Abhisit's Dilemma: Pacify Your Foes, Offend Your Friends

[BSJ]

The problem with political solutions is the solution doesn't always help the ordinary people....as those in this case who are on the lowest rungs of society.

The 5 point plan...or road map is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. A year or 2 from now it will all be forgotten and the lowly will still be right were they are now. Sad really.

[quiksilva]

As is the case with every nation on earth..

[noahvail]

I must agree with Quicksilva, the PM has picked a thoughtful and honourable solution.

It may be that a win-win situation is not what either side has in mind. I'm not privy to my Uncle Mark's thinking, but if the PM should not offer a settlement, but instead try to physically crush the remains of the rebellion, then he runs the risk of having the red shirts who remain in the provinces join together in Chapter IV of the Rebellion: The Return of the Red Shirts. I reckon the PM is astute enough to realize that, and thought it through well enough to ensure that prevention of another rebellion is much preferable to dealing with yet another open rebeillion.

So while on the face of it, it seems the reds have won concessions, and the government has won back the ground, it is not a win-win. It's just one more step in the continuing confrontations.

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

I can see where I wasn't clear enough. By honourable, I was concerned with the red shirts losing face and refusing the offer out-of-hand. I was not trying to portray the PM's words as honourable to himself, though I believe he is an honourable man (as much as any career politician can be).

Sometimes the law is to be considered a framework for justice, not just justice unto itself. Sometimes there is a higher calling. If it is expedient to offer a compromise that is not *strictly* in accordance with the law, but that allows many lives to be saved and for a country to be healed....well, there are many precedents to that, aren't there.

I did not say anything about breaking up the red shirts as a group; in fact, I look forward to their return not as anyone's paid lackey or proto-violent group, but as a voice of understanding peoples' needs and being able to put forward those needs in a way that is within the law. People change and grow, groups change and grow; that is the nature of people and groups.

The second part of that sentence of yours, "while breaking the law" - ok, let's take a look.I do not know what specific points of law you consider are being broken; it seems to me that there is a plan in place to bring the full force of the law down onto those who broke laws of inciting violence, murder, sedition, treason, a host of "major" laws if you will. Not charging people who refused to disperse under the SOE act is something that would come under a "minor" law and is expedient for the government not to pursue - they do not have the facilities to jail that many people, nor would they have the desire imo to send thousands of people back home saying how they were forced by the government to do jail time for peacefully protesting. That's not the best way to build bridges.

Moving along - you don't address civil disobedience. The iconic one is still Ghandi. He incited his followers - and eventually quite a lot of the nations - to make peaceful protests, to deliberately break the law so that the law could be challenged in court. Remember, Ghandi was a bloody good lawyer before returning to India. I hope that no one on this forum would say that he should have been locked up for life or shot for that sort of peaceful confrontation (although some did try). Mind you, there are those who say and perhaps rightfully so that he pushed the colonial soldiers into attacking his followers. There's nothing like a good martyr for the cause.

Was it expedient for the colonial British government in India to drop the charges or find him not guilty? They discovered that when they fined him one shilling he refused to pay the find and demanded they send him to jail - within his rights. What was the expedient route?

But I digress. History is full of such practitioners of civil disobedience.

But if the yellow shirt representatives are saying you cannot have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process....I would question first their knowledge of history, and second their critical thinking. What was the total arrest number in the airport takeover? Because I really don't know. What will be the total arrest number in the red shirt rebellion? I don't know that either. But I can guarantee that we can find laws that were broken in a spirit of reconciliation with the PAD/yellow shirts. I find their statement to be either posturing or naive.

So round two starts... and round one isn't even over yet.

Like you, I'm neutral. I used to say my favourite colour was plaid - but now somebody has taken 'multi-colour' shirts, so I can't even say that any more. Maybe paisley?

[Redsunset]

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

How is Abhisit compromising on the law?

He has decided to call early elections. He has stated many times that he isn't giving amnesty to anyone involved in violence.

How is he compromising the law? Are you serious??!!! There is a State of Emergency... every dam_n protester sitting gathered in Ratchaprasong has broken the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[noahvail]

TAN Network: INN: Red shirts postpone decision on road map; say PM should "clear the air" with PAD first

Ok, so maybe this is why I was asking for a "drop-dead" date - the date after which, if the red shirt leadership to not go along with the road map, would call all bets off. Someone mentioned that it was to be this Friday, but I didn't see it. But if so, then there's one day to do, then the process of dissolution and snap election gets pushed back, we don't know by how much.

We now return you to our previously scheduled programming.

[whybother]

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

How is Abhisit compromising on the law?

He has decided to call early elections. He has stated many times that he isn't giving amnesty to anyone involved in violence.

How is he compromising the law? Are you serious??!!! There is a State of Emergency... every dam_n protester sitting gathered in Ratchaprasong has broken the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and it would be really useful to put 20-50,000 people in jail, wouldn't it.

[Old Man River]

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

How is Abhisit compromising on the law?

He has decided to call early elections. He has stated many times that he isn't giving amnesty to anyone involved in violence.

How is he compromising the law? Are you serious??!!! There is a State of Emergency... every dam_n protester sitting gathered in Ratchaprasong has broken the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and it would be really useful to put 20-50,000 people in jail, wouldn't it.

They haven't had as much as 10 thousand in Redtown in a long, long time.

[Old Man River]

Abhisit has it right. When you have multiple groups, each with their own agenda, if you get it right you won't please any of them. If any are pleased, then it isn't fair to all.

[way2muchcoffee]

In addition we could debate how much protesting would fall under freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I'd say that the original rally at Phan Fa bridge would very much fall under that, as the level of disruption caused was arguably reasonable. We all know what happened: A violent crackdown and loss of life followed, prompting a relocation to the Ratchaprasong area, where a continued violent crackdown proved harder, but where levels of disruption were far greater. Courts will likely have their say on those topics, as they will on the Airport occupation.

That's not true at all. The reds were encamped at Ratchaprasong well before the crackdown at Phan Fa. The authorities didn't want to take the risk of dispersing the violent protesters at Ratchaprasong, but containing two sites was logistically very difficult. So they tried dispersal at what was believed to be an 'easier' site. We all know what followed. The army moved in for what should have been a simple dispersal operation. Instead the army was ambushed by grenades, had their leaders assassinated, and reacted when fired on with live bullets and grenades. Loss of life was inevitable, due to the extremist faction of the red shirts.

Edited May 6, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[ozzieman05]

And if the red shirts had not broken Thai laws with Mob rules then also no one would have died

..and then nothing would ever change. I think significant progress has been made, not least of which that there's a bigger group of people who have moved beyond Thaksin and is looking at issues that have been ignored for far too long, relating to democracy and the constitution, equal rights, elimination of the political role of the army, the plight of political prisoners and freedom of speech issues.

Winnie you will get no argument from me, a lot has been achieved as far as the poorer north, but that has nothing to do with the fact that all the problems started when the Rd shirt broke the law and set up shop in the main business centre

Civil disobedience is one thing, but helping to destroy every other persons right to go about there every day life is not DEMOCRACY, it is Mob rule

Now Mob Rule has been seen as the way to get your way

How long before we hear

Double Standards it was okay for the Red shirts

A dangerous standard has now been set and the Red shirts are responsible for the next mob who also want to do the same

Farangs marrying Issan girls have done more for the education of Issan Thais than 60 days of mob rule

I know I married one and have seen the results

[ozzieman05]

And if the red shirts had not broken Thai laws with Mob rules then also no one would have died

..and then nothing would ever change. I think significant progress has been made, not least of which that there's a bigger group of people who have moved beyond Thaksin as is looking at issues that have been left alone for far too long, relating to democracy, elimination of the political role of the army, the plight of political prisoners and freedom of speech issues.

The new rules are being set for "gatherings". As long as they are enforced, we should not get the same problems that are happening now.

All future governments (and police) should use this as an example, and to nip in the bud any future out of control mobs.

But I am sure the PAD will start with "But the reds ...".

Double Standards Yep

[ozzieman05]

Additionally... I do not like the OPAQUENESS of these negotiations.... I see the end results, but the public has been kept in the dark.... we are clueless about the motivations of vested parties and therefore, we, the people, are left guessing and fighting about why people propose certain solutions, and with what REAL intentions... just a bunch of nonsense, really.

We need more transparency!

I think they call this DEMOCRACY

[ozzieman05]

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

How is Abhisit compromising on the law?

He has decided to call early elections. He has stated many times that he isn't giving amnesty to anyone involved in violence.

How is he compromising the law? Are you serious??!!! There is a State of Emergency... every dam_n protester sitting gathered in Ratchaprasong has broken the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trouble is it would cost more to get the police to issue 100 baht fines than they would make

Solution leave it up to the Police if the protestors should be fined

They have a great record for handing out instant justice

[Redsunset]

It's not that honourable, as you put it. Read the Yellow shirt's response. I do not blame them for being upset. Abhisit has chosen the EXPEDIENT solution, not the more effective.... he is trying to compromise on THE LAW.... okay, if you think compromise and breaking up this red shirt party is while breaking the law is okay, then you have a point... I for one, agree with Chuan Leek Pai and the Yellow Shirt's reaction.... you can't have a reasonable compromise if you break the law in the process.

How is Abhisit compromising on the law?

He has decided to call early elections. He has stated many times that he isn't giving amnesty to anyone involved in violence.

How is he compromising the law? Are you serious??!!! There is a State of Emergency... every dam_n protester sitting gathered in Ratchaprasong has broken the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, and it would be really useful to put 20-50,000 people in jail, wouldn't it.

So I guess, according to your logic, as long as there is a large enough number of people you can break the law whenever you want because it is not practical to put everyone in prison? I guess no one will punish you and you can compromise the law in these circumstances... See anything just VAGUELY WRONG with your logic?

The practical solution is to capture the leaders and throw them into jail, which is supposedly what they have been trying so poorly to do. There are always the most violent protesters who will go to jail. Of course you can't throw 50,000 people in prison... but severe the head, and the body will be weakened enough to quit.

But to allow a mob to compromise the law because you can't let them all go to jail completely defeats the purpose of the State of Emergency.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Redsunset

[Redsunset]

Additionally... I do not like the OPAQUENESS of these negotiations.... I see the end results, but the public has been kept in the dark.... we are clueless about the motivations of vested parties and therefore, we, the people, are left guessing and fighting about why people propose certain solutions, and with what REAL intentions... just a bunch of nonsense, really.

We need more transparency!

I think they call this DEMOCRACY

Seems the players in the crisis have lost their way and have forgotten what democracy means....

[ronwparker]

As usual Taksin is trying to say he invented everything

Thaksin said on his Twitter page that he will never give up on the fight for justice.

"If we cannot find justice in the country, we will need to use an international stage to fight for justice," he said.

He also said that he has long campaigned for reconciliation, and insisted that he still hopes to see unity in the country.

"But the more I demand [for reconciliation], the more I become a target," he said.

How can you demand reconciliation?

Was aying the Reds to create as much chaos in BKK as possible looking for Unity-was accusing the PM of being like Hitler seeking Unity and reconciliation?

Oh I think I heard the 'D' word before!Maybe a few Red leaders are use it a lot?

[ozzieman05]

Yes, and it would be really useful to put 20-50,000 people in jail, wouldn't it.

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

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

So I guess, according to your logic, as long as there is a large enough number of people you can break the law whenever you want because it is not practical to put everyone in prison? I guess no one will punish you and you can compromise the law in these circumstances... See anything just VAGUELY WRONG with your logic?

The practical solution is to capture the leaders and throw them into jail, which is supposedly what they have been trying so poorly to do. There are always the most violent protesters who will go to jail. Of course you can't throw 50,000 people in prison... but severe the head, and the body will be weakened enough to quit.

But to allow a mob to compromise the law because you can't let them all go to jail completely defeats the purpose of the State of Emergency.

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

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

Agreed

But there is more than 1 way to skin a cat

Send in the Police with arrest warrants for the leaders any of the hard core that interfer with the Police should be arrested on the sport and carted away

The next problem is with The Thai court system, and one with a bit of money is out 5 mins after being arrested

Under the law they are able to detain for a period of time before charges need to be laid, and the court system should not allow people arrested out so quickly

The solution i enforce the law, and the courts back up the law

do this a few times and Thai's will soon toe the line

[ozzieman05]

Question off topic

Some times when I try to answer a posting it says I am using to many quotes

I have tried deleating one of the posts but it still will not work

ids there a method in how to change the header so i use less posting space, when replying to a long drawn out writing

[Redsunset]

Question off topic

Some times when I try to answer a posting it says I am using to many quotes

I have tried deleating one of the posts but it still will not work

ids there a method in how to change the header so i use less posting space, when replying to a long drawn out writing

Normally I delete a couple of earlier posts and usually that works.

[whybother]

Yes, and it would be really useful to put 20-50,000 people in jail, wouldn't it.

So I guess, according to your logic, as long as there is a large enough number of people you can break the law whenever you want because it is not practical to put everyone in prison? I guess no one will punish you and you can compromise the law in these circumstances... See anything just VAGUELY WRONG with your logic?

The practical solution is to capture the leaders and throw them into jail, which is supposedly what they have been trying so poorly to do. There are always the most violent protesters who will go to jail. Of course you can't throw 50,000 people in prison... but severe the head, and the body will be weakened enough to quit.

But to allow a mob to compromise the law because you can't let them all go to jail completely defeats the purpose of the State of Emergency.

No.

Charge the leaders. Make an example of them.

Charge the serious law breakers - the violent ones. Put them in jail for a long time.

We are talking about moving forward. About compromise. You can't do that if you try and put every person that is still there in jail.

Set a precedent that the leaders and violent protestors will be charged. That makes it clear for the next protest.

It's not a perfect result, but TIT.

One step at a time.