Foreigners Joining Red-Shirts Rally

[Roadman]

I think what you are missing is that this protest isn't about the poor. It's about power.

The red leaders don't have plans to help the poor. The Thaksin government didn't do anything for the long term future of the poor. He was PM during a booming global economy which helped produce prices. Thaksin gave cash handouts, or put the poor further into to debt with easy credit. His health policy was unfunded, which means the poor got access to health services, but generally the service was pretty much non-existent. Other than that, Thaksin changed laws to make himself richer. All the PPP did while in government was to try and whitewash Thaksin's crimes.

edit: but I have no idea what 'Forethat' is on about.

Well, leaders of democratic political parties never really care in their heart about the poors of their countries. They nevertheless have to do as if they cared and make some policies in this direction when they are elected, because otherwise they would loose next round of elections. This is how the check and balance system of a democracy works, and this is why democracy, with power sanctions through people's vote, is the only way to bind country leaders to their public's interest.

This is what almost happened in Thailand. One leader who did not care about the poors understood that doing a few things for them would help him to be re-elected under the democratic constitution of the time. And it worked.

And yes, when a leader try to step over a constitution, a constitutional court is here to stop them, and when leaders step over the law, they are judged as soon as the immunity that goes with their function disappear. I completely agree on that. But the deep part of the debate is not here : I think that if you made a referendum in Thailand as to whether Thaksin should be judged by a fair court for all he has done wrong, you would get a near consensus on a "yes".

So yes, some of the leaders of the red shirts are here only for power, that's for sure. They opportunisticly saw a breach were they could step in -but they are some real militant people among the leaders, those who already risked their lives in the past to fight for democracy. Anyway it doesn't change the trick : many of the Thais have suddenly understood their own power through vote. And those who lead them, once in charge, will have to bend their head toward them, or otherwise to loose next election.

Many said that the red shirts do not really understand what democracy is, apart from the "propaganda" they have been fed with. But I have been in villages and talked with red shirt supporters there. They told me with good humour ''We might even vote for Abhisit or his party in the future if democracy is restaured. If our leaders are elected, but then disappoint us, then maybe next election we will vote for the democrats. But now, what we are asking, is that they give a chance for our vote".

I have talked with more than 200 villagers. What I saw is very far from the description made by some anti-protesters. Village people are people like everywhere else. Some of them have hard time making a reasoning, some of them are greedy, some of them are just normal people who go on with their lives and do not ask themselves too much questions, some of them are very smart and aware regardless of their education levels, some of them are friendly and open-minded. I didn't see any specific handicap there that would make rural folks unable of thinking by their own.

What I felt was a handicap though was the general indifference on politics from a huge part of the thai elite youth that I met at the university, and Thais complete ignorance of some of the recent Thai history, mainly because the official version of some of the facts has overshadowed the truth.

Once more, Thailand is in a need of a real and deep dialogue between the different opinions of what Thailand must be. As soon as votes are not respected, such debate cannot take place. This is why the red shirts came to Bangkok in the first place. They came because they had something to say, and they couldn't find any other way to be heard, as votes had been denied to them. And violence errupted because the people in charge of this country do not want this message to be spoken loud.

So yes, some are among the red shirts for power. Some are also here because, as for a music festival, public gathering always bring to them crowd-lovers and violent souls. But most of them are there to carry a message, and I don't see how their movement can be stopped if noone ever stops to hear and respect it.

Thailand needs a real check and balance system, fit to its own cultures and values. This imply people's vote, freedom of expression and opinion, free medias, and a real counter-power through efficient constitution enforcement. I was in Thailand in 2005, and Thailand was much closer to such a thing that it is now, that's for sure.

Copies from above

Once more, Thailand is in a need of a real and deep dialogue between the different opinions of what Thailand must be. As soon as votes are not respected, such debate cannot take place. This is why the red shirts came to Bangkok in the first place. They came because they had something to say, and they couldn't find any other way to be heard, as votes had been denied to them. And violence errupted because the people in charge of this country do not want this message to be spoken loud.

This is the bit that I really love...the Reds love to push this but for one minute do not even stop to think of the time honoured messure for everything of "put yourselve in the other persons shoes" and with that comes the question 'then why are the Democrats at risk of their lives going into Reds territory to electionare?' One of the most basis rights of the democratic process is denied to the Democrats. And I believe it is the Reds and their cronies who seem to love nothing more than yelling "double standard".

And dear o me ... along with the elections that were offered to these idiots what else was - a god dam_n f'ing roadmap that everybody could join in on to get this mess sorted once and for all. But as the murderer of his fellow Army officers and Thaksin's hit man told us Thaksin did not want that.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Roadman

[Forethat]

And I am not a idiot farang

...

...

If I was not so cowardly scared for my life and my baby, I would join the red mob.

\

A good example of what can happen when you rape your cedit card due to a Singha sale at the local Big C!!!

What is the last silly comment meant to mean: "rape your cedit card due to a Singha sale". Mindless abuse following a thoughtful piece by cunegonde. Thank you Mr cunegonde, and I agree with what you say.

That last comment was meant to point out that if anyone should be thoughtless enough as to the point where they express support for the terrorists that are currently busy torching buildings, looting and in any way attempting to create as much havoc as possible, is not only an idiot but also a terrorist.

My post was an attempt to highlight that the person who made the statement could in fact have been drunk.

At least that would have been an excuse I would use if I had published a post here saying I want to join the red mob.

If he WANTS to join the red mob I say he’s an idiot that deserves to be kicked out of this country.

[cougar52]

Let foreigners do what they want. Foreign born and foreign educated Abhisit seems to be doing just fine!

And yet he speaks Thai better than 99% of Thais.

I don't understand your post, are you saying that if you were not born in the country than you are not Thai.

Edited May 18, 2010 by cougar52

[cunegonde]

And I am not a idiot farang

...

...

If I was not so cowardly scared for my life and my baby, I would join the red mob.

\

A good example of what can happen when you rape your cedit card due to a Singha sale at the local Big C!!!

What is the last silly comment meant to mean: "rape your cedit card due to a Singha sale". Mindless abuse following a thoughtful piece by cunegonde. Thank you Mr cunegonde, and I agree with what you say.

That last comment was meant to point out that if anyone should be thoughtless enough as to the point where they express support for the terrorists that are currently busy torching buildings, looting and in any way attempting to create as much havoc as possible, is not only an idiot but also a terrorist.

My post was an attempt to highlight that the person who made the statement could in fact have been drunk.

At least that would have been an excuse I would use if I had published a post here saying I want to join the red mob.

If he WANTS to join the red mob I say he's an idiot that deserves to be kicked out of this country.

Thanks for this good example of tolerance, open-mindedness, and to help me making my point about the xenophobia and extremism which is being shown in many posts here.

In France during the second world war, the resistants against the nazi were also called "terrorists" (the very same word was used) and anyone who would even have expressed a wish to join them would be executed.

This is not to say that all the anti-red are nazis, but simply to point out that one has to be careful when being told that a group of protestors are "terrorists".

[Forethat]

In France during the second world war, the resistants against the nazi were also called "terrorists" (the very same word was used) and anyone who would even have expressed a wish to join them would be executed.

Troll.

[otherstuff1957]

There is a fairly large Cambodian minority in Thailand, so Khmer speaking soldiers or Red guards would not be surprising.

[JohnLeech]

[

name='JohnLeech' date='2010-05-18 01:32:16' post='3612548'

name='ozzieman05' post='3606224' date='2010-05-16 16:44:34'......... MP's can cross the floor at any time and change the government

Same in England and Australia

Gee I hope this is the last time we have to say this

I hope so too, because it is totally incorrect.

Thailand's system of government has no more than a superficial resemblance to the "Westminster" system of the UK and Australia.

In the UK and Australia if sufficient MPs "cross the floor" and vote down a major bill, such as the budget which is not open to a free vote, this equates to a vote of no confidence in the government and the PM has no option according to convention and/or constituton other than to call for fresh elections and to dissolve the house. Under no circumstances does the opposition simply take over government because they can form a majority; if the PM is stubborn enough to refuse to resign and call for elections then the head of state is empowered to replace him (as in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 with Gough Whitlam and Sir John Kerr).

In Thailand if there is a successful vote of no confidence in the government then the PM is required to resign and fresh elections have to be held - this has never happened to any Thai government, although some PMs resigned just in time to avoid it. If there is no such formal vote, however, and a group of MPs (such as Newin Chidchob's faction) switch their allegiance then there is no specific requirement for new elections or for a new PM; whenever this has happened previously the PM has resigned, resulting in fresh elections. If at the same time, however, there is no PM as he has been removed (for example by a Constitutional Court ruling as happened to Abhisit's predecessors, Samak and Somchai - the only Thai PMs to have lost their posts in this way) then (and only then) the House can take a vote on a new PM and form a new government without fresh elections being held. Abhisit's is the first government to be formed in Thailand by this loophole in the constitution.

Gee, I hope this is the last of the dreaded "factoids" - but I doubt it!

(The only previous time that a PM has been elected by the House without a general election, a coup or a resignation was when Field Marshal Thanom was elected after Field Marsal Sarit died in office in 1963.)

Emmmm... something not right here?

Possibly your glasses?

The first case is what happens "In Thailand if there is a successful vote of no confidence in the government".

The second case is what happens " If there is no such formal vote".

Two totally different scenarios; the first "has never happened", while the second "has happened".

What part of that do you not understand?

[JohnLeech]

In France during the second world war, the resistants against the nazi were also called "terrorists" (the very same word was used) and anyone who would even have expressed a wish to join them would be executed.

Troll.

Maybe, maybe not, but it is a valid point and there are many far more recent examples. Not too long ago the "Butcher of the Bogside" was considered a terrorist; now he is the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

[whybother]

[

name='JohnLeech' date='2010-05-18 01:32:16' post='3612548'

name='ozzieman05' post='3606224' date='2010-05-16 16:44:34'......... MP's can cross the floor at any time and change the government

Same in England and Australia

Gee I hope this is the last time we have to say this

I hope so too, because it is totally incorrect.

Thailand's system of government has no more than a superficial resemblance to the "Westminster" system of the UK and Australia.

In the UK and Australia if sufficient MPs "cross the floor" and vote down a major bill, such as the budget which is not open to a free vote, this equates to a vote of no confidence in the government and the PM has no option according to convention and/or constituton other than to call for fresh elections and to dissolve the house. Under no circumstances does the opposition simply take over government because they can form a majority; if the PM is stubborn enough to refuse to resign and call for elections then the head of state is empowered to replace him (as in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 with Gough Whitlam and Sir John Kerr).

In Thailand if there is a successful vote of no confidence in the government then the PM is required to resign and fresh elections have to be held - this has never happened to any Thai government, although some PMs resigned just in time to avoid it. If there is no such formal vote, however, and a group of MPs (such as Newin Chidchob's faction) switch their allegiance then there is no specific requirement for new elections or for a new PM; whenever this has happened previously the PM has resigned, resulting in fresh elections. If at the same time, however, there is no PM as he has been removed (for example by a Constitutional Court ruling as happened to Abhisit's predecessors, Samak and Somchai - the only Thai PMs to have lost their posts in this way) then (and only then) the House can take a vote on a new PM and form a new government without fresh elections being held. Abhisit's is the first government to be formed in Thailand by this loophole in the constitution.

Gee, I hope this is the last of the dreaded "factoids" - but I doubt it!

(The only previous time that a PM has been elected by the House without a general election, a coup or a resignation was when Field Marshal Thanom was elected after Field Marsal Sarit died in office in 1963.)

Emmmm... something not right here?

Possibly your glasses?

The first case is what happens "In Thailand if there is a successful vote of no confidence in the government".

The second case is what happens " If there is no such formal vote".

Two totally different scenarios; the first "has never happened", while the second "has happened".

What part of that do you not understand?

"if there is a successful vote of no confidence" ...

"If there is no such formal vote" of no confidence ...

The second sentence refers to the first sentence. So it's saying "if the first case doesn't apply then the second case applies".

[Democrat]

Let foreigners do what they want. Foreign born and foreign educated Abhisit seems to be doing just fine!

And yet he speaks Thai better than 99% of Thais.

"Oh yes old chap", I can speak english better than 99% of english people. 'Put the prawns on the barbie', I can also speak Australian better than 99% of Australians. As well as 2 other European languages. By the way there is apparently as my many Thai friends tell me, a foreign born and foreign educated person (I think british and british parents both) Andy, Candy something like that that also speaks Thai better than 99% of Thais. A very difficult one for the PM. I myself being in a similar position. But in my heart No. 1 is my birth place and bringing up. No.2 is my mothers country and the country I now live in, very close and very difficult. I do not envy him. Maybe different for him, in that he may have attended boarding school in England and lived in Thailand?

Before apr 10 a look would have been ok. But now foreigners should stay away from the protest site. That's what these posts are for, for dialogue and at appropriate times humor.

[skippybangkok]

'Put the prawns on the barbie'

Errr....... seemed you failed ur Okker......time to down grade the % points

[Democrat]

\

A good example of what can happen when you rape your cedit card due to a Singha sale at the local Big C!!!

edit: but I have no idea what 'Forethat' is on about.

I do He has one too many Singha's

[Democrat]

'Put the prawns on the barbie'

Errr....... seemed you failed ur Okker......time to down grade the % points

Why doesn't Barbie like her prawns, Bugger she's a yank .

[Democrat]

Another one night wonder

When will you learn

Governments and PM's are not voted in in Thailand

MP's are

It is the MP's who then put in a Government and they choose their Prime Minister

MP's can cross the floor at any time and change the government

Same in England and Australia

Gee I hope this is the last time we have to say this

Now I am really confused.

"Governments and PM's are not voted in in Thailand

MP's are"

Many of the blogs say MP's buy their way into their position. So what has a vote got to do with it?