Chiang Mai In Chaos

[Ulysses G.]

orang37' date='2010-01-31 20:28:46' post='3308966']

Asking for the "real stuff" here is like ordering a Pepsi Max at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

I have no idea what this means, but it's a great line anyway!

[OxfordWill]

Im taking my parents there next month. Should I be concerned? Should I just hedge my bets - dad wears red, mum wears yellow? Would be a shame to lose both.

[realthaideal]

Not hijacking, just more saying something along the lines of, the grass is always greener, and look, someone else is always just trying to get to be the one controlling the pie. And I suppose ultimately it's not the citizens who get much of that pie anyway.

But meanwhile parties, social lines, revolutions, all kinds of talking talking shouting over loudpseakers....and for what ? To get right back where you started from. Or out of the pan into the fire. Stand in the place where you were, etc.

Actually, we could sum up the result quite well calling upon the hallowed Thai phrase whose depth can be pondered on many levels: 'Same same, but different.' Surely uttered by some great Ayuttayah politico or Rusii in generations past, of whom I'm ignorant.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Im taking my parents there next month. Should I be concerned? Should I just hedge my bets - dad wears red, mum wears yellow? Would be a shame to lose both.

LOL. Don't worry about it. The absolute worst the general population or tourism in Chiang Mai has been affected in the past 3.5 years since the coup is 'a traffic jam in the outskirts of town'. Anyone telling you otherwise is furthering some strange personal agenda, which by the way includes some media publications originating in the Bangkok area; this is how we end up with head lines saying 'Chiang Mai in Chaos' when referring to "a traffic jam on Aom Muang Road on Thursday".

I wear red sometimes. And pink. I do avoid yellow. But honestly it's of no concern, it applies only really to the very primary colors and then only T-shirts and polos, often with a political statement written on it.. If you have a somewhat bordeaux or vanilla colored dress shirt this honestly isn't a political statement. You'll see when you get here.

(Pink is a color now symbolizing love for H.M. the King without ulterior political motives. It's what yellow used to be before it got hi-jacked to further a feudal / right wing political agenda. It's mostly worn on Tuesdays.)

Edited January 31, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[OxfordWill]

Cheers Winnie

[Ulysses G.]

I have some bright yellow shirts that are quite comfortable and don't want to stop wearing them. The most I get from the Thais when I put one on is a giggle every once in a while when the reds are protesting across the street.

If things got really violent and out of hand I would stick them in the closet, but from what I've seen in the last 2 decades, the chances of a revolution here as long as their beloved King is on the thrown are pretty remote.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Tenchu]

Tenchu --- Are you saying the Samak and Somchai governments were not legitimate? That appears to be what you are saying. If that is your position then you will have to help us all understand why they were not legitimate since the current government came into place (was elected) in exactly the same way as those 2 were.

The last elections did not return a majority for ANY group in parlieament and thus the current government and the previous 2 governments have been coalition governments. This is common in parliamentary democracies. The fact that the parties that helped Samak and Somchai form governments had pledged to their own constituencies that they would not do so is of more concern than the fact that they jumped ship and sided with the Democrats to form the third government under the most recent elections.

Please take a look at the popular vote from the last elections, the results might surprise you

No. The governments that took Thaksins place after Thaksin was gone were legitimate. When people vote for a party, they do not really vote for the party; they give their power of choice to the man in charge of that party. If the leader of a party has not recieved enough votes to win the office, he will give his votes to the other party he likes best (in this case, in exchange for alleigence in return for power).

This shit used to piss me and my father off in Australia all the time. We would want to vote for the Greens party, but they would never win. Either Liberal or Labor was going to win the election. Since the Greens would lose, they'd give their votes always to Labor, as Labor was less an enemy to them than Liberal was. So a vote for Greens was really a vote for Labor. But me and my father actually liked Liberal better, so instead of voting for the party we liked, we were instead forced to vote for our second choice in order to avoid giving out votes to the party we most disliked, which was naturally going to happen.

When Thaksin was ousted, his power was transfered to his next in line. This was okay. Say, we shot Obama dead, Biden would be president. That's how it works.

However, when they finnally dismantled Thaksins entire party, the power the people had invested in him was entirely ignored. For the current government to be legitimate, a representative from Thaksin would have to have decided what to do with his 26 million votes. Someone was supposed to take the power invested in him by the people (someone who represents the rightfully elected man) and decide which party it should go to. This never happened. The current government in power is in power without the support and without counting the votes of 26 million Thais - this is the largest portion of Thais that exist. If these people were counted, as a democracy should be, Abhisit would be begging for change in Sukhumvit.

[Tenchu]

As for the next Thai election. Prepare for civil war. I'm serious. The country is torn in half, and no one will respect the other people's choices. When the next rightfully elected government wins, the other half will not tolerate it, and they will fight.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I have some bright yellow shirts that are quite comfortable and don't want to stop wearing them. The most I get from the Thais when I put one on is a giggle every once in a while when the reds are protesting across the street.

If things got really violent and out of hand I would stick them in the closet, but from what I've seen in the last 2 decades, the chances of a revolution here as long as their beloved King is on the thrown are pretty remote.

You're last line is telling...

[jdinasia]

Absolutely right!!! but the yellow fellows keep screaming 'but it's legal' they just don't get it...

Actually, absolutely wrong .. that is not how Parliamentary democracy works when coalition governments are formed.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Absolutely right!!! but the yellow fellows keep screaming 'but it's legal' they just don't get it...

Actually, absolutely wrong .. that is not how Parliamentary democracy works when coalition governments are formed.

Hey man we know that! but it doesnt necessarily lead to peace and contentment in the Kingdom - bit like the guy crossing the road and get's knocked over - but I was legally crossing the road he screams - and what? (don't help much when you are in hospital!). Many people feel they were 'robbed' of an election when they voted Red - just like they did in the recent Mayoral elections - there will be no peace until people feel they have voted and got what they want (whether you or I like it or not).

[Ulysses G.]

but Khun Thaksin was replaced in a coup right? is that legal?

That's a fact, Jack, and coups are not legal - even in Thailand.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[lannarebirth]

but Khun Thaksin was replaced in a coup right? is that legal?

That's a fact, Jack, and coups are not legal - even in Thailand.

Break from politics

Thaksin announced on 4 April 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after Parliament reconvened, but would continue as Caretaker Prime Minister until then.

He then delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, moved out of Government House, and went on vacation.

Edited February 1, 2010 by lannarebirth

[ogb]

Jdinasia: Let me get this straight - you SUPPORT military coups, right?

You support constitutions being torn up, right?

You support the occupation of government house, right?

You support the invasion of international airports, right?

.........and you claim to support democracy???

(btw, have you considered how the above events were allowed to happen, and why no one has been prosecuted for them?)

[jdinasia]

Jdinasia: Let me get this straight - you SUPPORT military coups, right?

You support constitutions being torn up, right?

You support the occupation of government house, right?

You support the invasion of international airports, right?

.........and you claim to support democracy???

(btw, have you considered how the above events were allowed to happen, and why no one has been prosecuted for them?)

Welcome back and nice new name

No, as a rule I do not support military coups. The caveat here being the last one did not remove an elected government. The country had been at an impasse for a long time with no formal government and there appeared no democratic way out of the situation. So, Yes in THIS case (2006 coup) I think it was the right thing to do.

No, as a rule I do not support "constitutions being torn up". The caveat here being the last one obviously failed in several major areas. I personally would be FOR a return to the previous constitution with minor revision. (To block the loophole that the Dem's used to void the election)

Yes I supported the expression of free speech and assembly demonstrated at Government house, though I would have preferred it to have taken place at some other venue.

Yes I supported the right to demonstrate at the airport. I believe that AOT's surrendering the airport was stupid and tragic. Nobody tried to direct them into a suitably visible area and instead they just shut the place down.

Have I considered how those events happened? Yes. Do I blame the government that was in power at the time? Yes. Prosecution? Things tend to move very slowly in Thailand but you will find people involved in those events are charged with crimes.

Now --- since I answered every point raised ..........

Do you believe that elections that are tampered with are Democratic?

Do you believe that using public office to benefit yourself and your family's businesses is acceptable?

Do you believe that actively changing laws to benefit yourself is legal and democratic?

Do you believe that fleeing the country and fomenting unrest from outside the borders after being convicted is OK?

Why has Seh Daeng not been indicted for the grenade attacks in the past?

Why are other indicted TRT and successive red shirt/Thaksin cronies still awaiting trial?

Do you believe that the Samak and Somchai governments were both legal and had right on their side to govern? Do you think the same applies to the current government?

Yes I am 100% for democracy in it's truest meaning ... that includes the right to assemble. The right to protest peacefully. The right to a free and uncensored press.

CMF---- "Utter nonsense" does not address any issues brought up --- particularly that of your appeal to 'feelings' and ignorance over the rule of law. TBH though -- it is the exact response I expected from someone that admits that the current government is legal but wants new elections based on 'feelings".

[wolf5370]

<Wolf5370: snipped quotes as too many for the forum>

I'm British - although we Brits do not elect a PM we do elect the party to which he/she belongs - we would be up in arms if we voted for Labour and got a Conservative PM!

Some of us wouldn't

[Ulysses G.]

Actually in retrospect the coup WAS legal.

But was a Prime minster replaced by the coup in 2006? No --- a caretaker PM was replaced.

If the truth does not work in your favor, just baffle 'em with bulls___t!

[ogb]

JDinasia: Not sure what you mean by 'welcome back & nice new name' - Care to elaborate?

Supporting coups is a dangerous precedent and you are on a very slippery slope IMO (especially with the benefit of hindsight, when its now clear the last coup was not the 'good coup' some gullible people believed at the time, and it has not even removed the impasse, and if anything has ended up deepening the divisions in society)

Tearing up legal (= morally legitimate) constitutions? - ditto (dangerous precedent/slippery slope)

Re Government house & Airport Invasions? - I note you seem far more tolerant of yellow backed protests than those of reds - does it make all the difference whose face in on the photo's the protesters are holding up?

You are blaming the Thaksin, Samak & Somchai governments for the Coup, Constitution tear up, Government House & Airport invasions, and lack of prosecutions re same? You're showing that funny sense of humour again!

As to your questions:

Tampered elections democratic? Please define 'tampered'

I would note that the 2007 election that brought in the Samak PPP led government is generally considered one of the cleanest ever in Thailand, even though the CNS/military backed parties obviously had a distinct advantage.

(Guns & money = Power)

Using public office to benefit one's self & family is not acceptable in my opinion. I presume you are trying to imply that Thaksin was the number one offender, but I have yet to see any substantial case proven against him, and it seems the cases against him are more relying on legal technicalities than any real proof. On the other hand I think it is clear that there have been other holders of political/public office in Thailand that have vast amounts of unexplained wealth who never seem to be even investigated, let alone prosecuted. Some of those people even end up being selected to the Privy Council (as if they have not already taken enough 'rewards' for their service!) Also, the CNS military backed, coup installed giovernment appears to have been particulary adept at using public office to benefit themselves & their cronies.

Changing Laws to benefit oneself?: Does not seem a wise thing for a politician to do, because under a democratic system its the parliament (voted in by the people) that passes laws and the people get to decide at each election whether they approve of what has been done.

Where I would have more concern is where election rules are changed to benefit one side of politics over another (refer the coup installed constitution for example)

Fleeing & creating problems? All I will say is that in my opinion, the judiciary in Thailand need to be fair and transparent in all their dealings - are you confident that is the case?

I don't know anything about Seh Daeng and grenade attacks, but as a general rule I believe all perpetrators of crimes should be investgated and prosecuted and convicted (if there is sufficient evidence).

I don't know anything about TRT cronies awaiting trial, but again I reiterate that all criminals should be investgated and prosecuted and convicted (if there is sufficient evidence)

Were Samak & Somchai governments legitimate? Other than they came out of a coup process, YES

Is the current government legitimate? ditto, except I note that they seem to have had some extraordinary help to get into power, and to stay there. Sections of the military (not only Seh Daeng) have shown that they are answerable to forces other than the government and the people, and that in my opinion is a very dangerous situation for any country. Also I note that the current foreign minister could be described as a terrorist under some definitions of the word.

I believe I have answered all your questions.

[jdinasia]

JDinasia: Not sure what you mean by 'welcome back & nice new name' - Care to elaborate?

Supporting coups is a dangerous precedent and you are on a very slippery slope IMO (especially with the benefit of hindsight, when its now clear the last coup was not the 'good coup' some gullible people believed at the time, and it has not even removed the impasse, and if anything has ended up deepening the divisions in society)

Tearing up legal (= morally legitimate) constitutions? - ditto (dangerous precedent/slippery slope)

Re Government house & Airport Invasions? - I note you seem far more tolerant of yellow backed protests than those of reds - does it make all the difference whose face in on the photo's the protesters are holding up?

You are blaming the Thaksin, Samak & Somchai governments for the Coup, Constitution tear up, Government House & Airport invasions, and lack of prosecutions re same? You're showing that funny sense of humour again!

As to your questions:

Tampered elections democratic? Please define 'tampered'

I would note that the 2007 election that brought in the Samak PPP led government is generally considered one of the cleanest ever in Thailand, even though the CNS/military backed parties obviously had a distinct advantage.

(Guns & money = Power)

Using public office to benefit one's self & family is not acceptable in my opinion. I presume you are trying to imply that Thaksin was the number one offender, but I have yet to see any substantial case proven against him, and it seems the cases against him are more relying on legal technicalities than any real proof. On the other hand I think it is clear that there have been other holders of political/public office in Thailand that have vast amounts of unexplained wealth who never seem to be even investigated, let alone prosecuted. Some of those people even end up being selected to the Privy Council (as if they have not already taken enough 'rewards' for their service!) Also, the CNS military backed, coup installed giovernment appears to have been particulary adept at using public office to benefit themselves & their cronies.

Changing Laws to benefit oneself?: Does not seem a wise thing for a politician to do, because under a democratic system its the parliament (voted in by the people) that passes laws and the people get to decide at each election whether they approve of what has been done.

Where I would have more concern is where election rules are changed to benefit one side of politics over another (refer the coup installed constitution for example)

Fleeing & creating problems? All I will say is that in my opinion, the judiciary in Thailand need to be fair and transparent in all their dealings - are you confident that is the case?

I don't know anything about Seh Daeng and grenade attacks, but as a general rule I believe all perpetrators of crimes should be investgated and prosecuted and convicted (if there is sufficient evidence).

I don't know anything about TRT cronies awaiting trial, but again I reiterate that all criminals should be investgated and prosecuted and convicted (if there is sufficient evidence)

Were Samak & Somchai governments legitimate? Other than they came out of a coup process, YES

Is the current government legitimate? ditto, except I note that they seem to have had some extraordinary help to get into power, and to stay there. Sections of the military (not only Seh Daeng) have shown that they are answerable to forces other than the government and the people, and that in my opinion is a very dangerous situation for any country. Also I note that the current foreign minister could be described as a terrorist under some definitions of the word.

I believe I have answered all your questions.

I agree that supporting a coup is dangerous/slippery .. 100% agree. I just think that in this case it was the correct thing. Was the coup a 'good coup' in retrospect? Yes I think it was. It was bloodless and returned power to the people quickly. Did it 'deepen' the rift in society in Thailand? No. Did it heal it? No. Did it get a government in place and then return power to the people? Yes. After the elections were called were people able to vote the way their conscience (or some would say Thaksin's wallet) told them to vote? Yes

Definition of 'tampered' ... gross and proven cases of electoral fraud. If you are unaware of those then you really shouldn't be party to any discussion of politics in Thailand IMO.

Does your remarks about members of the Privy Council violate the rules of TV? IMO yes. Do your remarks about the courts do the same? IMO probably.

Am I confident that the case for which Thaksin was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in jail was clear and transparent? Yes 100%. Has Thaksin's remarks from overseas violated Thai law for Thai citizens? IMO yes. (That, I am sure will be decided again later by the courts).

Re Changing the laws and benefitting from law changes while in office -- it is not only unethical it is also illegal under the current constitution and the one before it. Note --- Feb 26 will tell us a lot more

I am glad that you admit that the current government is as legitimate as the past 2. Nothing in how the current government got there or how they have stayed there is any more extraordinary than how Samak got there and how Somchai got there. The fact that Samak had to step down was clear (and stupid) but he could have stepped right back up. That Somchai's party was going to be disbanded was a given from the evidence freely available to all.

That you talk about the airport but know nothing of Seh Daeng and grenades tells me all I need to know about how closely followed those events.

Do I hold a different ruler/measuring stick up for demonstrations ... No.

Threatening violence should end the demonstration if in no other way than in starving them out.

Did the yellows ever use violence? Yes. Did they use it often other than in self-defense? No

Does the fact that they used violence count against them? IMO yes.

Have they resorted to violence as often as the reds? No, not even close.

Are they more clever than the reds? obviously.

But really --- why do I welcome you back? Because I think you have been here before

[ogb]

Jdinasia: Still defending a military coup, and resorting to TV rules in your arguments says it all - I'm not going to bother with you anymore as its clear you can justify (in your mind) whatever you want as long as it suits your agenda (not unlike the people you defend).

[Thailand]

Anybody have insomnia?

Just read this whole thread to fall in to a complete coma.

[jdinasia]

Jdinasia: Still defending a military coup, and resorting to TV rules in your arguments says it all - I'm not going to bother with you anymore as its clear you can justify (in your mind) whatever you want as long as it suits your agenda (not unlike the people you defend).

Actually -- I agree with what YOU said about the coup and the constitution. It is a dangerous precedent/slippery slope. I just disagree with your conclusions.

Regarding the TV rules, you knew them and still brought up those 2 topics.

I agree with your final decision not to bother with me though! Again for different reasons -- mine being that you claim ignorance of events you then try to discuss (the airport debacle yet not knowing about Seh Daeng and the grenades etc)

[Ulysses G.]

I always thought that jdinasia and the-poster-formerly-known-as sriracha john were on the same team, but apparently not.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[ogb]

I agree with your final decision not to bother with me though! Again for different reasons -- mine being that you claim ignorance of events you then try to discuss (the airport debacle yet not knowing about Seh Daeng and the grenades etc)

One final point: I'm always ready to learn, so if you can kindly point me to the evidence regarding Seh Daeng and grenade attacks it would be appreciated.

(btw, I'm no particular fan of any generals, and nothing regarding what they do surprises me anymore - I'm just interested in more information)

[Priceless]

So you are saying that Samak and Somchai were legitimate? That they arrived in power by forming a coalition?

That obviously makes the next coalition government (the Demos) legit as well..

Being in a coalition is irrelevant. You didn't listen to what I said. Forming a government by ignoring 26 million votes is not irrelevant, however. The current government, in being a coalition or not is irrelevant, was not elected in any way whatsoever. They lost the election. Now, when they were formed, votes of the Thai people were entirely obsolete. They were not used at all. AT ALL. Simply, they bullied their way to the top. Nothing more.

Just for reference, here are the actual election results from 2007:

The reason for "Constituency voting" showing three times as many votes as "Proportional voting" is that the country is divided into three-seat constituencies with each voter given three votes. As can be seen from the table, the parties in the present coalition government received a majority of both votes and seats. I personally have no opinion about the relative merits of the different governments, or of the split of People Power into Pheua Thai and Bhumjai Thai, but there is no doubt about the majority being behind the present government.

/ Priceless

[jdinasia]

Mob rule --- using violence (not civil disobedience)

Military takeovers? asked and answered Coups (same thing but I guess I have to say it again) asked and answered. Airports? what about it?

But instead of addressing points raised in the post you quoted, you resort to your typical oneliner decrying your admittedly incorrect position. Again, for the current legally installed government to step down now would be ALMOST as bad as when Thaksin started much of this mess by dissolving parliament when he did. The current government not only has the right to rule, but also the moral obligation to do so until their term expires or their coalition dissolves. I remind you again that you didn't cry about coalition governments under Samak or Somchai ... only when the people you "feel" should rule are out in the cold do you cry about it!

[ChiangMaiFun]

Mob rule --- using violence (not civil disobedience)

Military takeovers? asked and answered Coups (same thing but I guess I have to say it again) asked and answered. Airports? what about it?

But instead of addressing points raised in the post you quoted, you resort to your typical oneliner decrying your admittedly incorrect position. Again, for the current legally installed government to step down now would be ALMOST as bad as when Thaksin started much of this mess by dissolving parliament when he did. The current government not only has the right to rule, but also the moral obligation to do so until their term expires or their coalition dissolves. I remind you again that you didn't cry about coalition governments under Samak or Somchai ... only when the people you "feel" should rule are out in the cold do you cry about it!

I have never asked for the government to step down! I have always been clear in my opinion - that elections are the only way for peace because many Thai's feel (yes sorry to use that horrible word which you obviously decry) that they did not elect the current government which has come to power by wheeler dealing and party jumping not by popular consensus - IF the current government comes to power with a clear majority of the popular vote I, for one, will be defending their right to be there. Stop twisting my words please.

[realthaideal]

Oy vey!

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV Friends,

Will you consider an analogy between understanding (actually it is more accurate to say : "understanding the limits of understanding") what many of us now perceive as "chaos" in Thai politics in general, or in certain recent events in Chiang Mai in specific ... and geology ?

Most of us have no trouble in believing that the continents of the Earth "float" on thick "tectonic" plates above a complex series of layers of materials which, as you go down toward the center of the earth, undergo profound changes in solidity, temperature, and pressure.

And most of us have no problem understanding that these "tectonic plates" are "jammed up" next to each other, that they are in motion, that stupendous tension gets built-up as the plates collide, and that in the interstices between plates are zones of volcanic and seismic activity.

We are horrified at the immediate chaos of the result of the earthquake in Haiti and its human disaster, but we know that is a "chaotic outcome" of a basic geo-structural dynamic process of equilibrium over "eons" of time.

Is it valuable to look at certain features of the Thai polity as being like "tectonic plates" ?

Could we separate out the ex-premier Khun T. and his current psychodrama, and its embodiment in the "Red" movement, from a larger force ... a "tectonic plate" if you will ... which we could call "populism" ?

If we see Khun T. as having been someone who catalyzed a new political equation which "unleashed" a nascent populism in Thai political life that has a basis far beyond the current "Red" movement, is that valuable ? Is it valuable to see this "unleashed populism" as not "belonging" to either Khun T., or the color "red" ?

Would it be natural, using this analogy, to consider, as three "tectonic plates," the institutions of the Monarchy, Sangha, and Military : of those institutions it seems wise to discuss no further given our status as guests here, and the fact that discussion of those institutions, and their future are "off limits."

So, who or what "else" qualifies to be a "tectonic plate" : the hi-so Thai aristocracy ? the Chinese-Thai wealthy elite business classes ? The Lao-Thai of Issarn who've "broken their backs" to build Bangkok and Chiang Mai ? The growing technically educated middle-class and upper-middle-class ? Is, as the old Thai saying goes, the Thai rice farmer still "the backbone of the nation" ?

Then, can we usefully ask if the "tension" in our tectonic-plate analogy refers to the structural frustration of people's aspirations : to have a better life, to see their children better educated, to see a society governed by laws and "moral values" : or is the "tension" best described as a "competition for limited resources;" perhaps inherently violent, an evolutionary contest in which "winners take all" ? Or, on another level, a class struggle a la Marx ?

It is fascinating in this thread to watch farangs applying to the analysis of Thai political life an idealized concept of "mythic democracy" which, in their own countries, has never been fully realized, or has been most fully realized, for many countries, only following World War II, and only following bitter and often bloody social struggles.

For us, it's all about questions, not answers.

It is tempting to be fascinated by the side-shows, and they do help us forget the "long shadows," and the "hungry ghosts" who, behind scenery we farang will never get a glimpse of, are shaping the future of this nation, and it's so much more fun to think about other people's corruption and political failures than to look back at what's happening in our own countries.

best, ~o:37;

Edited February 1, 2010 by orang37

[Flatouthruthefog]

Oy vey!

Chiang Mai is NOT in chaos or crisis, and hasn't been since the Burmese won the last punch up here.

Long before the Japanese marched through - and fairly soon ran back.

Can we stop hyping up all this stuff-n-nonsense and keep a sense of proportion? Or do we want to scare away ALL those who make up this provinces 2nd largest industry (after agriculture)?

Tourists.

Remember them?

Tourists.

I saw at least 6 today.

About 100 less than this time last year.

Kow jai, cap?!