Lobbying war heats up

By Tulsathit Taptim

The Nation

Thaksin may need to admit he backed reds financially, to win on global stage

BANGKOK: -- As the Abhisit government yesterday was anxiously expecting a US congressional resolution on the political trouble in Thailand, The Wall Street Journal might have dropped some hints on how Thaksin Shinawatra is shaping his international strategy.

Describing the fugitive as the first among a new generation of wealthy activists fighting to bring about changes for Thailand's poor, the WSJ might have inadvertently presented an argument against the Abhisit administration's portrayal of rich supporters of the red shirts as sponsors of terrorism.

In its front-page article on the financial crackdown on Thaksin, his family members, relatives and associates, WSJ said the government dragnet "points to an important driver behind the continuing tensions in Thailand".

"While many of the demonstrators were from Thailand's poorer rural heartland, many of their backers are beleived to hail from a new generation of entrepreneurs and businesses who are challenging Bangkok's old military and bureaucratic chiefs for a greater say in how Thailand is run," the paper said.

That reflects a remarkable modification - if not a shift - from how the red shirts are often seen by sympathisers here and abroad. It used to be a purely grass-root movement fighting for a rich politician because he was the one they chose. Financial help, it was understood, was not huge or significant, let alone coming in a steady stream from a new generation of wealthy reformers.

It would be no surprise if Noppadol Pattama, one of Thaksin's closest aides, was using the adapted argument in Washington, where he had been scheduled to meet influential people including some senators to lobby for Thaksin and the movement. The financial crackdown has been a blow not only to the Thaksin circles but the red shirts themselves, who called their political fight a war by the nation's poor against the elites.

How the red shirts are perceived internationally is important. In fact, Thaksin's slim chances of survival depend almost entirely on that. This means he will have to walk a tightrope. On one hand he can't be seen as hiring poor people to fight for him, but on the other hand he needs to counter the Abhisit administration's all-out attempts to expose financial links between him and the movement.

Red leaders have been found to be richer than average Thais, with millions of baht in their known bank accounts, which authorities doubt are the only places they put their money. And although no clear-cut evidence has been disclosed by the government to back claims that tens of billions of baht might have been spent to sponsor the red campaign, the alleged numbers were staggering and have to be refuted.

The battle lines, shifted from Bangkok's main streets to the international arena, is getting clearer now. The government has tried to portray an infiltrated, or exploited, movement within which some sections have been well oiled financially and thus equipped to effect political upheaval through pre-meditated violence. The other side may choose to drop their staunch denial of systematic funding in favour of well-intended support by wealthy reformers.

Such "admission" of financial backing will keep the story of a romantic political struggle alive. But, perhaps more importantly, if some explosive evidence turns up linking major transactions of the "wealthy ideologists" to the red shirts, it won't sound at least too shocking to the outside world.

But, as the WSJ concluded in its article, the red shirts may have to detach themselves from Thaksin in the end. "Going it alone might cast the movement in a more favourable light," the paper said. Although that more or less undermines the wealthy-reformers-helping-the-poor scenario, the statement may reflect one hard truth: money and poor men's political struggle are a bad mix.

-- The Nation 2010-07-02

Good to see The Nation is on the stick here early on friday, giving their spin to the WSJ story. To have people read the WSJ story without commentary and 'explanations' is far too dangerous .. gasp shock horrow

Ahh its the weekend; Lets Party!

I would be open to the Red's propositions if they dropped Thaksin...and violence...getting the military out of running the country is a good thing...

Is there a link to the actual WSJ article anywhere? i can't seem to find it online.

Is there a link to the actual WSJ article anywhere? i can't seem to find it online.

"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704103904575336573647639754.html?KEYWORDS=important+driver+behind+the+continuing+tensions+in+Thailand"

I wonder how many of the Governments in the world are "army backed"? It would seem to me that if any Government does not have the backing of the army they have no real authority and are doomed. The WSJ probably has to concede that the US Government is also army backed.

But I think this government is more like "controlled" by the army as opposed to just "backed" by it. IMHO, the US army (like many around the world) are controlled by the government and do what they are told...well, mostly. 3rd world countries, like here, are basically run by the military. Sad. No wonder there are so many rich generals. And here, a career in the military is highly sought after. Unlike the US, where most try to avoid it.

I would be open to the Red's propositions if they dropped Thaksin...and violence...getting the military out of running the country is a good thing...

If the reds dropped Thaksin they would lose the only proposition they have made so far, ie/ bringing him back as leader. Where have they actually come out and said what they would do for the poor should they get in charge? Where have they actually come out and said how they would change the ruling order? Where have they actually come out and said that they would clean up the police and military? Where were the protests demanding a revamp of the education system? The crop buying system? A cleanup of the corruption? We saw what they could do when they forced Surayad out of Khao Yai, why didn't they expand on that and expose more corruption, on all sides? Why not monitor what the government is doing, keep them honest, watch over the next elections and continue with the next government? That would be real change. A true pro-democracy movement should be apolitical, not caring about who is in power, only that they got there fairly, and rule with transparency for the good of the country. The reds, however, are only interested in power for themselves. They are the biggest scam in a country renowned for them. Living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and buy the rest off. "Let's have change", "help the poor", "true democracy"? A fraction of the population demanding elections before they are due is not democracy. Murder, looting and arson are not democracy. Self appointed leaders attending talks and making instant decisions, or passing on decisions made by a Montenegrin, without consulting grassroot members, is not democracy. Continued threats and intimidation are not democracy. Nothing they did while in power actually had any lasting effect on the majority of the poor. Nothing they did while in power made any change to the way the country is ultimately run. Nothing they did while in power made a bit of difference to the upcountry power brokers and their hired thugs, indeed, they actually bought out most of these corrupt crooks in order to get in power in the first place. Putting family members and cronies in postions of power in the police and military is not revamping these institutions, it's merely grabbing a firmer hold of the trough. Until the poor can find a voice for themselves, and stop taking short term gain by electing the same corrupt politicians and their proxies who pay for those votes, they will continue to be used by the rich on both sides of the spectrum.

But I think this government is more like "controlled" by the army as opposed to just "backed" by it. IMHO, the US army (like many around the world) are controlled by the government and do what they are told...well, mostly. 3rd world countries, like here, are basically run by the military. Sad. No wonder there are so many rich generals. And here, a career in the military is highly sought after. Unlike the US, where most try to avoid it.

Probably not far of the truth, and it has been this way for long long time, and the country is being divided more and more , may be they should rename Thailand as the un united states of Thailand, consisting or the Southern state, the Northern State and the little piggy state in the middle, with so many snouts in the trough they are blind to what is happening in the rest of the country, or are to busy indexing there bank books or wallowing in their rose petal bath water to give a dam.

But I think this government is more like "controlled" by the army as opposed to just "backed" by it. IMHO, the US army (like many around the world) are controlled by the government and do what they are told...well, mostly. 3rd world countries, like here, are basically run by the military. Sad. No wonder there are so many rich generals. And here, a career in the military is highly sought after. Unlike the US, where most try to avoid it.

Probably not far of the truth, and it has been this way for long long time, and the country is being divided more and more , may be they should rename Thailand as the un united states of Thailand, consisting or the Southern state, the Northern State and the little piggy state in the middle, with so many snouts in the trough they are blind to what is happening in the rest of the country, or are to busy indexing there bank books or wallowing in their rose petal bath water to give a dam.

Lots of the rich and affluent may live in Bangkok but come from up-north or down-south. It's just that Bangkok offers all that's needed for a certain lifestyle especially for well-spoiled brats.

I wonder how many of the Governments in the world are "army backed"? It would seem to me that if any Government does not have the backing of the army they have no real authority and are doomed. The WSJ probably has to concede that the US Government is also army backed.

All of them? haha

But I think this government is more like "controlled" by the army as opposed to just "backed" by it. IMHO, the US army (like many around the world) are controlled by the government and do what they are told...well, mostly. 3rd world countries, like here, are basically run by the military. Sad. No wonder there are so many rich generals. And here, a career in the military is highly sought after. Unlike the US, where most try to avoid it.

What it is,"IMHO"?

It appears even the backers - the drivers behind the problems - need to be identified then sort out the issues from there.

But I think this government is more like "controlled" by the army as opposed to just "backed" by it. IMHO, the US army (like many around the world) are controlled by the government and do what they are told...well, mostly. 3rd world countries, like here, are basically run by the military. Sad. No wonder there are so many rich generals. And here, a career in the military is highly sought after. Unlike the US, where most try to avoid it.

What it is,"IMHO"?

You will see this quite a bit on internet forums...especially from those, like me, who are too lazy to type it all out! Somewhat like LOL....

In My Humble Opinion: IMHO