Thai Reds Mass In Bangkok To Mark Anniversary Of Protest

[johncat1]

Given what has happened in Japan who really gives a rat's rear end about Thailand's stupid little political squabbles!!!!

If we could listen in, I'm sure that's what they are discussing:

I think this photo sums up the Reds and their mental attitude very well.

A bunch of devil worshippers whose idea of dealing with any opposition would be to stick pins in a Voodoo doll

And these people want to rule Thailand and take is back in time a few hundred years

What this country needs is a NEW political party

Forget the Reds they have proved they are just a bunch of thugs who just use terror and violence

It would be nice if they had a New party that had principles.

But sadly " This is Thailand " and Thais are obsessed with money and materials things

Corruption is an acceptable way of life here

So no matter who is in power, the Government . Police, and military will always be corrupt.

The only time there are problems is if someone is forgotten in the share out or the opposition get jealous and want their share too

[anterian]

Some people seem to have nothing better to do than bandy words on TVF, well I have a life outside of this forum, so at the risk of boring many I will explain where I am coming from. I participated in the original Yellow rallies when Thaksin was in power, I felt he abused his position. I was not so happy about the coup, I felt that was the wrong solution. I became increasingly unhappy with the way Samak was removed and then Somchai, plus the banning of the 111 MPs, it was becoming clear that the elite were showing their hand. I was dissillusions by the PAD occupation of government house and then the airport,. I was angered by the distorted media reports and the false forensic analyses. The coverage of the Red and Yellow protests was clearly biased, the clamp down and banning of Red radio and TV stations was a disgrace. Thus I ceased to be a yellow supporter.

Am I a Red supporter, well I sympathise with their grass roots problems, I live in a poor village and see it on a daily basis, I don't always agree with their methods, but they are the actions of people with nothing to lose. Abhisit is clearly out of touch with the rural poor, he was appointed by due democratic process but not by democratic mandate, his desperate desire to hang on at all costs I find abhorrent, he is a wimp with a smarmy smile.

The Reds may not be the answer to Thailands problems, but I would like to see them have a fair try without the army interfering. The Dems have solved nothing, they are just papering over the cracks. So I dislike the Dems and the PAD, I loath Newin as a two faced turncoat, but am I a Red supporter, well you tell me

You are a red supporter. Your arguments, like so many of your fellows, are based on an entirely false premise. After the 1991 coup, who was firmly on the army's side, wanting to install Suchinda as PM? Chavalit, Chalerm, et al, the people who became the NAP, the party that was bought out by Thaksin, lock, stock and barrel of rotten apples. In the years between the 1992 and 2001 elections, who controlled most of Isaan, keeping the people in the place that you claim to want to see rise out of? The rotten dynasties and their proxies, many of them members of that same NAP, that was bought out by Thaksin. When Thaksin wanted to form a new political party, did he recruit a bunch of fresh people, with new ideas and ideals? No, he bought, on mass, the party that won the most votes in the previous elections - the NAP, the patron of the rice barons, upcountry thugs and loan sharks. The party that even then used Chavalit's Taharn Praharn to do much of its dirty work and intimidation, the same Taharn Praharn that has been linked with the black shirts. And we get people, clueless about recent Thai history, no matter how many books they claim to have read about it, come here trying to tell us that the poor of Isaan are clamouring to kick out the present government in order to bring back the same old crooks, thieves, murderers and robber barons that are responsible for them being where they are today? I agree with you on Newin, he being one of that afore mentioned group, which is why, if the poor are really serious about political change, and not just in it for a quick buck at election time, and another at a protest of any colour, they would resoundingly express their disatisfaction with any one who has been, or has been associated with, an Isaan MP in the past. And any real political activist would be encouraging them to do just that.

thank you for the history lesson, might I suggest it has about the same relevance as judging present day Germans or Japanese by the events of WW2. History is about the past, it may or may not have influence on the present.

With the rapid growth in social communications people are becoming more aware, less easy to manipulate by lies and propaganda.

Additionally I did not mention Isaan, I have not ever been there and so would not dream of commenting on how they think or behave. I comment from my own experiences, two years spent living in Bangkok in the Banglampoo area, then the last 6 years living in a poor suburban village in northjeast Nonthaburi province.

So my premise is not false but equally neither is yours, we are, I presume, in different parts of Thailand where different situations apply. Indeed this makes the point that the Red movement is not a monolithic Thaksin adoring brainless mob, it is actually a collection of many different groups w3ith many different ideals, yet held together by one common objective, to improve their lives and that of their families.

My village is neither Red nor Yellow, they dislike Thaksin and Abhisit in equal measure, like me they are Orange, try to buy their vote and you would end up with a black eye or worse. This is the reality I live amongst, not Isaan.

Like so many of my fellows (what a condescending phrase), I judge by my friends and neighbours.

[Emptyset]

So, you're telling us that the South, the stronghold of the Democrats, has prospered, while the North and Northeast, the stronghold of the NAP/CTP/TRT/PPP/PTP, have been kept in poverty?

Kept in poverty? I'm not sure it's the result of deliberate policies, although neglect of rural folk from Bangkok has been historically part of it. People in the NE/N did quite well from TRT, comparatively better than they'd done before.

[Emptyset]

You are a red supporter. Your arguments, like so many of your fellows, are based on an entirely false premise. After the 1991 coup, who was firmly on the army's side, wanting to install Suchinda as PM? Chavalit, Chalerm, et al, the people who became the NAP, the party that was bought out by Thaksin, lock, stock and barrel of rotten apples.

Chavalit and NAP were prominently anti-Suchinda. Chalerm was part of the Chatichai administration that was overthrown by the coup, and at the time he was known for being vehemently anti-military. He certainly didn't want to "install Suchinda as PM", as he was investigated for corruption by the junta and had to flee the country.

In the years between the 1992 and 2001 elections, who controlled most of Isaan, keeping the people in the place that you claim to want to see rise out of? The rotten dynasties and their proxies, many of them members of that same NAP, that was bought out by Thaksin. No, he bought, on mass, the party that won the most votes in the previous elections - the NAP, the patron of the rice barons, upcountry thugs and loan sharks. The party that even then used Chavalit's Taharn Praharn to do much of its dirty work and intimidation, the same Taharn Praharn that has been linked with the black shirts. And we get people, clueless about recent Thai history, no matter how many books they claim to have read about it, come here trying to tell us that the poor of Isaan are clamouring to kick out the present government in order to bring back the same old crooks, thieves, murderers and robber barons that are responsible for them being where they are today? I agree with you on Newin, he being one of that afore mentioned group, which is why, if the poor are really serious about political change, and not just in it for a quick buck at election time, and another at a protest of any colour, they would resoundingly express their disatisfaction with any one who has been, or has been associated with, an Isaan MP in the past. And any real political activist would be encouraging them to do just that.

New Aspiration didn't become part of Thai Rak Thai until 2002, although they were part of the coalition before that.

When Thaksin wanted to form a new political party, did he recruit a bunch of fresh people, with new ideas and ideals?

Yes, he did. It was later that he started to rely heavily on the old godfathers and machine-politicos, although the reformists within TRT where marginalized all too soon imo.

"More than anyone else, Thaksin and the advisers to his fledgeling Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party understood the significance of this change in the public theatre of politics. Scandals were out. Issues were in. At the 2001 election, TRT used all the old election techniques—log-rolling candidates, promising local projects, distributing red notes. But it won by fighting on a platform of issues, and attracting reformers as advisers, candidates and voters. Then TRT seemed to lose its way. In his first six months in power, Thaksin was fighting the possibility that the Constitutional Court might remove him from office. He wooed popular support with a highly public, presidential style, and a string of rapid but often superficial reforms. Then he turned his attention to building a coalition so big it would last at least one full parliamentary term. This meant allying with more old-style politicians at the expense of the reformers. Throughout, he could not avoid taking care of the telecom businesses on which his wealth and influence rests. Finally he and his allies tried to stifle criticism by intimidating outspoken opponents and muscling the media.

Thai Rak Thai's promise to be a party of issues, change, and reform was fading as fast as a monsoon sunset."

http://www.robinlea.com/changnoi2/noconfidence.htm

"Thaksin’s election victory in January 2001 was new. For the first time, a leader asked the mass of the people to vote for him because he promised to do something for them. Thaksin talked to local leaders and NGO workers. He recruited old activists with a commitment to social change. He sat down with the Assembly of the Poor and negotiated a peace treaty, after which they raised their two-year siege of Government House. He put bright, committed reformers in several key ministries. Thaksin understood that something major had changed over the previous decade. People are no longer afraid to demand change. Other politicians were reluctant to accept this. That gave Thaksin an opportunity. Most remarkably, Thaksin has implemented (or tried to implement) every item on his electoral platform. He has given debt relief, dished out village funds, and rolled out cheap health care. He has set up committees to deal with the problems of the Assembly of the Poor. He has delivered on other promises to NGOs and social leaders, such as the community forestry bill.

But reform disrupts bureaucratic habits, confronts vested interests, and breaks people’s rice-bowls. Those affected resist.

Some of the strongest opposition is inside Thaksin’s own party. At the election, Thaksin also played Thailand’s traditional ‘money politics’ with a lot more money than ever before. He log-rolled old political bosses into the party. TRT candidates scattered red notes around as well as anyone. It was the combination of the new (electoral platform) and the old (money politics) which gave TRT its landslide. Lots of old political bosses who remained outside TRT got wiped out. Those that entered the party tended to win.

The TRT MPs fall into two roughly equal groups. Half are ex-MPs with an average age in the mid-50s. The other half are new faces with an average age in the mid-30s. These two groups represent different generations, different attitudes. The same division is reflected in the cabinet. Several ministers are old-style money politicians who treat politics primarily as a commercial proposition. For them, reform is a threat.

It’s also a threat to bureaucrats who resent popular demands. Take Pak Mun dam. All along, the project owner, EGAT, has refused to accept that the dam is a financial nonsense and environmental disaster. It rejected the expert findings of the World Commission on Dams. It made ads claiming rivers could flow uphill. The protesters’ camp was burnt by vigilantes. When Thaksin’s Cabinet approved the request to open the sluice gates to let fish stocks revive, EGAT simply refused to comply. Forced to relent, it churned out PR designed to undermine independent research about the impact on the fisheries.

Other attempts to negotiate popular demands have run into similar bureaucratic opposition. As a result, the Assembly is back on the road again, tramping its way from Ubon to Bangkok.

The key stress point in this growing clash between the new politics and the old are the ministers hand-picked to implement reform. Kasem Wattanachai quit as education minister after confronting the enormous resistance mounted by the education bureaucracy. Purachai Piumsomboon is being hounded because his clean-up campaign affects the police, protection racketeers, and entertainment mafia. Surapong Suebwonglee is under pressure because he questioned male sexual prerogatives. Praphat Panyachartrak, who is responsible for much of the rural reform agenda, had to fend off an attempt to discredit him as a land-grabber.

These attacks will get worse. And they will gradually expose the limitations of Thaksin’s electoral revolution. TRT is not a movement. The party has a nice website overflowing with policies, but it doesn’t have a mass base. It fits the mould of other Thai parties of the last two decades—a party built round one man, his bank account, and his family and friends. It doesn’t provide any institutional link between the mass support which TRT tapped in the elections, and the day-to-day working of parliament and government. Thaksin is not a ‘man of the people’. Indeed he is one of the most atypical people in the whole nation. So the mass support which put him in power in January amounts to a short-term deal not a long-term contract.

Over time, the old political hands in TRT grow stronger because they know how to play the games of day-to-day politics. The bureaucrats and vested interests opposed to reform slide in alongside the old political hands because they are old friends and know how to work together. If Purachai or any other reform minister falls, it will seem like a row of dominoes. If the reformers agree to compromise for survival, the dominoes will fall in the dark. TRT will look more and more like other "Messiah parties" of recent years (Chamlong’s Palang Tham and Chavalit’s New Aspiration)."

Turned out to be spot on: http://www.robinlea.com/changnoi2/soul.htm

[Buchholz]

So, you're telling us that the South, the stronghold of the Democrats, has prospered, while the North and Northeast, the stronghold of the NAP/CTP/TRT/PPP/PTP, have been kept in poverty?

Kept in poverty? I'm not sure it's the result of deliberate policies, although neglect of rural folk from Bangkok has been historically part of it. People in the NE/N did quite well from TRT, comparatively better than they'd done before.

The Northeast did equally better before him.

The halving of poverty during his reign was duplicated previously between 1990 and 1996...

The same apples to the North figures, as well.

.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

Emptyset --- regarding the per-capita income of rural farmers. I don't see anywhere in your chart that indicates it is different in the N or S ... it talks about ALL incomes in a province. That would include everything from fishing, mining, etc in the South. Yes the South has more income than the North East ... that doesn't mean that there is as large of a disparity in the incomes of farmers as you suggest.

Well, I'd be interested to see the statistics, and I might try looking for some later. At a guess, I think southern farmers make a lot more from their commodities, i.e. rubber and palm oil, rather than people in the NE who tend to grow rice. Also have been informed that land in the NE is generally not as good as the south and central plains and also more people in the NE work in agriculture than elsewhere. There's a big difference between the wages one can earn in agriculture, and say, manufacturing (manufacturing is a lot more, needless to say). I'm not saying all farmers in the south are rich, though.

You also indicate that there are the ultra-rich, The middle-classes, The newly emerging middle classes, and the dirt-poor amongst the reds. You seem to ascribe simple patronage or enlightened self-interest to these groups but all but the poor are looking for Thaksin to change the balance of power. The dirt-poor are doing the same but out of patronage and probably due to the increased debt-load they took on during the free-money Thaksin era. Nothing you wrote suggested anything other than a Thaksin issue.

Does McCrago suggest how these 'reds with money" are actually affected by government policy or does he just drop it off there? If he doesn't say what the policies are then how are we to assume that it is anything other than absolute patronage?

I don't know why McCargo said that, would like more details, but he usually doesn't say things without good evidence. I do think he's right about reds main constituency being lower middle class, or the wealthier working class (villager/peasant), rather than those in abject poverty. One part of the red phenomenon that seems to me to be somewhat overlooked by Thai and foreign media is the ethnoregional aspect, which is possibly a bigger driver of the conflict than either ideology, class or self-interest. Per Charles Keyes (an anthropologist who's been doing fieldwork in the NE since the early 1960s up until now) essay Opening Reflections: Northeastern Thai Ethnoregionalism Updated. Much of what he says in the essay fits with what I've heard from red shirts themselves about why they supported TRT and now support the red shirts:

"In his essay on the ‘Limits of Ideological Domination and the Formation of Social Consciousness’, Andrew Turton demonstrated that in Thailand ‘ruling power is maintained through a combination of ideological and violently coercive forms of domination, rather than by morally persuasive, hegemonic leadership’. ‎In this paper I argue that, even nearly three decades after the events that Turton was primarily concerned with, this conclusion remains true for most Thai-Lao. In particular, I will show that the marked dissent from support of the new constitution in northeastern Thailand was not a consequence of vote buying or political arm-twisting by supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Rather, I maintain that this vote – as well as the large-scale support of Northeasterners for Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party in the parliamentary elections of the first years of the 21st century – represents the updating of a distinctive ethnoregional critique of an elite-constructed ideology of national integration that I previously identified as having emerged in the middle of the 20th century. Today, however, this critique is more potent because it is embraced not by traditional peasants but by villagers who are deeply involved in the capitalist economy, and by their kinsmen who make up the overwhelming majority of Bangkok’s working class."

Later in the essay he writes:

"As of late 2009, the significance of the events of Songkran 2009 was still being vigorously debated. While the PAD interprets the Red Shirt movement as having been recruited with money provided by the very wealthy Thaksin, and advocates strong punishment for the leaders of the movement, it seems clear that the Red Shirt movement is far from being the creation solely of a politician who often used power for personal gain rather than for the benefit of the country or even his supporters. Rather, the mass support for the movement, like the large electoral majorities for the Thai Rak Thai and successor parties, indicates that Northeasterners are not willing to give up the significant political influence they gained during the Thaksin period and to return to being ‘happy peasants’. To the contrary, they seek to have their own political culture given greater recognition and respect than it had been under previous governments or would be under a government acceptable to the PAD and others who favor a version of guided democracy."

He also gives an interesting insight into why authoritarian figures might sometimes be seen as acceptable: "Sarit and his government decided to adopt a development programme specifically designed for the Northeast as part of the first National Development Plan in 1961 (Thailand. Khanakammakan phatthana tawanôkchiang ...nüa 1961 and Thailand. The Committee on Development of the Northeast n.d. [1961]). When this plan began to be implemented in 1962-63, there was initially a positive reception in the Northeast. This was made apparent to my wife and I when we were undertaking fieldwork in a village in Mahasarakham at this time. When Sarit died in December 1963, many villagers told us that the government would now no longer take an interest in the Northeast since his successor, Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn, was not a Northeasterner.

That Sarit was a dictator was also acceptable to many Northeasterners because he was recognisable as a macho type well known to them as a nakleng. Thak Chaloemtiarana, in his study of Sarit, has characterised the nakleng as: ‘a person who is not afraid to take risks, a person who “lives dangerously”, kind to his friends but cruel to his enemies, a compassionate person, a gambler, a heavy drinker, and a lady-killer’ (1979: 339).

Although the ideal male as understood in northeastern Thai culture is a man who has tempered his desires by having served a period as a Buddhist monk, the nakleng still inspires admiration as well as fear. In a real sense, Sarit was acceptable to northeastern villagers because he used his nakleng status to promote a paternalistic concern for the problems of the Northeast."

[DP25]

Regional per capita income statics are completely useless for Thailand. Millions of people in the north east (and other provinces) no longer live or work there, but they are still registered there. That means they are contributing to the GDP of the other provinces where they work, but are counted as residents of the province where they were born, where they do not contribute to the GDP. Statistics on this are even more useless considering the enormous grey economy that is not counted.

Edited March 14, 2011 by DP25

[jdinasia]

Rather, the mass support for the movement, like the large electoral majorities for the Thai Rak Thai and successor parties, indicates that Northeasterners are not willing to give up the significant political influence they gained during the Thaksin period and to return to being ‘happy peasants’.

Ummm there was a large electoral majority in 2005 ..... PPP did not get a majority even with Newin. PTP hasn't been elected as PTP at all yet. Might we be seeing a bias in those quotes?

[Emptyset]

So, you're telling us that the South, the stronghold of the Democrats, has prospered, while the North and Northeast, the stronghold of the NAP/CTP/TRT/PPP/PTP, have been kept in poverty?

Kept in poverty? I'm not sure it's the result of deliberate policies, although neglect of rural folk from Bangkok has been historically part of it. People in the NE/N did quite well from TRT, comparatively better than they'd done before.

The Northeast did equally better before him.

The halving of poverty during his reign was duplicated previously between 1990 and 1996...

The same apples to the North figures, as well.

.

True, it appears the main factor was the financial crisis, where the north and north-east really suffered.

[DP25]

Just look at Rayong. Per capita income of over $30,000, ridiculous. Because tons of people work there, but not many people live there. The statics are useless.

http://www.nesdb.go.th/Default.aspx?tabid=96

[Buchholz]

So, you're telling us that the South, the stronghold of the Democrats, has prospered, while the North and Northeast, the stronghold of the NAP/CTP/TRT/PPP/PTP, have been kept in poverty?

Kept in poverty? I'm not sure it's the result of deliberate policies, although neglect of rural folk from Bangkok has been historically part of it. People in the NE/N did quite well from TRT, comparatively better than they'd done before.

The Northeast did equally better before him.

The halving of poverty during his reign was duplicated previously between 1990 and 1996...

The same apples to the North figures, as well.

True, it appears the main factor was the financial crisis, where the north and north-east really suffered.

And recovered from as equally well as the country did.

Point being, the North and Northeast did the same before and during Thaksin.

.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

And recovered from as equally well as the country did.

Point being, the North and Northeast did the same before and during Thaksin.

Actually that's not the point.One can have a rational discussion about how well the North and North East did under Thaksin's policies.The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

The point is I think rather that under Thaksin the rural majority was "politicised" and given dignity , made to feel their views were important.This clearly struck a chord after decades of disrespect or "haut en bas" patronising.Again one can have a discussion about Thaksin's motives but whatever one believes he changed Thailand forever.

[Buchholz]

Both Arisman and Suporn want to turn themselves into Thai police in the hope they will be released on bail after leading red shirt Adisorn Piangket surrendered and was allowed bail, the source said.

Red Shirt Leader Suporn AKA Issan Rambo (below)

and Thai Rak Thai Party banned MP and Red Shirt Leader Payap Panket (below)

and was leader of the disastrous and brutal Red Shirt takeover of Chulalongkorn Hospital (below)

surrendered today and were released on bail.

[Pi Sek]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

[Buchholz]

.

Additionally, fugitive Police Colonel and Red Shirt Leader Waipot Apornrat with an outstanding warrant for inciting and supporting terrorist activities and fugitive Red Shirt Leader Shinawat (he had his name legally changed) Haboonphat also surrendered today and were released on bail.

.

[jdinasia]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

The health-care scheme was already in the Ministry of Health's plans when Thaksin took it and called it his own. The primary reason it hadn't moved forward was the realization that it wouldn't work without a significant budget increase. It got rammed through by TRT without the needed budget increase.

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

[lovelaos]

Quite a good turnout with the police estimating 30,000 so probably somewhat more than that. If they can still rally that many numbers in an area miles away from their heartland the upcoming election is going to be a tight one.

You still believe there's going to be an election?

Yes there will be an election.....followed by another military coup.....followed by...........

Bottom line is THAIS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY!!

Too much losing face involved.

[Pi Sek]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

The health-care scheme was already in the Ministry of Health's plans when Thaksin took it and called it his own. The primary reason it hadn't moved forward was the realization that it wouldn't work without a significant budget increase. It got rammed through by TRT without the needed budget increase.

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

And this is my point - govts are correct to evolve successful schemes from previous govts and revise those that weren't successful (try to get them to work rather than just scrap them). So I do think all policies (e.g. populist policies of TRT/PPP/PTP) should be kept: some should stay, some should be shelved and revised before re-implementation and some should be shown for what they are - bad ideas.

This does of course suggest that the two mainstream parties will essentially have the same policies and not really offer the chance to 'change'- the problem with UK politics at the moment - but the differentiator should the method, not the idea and certainly not the public benefit.

I know also that Chuan Leekpai was the brainchild of the 30-Baht healthcare but didn't enact it because the idea still had flaws. I'm also aware that Thaksin knew about these flaws but considered them of secondary importance to the votes attracted by rushing it out "for the benefit of the poor". However, thanks for re-mentioning it as I still meet people that swear blind that it was Thaksin from day one and no-one else wanted the poor to get healthcare.

[Buchholz]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

The health-care scheme was already in the Ministry of Health's plans when Thaksin took it and called it his own. The primary reason it hadn't moved forward was the realization that it wouldn't work without a significant budget increase. It got rammed through by TRT without the needed budget increase.

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

Can throw the billions that Thaksin threw at the 1,000,000 cows and the 1,000,000 rubber tree programs in the trash bin as well.

.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Quite a good turnout with the police estimating 30,000 so probably somewhat more than that. If they can still rally that many numbers in an area miles away from their heartland the upcoming election is going to be a tight one.

You still believe there's going to be an election?

Yes there will be an election.....followed by another military coup.....followed by...........

Bottom line is THAIS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY!!

Too much losing face involved.

Does Laos understand democracy? (no need for caps, btw)

[Buchholz]

I still meet people that swear blind that it was Thaksin from day one and no-one else wanted the poor to get healthcare.

I cringe when I still hear about Thais saying not only that, but that he personally paid for their healthcare from his own funds.

The same sort of misinformation his PR machine cranked out that had many Thais believe he also paid off the IMF loan himself.

He had that propaganda BS running 24/7. Unprecedented self-promotion, chockablock of lies.

[Buchholz]

4 red-shirt leaders surrender

Four fugitive red-shirt leaders turned themselves to the Department of Special Investigation Monday to face terrorism charges.

Suporn Atthawong, Waipoj Arpornrat, Phayup Panket and Shinawat Haboonpak met DSI director-general Tharit Phengdit at the DSI head office at 10 am.

They were released on bail after placing assets worth Bt600,000 as a guarantee each.

Tharit said they were asked to meet DSI investigators again on March 29 when they would be handed over the public prosecutors.

-- The Nation 2011-03-14

[Buchholz]

Red-shirted leaders surrender

BANGKOK, 14 March 2011 (NNT)—Four red-shirted leaders who have been in hiding for nearly a year turned themselves in to the Department of special investigation (DSI) this morning to face terrorism charge. They have been granted bail and barred from joining any political rally.

According to Tharit Pengdit, the DSI chief, the four leaders who surrendered this morning included Pol Lt.Col Waipote Apornrat, Suporn Attarwong, Payap Panket, and Chinawat Haboonphat.

After an initial interrogation, during which they denied all charges, they were released on a bail set at 600,000 baht bail each on the condition that they are not to join any political protest. The four are scheduled to be presented to the prosecutor on March 29.

-- NNT 2011-03-14

[jdinasia]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

The health-care scheme was already in the Ministry of Health's plans when Thaksin took it and called it his own. The primary reason it hadn't moved forward was the realization that it wouldn't work without a significant budget increase. It got rammed through by TRT without the needed budget increase.

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

Can throw the billions that Thaksin threw at the 1,000,000 cows and the 1,000,000 rubber tree programs in the trash bin as well.

.

and a notebook computer for every student (wasn't that supposed to kick off in Kanchanaburi?)

[Pi Sek]

Can throw the billions that Thaksin threw at the 1,000,000 cows and the 1,000,000 rubber tree programs in the trash bin as well.

Disagree - all these projects had some positive outcome, however minimal (rather academic, I know). There is a call for these policies and, in a true democracy, these calls have to be looked at.

The question is whether the public benefits are greater than the public cost. Even the war on drugs had some positive effect (possibly up to 1,100 drug dealers removed from the market). It's the implementation that's the difference-maker. And the implementation of the war on drugs, the loans for farmers scheme, the free cows, the rubber trees were all not really well done, to make an understatement.

[Emptyset]

I agree with Emptyset's stance of using statistical evidence when talking about quality of life - in most cases. However, in Thailand and in Isaan in particular, few people subscribe to an 'official' income. Big problem with that approach I feel; I have no better proposition though!

jayboy is right here as well -

The position is complicated by the fact the current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel but also expanded those "populist policies."

- although I wouldn't say it's a "complication", unless you're talking about measurement of quality of life (which we are!). I would say it's democratic evolution. I think it would be great if parties took good ideas from their opponents rather than objecting because they are someone else's idea. Traditionally when new govts come in here, we see them start from page 1. If you're already well into a book, why do you need to start from the beginning each time you open it?

The health-care scheme was already in the Ministry of Health's plans when Thaksin took it and called it his own. The primary reason it hadn't moved forward was the realization that it wouldn't work without a significant budget increase. It got rammed through by TRT without the needed budget increase.

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

And this is my point - govts are correct to evolve successful schemes from previous govts and revise those that weren't successful (try to get them to work rather than just scrap them). So I do think all policies (e.g. populist policies of TRT/PPP/PTP) should be kept: some should stay, some should be shelved and revised before re-implementation and some should be shown for what they are - bad ideas.

This does of course suggest that the two mainstream parties will essentially have the same policies and not really offer the chance to 'change'- the problem with UK politics at the moment - but the differentiator should the method, not the idea and certainly not the public benefit.

I know also that Chuan Leekpai was the brainchild of the 30-Baht healthcare but didn't enact it because the idea still had flaws. I'm also aware that Thaksin knew about these flaws but considered them of secondary importance to the votes attracted by rushing it out "for the benefit of the poor". However, thanks for re-mentioning it as I still meet people that swear blind that it was Thaksin from day one and no-one else wanted the poor to get healthcare.

Totally agree with your first paragraph, of course. On the second paragraph, well, in the UK there's been two main parties with two differing ideologies and attitudes to equality - but has the difference always been so pronounced? There's usually some sort of consensus. For example, the post-war Keynesian consensus, where the Conservatives and Labour followed not radically different policies, though there were certainly more ideological differences than there are between the two today, then there was a paradigm shift and you had Thatcher and the parties differed for a while, but then with Blair, both parties now follow a broadly Thatcherite/Blairite neo-liberal line, no radical differences again, really. So in Thailand you have a populist consensus, and I can't see anyone breaking this mold for a while, as least whilst the economy is healthy.

On the latter point, I'm not sure about Chuan being the brainchild of it (first I've heard of that), but there was a similar policy tabled. Here's more details of how the 30 baht plan came about:

"The Thaksin government added the 30-Baht Health Care scheme to two 0already existing health insurance programs: the Civil Servant [and public enterprise workers'] Medical Benefit Schemes (CSMBS), and the Social Security Scheme (SSS). The CSMBS covered seven million government officials and state enterprise employees, along with their dependents. The Social Security Scheme (SSS) covered 10 million private non- agricultural sector employees. The 30-Baht Health Care scheme itself was a combination of two former government-sponsored insurance programs: the Health Card Scheme and the Health Welfare for the Poor and the Disadvantaged Scheme (HWPDS). Together these programs covered the 47.5 million Thai citizens (75% of the population) who were not included in the other two programs. In Thailand, inequality between the rich and the poor in terms of access to health insurance has always been a major problem. For the past 50 years, it has been a common practice for the poor to spend a large portion of their salary/wage on medical treatment. Prior to the implementation of the 30-Baht Health Care scheme, discussions about health care reform had been limited to a closed circle of academicians and policy-makers.

Two views on how to improve and expand health care services emerged from academicians in various discussions prior to 2001: one group supported the idea of a health care program that would cover all Thai citizens, while the other suggested that it was unnecessary due to the existence of the Low Income Care (LICs) scheme (a program in public hospitals that provided free medical health care for people with hardship) provided a free health care to a person who earned less than 2,000 Baht ($60.6) per month or a family with an income less than 2,800 Baht ($84.85) per month. Despite the fact that the LICs already provided those with income less than 2,800 Baht ($84.85), the TRT government claimed that LICs did not always ensure access to healthcare for the poor, given that many people reportedly felt uncomfortable when they visited hospitals. As a result, TRT proposed the 30-Baht Health Care scheme to ensure that all people—rich or poor—would equally receive treatments, regardless of their illnesses.

The government and academicians recognized that equal access to health care services was a vital factor to improve the lives of all Thais. In 1997 Dr. Sanguan Nitayarumphong, a prominent figure in health planning, and his team from the Ministry of Public Health, recognized this important fact and drafted a national health security bill. This bill was in alignment with the 1997 Constitution, chapter 52, which stated, "all people are eligible to receive equal health care services of equal quality and those living under the poverty line (extremely poor) are eligible to receive treatments from hospitals and clinics without any fees…" Once Dr. Sanguan proposed this bill, many academicians and NGO groups showed their support of his idea to expand healthcare coverage to all Thais. Eleven NGO groups, including the Foundation for Consumers, embraced Dr. Sanguan's idea and started to educate people on the issue. The Foundation for Consumers also handed out a booklet that presented deficiencies in the current health care systems, including fifteen case studies.

A new draft of the national health security bill was then written by Dr. Sanguan and his team, and 50,000 signatures were collected for the government to consider and ratify the bill. While the public was anticipating the bill to pass

through the parliamentary-voting stage, TRT announced in 2001 that they would create the 30-Baht Health Care scheme. Dr. Surapong Seubwonglee, a doctor-turned politician who had an important role in TRT, then brought in Dr. Sanguan, along with other NGOs that embraced Dr.Sanguan's proposal, in order to discuss proposal for universal health care. Some parts of Dr. Sanguan's new draft of the national health security bill were incorporated into TRT's own national health security bill (30-Baht Health Care scheme). TRT then proposed its own national health security bill to the Parliament and the bill was approved in 2002. The motivation behind the enactment

of the bill will be discussed in Chapter Three."

From: http://wesscholar.we...=etd_hon_theses (Thaksin Populism and Beyond:

A Study of Thaksin's Pro-Poor Populist Policies in Thailand)

Edited March 14, 2011 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

Stating that the government has taken the Thaksin projects over "lock stock and barrel" isn't true either since they didn't keep up the failed village loan schemes etc ... The government took some of what worked and improved upon it, dumped some, and created some of their own.

You mean the village fund?

[Emptyset]

You are a red supporter. Your arguments, like so many of your fellows, are based on an entirely false premise. After the 1991 coup, who was firmly on the army's side, wanting to install Suchinda as PM? Chavalit, Chalerm, et al, the people who became the NAP, the party that was bought out by Thaksin, lock, stock and barrel of rotten apples. In the years between the 1992 and 2001 elections, who controlled most of Isaan, keeping the people in the place that you claim to want to see rise out of? The rotten dynasties and their proxies, many of them members of that same NAP, that was bought out by Thaksin. When Thaksin wanted to form a new political party, did he recruit a bunch of fresh people, with new ideas and ideals? No, he bought, on mass, the party that won the most votes in the previous elections - the NAP, the patron of the rice barons, upcountry thugs and loan sharks.

As further proof that NAP weren't with TRT at first, I offer this interview with Chalerm from 2000:

"Are you happy that Samak won?

In the past, we've had a very good relationship. So even before Samak announced he would stand, I said I would support him and I spoke up for him in Thonburi. He was in the government of Chavalit. People love to see Samak and Chavalit together on television. They like to see them working together.

You are similar to Samak: loud, aggressive, forceful.

The kind of politician who is very aggressive, who speaks his mind, is the kind who does not have a hidden agenda. I am very open. I can be critical and forceful, but that's because I am sincere and untainted.

What does Samak's win mean?

It will affect the coming general election. His party is an ally of ours, so what seats he gets, we also get. I am very confident that in Bangkok my party will win 10 seats. Thai Rak Thai lost to Samak in Bangkok because they are too rich and they used too much radio and television advertising, too many posters. The same will happen to them in the provinces. Their motto is supposed to be: Think new things, do new things. But in reality, they have recruited all these old MPs to do old things. Our MPs who joined them are the less-educated ones, the B and C grade if you like. The A grade are still with us.

Can Thaksin Shinawatra become prime minister?

That is a very good question. Thaksin's party is new and he has recruited a lot of MPs from other parties. He assumes they will regain the votes of the people and become MPs again. I don't think this will happen. Money is not the only thing that will decide who will win or not. It will also be the philosophy and discipline of the party.

Why should people vote for the NAP?

We will do better for agriculture. We are better at campaigning. The party that wants the advantage in the campaign will have to debate better and deliver better speeches. People like to hear my speeches. If I am on television there are no traffic jams, because people stay home to watch me. Maybe the newspapers don't like me but that's only because I don't have a company that pays to put advertising in them.

So how will the election play out?

The NAP, the Democrats and Thai Rak Thai will each win about the same number of seats — 140, plus or minus five. I don't know which one, but one of them will be the top party. We are going to do well because our candidates have better qualities than the outgoing ones. We have restructured, and our party is stronger now." http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0811/nat.thai_sb1.html

However, they did attract Sanoh's faction to TRT, and imo Sanoh is worse than Chalerm, so you should've mentioned him instead:

"The good news for Thaksin is that Thai elections are won in the countryside, not Bangkok — and that is where Thaksin may romp home. With his massive war chest, he has successfully recruited scores of MPs from other parties. Says Pitak Intrawityanunt, a former Chuan cabinet minister who jumped to Thai Rak Thai this year: "It's true we are getting a lot of MPs from other parties. They come because they want to get elected and they think they have the best chance with Thai Rak Thai." (There are other inducements too, if the local press is to be believed.) The biggest catch has been Sanoh Thienthong and his faction of 30 or so MPs from Chavalit's New Aspiration Party (NAP). The influx of old-style influence-mongers like Sanoh has upset some founding members of Thai Rak Thai, whose original credo was to accept only clean, meritorious and tech-savvy candidates. But the defections have certainly boosted Thaksin's chances for the top job."

http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0811/nat.thai.html

[Buchholz]

Can throw the billions that Thaksin threw at the 1,000,000 cows and the 1,000,000 rubber tree programs in the trash bin as well.

Disagree - all these projects had some positive outcome, however minimal (rather academic, I know). There is a call for these policies and, in a true democracy, these calls have to be looked at.

The question is whether the public benefits are greater than the public cost. Even the war on drugs had some positive effect (possibly up to 1,100 drug dealers removed from the market). It's the implementation that's the difference-maker. And the implementation of the war on drugs, the loans for farmers scheme, the free cows, the rubber trees were all not really well done, to make an understatement.

The cows and rubber tree programs were abject failures in their entirety. Billions wasted.

The War on Drugs another abject failure. Thousands dead.

The implementation and oversight of all three ill-conceived money and justice pits was non-existent, oversight present only when it focused on funneling the money. That didn't stop the PR machine from making ridiculously boastful proclamations of success, such as Thaksin announcing that Thailand was completely drug-free or that the Northeast was going to be the "new" South by duplicating their tremendous success from rubber tree cultivations.

The current government does have populist programs, but they are NOT based upon pie-in-the-sky nonsense like jdinasia-mentioned's laptop in every schoolbag garbage. They were all a million this and a million that, which just turned out to be fluffy spin words... crazily with which they still continue what with their million man march or their million cc of blood.

All of which refutes nonsensical comments like, "current government has not only adopted lock stock and barrel"

.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Buchholz

[DP25]

The War on Drugs another abject failure. Thousands dead.

It did exactly what it was intended to do, divert media attention away from scandals