Ominous Signs From Both Reds, Yellows: Thaksin Pardon

[Buchholz]

The division exists because the gap between rich and poor opens up more and more. Between those who have (money, power) and those who have not.

Thaksin is not the cause of the problem- he is the result!

Is this going back to being a class thing again. I thought that theory was debunked ages ago.

It's in the millionaire's billionaire's trillionaire's best personal interests to keep it going.

.

[lannarebirth]

There will be no reconciliation happening. The country is divided permanently.

Even I wouldn't go that far. I think after the chief, square headed cause of the division is dead, the next generation who wasn't poisoned with all the propaganda will be able to find common ground. The main reason the division exists is a guy who is already over 60 and approaching the end of his life, thankfully. "Permanently" is too strong a word here. This isn't the Middle East. But there will be no reconciliation for a decade or two. And likely a civil war.

The division exists because the gap between rich and poor opens up more and more. Between those who have (money, power) and those who have not.

Thaksin is not the cause of the problem- he is the result!

You seem to be ignoring the ever growing middle classes, from which all social and economic advancement stems, along with the money to pay for those advancements.

[nong38]

What are you talking about, your response does not make much sense to me, where are the misrepresnation of facts? Where does it say that most people voted against PT?

I am sure you right most people thought they were voting for Yingluck and you last paragraph is spot on I will give you that, so how do you suggest taking him out of the equation?

Election results: 48% voted for PT. 52% didn't.

Sorry I did not mention any election results other brought that into the equation, I said most people wanted reconciliation which is nothing to do with which ever party was voted for.

Most people want reconciliation, but only on their own terms. Very few want reconciliation if it means doing what is best for the country as a whole. That is why the divide continues. Even people who don't actually attend the rallies side with one group or the other. There is very little middle ground here.

You are right, its a great pity how do you solve a problem like this.

[whybother]

The division exists because the gap between rich and poor opens up more and more. Between those who have (money, power) and those who have not.

Thaksin is not the cause of the problem- he is the result!

Is this going back to being a class thing again. I thought that theory was debunked ages ago.

Don't know who debunked it?! Not me! I think it is pretty obvious: without someone being "unhappy", there is no chance ( or little chance) for populist politics. If people are educated, living a "happy" life, they would see through populist measures and they wouldn't care for 500 THB bribe. Best example: Germany 1933! Of course it is (at least partly) a "class thing"!

There is a division between rich and poor, but the Thaksin / anti-Thaksin division doesn't have much to do with that.

[whybother]

You are right, its a great pity how do you solve a problem like this.

You start off by removing the thing that is causing the division.

The people that want to improve the lives of poor Thais don't need Thaksin to do that.

Edited November 23, 2011 by whybother

[jimbeam1]

There will be reconciliation, if and only if Thaksin has a similar faith as JFK, Lincon, McKinley, and Garfield (no, not the cat).

Thaksin is not expected to be as lucky as Reagan, Truman, jackson, the two Roosevelt or Ford (no, not the car).

I don't think the Reverend Jesse Jackson was that lucky!

Judging on his other posts, he is talking about Michael Jackson!

Yes and how lucky was he?

jb1

[DocN]

The division exists because the gap between rich and poor opens up more and more. Between those who have (money, power) and those who have not.

Thaksin is not the cause of the problem- he is the result!

Is this going back to being a class thing again. I thought that theory was debunked ages ago.

Don't know who debunked it?! Not me! I think it is pretty obvious: without someone being "unhappy", there is no chance ( or little chance) for populist politics. If people are educated, living a "happy" life, they would see through populist measures and they wouldn't care for 500 THB bribe. Best example: Germany 1933! Of course it is (at least partly) a "class thing"!

There is a division between rich and poor, but the Thaksin / anti-Thaksin division doesn't have much to do with that.

I respectfully disagree! Since he is using the poor with his very special version of "class struggle/war" it has a lot to do with it.

I personally think, that the establishment maybe had a little problem, with him being too greedy.

The bigger part to me seems, that he gave "the poor" a "voice" (sounds much more romantic than it is).

And suddenly, the "uneducated masses" didn't do, what the establishment wanted, but choose to believe and follow the populist.

In my opinion, Thaksin maybe was the greediest of the greedy- but that was not, what p@ssed the establishment off!

[whybother]

I respectfully disagree! Since he is using the poor with his very special version of "class struggle/war" it has a lot to do with it.

I personally think, that the establishment maybe had a little problem, with him being too greedy.

The bigger part to me seems, that he gave "the poor" a "voice" (sounds much more romantic than it is).

And suddenly, the "uneducated masses" didn't do, what the establishment wanted, but choose to believe and follow the populist.

In my opinion, Thaksin maybe was the greediest of the greedy- but that was not, what p@ssed the establishment off!

He might be using the poor, but it is a struggle between two groups of rich and powerful people.

He gets support from some of the poor, but there also a lot of other poor people who don't support him.

[sparebox2]

There will be reconciliation, if and only if Thaksin has a similar faith as JFK, Lincon, McKinley, and Garfield (no, not the cat).

Thaksin is not expected to be as lucky as Reagan, Truman, jackson, the two Roosevelt or Ford (no, not the car).

I don't think the Reverend Jesse Jackson was that lucky!

Judging on his other posts, he is talking about Michael Jackson!

Yes and how lucky was he?

jb1

Andrew Jackson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Attack_and_assassination_attempt

[exeter]

You are right, its a great pity how do you solve a problem like this.

You start off by removing the thing that is causing the division.

The people that want to improve the lives of poor Thais don't need Thaksin to do that.

How do you convince the Thai people they dont need Thaksin?

He is bit of a cult figure, but then so was Adolf Hitler and look what happened to him!

[sparebox2]

You are right, its a great pity how do you solve a problem like this.

You start off by removing the thing that is causing the division.

The people that want to improve the lives of poor Thais don't need Thaksin to do that.

How do you convince the Thai people they dont need Thaksin?

He is bit of a cult figure, but then so was Adolf Hitler and look what happened to him!

Or like Marcos & Arroyo

[Arkady]

It is to a certain extent a socio-economic division. Thaksin's largest support bases are the rural poor from the Northeast and the North with a fairly large representation from the poor of the central provinces outside Bangkok. But it is more complicated than that. Nearly all Southerners from Petchburi to the Malaysian border solidly hate Thaksin, regardless of their socio-economic status. The Malay muslims in the South have good reason to hate him due to the harsh human rights abuses inflicted on them by Thaksin in his attempt to show them who was boss. However, Southern Buddhists also hate him. Also Thaksin, while a Northerner himself, is far removed from the rural poor that he represents. He is an urban Chinese from one of Chiang Mai's wealthiest families and his father and uncle were small time national politicians. Although the urban Chinese nationwide, who had been suspicious of him in the 2001 election, rallied behind Thaksin in the 2005 election, by 2006 that love affair and the urban Chinese strongly supported the 2006 coup and formed the backbone of the PAD street movement that facilitated the coup and the ouster of Thaksin's nominee PM's Samak and Somchai. Thaksin is now seen by these people as class/race traitor by these people. They believe he and his super rich Chinese cronies have formed a conspiracy to crush the Chinese middle classes who shoulder most of the tax paying burden in favour of the rural poor who pay no tax but clamour for more and more hand outs from taxpayers. The rural poor of the North and Northeast have no leaders of their own. The politicians who represent them as MPs are nearly all from the provincial Chinese urban merchant classes. Even the red shirt leaders are mostly Southerners who are despised in their own provinces. Since the establishment willfully neglected the rural poor of the North and Northeast and political parties started purchasing their votes for cash in the 60s, nobody had offered them anything meaningful until Thaksin's marketing advisors put together his populist strategy and he muscled in on the central budget. For now following gangster Chinese politician leaders and snake oil salesmen rabble rousers from the South is best that the rural poor of the North and the Northeast can do. Even though they are only prepared to throw the poor some crumbs from time to time it is more than anyone else ever offered them. For both the establishment and the provincial Chinese gangster politicians it is most important that the rural poor of the North and the Northeast should be continued to be denied meaningful education opportunities by keeping the standards of rural schools well below those in the cities. If they became educated, they would sooner or later develop leaders of their own and would no longer need the political leadership provided by the Chinese gangster politicians. Neither would the establishment's patronising political formulae be any more palatable to them than they are now.

So you can see it is not just a class thing. It is a complex socio-economic/ racial and geographical thing.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Arkady

[nong38]

What are you talking about, your response does not make much sense to me, where are the misrepresnation of facts? Where does it say that most people voted against PT?

I am sure you right most people thought they were voting for Yingluck and you last paragraph is spot on I will give you that, so how do you suggest taking him out of the equation?

Election results: 48% voted for PT. 52% didn't.

Sorry I did not mention any election results other brought that into the equation, I said most people wanted reconciliation which is nothing to do with which ever party was voted for.

Most people want reconciliation, but only on their own terms. Very few want reconciliation if it means doing what is best for the country as a whole. That is why the divide continues. Even people who don't actually attend the rallies side with one group or the other. There is very little middle ground here.

Excellently put sir, pity about the middle ground though!

[nong38]

It is to a certain extent a socio-economic division. Thaksin's largest support bases are the rural poor from the Northeast and the North with a fairly large representation from the poor of the central provinces outside Bangkok. But it is more complicated than that. Nearly all Southerners from Petchburi to the Malaysian border solidly hate Thaksin, regardless of their socio-economic status. The Malay muslims in the South have good reason to hate him due to the harsh human rights abuses inflicted on them by Thaksin in his attempt to show them who was boss. However, Southern Buddhists also hate him. Also Thaksin, while a Northerner himself, is far removed from the rural poor that he represents. He is an urban Chinese from one of Chiang Mai's wealthiest families and his father and uncle were small time national politicians. Although the urban Chinese nationwide, who had been suspicious of him in the 2001 election, rallied behind Thaksin in the 2005 election, by 2006 that love affair and the urban Chinese strongly supported the 2006 coup and formed the backbone of the PAD street movement that facilitated the coup and the ouster of Thaksin's nominee PM's Samak and Somchai. Thaksin is now seen by these people as class/race traitor by these people. They believe he and his super rich Chinese cronies have formed a conspiracy to crush the Chinese middle classes who shoulder most of the tax paying burden in favour of the rural poor who pay no tax but clamour for more and more hand outs from taxpayers. The rural poor of the North and Northeast have no leaders of their own. The politicians who represent them as MPs are nearly all from the provincial Chinese urban merchant classes. Even the red shirt leaders are mostly Southerners who are despised in their own provinces. Since the establishment willfully neglected the rural poor of the North and Northeast and political parties started purchasing their votes for cash in the 60s, nobody had offered them anything meaningful until Thaksin's marketing advisors put together his populist strategy and he muscled in on the central budget. For now following gangster Chinese politician leaders and snake oil salesmen rabble rousers from the South is best that the rural poor of the North and the Northeast can do. Even though they are only prepared to throw the poor some crumbs from time to time it is more than anyone else ever offered them. For both the establishment and the provincial Chinese gangster politicians it is most important that the rural poor of the North and the Northeast should be continued to be denied meaningful education opportunities by keeping the standards of rural schools well below those in the cities. If they became educated, they would sooner or later develop leaders of their own and would no longer need the political leadership provided by the Chinese gangster politicians. Neither would the establishment's patronising political formulae be any more palatable to them than they are now.

So you can see it is not just a class thing. It is a complex socio-economic/ racial and geographical thing.

Not easy problem to fix then, a lot of give and take required, like the taking part but not sure about the giving until that mindset changes its along and windy road we travel, sad to say