Thai Government Keen On Truce With Red Shirts

[webfact]

Govt keen on truce

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Abhisit appoints education minister, secretary to negotiate with red shirts Red leader Nattawut insists protesters will talk only with PM and ultimate goal is dissolution of Parliament

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday appointed a minister and his secretary as negotiators for talks with the red-shirt protesters, while his opponents said they would only talk with the prime minister - and only discuss dissolution of the Parliament.

The decision to hold talks with the protesters was the outcome of a meeting with leaders of coalition parties including Chumpol Silapa-Archa, leader of the Chart Thai Pattana Party, Sophon Saram from Bhum Jai Thai and Suwit Khunkitti from the Social Action Party.

The coalition parties agreed negotiations should begin today with mediation by the National Human Rights Commission or senators, he said.

Education Minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat, who was appointed together with Korbsak Sabhavasu as negotiators, said he would meet with red shirt leaders Dr Weng Tojirakarn and Jaran Ditthapichai today to set the terms of talks.

'No talks with Chinnaworn'

However, Nattawut Saikua, another leader of the protesters took the stage at Phan Fah bridge yesterday with Dr Weng and said that the red group would not sit at the same table with Chinnaworn.

Dr Weng would not talk with anybody, excepted Prime Minister Abhisit, he said. The ultimately goal of negotiations was the dissolution of Parliament, he said.

A mediator was not needed for the talks since the conditions and goal were not complicated, he said.

"Prime Minister Abhisit himself could sit and talk to us directly without a middle man since we already know the principle and position of each other," Nattawut said. "The only thing we want is the dissolution of Parliament," he said.

Prime Minister Abhisit said |he would not rule out the possi-|bility of leading negotiations himself but that would only happen when the terms of the talks |had been set and he knew who would represent the other side.

"I have no problem with holding talks but let my representatives make an assessment to know the terms of negotiation and representatives of the other side," he said. "In fact, I have no problem to talk with anybody but just want to know who [it will be]."

Negotiations are unlikely to achieve the red shirts' plan for a new election alone. But Dr Weng said he would lead some protesters to see former Prime Minister Banhan Silapa-Acha, de facto leader of a coalition Chart Thai Pattana Party, to ask him to withdraw from the government.

The withdrawal would |force Prime Minister Abhisit to dissolve Parliament and call a snap election.

Chart Thai Pattana Party leader Chumpol said his party had already decided to stay with the Democrat Party-led government and saw no point in withdrawing from the coalition.

The party set no conditions. Even the proposal for changes to the Constitution, which the party championed for a long time, was not an issue now, he said.

Former leader of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party Chaturon Chaisang proposed that Prime Minister Abhisit should negotiate with Veera Musikapong, one of the leaders of the reds' Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, and both sides should not set pre-conditions for talks.

But if both sides stuck to current positions, the negotiations could not begin, he said.

"I think it is not a negotiation at all if the government has said it will not dissolve the Parliament while the protesters demand the dissolution of Parliament prior to talks," he said.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who is de facto leader of the red-shirt movement, said last night in a video link to the rally at Rajdamnoen Avenue that talks with Abhisit would be difficult since the prime minister would not listen to the protesters.

Thaksin, instead, called more people to join the red rally in order to prevent a crackdown by the government and to protect the protest leaders, who he claimed might be arrested in the next few days.

The fugitive former PM urged supporters in provinces across the country to demonstrate at city halls in their home provinces to support the red shirt mob in Bangkok.

"If the number of red shirt protesters drops, the government will end the demonstration," he said.

-- The Nation 2010-03-22

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[anotherpeter]

Reds: "Let's negotiate. But before we do, you have to submit to all of our demands."

But then there will be nothing to negotiate.

[landofthefree]

Reds: "Let's negotiate. But before we do, you have to submit to all of our demands."

But then there will be nothing to negotiate.

Why does The Nation uses the word 'mob' to describe the redshirts? The definition of mob is as follows:

1 A dissorderly crowd of people 2 A loose affiliation of gangsters in charge of organized criminal activities 3 An association of criminals.

Compare this with 'demonstration': A public display of group feelings (usually of a political nature) esp. an organized march protesting about something.

I think the Nation writers are in urgent need of some English lessons but then I guess that would also apply to most of the Thai population!

[way2muchcoffee]

Why does The Nation uses the word 'mob' to describe the redshirts? The definition of mob is as follows:

1 A dissorderly crowd of people 2 A loose affiliation of gangsters in charge of organized criminal activities 3 An association of criminals.

Compare this with 'demonstration': A public display of group feelings (usually of a political nature) esp. an organized march protesting about something.

I think the Nation writers are in urgent need of some English lessons but then I guess that would also apply to most of the Thai population!

You forgot a few of the other definitions. See definition numbers 2 and 4.

n.

1. A large disorderly crowd or throng. See synonyms at crowd1.

2. The mass of common people; the populace.

3. Informal.

a. An organized gang of criminals; a crime syndicate.

b. often Mob Organized crime. Often used with the: a murder suspect with links to the Mob.

4. An indiscriminate or loosely associated group of persons or things: a mob of boats in the harbor.

5. Australian. A flock or herd of animals.

Edited March 22, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[animatic]

Reds: "Let's negotiate. But before we do, you have to submit to all of our demands."

But then there will be nothing to negotiate.

Well this does sum up the situation,

and says in no uncertain terms that the Red Leaders will not negociate..

So why bother to try, except to give the impression of

a government ready to discuss issues

and and opposition in the streets that is utterly intransigent.

And they you have it. And there it will rest until the 2011 election,

or the Reds go nuthouse and something bad happens to change the equilibrium.

Seems like Jatuporn could use a little Librium, to make him nicer to be around,

though Thorazine would be more affective.

[Jerrytheyoung]

And why Abhisit is not defining his own policy and making proposals directly to Thai people?

- agriculture reform, subsidising rice price until it can be self sustainable, irrigation development, injection of a significant part of the budget to support creation of cooperative and investments

- delocalisation of industries bringing the jobs close to population and avoiding to concentrating everything around Bangkok which is more and more costly and difficult to manage in term of infrastructure. creation of free-tax areas in northern Thailand, allocation of land for doing this

-acceleration of the Education reform

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

[animatic]

You forgot a few of the other definitions. See definition numbers 2 and 4.

n.

1. A large disorderly crowd or throng. See synonyms at crowd1.

2. The mass of common people; the populace.

3. Informal.

a. An organized gang of criminals; a crime syndicate.

b. often Mob Organized crime. Often used with the: a murder suspect with links to the Mob.

4. An indiscriminate or loosely associated group of persons or things: a mob of boats in the harbor.

5. Australian. A flock or herd of animals.

Certainly #4 is spot on considering the totally disparait make up of the red mob.

Some old school communists, some democracy advocates, some Thaksin fanatics,

some puyai pawns, some farmers wanting subsidies, some pay for play shills,

it is a total maisma of the northern pupulation, regardless of the rebranding effort underway

to veneer a 'democracy advocate sheen on ALL and sundry players.

30,000 hardcores still marching is ;

less than 0.045 % or the population

only 0.107% of the 28 mil. voters from last election.

In ABAC polling situations this is statistically less than the variation tolerances.

Or a statistical null.

Hardly a viable voting block, nor representative of the majority of the nation,

even though they SAY daily that they are.... Saying something doesn't make it so.

[rreddin]

And why Abhisit is not defining his own policy and making proposals directly to Thai people?

- agriculture reform, subsidising rice price until it can be self sustainable, irrigation development, injection of a significant part of the budget to support creation of cooperative and investments

- delocalisation of industries bringing the jobs close to population and avoiding to concentrating everything around Bangkok which is more and more costly and difficult to manage in term of infrastructure. creation of free-tax areas in northern Thailand, allocation of land for doing this

-acceleration of the Education reform

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

I believe he would, if he could or were allowed to do so. However, as many posters on TV has said on many occasions, the real power is not vested in Khun Abhisit, it lies with those who control him. Those people are concerned with protecting their privilieged positions, not undermining it.

[way2muchcoffee]

And why Abhisit is not defining his own policy and making proposals directly to Thai people?

He has. Unfortunately the propaganda machine up North and NE drowns out any positive efforts he has made. So much so that people don't even know what he does. When he has tried to bring the show on the road he receives death threats and his representatives are mobbed by people throwing fermented fish.

- agriculture reform, subsidising rice price until it can be self sustainable, irrigation development, injection of a significant part of the budget to support creation of cooperative and investments

He already has enacted agricultural subsidies that are more viable and bring better benefits to farmers than schemes enacted by previous administrations. Again, the propaganda machine spins this negatively. Cooperatives should be created by the farmers themselves, perhaps with the help of the regional MPs. Why have the local MPs not begun this process?

- delocalisation of industries bringing the jobs close to population and avoiding to concentrating everything around Bangkok which is more and more costly and difficult to manage in term of infrastructure. creation of free-tax areas in northern Thailand, allocation of land for doing this

Private industry buys land and builds factories where it is economical to do so. There are many many factories outside of BKK. Should the government interfere in the business decisions of private industry? Perhaps the answer is yes. Inducements could be made to companies building more factories in areas with the greatest poverty. Good idea really, the more I think about it.

[way2muchcoffee]

-acceleration of the Education reform

A new curriculum has come out this year that is to be implemented at all schools nationwide. Teacher standards are being increased through the enforcement of laws regarding teacher certification nationwide. Abhisit has already enacted legislation that awards 15 years free eduction including uniforms, books, milk, and lunches. He also enacted legislation providing free education through university for disabled people. Reform of the university entrance procedures is ongoing. He has already done a great deal in just one year. These reforms are unprecedented in the speed in which they have been addressed.

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Government ministers have already been sacked for the appearance of corruption. Please understand that in previous administrations the ministers held on by their teeth until a court ruling. The Abhisit administration has changed that. When accusations are made, with a bit of legitimate evidence, then the minister is replaced forthwith. The Dems are setting the highest anti-corruption standard ever witnessed in Thai political history.

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

No he won't. The old guard up North and in the NE want power for themselves. They control the village leaders. They control what gets played in the village loudspeakers. They do not allow dissenting voices to be heard. They spin every positive effort the Abhisit government has made as somehow harmful to the people. The people, through bombardment of propaganda, won't side with Abhisit, no matter what he does.

Edited March 22, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

And why Abhisit is not defining his own policy and making proposals directly to Thai people?

- agriculture reform, subsidising rice price until it can be self sustainable, irrigation development, injection of a significant part of the budget to support creation of cooperative and investments

- delocalisation of industries bringing the jobs close to population and avoiding to concentrating everything around Bangkok which is more and more costly and difficult to manage in term of infrastructure. creation of free-tax areas in northern Thailand, allocation of land for doing this

-acceleration of the Education reform

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

I believe he would, if he could or were allowed to do so. However, as many posters on TV has said on many occasions, the real power is not vested in Khun Abhisit, it lies with those who control him. Those people are concerned with protecting their privilieged positions, not undermining it.

On most of these points though, what would the controllers have to lose? Not much.

In fact, if they could see that following such policies might be absolutely necessary to insure their very survival, I reckon he could get many implemented asap. The issue must be then that the "controllers" do not see that they are in any way needing to change their ways. This would be a very naive and dangerous attitude in my opinion

[Jerrytheyoung]

-acceleration of the Education reform

A new curriculum has come out this year that is to be implemented at all schools nationwide. Teacher standards are being increased through the enforcement of laws regarding teacher certification nationwide. Abhisit has already enacted legislation that awards 15 years free eduction including uniforms, books, milk, and lunches. He also enacted legislation providing free education through university for disabled people. Reform of the university entrance procedures is ongoing. He has already done a great deal in just one year. These reforms are unprecedented in the speed in which they have been addressed.

-fight against corruption including in its own side - No double standards

Government ministers have already been sacked for the appearance of corruption. Please understand that in previous administrations the ministers held on by their teeth until a court ruling. The Abhisit administration has changed that. When accusations are made, with a bit of legitimate evidence, then the minister is replaced forthwith. The Dems are setting the highest anti-corruption standard ever witnessed in Thai political history.

Abhisit will create his own majority overpassing the current division

No he won't. The old guard up North and in the NE want power for themselves. They control the village leaders. They control what gets played in the village loudspeakers. They do not allow dissenting voices to be heard. They spin every positive effort the Abhisit government has made as somehow harmful to the people. The people, through bombardment of propaganda, won't side with Abhisit, no matter what he does.

But no budget is clearly allocated for the reforms, the Farmers (who have avoided to be embedded in the Red Shirt demonstrations) are unhappy and are threatening to ban Democrat voting, So obviously the agriculture proposals fall short.

Also, you believe that the 'grass roots are manipulated and unable to make their decision on their own: I disagree, I live in an Issan village part of the year, people are smarter than you believe and can make the difference, you are victim of old pictures and prejudices. By doing those assumptions you are consolidating the current situation and the role of the current sclerosed parties.

But then again, nothing can be trusted if a significant BUDGET is not dedicated to those reforms. Without a significant budget, it is only bla-blah....and the reaction of the Farmers is a good indication that we are far from what is required.

French proverb: The road to hel_l is paved with good intentions

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[bacchanal]

Why does The Nation uses the word 'mob' to describe the redshirts? The definition of mob is as follows:

1 A dissorderly crowd of people 2 A loose affiliation of gangsters in charge of organized criminal activities 3 An association of criminals.

The shoe seems to fit them very nicely.

Red members with pending criminal litagation

Jatuporn : check

Jakrapob : check

Nattawut : check

Suporn : check

Giles : check

Arisman : check

etc

etc

etc

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It remains interesting they never referred to PAD in the same verbiage. In the larger scheme of things however it's not very worthwhile nitpicking at the things written in The Nation.

[yoshiwara]

Thaksin's fundamental position is that the Thai government is illegitimate.

No negotiations.

On the other the reds are now painting themselves as oh so peaceful.

So, negotiations.

Sort of.

A dance.

The PM's offer of talks makes the red intransigence look silly.

The PM improves his standing with the middle ground.

And quite rightly too.

[hammered]

The trouble with these talks as proposed is that there are more than just twop players in this game and most wont be present so nothing much can come of them. However, as the public currently see two sides only both have to play it carefully. Maybe talks about talks first

[moresomekl]

Thaksin's fundamental position is that the Thai government is illegitimate.

No negotiations.

On the other the reds are now painting themselves as oh so peaceful.

So, negotiations.

Sort of.

A dance.

The PM's offer of talks makes the red intransigence look silly.

The PM improves his standing with the middle ground.

And quite rightly too.

You are right , the only card that Thaksin can play is to say that Abhisit governement

is not legal

If Abhisit organises elections soon he can no longer be accused of beeing illegitimate and gone

is Thaksin argument .

Thaksin party could win , problem is for him that he dont really have a party .

PT is standing out of the redshirt protest because the Thaksin issue is a political looser

dividing the country , create mass protest and so on .

Thaksin can not come back because if he does he will be arrested .

Most likely scenario is that PT would win to form a coalition but no one can be sure

If that happen Thaksin is out politically , superceded by PT .

If that dont happen Thaksin is out politically at the power of 2 .

Conclusion ?

[yoshiwara]

Thaksin's fundamental position is that the Thai government is illegitimate.

No negotiations.

On the other the reds are now painting themselves as oh so peaceful.

So, negotiations.

Sort of.

A dance.

The PM's offer of talks makes the red intransigence look silly.

The PM improves his standing with the middle ground.

And quite rightly too.

You are right , the only card that Thaksin can play is to say that Abhisit governement

is not legal

If Abhisit organises elections soon he can no longer be accused of beeing illegitimate and gone

is Thaksin argument .

Thaksin party could win , problem is for him that he dont really have a party .

PT is standing out of the redshirt protest because the Thaksin issue is a political looser

dividing the country , create mass protest and so on .

Thaksin can not come back because if he does he will be arrested .

Most likely scenario is that PT would win to form a coalition but no one can be sure

If that happen Thaksin is out politically , superceded by PT .

If that dont happen Thaksin is out politically at the power of 2 .

Conclusion ?

Thaksin's reds have a problem.

Their original demand for Abhisit to resign is in trouble.

The red numbers on the weekend demos are going down.

But they dare not stop.

Only while the marches are continuing can they claim that they forced the PM out.

And while the demos are continuing a negotiated settlement undermines that position.

If, on the other hand, the demos stop and after a period of time the PM decides to go for elections ahead of 2011, the reds cannot claim that they forced him to.

We are in a sort of pre-election positioning period.

The cards are in Abhisit's hands.

All time up to scheduled 2011 elections benefits the PM's party and allies.

Thaksin knows that Abhisit is taking votes from the middle ground and an election is no longer a considered slam dunk.

Currently Thaksin and remaining allies think they can win with a forced election.

Thaksin also knows that any future instruction to his troops to use force may be tapped and publicised.

This is the reason for the red demonstration outside the US embassy.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Thaksin's fundamental position is that the Thai government is illegitimate.

No negotiations.

On the other the reds are now painting themselves as oh so peaceful.

So, negotiations.

Sort of.

A dance.

The PM's offer of talks makes the red intransigence look silly.

The PM improves his standing with the middle ground.

And quite rightly too.

You are right , the only card that Thaksin can play is to say that Abhisit governement

is not legal

If Abhisit organises elections soon he can no longer be accused of beeing illegitimate and gone

is Thaksin argument .

Thaksin party could win , problem is for him that he dont really have a party .

PT is standing out of the redshirt protest because the Thaksin issue is a political looser

dividing the country , create mass protest and so on .

Thaksin can not come back because if he does he will be arrested .

Most likely scenario is that PT would win to form a coalition but no one can be sure

If that happen Thaksin is out politically , superceded by PT .

If that dont happen Thaksin is out politically at the power of 2 .

Conclusion ?

Thaksin's reds have a problem.

Their original demand for Abhisit to resign is in trouble.

The red numbers on the weekend demos are going down.

But they dare not stop.

Only while the marches are continuing can they claim that they forced the PM out.

And while the demos are continuing a negotiated settlement undermines that position.

If, on the other hand, the demos stop and after a period of time the PM decides to go for elections ahead of 2011, the reds cannot claim that they forced him to.

We are in a sort of pre-election positioning period.

The cards are in Abhisit's hands.

All time up to scheduled 2011 elections benefits the PM's party and allies.

Thaksin knows that Abhisit is taking votes from the middle ground and an election is no longer a considered slam dunk.

Currently Thaksin and remaining allies think they can win with a forced election.

Thaksin also knows that any future instruction to his troops to use force may be tapped and publicised.

This is the reason for the red demonstration outside the US embassy.

As a conscientious disciple of the French Coue method (optimistic auto suggestion), I have to congratulate you.

The application of his mantra-like conscious autosuggestion, "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better" (French: Tous les jours à tous points de vue je vais de mieux en mieux) is called Couéism or the Coué method.[1] The Coué method centers on a routine repetition of this particular expression according to a specified ritual, in a given physical state, and in the absence of any sort of allied mental imagery, at the beginning and at the end of each day.[citation needed] Unlike a common held belief that a strong conscious will constitutes the best path to success, Coué maintained that curing some of our troubles requires a change in our unconscious thought, which can only be achieved by using our imagination. Although stressing that he was not primarily a healer but one who taught others to heal themselves, Coué claimed to have effected organic changes through autosuggestion.[1]

[craigt3365]

It's hard for either side to negotiate when none of the day to day players are really in control. Right? Thaksin on one side and higher ups on the other. Too many puppets.

But I am impressed the crowds are still so large. Are they still getting paid? If not, then I am impressed for sure.

The reds want to dissolve the house. But isn't the main reason for a dissolution the lack of a majority quorum? Which the PM currently has with his grouping of various parties.

As has been mentioned many times, if the reds are serious, dump Thaksin and get a coherent list of demands together. Dissolving the house should not be on the list. Reforms as mentioned above should be highlighted.

We tune into the red channel several times a day to see what is going on. Many times they are just bashing the gov/dems. Gets old. Name calling, etc. How much of that can you listen to?