Red Shirts To Stage Mass Rally On Sunday Regardless Of Bail Rulings: Jatuporn

[Emptyset]

All of the above, of course, is simply NOT TRUE! And they heard it from the Red Shirt media networks, including those which were operating during Thaksin's time - the same ones who oversaw his electoral intimidation crews (see Kwanchai Praiphana). For me it is no sign of undue censorship, lack of democracy or whatever, that these media outlets were shut down, as they were unrepentantly lieing to the public about what never happened. What actually happened is:

1) Thaksin raised the national debt significantly.

2) The price if yaba rose significantly (result of less supply), but its use was more widespread than previously (higher demand as the campaign increased the reach of yaba - it was made more of a 'designer drug' - the rise in demand was larger than the fall in supply).

3) At last count and with the investigation still ongoing, approximately 1,400 people killed extrajudicially in Thaksin's War on Drugs were definitely not involved in narcotics.

4) They had more disposable cash for many months, but were left with long-term debt that they could absolutely not afford to pay back for approximately two generations. However, the world economy was booming in Thaksin's time and is not nowadays.

5) The military threw Thaksin out because he was trying to centralise the control of power to himself, undermining democratic principles and challenging the authority of the country's higher instutions.

6) Thaksin put into implementation former-PM Chuan's 30 Baht healthcare scheme, which was not introduced by Chuan as it was not ready. Its premature materialisation made it a failure and it was replaced by a free scheme because it was too expensive to collect the 30 Baht fee.

7) Thaksin is very much an autocrat and Thailand was making very clear steps to become a dictatorship under Thaksin.

I don't want to defend Thaksin, I was definitely glad when he went, but... do you mean national debt under Thaksin rose as a monetary value? Maybe so (haven't checked the figures), but it definitely fell as a ratio to GDP.

Agree with your points on the war on drugs, though it's not clear that the 1400 people you mention actually died as a result of the war on drugs. The figure often quoted is total number of murders during that period. There's a good explanation here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2010/06/war-on-drugs.html (excellent piece otherwise too, well worth reading). But you seem to suggest that it's just the red shirts that supported it. Actually polls showed the vast majority of the country supported it, one of the most vocal proponents was Sondhi, of course. And some of my middle class friends - which is the vast majority of my Thai friends - still say it was the right thing to do, even now. And that's despite the fact that they don't come into contact with ya ba themselves. I realize this is partly the result of propaganda, but there's also a cultural aspect common to Thais generally, not just red shirts, surely?

Yeah, Thaksin had a lot of economic luck. But it's not just red shirts who think about it that way, again I know people who're dead against Thaksin these days & especially the red shirts, but thought Thaksin's economic management was brilliant and loved his original "super team", Somkid and so on. It's funny because when I went to a red rally in 2009, and people were talking about rice prices, I tried to explain it was the result of a global downturn and not Abhisit's fault, but people wouldn't listen. That's not different to the UK though, for instance, Labour gets blamed for causing the economic catastrophe, even though there was little they could do to stop it and the other side (Conservatives) would've done exactly the same as Labour if they were in power.

The military threw out Thaksin because he kept interfering with promotions and their budget was steadily dwindling. But the coup as accepted for the reasons you note. Thaksin's biggest mistake was not paying tax on Shin Corp imo, but to me that's a relatively minor "crime". I don't think you can say that the war on drugs or media censorship (to name two) are really reasons, because war on drugs took place three years before and there were only a few voices of dissent at the time & people aren't too bothered about media censorship now, so... in fact it's the same voices concerned about it then that are concerned about it now. Doubt the general population really cares too much. I mean they should care, but they don't.

I've never heard about Chuan's 30 baht scheme. Source? As far as I know the 30 baht scheme was largely conceived by Dr Surapong & Dr Sanguan, with input from other activists and NGOs. I know there was the 500 baht scheme, and some free access to health care for the poor. Most people I've spoken to said the 30baht scheme, although not perfect, was a massive improvement. Think that 500 baht gold card was for the very poorest only (not sure, wasn't in Thailand pre-Thaksin). Some of my friends are lower middle class, or working average paid office jobs which don't offer any insurance schemes etc (though I know some jobs do) & couldn't really afford insurance themselves. All have spoken highly of the 30 baht scheme, saying it was a huge improvement. Well, these people can afford treatments for regular things, but what about major illnesses? One self-employed friend got cancer and was treated under the 30baht scheme, before that his mother might've had to sell her house or something for treatment... it did make a big difference, that's why it's still overwhelmingly his most popular policy.

Thaksin was definitely an autocrat, but autocratic politicians have been quite popular throughout Thai history. The politics of despotic paternalism etc. I'm pretty sure one of the protesters for the Thai Patriots earlier was wearing a Sarit t-shirt. I don't really think people like Chamlong & Prem are much different, only they never had the popular support and weren't corrupt (well not Chamlong anyway), which is a plus. Some would argue that even the supposed liberals like Abhisit and Chuan have been fairly authoritarian by European standards. Following Connors, I see Abhisit's authoritarianism contingent on the opposition to his liberalism from populist-authoritarianism: "There are two compelling fears driving Thailand’s liberal authoritarianism – which is to say the use of authoritarian means by which to return Thailand to its elitist liberal disposition..." read more: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2010/05/measured-barbarity-and-responsibility.html

[rixalex]

Happiness, my friend, comes from inside when you have food inside too - no food = no happiness

This is Thailand we are talking about, not Africa, and whilst many here are living in hardship, very few suffer from the starvation you speak of.

Lastly the reds are a 'reflection' of the changes that are happening - once again - you fall into the trap - the trap of limited thinking.

Nope. The reds are a reflection of Thaksin's anger and his desire to win back the power that he once enjoyed, the power he once abused. That you think otherwise, and that you believe that "most reds don't support him", shows how you have fallen into the trap of delusional thinking.

[Pi Sek]

Quick question. The change from the Industrial Revolution was better working conditions. What are the changes we expect to see from this cultural shift?

(Difficult one I know!)

Not difficult... same... raised living standards, less deferential voting and maybe some other things we can't discuss - in time

But my issue with the Red Shirts is that they are experiencing this change from the Abhisit government already, and this is without any prompting from the Red Shirts themselves. So why exactly did they rally? It's this question that makes the UDD all about Thaksin and the Red Shirts simply not correct, for the same reasons as I listed in post #30 above; they have been fed lies by the UDD. That they were lies is no speculation either - cold, hard, documented fact, even if the truth did take a couple of changes in government to be permitted to be revealed. You could make the same argument for Abhisit, of course, and I fully expect some Red Leaders to say the DSI report is a lie when they find out that some people were killed by the UDD side.

And remember, I make a huge differentiation between the Red Shirts and the UDD. I don't think anyone is against cultural change as Jatuporn would have you believe - it's called social evolution and is needed as a vehicle to advance the human race. But I do hope that you realise this is simply UDD propaganda that you have fallen for, as all this is happening anyway (and, as you have correctly pointed been happening for decades). If it happens to someone as educated as you (I bet you're regretting that little dig earlier by now!), how can the poor uneducated Khon Kaen farmers possibly see through it?

What you have stated above are the exact same demands for change as the PAD, by the way...

[Pi Sek]

All of the above, of course, is simply NOT TRUE! And they heard it from the Red Shirt media networks, including those which were operating during Thaksin's time - the same ones who oversaw his electoral intimidation crews (see Kwanchai Praiphana). For me it is no sign of undue censorship, lack of democracy or whatever, that these media outlets were shut down, as they were unrepentantly lieing to the public about what never happened. What actually happened is:

1) Thaksin raised the national debt significantly.

2) The price if yaba rose significantly (result of less supply), but its use was more widespread than previously (higher demand as the campaign increased the reach of yaba - it was made more of a 'designer drug' - the rise in demand was larger than the fall in supply).

3) At last count and with the investigation still ongoing, approximately 1,400 people killed extrajudicially in Thaksin's War on Drugs were definitely not involved in narcotics.

4) They had more disposable cash for many months, but were left with long-term debt that they could absolutely not afford to pay back for approximately two generations. However, the world economy was booming in Thaksin's time and is not nowadays.

5) The military threw Thaksin out because he was trying to centralise the control of power to himself, undermining democratic principles and challenging the authority of the country's higher instutions.

6) Thaksin put into implementation former-PM Chuan's 30 Baht healthcare scheme, which was not introduced by Chuan as it was not ready. Its premature materialisation made it a failure and it was replaced by a free scheme because it was too expensive to collect the 30 Baht fee.

7) Thaksin is very much an autocrat and Thailand was making very clear steps to become a dictatorship under Thaksin.

I don't want to defend Thaksin, I was definitely glad when he went, but... do you mean national debt under Thaksin rose as a monetary value? Maybe so (haven't checked the figures), but it definitely fell as a ratio to GDP.

Agree with your points on the war on drugs, though it's not clear that the 1400 people you mention actually died as a result of the war on drugs. The figure often quoted is total number of murders during that period. There's a good explanation here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2010/06/war-on-drugs.html (excellent piece otherwise too, well worth reading). But you seem to suggest that it's just the red shirts that supported it. Actually polls showed the vast majority of the country supported it, one of the most vocal proponents was Sondhi, of course. And some of my middle class friends - which is the vast majority of my Thai friends - still say it was the right thing to do, even now. And that's despite the fact that they don't come into contact with ya ba themselves. I realize this is partly the result of propaganda, but there's also a cultural aspect common to Thais generally, not just red shirts, surely?

Yeah, Thaksin had a lot of economic luck. But it's not just red shirts who think about it that way, again I know people who're dead against Thaksin these days & especially the red shirts, but thought Thaksin's economic management was brilliant and loved his original "super team", Somkid and so on. It's funny because when I went to a red rally in 2009, and people were talking about rice prices, I tried to explain it was the result of a global downturn and not Abhisit's fault, but people wouldn't listen. That's not different to the UK though, for instance, Labour gets blamed for causing the economic catastrophe, even though there was little they could do to stop it and the other side (Conservatives) would've done exactly the same as Labour if they were in power.

The military threw out Thaksin because he kept interfering with promotions and their budget was steadily dwindling. But the coup as accepted for the reasons you note. Thaksin's biggest mistake was not paying tax on Shin Corp imo, but to me that's a relatively minor "crime". I don't think you can say that the war on drugs or media censorship (to name two) are really reasons, because war on drugs took place three years before and there were only a few voices of dissent at the time & people aren't too bothered about media censorship now, so... in fact it's the same voices concerned about it then that are concerned about it now. Doubt the general population really cares too much. I mean they should care, but they don't.

I've never heard about Chuan's 30 baht scheme. Source? As far as I know the 30 baht scheme was largely conceived by Dr Surapong & Dr Sanguan, with input from other activists and NGOs. I know there was the 500 baht scheme, and some free access to health care for the poor. Most people I've spoken to said the 30baht scheme, although not perfect, was a massive improvement. Think that 500 baht gold card was for the very poorest only (not sure, wasn't in Thailand pre-Thaksin). Some of my friends are lower middle class, or working average paid office jobs which don't offer any insurance schemes etc (though I know some jobs do) & couldn't really afford insurance themselves. All have spoken highly of the 30 baht scheme, saying it was a huge improvement. Well, these people can afford treatments for regular things, but what about major illnesses? One self-employed friend got cancer and was treated under the 30baht scheme, before that his mother might've had to sell her house or something for treatment... it did make a big difference, that's why it's still overwhelmingly his most popular policy.

Thaksin was definitely an autocrat, but autocratic politicians have been quite popular throughout Thai history. The politics of despotic paternalism etc. I'm pretty sure one of the protesters for the Thai Patriots earlier was wearing a Sarit t-shirt. I don't really think people like Chamlong & Prem are much different, only they never had the popular support and weren't corrupt (well not Chamlong anyway), which is a plus. Some would argue that even the supposed liberals like Abhisit and Chuan have been fairly authoritarian by European standards. Following Connors, I see Abhisit's authoritarianism contingent on the opposition to his liberalism from populist-authoritarianism: "There are two compelling fears driving Thailand’s liberal authoritarianism – which is to say the use of authoritarian means by which to return Thailand to its elitist liberal disposition..." read more: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2010/05/measured-barbarity-and-responsibility.html

You have to stop using this common sense responses on here, I think this is the second time I've warned you.

Yes, I think the higher national debt was a montary figure, but please don't ask me to find a report... thanks!

With regards to the War on Drugs, it's funny that I seem to get a very different set of opinions as yours. The article you mention is not bad, and does well to highlight that it might not have been down to pressure from Thaksin that Samak dropped the enquiry, because many high ranking policemen were involved too. The 1,400 might not have been killed as a result of the War on Drugs, but come on...! I don't think that number of 1,400 was there the year before or the year after...

Thaksin's "Superteam" and economic management - again, I get different responses to Thai middle class citizens as you. Maybe it's because I live in the South, and his lack of investment down here was no secret - he saw the South's only advantages as Phuket and Koh Samui, and the corruptible officials in the land office who can change 451 Rai from Sor Kor 1 to Nor Sor 4 Jor for a hundred mill or two! That's a good deal.

Sorry, I thought it as pretty much common knowledge that the 30 Baht healthcare was Chuan's initiative - I'll try and find a source. I'll admit that "rushing it out" wasn't a bad idea on Thaksin's part as it meant that poor people could get treatment very quickly. (I'm pretty sure I remember an incident where a guy with a broken leg got a 30 Baht amputation, in Ranong I think - his wife told the TV reporter, "What do you expect for 30 Baht?!")

I also acknowledge that autocracy is a common trait in Thai politics - but you really can't put Abhisit on the same bus as previous autocratic types; likewise you can't with Thaksin. It's a bit like comparing Seh Daeng, Veera and Jatuporn!

I must say that I don't hold the Michael Connors blogs I've read in that high regard. The content is well written and intelligently proposed, but I don't agree with his conclusions because they're not actually based on the entire truth. Each to their own, though, and what can I really expect from a private blog in any case.

[hyperdimension]

ChiangMaiFun seems like a lot of the people on New Mandala, so way up in their academic ivory towers with their political history books that they are unable to see what's really been going on here and now. They see the red shirt movement as an ideological fight of poor versus elites for democracy. The reality however is that it's a fight for power between elites, and the poor have been used as pawns by one particular side.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Quick question. The change from the Industrial Revolution was better working conditions. What are the changes we expect to see from this cultural shift?

(Difficult one I know!)

Not difficult... same... raised living standards, less deferential voting and maybe some other things we can't discuss - in time

But my issue with the Red Shirts is that they are experiencing this change from the Abhisit government already, and this is without any prompting from the Red Shirts themselves. So why exactly did they rally? It's this question that makes the UDD all about Thaksin and the Red Shirts simply not correct, for the same reasons as I listed in post #30 above; they have been fed lies by the UDD. That they were lies is no speculation either - cold, hard, documented fact, even if the truth did take a couple of changes in government to be permitted to be revealed. You could make the same argument for Abhisit, of course, and I fully expect some Red Leaders to say the DSI report is a lie when they find out that some people were killed by the UDD side.

And remember, I make a huge differentiation between the Red Shirts and the UDD. I don't think anyone is against cultural change as Jatuporn would have you believe - it's called social evolution and is needed as a vehicle to advance the human race. But I do hope that you realise this is simply UDD propaganda that you have fallen for, as all this is happening anyway (and, as you have correctly pointed been happening for decades). If it happens to someone as educated as you (I bet you're regretting that little dig earlier by now!), how can the poor uneducated Khon Kaen farmers possibly see through it?

What you have stated above are the exact same demands for change as the PAD, by the way...

I don't care who's saying it - I care about who's DOING it - and no one is in my view

I hold to my more expansive premise - cultural change is happening and no one will look back and care about the personalities involved - whoever they are and whatever colour their shirts are

[whybother]

<snip>

I hold to my more expansive premise - cultural change is happening and no one will look back and care about the personalities involved - whoever they are and whatever colour their shirts are

Cultural change might be happening, but does it really have anything to do with the red shirts?

[hyperdimension]

ChiangMaiFun, do you wish to see Thailand lead by Pheu Thai instead of a Democrat coalition, and why?

[ChiangMaiFun]

<snip>

I hold to my more expansive premise - cultural change is happening and no one will look back and care about the personalities involved - whoever they are and whatever colour their shirts are

Cultural change might be happening, but does it really have anything to do with the red shirts?

In one sense... no... they are a reflection of parts of that change - in some ways a violent part regretfully... and so the clash between two opposing forces in the longer term will be seen in a more rational context

[ChiangMaiFun]

ChiangMaiFun, do you wish to see Thailand lead by Pheu Thai instead of a Democrat coalition, and why?

That, actually, is a very thoughful question... in many ways I don't care - I just want change for the better and real democracy where people get the government they voted for not some stiched up deal after the government they HAD chosen is dissolved. I'm much more interested in the longer term.

edit: spl

Edited January 5, 2011 by ChiangMaiFun

[whybother]

ChiangMaiFun, do you wish to see Thailand lead by Pheu Thai instead of a Democrat coalition, and why?

That, actually, is a very thoughful question... in many ways I don't care - I just want change for the better and real democracy where people get the government they voted for not some stiched up deal after the government they HAD chosen is dissolved. I'm much more interested in the longer term.

edit: spl

What about a government that is stitched up after an election compared to a government that is stitched up after a party is banned after it is caught cheating?

I'm sure no one really voted for a 5 different parties to form government. So no one got the government that they voted for.

[Emptyset]

But my issue with the Red Shirts is that they are experiencing this change from the Abhisit government already, and this is without any prompting from the Red Shirts themselves. So why exactly did they rally? It's this question that makes the UDD all about Thaksin and the Red Shirts simply not correct, for the same reasons as I listed in post #30 above; they have been fed lies by the UDD. That they were lies is no speculation either - cold, hard, documented fact, even if the truth did take a couple of changes in government to be permitted to be revealed. You could make the same argument for Abhisit, of course, and I fully expect some Red Leaders to say the DSI report is a lie when they find out that some people were killed by the UDD side.

And remember, I make a huge differentiation between the Red Shirts and the UDD. I don't think anyone is against cultural change as Jatuporn would have you believe - it's called social evolution and is needed as a vehicle to advance the human race. But I do hope that you realise this is simply UDD propaganda that you have fallen for, as all this is happening anyway (and, as you have correctly pointed been happening for decades). If it happens to someone as educated as you (I bet you're regretting that little dig earlier by now!), how can the poor uneducated Khon Kaen farmers possibly see through it?

Surely they lived through the Thaksin period and know if Thaksin's policies worked for them or not? The lie is that it had to be Thaksin to implement those policies, it didn't. And they could rally around a new leader who's more honest, less hubristic, corrupt & avaricious, yet at the same time more radical. I'm sure there are some around. They don't need to be Thaksin or rich, they just need popular support. Sitting back and waiting for change will get them nothing. It took this long for the Democrats to introduce their "populist" program and

I see it as a direct result of the protests, since Abhisit etc are convinced the only "genuine grievances" are economic and not related to the wider issue of power. I'd rather see people take an active role themselves, rather than waiting for Anand or Prawes to hand down another nation-wide reform plan. I think the problem is that most positive changes in Thai history have come as a result of an enlightened bureaucracy, rather than pressure from below, so changes might sound good in theory, but might not really benefit from below. Surely it's time to look at things from the bottom-up, not the top-down? I'm just talking here, I could be wrong. Plus I'm not sure the things you said (as I contested them above) are all definite facts, and I've got 0% of my information from the UDD.

Also before Thaksin, people used to bring their grievances to Bangkok, Assembly of the Poor etc (yep Chuan paid them a lot of "attention", didn't he?), and to be honest, they didn't get much. At least Thaksin paid lip-service to them, if nothing else. I'd prefer a real radical, instead of a self-serving populist whose words are mostly hot air, but let's not pretend you can sit back and wait for the Democrats to serve you equality on a plate. I've seen zero evidence of that, historically or now. It was only after Thaksin/TRT that the Democrats began to put together manifestos including policies which would benefit the poor, in 2001 they ran on a neo-liberal agenda when people were angered by the IMF & Chuan's previous reforms. Much of the Democrat's current platform can be attributed to demand from below and Thaksin is at least partly responsible for that, but Abhisit is at least willing to listen, unlike some past leaders.

[ChiangMaiFun]

ChiangMaiFun, do you wish to see Thailand lead by Pheu Thai instead of a Democrat coalition, and why?

That, actually, is a very thoughful question... in many ways I don't care - I just want change for the better and real democracy where people get the government they voted for not some stiched up deal after the government they HAD chosen is dissolved. I'm much more interested in the longer term.

edit: spl

What about a government that is stitched up after an election compared to a government that is stitched up after a party is banned after it is caught cheating?

I'm sure no one really voted for a 5 different parties to form government. So no one got the government that they voted for.

and what about the current government that was CAUGHT on tape and got off on a 'technicality'? think on that - 'oh dear we seem to have put in the document too late'

[whybother]

and what about the current government that was CAUGHT on tape and got off on a 'technicality'? think on that - 'oh dear we seem to have put in the document too late'

Caught on tape doing what?

[TAWP]

I am not interested in attending a rally be it red, yellow or pink! it is irrelevant to the cultural shifts happening not just over the last 9 years you mention but over the next 50 years - Thailand will be unrecognizable but I doubt you understand anything I am saying so I shall not bother pursuing it further - people don't know what they don't know and you are one of them.

If you understand something you should be able to explain it to someone that don't - otherwise you in fact do not.

[Emptyset]

You have to stop using this common sense responses on here, I think this is the second time I've warned you.

Yes, I think the higher national debt was a montary figure, but please don't ask me to find a report... thanks!

With regards to the War on Drugs, it's funny that I seem to get a very different set of opinions as yours. The article you mention is not bad, and does well to highlight that it might not have been down to pressure from Thaksin that Samak dropped the enquiry, because many high ranking policemen were involved too. The 1,400 might not have been killed as a result of the War on Drugs, but come on...! I don't think that number of 1,400 was there the year before or the year after...

Thaksin's "Superteam" and economic management - again, I get different responses to Thai middle class citizens as you. Maybe it's because I live in the South, and his lack of investment down here was no secret - he saw the South's only advantages as Phuket and Koh Samui, and the corruptible officials in the land office who can change 451 Rai from Sor Kor 1 to Nor Sor 4 Jor for a hundred mill or two! That's a good deal.

Sorry, I thought it as pretty much common knowledge that the 30 Baht healthcare was Chuan's initiative - I'll try and find a source. I'll admit that "rushing it out" wasn't a bad idea on Thaksin's part as it meant that poor people could get treatment very quickly. (I'm pretty sure I remember an incident where a guy with a broken leg got a 30 Baht amputation, in Ranong I think - his wife told the TV reporter, "What do you expect for 30 Baht?!")

I also acknowledge that autocracy is a common trait in Thai politics - but you really can't put Abhisit on the same bus as previous autocratic types; likewise you can't with Thaksin. It's a bit like comparing Seh Daeng, Veera and Jatuporn!

I must say that I don't hold the Michael Connors blogs I've read in that high regard. The content is well written and intelligently proposed, but I don't agree with his conclusions because they're not actually based on the entire truth. Each to their own, though, and what can I really expect from a private blog in any case.

Thanks! Debt statistics can be misleading if you don't take into account the percentage of debt to GDP. The Labour govt in the UK was accused of running up massive debts before the recent financial crisis, but people looked at the monetary value only, when it really fell as a ratio to GDP compared to what it was under the previous government. Apparently a similar story for Thaksin, debt as a ratio to GDP fell from 57% to 42% - http://asiancorrespondent.com/30180/did-thaksin-bankrupt-thailand-through-borrowing/ - not sure though as I can't find the original source, but the other chart shows that debt was falling up to 2006.

RE: War on drugs, I remember Pundit posting about this. There are around 400 murders a month as it is, so if you subtract that from the total deaths for the period, you'll have a reasonable figure for the number that actually died as a result of the war on drugs. http://asiancorrespo...mber-come-from/ - but even if the number is 1,329 (and not 2500) it's still massive, abhorrent and despicable. Just a question of numbers, but it's not the numbers that I'm so concerned about, more the intention, which was wholly wrongheaded &, dare I say it, evil.

Yeah, I think there's a lot to that (who you speak to), most people I know are either from Bangkok, or moved to BKK from the north/ne. I don't think I actually know anyone from the south (seems unbelievable, but I don't, can't think of any off the top of my head, anyway) and I've only passed through. Not known any southerners long enough to enter deep political conversations. Totally different perspective I'd imagine.

I don't think Abhisit is an autocratic type, I pointed out that he feels authoritarianism now is a necessary evil, as part of a process which can see Thailand as a whole return to a liberal disposition. I've just come across that Connors blog recently actually, not read all the entries yet. I read his book a couple of years ago though. Good book.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Emptyset

[TAWP]

ChiangMaiFun, do you wish to see Thailand lead by Pheu Thai instead of a Democrat coalition, and why?

That, actually, is a very thoughful question... in many ways I don't care - I just want change for the better and real democracy where people get the government they voted for not some stiched up deal after the government they HAD chosen is dissolved. I'm much more interested in the longer term.

edit: spl

To quote a one-liner:

such ignorance - it's pitiful

The government the majority voted for is still in power, a minority of it was altered out. Do we have to draw or use pieces of cakes to help you understand what a coalition-government is? And how they can change their minds (as some parties did before the election when they first pledge they would not co-operate with PPP and then did afterall [power > slogans]...did not their voters then get shafted? Or it is ok when it benefits PPP and now PTP?)

[Emptyset]

But my issue with the Red Shirts is that they are experiencing this change from the Abhisit government already, and this is without any prompting from the Red Shirts themselves. So why exactly did they rally? It's this question that makes the UDD all about Thaksin and the Red Shirts simply not correct, for the same reasons as I listed in post #30 above; they have been fed lies by the UDD. That they were lies is no speculation either - cold, hard, documented fact, even if the truth did take a couple of changes in government to be permitted to be revealed. You could make the same argument for Abhisit, of course, and I fully expect some Red Leaders to say the DSI report is a lie when they find out that some people were killed by the UDD side.

And remember, I make a huge differentiation between the Red Shirts and the UDD. I don't think anyone is against cultural change as Jatuporn would have you believe - it's called social evolution and is needed as a vehicle to advance the human race. But I do hope that you realise this is simply UDD propaganda that you have fallen for, as all this is happening anyway (and, as you have correctly pointed been happening for decades). If it happens to someone as educated as you (I bet you're regretting that little dig earlier by now!), how can the poor uneducated Khon Kaen farmers possibly see through it?

What you have stated above are the exact same demands for change as the PAD, by the way...

Come to think of it, Pi Sek, Chiang Noi addressed some of the points you raised in a far more convincing way than I could:

"Ever since Thaksin took the populist road, and especially after the clashes of Songkran last year, there has been a barrage of denial that social inequality has anything to do with these troubles. Journalists have penned articles and editorials denying that Thailand has any serious social division, or anything that resembles classes. Foreign academics, who have borrowed rose-tinted spectacles from the comfortable elite of a generation ago, have waffled on about Thailand still being a happy, united society. A Chula professor unveiled survey research showing that the poor are really happy. Some resident farangs have waded in, pointing out (quite rightly) that everyone in Thailand has become much better-off over the last generation so there should be no reason for resentment. But it is precisely growing prosperity driving rising aspirations combined with growing inequality driving gathering resentment that underlies red-shirt politics. No amount of strenuous, self-deluding argument will make the anger disappear.Abhisit's commitment on inequality follows a trend in mainstream opinion. The major think-tank, the Thailand Development Research Institute, made income inequality the focus of its flagship annual conference over two years ago. The major mainstream political research outfit, King Prajadhiphok Institute, highlighted the issue too. Several leading enlightened conservatives, including Anand Panyarachun, have spoken on inequality recently. Many newspapers have followed this trend. After seeing the scale and intensity of political resentment during Red March, more people are realizing that there are big risks in trying to delude themselves and others any longer.

But Abhisit's commitment on inequality may be a milestone without any practical significance. The government is prepared to address income inequality but has no concrete plans. Besides, inequality in income may not be the main issue, or the right issue to tackle, since it may be a product of the unbalanced distribution of power. Parliament is monopolised by the rich. The bureaucracy and judiciary can be influenced by money and status. It is not by chance that "double standards" has become the watchword of the red-shirt movement, or that their main demand is simply to hold an election. People have realised that the vote can be a powerful tool for change. Abhisit is saying: we recognise there are problems and we can fix them. This is the old paternalism, and it no longer appeals. The announcement of the road map should have been Abhisit's heroic moment, but it fell as flat as the Chao Phya plain, overshadowed in the news by the Khao Yai road, squabbles in DSI, the approach of the World Cup, and other momentous events. Political change is the priority."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/06/14/opinion/Time-out-for-old-divisions-and-delusions-30131512.html

[yoshiwara]

ChiangMaiFun seems like a lot of the people on New Mandala, so way up in their academic ivory towers with their political history books that they are unable to see what's really been going on here and now. They see the red shirt movement as an ideological fight of poor versus elites for democracy. The reality however is that it's a fight for power between elites, and the poor have been used as pawns by one particular side.

Absolutely.

The neo-Stalinists and their bogus cultural paradigm shift blah have as their rationale the position that support for Thaksin represents a stages theory towards fundamental political change. Of course the same nonsense was prattled by the CP fellow travellers of years ago to justify all sorts of nonsense. Thaksin doesn't mind that these people are in his pocket. Some masters degrees are so much paper.

[rubl]

I have no (real) problem with the red-shirts protesting again on the 9th. I only keep wondering what they protest about, what they aim for and how they would like to reach that aim / goal.

Protesting is nice (assuming someone pays for attendance, food and drinks and the like. Unfortunately a few souls will start to ask 'what for, why, what we want'. Answers still forthcoming it seems, apart from 'free our leaders', 'democracy', k. Thaksin', 'justice for all?', 'please look, ICC'.

PS what about the report filed by Robert A. on behalf of UDD way back end of October 2010. An update promised within eight weeks as well. ICC still contemplating, waiting for more info, busy to decide how to politely decline to be involved ?

Edited January 5, 2011 by rubl

[philw]

ChiangMaiFun seems like a lot of the people on New Mandala, so way up in their academic ivory towers with their political history books that they are unable to see what's really been going on here and now. They see the red shirt movement as an ideological fight of poor versus elites for democracy. The reality however is that it's a fight for power between elites, and the poor have been used as pawns by one particular side.

Absolutely.

The neo-Stalinists and their bogus cultural paradigm shift blah have as their rationale the position that support for Thaksin represents a stages theory towards fundamental political change. Of course the same nonsense was prattled by the CP fellow travellers of years ago to justify all sorts of nonsense. Thaksin doesn't mind that these people are in his pocket. Some masters degrees are so much paper.

Who are the neo stalinists ??

Signed, all sorts of nonsense...............

Think you are right about MBA's though.

[Buchholz]

...the point is this (to address your last point) that many in the wide spread of the movement don't go to rallies and don't get involved but I would consider them 'red' in so far as they 'sympathise' with those on barely livable wages and despise those who roll around in Porches

Do you mean despise the likes of Temporary Interim Red President Thida who strolled into court yesterday with 21 Million Baht in cash in order to seek bail for her husband and other Red Leaders while rank and file Reds remain in jail without financial assistance .... except from the government that they tried to destroy?

.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Buchholz

[ChiangMaiFun]

ChiangMaiFun seems like a lot of the people on New Mandala, so way up in their academic ivory towers with their political history books that they are unable to see what's really been going on here and now. They see the red shirt movement as an ideological fight of poor versus elites for democracy. The reality however is that it's a fight for power between elites, and the poor have been used as pawns by one particular side.

Absolutely.

The neo-Stalinists and their bogus cultural paradigm shift blah have as their rationale the position that support for Thaksin represents a stages theory towards fundamental political change. Of course the same nonsense was prattled by the CP fellow travellers of years ago to justify all sorts of nonsense. Thaksin doesn't mind that these people are in his pocket. Some masters degrees are so much paper.

'neo-Stalinists' hahaha that gave me an early morning chuckle