The Country's Rural Poor Want A Voice, With Or Without Mr. Thaksin. Opinion

[Harry2]

Thailand's New Normal

The country's rural poor want a voice, with or without Mr. Thaksin.

Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva put in place tools to use force if necessary against protestors in Bangkok this week, in the name of restoring normality to a city that has come to a standstill. He may succeed in returning Thailand to rule by elites—but that's not a lasting solution. The protesters, known as the "red shirts," are comprised mostly of the rural poor who want a democratic voice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0925826474.html

[4223rhodes]

"In the long run however Thailand will remain politically unsettled until its elites and military give the Thai people full democracy. That means Mr. Abhisit must embrace the idea that his party could lose in a popular vote. While that might not be an appealing prospect for Mr. Abhisit, that's how democracy works.

Even if Mr. Thaksin never returns to Thailand, he has set off a democracy movement that isn't going away. The sooner Bangkok realizes that, the better. "

-----

Thanks for posting. Let's hope the WSJ site isn't soon on Abhisit's censorship list!

[isanbirder]

The rural poor HAVE a voice, a vote like everyone in Bangkok... so what do they do? They sell it off to the highest bidder.

They say they want democracy, but you cannot have a real democracy without education; even then, money talks the loudest (cf. the USA, where enormous amounts of money are needed even to select the candidate! all right, I admit the vote is fair after that).

[DP25]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

[Meridian007]

Yes, they have a voice, but they do deserve better infrastructure. A defense against corrupt middlemen in the rice trade, better education, and health care. These aren't the focus of what's going on now, if they were, the red shirts would have more support domestically and internationally.

Even Thaksin was smart enough to see that the poor farmers of the North East wouldn't understand heady ideals like democracy or a socialist movement, I believe he is the one who coined the phrase "democracy you can eat". This is the main importance for the farmers, they want to live their lives, have enough to eat, and party once in a while. Looking at it externally, it is in their best interests to improve their education as well so that they can make up their own minds about what is going on around them, rather than have it hammered into their minds by yelling heads on a stage, day after day. Sadly, many of them don't see the added importance of this. I agree that this has at least woken up the elites to the fact that something has to be done for the rural poor. But I think the current governemnt is more likely to make lasting progress on this than any Thaksin-backed one.

As it is, we all know what they are protesting for, why it has to be now, and why it began a week after the supreme court ruling. They can say "it's not about Thaksin" as much as they want, but it's his money and power that keeps them here.

[Jingthing]

The WSJ is a very RIGHT WING American newspaper. It is fitting the pattern of being pro-red, pro-Thaksin that most RIGHT WING Americans tend to follow here, while IGNORING the dark, negative aspects of the Thaksin movement (as well as his clear record of actually being anti-democratic). Do not take that piece as the American view, it is a right wing opinion piece. They heard the PR key words democracy and they eat it up, completely uncritically. If/when the red mobs take over and install an anti-democratic Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Peron strong man type leader here, you can sure they will change their tune, but by then it will be too late.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Jingthing

[simpathy]

now the wsj is pro rice farmers who get paid to protest.

amerika is one fkked up country!

how do u come to the conclusion most people who post here are right wing americans. dam_n most have your point of view!

[timekeeper]

it might be have to be without Thaksin.......

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Ill-...10#entry3487110

[Jingthing]

now the wsj is pro rice farmers who get paid to protest.

amerika is one fkked up country!

how do u come to the conclusion most people who post here are right wing americans. dam_n most have your point of view!

Read my post(s) before you go postal.

I have observed for a long time now that most right wing Americans who post here are pro-Thaksin/reds and most left wing Americans who post here are anti-Thaksin/reds. We both share the desire for more freedom, democracy, and equality for Thailand's poor, but feel the hope of achieving that may come from different sides. The truth is probably NEITHER side will bring that, but Americans tend to be optimistic/hopeful people.

[simpathy]

i speek for the majority of americans.

we dont kare, can you point me to the places where the bargirls hang out.

[rivers2020]

The rural poor HAVE a voice, a vote like everyone in Bangkok... so what do they do? They sell it off to the highest bidder.

They say they want democracy, but you cannot have a real democracy without education; even then, money talks the loudest (cf. the USA, where enormous amounts of money are needed even to select the candidate! all right, I admit the vote is fair after that).

good post, but vote is fair after that. you forgot 2000 bush vs gore and the state of florida

[animatic]

Yes, they have a voice, but they do deserve better infrastructure. A defense against corrupt middlemen in the rice trade, better education, and health care. These aren't the focus of what's going on now, if they were, the red shirts would have more support domestically and internationally.

Even Thaksin was smart enough to see that the poor farmers of the North East wouldn't understand heady ideals like democracy or a socialist movement, I believe he is the one who coined the phrase "democracy you can eat". This is the main importance for the farmers, they want to live their lives, have enough to eat, and party once in a while. Looking at it externally, it is in their best interests to improve their education as well so that they can make up their own minds about what is going on around them, rather than have it hammered into their minds by yelling heads on a stage, day after day. Sadly, many of them don't see the added importance of this. I agree that this has at least woken up the elites to the fact that something has to be done for the rural poor. But I think the current governemnt is more likely to make lasting progress on this than any Thaksin-backed one.

As it is, we all know what they are protesting for, why it has to be now, and why it began a week after the supreme court ruling. They can say "it's not about Thaksin" as much as they want, but it's his money and power that keeps them here.

Good post.

The Wall Street Journal is quite conservative,

and to conservatives anything with maoist or socialist connotations is a big negative.

So it makes me wonder how it can be backing this socialist movement, except if their writers

got their Red vs govt. PR stance from Thaksins Perception Management team,

which was based in NYC last it was noted. This is a WSJ dichotomy for sure,

the arch conservatives backing the the likes of Weng's philosophical musings.

The actual actions of Abhisit and Korn to address the up country concerns is COMPLETELY ignored,

much as red propaganda prevents that message from getting up north too.

Pretty clear where the WSJ gets it's editorial slant on this story from...

Edited April 9, 2010 by animatic

[LevelHead]

The rural poor HAVE a voice, a vote like everyone in Bangkok... so what do they do? They sell it off to the highest bidder.

They say they want democracy, but you cannot have a real democracy without education; even then, money talks the loudest (cf. the USA, where enormous amounts of money are needed even to select the candidate! all right, I admit the vote is fair after that).

Where did you read that nonsense ?

Oh, would it be in the Yellow biased papers ?

Have you ever been around when the vote buying happens. For 3 or 4 nights you will get woken up, once by this party, next by that party, then another party etc..

The people take the money from all of them, all the different parties, but then vote for the ONE THEY WANT TO.

That is democracy, and the only effect vote buying has is if you do not offer money they will not vote for you, but they will happily take 500 baht from PTP and 500 baht from the Democrats, and then decide on their own which one to vote for.

This is "Thai" vote buying.

If you do not know that and cannot understand or appreciate how the system works then please, do some research and live among the people for a few years.

Its on the Yellow biased papers that try to say, cleverly, accusations against one side, but ignore the other side do it too.

[khunjamespittman]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

[LevelHead]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

The last election was unfair.

It was held under a coup appointed government.

It was held under basically martial law in many area's

PPP candidates were "watched" by government appointed teams.

The Army had a budget to "educate" the people on how to vote -

It was totally unfair and not free and was against the PPP...... and yet even with all that going on PPP still got the majority vote.

Which is why the Yellows had to use another power to get rid of them, an undemocratic one, funnily enough now called the "double standards" systems ?

The Elite love Kangeroo's in their courts now

[Rainmon]

When is the next election scheduled, why can't the Reds just wait and vote at the next election? Is the current party in power so bad? The economy here in Thailand was doing very well and now with these protests and bad public relations, tourism is down and the economy is suffering even more. Why can't the Reds understand this is hurting everyone in Thailand and solve this peacefully? Or, is this all about Thaksin loosing face muk muk, that he wants revenge by destroying Thailand's economy? It's good that Thaksin helped the rural people with medial benefits, but should Red followers be brain washed by their leaders to help destroy Thailand's economy in the name of democracy, is "democracy" really the Red leaders motivation? I don't think so...

[Guest]

Shame the author of the WSJ article hasn't got the faintest understanding of Thailand and all the undercurrents. True democracy is a long way into future. As someone else noted, education in the rural areas needs to be radically improved so that those hard working people really understand what democracy can do for them, and how to avoid corruption.

[LevelHead]

Shame the author of the WSJ article hasn't got the faintest understanding of Thailand and all the undercurrents. True democracy is a long way into future. As someone else noted, education in the rural areas needs to be radically improved so that those hard working people really understand what democracy can do for them, and how to avoid corruption.

Yes, Bangkok people know all about corruption and how it helps them, which is why many real Bangkokians wear Yellow and support the Democrats and Yellow and PAD.

They want corruption, just for them.

They do not want the spoils dished around the countryside into those nasty rural area's.

Shame most Yellow shirts have an understanding of how Thailand works but try to pretend it does not work like that in order to protect their "way of life".

[tigermonkey]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

Why "tough luck" ? They won ! This is not an absolute majority voting system , but a plurality system.

Remember -- or perhaps you weren't here:

Constituency Voting -- PPP 36.6% --- Dem 30.3%

Proportional Voting --- PPP 39.6% --- Dem 39.6%

The people spoke, but they do not accept that the PPP was subsequenly disbanded -- understandable!

Edited April 9, 2010 by tigermonkey

[Guest]

Shame the author of the WSJ article hasn't got the faintest understanding of Thailand and all the undercurrents. True democracy is a long way into future. As someone else noted, education in the rural areas needs to be radically improved so that those hard working people really understand what democracy can do for them, and how to avoid corruption.

Yes, Bangkok people know all about corruption and how it helps them, which is why many real Bangkokians wear Yellow and support the Democrats and Yellow and PAD.

They want corruption, just for them.

They do not want the spoils dished around the countryside into those nasty rural area's.

Shame most Yellow shirts have an understanding of how Thailand works but try to pretend it does not work like that in order to protect their "way of life".

What a bigot. My comment was aimed at suggesting the rural poor get the same chances as Bangkokians. No all Bangkokians are elitists or yellow shirts just because they live in the city. Plenty of city people have problems and many are not financially well off. Like anywhere, its a tiny minority like Taksin that have the money.

[A_Traveller]

PPP would have been disbanded under the 1997 constitution, also they were guilty of flagrant systemic abuses under the Political Parties Act 1999. There's a hint there as to how serious PPP was in respecting the democratic agenda.

The 'reds' as I've noted before in Bangkok are not the oppressed poor, but, the proximate oppressors, such as small companies owners with a side line in money lending, as an example. The present government has led a push against such illegal activities and oddly no one here seems to have noticed or made, heaven forfend the connexion.

This is nothing what so ever to do with the WSJ fantasy [care of Lord Timbo of Bell I suspect] of any grass roots movement, this is pure and simple Astro-turf.

A note here, I do appreciate that some here will be uncomfortable with the use of the above term grass roots and I'm using it for convenience, please accept any apologies for any inadvertent offence.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited April 9, 2010 by A_Traveller

[rogerdee123]

Shame the author of the WSJ article hasn't got the faintest understanding of Thailand and all the undercurrents. True democracy is a long way into future. As someone else noted, education in the rural areas needs to be radically improved so that those hard working people really understand what democracy can do for them, and how to avoid corruption.

Yes, Bangkok people know all about corruption and how it helps them, which is why many real Bangkokians wear Yellow and support the Democrats and Yellow and PAD.

They want corruption, just for them.

They do not want the spoils dished around the countryside into those nasty rural area's.

Shame most Yellow shirts have an understanding of how Thailand works but try to pretend it does not work like that in order to protect their "way of life".

What a bigot. My comment was aimed at suggesting the rural poor get the same chances as Bangkokians. No all Bangkokians are elitists or yellow shirts just because they live in the city. Plenty of city people have problems and many are not financially well off. Like anywhere, its a tiny minority like Taksin that have the money.

Don't allow the trolls here wind you up pauln

[bacchanal]

At least the opinion piece author got this part right, even if it was for the wrong reason.

Now the red shirts see making trouble as their only solution.

Edited April 9, 2010 by bacchanal

[anotherpeter]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

Why "tough luck" ? They won ! This is not an absolute majority voting system , but a plurality system.

Remember -- or perhaps you weren't here:

Constituency Voting -- PPP 36.6% --- Dem 30.3%

Proportional Voting --- PPP 39.6% --- Dem 39.6%

The people spoke, but they do not accept that the PPP was subsequenly disbanded -- understandable!

Which "system" are we talking about?

The Thai electoral system is plurality to elect the MP (I believe) but majority to form government.

So the PPP did not have the majority of MPs at the last election. They needed a coalition with smaller parties to form government.

And after the PPP was disbanded, most of the MPs that the people voted for did not get banned.

The ex-PPP (not banned) moved to the PTP. By-elections were held for the banned MPs. The PTP could have still formed a coalition government after the PPP was banned, but they no longer had the support of the smaller parties.

So, bottom line, the people spoke and they have their representation. Not enough people spoke in the reds favour, so they currently don't have the majority of MPs supporting them. That comes back to "tough luck". Try again at the next election.

[animatic]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

They won more seats in Parliament because of the jiggered triple voting system,

they didn't win more voters, and they didn't win a majority...

INSIDEOUS... ooo ooo nice word you are soooo cool!

Not as much fun as accusing of spin and not being 'nice' though.

[anotherpeter]

Shame the author of the WSJ article hasn't got the faintest understanding of Thailand and all the undercurrents. True democracy is a long way into future. As someone else noted, education in the rural areas needs to be radically improved so that those hard working people really understand what democracy can do for them, and how to avoid corruption.

Yes, Bangkok people know all about corruption and how it helps them, which is why many real Bangkokians wear Yellow and support the Democrats and Yellow and PAD.

They want corruption, just for them.

They do not want the spoils dished around the countryside into those nasty rural area's.

Shame most Yellow shirts have an understanding of how Thailand works but try to pretend it does not work like that in order to protect their "way of life".

You should do a little investigation of the corruption in the reds own backyards ... the middlemen and the rich business owners in the towns.

[isanbirder]

Yes, they have a voice, but they do deserve better infrastructure. A defense against corrupt middlemen in the rice trade, better education, and health care. These aren't the focus of what's going on now, if they were, the red shirts would have more support domestically and internationally.

Even Thaksin was smart enough to see that the poor farmers of the North East wouldn't understand heady ideals like democracy or a socialist movement, I believe he is the one who coined the phrase "democracy you can eat". This is the main importance for the farmers, they want to live their lives, have enough to eat, and party once in a while. Looking at it externally, it is in their best interests to improve their education as well so that they can make up their own minds about what is going on around them, rather than have it hammered into their minds by yelling heads on a stage, day after day. Sadly, many of them don't see the added importance of this. I agree that this has at least woken up the elites to the fact that something has to be done for the rural poor. But I think the current governemnt is more likely to make lasting progress on this than any Thaksin-backed one.

Good post.

I live in Isan (hence my forum name) among the people who in general support the Reds. And no, I didn't forget Florida; I didn't want to shame Americans too much. I am British, brought up to be proud of it, and thoroughly ashamed at the way the politicians in my own country behave. But this is irrelevant; we're talking about Thailand. I don't want to "take votes away" from anybody; I just don't believe democracy is always the best form of Government... and before anyone asks me, no, I can't offer a better.

[khunjamespittman]

When is the next election scheduled, why can't the Reds just wait and vote at the next election? Is the current party in power so bad? The economy here in Thailand was doing very well and now with these protests and bad public relations, tourism is down and the economy is suffering even more. Why can't the Reds understand this is hurting everyone in Thailand and solve this peacefully? Or, is this all about Thaksin loosing face muk muk, that he wants revenge by destroying Thailand's economy? It's good that Thaksin helped the rural people with medial benefits, but should Red followers be brain washed by their leaders to help destroy Thailand's economy in the name of democracy, is "democracy" really the Red leaders motivation? I don't think so...

The next election is almost 2 years away. In a Parlimentary government the governmest is supposed to schedule an election when there is no confidence in the sitting government. The opposition feel they were dis-enfranchised when the were not allowed to have an election (which is the norm for Parlimentary governments) before the Abhisit government was installed.

All of the red herring (must be a shortage by now), economy, retiring General, need to change the constitution, Thaksin should have no bearing on correcting the mistake of not allowing ALL Thais have a voice in choosing the government that represents them.

It appears that cracks are beginning to form in the government, the military, and the police similar to what happened in the Philipines when the Marco's were removed by the military. It appears that the end is approaching and as in the case of the Philipines it appears that the governments escalating crackdown on freedom of speech and movement is leading to the dis-enfranchised people of Thailand finally getting an equal voice in who represents them.

[tigermonkey]

Most of us who post here are born and raised in other countries, and other political cultures. To say that we do not understand Thai politics is an understatement indeed.

We judge every action of every Thai by our own experience, and our own experience is truly irrelevent.

If any of you would like a good primer on the 'what and why' of Thai politics, try reading an excellent treatise by a member of the Royal Thai Institute -- yes probably elitist and yellow, but the truth will set you free.

Read it more than once ! --and use your brain while reading, please.

WARNING -- the contents of this article could be damaging to your prejudices.

http://www.royin.go.th/th/knowledge/detail.php?ID=1606

[anotherpeter]

The reds have a voice. It got 35% of the vote in the last election. Tough luck, they should accept it.

I am sorry, I cannot let you post the false implication the that they did not win. If you are from Thailand you should know that they won a plurality of the votes which wins the election. I wish this kind insidious false insinuation were not part of this dialogue.

They should have the right to be celebrating with their duly elected, by the will of the poeple with their votes, government. Instead they are being called all kinds of names by the likes of nameless people like you.

Shame!

Can someone else confirm for me please regarding the voting system in Thailand?

My understanding of the plurality system is the one with the most votes wins. If that is the case, what is the need for coalitions?

Everything I read is that to form government in Thailand, you need a majority of the MPs. Is that correct?

If so, to "win" an election, you need to have the majority of MPs. The PPP may have got the most votes and may have got the most MPs, but that doesn't make them the winners. They were able to form government with the help of some smaller party MPs.