Thai 'Red Shirts' Stage Mass Protest In Bangkok

[nurofiend]

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

About the same amount of time as an unwelcome correction I would expect.

yeah? cool

[nurofiend]

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

http://www.nesdb.go....P 1995-2006.zip

But I won't argue with it, after all, the global economy was booming and, according to the World Bank's 2005 report on Thailand, from 1970 to 2005 "the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average percapita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries" and, "The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988". Which would suggest the trend began long before Thaksin.

They also have this to say about the Northeast: "Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent". Suggesting it was an influx of money from other, wealthier, regions, rather than any direct policy towards the Northeast, that was responsible for at least some of the growth in income.

This conclusion is backed up by "In 2004, the Northeast worker generated only one-sixth of the value added of the average worker in Bangkok, Central, East and Vicinity, and just over two-thirds of the output of a worker in the North". and, more tellingly, "The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003". They threw enough money at the Northeast to prop up its inefficient farming methods and keep the people happy without making any real changes to education, or getting to the root of the poverty trap.

This report may be found at http://siteresources...full-report.pdf

Okay, maybe it's not just about gaining votes, but once again, who are the traditional powers in the North and Northeast? Who is responsible for the populist handouts and subsidies of an inefficient farming system? After all, from the same source: "The Northeast generates just over one fifth of Thailand’s agricultural GDP, even though the region accounts for one half of the farms and two fifths of the agricultural land". Why wasn't anything done to combat the root of the poverty during the five years of total control Thaksin had? I would suggest that was because of his reliance on the powerful Northeast political clans. He was not the solution, but merely a continuation of the problem. That is very much evident in the people he chose to associate with.

the point i'm making is that the argument of thaksins aim being to keep the poor, poor is a load of bollo....baloney.

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

what's the point to this 'looking down your nose' style comment about the source?

the excel spreadsheets do support the fact, i've checked it.

and just because anyone can add something to wikipedia makes no difference.

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

Most encyclopedia's are written by persons unknown.

Microsoft's encarta was written in local languages by teams of low-paid, out-sourced free-lancers, and it was not uncommon for different language versions to have a different take on the same event as seen through the cultural lens of the low-paid, out-sourced free-lancer.

It's always worth checking Wiki info - as you did - but no one can deny that it is a valuable internet resource and was & is a great idea.

(BTW, for people who rely on The Nation for facts, this is a pretty funny comment )

exactly...it would be different if i just sourced it as wiki, but i also went to the bother of showing him the actual source, where you can download the excel spreadsheets yourself and verify that it's a precise %.

guess he was just surprised that he didn't know that what i said was a factual statement.

[nurofiend]

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

more than one thing... they both one landslides

Please stop it with that landslide nonsense.

And sure, Maggie wasn't born in a gutter, but neither was she born with Burberry boots on either.

Plus, even if you disagreed with some or all of her policies, she was a real political heavyweight, with experience and commitment for what she believed in.

Do not try to compare Yingluck with Thatcher in any way, shape or form.

If Thatcher had been in power here when the armed protests started, how long do you think they would have lasted.

thatcher was a horrible, horrible woman, who looked at the poor in the same way she would look at something that she wiped off her shoe.

and yeah, i wouldn't try to compare Yingluck with Thatcher in any way, shape or form.

[nurofiend]

My dear lady, first of all my excuses for addressing you as such. This is not meant in a pejorative manner, it's just that I'm old-fashioned enough to find it difficult to address you in a different way. My mother at 84 still has a certain influence on my behaviour, luckily for me though my father at 84 no longer physically enforces it .

As you probably will well know indeed, there are still lots of males who have problems adapting to equality and democracy for all. Why, even on this forum there's a recent topic with "Men have to accept women in non-traditional roles". If Thai have a problem adjusting what chance would the average English TV poster have? One can but pity them

Hi rubl, thankyou for your most chivalrous posting. I fully agree that age plays a factor in this generational acceptance of norms. However I feel another factor, called sense of humour, especially the concepts of 'wit' and 'satire' which are understood and used naturally by so many, are not understood or accepted by others.

For example to take the thread topic "red shirts stage mass protest in Bangkok", by protesting in Bangkok, while wearing their red shirts and doing so en masse, they believe they are making a powerful political statement which shows their solidarity and their independence from the dreaded 'elites'. This type of political statement can also be made by satirical writing and art.

The fact they all wear the face of an ultra-rich iniquitous villain does not make them question his motives in funding and encouraging them to march, one might say they are marching on his behalf and yet they do not ask why, nor do they question why their almost exclusively agrarian and bluecollar membership should march with such a flamboyant self-obsessed playboy billionaire as their leader. To another person, an observer, they might look totally different, like cattle on a march demanding to be made into hamburgers.

The point is that some people protest by marching in the streets, rightly or wrongly, and some people protest by acts of writing satire. To give an example re; the quaint 'show respect to female leaders' suggestion, Mrs Thatcher who served as PM in England for 1979-1990, was the target of vitriolic satire and mockery from her first year onwards. The jokes did sometimes involve lewdness, but most of the satire was ultimately based on her percieved corruption and failure to help the poor. Yingluck is currently making Mrs Thatcher look like a saint, in those two matters.

Satirical biting wit used as a weapon against politicians in English parliamentary democracy, dates back to the 1600's and is considered one of the pressure valves of society, allowing people to vent their political anger in acts of creative good humour, without blocking up streets with hordes of angry supporters which can often lead to disaster, as happened in the earlier red shirt mass protest 2010.

This type of violent mob uprising is a vicious circle which leads nowhere and early satirists understood this. You will notice that the red shirt protest in 2010 which cost billions financially and over 90 deaths, actually achieved no change whatsoever, except to polarise further and increase mistrust. By contrast, a well-written book can change the lives and opinions of millions, enrich those peoples' lives and offer them solutions to their life problems.

This obviously requires a certain freedom of speech to be allowed to criticise politicians, a freedom which I consider not only my democratic right but my human right. You will notice that of the people opposing my right to make jokes about female politicians, many of them will later claim they support a free press and don't accept restrictions imposed on them by the mystery 'elites'. Infact censorship of satirical humour or any other forms of non-violent protest is the very essence of true fascism.

Just as the red shirts have the democratic right to peaceful nondisruptive protest against politicians, writers have the democratic right to make fun of the red shirts and the sleazy tinpot mafia dictator they worship. As with Thaksin and also Yingluck, the satirical venom against all politicians increases exponentially the more crimes they commit, and they can only blame themselves for their own corrupt actions and for the ensuing backlash. Put simply, if they were honest and decent leaders they wouldn't get insults thrown at them along with shoes and eggs etc.

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

have you anything to back up your claim of yingluck despising the poor?

thought not.

[nurofiend]

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

more than one thing... they both one landslides

Please stop it with that landslide nonsense.

respectable unbiased sources seem to think it was a landslide, but i guess you must know better with your credentials in...... well i guess it would be hating ptp and loving the democrats.

[ballpoint]

So, it comes from a Wikipedia page, written by persons unknown who give a link to a bunch of excel spreadsheets to support it.

what's the point to this 'looking down your nose' style comment about the source?

the excel spreadsheets do support the fact, i've checked it.

and just because anyone can add something to wikipedia makes no difference.

try make up a lie on thaksins wikipedia page and see how long it lasts....

Most encyclopedia's are written by persons unknown.

Microsoft's encarta was written in local languages by teams of low-paid, out-sourced free-lancers, and it was not uncommon for different language versions to have a different take on the same event as seen through the cultural lens of the low-paid, out-sourced free-lancer.

It's always worth checking Wiki info - as you did - but no one can deny that it is a valuable internet resource and was & is a great idea.

(BTW, for people who rely on The Nation for facts, this is a pretty funny comment )

exactly...it would be different if i just sourced it as wiki, but i also went to the bother of showing him the actual source, where you can download the excel spreadsheets yourself and verify that it's a precise %.

guess he was just surprised that he didn't know that what i said was a factual statement.

Actually, you didn't source it at all, I had to ask you for it. And the link you gave when I asked was incorrect, I used the one on the wiki page. But you two carry on with the mutual masturbation. I find it more interesting that neither of you have discussed any of the other facts I posted, complete with source to the World Bank report.

[nurofiend]

Actually, you didn't source it at all, I had to ask you for it. And the link you gave when I asked was incorrect, I used the one on the wiki page. But you two carry on with the mutual masturbation. I find it more interesting that neither of you have discussed any of the other facts I posted, complete with source to the World Bank report.

how pedantic

yes i meant when you asked me to source it, i told you the wiki page, i told you the site that wiki sourced it from and i gave you the benefit of the doubt of having the ability to find the zip file all by yourself.

i was out of spoons at the time, so i had nothing to feed you with, sorry.

your world bank report does nothing to prove against the point that i was making, which was that the people who say thaksins aim is to keep the poor, poor are talking nonsense.

[binjalin]

The Nation of Buddhism and the contradictions that follow, ALL LIFE IS EQUAL! Where did your natural habitats and species go Thailand? Who Killed them all? They have 5 day buddhist funerals when people die in Thailand, but when an animal dies, they eat it and kill another.

Oh and whats the first precept of Buddhism again?

they (and TVF posters) will never get this

[Thaddeus]

Yingluck and Mrs Thatcher have/had one thing in common,neither of them know what it's like to be poor,they despise the poor,and they don't give a flying toss about their plight either.

more than one thing... they both one landslides

Please stop it with that landslide nonsense.

respectable unbiased sources seem to think it was a landslide, but i guess you must know better with your credentials in...... well i guess it would be hating ptp and loving the democrats.

I'll have you know, I'm an accomplished musician (piano, before you ask)

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

//edit/forgot to answer one question on credentials/ I did get a piece of paper many years ago from a fairly well respected university in Manchester (that's in England) that says I can do sums.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Thaddeus

[nurofiend]

I'll have you know, I'm an accomplished musician (piano, before you ask)

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

i believe some of them do care about rural thais, i also believe that they do use rural thais for political gain.

this may shock you but i actually believe that some of them have the ability to feel human empathy, i know, it's probably crazy to you and beyond your comprehension.

it doesn't just have to be one or the other, they can have a genuine care about helping them get a better lot, while at the same time using this to help them politically, by keeping them in power.

if some of the poor do start making good money, they're not just going to turn around and say, oh i guess i'll vote democrat now, they'll vote for the same party that helped them make that money.

that's another reason why i think this whole 'thaksin wants to keep the poor, poor is a load of hogwash.

i'd never suggest ptp are only about "oh lets just help all the poor people"

i can see things aren't that black and white, while others can't and think the ptp are only about "oh let's just use these dumb fools for votes"

which is extremely narrow minded, simplistic and biased.

since your fully committed to your view of ptp not having any care at all about the poor, what party do you think does hold this value?

I'll have you know, I'm an accomplished musician

congrats

i was more aiming for what your credentials are to dispute sources like the HRW to say it wasn't a landslide,

rather than what your life achievements are.

[Thaddeus]

I'll have you know, I'm an accomplished musician (piano, before you ask)

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

i believe some of them do care about rural thais,

Yep, I believe that some of them do.

[nurofiend]

I'll have you know, I'm an accomplished musician (piano, before you ask)

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

i believe some of them do care about rural thais,

Yep, I believe that some of them do.

well, i'm hardly gonna say all of them do, i try to make reasonable statements you see.

but as a party, i believe they do care... of course all the other content of my post which you seem to have ignored makes it clear what i mean by that.

do you have any views or counters to my post or are you satisfied just to nitpick on one line.

[Thaddeus]

do you have any views or counters to my post or are you satisfied just to nitpick on one line.

I wasn't nitpicking, I agree with that line, positively, not negatively.

It's late, and I thought I would save the rest for another day

[Yunla]

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

//edit/forgot to answer one question on credentials/ I did get a piece of paper many years ago from a fairly well respected university in Manchester (that's in England) that says I can do sums.

Great post and I totally agree. Re; your landlady, the "woman" part had been used as a cheap selling point in the media. It is called 'novelty' which humans are drawn to as a species, and when an election campaign promises the "first woman PM ever" that is intrinsically full of the concept of 'change', which tends to blur in many peoples minds, the notion they are recieving big change by electing the first woman PM, blurs unconsciously into the notion that other changes will accompany the woman, for example an end to rural poverty etc. It is similar to subliminal advertising, you tell the public you have a old product but with a new change and in the back of their minds words like change and new start going off like fireworks, making the voter susceptible to the rest of your propaganda, in Yingluck's case this was the all-out heartless falsehood that she intended to improve the lives of the poor.

The red shirts are still staging mass protests in Bangkok, their discontent is still a raging fire, which is exactly how Thaksin and sister want it. After almost a year in office Yingluck has not even started improving the lives of the poor, If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got. Yingluck has denied them this improved quality of life for her own reasons. While she herself enjoys luxury buffets at the 4seasons and elsewhere, the poorest in Thailand are struggling with many basics such as food and school uniforms, prices for which are rising under PTP. In real terms poor people are also worse off under Yingluck because of the rice mortgaging scheme which hovers over the rural economy like a wake of vultures.

But she is a woman, and so we got that change. Hooray. Around the word, the media enthused and swooned over the first woman PM thing, people like Rachel 'Red' Harvey and other "reporters" were using phrases like "a bright new dawn for all Asian women" etc. while the smart people wept. How ironic and sad that Yingluck actually set the clock back for independent Asian women by one hundred years, by not being her own woman, a public speaker, policy-maker or a skilled debater, instead being entirely docile and submissive, a spineless mouthpiece for a powerful man. How very empowering of her.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

//edit/forgot to answer one question on credentials/ I did get a piece of paper many years ago from a fairly well respected university in Manchester (that's in England) that says I can do sums.

Great post and I totally agree. Re; your landlady, the "woman" part had been used as a cheap selling point in the media. It is called 'novelty' which humans are drawn to as a species, and when an election campaign promises the "first woman PM ever" that is intrinsically full of the concept of 'change', which tends to blur in many peoples minds, the notion they are recieving big change by electing the first woman PM, blurs unconsciously into the notion that other changes will accompany the woman, for example an end to rural poverty etc. It is similar to subliminal advertising, you tell the public you have a old product but with a new change and in the back of their minds words like change and new start going off like fireworks, making the voter susceptible to the rest of your propaganda, in Yingluck's case this was the all-out heartless falsehood that she intended to improve the lives of the poor.

The red shirts are still staging mass protests in Bangkok, their discontent is still a raging fire, which is exactly how Thaksin and sister want it. After almost a year in office Yingluck has not even started improving the lives of the poor, If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got. Yingluck has denied them this improved quality of life for her own reasons. While she herself enjoys luxury buffets at the 4seasons and elsewhere, the poorest in Thailand are struggling with many basics such as food and school uniforms, prices for which are rising under PTP. In real terms poor people are also worse off under Yingluck because of the rice mortgaging scheme which hovers over the rural economy like a wake of vultures.

But she is a woman, and so we got that change. Hooray. Around the word, the media enthused and swooned over the first woman PM thing, people like Rachel 'Red' Harvey and other "reporters" were using phrases like "a bright new dawn for all Asian women" etc. while the smart people wept. How ironic and sad that Yingluck actually set the clock back for independent Asian women by one hundred years, by not being her own woman, a public speaker, policy-maker or a skilled debater, instead being entirely docile and submissive, a spineless mouthpiece for a powerful man. How very empowering of her.

If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got

evidently, you don't understand why they are protesting...

[Thaddeus]

And for one last time, PTP got 48% of the votes cast, only 75% of the people eligible to vote actual did, so that means they got 48% of 75% which roughly equates to 36% (not that rough actually as an integer)

So, just over a third of the people eligible to vote, voted for them..... this does not qualify for the word landslide.

Now, if you want to hazard a guess at how many of that third of the people that voted for them, was it because of their manifesto, their empty promises, because they wanted Thaskin back, a free Tab PC for the kids, becoming rich in six months, oodles of money to be made on rice production (that the ones at the bottom of the piles will never see) or as my land-lady told me when I asked her "she's a woman" (critical thinking at its best)

The one thing that really pisses me off, and I mean really pisses me off, is a bunch of well healed, life going well sorts, who try to champion the poor by supporting a bunch of self serving criminals who only care about themselves, no matter what they claim.

PTP don't care about the rural Thais, to them they are just cannon fodder, a means to an end for their own enrichment, if you fall for that spiel, you are either deluded or a welcome partner in deception.

//edit/forgot to answer one question on credentials/ I did get a piece of paper many years ago from a fairly well respected university in Manchester (that's in England) that says I can do sums.

Great post and I totally agree. Re; your landlady, the "woman" part had been used as a cheap selling point in the media. It is called 'novelty' which humans are drawn to as a species, and when an election campaign promises the "first woman PM ever" that is intrinsically full of the concept of 'change', which tends to blur in many peoples minds, the notion they are recieving big change by electing the first woman PM, blurs unconsciously into the notion that other changes will accompany the woman, for example an end to rural poverty etc. It is similar to subliminal advertising, you tell the public you have a old product but with a new change and in the back of their minds words like change and new start going off like fireworks, making the voter susceptible to the rest of your propaganda, in Yingluck's case this was the all-out heartless falsehood that she intended to improve the lives of the poor.

The red shirts are still staging mass protests in Bangkok, their discontent is still a raging fire, which is exactly how Thaksin and sister want it. After almost a year in office Yingluck has not even started improving the lives of the poor, If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got. Yingluck has denied them this improved quality of life for her own reasons. While she herself enjoys luxury buffets at the 4seasons and elsewhere, the poorest in Thailand are struggling with many basics such as food and school uniforms, prices for which are rising under PTP. In real terms poor people are also worse off under Yingluck because of the rice mortgaging scheme which hovers over the rural economy like a wake of vultures.

But she is a woman, and so we got that change. Hooray. Around the word, the media enthused and swooned over the first woman PM thing, people like Rachel 'Red' Harvey and other "reporters" were using phrases like "a bright new dawn for all Asian women" etc. while the smart people wept. How ironic and sad that Yingluck actually set the clock back for independent Asian women by one hundred years, by not being her own woman, a public speaker, policy-maker or a skilled debater, instead being entirely docile and submissive, a spineless mouthpiece for a powerful man. How very empowering of her.

If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got

evidently, you don't understand why they are protesting...

And they don't either, even though they may think they do.

[Yunla]

evidently, you don't understand why they are protesting...

Well, I am going to group 'marching' and 'blockading' along with 'protesting', since they allegedly don't really have anything to protest against anymore. I will include the mass red-mob meeting at the democracy monument in with other 'protests', since it is still a mass march by the same group in their Heimlich shirts. Redmob online make a big deal of how they won democratic election and they only wanted democracy, well they have the position now in parliament and the power to make changes for the betterment of Thailand along egalitarian lines. PTP have been in power for a year and have done nothing to address rural poverty, infact it has been argued that poor people face greater challenges after a year of PTP than they faced pre-PTP.

However, redmob can not protest against the government anymore, since they are effectively the government or so they are told. That is of course not true, Yingluck represents a corporate oligarchy and is accountable to billionaires and not to the working-class electorate. The redmob can sense this, slowly I think, they are realising that after a year of PTP they got a few hundred downmarket chinese computer tablets, a disastrous rice-policy, and not much else. The redmob are marching and protesting and meeting, to celebrate things that happened 80 years ago, because they are told that this was a great thing that happened. Redmob are gathered to defend the gates of parliament, and to receive the coveted home-addresses of innocent hard-working Thai citizens, to doubtless threaten and perchance assault.

So in essence, to answer your point, they are now 'mobilising' more than protesting, they are showing solidarity, they are maintaining a presence and responding when their government asks them to, be that a monument rally or to receive the home addresses of dissenters in true fascist bootboy style.

Redmob members do not feel right somehow about protesting now, because they have their party in government and so any problems could be dealt with in parliament by leaders with integrity and stamina and a sense of egalitarian justice. And in that case, there would be no further need to show force in the streets. And yet at the back of their redmob minds, they are considering that after a year of PTP things are actully not better, even worse, and so they still have lingering resentment and a sense of burning injustice, but now it is directionless and is not focused on removing the government, so PTP have artfully channelled this revolutionary zeal into mass-march visits to historical monuments, marches against the mystery 'elites' and the judiciary, freedom for Thaksin marches and soforth. The mob march when commanded, they are promised great things in the future. This is an echo of earlier masscontrol doctrines that have haunted history for centuries.

The question the redmob should be asking is ; now that their PTP are in office, why should the protesters be called out to march at all? Where are the promised PTP policies for rural infrastructure, the poverty-eradication bills, the anti-corruption bills, the huge promised investment in rural schooling and lifestyle equality? Why is the government that the redshirts elected, doing next to nothing to help the poor people who voted for them, and why is PTP asking them to march and protest and blockade, when infact the redmob could stay at home and the elected PTP could be busily reforming and repairing the nation for the good of all Thais.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

evidently, you don't understand why they are protesting...

Well, I am going to group 'marching' and 'blockading' along with 'protesting', since they allegedly don't really have anything to protest against anymore. I will include the mass red-mob meeting at the democracy monument in with other 'protests', since it is still a mass march by the same group in their Heimlich shirts. Redmob online make a big deal of how they won democratic election and they only wanted democracy, well they have the position now in parliament and the power to make changes for the betterment of Thailand along egalitarian lines. PTP have been in power for a year and have done nothing to address rural poverty, infact it has been argued that poor people face greater challenges after a year of PTP than they faced pre-PTP.

However, redmob can not protest against the government anymore, since they are effectively the government or so they are told. That is of course not true, Yingluck represents a corporate oligarchy and is accountable to billionaires and not to the working-class electorate. The redmob can sense this, slowly I think, they are realising that after a year of PTP they got a few hundred downmarket chinese computer tablets, a disastrous rice-policy, and not much else. The redmob are marching and protesting and meeting, to celebrate things that happened 80 years ago, because they are told that this was a great thing that happened. Redmob are gathered to defend the gates of parliament, and to receive the coveted home-addresses of innocent hard-working Thai citizens, to doubtless threaten and perchance assault.

So in essence, to answer your point, they are now 'mobilising' more than protesting, they are showing solidarity, they are maintaining a presence and responding when their government asks them to, be that a monument rally or to receive the home addresses of dissenters in true fascist bootboy style.

Redmob members do not feel right somehow about protesting now, because they have their party in government and so any problems could be dealt with in parliament by leaders with integrity and stamina and a sense of egalitarian justice. And in that case, there would be no further need to show force in the streets. And yet at the back of their redmob minds, they are considering that after a year of PTP things are actully not better, even worse, and so they still have lingering resentment and a sense of burning injustice, but now it is directionless and is not focused on removing the government, so PTP have artfully channelled this revolutionary zeal into mass-march visits to historical monuments, marches against the mystery 'elites' and the judiciary, freedom for Thaksin marches and soforth. The mob march when commanded, they are promised great things in the future. This is an echo of earlier masscontrol doctrines that have haunted history for centuries.

The question the redmob should be asking is ; now that their PTP are in office, why should the protesters be called out to march at all? Where are the promised PTP policies for rural infrastructure, the poverty-eradication bills, the anti-corruption bills, the huge promised investment in rural schooling and lifestyle equality? Why is the government that the redshirts elected, doing next to nothing to help the poor people who voted for them, and why is PTP asking them to march and protest and blockade, when infact the redmob could stay at home and the elected PTP could be busily reforming and repairing the nation for the good of all Thais.

So in essence, to answer your point, they are now 'mobilising' more than protesting, they are showing solidarity, they are maintaining a presence

well exactly,

my issue wasn't the use of the word 'protest' for them gathering, it was the reason you gave for why they were there, which is why i thought your statement "If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got" seemed to show a complete misread of the situation or a lack of understanding.

btw do you call them red'mob' to dehumanize them to yourself...

i know that mob means crowd, but we all know the connotations it carries when it's used in certain ways.

you should just replace 'mob' with 'scum', go all out.

[Yunla]

btw do you call them red'mob' to dehumanize them to yourself...

i know that mob means crowd, but we all know the connotations it carries when it's used in certain ways.

you should just replace 'mob' with 'scum', go all out.

Re; I don't understand why they are marching etc. I was making a multifaceted point, regarding the ulterior reasons for the mass march, and their own inner feelings of dissatisfaction which has been and is still being exploited by the billionaire crimelords Shinawatra, the burning agrarian rage which has not been sated by the complete absence of policy-reform enacted for the poors' benefit, or the life-improvements that have not seen by them since PTP came to 'power'.

Infact I was suggesting they are being kept angry for a reason and that this was the evident in the marching around for no real purpose. The method was to not give them a sense of victory or accomplishment , but to promise them these things in the future after certain other criteria have been met. It was perhaps too sophisticated a point for you to grasp and for that I'm sorry.

'Redmob' is what all my Thai friends in Bangkok call them. Not 'the redmob' or 'redmobs' or 'red mob' but redmob pronounced quickly as one word. I had been calling them red shirts until I was corrected by my Thai working-class friends who all vote DP.

For example it is often used as a response to a question. I ask a friend if we should take the kids and go for ice creams in the city, and do some eye-shopping, she replies no, I ask why , she replies 'redmob' meaning theres traffic chaos because of redmob. Its like a catch-all name for a natural disaster.

Even my Bangkok friends whose families are from Isaan call them redmob, and because they moved to Bangkok and got jobs here and raised kids here, they resent having their lives upturned by anyone especially their former countrymen. And they told me that part of the reason they wanted to get away from Isaan in the first place was to get away from the drunken layabouts and thugs of which the redmob leadership is founded.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Yunla

[metisdead]

Some nonsense posts have been removed.

[nurofiend]

btw do you call them red'mob' to dehumanize them to yourself...

i know that mob means crowd, but we all know the connotations it carries when it's used in certain ways.

you should just replace 'mob' with 'scum', go all out.

Re; I don't understand why they are marching etc. I was making a multifaceted point, regarding the ulterior reasons for the mass march, and their own inner feelings of dissatisfaction which has been and is still being exploited by the billionaire crimelords Shinawatra, the burning agrarian rage which has not been sated by the complete absence of policy-reform enacted for the poors' benefit, or the life-improvements that have not seen by them since PTP came to 'power'.

Infact I was suggesting they are being kept angry for a reason and that this was the evident in the marching around for no real purpose. The method was to not give them a sense of victory or accomplishment , but to promise them these things in the future after certain other criteria have been met. It was perhaps too sophisticated a point for you to grasp and for that I'm sorry.

'Redmob' is what all my Thai friends in Bangkok call them. Not 'the redmob' or 'redmobs' or 'red mob' but redmob pronounced quickly as one word. I had been calling them red shirts until I was corrected by my Thai working-class friends who all vote DP.

For example it is often used as a response to a question. I ask a friend if we should take the kids and go for ice creams in the city, and do some eye-shopping, she replies no, I ask why , she replies 'redmob' meaning theres traffic chaos because of redmob. Its like a catch-all name for a natural disaster.

Even my Bangkok friends whose families are from Isaan call them redmob, and because they moved to Bangkok and got jobs here and raised kids here, they resent having their lives upturned by anyone especially their former countrymen. And they told me that part of the reason they wanted to get away from Isaan in the first place was to get away from the drunken layabouts and thugs of which the redmob leadership is founded.

calling your own point sophisticated doesn't make it so.

and saying they are marching around with no real purpose doesn't make it true either.

you said If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, they wouldn't be marching.

where do you get this logic from, what do you feel they are rallying about?

you agree that they are not rallying about rural infrastrucure and poverty don't you?

so is it that you think if they had more money they wouldn't bother with all this palava concerning the party that they voted in?

If Yingluck had implemented policies to improve rural infrastructure and eradicate poverty ten months ago, the red shirts would not be mass protesting in Bangkok because they would be content with what they already had got

you just don't give any of them any credit for having any actual legitimate cause do you, and that's why i wonder if you have dehumanized them to yourself by repeating terms like redmob.

perhaps unconsciously you have.

Edited July 2, 2012 by nurofiend

[Yunla]

you just don't give any of them any credit for having any actual legitimate cause do you, and that's why i wonder if you have dehumanized them to yourself by repeating terms like redmob.

perhaps unconsciously you have.

Yes they had and still do have a legitimate cause ; egalitarian justice and improvement of rural infrastructure etc. My point, which your last post illustrated perfectly, I suspect it went over your head entirely, and was that they do have several legitimate causes, all of which are being ignored entirely by PTP in parliament.

You understand the basics don't you ; when you have elected your party into government, your party represents you and enacts policies to improve your lives. That means you do not need to mobilise on the streets any further. PTP have not done that policy work. So the legitimate cause of the redmob is unaddressed. My whole point is that PTP do not want to address the problems of the rural poor, because then the poor would be content and increasingly affluent and increasingly educated - which would serve against PTP's agenda entirely. As Mao said, - keep your followers poor and uneducated and they will serve you pre and post revolution. Keep them aspiring to have that better life you promised, but do not give them that better life because then they will no longer have any need for you.

And so what I've been saying is that redmob are being promised these things in future, when infact PTP have had nearly a full year to put through a whole raft of policies to build infrastructure leading ultimately to a smarter, wealthier and happier rural populace. PTP have not even started to do those things, which makes me question why. My own answer in theory is that PTP want to keep the redmob poor, undereducated, angry and ready to mobilise whenever called upon, with the promise of great things in the future.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

you just don't give any of them any credit for having any actual legitimate cause do you, and that's why i wonder if you have dehumanized them to yourself by repeating terms like redmob.

perhaps unconsciously you have.

As Mao said, - keep your followers poor and uneducated and they will serve you pre and post revolution. Keep them aspiring to have that better life you promised, but do not give them that better life because then they will no longer have any need for you.

which is what i gathered from your original post.

and you seem to either choose to ignore or you lack the ability to understand that this is what i spoke about.

you said they wouldn't show up in bangkok if they were content with what they got - financially.

and i 100% disagree with that viewpoint.

however many posts later, your 'sophisticated' point with a bit of mao thrown in for good measure, remains the same.

Edited July 2, 2012 by nurofiend

[Yunla]

you said they wouldn't show up in bangkok if they were content with what they got - financially.

and i 100% disagree with that viewpoint.

Would you care to elaborate on why you 100% disagree with my viewpoint or shall we leave it unsubstantiated.

[nurofiend]

you said they wouldn't show up in bangkok if they were content with what they got - financially.

and i 100% disagree with that viewpoint.

Would you care to elaborate on why you 100% disagree with my viewpoint or shall we leave it unsubstantiated.

my point is that just like the pad, they in their minds think they have a legitimate reason to be out there, that they just might actually believe in what they are there for, rather than just being poor with nothing better to do and if only they had a few more baht then they wouldn't be arsed with any of it.

i'm sure you wouldn't say that if the pad supporters were more well off financially that they wouldn't be out rallying for their cause.

[Yunla]

my point is that just like the pad, they in their minds think they have a legitimate reason to be out there, that they just might actually believe in what they are there for, rather than just being poor with nothing better to do and if only they had a few more baht then they wouldn't be arsed with any of it.

i'm sure you wouldn't say that if the pad supporters were more well off financially that they wouldn't be out rallying for their cause.

You said "a few more baht". I never said that. I said (to paraphrase) 'if PTP had improved rural infrastructure and education and equality' then the redmob would not be mobilising in the streets at the drop of a hat, but would be sitting back home in contentment waiting for the new policy bills to take effect, gradually improving their lives. But those bills never arrived. And you make a spurious comment about "a few more baht". I'm talking about housing, education, roads, hospitals, water-management and jobs in those poor areas, not a few more baht. You are either deliberately misunderstanding me (I suspect this to be the case) or you simply don't understand. Your DP/PAD comparison is mute - they were never promised the kind of turn-around spending to improve their lives overnight (as PTP/redmob were offering), DP were promising gradual work towards a stable law-abiding democracy the same as democrats promise allover the world.

You also avoid the central question of why the PTP, and Yingluck the 'Robin Hood in high-heels', allegedly elected to speak for the poor people against the evil mystery elites, why she has failed to do anything of substance for those poor people. Why? Is it to keep the proverbial attack-dog hungry and discontented? Fat, happy, sleepy dogs are no good to a dictatorship. You need lean dogs that are hungry and angry. Maybe there is another reason PTP's year in office has been so devoid of egalitarian policymaking for the rural and urban poor. I can't see any other logical reasons but maybe I am wrong.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

my point is that just like the pad, they in their minds think they have a legitimate reason to be out there, that they just might actually believe in what they are there for, rather than just being poor with nothing better to do and if only they had a few more baht then they wouldn't be arsed with any of it.

i'm sure you wouldn't say that if the pad supporters were more well off financially that they wouldn't be out rallying for their cause.

You said "a few more baht". I never said that. I said (to paraphrase) 'if PTP had improved rural infrastructure and education and equality' then the redmob would not be mobilising in the streets at the drop of a hat, but would be sitting back home in contentment waiting for the new policy bills to take effect, gradually improving their lives. But those bills never arrived. And you make a spurious comment about "a few more baht". I'm talking about housing, education, roads, hospitals, water-management and jobs in those poor areas, not a few more baht. You are either deliberately misunderstanding me (I suspect this to be the case) or you simply don't understand. Your DP/PAD comparison is mute - they were never promised the kind of turn-around spending to improve their lives overnight (as PTP/redmob were offering), DP were promising gradual work towards a stable law-abiding democracy the same as democrats promise allover the world.

You also avoid the central question of why the PTP, and Yingluck the 'Robin Hood in high-heels', allegedly elected to speak for the poor people against the evil mystery elites, why she has failed to do anything of substance for those poor people. Why? Is it to keep the proverbial attack-dog hungry and discontented? Fat, happy, sleepy dogs are no good to a dictatorship. You need lean dogs that are hungry and angry. Maybe there is another reason PTP's year in office has been so devoid of egalitarian policymaking for the rural and urban poor. I can't see any other logical reasons but maybe I am wrong.

do you think a minimum wage hike is a policy for the poor?

your thoughts of ptp's objective being to do bad by their supporters is off the mark imho, sorry.

[maidu]

evidently, you don't understand why they are protesting...

And they don't either, even though they may think they do.

I agree. Here's how most of the Reds shirts think: They want more money (doesn't everybody?) and they think hyper rich people like Thaksin (who pretends he's one of them) can get them more money. He often alludes to that in his speeches.

As for protesting: They show up mainly because it's a party atmosphere. Anyone who knows Thais, knows they love to lump together, eat food, and get sauced with one another. They get free bus fare to & fro the giant city, free meals, a free t-shirt, sometimes they get some minimal shelter. They may get their mugs on national TV. It's a win win. Even if they break the law, there are no legal repercussions. Compare that to their ordinary ho-hum existence in villages.

It's more of a group grope and a chance to prance around, than a political demonstration with a social purpose.

[Yunla]

do you think a minimum wage hike is a policy for the poor?

Minimum wage is instituted in many places around the world, it is not a PTP invention, and the use of minimum wage can be a harmful factor if not introduced in the right setting. It should be introduced alongside things like law-and-order, accountability, and a level playing field for businesses. In a society rife with corruption, minimum wage can actually cripple companies that are already under pressure from corrupt officials and monopolies. So yes minimum wage is a good policy, when introduced alongside well-regulated business practices, which of course Thailand doesn't have.

Minimum wage was introduced as PTP eye-candy populism just like the free computer tablets for all, and all the other pre-election populist promises. Minimum wage has potential to impact the economy negatively with businesses moving to neighbouring countries for cheaper labour. Obviously this loss of business impacts the poor. Again, minimum wage is a great policy when introduced to a well regulated nation which Thailand is not. If the minimum wage is your only evidence of PTP helping the poor, then your argument is sunk already.

In truth PTP have done wasteful things like reintroduced hospital fee which DP had done away with, which is a waste of money in collection-system. Prices of basics under PTP are rising, and their rice policy threatens potential disasters for rural people. The minimum wage has potential backlash problems too.

When I started I talked about PTP helping the poor, and PTP should and could have achieved this by working tirelessly in parliament for the past 12 months to put bills through for rural infrastructure development, education, and ending corruption, these things will benefit the poor in a myriad of long-term positive ways. PTP have not done any of that, their PM is rarely even in Parliament, instead the party offered some cheap showmanship populism which some people including you have been enraptured by.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Yunla

[Nickymaster]

you said they wouldn't show up in bangkok if they were content with what they got - financially.

and i 100% disagree with that viewpoint.

Would you care to elaborate on why you 100% disagree with my viewpoint or shall we leave it unsubstantiated.

my point is that just like the pad, they in their minds think they have a legitimate reason to be out there, that they just might actually believe in what they are there for, rather than just being poor with nothing better to do and if only they had a few more baht then they wouldn't be arsed with any of it.

i'm sure you wouldn't say that if the pad supporters were more well off financially that they wouldn't be out rallying for their cause.

That's why the vast majority nowadays are women.