Red-Shirt Influence And The Constitutional Question

[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!

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

No!

[koosdeboer]

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.

Dear philw, please take the time to watch this video with Michael Jon. Maybe the current administration should watch this video also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbOrK5CPuew&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect App

[MAJIC]

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.

How very true,but still the ordinary people never learn,no matter how bad the Dictator/Murderer.

[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!

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

No!

[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!

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

No!

[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!

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

No!

[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.

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.

The absolute "acceptance" you talk about is: total commitment to Thaksin,that's why the PTP/Red Shirts organised Red Villages (16'000 to date) so don't kid yourself, it is about anything else,other than Indoctrination,of the easily led sheeple!

Edited January 3, 2013 by MAJIC