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

[Samuian]

We might very well be the witnesses of the undoing of a grown society!

I don't dare to dream up where this is going to end in the near future... if so.

It comes back to the same, same answer....

one man's ego and hurt feelings are the driving force behind all this.

and he won't stop at nothing until he got it his way!

Edited May 6, 2010 by Samuian

[Redsunset]

Abhisit is a "gentleman" not a statesman... A statesman has courage enough to make the RIGHT decision, no matter how tough. The right decision is to disperse the protesters and capture the leaders and preserve the "rule of law.".... how? Heck I don't know.... but maybe they should start by cordoning off the area and preventing supplies and people from moving in and out of the red shirt zone.

So in your opinion he was wrong not to use more violence against the red shirts ?

Are you a yellow ?

By the way the yellows just asked for the PM resignation

Pornsasi....why do you jump to the conclusion that I condone violence? I merely said he should disperse the protesters. I even suggested to "starve them out" not crackdown violently on them, as you suggest. For the record, I am AGAINST VIOLENCE in general, but given that the leaders appear to have broken virtually every law in the State of Emergency, and thumbed their noses at respect for others, I do believe a more FIRM approach is needed, as I suggested... but as I also suggested, I do not know the answer... all I know is that the "firm" approach that has been taken so far is about as firm as an old soft mattress!

I am NOT a yellow.... I do not support any color... I am independent.

[Redsunset]

I agree with Chuan Leek Pai... Abhisit compromised "rule of law."

His five conditions are ambiguous and nonsense. Of course most would agree to these "motherhood and apple pie" statements... that is like saying "education needs to be available for everyone." Most would agree with this comment. But how you go about achieving it, who get the benefits, and who pays for it is the problem.

Also, no way the leaders will agree to NOT have amnesty... NO WAY. They will parlay the "hey the yellow shirts did it and got off scot free!" card.

Forget it... a guy like Nattawut go to jail without a fight... NO F'ing WAY!!!!!!

Deal the way it is written is a NO GO.

Umm, they already agreed to NOT have amnesty.. Something tells me you're not reading UDD announcements?

And damned right Nattawut won't go to jail without a fight.. in court. Someone somewhere will have to come up with something better than a blanket allegation of 'inciting terrorism and underminging the monarchy', though.

lols! There are so many "reports" and newspaper articles and updates on blogs, that by the time people post stuff on here, it is outdated! Now I hear the red shirts have condemned the peace proposal and what Abhisit to resign immediately!!!! Maybe it is best if at night the red shirts slipped out and the yellow shirts slipped in... just change places at Ratchaprasong!

LOL.. Ok, that made me smile. Would save them from having to take down the barricades and clean up the mess.. they can just leave them in place.

To be honest, judging from PAD's language, they're not too far away either!! Did you see the below article?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...D-30128683.html

Why, they sound almost as rabid as some forum members! (not you, of course.)

Whew! Yes, you are right.... and with Chamlong at the helm, ANYTHING can happen... Chamlong was one of the leaders in the student riots in 1991.... this whole thing is getting way out of hand.... even if the reds disperse, it is not over yet.... from that article, we are in for some more colored street protesting! Might as well turn Rathaprasong into a "walking street!" (j/k)

[jcbangkok]

Interesting PAD is now coming out with irrational and hateful rhetoric. Maybe the best idea is to set up a couple square kilometers out in the country and bus both the extreme reds and pad members there to work out differences on their own. No cameras or reporters, just them and we can find out the results when one of the sides emerges and claims victory. Then hopefully elections will move forward and this winner will be largely ignored at the polls.

edit: typo

Edited May 6, 2010 by jcbangkok

[pornsasi]

Pornsasi....why do you jump to the conclusion that I condone violence? I merely said he should disperse the protesters. I even suggested to "starve them out" not crackdown violently on them, as you suggest. For the record, I am AGAINST VIOLENCE in general, but given that the leaders appear to have broken virtually every law in the State of Emergency, and thumbed their noses at respect for others, I do believe a more FIRM approach is needed, as I suggested... but as I also suggested, I do not know the answer... all I know is that the "firm" approach that has been taken so far is about as firm as an old soft mattress!

I am NOT a yellow.... I do not support any color... I am independent.

Alright sorry . Just bit tired to see ppl calling for agression in here when it looks as things

coming nicely under control , hopefully .

[pornsasi]

Interesting PAD is now coming out with irrational and hateful rhetoric. Maybe the best idea is to set up a couple square kilometers out in the country and bus both the extreme reds and pad members there to work out differences on their own. No cameras or reporters, just them and we can find out the results when one of the sides emerges and claims victory. Then hopefully elections will move forward and this winner will be largely ignored at the pools.

[ozzieman05]

Abhisit did what very few other politicians would have done, he shortened his term for the good of the country, he certainly didnt have to but he is good enough to know that the best compromise is the one that doesnt involve a risk on innocent lives.

The PM must be remembered as true Statesman

Agreed he did this by putting the country before his own gain

All otf those who have bad mouthed him in the past, pleas bow your heads in shame

[jcbangkok]

I too was for a crack down previously and still am if what is left of the mob after the holiday is almost all made up of people bent on chaos and violent confrontation.

I think the PM has done a great job in showing restraint, once he found out the mob was well armed. He asked everyone to be patient while they worked to get rid of the "innocent" people in the mob. Clearly the road blocks and his road map/election plan will do this.

Being from a western society, we expect the law to be upheld and even condone the loss of innocent lives sometimes in doing this .. be it police auto chases for minor offences or hostage takers.

However, western society we don't have governments so easily willing and able to do the things this one has such as helping to compensate the 60k+ workers effected by this mess as well as the business owners. The reds are armed and have sworn to fight to the death. Does anybody really believe that if the forces moved in, at a point where they could not quickly take over the situation, that they would not burn down those malls and hotels since they have also threatened to burn down all of BKK if a red is injured? At the very minimum they would smash the windows of these malls and take cover in there while targeting authorities. In other words, the conflict would actually be fought in the malls. Forget about the fact this might lead to wide scale looting in much of BKK. So, just one of the choices is dealing with not having malls for a month or two or for a year or two.

Yes, the rule of law should be enforced to discourage future lawless mobs from believing they will get anything from taking such actions.

And, it is not logical to say you believe authorities should enforce the law in this case without advocating you are okay with the bloodshed that will follow. This is not an illegal western protests where folks are going to passively sit while authorities arrest them and we ALL know this.

Edit: I'm not any color but VERY against this red mob and giving any rewards for their illegal actions but I think the PM has got a better handle on this then I would have because I would have taken the western approach of enforcing the law at any cost. Then again, who knows if by not cracking down the result will simply be the next losing group will also take to the streets knowing they got nothing to lose.

Edited May 6, 2010 by jcbangkok

[ozzieman05]

And where is the confirmation, in writing or on video, that 14 November is a fact - it is the actual date of the election?

Haven't seen any proof yet. Just speculation.

@321niti123: Don't praise the man - if he'd had enough sense before Songkran there would not have been such a drastic loss of life in April.

He is a fool with nowhere to run.

You are implying the direct loss of life in April is caused by him; I dont see you are making any sense; trace back all the discussion in the past three weeks before you make such a claim. It is shameful that you are still criticizing Abhisit, one that has been seeking for the best outcome out of the chaos; ask yourself again was it a fair statement that you made.

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

[ozzieman05]

Interesting PAD is now coming out with irrational and hateful rhetoric. Maybe the best idea is to set up a couple square kilometers out in the country and bus both the extreme reds and pad members there to work out differences on their own. No cameras or reporters, just them and we can find out the results when one of the sides emerges and claims victory. Then hopefully elections will move forward and this winner will be largely ignored at the polls.

edit: typo

What a great idea

[WinnieTheKhwai]

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.

Edited May 6, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[whybother]

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 ...".

Edited May 6, 2010 by whybother

[jcbangkok]

THE NATION: Recap: PAD condemns Abhisit, Time calls him statesman, Reds don't trust him, and Army, never eager to take action, now wants to move in.

[lannarebirth]

Time calls Abhisit a Statesman. I've been saying that for months. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1987118,00.html

Yes, and it is heartening that the western press FINALLY got it right and realized the reds were violent insurgents rather than peace and freedom loving democracy fighters such as in Burma. What took them so long? The coverage for so long was totally biased in favor of the insurgents.

But as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency.

That's what Thaksin hires those high ends PR firms for. He's had the Economist in his pocket for years now. I guess the new firm's job is get Time "on message". It's the best corporate, free press money can buy.

[noahvail]

The middle road is the hardest road to follow...

I don't think he is a fool in any way shape or form. This is the smartest way out, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and has compromised not only the government's stance but also his career to seek a resolution out of this mess.

Actually I disagree.... the middle road in a political strife like this is not the same as bargaining at Chatuchak market. There ARE winners and losers... frankly, the reds should be the losers. They are the ones who BROKE THE LAW.... so what in God's name are we seeking "win-win" for?

If they had done this in a NON VIOLENT disruptive manner, then fine; negotiate. But they chose to BREAK THE EMERGENCY DECREE... if we provide a win win solution, then WHAT GOOD ARE OUR LAWS???!!!

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.

[rixalex]

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. <snipped>

Breaking the law is ok if it brings about change? And here was me thinking you completely opposed the yellow's protest at the airport. I must be thinking of another WinnieTheKwai.

[lannarebirth]

The middle road is the hardest road to follow...

I don't think he is a fool in any way shape or form. This is the smartest way out, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and has compromised not only the government's stance but also his career to seek a resolution out of this mess.

Actually I disagree.... the middle road in a political strife like this is not the same as bargaining at Chatuchak market. There ARE winners and losers... frankly, the reds should be the losers. They are the ones who BROKE THE LAW.... so what in God's name are we seeking "win-win" for?

If they had done this in a NON VIOLENT disruptive manner, then fine; negotiate. But they chose to BREAK THE EMERGENCY DECREE... if we provide a win win solution, then WHAT GOOD ARE OUR LAWS???!!!

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.

Actually Abhisit didn't need to compromise his government's stance in any way. The Reds chose to imbue Abhisit's government with the "Amartya, elite" label but it isn't so. So it will be easy for Abhisit to offer up those perquisites, because they're not his.. The compromises Abhisit will be extracting will be from both sides (chiefly Yellow) to pull them into his long held agenda. Hopefully he can get them to the table with them staking out extreme positions with him beingmoderator/mediator to bring on his course heading. It's an elegant sting operation writ large.

Edited May 6, 2010 by lannarebirth

[WinnieTheKhwai]

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. <snipped>

Breaking the law is ok if it brings about change? And here was me thinking you completely opposed the yellow's protest at the airport. I must be thinking of another WinnieTheKwai.

You need to ask...? I could spend the rest of the day giving examples where civil disobedience, which in most cases was dubbed 'breaking the law' or indeed 'terrorism' brought about positive change. Perhaps you'll even agree that Thai Democracy is very much a work in progress, and that it can be much better than it is now? When it comes to PAD, I disagree with several of their viewpoints yes. (Reminder: they're the guys in favor of 'managed' democracy, EXPANDING l.m. laws and the abolishment of the one-man-one-vote system by making rural votes count for less. I disagree with those things.)

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.

Edited May 6, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[noahvail]

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, I have to agree that significant progress has been made viz a viz raising the consciousness of the Thai people.

I only despair that it came at the loss of so many lives. I have seen peaceful protests that have changed a whole country, without deaths. Would that the red shirt leaders had only decided beforehand not to use weapons or violent means to achieve their goals. Provocation would not have been necessary to achieve those goals. Strength of spirit (and it takes more strength to peacefully protest than to stir up a mob toward violence) can and will attain goals faster.

Sadly, the red shirt movement has shown its dark side to gatherings. Who can trust them now if they say "we are peaceful" when they have said the same thing while brandishing weapons of war in full view of the public? There will have to be many strategy sessions to determine the best way to try to recapture the 'hearts and minds' of not only those whom they are trying to teach and change, but more telling, those whose loyalty they have now lost.

Time Magazine was in your corner - now it is calling Mr Ahbisit a statesman. Which of the red shirt leaders are being called statesmen in the global news media?

The red shirts have won great concessions - but at a terrible cost to the country, which may take generations to recover (imo).

I hope that subsequent rallies - and there will be other rallies - can be conducted in a peaceful sense; not just in words, but in deeds as well.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

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, I have to agree that significant progress has been made viz a viz raising the consciousness of the Thai people.

I only despair that it came at the loss of so many lives. I have seen peaceful protests that have changed a whole country, without deaths. Would that the red shirt leaders had only decided beforehand not to use weapons or violent means to achieve their goals. Provocation would not have been necessary to achieve those goals. Strength of spirit (and it takes more strength to peacefully protest than to stir up a mob toward violence) can and will attain goals faster.

Sadly, the red shirt movement has shown its dark side to gatherings. Who can trust them now if they say "we are peaceful" when they have said the same thing while brandishing weapons of war in full view of the public? There will have to be many strategy sessions to determine the best way to try to recapture the 'hearts and minds' of not only those whom they are trying to teach and change, but more telling, those whose loyalty they have now lost.

Time Magazine was in your corner - now it is calling Mr Ahbisit a statesman. Which of the red shirt leaders are being called statesmen in the global news media?

The red shirts have won great concessions - but at a terrible cost to the country, which may take generations to recover (imo).

I hope that subsequent rallies - and there will be other rallies - can be conducted in a peaceful sense; not just in words, but in deeds as well.

I agree with a lot of that. The wait is for a leader who can take the cause further. I probably don't mention this enough, but I'm not a huge fan of Phua Thai.

[whybother]

You need to ask...? I could spend the rest of the day giving examples where civil disobedience, which in most cases was dubbed 'breaking the law' or indeed 'terrorism' brought about positive change. Perhaps you'll even agree that Thai Democracy is very much a work in progress, and that it can be much better than it is now? When it comes to PAD, I disagree with several of their viewpoints yes. (Reminder: they're the guys in favor of 'managed' democracy, EXPANDING l.m. laws and the abolishment of the one-man-one-vote system by making rural votes count for less. I disagree with those things.)

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.

Winnie, I think your memory is going.

The crackdown occurred AFTER they had done a few mobile rallies and after they moved part of their mob to Ratchaprasong.

[Redsunset]

The middle road is the hardest road to follow...

I don't think he is a fool in any way shape or form. This is the smartest way out, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and has compromised not only the government's stance but also his career to seek a resolution out of this mess.

Actually I disagree.... the middle road in a political strife like this is not the same as bargaining at Chatuchak market. There ARE winners and losers... frankly, the reds should be the losers. They are the ones who BROKE THE LAW.... so what in God's name are we seeking "win-win" for?

If they had done this in a NON VIOLENT disruptive manner, then fine; negotiate. But they chose to BREAK THE EMERGENCY DECREE... if we provide a win win solution, then WHAT GOOD ARE OUR LAWS???!!!

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.

[Redsunset]

I shall predict - although my track record is merely that of 'chance,' - that even if the red shirts agree with the Peace Proposal, that what we will have in the future will be on par or even worse than what we have now.

We are setting dangerous precedents to follow up on the yellow shirt's blunder at Suvarnabhumi, that will allow even more violence and "terrorist" acts to go unpunished... I am quite sure that in the long run, this Peace Proposal will be less effective than upholding the rule of law.

[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!

[rixalex]

Breaking the law is ok if it brings about change? And here was me thinking you completely opposed the yellow's protest at the airport. I must be thinking of another WinnieTheKwai.

You need to ask...? I could spend the rest of the day giving examples where civil disobedience, which in most cases was dubbed 'breaking the law' or indeed 'terrorism' brought about positive change. Perhaps you'll even agree that Thai Democracy is very much a work in progress, and that it can be much better than it is now? When it comes to PAD, I disagree with several of their viewpoints yes. (Reminder: they're the guys in favor of 'managed' democracy, EXPANDING l.m. laws and the abolishment of the one-man-one-vote system by making rural votes count for less. I disagree with those things.)

Trouble here is, who defines what is positive change? You were outspoken in being completely against both the yellow airport protest and the coup, but many would say those illegal acts brought about positive change.

And now you speak out in defence of the red's violence and the deaths that resulted from it, because in your view it will have all been worth it for their cause. Yet many feel their cause is simply fighting on behalf of one corrupt criminal who remains he11 bent on getting money and power back.

I think we need some consistency here. It's daft to be saying that illegal acts are ok if perpetrated by the group you support, but not ok if by the group you oppose - and that is exactly what you seem to be saying.

[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.

[lannarebirth]

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!

The negotiations/dialogue has not even begun yet. No party will be honest about their motivations but you should be able to discern that from their demands.

[rixalex]

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.

Justice is so slow round these parts i don't see why amnesties are needed. That said, i hope Abhisit stays firm in not allowing them.

[Jerrytheyoung]

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!

Objection

Because you have never been involved in such negotiations... negotiators have to make some simulations and some proposals; some people cannot understand that you leave the official line for exploring some solutions. The advisors have underlined than the previous negotiations can only fail because it was a TV show. In a negotiation you loose some parts, you win some parts. If the result is balanced it is a winning situation.

The results have to be proposed to everybody in the transparency, and I suppose it will be done with comments by both parties.

The yellow shirts have to realise that a negociation is a compromise: Unity and Peace are at stake and are invaluable.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[quiksilva]

I think expediency is what most people wanted isn't it? So good on him for taking the expedient solution, even if that means making allowances for some of their grievances. After all what is the alternative? The public's patience is wearing thin.

Yes, the Gov could have rolled in with armoured cars but I also believe that most reasonable people did not want to see more blood on the streets, no matter how well justified under the eyes of the law, if for only one reason: there are children there.

(whose parents should be condemned for bringing them along (esp as rainy season begins and school is about to reopen), and then again so should every parent who puts a baby on a motorcycle!)