the election? Guess the army officer I know who told me that his squaddies were told en masse to vote Democrat was a liar then.

[animatic]

Invoking the ISA is no mealy mouthed effort. It is a very serious piece of law which grants very extreme powers to the army and the government.

I don't know how many people they were hoping to get at the rally, but having soldiers sitting around with guns "hidden" and a large crowd is a very volatile situation.

Yes it is serious and also completely justified. Did you see what happened in Pattaya and Black Songkran, or not? Thaksin openly advocated REVOLUTION. No government in the world would sit back for that.

@"Jingthing" (I wonder what about your post should be jing at all....

That you are colored yellow a blind can "see"! Thailand should clean up with the mess of the yellows first! Occupy and block Airports, Streets, violate hundreds of thousands uninvolved people, seizure the goverment house for month... and.. and.. Did you get that all that crimes still run free?? ..whilst others close a road or demonstate for their labour union members get JALED !!!!!! Can you read newspapers.. not only the tinted BKPost or Nation? You would read that the world writes Thailand is slipping in political sump as Myanmar! If you feel "think" thats democratic.. up to you! To give you a chance to write something make sense not only blabla.. just list up a few things under the Abhisit Goverment has beeing done for the wellfare of the country.. (your list will be empty)!! Its much easier to complain about others then do something... every bad thing happens Mr. Thaksin has to stand for it, its a big joke, thats it!

In full agreement Hardy99....well said!

Claptrap and subject changing.

The Yellows are in court and it will be dealt with in time.

The some of the reds are in court and thai courts are slow. Period.

But yellows aren't on the street and never tried for a REVOLUTION,

and don't have unreconstructed communists as fellow travelers.

Your arguments fall flatter than a Neu how's navel.

[noithip]

Sigh, sigh...........Impossible I guess..........impossible to discuss political conceptual thinking without reversion to Thaksin stuff as subsequent postings have shown..........Is that because there is a paucity of independent and in-depth political thought here, or is Thaksin an all-enveloping presence permeating every fibre of political life in Thailand?.... I dunno..........sigh, sigh.

If it's not about Thaksin, why sign a pedition? Why the red shirts want him back so badly? There is no such thing as "in-depth political thought" by some poor farmers who studied till 8th grade. Don't make it too complicated. It is all quite simple in the simple minded electorates minds !

We want to be taken serious = We want the government to pay us for voting for them (in the one or other way)

[mca]

So there you have your "struggle for democracy", people simply fell for the populism of 1 million per Moo Ban, 30 Baht Health care skeem (scam), aso. The main thing is the million, they want this million more than everything else, democracy, come on, who gives a dam_n?

Thankfully people are too uneducated, and ignorant to realise that this money didn't come out of the pocket of their "beloved PM" but out of their own pockets. So all in all it's just populism, which the less educated

People talk about populism as if it's the devil incarnate.

I'd like to see a political party in any country get in with a "We're going to increase taxes by 50%, increase immigration at the expense of the taxpayer and cut healthcare" policy

[animatic]

You say it's so it's so shallow and simplistic to divvy the two factions in to colors (tho newspapers and commentators do it), yet you divvy them in to pro-dems and anti-dems. Look who's calling the kettle black.

Democracy isn't pretty, and even in some of the best functioning democracies, there are screw-ups (example: Gore losing to Bush in 2000, even though Gore had more votes). Democracy in Thailand, with its stratified social order and lack of democratic traditions, is more difficult. It's possible, but they're not quite there yet.

Because it's a small country, and the populace is used to being told what to think / how to vote (rote learning, do as you're told mentality) it's also relatively easy to pay for votes. Thaksin did win votes, but his legacy, as manifested by Red Shirt leaders, is twisting things in uglier directions. They're now a lot closer to mob rule than democratic principles.

Cool heads should prevail. All colored and non-colored shirt wearers should prepare for subsequent elections. Join a party they like, campaign hardily (and legally), and accept who wins, even if it's not their candidate of choice.

T was run out of office by a bloodless coup because too many Thais had gotten beyond their tolerance point regarding his many many illegal and harmful acts. The coup wasn't democratic but, like a body with cancer throughout, sometimes extreme surgery (outside of what's prescribed in medical manuals) is needed to save a patient.

Also, you'll notice that during and right after the coup, there were no complaints and no resistance. It was only months later, after T saw his ill-begotten assets getting frozen, that the Red Shirt movement got started. Between the coup and the asset freezing motion, T had repeatedly announced, "that's it, I'm out of politics." uh huh, that statement rings about as true as any of the other dozens of lies he's trotted out in the past 7 years.

Not sure if this thread is still valid. It sure is long.

You indicate that 'Red' and 'yellow' are simplistic and shallow in defining the political divide, and then you tell me that I am committing the same error by defining the political divide as "pro-democracy' vs. 'anti-democracy'

At least Brahmburger, I place the two sides into a political context. You must agree that group affinity colors say nothing.

My point, that is exactly what the anti-democracy people want - to say nothing. They dont want the international community, or anyone else for that matter, to think there is a struggle for democracy in Thailand.

You will notice they have low-keyed the 70-30 concept completely. As long as people focus on colors, and not 70-30 vs. one-person-one-vote electoral politics, gives them the space to strategize toward their goals.

So Brahmburger, how would you, or others on this board identify this political divide......The elite vs. the egalitarian, the paternalistic vs. the electoral?

Any sincere attempt at defining the political divide into a political context would be great for future discussions. Anything to get away from hiding political realities behind simplistic and shallow color descriptors would be an improvement.

As long as one can avoid diverting into anti-Thaksin hatred diatribes that is the only political commentary many on this board are capable of, it would be nice to reach some sort of consensus on defining terminology.

My contribution is the pro-democracy movement-PDM (in favor of one-person-one-vote elections) VS. the anti-democracy movement-ADM (the advocates of a paternalistic 70-30 concept). That may not be a perfect dichotomy, but I think it comes close.

Sigh, sigh...........Impossible I guess..........impossible to discuss political conceptual thinking without reversion to Thaksin stuff as subsequent postings have shown..........Is that because there is a paucity of independent and in-depth political thought here, or is Thaksin an all-enveloping presence permeating every fibre of political life in Thailand?.... I dunno..........sigh, sigh.

Sigh triple sigh.

It is impossible to discuss current Thai politics sans Thaksin because he has made himself

central to the so far nascent civil war warming up. He IS the reason for most of todays issues,

and not the plight of the issan farmers, that is propagated and continued by there very puyais

who get them to vote for Dr' T and his political machine. The hypocrisies are trenchant.

"paucity of independent and in-depth political thought"

Glad you mentioned this... slip-up maybe?

It is Thaksins up country political machine that is the WORST perpetrator

and practitioner of creating this paucity of independent and in-depth political thought.

Thanks sometimes you make MY arguments for me.

70/30 was ONE proposal thrown out from the stage, one night and discussed,

and not a PLATFORM for the future. But only ONE of many ideas discussed,

to solve the issues of the day.

But it was a turning point for the Reds because they used THAT one speech,

as their ticket to become Democracy advocates. That was their hook to use.

Never mind that it was dropped by PAD very quickly. 'Look. look what they want to do,

they very bad elites people...', yada yada yada..

and Red propagandists have ridden than dead horse for a long time since.

See the discussion of basic ideas, short of seditions, is not looked on well here.

Say one thing and be branded for ever...

oops shouldn't have had an idea good bad or indifferent,

Only perfectly actualized ideas maybe discussed, righty O.

Talking basic politics MUST include the major players and how to reach

long term goals without short term dislocations of much of society.

Thaksin has short term goals that include him as Dear Leader, Godhead

and Profiterer in Chief. His Track record is not one of true innovation

for the betterment of all Thais. Since the present imborglio is central

to Thaksin's machinations, it is impossible to divorce the two.

Try as you might to heed the master's beck and call for an image scrub.

Can we fit the Square Head in the Polyform Hole?

[noithip]

People talk about populism as if it's the devil incarnate.

I'd like to see a political party in any country get in with a "We're going to increase taxes by 50%, increase immigration at the expense of the taxpayer and cut healthcare" policy

So you didn't really get it, did you? If you don't have any arguments then why not just pick out a word and try to ignore the actual content of the post. Just another proof how "simple minded" you guys are after all! I didn't say populism is bad, I said selling out his country is!

But the sctual point was stop talking so much pro democracy BS if it is not about democracy at all!

Edited August 30, 2009 by noithip

[animatic]

If it was so 'cut and dried' a return to power, then why oh why

did PPP feel such a need to CHEAT in the election???

Are you saying that the Democrats didn't cheat in the election? Guess the army officer I know who told me that his squaddies were told en masse to vote Democrat was a liar then.

Maybe he told you what you wanted to hear?

Very Thai that kind of thing. Nam jai before veracity.

It does appear that the Dems did not systematically cheat,

and if and where they may have, they weren't so arrogant

as to think it should not be HIDDEN, rather than flaunted.