Warnings Issued: New Thailand Red Shirt Demonstrations Could Turn Violent

[bkkjames]

And here I thought all those march-may insightful posts would have just made their way to the TV recycle bin.

Boy was I wrong.

[hammered]

The happy peasant is a myth.

It is not a myth. All you need to do is speak the language and take yourself off on a trip to a rural village. You will find the people by and large some of the most happy-go-lucky friendly welcoming sorts you could care to meet. They live simple lives and many of them work very hard - and like most people in life they dream of having more. But that desire doesn't consume them and nor does it manifest itself in the form of anger or resentment. The Western way of looking to blame others for ones own troubles and problems does not in my experience exist here to the same degree. People are proud and take responsibility for their own families. They are used to surviving off their own backs without government hand outs and look within their families in times of need.

There are a lot of young to younger middle aged people not so happy with the life from what I have seen. That doesnt make them red supporters and Im not saying the reds are a progressive force for change (I dont think they are as they are well connected to the old forces), however, one way or another things need to change as those thinking the new ways only increase in numbers every day while the old more traditional ones die out. Societal change can be evolutionary or revolutionary.

With the Thai psyche you would expect things to evolve but that is also dependent on the ruling classes whether they be of Dem, PTP or bureaucratic nature to actually allow change. Luckily enough both elements of Dem and PTP and even small bits of the bureaucracy have signalled and made moves to show they understand this. Unfortunateluy though things get a bit complicated when there extremes on all sides fighting to take all when certain other changes occur, and this complicates the development of the country with huge numbers of people potantially backing eqach extreme if things go wrong and that would be a disaster.

[Bakeman]

Thats FUNNY Chantorn! You made my day! LOL

I agree EVERYONE SHOULD LEAVE THAILAND! LOL

To play safe, IMHO, all people are advised to leave Thailand. I am not saying that violence could happens, what what if . . . . There is an English saying. Better safe than sorry.

[rixalex]

There are a lot of young to younger middle aged people not so happy with the life from what I have seen. That doesnt make them red supporters and Im not saying the reds are a progressive force for change (I dont think they are as they are well connected to the old forces), however, one way or another things need to change as those thinking the new ways only increase in numbers every day while the old more traditional ones die out. Societal change can be evolutionary or revolutionary.

With the Thai psyche you would expect things to evolve but that is also dependent on the ruling classes whether they be of Dem, PTP or bureaucratic nature to actually allow change. Luckily enough both elements of Dem and PTP and even small bits of the bureaucracy have signalled and made moves to show they understand this. Unfortunateluy though things get a bit complicated when there extremes on all sides fighting to take all when certain other changes occur, and this complicates the development of the country with huge numbers of people potantially backing eqach extreme if things go wrong and that would be a disaster.

Pretty much every society is in a state of flux and in the process of change. Like earthquakes sometimes there may seem to be little going on on the surface but deeper down pressure is building and there will reach a point when suddenly that pressure gets released.

I don't however think that is what is happening in Thailand at the moment, although there are enough people trying to get us to believe exactly that at the moment that it is possible to find yourself getting swept along with it all.

This political battle will play out whatever way it does and come the end, in 5 or 10 years from now, things will still be going on as they have for so many years.

Change will occur when a real people's movement emerges. I think we are still sadly a long way from that and there will be quite a few more false-dawns before we get there.

[charmonman]

...

Thailand has vast disparities in income between the elites and lower classes. This in itself is a recipe for dissatisfaction and social tension. At the same time Thailand's economy is on the way up and many feel like they are not getting any of the benefits of the growing economy yet they are being slugged by the rapidly increasing cost of living in Thailand.

For some the red shirts represent the only way that they can make a protest and voice their dissatisfaction at the status quo.

It really doesn't matter whether we think the red shirts movement is flawed or doesn't address the real problems of Thailand.

The fact is it gives those that are dissastified an opportunity to protest.

And I sincerely doubt they are going away anytime soon.

You make a valid point but you might want to look at this. https://www.cia.gov/...r/2172rank.html

According to this measure Thailand is no worse and in many case a lot better than many countries in the region and worldwide in terms of income inequality. I despise many of the rich elites of Thailand as much as anyone, but they are really no worse than those of most other countries. Something else is at work in Thailand's case and I think it is the presence of the self-serving demagogues who are the so-called "leaders" of the red shirt movement. To me they seem very similar to the US "tea party" leaders (Sarah Palin and all those other idiots).

That being said, of course the lives of Thailand's poor are unacceptably difficult. However, it makes little sense for them to react by violent protests against a government that seems to be making some genuine efforts to bring in measures that might improve their situation in a lasting and long term way (land tax, improvement of education) rather than the short term gimmicks favoured by their hero and martyr, Thaksin.

[hanuman1]

Here are the "poor" reds heading up to Chiang Mai...in their BMW. And is that a Benz behind? What a bunch of rubbish from these guys. And I bet all their followers are sitting in the back of pickups for the long haul up there....real nice....

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation. That is, of course, if new insights are what you want.

Edited September 20, 2010 by hanuman1

[whybother]

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation.

I don't really understand how someone who hates Thaksin could be a red shirt supporter.

Thaksin has always been a big part of the red shirt movement. The red shirt movement has always supported Thaksin.

Even if you accepted the "It's not all about Thaksin" mantra, it's still very much about Thaksin. One of their key aims is to bring back Thaksin.

If you hate Thaksin, I doubt very much that you would be a red shirt supporter.

[rubl]

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation.

I don't really understand how someone who hates Thaksin could be a red shirt supporter.

Thaksin has always been a big part of the red shirt movement. The red shirt movement has always supported Thaksin.

Even if you accepted the "It's not all about Thaksin" mantra, it's still very much about Thaksin. One of their key aims is to bring back Thaksin.

If you hate Thaksin, I doubt very much that you would be a red shirt supporter.

If Africa in the struggle for 'real' independence groups would embrace either capitalism or communism under the motto 'first we get rid of the oppressors, then we'll see'. Up to a point might make sense, but Mozambique is one of the poorest countries, Angola will recover because it has mineral wealth.

Remember that old tale

"A horse having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of his life. Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Whereupon he approached a man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at the man's disposal. The horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him.

"The horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: 'Now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.'

"Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, 'Never!' and applied the spurs with a will."

[hanuman1]

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation.

I don't really understand how someone who hates Thaksin could be a red shirt supporter.

Thaksin has always been a big part of the red shirt movement. The red shirt movement has always supported Thaksin.

Even if you accepted the "It's not all about Thaksin" mantra, it's still very much about Thaksin. One of their key aims is to bring back Thaksin.

If you hate Thaksin, I doubt very much that you would be a red shirt supporter.

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Edited September 20, 2010 by hanuman1

[whybother]

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Nope ... that doesn't explain it.

What you are saying there is "I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad".

That isn't saying "I hate him, but I'll support the red shirts who want to bring him back".

[hanuman1]

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Nope ... that doesn't explain it.

What you are saying there is "I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad".

That isn't saying "I hate him, but I'll support the red shirts who want to bring him back".

Okay, where getting somewhere. All you need to do now is to apply Thai history and standards to this situation instead of those of whichever relatively developed nation you come from, and you will see that this statement:

"I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad"

is actually not as outrageous in Thailand as it would be elsewhere. The paradigm is: Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

[whybother]

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Nope ... that doesn't explain it.

What you are saying there is "I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad".

That isn't saying "I hate him, but I'll support the red shirts who want to bring him back".

Okay, where getting somewhere. All you need to do now is to apply Thai history and standards to this situation instead of those of whichever relatively developed nation you come from, and you will see that this statement:

"I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad"

is actually not as outrageous in Thailand as it would be elsewhere. The paradigm is: Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

No. That's not the point.

You said you have friends who hate Thaksin but support the red shirts. I don't see how those two ("hate Thaksin" & "support red shirts") can go together.

The fact that the red shirts love Thaksin, even knowing how corrupt he was, is one of the biggest problems for Thailand. Thailand needs to get rid of corruption, not bring back someone who made it an art form.

[hanuman1]

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Nope ... that doesn't explain it.

What you are saying there is "I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad".

That isn't saying "I hate him, but I'll support the red shirts who want to bring him back".

Okay, where getting somewhere. All you need to do now is to apply Thai history and standards to this situation instead of those of whichever relatively developed nation you come from, and you will see that this statement:

"I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad"

is actually not as outrageous in Thailand as it would be elsewhere. The paradigm is: Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

No. That's not the point.

You said you have friends who hate Thaksin but support the red shirts. I don't see how those two ("hate Thaksin" & "support red shirts") can go together.

The fact that the red shirts love Thaksin, even knowing how corrupt he was, is one of the biggest problems for Thailand. Thailand needs to get rid of corruption, not bring back someone who made it an art form.

You aren't accepting the fact that many rural Thais are resigned to accepting that their politicians are corrupt. Can you blame them? You have relatively high ideals which we can all agree with that Thai politics shouldn't be corrupt, but without meaning to insult you, in our lifetime that is just a pipe dream. We are dealing with the reality of people's lives over more years than you or I or any other farang on this forum have been associated with this country.

It just isn't realistic to bring our own personal experiences of western governance as a barometer of this country's political state. This is the source of a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary arguments in this forum.

Edited September 20, 2010 by hanuman1

[whybother]

You aren't accepting the fact that many rural Thais are resigned to accepting that their politicians are corrupt. Can you blame them? You have relatively high ideals which we can all agree with that Thai politics shouldn't be corrupt, but without meaning to insult you, that is just a pipe dream. We are dealing with the reality of people's lives over more years than you or I or any other farang on this forum have been associated with this country.

It just isn't realistic to bring our own personal experiences of western governance as a barometer of this country's political state. This is the source of a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary arguments in this forum.

I'm not accepting of the fact that most Thais, where ever they come from, are accepting of anyone that is corrupt.

There is corruption from the poorest to the richest of Thais. It's one of the main things that is holding Thailand back.

One of the reasons that many in the north and north east are poor, is because of the corrupt local officials and businessmen that siphon off any money that should go to the poor. Either through the ripping off of the farmers by middle men and local businesses, or ripping off the tax payer by taking money that was meant for the locals.

If the rural Thais are accepting that their politicians are corrupt, then they can't really be blaming the "Bangkok Elite" for anything, can they?

[hanuman1]

You aren't accepting the fact that many rural Thais are resigned to accepting that their politicians are corrupt. Can you blame them? You have relatively high ideals which we can all agree with that Thai politics shouldn't be corrupt, but without meaning to insult you, that is just a pipe dream. We are dealing with the reality of people's lives over more years than you or I or any other farang on this forum have been associated with this country.

It just isn't realistic to bring our own personal experiences of western governance as a barometer of this country's political state. This is the source of a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary arguments in this forum.

I'm not accepting of the fact that most Thais, where ever they come from, are accepting of anyone that is corrupt.

There is corruption from the poorest to the richest of Thais. It's one of the main things that is holding Thailand back.

One of the reasons that many in the north and north east are poor, is because of the corrupt local officials and businessmen that siphon off any money that should go to the poor. Either through the ripping off of the farmers by middle men and local businesses, or ripping off the tax payer by taking money that was meant for the locals.

If the rural Thais are accepting that their politicians are corrupt, then they can't really be blaming the "Bangkok Elite" for anything, can they?

If anything beneficial to their lives could ever be traced to the actions of the 'Bangkok Elite' then yes, those members of the 'Bangkok Elite' would be accepted by the poor too even though they may be corrupt.

You know the feeling you get every once in a while when corruption allegations are made against western leaders - 'they're all bent' or 'they're good for nothing' comes out half jokingly every so often. But here it's like that on a daily basis and we need to understand the effect that has on people over a period of decades.

[whybother]

If anything beneficial to their lives could ever be traced to the actions of the 'Bangkok Elite' then yes, those members of the 'Bangkok Elite' would be accepted by the poor too even though they may be corrupt.

You know the feeling you get every once in a while when corruption allegations are made against western leaders - 'they're all bent' or 'they're good for nothing' comes out half jokingly every so often. But here it's like that on a daily basis and we need to understand the effect that has on people over a period of decades.

Maybe there is something coming from the "Bangkok Elite". It just gets swallowed up by the "Upcountry Elite" before it gets to those who need it. And ofcourse there is the general politics of it all, where money coming from one source is made to look like it is coming from somewhere else to make the local politicians look good.

The farmers and poor from the north and north east (and all over Thailand) should be looking a bit closer to home to see why they aren't getting what they should be getting.

[hanuman1]

If anything beneficial to their lives could ever be traced to the actions of the 'Bangkok Elite' then yes, those members of the 'Bangkok Elite' would be accepted by the poor too even though they may be corrupt.

You know the feeling you get every once in a while when corruption allegations are made against western leaders - 'they're all bent' or 'they're good for nothing' comes out half jokingly every so often. But here it's like that on a daily basis and we need to understand the effect that has on people over a period of decades.

Maybe there is something coming from the "Bangkok Elite". It just gets swallowed up by the "Upcountry Elite" before it gets to those who need it. And ofcourse there is the general politics of it all, where money coming from one source is made to look like it is coming from somewhere else to make the local politicians look good.

The farmers and poor from the north and north east (and all over Thailand) should be looking a bit closer to home to see why they aren't getting what they should be getting.

Whether or not there is something coming from the 'Bangkok Elite' depends on what their motivation is for doing what they do. If it is purely making money then we can reasonably infer that corners are cut and money goes missing. Do we know any rich Thai philanthropists? Maybe there are some. In any case the obvious discontent of large numbers of people cannot easily be ignored. Times are changing here, maybe slowly but nevertheless we can see that this kind of discontent is unusual in its high profile and longevity.

Something clearly needs fixing and dismissing the concerns of the many - even if they have little or nothing in common with us - is not just short-sighted and selfish, it actually is detrimental in a society whose prosperity depends upon unity and co-operation.

I'm going to give your last comment a +1 karma thing, or whatever its called, because it's so nice to be able to discuss these things without getting into an argument. Thanks for your time, but I need to bow out and get some kip.

To be continued (no doubt). See ya.

[Buchholz]

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation.

I don't really understand how someone who hates Thaksin could be a red shirt supporter.

Thaksin has always been a big part of the red shirt movement. The red shirt movement has always supported Thaksin.

Even if you accepted the "It's not all about Thaksin" mantra, it's still very much about Thaksin. One of their key aims is to bring back Thaksin.

If you hate Thaksin, I doubt very much that you would be a red shirt supporter.

The contingent of Red Shirts that are being offered up as ones that "hate" Thaksin could be those that "love" Giles. I could believe that as before he went Red Shirt, Giles had no shortage of criticisms for Thaksin.

On his current radical writings he still will proselytize that Thaksin was bad in several ways, but yet just like hanuman's been saying, Thaksin serves as an end to his hopeful goal of having Thailand as a Marxist country. The Reds are a big enough group that it could include Thaksin haters (granted they're going to keep pretty much mum about that until they use him as a vehicle for their own goal). Get Thaksin back and throw the Democrats out... and then their grass-root Communist comrades can then have a big foot in the door as being part of the Reds that got Thaksin in. Thaksin, to a fault, has never denounced this portion of the Red movement as he is willing to take on all who will join, irregardless of their leanings. He thinks he's using them as they think they are using him.

Thing is... does Thailand want to have to deal with a bunch of radical, anti-monarchy Marxists on top of all its other woes?

[David006]

To play safe, IMHO, all people are advised to leave Thailand. I am not saying that violence could happens, what what if . . . . There is an English saying. Better safe than sorry.

What??...like everybody??????

another saying.."practice what you preach"...

Where did everybody go???

[hyperdimension]

"I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad"

is actually not as outrageous in Thailand as it would be elsewhere. The paradigm is: Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

If we go by the (possibly true) notion that most politicians are corrupt, then the question should be asked: who are the best people to lead the country forward, despite their past history of corruption?

Thaksin and Pheu Thai, or Abhisit and the Democrats?

The UDD used propaganda - lies, half-truths, omission of facts - and anything that made Abhisit and Democrats look bad (e.g. Arisman's claim that Abhisit and Prem are sexually intimate), such that many of the UDD supporters are convinced that Abhisit is a monster / tyrant dictator.

The truth is that Abhisit has been implementing policies and plans to help the poor people, but do the poor people ever hear about it? Maybe not if all the news they will ever listen to is UDD radio.

[MikeyIdea]

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

Nope ... that doesn't explain it.

What you are saying there is "I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad".

That isn't saying "I hate him, but I'll support the red shirts who want to bring him back".

Okay, where getting somewhere. All you need to do now is to apply Thai history and standards to this situation instead of those of whichever relatively developed nation you come from, and you will see that this statement:

"I accept that he feathered his own nest, but he helped the poor, so he's not so bad"

is actually not as outrageous in Thailand as it would be elsewhere. The paradigm is: Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

You two have an interesting discussion that I enjoy reading, thanks

One thing make me think though. The comment

Thai politicians are inherently corrupt because there has never been a constitution strong and respected enough to reign them in. Viewed in this light, the fact that one particular prime minister has not only been corrupt, but actually made a difference to poor people's lives is something of an oddity. Certainly noticeable to the masses who felt the beneficial effects of his policies.

One very important thing to point out here. It really really makes a difference for the future of a country if the country's leader is recognising the destructive force corruption is and at least a bit try to work controlling it. Corruption is so normal that westerners seem to think that it doesn't matter because they are all corrupt. Nothing can be further from the truth. The difference between happily using corruption, massive mega projects conveniently initiated after each election to pay back election expenses - Thaksins trade mark - and the other extreme, working to control corruption or perhaps somewhere in between "trying a bit but not too much", these different levels make a big difference for the future of the country

[MikeyIdea]

If you're wondering what BMW drivers might have in common with the poor people of Thailand you need to expand your understanding of this situation beyond 'money is king'. There are actually other issues at stake here. Some would say these issues are more important even than money. I've met redshirts who hate Taksin. Can you even begin to imagine what their real grievances are?

Maybe you should go out and actually talk to these people you dismiss so readily, if you can bear it. It will give you new insights into this complex situation.

I don't really understand how someone who hates Thaksin could be a red shirt supporter.

Thaksin has always been a big part of the red shirt movement. The red shirt movement has always supported Thaksin.

Even if you accepted the "It's not all about Thaksin" mantra, it's still very much about Thaksin. One of their key aims is to bring back Thaksin.

If you hate Thaksin, I doubt very much that you would be a red shirt supporter.

I think the important thing here is to realize that poor (monetarily, not sympathetically) redshirts can actually have a level of understanding of Taksin's role which is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. That is to say, that whilst he initiated populist policies which rural people actually did benefit from in real terms, he also took advantage of his position to feather his own nest illegally and curtail the freedom of those who criticized him.

For you and me that's easy to understand and accept. Why don't you think rural Thais can do the same?

The last part is interesting - How much level of understanding do the poor have? Is it about if their understanding is as informed and sophisticated as your average farang's. I do not think so. About what? Are we talking about understanding what actually happens or the consequenses of what happens? These 2 are different things. The understanding of what happens? - some understand, more than half perhaps, some don't, some are not interested and don't want to know. This is the easy part. Of consequenses - few understand, the most important thing - most do not care - That's the main difference between the average farang and the poor

Edit: Premature post

Edited September 21, 2010 by MikeyIdea