Red-Shirt Influence And The Constitutional Question

[webfact]

Red-shirt influence and the constitutional question

Titipol Phakdeewanich

Special to The Nation

BANGKOK: -- It is now two years since the phenomenon of the red-shirt "Villages for Democracy" emerged across Thailand, and since December 2010 over 16,000 villages have declared themselves, as this movement continues to evolve and adapt.

Nevertheless, it is extremely significant for both the red shirts and the country at large that the implications of these efforts are yet to be fully realised at the national level. With the arguments over constitutional reform dominating the national political discourse, and also the apparent determination exhibited by the anti-Thaksin coalition to resist reform, the question of the red shirts continues to be the source of much political intrigue.

The capacity to link an emerging grassroots movement to a national political agenda is of critical importance when it comes to an essential question such as this, which relates to the possible return to Thailand of the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. This does, of course, do much to explain the political ploys and cryptic arguments from both sides relating to a further rewriting of the Thai Constitution at this time, revealing the high stakes involved.

Then, when we consider the legal requirement for a majority of registered voters to vote on a constitutional referendum, voter turnout and political mobilisation take precedence over the simple technical victory that is sufficient for parliamentary elections. This helps to explain the questionable and anti-democratic rationale of some Democrat Party politicians in attempting to minimise turnout, should the constitutional referendum go ahead as planned.

In this context, it may paradoxically be in the long-term interests of Thaksin, if his opponents are in fact wrong in their assertions that the red-shirt movement is effectively a wholly owned subsidiary of his. Indeed, few red shirts would actually wish to be perceived in such a light. For those within the red-shirt umbrella, the motivation to continue to politically mobilise must therefore be linked to a strong belief that their relationship to Thaksin is both rational and advantageous.

When it comes to the question of the red-shirt villages, for the majority of Thais there continues to be much uncertainty surrounding their formation. Arnon Sannan, who is credited with having established the red-shirt village concept, has recently argued: "I've made it very clear that the red-shirt villages aim to promote democracy and differences. So the non-red shirts should not feel excluded if they believe in democracy."

However, only a few months after the official launch of a number of red-shirt villages in Ubon Ratchathani, Rattana Kampui, the leader of Serichon Ubon - or Free People of Ubon - noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

This context reveals that if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board, then they will ultimately face disappointment. If, when facing resistance, they become dogmatic and inflexible in their aims and objectives, then their reasonable claims will be lost in the argument, as the remainder of society feels increasingly isolated from their demands.

As Robert Dahl, a noted writer on democracy, once argued: "Yes, individuals and groups may sometimes be mistaken about their own good. Certainly they may sometimes misperceive what is in their own best interests."

Despite the evident frustration felt by many rural Thais, it remains in their interest to find ways to connect their message with the hearts and minds of the wider Thai population, and this strategy would not be well served by a retreat into isolationism, which has the very real potential to significantly backfire.

The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement, which is weakening their overall position within the red-shirt coalition. Consequently, they risk undermining any opportunity they do have, to effectively contend with the existing power structures of the political establishment.

Indeed, as Francis Fukuyama has recently argued: "It requires a great deal of hard work to persuade people that institutional change is needed in the first place, build a coalition in favour of change that can overcome the resistance of existing stakeholders in the old system."

In time, the red-shirt movement does have the potential to develop its approach, in order to emerge as a responsive interest group within the Thai political paradigm. This, in and of itself, would assist in better holding government accountable, and if the significance of this prospect was more fully understood, then the opening that this suggests would be more positively accepted by the broader Thai demographic.

In other words, if the red-shirt villages movement can expect to be able to make a strong case to the wider Thai society that they are effective in perceiving problems and constructive in providing solutions, then the evidence for this must be there. As a lack of regard for the rights of the individual, which must be set aside for the alleged benefit of the group collective, has many dangerous precedents, if red-shirt villages can demonstrate that they are developing more democratic and cohesive communities than typically exist across Thailand today, then this achievement will become apparent to the outside observer.

Their recent strategic shift towards the development of more economically oriented cooperatives has the potential to include those who are unaffiliated with the red shirts, and also to reconnect those who have felt themselves marginalised by the often overtly political aspects of this movement. The success stories would greatly assist in the development of an inclusive grassroots undertaking, which could then act to powerfully inform the newly emerging social dynamics of Thailand.

It can be established, therefore, when making the case for Thai democracy and the desire of social-political movements to affect change, that the democratic underpinning in fully respecting the rights of the individual and of political representation is not a partisan case. This concerns all Thais, regardless of their political affiliation or perspective.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.

-- The Nation 2013-01-02

[waza]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

Edited January 2, 2013 by waza

[gatorsoft]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

[hellodolly]

My memory is not that long but did not one of these red shirt areas with red shirt villages elected a Democrat in a by election?

Also as has been pointed out is not the move causing a division in communities where there had prior to the proclamation of being a red shirt village no political dissent. More a live and let live attitude.

One more question. Have not these red shirt districts been under Thaksin rule for about 8 of the last 12 years and still they look to him as there savior?

[Rich teacher]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

[binjalin]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

if this is what it is - bravo!

[Thai at Heart]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

if this is what it is - bravo!

Indeed, if that is part of the ethos, fabulous. However, it is extremely hard to believe that there obviously isn't an element of propaganda pushing behind the concept of red villages. I am all for trying to educate the people about democracy, the problem is, Thailand has a very bizarre concept of democracy anyway, so whilst it is all well and good to point out the the problems of Thailand's democracy to the people, holding up a so called 'red' democracy as a better version is the problem.

I really wonder why countries continue to stubbornly re-invent the wheel to "localise" democracy to fit their culture. The further away you get from the true concept of democracy, the more bastardised the type of government you have. It has been proven time and time again, that the more representative, free, and open your government, institutions and society becomes, the more prosperous and equitable the country tends to be in the long run.

When you hobble your institutions and government behind secrecy and corruption, eventually, things go wrong, and change comes with horrible costs, and yet, there seems to be no effort to move forward here. The status quo is just too cozy for those who benefit from it that they can't bring themselves to do the right thing.

[seajae]

declaring a "red shirt village' is the same as declaring yourself muslim or budhist, in the long run it divides the people. Political views are everyones right, no one should be able to declare a village as a red shirt one unless there is a vote held and the whole village approves it otherwise you are setting up a conflicted area. To push just one side of politics in a village is the sort of thing hitler/stalinists did, you had to agree with them or face the prospect of being bashed/rejected. What a person does with their vote is their own personal right, no one has the right to remove this or push their biased views on them. Red shirt villages is simply wrong, the sooner it is removed the better or we will see a lot more political violence because of it when people are forced to declare their allegiance. With over 60% of thai people saying bribes are good one has to wonder how many were paid to get this idea going and how many members are on the payroll, the whole thing is just wrong, only red shirt sympathisers will agree with it.

[virtualtraveller]

As long at these red shirt villages put up banners claiming 'this here village is a red shirt village' complete with picture of Thaksin on, they should be condemned. It's all very well calling them grassroots movements towards social improvement but with a benefactor like that they are open to ridicule. In many ways the man epitomises so much that they ought to be against: a rich, double-standards, tax dodging, selfish, silver-spooned individual, and I'm guessing much of the organisational financing etc came from his cronies. He uses them for his own personal gain and its tragic that they are so hard up that they have to subscribe to this shameful marriage of convenience, for Thaksin seems to make decisions that perpetually put one individual in conflict with the rest of the country. Furthermore, to make it geographical is to invite discrimination, those few in the village who are not part of the red thinking can scarcely object, given their tendency towards intimidatory behaviour. They are nothing more than a propaganda tool, and it will be effectively used to distort the intentions of a referendum to gauge people's thoughts on a new charter. A new charter won't really make much difference to the lives and rights of these people, the biggest beneficiary will be a few pardoned individuals. Considering this, I think that a covert strategy by the Democrats to defeat the referendum by a 'no show' is perfectly understandable.

[OzMick]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

Of course that drug ban doesn't include alcohol, tobacco, or the tooth-rotting crap they chew. I wonder what else is on the "culturally acceptable" list.

I also have some doubts about "meaningful employment". I very much doubt it means something that doesn't need a subsidy.

[binjalin]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

Of course that drug ban doesn't include alcohol, tobacco, or the tooth-rotting crap they chew. I wonder what else is on the "culturally acceptable" list.

I also have some doubts about "meaningful employment". I very much doubt it means something that doesn't need a subsidy.

wow good one

and ANY country you can name bans Alcohol and Tobacco? are these not 'culturally acceptable' in the ENTIRE WORLD? name just one country? just ONE?

this is a foolish argument at least they are trying to do something and anything which could save at least one kid from the drug misery is a good thing

[muttley]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

I would have to agree with you that the Red Shirt village concept seems to promote division rather than unity. I guess I would have to learn more about the concept and the arguments for and against to form an informed opinion.

A part of becoming a red-shirt village is the acceptance of the red district model, which includes an absolute commitment to a drug-free village & a commitment to 100% employment. If a villager is unemployed it is the collective responsibility of the village to help that member gain meaningful employment.

Of course that drug ban doesn't include alcohol, tobacco, or the tooth-rotting crap they chew. I wonder what else is on the "culturally acceptable" list.

I also have some doubts about "meaningful employment". I very much doubt it means something that doesn't need a subsidy.

Red shirt supporters of course being the only thai citizens that use "alcohol, tobacco, or the tooth-rotting crap they chew".

Spoken as only a non smoking, non drinking, sugar cane avoiding bitter expat could or just bitter opponent of the red shirts or both, either way what emotion stands out is plain old bitterness.

[OzMick]

Just trying to point out that propaganda is usually BS and contains a fair amount of hypocrisy - and I'm quite sure that I haven't included everything that others might classify as harmful substances.

Nobody willing to try the "meaningful employment"?

[muttley]

Just trying to point out that propaganda is usually BS and contains a fair amount of hypocrisy - and I'm quite sure that I haven't included everything that others might classify as harmful substances.

Nobody willing to try the "meaningful employment"?

If only you would, we'd might have less posts from you - Sorry couldn't resist it

[waza]

Just trying to point out that propaganda is usually BS and contains a fair amount of hypocrisy - and I'm quite sure that I haven't included everything that others might classify as harmful substances.

Nobody willing to try the "meaningful employment"?

If only you would, we'd might have less posts from you - Sorry couldn't resist it

Maybe these strict red village rules are the reason so many Issanites have moved to the tourist areas - Sorry i couldnt resist too

Edited January 2, 2013 by waza

[OzMick]

Just trying to point out that propaganda is usually BS and contains a fair amount of hypocrisy - and I'm quite sure that I haven't included everything that others might classify as harmful substances.

Nobody willing to try the "meaningful employment"?

If only you would, we'd might have less posts from you - Sorry couldn't resist it

I am retired due to ill-health. Neither my brain function or sense of humour has been affected.

[Tatsujin]

red-shirt "villages for democracy" . . . sounds like warmed up communism to me.

[Pimay1]

red-shirt "villages for democracy" . . . sounds like warmed up communism to me.

Judging from the past statements and misbehavior of former communist (or current communist) Ms. Thida I have to agree with you.

Sent from my plain old laptop with no special app

[khunken]

There are many ways of organising a village for the benefit of that community. Keeping the locale drug-free has been tried in various areas of Thailand - with varying levels of success. Employment too can be maintained too - surely the Kibbutz model covers this & other factors too.

What it doesn't need is a one-sided political paintbrush which only inhibits free speech. It is nothing to do with democracy - just the opposite. Airy-fairy propaganda about being drug-free & with full employment is a smoke-screen for what is basically an attempt to control the population therein.

It reminds me of the Unionist & Nationalist division of areas of Belfast & Derry, which - as recent events have depicted - remain a smoldering cauldron of hate.

[backtonormal]

As long at these red shirt villages put up banners claiming 'this here village is a red shirt village' complete with picture of Thaksin on, they should be condemned. It's all very well calling them grassroots movements towards social improvement but with a benefactor like that they are open to ridicule. In many ways the man epitomises so much that they ought to be against: a rich, double-standards, tax dodging, selfish, silver-spooned individual, and I'm guessing much of the organisational financing etc came from his cronies. He uses them for his own personal gain and its tragic that they are so hard up that they have to subscribe to this shameful marriage of convenience, for Thaksin seems to make decisions that perpetually put one individual in conflict with the rest of the country. Furthermore, to make it geographical is to invite discrimination, those few in the village who are not part of the red thinking can scarcely object, given their tendency towards intimidatory behaviour. They are nothing more than a propaganda tool, and it will be effectively used to distort the intentions of a referendum to gauge people's thoughts on a new charter. A new charter won't really make much difference to the lives and rights of these people, the biggest beneficiary will be a few pardoned individuals. Considering this, I think that a covert strategy by the Democrats to defeat the referendum by a 'no show' is perfectly understandable.

I take your points onboard but not really agree. May I suggest instead of decrying, belittling and generally shooting down thevillages please tell me what the Democrats intend to do about it. They've not been elected for 20 year at the polls because they simply are so far out of touch with most of the voters. If you claim the election was won by only a few millions votes why cant they swing such a small majority. Mark and the boys have nothing really to offer other than basing all comments around Thaksins return as the reason for changing the constitution. Can you tell me what else will be quashed by the removal of 309. Immunity for Marks mates (army generals ) may fly out of the window

[whybother]

I take your points onboard but not really agree. May I suggest instead of decrying, belittling and generally shooting down thevillages please tell me what the Democrats intend to do about it. They've not been elected for 20 year at the polls because they simply are so far out of touch with most of the voters. If you claim the election was won by only a few millions votes why cant they swing such a small majority. Mark and the boys have nothing really to offer other than basing all comments around Thaksins return as the reason for changing the constitution. Can you tell me what else will be quashed by the removal of 309. Immunity for Marks mates (army generals ) may fly out of the window

I'm just wondering if, with the removal of 309, they have plans to charge the coup generals. Given that one of the main coup generals is in the current government, I doubt if very much.

If they don't have plans to charge the coup generals, why do they need to remove 309?

[rubl]

As long at these red shirt villages put up banners claiming 'this here village is a red shirt village' complete with picture of Thaksin on, they should be condemned. It's all very well calling them grassroots movements towards social improvement but with a benefactor like that they are open to ridicule. In many ways the man epitomises so much that they ought to be against: a rich, double-standards, tax dodging, selfish, silver-spooned individual, and I'm guessing much of the organisational financing etc came from his cronies. He uses them for his own personal gain and its tragic that they are so hard up that they have to subscribe to this shameful marriage of convenience, for Thaksin seems to make decisions that perpetually put one individual in conflict with the rest of the country. Furthermore, to make it geographical is to invite discrimination, those few in the village who are not part of the red thinking can scarcely object, given their tendency towards intimidatory behaviour. They are nothing more than a propaganda tool, and it will be effectively used to distort the intentions of a referendum to gauge people's thoughts on a new charter. A new charter won't really make much difference to the lives and rights of these people, the biggest beneficiary will be a few pardoned individuals. Considering this, I think that a covert strategy by the Democrats to defeat the referendum by a 'no show' is perfectly understandable.

I take your points onboard but not really agree. May I suggest instead of decrying, belittling and generally shooting down thevillages please tell me what the Democrats intend to do about it. They've not been elected for 20 year at the polls because they simply are so far out of touch with most of the voters. If you claim the election was won by only a few millions votes why cant they swing such a small majority. Mark and the boys have nothing really to offer other than basing all comments around Thaksins return as the reason for changing the constitution. Can you tell me what else will be quashed by the removal of 309. Immunity for Marks mates (army generals ) may fly out of the window

Pray tell me, why should the Democrats do something about it? Needs something to be done about it?

BTW the coup leader General and MP Sonthi is now in "constitution rewriting" together with Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD (co-)leader Nattawut. Seems he'd like to make sure about the 'amnesty part' (except for k. Abhisit and Suthep of course).

[philw]

Just trying to point out that propaganda is usually BS and contains a fair amount of hypocrisy - and I'm quite sure that I haven't included everything that others might classify as harmful substances.

Nobody willing to try the "meaningful employment"?

Tell us more, "meaningful employment " ??

What's that then ??

[philw]

As long at these red shirt villages put up banners claiming 'this here village is a red shirt village' complete with picture of Thaksin on, they should be condemned. It's all very well calling them grassroots movements towards social improvement but with a benefactor like that they are open to ridicule. In many ways the man epitomises so much that they ought to be against: a rich, double-standards, tax dodging, selfish, silver-spooned individual, and I'm guessing much of the organisational financing etc came from his cronies. He uses them for his own personal gain and its tragic that they are so hard up that they have to subscribe to this shameful marriage of convenience, for Thaksin seems to make decisions that perpetually put one individual in conflict with the rest of the country. Furthermore, to make it geographical is to invite discrimination, those few in the village who are not part of the red thinking can scarcely object, given their tendency towards intimidatory behaviour. They are nothing more than a propaganda tool, and it will be effectively used to distort the intentions of a referendum to gauge people's thoughts on a new charter. A new charter won't really make much difference to the lives and rights of these people, the biggest beneficiary will be a few pardoned individuals. Considering this, I think that a covert strategy by the Democrats to defeat the referendum by a 'no show' is perfectly understandable.

I take your points onboard but not really agree. May I suggest instead of decrying, belittling and generally shooting down thevillages please tell me what the Democrats intend to do about it. They've not been elected for 20 year at the polls because they simply are so far out of touch with most of the voters. If you claim the election was won by only a few millions votes why cant they swing such a small majority. Mark and the boys have nothing really to offer other than basing all comments around Thaksins return as the reason for changing the constitution. Can you tell me what else will be quashed by the removal of 309. Immunity for Marks mates (army generals ) may fly out of the window

Let them have their day in Court, accountability and all that.

Who authorised and organised the snipers ????

Who shot the nurses ??

Who shot the journalists ??

Who shot the rest of the people ??

Sorry to be boring and repetitive, but these questions need and deserve proper, independent inquiry.

The current administration is pursuing this, through the courts and rightly so.

[candid]

As long at these red shirt villages put up banners claiming 'this here village is a red shirt village' complete with picture of Thaksin on, they should be condemned. It's all very well calling them grassroots movements towards social improvement but with a benefactor like that they are open to ridicule. In many ways the man epitomises so much that they ought to be against: a rich, double-standards, tax dodging, selfish, silver-spooned individual, and I'm guessing much of the organisational financing etc came from his cronies. He uses them for his own personal gain and its tragic that they are so hard up that they have to subscribe to this shameful marriage of convenience, for Thaksin seems to make decisions that perpetually put one individual in conflict with the rest of the country. Furthermore, to make it geographical is to invite discrimination, those few in the village who are not part of the red thinking can scarcely object, given their tendency towards intimidatory behaviour. They are nothing more than a propaganda tool, and it will be effectively used to distort the intentions of a referendum to gauge people's thoughts on a new charter. A new charter won't really make much difference to the lives and rights of these people, the biggest beneficiary will be a few pardoned individuals. Considering this, I think that a covert strategy by the Democrats to defeat the referendum by a 'no show' is perfectly understandable.

I take your points onboard but not really agree. May I suggest instead of decrying, belittling and generally shooting down thevillages please tell me what the Democrats intend to do about it. They've not been elected for 20 year at the polls because they simply are so far out of touch with most of the voters. If you claim the election was won by only a few millions votes why cant they swing such a small majority. Mark and the boys have nothing really to offer other than basing all comments around Thaksins return as the reason for changing the constitution. Can you tell me what else will be quashed by the removal of 309. Immunity for Marks mates (army generals ) may fly out of the window

Let them have their day in Court, accountability and all that.

Who authorised and organised the snipers ????

Who shot the nurses ??

Who shot the journalists ??

Who shot the rest of the people ??

Sorry to be boring and repetitive, but these questions need and deserve proper, independent inquiry.

The current administration is pursuing this, through the courts and rightly so.

No need to apologise for being boring and repetitive. Just being your normal self

[MAJIC]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

This concept of villages totally loyal to the leader,was how Chairman Mao led his people to total dominance,that led on to him slaughtering over 30,000,000. I'm not saying, that is what may happen in Thailand,but loyalty to one leader and one Party,does nothing for true Democracy!

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Thought the meaning of Thailand was "land of the free" - red shit shirt villages must have Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong-il smiling in their graves.

[Ricardo]

"The establishment of a red-shirt village creates a geographical zoning, which acts to further alienate these villages from the rest of Thai society, and both sides are now feeling this sense of division. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that these villages are the cause of emerging fragmentation within the broader red-shirt movement".....Rattana Kampui noted: "I observed rising conflicts within these red-shirt villages, and acknowledgement that some of the villages are more divided. And a number of the locals are in fear of talking politics."

If democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Then this "Villages for Democracy" concept is a misnomer, because it segregates Thai society, politically, geographically and socially.

When you consider that, " if the red-shirt village movement is dominated by a core of activists who act with the expectation that all community members will inevitably come on board," then it could hardly be desscribe as democratic it is more a draconian dictatorship. Then a more apt name should be " Villages for Thaksinocracy".

If Yingluck is genuine when she states," PM urges unity in the coming year" then she should speak out against this divide and promote social inclusion.

This concept of villages totally loyal to the leader,was how Chairman Mao led his people to total dominance,that led on to him slaughtering over 30,000,000. I'm not saying, that is what may happen in Thailand,but loyalty to one leader and one Party,does nothing for true Democracy!

But that is the essence of 'true democracy', isn't it ?

[yoshiwara]

Thought the meaning of Thailand was "land of the free" - red shit shirt villages must have Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong-il smiling in their graves.

Certainly the red-shirt villages are a bastardised version of the echo. Built around the cult of the individual namely Thaksin and some nonsense theory presumably of a joke version of Socialism in One Village. And a joke it is because land reform is strictly off-limits with Thaksin's alliance with the landowners and the reference to 'meaningful employment' is the empty gesture it appears to be.

[waza]

Thought the meaning of Thailand was "land of the free" - red shit shirt villages must have Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong-il smiling in their graves.

Certainly the red-shirt villages are a bastardised version of the echo. Built around the cult of the individual namely Thaksin and some nonsense theory presumably of a joke version of Socialism in One Village. And a joke it is because land reform is strictly off-limits with Thaksin's alliance with the landowners and the reference to 'meaningful employment' is the empty gesture it appears to be.

Redshirts villages (cult of Thaksin)

Edited January 3, 2013 by waza