30,000 Thai Red Shirts Rally In Bangkok: Police

[Emptyset]

PPP could have easily called elections. They didn't. TRT called elections with charges against them.

PPP also could have simply activated their standby party PTP and used them. They obviously were ready with the party for the dissolution. (That dissolution was a foregone conclusion since they had video evidence of a PPP executive making a payoff and under the rules any executive's acts affects the party as a whole.)

Off the top of my head, you have to be in a party 30 days before the new election. So it'd be unwise to dissolve parliament, then risk the court dissolving the party with less than 30 days to go, especially if you think the game's rigged. I think it's 30 days anyway, might be longer. Will check later. But what would've been the point of a new election anyway, with PAD/military refusing to accept the result if PPP won again, which was likely?

[jdinasia]

PPP could have easily called elections. They didn't. TRT called elections with charges against them.

PPP also could have simply activated their standby party PTP and used them. They obviously were ready with the party for the dissolution. (That dissolution was a foregone conclusion since they had video evidence of a PPP executive making a payoff and under the rules any executive's acts affects the party as a whole.)

Off the top of my head, you have to be in a party 30 days before the new election. So it'd be unwise to dissolve parliament, then risk the court dissolving the party with less than 30 days to go, especially if you think the game's rigged. I think it's 30 days anyway, might be longer. Will check later. But what would've been the point of a new election anyway, with PAD/military refusing to accept the result if PPP won again, which was likely?

Snap elections -- 60 days with PPP or their nominees sitting in as caretaker. The likelihood of PTP winning without BJT(Newin) was ...... approaching zero? PPP didn't "win" the 2007 elections, they were simply the largest party in parliament. They still had to have a coalition government. The PAD would have been appeased as major changes could not have happened during that time (caretaker governments can't change the constitution and there would have been no sitting parliament)

Your thinking seems a bit skewed when it comes to thinking about PPP. They were just a nominee for Thaksin the same as PTP is. The groundwork for the next PTP replacement party is already finished, all it needs to be a focal party is for PTP to be dissolved. (Just like the Dems and BJT have registered parties sitting in the wings.)

[rubl]

As far as I remember Somchai was disqualified and Chavarat who became acting PM refused to dissolve the house, as he was close to Newin. He's now BJT leader, of course.

I don't remember this "Chavalit doesn't dissolve house because he's close to Newin.".

Also the way you phrase it, Chavalit seems BJT leader?

Please refresh your memory and rephrase with a few pointers to backup your statements.

Edited January 13, 2011 by rubl

[MikeyIdea]

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though. I don't believe either the UDD or PAD were motivated mostly by money or could be described as "rent-a-mobs".

Interesting and good discussion you have

Emptyset; I don't know how good your Thai is but I wish you in good Thai could have asked almost any taxi driver after Songkran and until the end of the occupation. The majority of them would have known that the standard price for Bangkokians going to Ratchaprasong was 1,500 bath per day. Bringing a motorcycle to join an activity like the motor cavalcade on Viphawadee paid 2,500 bath. Not all were paid of course and not all who were paid was paid every time, money finish is money finish. There was no uniform standard of course, in true Thai fashion.

Exactly the same thing happened this time around. The telephone tree was set in action, not an organised tree but it worked well enough. The guy I knew got a phone call, he called his friend... Some went without getting a call because they knew what the whole thing is about and really support it, there is no doubt about that, some went because they wanted change but didn't really know which changes the reds stood for, some went because they wanted change but didn't really know what they wanted themselves even. , XX,XXX people came to Ratchaprasong. Bangkokians got much more money than up-country people last time, I have no idea how that was this time around

There was going to be a smaller demonstration (several months ago now) and I had plans with my daughter for that day. I asked the wife to check with Ui, he confirmed No money would be given and to the question if there would be lot's of people coming he simply answered. - I don't think so, no money, why come? I didn't cancel what I planned and I am glad I didn't, few people came.

Money is not everything of course but it can be used to predict if a Bangkok demonstration is going to be big or not. That is my personal experience

Edited January 13, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though.

... end removed

If you don't believe it, why mention it at all ? To repeat rumour and then say 'I don't believe it' smacks of manipulation and insinuation.

Edited January 13, 2011 by rubl

[Emptyset]

begin removed ...

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though.

... end removed

If you don't believe it, why mention it at all ? To repeat rumour and then say 'I don't believe it' smacks of manipulation and insinuation.

I'm merely saying to illustrate just because someone rumored something doesn't mean it's true. There were also rumours that PAD were also paid for. I don't believe even though, as I said, I didn't support the PAD's 2008 protests. Actually, I said I didn't believe it, but I've no reason not to. But I am standing by my theory that money isn't the prime motivator for either of the two "mobs", although it might be involved. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic and naive. For all I know, MikeyIdea is right, but I find it hard to believe the money is as much as 1500 baht. It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Actually Somsak Jeamteerasakul comments on Bangkok Pundit blog that the rally might've been bigger because the "Red-Phua Thai network in the provinces had become active again in taking part in Bangkok protest." http://asiancorrespondent.com/45842/an-update-to/

Anyway, if it's true that there was no money offered at previous rallies, at least we know there's at least 10,000 true believers

[Emptyset]

As far as I remember Somchai was disqualified and Chavarat who became acting PM refused to dissolve the house, as he was close to Newin. He's now BJT leader, of course.

I don't remember this "Chavalit doesn't dissolve house because he's close to Newin.".

Also the way you phrase it, Chavalit seems BJT leader?

Please refresh your memory and rephrase with a few pointers to backup your statements.

What, are you quoting me? Because it's clearly not what I wrote in the passage you've highlighted above. It doesn't say Chavalit, it says Chavarat. E.g. "Acting PM Chavarat has apparently dismissed a House dissolution, saying he has been told, or warned, that it could only prolong the crisis. Moreover, he admitted that he was not even sure he had the power to dissolve the House." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/15/headlines/headlines_30090182.php

I'm not actually sure they asked him to do it. They thought they could win the vote. But it's not likely he would've done it anyway, as indicated by the above.

[jdinasia]

begin removed ...

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though.

... end removed

If you don't believe it, why mention it at all ? To repeat rumour and then say 'I don't believe it' smacks of manipulation and insinuation.

I don't doubt that there were some people that were paid to attend the PAD rallies (grannies with kids for example), The average attendee at the PAD functions certainly paid for nothing whilst they were on-site and the guards were likely paid (probably by their employers and not the PAD directly). However, the redshirt rallies just couldn't get the crowds without paying them. (for any extended rally ... or to come from upcountry even if just for a day or 3 ... The people they pulled as support just could not afford it even in the off season for farm work or casual labor. Some (the guards etc) were paid a wage higher than they could have ever gotten upcountry. Many reported being unhappy at the end as they did not get the promised money, and didn't trust the government to get them home safely.

You can stand by your concept that money isn't the prime motivator for the majority of the reds that camped in BKK for all that time. I, and others, will disagree with you. I do, however, think that if the reds that were there as paid dupes really were told what was going on they would have been long gone .... Mao's little red book suggests telling the same lies and over simplified truths over and over and over, is the best way to manipulate your cannon fodder.

[Emptyset]

In answer to the first bit - the actions that would have whitewashed Thaksin was the reversion to the 1997 Constitution with convictions since the army's Constitution overturned - so, either Thaksin would no longer be prosecutable for his crimes, or his crimes would not be considered as crimes.

Now, I'm going to say all this off the top of my head, from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, PPP were trying to change the constitution, one article to stop their own dissolution - which I actually agree with because I think party dissolution is stupid - and one to invalidate the acts of the coup government. Now on principle I'd support overturning the acts of a coup, because I disagree with coups. On the other hand, Thaksin definitely deserves to be convicted, probably of something much more serious than the thing he was convicted for. But the fact is, the constitutional court had made it clear that constitutional changes couldn't invalidate the work of the AEC by around July. So that route was already blocked. The work was continuing. There was little that PPP or Thaksin could do about it, and in fact both Thaksin and Potjaman were convicted in 2008. Convictions that couldn't be overturned by the PPP. Perhaps I'm wrong, will come back to check your replies later, and do some googling to refresh me of the facts.

But Thaksin was convicted, yet PAD kept protesting and actually stepped up the protests after that. So I can't accept that that was the only reason they were protesting, if it was even the foremost reason. I'd also point out that PPP promised to change the constitution in their election campaign, people knew it'd happen. So to what extent can Thaksin's crimes be used as an excuse to usurp the will of the electorate, that is, hypothetically, in future, assuming Thaksin commits no other great crimes? Could it be used to justify another coup, in your opinion? Bearing in mind Sondhi Lim has been convicted to jail, well, at least four times by my count and still hasn't served at time at all. It seems rather hypocritical for PAD supporters to tell Thaksin that he should do his time (even tho he obviously should, in fact, why doesn't he? He'd be out in a couple of months, no doubt).

[rubl]

As far as I remember Somchai was disqualified and Chavarat who became acting PM refused to dissolve the house, as he was close to Newin. He's now BJT leader, of course.

I don't remember this "Chavalit doesn't dissolve house because he's close to Newin.".

Also the way you phrase it, Chavalit seems BJT leader?

Please refresh your memory and rephrase with a few pointers to backup your statements.

What, are you quoting me? Because it's clearly not what I wrote in the passage you've highlighted above. It doesn't say Chavalit, it says Chavarat. E.g. "Acting PM Chavarat has apparently dismissed a House dissolution, saying he has been told, or warned, that it could only prolong the crisis. Moreover, he admitted that he was not even sure he had the power to dissolve the House." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/15/headlines/headlines_30090182.php

I'm not actually sure they asked him to do it. They thought they could win the vote. But it's not likely he would've done it anyway, as indicated by the above.

Oops, I may need to get my eyes checked

Chavarat instead of Chavalit makes more sense.

"Acting PM Chavarat has apparently dismissed a House dissolution, saying he has been told, or warned, that it could only prolong the crisis. Moreover, he admitted that he was not even sure he had the power to dissolve the House."

"We have known that Chavarat, with his close ties to Newin, didn't want to dissolve the House and has been warned against it without the legal questions being answered first."

So it's not really 'didn't want .. as he was close to Newin'

Anyway, back to the OP 'this time 30,000 really peaceful protesters'

[rubl]

Yes, PPP were trying to change the constitution, one article to stop their own dissolution - which I actually agree with because I think party dissolution is stupid

... only one line, check original for all

Whether or not stupid, a ruling government / party trying to wriggle their way out of a problem doesn't seem the way to go.

[Emptyset]

I've given this a lot of thought actually. jdinasia and rubl are right, Samak appeared publicly many times in defiance of the coup-appointed Surayud government, saying "our policies are whatever Thaksin wants us to do". This was unacceptable to me, and I imagine it was unacceptable to the people that came onto the streets in September 2006 to offer the advancing army food, refreshments and flowers – to those about to "take democracy away from them". I will admit to hoping that the election committee would immediately disband the PPP before the election on the grounds that they were a political nominee of someone banned from politics. This would also mean that Newin would lose his voice, too.

Therefore, the 2008 protests, during which I ended my personal support for the PAD, did not go too far (in my eyes) - at least not in their principles of removing an elected government on the grounds that a developed democracy could not permit such an obstruction to democracy as Thaksin to hold absolute political power. But they did go too far in terms of their actions, as you correctly point out.

As for the "rent-a-mob" comment - I disagree that the majority were not motivated mostly by money, for either protest, at some stages. I believe that if no money was offered, these protests would not have been half as large as they were, but I believe you are right in thinking that most of the protesters were there because they believed in something, along with the daily protester fee. However, there were definitely violent "rent-a-mob" types at both protests.

Samak appeared in defiance of a coup orientated government? Sorry, I know you're right, but that sounds like a good thing to me. In the end you either support electoral democracy, or you don't. Some offered the army food, but they were a minority, even in Bangkok. I don't think you can really use their jubilation to justify the coup, nor should what was acceptable to them dictate what Samak, who was then elected, despite the fact that most people upcountry hated him (he's always been a BKK politician), does. And I'm saying that even though I despise both Samak and Thaksin!

So do I take it from your second paragraph that you're actually a "New Politics" supporter? I.e. you support PAD's proposed election system? If you thought Thaksin held "absolute political power" in 2008, why was he convicted? Why was there even a coup against him for that matter? Truth is, he had way too much power for a while, but he'll never have that much power again, neither will he ever be Thai PM again. I actually think the worst thing about the PAD is not their actions, it's their denigration of the poor (& the supposedly uneducated) and the proposal of the new politics. You could've had an anti-Thaksin progressive movement, which PAD almost were in the very, very early days in late 2005/6, even Weng/Thida were affiliated, but instead they turned to reactionary conservatism, more backward looking than forward. The best way to drive out money politics isn't to insult the majority of the electorate. Why would anyone even bother listening after that point?

There might've been a daily protester fee, but it doesn't mean the people receiving it don't share the goals of the movement. It's like strikers receive a daily strike pay, but obviously they're still choosing to back the strike. Most of the violent types were the hired ones, and just general hangers on who fancied a bit of violence, I think. Anyway, on a more general point, I'm against this rally style politics with speakers on the stage, in general. I mean it's OK to a degree, but the speakers try to please the crowd and entertain them, which leads to playing to the LCD all the time. There's no popular participation involved and people get bored quickly if the speeches aren't fiery, controversial and interspersed with a lot of singing. Seminars, political schools & so fourth are better options, so people can participate and really learn about the concepts, instead of just parroting terms. But rallies and other events, like Sombat's bike rides are OK too, but they have very limited potential if what you're aiming for is democratic emancipation.

[jdinasia]

Yes, PPP were trying to change the constitution, one article to stop their own dissolution - which I actually agree with because I think party dissolution is stupid

... only one line, check original for all

Whether or not stupid, a ruling government / party trying to wriggle their way out of a problem doesn't seem the way to go.

The change would have also had the affect of whitewashing TRT and Thaksin .... not just PPP.

edit to add ---- yes, political schools actually teaching the concepts and pillars of democracy would be good, Thida style indoctrination schools would be bad.

But wait ---- why not just teach about politics and civics in all schools?

Edited January 13, 2011 by jdinasia

[Emptyset]

You can stand by your concept that money isn't the prime motivator for the majority of the reds that camped in BKK for all that time. I, and others, will disagree with you. I do, however, think that if the reds that were there as paid dupes really were told what was going on they would have been long gone .... Mao's little red book suggests telling the same lies and over simplified truths over and over and over, is the best way to manipulate your cannon fodder.

There's stories about people being trucked in and paid, but also stories about people selling things and pooling money to be able to be there. I haven't seen any evidence they were getting paid myself, other than one video which is people getting fuel money. So, the trucks etc, were obviously subsidized. I honestly don't think it'd be hard to get people to go for a day's entertainment (with the recent rally) with free transport offered. That's why I tend not to believe that people were paid 1500 baht.

What do you mean if they were told what was really going on? Are you saying they're not able to watch TV or read newspapers to get the alternative side of the story? For sure, lies have been told, but there's enough legitimate reasons I can find as to why I might protest (were I Thai, of course). I know loads of intelligent Thais that are at least sympathetic to the red shirts - tho, of course, I know plenty who're not - but most left-leaning types I know have been sympathetic and understanding, if not active members. And I don't think they're "dupes".

[rubl]

Samak appeared in defiance of a coup orientated government? Sorry, I know you're right, but that sounds like a good thing to me.

... end removed

Somehow you managed to loose a bit of the Samak line, this part saying "our policies are whatever Thaksin wants us to do".

[jdinasia]

You can stand by your concept that money isn't the prime motivator for the majority of the reds that camped in BKK for all that time. I, and others, will disagree with you. I do, however, think that if the reds that were there as paid dupes really were told what was going on they would have been long gone .... Mao's little red book suggests telling the same lies and over simplified truths over and over and over, is the best way to manipulate your cannon fodder.

There's stories about people being trucked in and paid, but also stories about people selling things and pooling money to be able to be there. I haven't seen any evidence they were getting paid myself, other than one video which is people getting fuel money. So, the trucks etc, were obviously subsidized. I honestly don't think it'd be hard to get people to go for a day's entertainment (with the recent rally) with free transport offered. That's why I tend not to believe that people were paid 1500 baht.

What do you mean if they were told what was really going on? Are you saying they're not able to watch TV or read newspapers to get the alternative side of the story? For sure, lies have been told, but there's enough legitimate reasons I can find as to why I might protest (were I Thai, of course). I know loads of intelligent Thais that are at least sympathetic to the red shirts - tho, of course, I know plenty who're not - but most left-leaning types I know have been sympathetic and understanding, if not active members. And I don't think they're "dupes".

The people at Pan Fah and Rachtprasong had access to ....... the red stages for their information. You (I assume) heard the violence threatened and promised from those stages, the scare tactics that the government was going to 'get them' and the saviour tactics of the red leadership. It was a constant drone of threats, fear, promises .... all in all straight from any political indoctrination manual.

There has been plenty of anecdotal and direct statements about payment that to disbelieve that shows an unwillingness to accept reality. There was plenty of photographic evidence of people's ID cards being held by the reds (to insure that they paid the right people was the cover story ... to insure that they stayed is just as likely.)

Those of us that live up-country can tell you what the buzz was around town and that people were paid to attend. I heard plenty of the promises from the stages here in Chiang Mai. Like I said, you are free to believe what you wish ...

So, no ... the folks at the rally sites really didn't have access to outside information and yes they were told not to trust any outside information if they got it. They were paid. 1500? Not from what was being offered in Chiang Mai (unless you were a guard and ...) but 1500 a week plus transport and food in the beginning --- upwards at the end because people outside the rallies were seeing other information.

[Buchholz]

Some offered the army food, but they were a minority, even in Bangkok.

A minority in Bangkok would be 4 million. I know there were a lot soldiers there, but not 4 million that the citizens of Bangkok could offer food to.

So do I take it from your second paragraph that you're actually a "New Politics" supporter? I.e. you support PAD's proposed election system?

If you are referring to the 70/30 split, that's not on the New Politics Party platform. It was a notion bandied about and soon thereafter quashed by the PAD at large, but it never seems to end following them about, no doubt aided by those repeatedly bringing it up on internet forums erroneously. It's a great sound bite, but hasn't been relevant for quite some time.

If you thought Thaksin held "absolute political power" in 2008, why was he convicted?

Because it was the last remaining bastion of separation of powers that he wasn't able to completely control.

neither will he ever be Thai PM again

Not if he and his substantial and considerable resources have anything to say about it.

.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Buchholz

[Pi Sek]

Therefore, the 2008 protests, during which I ended my personal support for the PAD, did not go too far (in my eyes) - at least not in their principles of removing an elected government on the grounds that a developed democracy could not permit such an obstruction to democracy as Thaksin to hold absolute political power. But they did go too far in terms of their actions, as you correctly point out.

So do I take it from your second paragraph that you're actually a "New Politics" supporter? I.e. you support PAD's proposed election system? If you thought Thaksin held "absolute political power" in 2008, why was he convicted? Why was there even a coup against him for that matter? Truth is, he had way too much power for a while, but he'll never have that much power again, neither will he ever be Thai PM again. I actually think the worst thing about the PAD is not their actions, it's their denigration of the poor (& the supposedly uneducated) and the proposal of the new politics. You could've had an anti-Thaksin progressive movement, which PAD almost were in the very, very early days in late 2005/6, even Weng/Thida were affiliated, but instead they turned to reactionary conservatism, more backward looking than forward. The best way to drive out money politics isn't to insult the majority of the electorate. Why would anyone even bother listening after that point?

You're nearly right! I was a PAD sympathiser pre-August 2008 (until they invaded NBT), but I'm not a supporter of the NPP. I am no big fan of democracy - even in the most developed democracies, we still see people voting for personalities rather than policies and, until that stops, democracy I'm afraid is a fad (that's even before we address democracy in Africa and what-have-you) - but I recognise that it is the best option we have on the table. I will add that democracy is not something that can be easily replaced by fascism. The NPP know this, that's why they proposed a "more democratic form of fascism", where the public do have a minor, non-decisive vote rather than no vote at all.

I notice that you tie the PAD and the NPP together. Doing such is paramount to equating the Red Shirts, PTP and the UDD, which I have never done. The Red Shirts are NOT the UDD (although the UDD falls within the Red Shirts and sees itself as the "central Red Shirt movement") and the UDD are not PTP (although our friend Jatuporn is a senior leader of both). Likewise, the Yellow Shirts, the PAD and the NPP should not be banded together as simply as some anti-Reds band the red factions together.

But, no, I am absolutely not an NPP supporter. In fact, I think they are actually a little evil. You possibly could stretch interpretation of my political opinions as that of a left-wing fascist (I do on occasions), even though there's no such thing.

[TAWP]

But, no, I am absolutely not an NPP supporter. In fact, I think they are actually a little evil. You possibly could stretch interpretation of my political opinions as that of a left-wing fascist (I do on occasions), even though there's no such thing.

Left-wing authoritarian exists. (And seen in most [read: all] communist countries.)

[ballpoint]

There's stories about people being trucked in and paid, but also stories about people selling things and pooling money to be able to be there. I haven't seen any evidence they were getting paid myself, other than one video which is people getting fuel money. So, the trucks etc, were obviously subsidized. I honestly don't think it'd be hard to get people to go for a day's entertainment (with the recent rally) with free transport offered. That's why I tend not to believe that people were paid 1500 baht.

Believe me, people were getting paid to attend the PAD and red shirt rallies. I personally know people who attended both, purely for the money. There was a well advertised scale of payments covering diesel money for pick up truck owners, who also received a payment for each passenger they brought in to the rally, and a payment for the passengers themselves. I also reported on here earlier a conversation I had with a foot massage girl in Bangkok, prior to Songkran this year. When I asked her if she was going back to Nakorn Panom for Songkran she replied that she would go down to the protest site "because they have free food there". No doubt many would have gone anyway, but many more would have stayed away had they not been paid. That's quite a major point when everyone is arguing over how many showed up, and trying to use that number as a mandate. And before the standard "they all wanted to go but were too poor to" argument is raised, then why not just arrange free buses to bring anyone who wanted to go to Bangkok? Why the need to pay them as well? Indeed, why the need to pay them each election too?

[MikeyIdea]

**********

There's stories about people being trucked in and paid, but also stories about people selling things and pooling money to be able to be there. I haven't seen any evidence they were getting paid myself, other than one video which is people getting fuel money. So, the trucks etc, were obviously subsidized. I honestly don't think it'd be hard to get people to go for a day's entertainment (with the recent rally) with free transport offered. That's why I tend not to believe that people were paid 1500 baht.

**********

Note that I specify that it was Bangkokians that were paid 1,500 bath.

I do absolutely not state that up-country people being shipped in were paid anywhere near what Bangkokians were paid. Payment was totally on a need basis (not seen from the poeple demonstrating)

Thai news interviewed several people. I clearly remember the interview of a nice 70+ years old farmer from the North a few days after it all finished, it was very touching and I felt very sad for him, he cried, said that he was happy to go home, said that he had wanted to go home for quite some time now but he couldn't because he didn't have any money. He got free transport to Bangkok, free food during the time he spent here but nothing after that.

I got angry when I heard the interview on Thai news, I thought about Ui who got 1,500 bath per day for going to Ratchaprasong, this old man got nothing and couldn't even go back home again

[Emptyset]

I notice that you tie the PAD and the NPP together. Doing such is paramount to equating the Red Shirts, PTP and the UDD, which I have never done. The Red Shirts are NOT the UDD (although the UDD falls within the Red Shirts and sees itself as the "central Red Shirt movement") and the UDD are not PTP (although our friend Jatuporn is a senior leader of both). Likewise, the Yellow Shirts, the PAD and the NPP should not be banded together as simply as some anti-Reds band the red factions together.

But, no, I am absolutely not an NPP supporter. In fact, I think they are actually a little evil. You possibly could stretch interpretation of my political opinions as that of a left-wing fascist (I do on occasions), even though there's no such thing.

I actually meant "the new politics" as in the PAD's new political model, not the party itself.

E.g. 'In the 25th June edition of Manager Online Suriyasai called for a new politics centred on "sang chat" or "build the nation", which involves the removal of the "nominee government", waging the final war against Thaksinocracy, and the creation of a new political system, which I will call Selectoral Democracy.

Suriyasai wants to see 70% of office holders come from as yet to be defined processes of selection, and 30% from election. This proposed system of Selectoral Democracy is warranted, he argues, because big capital captures political power in the current system of "4-second democracy".' (more details here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2008/06/pad-leader-seeks-selectoral-democracy.html)

But someone above pointed out the New Politics Party don't actually support the new politics (I haven't checked if they do or not, just assuming the above poster is correct). Anyway, obviously the vast majority of those who comprised PAD in 2008 don't support the NPP, but it's true that the NPP is born of the PAD movement and formed by key PAD leaders. So I think they're even more closely entwined that UDD/PPP, even if not quite one and the same. I don't think this party will ever become really popular though, they'd be lucky to win a seat. Few Thais are in favour of changing the system, most are committed to electoral democracy, even though like you, they know it's flawed.

[Emptyset]

Note that I specify that it was Bangkokians that were paid 1,500 bath.

Thai news interviewed several people. I clearly remember the interview of a nice 70+ years old farmer from the North a few days after it all finished, it was very touching and I felt very sad for him, he cried, said that he was happy to go home, said that he had wanted to go home for quite some time now but he couldn't because he didn't have any money. He got free transport to Bangkok, free food during the time he spent here but nothing after that.

I got angry when I heard the interview on Thai news, I thought about Ui who got 1,500 bath per day for going to Ratchaprasong, this old man got nothing and couldn't even go back home again

Interesting. So why did they need Ui so much that he got paid as much as 1,500? Why do you suppose he's worth more than a farmer?

But there were a lot of the Bangkokians that initially came to support the reds (when they had crowds of 150,000+), but quickly disappeared when it started to get violent, not many of them got paid surely? Many were presumably only there a few hours.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Emptyset

[MikeyIdea]

Note that I specify that it was Bangkokians that were paid 1,500 bath.

Thai news interviewed several people. I clearly remember the interview of a nice 70+ years old farmer from the North a few days after it all finished, it was very touching and I felt very sad for him, he cried, said that he was happy to go home, said that he had wanted to go home for quite some time now but he couldn't because he didn't have any money. He got free transport to Bangkok, free food during the time he spent here but nothing after that.

I got angry when I heard the interview on Thai news, I thought about Ui who got 1,500 bath per day for going to Ratchaprasong, this old man got nothing and couldn't even go back home again

Interesting. So why did they need Ui so much that he got paid as much as 1,500? Why do you suppose he's worth more than a farmer?

But there were a lot of the Bangkokians that initially came to support the reds (when they had crowds of 150,000+), but quickly disappeared when it started to get violent, not many of them got paid surely? Many were presumably only there a few hours.

Well, that is what made me both sad and angry. How extremely unfair it all was. This old man getting a free ride down to Bangkok for the demonstrations and then he couldn't even get money to go back again - the interview was broadcasted on Thai TV - and then Bangkok people were often paid 1,500 bath per day. There were several oldish farmers who said on TV that they had been given money for the trip to Bangkok and promise of free food (which they got) but they got no money to go back again. You should have seen and heard the interviews I would think, they were on almost all Thai speaking TV channels a few days after 19 May

I felt very sad for the old man because I felt that he had been lured to Bangkok and I am sure that he was a good man

Why do you ask me? You shouldn't ask me why many Bangkokians were worth 1,500 bath per day but old farmers from the North who had been given free rides to Bangkok suddenly were ditched when they wanted to go home again. I haven't asked anyone that question, I think the answer is too obvious. I'll let you answer why you think the red movement did that, then I'll tell you what all my Thai friends who saw it on TV said and thought the next-following day.

Emptyset - Why do you think Ui was worth so much more than a 70 year old farmer who only had red cloths to wear and didn't have money buy food and couldn't leave Ratchaprasong to go home?

I don't know how good your Thai is, it wasn't difficult at all for me to chat along with taxi drivers and get them to tell me. I am sure it would have been more difficult if my Thai hadn't been good and probably very difficult if I had been speaking English of course. It may be difficult to ask now, so long after the ending so I really wish you in good Thai had asked almost any taxi driver in May 2010. I really wish you would have asked. Sorry for using that phrase if you did but your Thai wasn't up to it, not written to blame in any way. It is of course a fact that Thais are shy to tell outsiders of something that everybody knows is not really good

Mikey

Edited January 14, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[Pi Sek]

I notice that you tie the PAD and the NPP together. Doing such is paramount to equating the Red Shirts, PTP and the UDD, which I have never done. The Red Shirts are NOT the UDD (although the UDD falls within the Red Shirts and sees itself as the "central Red Shirt movement") and the UDD are not PTP (although our friend Jatuporn is a senior leader of both). Likewise, the Yellow Shirts, the PAD and the NPP should not be banded together as simply as some anti-Reds band the red factions together.

But, no, I am absolutely not an NPP supporter. In fact, I think they are actually a little evil. You possibly could stretch interpretation of my political opinions as that of a left-wing fascist (I do on occasions), even though there's no such thing.

I actually meant "the new politics" as in the PAD's new political model, not the party itself.

E.g. 'In the 25th June edition of Manager Online Suriyasai called for a new politics centred on "sang chat" or "build the nation", which involves the removal of the "nominee government", waging the final war against Thaksinocracy, and the creation of a new political system, which I will call Selectoral Democracy.

Suriyasai wants to see 70% of office holders come from as yet to be defined processes of selection, and 30% from election. This proposed system of Selectoral Democracy is warranted, he argues, because big capital captures political power in the current system of "4-second democracy".' (more details here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2008/06/pad-leader-seeks-selectoral-democracy.html)

But someone above pointed out the New Politics Party don't actually support the new politics (I haven't checked if they do or not, just assuming the above poster is correct). Anyway, obviously the vast majority of those who comprised PAD in 2008 don't support the NPP, but it's true that the NPP is born of the PAD movement and formed by key PAD leaders. So I think they're even more closely entwined that UDD/PPP, even if not quite one and the same. I don't think this party will ever become really popular though, they'd be lucky to win a seat. Few Thais are in favour of changing the system, most are committed to electoral democracy, even though like you, they know it's flawed.

Ah, OK, I get you.

Actually I think that the NPP need to make a decision - are they pro-democracy or aren't they. They would argue they are, because they care enough about democracy to understand that democracy cannot yet be the M.O. of Thai politics; at least not until all those Khwai Daeng have been educated to their own lofty standards. After all, what does "elite" really mean if it's not a testament to one's "quality"? I would argue they're not, because they seem to not believe democracy is capable of evolving through the elctorate's understanding of policies.

"New Politics" is a halway measure between democracy and dictatorship. As I say above, they need to choose one or the other rather than sit on the fence use their on-the-fence position as a precedent to improve "new politics" as needs require.

And it wasn't the NPP that doesn't support new politics, it was the PAD (further reason to separate the Yellow Shirts, PAD and NPP just as one should separate PTP, UDD and the Red Shirts - there are similarities and shared views, but different groups have different agenda).

I think that a strong democractic system should have extreme voices like the NPP and the Khattiyatham party (or the British National Party, for example). If the state of a nation has slid far enough to draw popular support to parties such as these, then this serves as both a warning to the mainstream parties that they are not addressing the needs of their electorates and as a platform of power for extreme people to counter-balance the non-action from those incumbent in power who are not listening to the people that voted them in. What's more, as soon as they gain any seats, they start forcefully promoting their policies, which to many sound like a recipe for disaster - so the democratic process usually means people who vote them in, who some might claim are uneducated because of their choice of political representative, get educated through their experience. That is democracy and, in my honest opinion, this cannot happen in Thailand as long as personalities as opposed to policies tend to sway a voter's choice of candidate. Why? Because the social and political arena in Thailand are based on paying homage to your immediate superiors - e.g. the pu-yai-baan, local kamnan, whatever. This is such an installed situation that going against the trend will likely cost you something, maybe even your life - and that is not a healthy environment for democracy. How can free and fair elections stand a chance with a situation like that?

As for what I think... democracy is full of holes but dictatorship doesn't work either, particularly when it's inflicted upon an already-democratic system.

[rubl]

I notice that you tie the PAD and the NPP together. Doing such is paramount to equating the Red Shirts, PTP and the UDD, which I have never done. The Red Shirts are NOT the UDD (although the UDD falls within the Red Shirts and sees itself as the "central Red Shirt movement") and the UDD are not PTP (although our friend Jatuporn is a senior leader of both). Likewise, the Yellow Shirts, the PAD and the NPP should not be banded together as simply as some anti-Reds band the red factions together.

But, no, I am absolutely not an NPP supporter. In fact, I think they are actually a little evil. You possibly could stretch interpretation of my political opinions as that of a left-wing fascist (I do on occasions), even though there's no such thing.

I actually meant "the new politics" as in the PAD's new political model, not the party itself.

E.g. 'In the 25th June edition of Manager Online Suriyasai called for a new politics centred on "sang chat" or "build the nation", which involves the removal of the "nominee government", waging the final war against Thaksinocracy, and the creation of a new political system, which I will call Selectoral Democracy.

Suriyasai wants to see 70% of office holders come from as yet to be defined processes of selection, and 30% from election. This proposed system of Selectoral Democracy is warranted, he argues, because big capital captures political power in the current system of "4-second democracy".' (more details here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2008/06/pad-leader-seeks-selectoral-democracy.html)

But someone above pointed out the New Politics Party don't actually support the new politics (I haven't checked if they do or not, just assuming the above poster is correct). Anyway, obviously the vast majority of those who comprised PAD in 2008 don't support the NPP, but it's true that the NPP is born of the PAD movement and formed by key PAD leaders. So I think they're even more closely entwined that UDD/PPP, even if not quite one and the same. I don't think this party will ever become really popular though, they'd be lucky to win a seat. Few Thais are in favour of changing the system, most are committed to electoral democracy, even though like you, they know it's flawed.

The NPP was setup by PAD members, but even k. Sondhi withdrew from it if I remember correctly. The recent by-elections have shown a minimal support for these radicals. To say NPP = PAD is much less true than PTP = UDD.

[Buchholz]

I actually meant "the new politics" as in the PAD's new political model, not the party itself.

E.g. 'In the 25th June edition of Manager Online Suriyasai called for a new politics centred on "sang chat" or "build the nation", which involves the removal of the "nominee government", waging the final war against Thaksinocracy, and the creation of a new political system, which I will call Selectoral Democracy.

Suriyasai wants to see 70% of office holders come from as yet to be defined processes of selection, and 30% from election. This proposed system of Selectoral Democracy is warranted, he argues, because big capital captures political power in the current system of "4-second democracy".' (more details here: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2008/06/pad-leader-seeks-selectoral-democracy.html)

But someone above pointed out the New Politics Party don't actually support the new politics (I haven't checked if they do or not, just assuming the above poster is correct). Anyway, obviously the vast majority of those who comprised PAD in 2008 don't support the NPP, but it's true that the NPP is born of the PAD movement and formed by key PAD leaders. So I think they're even more closely entwined that UDD/PPP, even if not quite one and the same. I don't think this party will ever become really popular though, they'd be lucky to win a seat. Few Thais are in favour of changing the system, most are committed to electoral democracy, even though like you, they know it's flawed.

The NPP was setup by PAD members, but even k. Sondhi withdrew from it if I remember correctly.

The linked blog entry is dated June 26, 2008... prior to the even the formation of NPP.

It's not the platform of NPP, but it doesn't stop some from attempting to tie the two together two and a half years later, and why not?

It's a great sound bite....problem is, it's just not true.

.

[Emptyset]

The NPP was setup by PAD members, but even k. Sondhi withdrew from it if I remember correctly. The recent by-elections have shown a minimal support for these radicals. To say NPP = PAD is much less true than PTP = UDD.

Sondhi withdrew to focus on PAD, but he still supports NPP, of course. And he's on record as saying many times that democracy doesn't work in Thailand. As for NPP doesn't = PAD, not sure about that. PAD only attract a few people to their rallies now, and who's to say the majority of them don't support NPP? Sondhi is busy attacking the Democrats these days, so that's losing PAD support, but presumably NPP supporters agree with him. Most people that joined PAD in 2008 probably don't consider themselves PAD anymore, they just wanted Abhisit in and to keep Thaksin at bay. It's not likely they like Sondhi too much now he's turned on Mark. If they did, we'd see massive protests against this government, right? (Suppose we still might, but doesn't seem likely.) All of the NPP leaders are also PAD leaders, whilst not all UDD leaders are involved with PT. In fact the main leader now, Thida, isn't.

[Emptyset]

The linked blog entry is dated June 26, 2008... prior to the even the formation of NPP.

It's not the platform of NPP, but it doesn't stop some from attempting to tie the two together two and a half years later, and why not?

It's a great sound bite....problem is, it's just not true.

.

Maybe you should read what I said in my reply to Pi Sek more carefully. I actually said that someone on this thread had noted that it wasn't NPP's policy, didn't I? So how was I trying to link the two? So what is their platform, anyway?

[rubl]

The linked blog entry is dated June 26, 2008... prior to the even the formation of NPP.

It's not the platform of NPP, but it doesn't stop some from attempting to tie the two together two and a half years later, and why not?

It's a great sound bite....problem is, it's just not true..

Maybe you should read what I said in my reply to Pi Sek more carefully. I actually said that someone on this thread had noted that it wasn't NPP's policy, didn't I? So how was I trying to link the two? So what is their platform, anyway?

You said "I actually meant "the new politics" as in the PAD's new political model, not the party itself.

E.g. 'In the 25th June edition of Manager Online Suriyasai called for a new politics centred on "sang chat" or "build the nation", which involves the removal of the "nominee government", waging the final war against Thaksinocracy, and the creation of a new political system, which I will call Selectoral Democracy."

PAD has no political model, only NPP which seems to have slightly more than a handful of members. Somewhere on the fringe of the political spectre and no importance.

Back to '30,000 really peaceful protesters of a different colour'