Reds Struggling Under Thai Charter : New Chief

[hanuman1]

I think posters are questioning the validity of these few lone voices of dissent over Thaksin within the Red Shirts. What is their relevance given the overwhelming number of Thaksin supporters that make up the Red Shirts? Do they have much pull or are they drowned out by chants of "Thaksin, Thaksin" voiced by all the other Red Shirts? If there are so few, they become insignificant. If they are so marginalized, it's difficult to even bother mentioning them in general discussions of the Red Shirts.

To further the lack of authority of Red President Thida and general disunity amongst the Reds, I note that fellow Red Shirt Leader Somyot is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy in Bangkok today. Where is she in all of this? Upcountry with her red schools and her handful of students?

.

You know what Thida said about Thaksin. If you think she's lying, then there's no point in even debating what she says.

As for the Japanese Embassy thing today, I can't immediately see how that's contrary to anything she said in that interview the other day but maybe I missed something.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I think we can all agree all is not well in the land of smiles anymore.

Why does that feel your heart with glee?

Tida, a former communist insurgent.

How will the DAAD be different under your leadership?

Our organisation is policy-based, which is the result of meetings of people from different walks of life, who may disagree though we cannot impose our ideas on others. For example, realising a democratic system with the King as the head of state while power will rest in the hands of the people. Even with this kind of written objective, we are attacked as wanting to overthrow the monarchy.

Why isn't her organisation democratically-structured?

Why don't the Red Shirts have elections?

When there are disagreements, why do they IMPOSE THEIR IDEAS ON OTHERS with violence?

Even with their history of doing the opposite of what the 'written' objectives say, it is amazing that she would be so dull as to act surprised.

a violent movement

Non-violent action is very important for us. I regret that when I ran the [political] school I did not lecture on the subject myself.

So she regrets preaching only violence when she ran the political school?

If eating a serving of fruit is important to me, does that make me a vegetarian?

The anti-monarchist remarks among red shirts] come from people who want to pick a fight. Some, like Ji [ungparkorn] is not even in Thailand. They may be red shirts, but they are not DAAD member.

If you support them, stop denying it.

If you don't support them, denounce their violent rhetoric.

Or have your cake and eat it too.

How transparent and participatory is the selection process that put you at the helm of the DAAD?

It was a resolution of the former leaders.

There was no election.

we will fight even if we have only bare hands.

The important non-violence she envisions.

[Buchholz]

I think posters are questioning the validity of these few lone voices of dissent over Thaksin within the Red Shirts. What is their relevance given the overwhelming number of Thaksin supporters that make up the Red Shirts? Do they have much pull or are they drowned out by chants of "Thaksin, Thaksin" voiced by all the other Red Shirts? If there are so few, they become insignificant. If they are so marginalized, it's difficult to even bother mentioning them in general discussions of the Red Shirts.

To further the lack of authority of Red President Thida and general disunity amongst the Reds, I note that fellow Red Shirt Leader Somyot is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy in Bangkok today. Where is she in all of this? Upcountry with her red schools and her handful of students?

.

A good leader knows when to delegate

Mind you, I wonder why protesting outside the Japanese Embassy? Trying to get them to question the government again ? Surely not meant to pressure anyone?

They were there to present some of Jatuporn's doctored up documents over the photographer's death.

[Buchholz]

I think posters are questioning the validity of these few lone voices of dissent over Thaksin within the Red Shirts. What is their relevance given the overwhelming number of Thaksin supporters that make up the Red Shirts? Do they have much pull or are they drowned out by chants of "Thaksin, Thaksin" voiced by all the other Red Shirts? If there are so few, they become insignificant. If they are so marginalized, it's difficult to even bother mentioning them in general discussions of the Red Shirts.

To further the lack of authority of Red President Thida and general disunity amongst the Reds, I note that fellow Red Shirt Leader Somyot is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy in Bangkok today. Where is she in all of this? Upcountry with her red schools and her handful of students?

.

You know what Thida said about Thaksin. If you think she's lying, then there's no point in even debating what she says.

As for the Japanese Embassy thing today, I can't immediately see how that's contrary to anything she said in that interview the other day but maybe I missed something.

I don't know if she's lying about her few words about Thaksin. It's still early to see if her words translate into action. We shall see a couple of things soon enough. Is she really President of the Reds (are all Red actions cleared through her)? And also if she's sincere about the Reds (her segment of the Reds anyway) now distancing themselves from Thaksin.

In the meantime, it seems other factions of the Reds are going merrily along their own path.

[scorecard]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So who are these TV members who "... found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man. .... ?"

[jdinasia]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So who are these TV members who "... found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man. .... ?"

Really? Who are they? I know 2 reds that have stated they never did like Thaksin. I don't know any of the leadership of the reds (can't count Giles U. as a leader even though he did share a stage with them a time or three) that have ever made a real statement against Thaksin or what he did. I know several TVF members who still claim that the movement isn't about Thaksin but they can never seem to explain away Thaksin's phone-ins --- or Thaksin's attempt to head to the US etc.

Even in this article where we have Weng's wife trying to distance herself and the reds from Thaksin, she fails to do so in any meaningful way.

[scorecard]

Quote from interview with Thida: How will the DAAD be different under your leadership?

Our organisation is policy-based, which is the result of meetings of people from different walks of life, who may disagree though we cannot impose our ideas on others. ..."

So, Khun Thida, why not release the details of your policy, let all of Thailand see your policies.

In reality your 'organization' has done zero to explain their policies, people like jatuporn etc etc who scream and yell about democracy have never in fact given a structures presentation to anybody in the 2.5 years or whatever of the UDD - Red shirts existence, and hardly helpful to try to build credibility.

So, please, release a detailed presentation of your policies.

If you in fact don't release these details then how can u say you support democracy. One of the pillars of strong democracy is transparency.

If you have debated it internally, how come it's never been mentioned in the press, or are you in fact a secret organization, therefore undemocratic?

[scorecard]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

- how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

There is no doubt whatever that the rural poor have a bad deal and structured action is needed urgently to give many more Thai people (not only the rural poor) better opportunities to gain a much better standard of life through their own productivity.

Hopefully a few more and a few more of the poor will start to see that handouts (in the past often meaning survival) are not opportunites to gain a sustained higher standard of living, and at the same time see thaksin for what he is - a charletan - a no morals manipulator with no concience.

[hanuman1]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So who are these TV members who "... found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man. .... ?"

I don't have time to find the exact posts I've seen in the past which either state that assertion explicitly or hint heavily at it, but if the tenor of your thrust is that there are actually very few TV members who can't conceive of a red shirt member not being a mindless Thaksin follower, then that of course is to be welcomed.

[termsak]

OMG! Did I just read this right? She confesses there are anti-monarchist movement within the Red Shirts??

...and you all wonder why we, the majority of Thai's, despises the Red Shirts?? One doesn't need to be yellow shirt to hate the red shirts. This article is a prime example why.

[scorecard]

[How will the DAAD be different under your leadership?[/b]

Our organisation is policy-based, which is the result of meetings of people from different walks of life, who may disagree though we cannot impose our ideas on others. For example, realising a democratic system with the King as the head of state while power will rest in the hands of the people. Even with this kind of written objective, we are attacked as wanting to overthrow the monarchy.

[/size][/color]

Why isn't her organisation democratically-structured?

Why don't the Red Shirts have elections?

When there are disagreements, why do they IMPOSE THEIR IDEAS ON OTHERS with violence?

Even with their history of doing the opposite of what the 'written' objectives say, it is amazing that she would be so dull as to act surprised.

Quote from Thiad'a words: How will the DAAD be different under your leadership?

Our organisation is policy-based, which is the result of meetings of people from different walks of life, who may disagree though we cannot impose our ideas on others. ..."

So, Khun Thida, why not release the details of your policy, let all of Thailand see your policies.

In reality your 'organization' has done zero to explain their policies, people like jatuporn etc etc who scream and yell about democracy have never in fact given a structures presentation to anybody in the 2.5 years or whatever of the UDD - Red shirts existence, and hardly helpful to try to build credibility.

So, please, release a detailed presentation of your policies.

If you in fact don't release these details then how can u say you support democracy. ONe of the pillars of strong democracy is transparency.

If you have debated it internally, how come it's never been mentioned in the press, or are you in fact a secret organization, therefore undemocratic?

[Buchholz]

OMG! Did I just read this right? She confesses there are anti-monarchist movement within the Red Shirts??

...and you all wonder why we, the majority of Thai's, despises the Red Shirts?? One doesn't need to be yellow shirt to hate the red shirts. This article is a prime example why.

Difficult for her not to confess it when 2 Red Shirt Leaders and 1 prominent Red Shirt Speaker are all very open about it.

Suchart Narkbangsai

Jakrapob Penkair

Giles Ungpakorn

[hanuman1]

OMG! Did I just read this right? She confesses there are anti-monarchist movement within the Red Shirts??

...and you all wonder why we, the majority of Thai's, despises the Red Shirts?? One doesn't need to be yellow shirt to hate the red shirts. This article is a prime example why.

Difficult for her not to confess it when 2 Red Shirt Leaders and 1 prominent Red Shirt Speaker are all very open about it.

Suchart Narkbangsai

Jakrapob Penkair

Giles Ungpakorn

Difficult for us to discuss it, too.

[Buchholz]

OMG! Did I just read this right? She confesses there are anti-monarchist movement within the Red Shirts??

...and you all wonder why we, the majority of Thai's, despises the Red Shirts?? One doesn't need to be yellow shirt to hate the red shirts. This article is a prime example why.

Difficult for her not to confess it when 2 Red Shirt Leaders and 1 prominent Red Shirt Speaker are all very open about it.

Suchart Narkbangsai

Jakrapob Penkair

Giles Ungpakorn

Difficult for us to discuss it, too.

Agreed. The aforementioned post is for information purposes to identify that contingent within the Red Shirts and not necessarily for further discussion.

[Throatwobbler]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So lets see if you can imagine what life was like in these rural areas 20 years ago. What was their infrastructure like? I know it is highly improved since then. Roads etc. So where did this tax baht come from to pay for that? Was it from the rural areas? Do they pay their tax? Did their tax pay for their satellite TVs? Or maybe it came from the people who dont care about them, you know the ones the rich Bangkok people. Just a question Id be interested in your answer.

[hanuman1]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So lets see if you can imagine what life was like in these rural areas 20 years ago. What was their infrastructure like? I know it is highly improved since then. Roads etc. So where did this tax baht come from to pay for that? Was it from the rural areas? Do they pay their tax? Did their tax pay for their satellite TVs? Or maybe it came from the people who dont care about them, you know the ones the rich Bangkok people. Just a question Id be interested in your answer.

Thanks for your question.

I don't need to imagine what rural areas were like 20 years ago. I can remember what they were like.

Your statement of fact that the infrastructure in rural areas is highly improved throughout the country is only partly true. More areas have electricity and roads have improved of course, but I can only class your assertion that this progress has been applied evenly throughout the country by virtue of tax baht as being quite naive.

You give out airs of knowing much about rural life in Thailand. Yet you seem oblivious to the fact that the prosperity of villages and towns in rural areas depends as much on the stature of their local and regional power brokers as any tax money from your altruistic high earners of the country.

No doubt in your experience of Thai rural life, you will have witnessed towns and villages that were the homes of people who rose to prominence in local and national government as having better roads for example than those that weren't. Of course, I'm necessarily simplifying the issue, but if you can accept that this country is traditionally run along lines of a system of patronage rather than anything influenced by a social consciousness you should then be able to see that the amount of good your tax baht has done this country - after all the corruption and evasion of tax (by high earners) - is actually smaller than we'd all hope.

You might get away with levelling your argument against long term unemployed/poor people in developed countries that have sophisticated and effective systems of taxation and welfare, but as far as Thailand is concerned you're barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.

Hope this helps.

Edited December 13, 2010 by hanuman1

[SamritT]

Same same in Myanmar. There the infrastructure in rural areas has also improved in the last 2 decades. More areas have electricity and roads have improved of course, but I can only class your assertion that this progress has been applied evenly throughout the country by virtue of tax money as being quite naive.

[Buchholz]

It would seem the other part of the formula is making no effort to distance themselves from Thaksin...

Pheu Thai denies waning sentiment on Thaksin

The voting outcome of the Sunday's by-election did not signal the lowering popularity of fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Pheu Thai Party deputy leader Plodprasop Suraswadi said on Tuesday.

"I believe Thaksin remains popular and that the red shirts are still very active," he said, arguing the voting outcome had no linkage to Thaksin's popularity.

[scorecard]

To Hanuman.

If you spent any time in rural Thailand you would realize that for the overwhelming majority of people living there it is all about Thaksin. There may be a few who don't care about him but they are a small minority. This is of course only based on my experience of spending time in rural Thailand. maybe you have some experiences of your own. And you can't count an interview with one red shirt as a proof of a wider movement.

I never said that the 'overwhelming majority' of red shirts didn't like Thaksin - how can they not like him when his policies were the only ones ever to make a perceived difference to their lives, regardless of what the man himself was like?

I was simply trying to help those TVers who found it inconceivable (and there are surprisingly many of them) that even a SINGLE redshirt may not be so in love with the man.

So lets see if you can imagine what life was like in these rural areas 20 years ago. What was their infrastructure like? I know it is highly improved since then. Roads etc. So where did this tax baht come from to pay for that? Was it from the rural areas? Do they pay their tax? Did their tax pay for their satellite TVs? Or maybe it came from the people who dont care about them, you know the ones the rich Bangkok people. Just a question Id be interested in your answer.

Thanks for your question.

I don't need to imagine what rural areas were like 20 years ago. I can remember what they were like.

Your statement of fact that the infrastructure in rural areas is highly improved throughout the country is only partly true. More areas have electricity and roads have improved of course, but I can only class your assertion that this progress has been applied evenly throughout the country by virtue of tax baht as being quite naive.

You give out airs of knowing much about rural life in Thailand. Yet you seem oblivious to the fact that the prosperity of villages and towns in rural areas depends as much on the stature of their local and regional power brokers as any tax money from your altruistic high earners of the country.

No doubt in your experience of Thai rural life, you will have witnessed towns and villages that were the homes of people who rose to prominence in local and national government as having better roads for example than those that weren't. Of course, I'm necessarily simplifying the issue, but if you can accept that this country is traditionally run along lines of a system of patronage rather than anything influenced by a social consciousness you should then be able to see that the amount of good your tax baht has done this country - after all the corruption and evasion of tax (by high earners) - is actually smaller than we'd all hope.

You might get away with levelling your argument against long term unemployed/poor people in developed countries that have sophisticated and effective systems of taxation and welfare, but as far as Thailand is concerned you're barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.

Hope this helps.

Just a snip: "Yet you seem oblivious to the fact that the prosperity of villages and towns in rural areas depends as much on the stature of their local and regional power brokers as any tax money from your altruistic high earners of the country."

Well lets have some more balance:

- The point still remains that available funds for infrastructure comes from taxes.

- Many of the local 'brokers' as you call them, in the main feathered their own personal nests to a much greater degree than what was ever spent on the actual roads, etc. In fact in many cases the minimal funds actually spent on roads etc., probably happened because they were too embarrassed to steal the whole bank book!

Edited December 14, 2010 by scorecard

[TheyCallmeScooter]

So where did this tax baht come from to pay for that? Was it from the rural areas? Do they pay their tax? Did their tax pay for their satellite TVs? Or maybe it came from the people who dont care about them, you know the ones the rich Bangkok people. Just a question Id be interested in your answer.

That's a very dangerous line of thinking, just quietly.

Next you'll be asking questions like "Why did the elites give the rural areas the 1997 Constitution when there was no clamouring for it, let alone any 'requirement' (i.e. revolution, power-restructuring, etc) for it whatsoever?"

Then you'll be in trouble. I suggest you cease this line of thinking post-haste. Think happier thoughts, perhaps think back about the delightful economic boom delivered by Thaksin's frantic dishing out of taxpayer revenue in a very suspiciously self-promotional form of 'stimulus spending' and 'wealth redistribution'. Good times...

All that wealth redistributed though, and looks like more 'freedom', more 'democracy', more 'social stimulus for voting TRT', and a whole lot more Thaksin is still needed. If only those darned elites would stop demonising / framing the Peoples Hero...just because he threatens the Status Quo and wants a return to the 1997 Constitution the peasants fought so hard for back in 1997....

You can bet those darned elites are just frightened of giving up power. Like they were in 1997.