Doubts On The Direction Of The Red-Shirts Movement

[webfact]

Panlop and Seh Daeng : Spanners in red shirt machine?

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- An unexpected turn of events has cast doubt on the direction of the red-shirt movement. As the red shirts gear up for a showdown designed to oust the government, retired General Panlop Pinmanee and his sidekick Maj-General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol, fancy themselves as the flag bearers.

The two want Pheu Thai Party chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to lead the red shirts to victory.

This, of course, has triggered a strong rebuke from the three leaders Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Promphan and Nattawut Saikua.

Before launching what is being billed as the largest street protest in modern Thai history, the red shirts have to first get their house in order.

Even in retirement, Panlop is a soldier through and through. He might have experience fighting conventional and unconventional battles. But he is politically inept.

Anyone with political astuteness would have known Chavalit and Veera would make strange bedfellows.

After teaming up with Pheu Thai, Chavalit has been careful not to step on Veera's turf. Though he often praises the red shirts, he has no involvement in their movement.

Before meeting with ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra in Dubai to sell his idea of Chavalit leading the red shirts, Panlop made an approach to recruit Chavalit.

Panlop said Chavalit responded to his idea by smiling and nodding to acknowledge his remarks. Upon his insistence, Chavalit then said the reds already had leaders.

Instead of sensing he was being let down gently, Panlop interpreted Chavalit's nodding as a gesture of acceptance to lead the red shirts.

Confusion ensued after Panlop chose to toughen his choice of words to refer to Chavalit as the supreme commander of a "People's Army" for democracy. Many suspect he may be seeking to instigate an armed struggle. Little wonder, perhaps, that his inept remarks blew back in his face.

Chavalit and Veera have crossed paths several times since the 1980s. They served under the then prime minister General Prem Tinsulanonda. Although the two viewed Prem as their mentor, they were never close.

Even though Veera has never been openly critical of Chavalit, he made it clear about his lack of trust. He may have lingering questions about Chavalit's involvement in the lead-up to his prosecution and conviction for lese majeste in 1988.

When Chavalit formed the New Aspiration Party, Veera briefly rallied behind the party before using it as a springboard to form an alliance with Thaksin.

Instead of strengthening the red-shirt movement, Panlop will likely achieve the opposite if he pushes for Chavalit's leadership at the expense of Veera.

Jatuporn's fiery reaction should have made it crystal clear that Panlop and Khattiya are welcome to join the red shirts so long as they agree to toe the line and not to upset the troika's apple cart.

The spat between Jatuporn and Panlop brought to light a can of worms, previously undetected within the red-shirt movement.

By Panlop's account, the red shirts plan to mobilise one million protesters with the hope of achieving a critical number to render anti-riot forces ineffective, and pave the way for a government collapse. And organisers are clueless about managing crowds of such a gigantic scale.

The red shirts have also prepared a contingency plan to spread the struggle to key provinces if street protests are crushed in Bangkok.

By Jatuporn's account, Panlop and Khattiya are neither genuine red shirts nor truly loyal to Thaksin; their crying wolf about anticipated upheaval is a gimmick to discredit the red shirts.

-- The Nation 2010-02-09

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[givenall]

Thaksin is not a Red Shirt. He is a Green Bag, or Bath bag. He only cars about his own interest and at this moment is about his 76B bat that he most likely will loses

[poleax]

This article is all About the "Red Shirt Movement"........"Who is dat", as they would say in joyous New Orleans.

The effort to studiously avoid attributing a political characterization to this so-called 'movement' other than the mean-nothing reference to affinity clothing colors continues.

The fact that they are the dominant force to restore Electoral, Representational Democracy to Thailand is avoided by the Domestic Media agenda. If this movement was characterized as such, would imply problems with Democracy which is not something their sponsors wish to publicise.

The closest they come to defining this "Movement" is to occasionally refer to them as "Anti-Govt". They will never reference the non-electoral basis of this Govt. however, because that would again lend credibility to this "Democracy Movement".

Everything else in this article trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement is just wishful thinking.

[animatic]

Dare one say 'Monkey Wrenches In The Works'.

These guys are loose canons and from an outside view, dissension in these ranks is a good thing.

Factionalism VISIBLY is a good thing, because it highlights to true division inherent in this political pastiche.

Similar to the TRT being presented as this political monolith, the Red movement is a bunch of out of power factions,

coming together in hopes that the whole will be greater than the parts... a good idea IF those parts can mesh and

act together. Clearly this is a pipe dream, but one that suits Thaksin's purposes for the moment.

I wonder what they all been smoking?

I think the Red Troika must really look behind Sea Duang, Panlop and Chavalit and see the hand that

shoved these three in their faces after the Dubai visit. Yes confusion ensued and the source of

the confusion must be seen as the malign black hand from Dubai.

Randomly Shooting Demon Mentors

in control of the 'movement' seems a poor way to help the people progress.

Sadly at present it comes across more as the:

Dominant Farce to Destroy Electoral, Representational Democracy

Ditch the dead weight in Dubai and get clean hands, and clear speakers,

in control of that small segment of North East people desiring more say in their country.

The current crew at the Red Helm only demeans the rank and file and diminishes their effectiveness.

Edited February 9, 2010 by animatic

[dunrudin]

I am having more difficulty with the posters than the post.

animatic: a loose canon is a sexually promiscuous churchman. I don't think you mean that.

givenall: Thaksin only cars about his 76B bat...What??

[webfact]

If possible please proofread your post first, poor grammar and spelling can make the post difficult to understand. However be aware that not every member is a native english speaker and posts regarding others spelling and grammar not only hijacks the topic but is poor netiquette.

[Moonrakers]

I am having more difficulty with the posters than the post.

animatic: a loose canon is a sexually promiscuous churchman. I don't think you mean that.

givenall: Thaksin only cars about his 76B bat...What??

Watch folks. The grammar Nazi's are about.

[hammered]

Truth is who knows. Maybe they disagree. Maybe they are doing it for show. Maybe their enemies are highlighting something that is or isnt there. Truth is in poltics there are always disgreements between protagonists and allies and differneces on tactics and approaches.

Myself I actually have a feeling this is being pushed by the opponents of the reds. Now is a time for all kinds of games and sowing seeds of doubt and uncertainty is a big one.

[poleax]

I am having more difficulty with the posters than the post.

animatic: a loose canon is a sexually promiscuous churchman. I don't think you mean that.

givenall: Thaksin only cars about his 76B bat...What??

With a nod to netiquite (new word for me. I'm an idiot) you are probably wrong about Animatic's alleged misuse of the word "canon".....

That shrewd ole' devil Animatic knows his language.

Of course he meant a "sexually promiscuous churchman"........I mean Thaksin is every other evil incarnate ever visited upon this earth, why not a 'sexually promiscuous churchman".

Animatic probably saw him somewhere.

I for one, believe everything Animatic says, as do most on this board.

If Animatic says Thaksin is a sexually promiscuous churchman, that is good enough for me.

That bad, bad Mr. Thaksin

Edited February 9, 2010 by poleax

[animatic]

I am having more difficulty with the posters than the post.

animatic: a loose canon is a sexually promiscuous churchman. I don't think you mean that.

givenall: Thaksin only cars about his 76B bat...What??

Watch folks. The grammar Nazi's are about.

Actually this one gave me the second laugh of the day,

after the darling idea that some think that

the army is using rain making technology to shut down Red Rallies...

So... acchmhhhmm,

a Loose Canon would be a D'eacon Of D'light?

**********************************

Anyone, should they choose to believe me,

should do it based on their own consideration of my arguments.

Otherwise they are just being parrots or sheeple.

My main argument is : THINK!

If I can lead anyone to think, then it is a good day.

Edited February 9, 2010 by animatic

[ballpoint]

With a nod to netiquite (new word for me. I'm an idiot) you are probably wrong about Animatic's alleged misuse of the word "canon".....

That shrewd ole' devil Animatic knows his language.

Of course he meant a "sexually promiscuous churchman"........I mean Thaksin is every other evil incarnate ever visited upon this earth, why not a 'sexually promiscuous churchman".

Animatic probably saw him somewhere.

I for one, believe everything Animatic says, as do most on this board.

If Animatic says Thaksin is a sexually promiscuous churchman, that is good enough for me.

That bad, bad Mr. Thaksin

Nice try at further divering the thread, but then, you've had lots of practice.

Let's not forget that Panlop was a died in the wool PAD member, in fact, he was one of the leaders, who left in disgust when his plans for violence were not accepted by the others. He was welcomed by the red shirts with open arms, who never thought of questioning his policy. It's all backfiring on them now and makes one wonder as to why they accepted him in the first place? He's really not a nice piece of work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallop_Pinmanee I realise wikipedia may be edited by anyone, but the quoted sources make interesting reading, and could help to explain why he "dropped Chavalit in it" when linking him to the Peoples Army.

[poleax]

This article is all About the "Red Shirt Movement"........"Who is dat", as they would say in joyous New Orleans.

The effort to studiously avoid attributing a political characterization to this so-called 'movement' other than the mean-nothing reference to affinity clothing colors continues.

The fact that they are the dominant force to restore Electoral, Representational Democracy to Thailand is avoided by the Domestic Media agenda. If this movement was characterized as such, would imply problems with Democracy which is not something their sponsors wish to publicise.

The closest they come to defining this "Movement" is to occasionally refer to them as "Anti-Govt". They will never reference the non-electoral basis of this Govt. however, because that would again lend credibility to this "Democracy Movement".

Everything else in this article trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement is just wishful thinking.

Sorry my friend Ballpoint.....was this the "diversionary" Post you were referring to?

The one you reference was just having some fun..........silly 'divering' me.....

Edited February 9, 2010 by poleax

[Insight]

This article is all About the "Red Shirt Movement"........"Who is dat",

<snip>

Everything else in this article trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement is just wishful thinking.

Sorry my friend Ballpoint.....was this the "diversionary" Post you were referring to?

The one you reference was just having some fun..........silly 'divering' me.....

That one will do for me. If this rift is "non-existent", why is your leader pleading for unity right now according to a breaking news update in the Bangkok Post?

You guys should really try reading from the same page at some point.

Hopefully this time you'll have the courtesy to respond.

/edit - corrected quoted post.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Insight

[zaq1]

To Poleax

I have read your replies to recent posts about the "Red Shirt Movement" and agree 100% with your comments. However, maybe you write too eloquently for some on this board. Forgive me for cutting and pasting your words in order to add clarity:

------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the RED SHIRTS are the dominant force to restore Electoral Representational Democracy to Thailand.

Reference to this is AVOIDED by the Domestic Media. It is NOT something this government wish to publicise.

The media/government refer to the movement as "Anti-Govt" because they can/will NEVER admit the non-electoral basis of the present Govt.

Therefore this article is a ploy, trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

--------------------------------------------------------

[zaq1]

And to Insight whom I just see adds:

"That one will do for me. If this rift is "non-existent", why is your leader pleading for unity right now according to a breaking news update in the Bangkok Post?"

It's a ploy - and it will continues to run and run, and deepen, and widen.

You'll just have to see it for what it is.

[way2muchcoffee]

The fact is that the RED SHIRTS are the dominant force to restore Electoral Representational Democracy to Thailand.

That is an opinion and certainly not a fact. If this is true then why would they wish to bring down an elected government? If this is true then why would they have found it necessary to engage in massive election fraud?

Reference to this is AVOIDED by the Domestic Media. It is NOT something this government wish to publicise.

Perhaps because it's not true?

The media/government refer to the movement as "Anti-Govt" because they can/will NEVER admit the non-electoral basis of the present Govt.

Given that their aims are to destroy the present elected government it is only natural that they are referred to as anti-government.

Therefore this article is a ploy, trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

Actually that's not what Thaksin thinks given is recent call for unity amongst his supporters.

[PoorSucker]

To Poleax

I have read your replies to recent posts about the "Red Shirt Movement" and agree 100% with your comments. However, maybe you write too eloquently for some on this board. Forgive me for cutting and pasting your words in order to add clarity:

------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the RED SHIRTS are the dominant force to restore Electoral Representational Democracy to Thailand.

Reference to this is AVOIDED by the Domestic Media. It is NOT something this government wish to publicise.

The media/government refer to the movement as "Anti-Govt" because they can/will NEVER admit the non-electoral basis of the present Govt.

Therefore this article is a ploy, trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

--------------------------------------------------------

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned,". "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal."

Thaksin Shinawatra 2003-12-11

[Insight]

And to Insight whom I just see adds:

"That one will do for me. If this rift is "non-existent", why is your leader pleading for unity right now according to a breaking news update in the Bangkok Post?"

It's a ploy - and it will continues to run and run, and deepen, and widen.

You'll just have to see it for what it is.

"A ploy" you say? Did you read the article? It says the request originated from his Twitter site.

Are you now insinuating his Twitter site has been hacked?

[poleax]

This article is all About the "Red Shirt Movement"........"Who is dat",

<snip>

Everything else in this article trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement is just wishful thinking.

Sorry my friend Ballpoint.....was this the "diversionary" Post you were referring to?

The one you reference was just having some fun..........silly 'divering' me.....

That one will do for me. If this rift is "non-existent", why is your leader pleading for unity right now according to a breaking news update in the Bangkok Post?

You guys should really try reading from the same page at some point.

Hopefully this time you'll have the courtesy to respond.

/edit - corrected quoted post.

Awright my friend Insight, I'm a courteous guy and will respond as "you directed".

I scurried off to read the newspaper article you reference, which is painful for me considering the Domestic Media agenda. But you referenced it, and I stooped to read it.

Checked with other meaningful sources and come up with the following:

Jatuporn and his colleagues are simply accentuating the non-violence style of the Red Shirt Democracy Movement. They come with empty hands.

It is the Media's role to be ....-disturbers with respect to this movement and they will do so at every opportunity. The Red Shirts expect it.

What Seh Daeng and Panlop do is their thing. If it involves violence, it is not part of the Red Shirt Democracy Movement way.

This Democracy Movement is not a tight, monolithically structured and disciplined Movement. They are idea and philosophy directed. They are focussed on returning Thailand to its Democratic ways and giving all citizens electoral participation on an equal footing with all other elitist and aristocratic elements.

As has been mentioned frequently in other posts by knowledgable people about this movement, there is no unanimity even on Thaksin. At the local level, there are typically 2-3 separate groups of Red Shirts. But the centrality of their motives is not in question, and they will gather as required.

The Domestic Elitist Media however will paint a different picture of this movement. They will actively seek out these non-monolithic elements and wishfully report that it is a sign of discord. They didn't mention the 100,000 plus rally in Khon Kean last week (overflowing 47 Rai - the happy face for someone special), they try to link all protests to the Thaksin money thing to discredit them, they hope that the steady drumbeat of anti-Thaksin stuff of the past three years has had an effect, so they portray this movement as a singular Thaksin-movement, etc., etc.........and look for discord wherever they can find it.

Just relax Insight...everything is well with the Democracy Movement, and suppressing it is not in the cards. Suthep and his friends can insinuate all sorts of dire violent stuff and trumpet all their preparedness for it, but that is just political posturing by fearful politicians.

I am sure you are most supportive of this movement Insight, and will see through all the smoke as I do.

Awright, nap time. I'm on stage in a couple hours.

Edited February 9, 2010 by poleax

[zaq1]

Either: You see what drinking too much coffee does?

Or: I am grossly wrong about this - if so then someone please put me to rights.

Question 1: Who was democratically elected?

I say . . . I think . . . I'm SURE I remember this correctly . . . the answer is THAKSIN.

Question 2: Who ASSUMED control WITHOUT going to the people?

Answer . . . this present government!

Have I just woken from a strange dream or is the above correct?

In plain, simple language, please enlighten me . . .

[Samuian]

To Poleax

I have read your replies to recent posts about the "Red Shirt Movement" and agree 100% with your comments. However, maybe you write too eloquently for some on this board. Forgive me for cutting and pasting your words in order to add clarity:

------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the RED SHIRTS are the dominant force to restore Electoral Representational Democracy to Thailand.

Reference to this is AVOIDED by the Domestic Media. It is NOT something this government wish to publicise.

The media/government refer to the movement as "Anti-Govt" because they can/will NEVER admit the non-electoral basis of the present Govt.

Therefore this article is a ploy, trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

--------------------------------------------------------

Joke of the month Sir!

well done!

[way2muchcoffee]

Either: You see what drinking too much coffee does?

Or: I am grossly wrong about this - if so then someone please put me to rights.

Question 1: Who was democratically elected?

I say . . . I think . . . I'm SURE I remember this correctly . . . the answer is THAKSIN.

Question 2: Who ASSUMED control WITHOUT going to the people?

Answer . . . this present government!

Have I just woken from a strange dream or is the above correct?

In plain, simple language, please enlighten me . . .

Stooping to the level of personal insult in a debate huh? Illuminating.

1. Thaksin was elected. Twice. Then he dissolved parliament and won no further elections. Since then, there has been one military appointed government. This was followed by a general election, and then two parliamentary elections leading to 3 elected PMs

2. Thaksin assumed caretaker PM control after dissolving parliament. The military assumed control via a coup. Then there was a general election. PPP formed a coalition government with Samak at the helm. Samak was disqualified but allowed to return. Thaksin didn't want that so Somchai (Thaksin's brother) took his place. The PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The coalition partners worked it out that it was in their interests to form a government with the Democrats with Abhisit as the PM. And here we are.

Edited February 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Splatter]

Either: You see what drinking too much coffee does?

Or: I am grossly wrong about this - if so then someone please put me to rights.

Question 1: Who was democratically elected?

I say . . . I think . . . I'm SURE I remember this correctly . . . the answer is THAKSIN.

Question 2: Who ASSUMED control WITHOUT going to the people?

Answer . . . this present government!

Have I just woken from a strange dream or is the above correct?

In plain, simple language, please enlighten me . . .

The usual smokescreen reply to this one is something along the lines of

...people vote for their representative to parliament

and then those representatives have a chat about who they want as the government, or something beautifully legal and lovie dovie electorally technically correct

and then there is something else that I usually get bored with, often quite a lot of something else that gets tedious...

and then few people mention, well hang on a mo', the bloke / lass the people voted for stood for election based on certain assumptions i.e. that they would do what they said they would do, and whoa ! ....they changed their minds and did something else. But hey ho, that's legal and cracking.

[PoorSucker]

Stooping to the level of personal insult in a debate huh? Illuminating.

1. Thaksin was elected. Twice. Then he dissolved parliament and won no further elections. Since then, there has been one military appointed government. This was followed by a general election, and then two parliamentary elections leading to 3 elected PMs

2. Thaksin assumed caretaker PM control after dissolving parliament. The military assumed control via a coup. Then there was a general election. PPP formed a coalition government with Samak at the helm. Samak was disqualified but allowed to return. Thaksin didn't want that so Somchai (Thaksin's brother) took his place. The PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The coalition partners worked out that it was in their interests to form a government with the Democrats with Abhisit as the PM. And here we are.

Correct, exempt that Somchai is Thaksin brother in-law.

[Siripon]

To Poleax

I have read your replies to recent posts about the "Red Shirt Movement" and agree 100% with your comments. However, maybe you write too eloquently for some on this board. Forgive me for cutting and pasting your words in order to add clarity:

------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the RED SHIRTS are the dominant force to restore Electoral Representational Democracy to Thailand.

Reference to this is AVOIDED by the Domestic Media. It is NOT something this government wish to publicise.

The media/government refer to the movement as "Anti-Govt" because they can/will NEVER admit the non-electoral basis of the present Govt.

Therefore this article is a ploy, trying to dramatize a non-existent rift within the Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

--------------------------------------------------------

Joke of the month Sir!

The present government came entirely fron the last election with the exception of a Pumjaithai minister, Somsak's sister.

The Thai media constantly refers to the red shirts by their own title in Thai , Opposition to dictatorship and pro democracy.'

well done!

[zaq1]

Help!

Samulan, the joke is on me! Everyone must be laughing at me!

Is there is something out there . . . something that I'm either unaware of and/or don't yet understand.

Please help out a simple, confused guy.

Is HE or is HE not.

Are THEY or are THEY not.

Because to my simple mind, THAT is the question.

[johncitizen]

Stooping to the level of personal insult in a debate huh? Illuminating.

1. Thaksin was elected. Twice. Then he dissolved parliament and won no further elections. Since then, there has been one military appointed government. This was followed by a general election, and then two parliamentary elections leading to 3 elected PMs

You're not quote right there- Thaksin dissolved parliament and called for a snap election, which was approved of by the King. He then went on to win the snap election, but the victory was later nullified by the Constitutional Court, who upheld the PAD's disagreement with polling booth positioning. Yet another vote was to be held in October 2006, but the army got in first.

[way2muchcoffee]

Stooping to the level of personal insult in a debate huh? Illuminating.

1. Thaksin was elected. Twice. Then he dissolved parliament and won no further elections. Since then, there has been one military appointed government. This was followed by a general election, and then two parliamentary elections leading to 3 elected PMs

You're not quote right there- Thaksin dissolved parliament and called for a snap election, which was approved of by the King. He then went on to win the snap election, but the victory was later nullified by the Constitutional Court, who upheld the PAD's disagreement with polling booth positioning. Yet another vote was to be held in October 2006, but the army got in first.

Yes. I don't count a nullified election as valid and so didn't include it.

[Siripon]

Stooping to the level of personal insult in a debate huh? Illuminating.

1. Thaksin was elected. Twice. Then he dissolved parliament and won no further elections. Since then, there has been one military appointed government. This was followed by a general election, and then two parliamentary elections leading to 3 elected PMs

You're not quote right there- Thaksin dissolved parliament and called for a snap election, which was approved of by the King. He then went on to win the snap election, but the victory was later nullified by the Constitutional Court, who upheld the PAD's disagreement with polling booth positioning. Yet another vote was to be held in October 2006, but the army got in first.

Thaksin promised there would be a debate in Parliament about his sale to Temasek but he knrw he couldn't answer the questions so he broke his promise and dissolved Parliament.

A classic example of tyranny by majority where he knew he would win the next election due to his popularity in the north and Issan and thereby could avoid all questions,checks and balances.

Thaksin can't stand scrutiny-why?

Because he has a lot to hide, a lot.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Siripon

[zaq1]

First, no offense to too much coffee, btw. I was just asking . . .

Also, Thanks for the last few enlightening posts. Some of the events reported above are not exactly as I recall them, but anyway, one point remains:

Who - if anyone - elected this present government?

Sure the water is muddy, which is just how some like it here (which is the basis of this present campaign that started the thread)