Vice govt spokesman disagrees with redshirts' actions in Lamphun

[Noistar]

So Abhisit must question himself as to why he can not attend a Dem political gathering without fireworks and sling shots being fired (a direct hit to the head with a steel nut potentially fatal!) by the reds, yet the Government are considering stopping anti government protestors who do not protest violently but simply protest silently wearing....a mask. Aaaah Ok got it now!

It's easy to understand the logic (??)

Much easier if Abhisit stops antagonising things by trying to speak to the people.

He must be thick. The Government ignore him in his role of the leader of the Opposition, so logically it's up to them if he can talk outside Government House.

Now if he would just stay at home and stop questioning the Government and trying to talk to people who welcome a different viewpoint, then there'd be no problem.

Unfortunately he is a man of honour (rare here). He won't leg it to foreign climes to avoid legal issues. He certainly won't be bullied by a bunch of half-witted bully boys (the Government). The actions of the Reds could just possibly push too far. Perhaps that's what their leaders want.

Another 'let's blame Abhisit'.

[bigbamboo]

So Abhisit must question himself as to why he can not attend a Dem political gathering without fireworks and sling shots being fired (a direct hit to the head with a steel nut potentially fatal!) by the reds, yet the Government are considering stopping anti government protestors who do not protest violently but simply protest silently wearing....a mask. Aaaah Ok got it now!

It's easy to understand the logic (??)

Much easier if Abhisit stops antagonising things by trying to speak to the people.

He must be thick. The Government ignore him in his role of the leader of the Opposition, so logically it's up to them if he can talk outside Government House.

Now if he would just stay at home and stop questioning the Government and trying to talk to people who welcome a different viewpoint, then there'd be no problem.

Unfortunately he is a man of honour (rare here). He won't leg it to foreign climes to avoid legal issues. He certainly won't be bullied by a bunch of half-witted bully boys (the Government). The actions of the Reds could just possibly push too far. Perhaps that's what their leaders want.

Another 'let's blame Abhisit'.

Not allowing the leader of the opposition to speak sounds very Hun Sen.

[Noistar]

What do the Red Shirts actually stand for and believe in?

Or, are they just a gang of hired thugs to keep somebody's interests safe?

Last time they tried that, the 'peaceful' members paid the price.

Anyone with half a brain could work out that they're being manipulated and taken for a ride.

Very tempting......

[rametindallas]

The red shirts should not be blamed, They were only following orders from their leader.

That's what some defense lawyers were saying during the Nuremberg Trials.

[hyperdimension]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sombat Boonngam-anong, leader of Red Sunday group which is a relatively progressive wing of the Redshirts mass, voiced his dissatisfaction with the Lamphun Redshirts on his Facebook, saying that the Redshirts had no legitimacy to disrupt rival groups′ rallies.

Sombat has always been more of a real democracy activist than the other leaders. He and his group should never have put on red shirts after it became clear that the red shirts were not working for real democracy but for for the interests of the Shinawatra clan who are undemocratic. He and his group should have also taken the red shirts off and denounced and distanced themselves from Thaksin's red shirts. Maybe he is just a bit stupid. From what I've read, he didn't do too well in his education.

[Pi Sek]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sombat Boonngam-anong, leader of Red Sunday group which is a relatively progressive wing of the Redshirts mass, voiced his dissatisfaction with the Lamphun Redshirts on his Facebook, saying that the Redshirts had no legitimacy to disrupt rival groups′ rallies.

Sombat has always been more of a real democracy activist than the other leaders. He and his group should never have put on red shirts after it became clear that the red shirts were not working for real democracy but for for the interests of the Shinawatra clan who are undemocratic. He and his group should have also taken the red shirts off and denounced and distanced themselves from Thaksin's red shirts. Maybe he is just a bit stupid. From what I've read, he didn't do too well in his education.

Sombat for me, along with Veera, has been the most sensible of the prominent Reds. Sometimes he gets a little bit heated, but I like him as a personality and I like some of his ideas. I wouldn't say he's a "moderate" Red as some might describe Veera but but I would say he's actually interested in embetterment of society through intellectual discussion. I don't think he's stupid at all.

[Pi Sek]

So Abhisit must question himself as to why he can not attend a Dem political gathering without fireworks and sling shots being fired (a direct hit to the head with a steel nut potentially fatal!) by the reds, yet the Government are considering stopping anti government protestors who do not protest violently but simply protest silently wearing....a mask. Aaaah Ok got it now!

"So Abhisit must question himself as to why he can not attend a Dem political gathering without fireworks and sling shots being fired"

That's pretty-much what PTP government vice spokesman Pakdiharn Himato is suggesting the leader of the Opposition should do in the face of political intimidation, yes.

"yet the Government are considering stopping anti government protestors who do not protest violently but simply protest silently wearing....a mask."

Well, they are trying/threatening to establish/fabricate the quantity and severity of legal infractions, not really stop it... yet.

[kimamey]

I've never thought all red shirts were violent. I know some and I've seen many going to rallies and they seem OK to me. I think most are just normal people wanting something better and there's nothing wrong with that. Where I think they are wrong is in believing many of their leaders and members of the PTP.

What's really needed is a coming together of the more moderate people on all sides.

[kimamey]

who cares,i blame the thai population for being to lazy to do anything about anything,,,,,,maybe next election make it compulsery to vote,then we will know who they really want or are willing to accept,,MAYBE,,,,

I thought I read somewhere on here that voting was compulsory in Thailand and these sites seem to back it up.

One states: Voting in Thailand is compulsory in accordance to the 2007 Constitution's Chapter 4.

Of course how rigorously this law is enforced is another matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Thailand

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/03/c_13962782.htm

http://thediplomat.com/asean-beat/2011/06/28/thailands-vote-no-campaign/

[Noistar]

I've never thought all red shirts were violent. I know some and I've seen many going to rallies and they seem OK to me. I think most are just normal people wanting something better and there's nothing wrong with that. Where I think they are wrong is in believing many of their leaders and members of the PTP.

What's really needed is a coming together of the more moderate people on all sides.

I'm sure you're right about a significant number of Red Shirts are normal people being misled.

My personal experience of Red Shirts is that they are arrogant, angry people, which is why I wonder just what they have to be angry about now.

Pit bull terriers, always on the lookout for the next confrontation. Never happy unless there's a fight. Glass half-empty, etc, etc.

You are definitely right about the people of Thailand coming together. As Abhisit said in the article I linked to, all it needs to make Thailand great is for people to pull together without confrontation.

Is thailand's biggest problem corruption, or conflict?

[Robby nz]

Seems there was another wonderful example of red shirt democracy and freedom of speech today in Chaing Mai.

Mrs has been watching on facebook as the reds attacked a group of white masks, some of them were so badly injured that they needed hospital treatment.

Should be in tomorrows news, if not why not.

Looks like anyone who disagrees with PT up that way risks injury or worse if they speak out.

What chance have any opposition party got of campaigning up that way without their life being at risk?

[salem9]

Seems there was another wonderful example of red shirt democracy and freedom of speech today in Chaing Mai.

Mrs has been watching on facebook as the reds attacked a group of white masks, some of them were so badly injured that they needed hospital treatment.

Should be in tomorrows news, if not why not.

Looks like anyone who disagrees with PT up that way risks injury or worse if they speak out.

What chance have any opposition party got of campaigning up that way without their life being at risk?

It's on tonight's news:

breakingnews »

Red shirts attack, injure white-mask people in Chiang Mai

June 14, 2013 9:33 pm

Chiang Mai - About 200 red-shirt people assaulted and beat up a small group of white-mask people in this northern city Friday evening.

The attack occurred at 4 pm and several white-mask people were beaten with sticks.

Police were present but did not try to stop the red shirts from attacking the white-mask demonstrators.

The white-mask demonstrated at the Health Park behind the Chiang Mai University before the attack and some 200 red shirts gathered at the Grand Waroros Hotel before moving to attack the white masks.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Red-shirts-attack-injure-white-mask-people-in-Chia-30208390.html

Edited June 14, 2013 by salem9

[AleG]

Were they carrying the "Peaceful Protesters" banners or have they dispensed with the pretences by now?

Edited June 14, 2013 by AleG

[hyperdimension]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sombat Boonngam-anong, leader of Red Sunday group which is a relatively progressive wing of the Redshirts mass, voiced his dissatisfaction with the Lamphun Redshirts on his Facebook, saying that the Redshirts had no legitimacy to disrupt rival groups′ rallies.

Sombat has always been more of a real democracy activist than the other leaders. He and his group should never have put on red shirts after it became clear that the red shirts were not working for real democracy but for for the interests of the Shinawatra clan who are undemocratic. He and his group should have also taken the red shirts off and denounced and distanced themselves from Thaksin's red shirts. Maybe he is just a bit stupid. From what I've read, he didn't do too well in his education.

Sombat for me, along with Veera, has been the most sensible of the prominent Reds. Sometimes he gets a little bit heated, but I like him as a personality and I like some of his ideas. I wouldn't say he's a "moderate" Red as some might describe Veera but but I would say he's actually interested in embetterment of society through intellectual discussion. I don't think he's stupid at all.

But why hasn't Sombat and his group disassociated with the Red Shirt Movement as it has been clearly evident for a long time that the Red Shirts are not working to further democracy but instead to further the undemocratic interests of Thaksin and the Shinawatra clan whilst feeling no qualms in using violence in the process?

[salem9]

red democracy in chiang mai today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJgpbvCwVzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiCLtHYediw

[waza]

"I accepted this invitation not only because I wanted to visit a country that has made many achievements regarding democracy, or to exchange ideas and views on democracy. But I am here also because democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand......Why? This is because there are people in this world who do not believe in democracy. They are ready to grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom. This means that they are willing to take advantage of other people without respecting human rights and liberties. They use force to gain submission and abuse the power. This happened in the past and still posed challenges for all of us in the present". Yingluck Shinawatra.

It appears that the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand today is the Shinawatra clan their PT Party and its coalition government and their redshirt thugs.

PS: Is it just me or are the above videos unavailable?

Edited June 14, 2013 by waza

[rubl]

Didn't watch the videos yet, but I could download them using my TOT internet connection :-)

[Emptyset]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sombat Boonngam-anong, leader of Red Sunday group which is a relatively progressive wing of the Redshirts mass, voiced his dissatisfaction with the Lamphun Redshirts on his Facebook, saying that the Redshirts had no legitimacy to disrupt rival groups′ rallies.

Sombat has always been more of a real democracy activist than the other leaders. He and his group should never have put on red shirts after it became clear that the red shirts were not working for real democracy but for for the interests of the Shinawatra clan who are undemocratic. He and his group should have also taken the red shirts off and denounced and distanced themselves from Thaksin's red shirts. Maybe he is just a bit stupid. From what I've read, he didn't do too well in his education.

Sombat for me, along with Veera, has been the most sensible of the prominent Reds. Sometimes he gets a little bit heated, but I like him as a personality and I like some of his ideas. I wouldn't say he's a "moderate" Red as some might describe Veera but but I would say he's actually interested in embetterment of society through intellectual discussion. I don't think he's stupid at all.

But why hasn't Sombat and his group disassociated with the Red Shirt Movement as it has been clearly evident for a long time that the Red Shirts are not working to further democracy but instead to further the undemocratic interests of Thaksin and the Shinawatra clan whilst feeling no qualms in using violence in the process?

Why should he disassociate himself? Perhaps he considers himself to be representing the authentic democratic spirit of what the red shirts were supposed to stand for: after all, I believe it was his group that were the first to actually start wearing red, during the first anti-coup protests in 2006. He's always condemned violence and been consistent in his democratic principles. He's used the red shirt rallies as a platform in which to promote his ideas - his group tend to coalesce around the smaller stages at the rally where you tend to get a more heterogeneous mix of longtime activists, 'grassroots' types and dissident firebrands and I'm glad these people still attend red shirt rallies because there's always a chance that their principles might diffuse amongst ordinary red shirts who might not have been exposed to properly liberal/democratic ideas (or more radical egalitarian ideas for that matter).

[Emptyset]

"I accepted this invitation not only because I wanted to visit a country that has made many achievements regarding democracy, or to exchange ideas and views on democracy. But I am here also because democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand......Why? This is because there are people in this world who do not believe in democracy. They are ready to grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom. This means that they are willing to take advantage of other people without respecting human rights and liberties. They use force to gain submission and abuse the power. This happened in the past and still posed challenges for all of us in the present". Yingluck Shinawatra.

It appears that the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand today is the Shinawatra clan their PT Party and its coalition government and their redshirt thugs.

PS: Is it just me or are the above videos unavailable?

No, the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand is, as it always is, the authoritarian attitude which still prevails amongst what's probably a majority of the populace. Democratic values haven't been assimilated yet because of decades of authoritarian rule and the encouragement of 'quiet politics', e.g. the avoidance of conflict (i.e. disagreement which is the basis for any true politics) and acquiescence to rule by a narrow section of elite society, whether they be from the military, aristocracy or more recently the business class. People, whether red shirts, yellow shirts, or the recently formed 'white masks', will appeal to democratic values when it suits their side, but will do nothing to stand for principles in themselves when it doesn't affect them. Many of the white masks are holding signs calling for the military to 'save the nation' (again) - and doesn't that prove that they've learned nothing? The same group that caused much of the trouble due to constant coups and interference post-1932 are being called upon again as potential saviours. And thus the same authoritarian structures & attitudes are perpetuated ad infinitum...

Watching the two groups in the video reminds me of Gregory Bateson's thesis contention that the cause of conflict tends to be symmetry rather than opposition. Historians of SE-Asia have described a 'solar polity' wherein political power is centralized and emanates outwards, diminishing in proportion with distance from the star. This is still a useful concept with which to analyze the personalized politics of the 21st century. Not much has changed since the days of Ramkhamhaeng in some respects. For instance, on the red side, Thaksin is the sun around which lesser politicians and political activists orbit. If you were to outline a similar cartography of power for the yellow shirts, you'd likely discern a very similar pattern, although it's true that names and faces have come and gone.

Such structures of power distribution are antithetical to any true democratic politics, by which I mean a democracy that results in a more equitable diffusion of power throughout society, rather than a democracy that means people get to vote every four years but nothing else changes. Unfortunately, none of this will change until democratic attitudes are inculcated. I believe there are people on all sides (by which I also mean no side) who share these principles and strongly believe in them. Coming back to Sombat, he may have more in common in terms of principle with some of the activists involved in the white masks than he does with many of the authoritarian red shirts. And vice versa. There are also people that are anti-Thaksin that aren't calling for military takeover, who don't want to see grandfathers dying in jail for sending SMS messages (true or not), neither are they in favour of beating up law professors etc.

Politics has become intensely polarized but amongst the majority it's more to do with personality and power than principle. As far as it's possible to discern broad principles in either group though: perhaps we could say that the red shirts are broadly promoting the idea that sovereignty resides with the people and some of the more liberal amongst the yellow shirts - who were certainly more prevelant in the early days of 2006 than they later became - were talking about minority rights and authoritarianism, they were against the idea that because a majority voted for someone that made everything he did legitimate. The way forward for Thailand would be for a group of protesters who combine both these sets of ideals to be pressuring the government and trying to exert a positive influence on wider society. Unfortunately, people on both sides have sacrificed principles - if they ever held them - in order to try make short term gains based on compacts with authoritarian power, whether that be Thaksin or his military and aristocratic opposition. This is why Michael Connors described those liberals who supported the coup as 'contingent authoritarians'. They believed that in order to safeguard liberal ideals, they'd have to become authoritarians on a temporary basis until the threat disappeared. Obviously in retrospect that looks dangerously naive. And isn't it - at least partly - exactly this sort of thinking that is preventing the country from moving towards genuine democracy?

Hence I'd urge any white mask who does oppose Thaksin based on democratic principles to stop calling upon extra-constitutional powers to step in and turf out elected governments. As long as they keep doing this, they'll continue to be a part of the problem, not a solution to it...

Edited June 14, 2013 by Emptyset

[waza]

Perhaps they are desperate as they see no other alternative to the erosion of their legal and societal rights to a free and democratic society by a totalitarian dictatorship controlled by one family who has no real opposition and continue to rape and pillage the country at an accelerating rate. Maybe the can see that this government represents one man and is working for the benefit of that same person and his policies are enslaving not only themselves but their children and their children's children is an ocean of debt that is turning a country that once was a tiger economy into a banana dictatorship. Maybe they fear that their freedom is being suppressed through legal, social and violent intimidation by the few in authority who are working in their own interests instead of the interests of all Thais. Do the citizens have to self immolate in the street in frustration to win the right to democracy. Just perhaps theses people feel that a military dictatorship is far more benevolent to the majority of Thais than a Thaksin government which advantages the few.

Edited June 14, 2013 by waza

[15Peter20]

"I accepted this invitation not only because I wanted to visit a country that has made many achievements regarding democracy, or to exchange ideas and views on democracy. But I am here also because democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand......Why? This is because there are people in this world who do not believe in democracy. They are ready to grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom. This means that they are willing to take advantage of other people without respecting human rights and liberties. They use force to gain submission and abuse the power. This happened in the past and still posed challenges for all of us in the present". Yingluck Shinawatra.

It appears that the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand today is the Shinawatra clan their PT Party and its coalition government and their redshirt thugs.

PS: Is it just me or are the above videos unavailable?

No, the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand is, as it always is, the authoritarian attitude which still prevails amongst what's probably a majority of the populace. Democratic values haven't been assimilated yet because of decades of authoritarian rule and the encouragement of 'quiet politics', e.g. the avoidance of conflict (i.e. disagreement which is the basis for any true politics) and acquiescence to rule by a narrow section of elite society, whether they be from the military, aristocracy or more recently the business class. People, whether red shirts, yellow shirts, or the recently formed 'white masks', will appeal to democratic values when it suits their side, but will do nothing to stand for principles in themselves when it doesn't affect them. Many of the white masks are holding signs calling for the military to 'save the nation' (again) - and doesn't that prove that they've learned nothing? The same group that caused much of the trouble due to constant coups and interference post-1932 are being called upon again as potential saviours. And thus the same authoritarian structures & attitudes are perpetuated ad infinitum...

Watching the two groups in the video reminds me of Gregory Bateson's thesis contention that the cause of conflict tends to be symmetry rather than opposition. Historians of SE-Asia have described a 'solar polity' wherein political power is centralized and emanates outwards, diminishing in proportion with distance from the star. This is still a useful concept with which to analyze the personalized politics of the 21st century. Not much has changed since the days of Ramkhamhaeng in some respects. For instance, on the red side, Thaksin is the sun around which lesser politicians and political activists orbit. If you were to outline a similar cartography of power for the yellow shirts, you'd likely discern a very similar pattern, although it's true that names and faces have come and gone.

Such structures of power distribution are antithetical to any true democratic politics, by which I mean a democracy that results in a more equitable diffusion of power throughout society, rather than a democracy that means people get to vote every four years but nothing else changes. Unfortunately, none of this will change until democratic attitudes are inculcated. I believe there are people on all sides (by which I also mean no side) who share these principles and strongly believe in them. Coming back to Sombat, he may have more in common in terms of principle with some of the activists involved in the white masks than he does with many of the authoritarian red shirts. And vice versa. There are also people that are anti-Thaksin that aren't calling for military takeover, who don't want to see grandfathers dying in jail for sending SMS messages (true or not), neither are they in favour of beating up law professors etc.

Politics has become intensely polarized but amongst the majority it's more to do with personality and power than principle. As far as it's possible to discern broad principles in either group though: perhaps we could say that the red shirts are broadly promoting the idea that sovereignty resides with the people and some of the more liberal amongst the yellow shirts - who were certainly more prevelant in the early days of 2006 than they later became - were talking about minority rights and authoritarianism, they were against the idea that because a majority voted for someone that made everything he did legitimate. The way forward for Thailand would be for a group of protesters who combine both these sets of ideals to be pressuring the government and trying to exert a positive influence on wider society. Unfortunately, people on both sides have sacrificed principles - if they ever held them - in order to try make short term gains based on compacts with authoritarian power, whether that be Thaksin or his military and aristocratic opposition. This is why Michael Connors described those liberals who supported the coup as 'contingent authoritarians'. They believed that in order to safeguard liberal ideals, they'd have to become authoritarians on a temporary basis until the threat disappeared. Obviously in retrospect that looks dangerously naive. And isn't it - at least partly - exactly this sort of thinking that is preventing the country from moving towards genuine democracy?

Hence I'd urge any white mask who does oppose Thaksin based on democratic principles to stop calling upon extra-constitutional powers to step in and turf out elected governments. As long as they keep doing this, they'll continue to be a part of the problem, not a solution to it...

An excellent overview of the current situation and a breath of fresh air amid all this partisanship both on TV and the broader playing field. I wish there were more posts like this. Thank you!

[Roadman]

"I accepted this invitation not only because I wanted to visit a country that has made many achievements regarding democracy, or to exchange ideas and views on democracy. But I am here also because democracy is so important to me, and more importantly, to the people of my beloved home, Thailand......Why? This is because there are people in this world who do not believe in democracy. They are ready to grab power and wealth through suppression of freedom. This means that they are willing to take advantage of other people without respecting human rights and liberties. They use force to gain submission and abuse the power. This happened in the past and still posed challenges for all of us in the present". Yingluck Shinawatra.

It appears that the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand today is the Shinawatra clan their PT Party and its coalition government and their redshirt thugs.[/size]

PS: Is it just me or are the above videos unavailable?[/size]

No, the greatest threat to democracy in Thailand is, as it always is, the authoritarian attitude which still prevails amongst what's probably a majority of the populace. Democratic values haven't been assimilated yet because of decades of authoritarian rule and the encouragement of 'quiet politics', e.g. the avoidance of conflict (i.e. disagreement which is the basis for any true politics) and acquiescence to rule by a narrow section of elite society, whether they be from the military, aristocracy or more recently the business class. People, whether red shirts, yellow shirts, or the recently formed 'white masks', will appeal to democratic values when it suits their side, but will do nothing to stand for principles in themselves when it doesn't affect them. Many of the white masks are holding signs calling for the military to 'save the nation' (again) - and doesn't that prove that they've learned nothing? The same group that caused much of the trouble due to constant coups and interference post-1932 are being called upon again as potential saviours. And thus the same authoritarian structures & attitudes are perpetuated ad infinitum...

Watching the two groups in the video reminds me of Gregory Bateson's thesis contention that the cause of conflict tends to be symmetry rather than opposition. Historians of SE-Asia have described a 'solar polity' wherein political power is centralized and emanates outwards, diminishing in proportion with distance from the star. This is still a useful concept with which to analyze the personalized politics of the 21st century. Not much has changed since the days of Ramkhamhaeng in some respects. For instance, on the red side, Thaksin is the sun around which lesser politicians and political activists orbit. If you were to outline a similar cartography of power for the yellow shirts, you'd likely discern a very similar pattern, although it's true that names and faces have come and gone.

Such structures of power distribution are antithetical to any true democratic politics, by which I mean a democracy that results in a more equitable diffusion of power throughout society, rather than a democracy that means people get to vote every four years but nothing else changes. Unfortunately, none of this will change until democratic attitudes are inculcated. I believe there are people on all sides (by which I also mean no side) who share these principles and strongly believe in them. Coming back to Sombat, he may have more in common in terms of principle with some of the activists involved in the white masks than he does with many of the authoritarian red shirts. And vice versa. There are also people that are anti-Thaksin that aren't calling for military takeover, who don't want to see grandfathers dying in jail for sending SMS messages (true or not), neither are they in favour of beating up law professors etc.

Politics has become intensely polarized but amongst the majority it's more to do with personality and power than principle. As far as it's possible to discern broad principles in either group though: perhaps we could say that the red shirts are broadly promoting the idea that sovereignty resides with the people and some of the more liberal amongst the yellow shirts - who were certainly more prevelant in the early days of 2006 than they later became - were talking about minority rights and authoritarianism, they were against the idea that because a majority voted for someone that made everything he did legitimate. The way forward for Thailand would be for a group of protesters who combine both these sets of ideals to be pressuring the government and trying to exert a positive influence on wider society. Unfortunately, people on both sides have sacrificed principles - if they ever held them - in order to try make short term gains based on compacts with authoritarian power, whether that be Thaksin or his military and aristocratic opposition. This is why Michael Connors described those liberals who supported the coup as 'contingent authoritarians'. They believed that in order to safeguard liberal ideals, they'd have to become authoritarians on a temporary basis until the threat disappeared. Obviously in retrospect that looks dangerously naive. And isn't it - at least partly - exactly this sort of thinking that is preventing the country from moving towards genuine democracy?

Hence I'd urge any white mask who does oppose Thaksin based on democratic principles to stop calling upon extra-constitutional powers to step in and turf out elected governments. As long as they keep doing this, they'll continue to be a part of the problem, not a solution to it...

Excellent post.

You can almost include me with those who oppose Thaksin and what he is trying to / currently inflict on Thailand that are not calling for military takeover, but where I do not then fit neatly into one of your groups, accept that when or if the time comes that the people's court convicted fugitive criminal moves to control the people's judiciary then Army intervention is accepted. You cannot have a country moving towards democracy when it is being dragged into Cambodian style of governance. Apart from that I agree that any anti government individual or group should not be appealing for coup intervention. The Royal Guard strength of the Army have enough wisdom to be able to read the situation and respond against Thaksin if or when need be.

Hopefully the understanding of the principles of democracy as shown by Khun Sombat will flourish in among the Redshirts as the same time as the actions of this corrupt, incompetant undemocratic latest pack of Amarth mafia will quickly show them that they are even more lacking in morality than any that they have had to tolerate in the past. I say quickly so that hopefully this Shinawatra scum are removed at the ballot box before they drag Thailand into a basket case.

The views of Khun Sombat are refreshing but what he has against him is the Maoist UDD Red thugs that Thaksin uses as his henchmen. So until such time as the Reds in bulk can understand and accept that democracy is the right for all to be heard without violence or intimidation and express that democratically at the ballot box then as above I chose to sit on the side of the Army as the final arbitrator over the Shinawatra' Maria's dismantling of Thailand's fledgling democracy, especially if the judiciary is about to be removed from the people.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Roadman

[Robby nz]

Not about to quote all of that as it is just a waste of space.

What a round about way of trying to defend the actions of the reds and the police in making no attempt to stop them breaking the law.

These are brave people who, regardless of having a pretty good idea what will happen to them, have gone out on the streets and stood up for what they believe in.

Regardless of what was written on any of the white mask's signs there is no excuse for the behavior of the reds we see in Chaing mai or in Lampang or elsewhere.

Behavior in Lampang which was supported by a Govt rep in the OP.

What we see on the videos is not democratic or even political behavior but straight thuggery waiting for any excuse to happen and if the police do not stop it they are supporting it.

I wonder what effect this has on the Thai voter who sees this happening?

Does it make them want to vote for the party that condones this or against them?

I know what effect it has had on my Mrs, she is absolutely disgusted with the reds. the police and the PT govt.

In spite of her not having a lot of interest in the past she is now wanting to get out there and join these people.

These videos and the many other photos will by now have flown right round the world so everyone can see what a great democracy Thailand is.

Who needs the army, coup by social media.

[Noistar]

Seems there was another wonderful example of red shirt democracy and freedom of speech today in Chaing Mai.

Mrs has been watching on facebook as the reds attacked a group of white masks, some of them were so badly injured that they needed hospital treatment.

Should be in tomorrows news, if not why not.

Looks like anyone who disagrees with PT up that way risks injury or worse if they speak out.

What chance have any opposition party got of campaigning up that way without their life being at risk?

It's on tonight's news:

breakingnews »

Red shirts attack, injure white-mask people in Chiang Mai

June 14, 2013 9:33 pm

Chiang Mai - About 200 red-shirt people assaulted and beat up a small group of white-mask people in this northern city Friday evening.

The attack occurred at 4 pm and several white-mask people were beaten with sticks.

Police were present but did not try to stop the red shirts from attacking the white-mask demonstrators.

The white-mask demonstrated at the Health Park behind the Chiang Mai University before the attack and some 200 red shirts gathered at the Grand Waroros Hotel before moving to attack the white masks.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Red-shirts-attack-injure-white-mask-people-in-Chia-30208390.html

We're there previous occasions when police inaction resulted in other law enforcement agencies being brought in?

Come on Red apologists. Where's the justification for the Government not condemning such atrocious behaviour?

[Noistar]

Any practical ideas on how to change things politically in Thailand?

The total inaction and lack of support of Democratic principals. The suppression of peaceful Opposition.

What alternative is there to a coup?

Right or wrong, the people of Thailand will not do anything to help themselves. Take the moral high-ground and tell me how does Thailand stop its own destruction?

[Robby nz]

What alternative is there to a coup?

No Noistar and anyone else who thinks it is the way to go, a coup is not the answer.

It would be an absolute bloodbath.

Look at the mob that attacked the white masks yesterday, do you think all they have is sticks and stones?

No, there will be a well armed red shirt faction spread all over the country who are ready and more than willing to kill and maim and they would not be fighting the army they would be going after soft targets that were unable to fight back. Possibly including farang.

I believe the army top brass understand what would happen is the did try to take over at this time.

As they showed last time they do not want to take over and run the country as per next door Burma.

The answer.... has to be to let PT run its course to self destruction.

It will be painful for the country and will probably take at least a generation to get back on track but not nearly as destructive as a coup.

[Ricardo]

The second video clearly shows the Red-Shirts as the aggressors, with the police trying feebly to hold them back but not making any arrests, and missiles being thrown at the handful of peaceful white-masked protestors.

When will the PM, or any of her government, stand up for the democratic-principles which she trumpeted during her speech overseas ? erm ... not any time soon, it appears.

Yay for Red Democracy !

[butsarakam]

Democracy. This is what the red shirt is fighting for. Democracy for the red shirt ONLY

[OzMick]

I'm surprised that posters expect the BIB to stop red shirt violence, when precedent shows that it would be more likely that they would be running a projectile stall somewhere nearby.

Sergeant Porridge isn't the only one with payments to make on his RX8, 350Z or whatever.

[rubl]

What alternative is there to a coup?

No Noistar and anyone else who thinks it is the way to go, a coup is not the answer.

It would be an absolute bloodbath.

Look at the mob that attacked the white masks yesterday, do you think all they have is sticks and stones?

No, there will be a well armed red shirt faction spread all over the country who are ready and more than willing to kill and maim and they would not be fighting the army they would be going after soft targets that were unable to fight back. Possibly including farang.

I believe the army top brass understand what would happen is the did try to take over at this time.

As they showed last time they do not want to take over and run the country as per next door Burma.

The answer.... has to be to let PT run its course to self destruction.

It will be painful for the country and will probably take at least a generation to get back on track but not nearly as destructive as a coup.

I agree we do not need or even want a coup!

Still when you write

"No, there will be a well armed red shirt faction spread all over the country who are ready and more than willing to kill and maim and they would not be fighting the army they would be going after soft targets that were unable to fight back."

you make them seem like the terrorists down South who behead teachers as example. If you'd be right though those well armed red-shirt factions wouldn't be better than the terrorists down South.

I can only and truly hope you're wrong