Elites versus the grass-roots is a dangerous myth: Thai editorial

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Elites versus the grass-roots is a dangerous myth
The Nation

Those seeking to portray the protests as a battle between rich and poor are missing the truth: most Thais are united by frustration with corrupt govt

BANGKOK: -- In a repeat of November 24, hundreds of thousands of people are out on the streets protesting against the Yingluck government. And once again, foreign media are portraying the protests as part of a conspiracy by the elite to overthrow a government elected by the people.

Bangkok's elite and middle classes have been cast in this same role by overseas press ever since Thaksin Shinawatra was first targeted for street protests. This view of events ignored the corruption scandals, tax-evasion charges and strong suspicions that his government enacted laws to benefit his own telecom businesses. Now the same interpretation has been wheeled into place for the protests against the government led by his sister Yingluck.

This time round the foreign media are ignoring the government's attempts to pass an unjust blanket-amnesty bill and alter the charter to extend its power in Parliament. They ignore a wrongheaded economic policy and widespread corruption in the corridors of power. In reality, the current protest is not about a class struggle or a power struggle. This is tens of thousands of citizens furious over misrule.

Portraying the protest movement as purely a political game ignores the wider perspective: a people's struggle against the state. Protesters are on street first and foremost to voice their opposition to this government.

They no longer care so much about who is leading the protest. Many dislike Suthep Thaugsuban and others are no fans of the Democrat Party from which he comes. Some are simply Facebook "friends" expressing their frustration with the government. The volunteer spirit is strong, with many bringing food and water to share. Most are ordinary people who have no personal political or business interests. Their only connection with fellow protesters is a shared discontent with their rulers.

Echoing this truth is academic Thirayuth Boonmee, a respected political activist who, at a press conference on Thailand's future yesterday, said that this was a "people's revolution", a "whistle-blowing coup" made by the people, who have every right to "topple their tyrannous government". Thirayuth noted that the campaign had expanded into the provinces, where more people are showing anger.

Thaksin has always used a poor-versus-rich story, casting himself as the champion of the downtrodden. Ironically, he used it just after having Bt46 billion of his wrongfully acquired assets seized by the courts in February 2010. Soon the red shirts arose with Thaksin as their symbolic head. That "battle" ended tragically at the Rajprasong intersection.

The picture is a different one today. The red shirts are now supporting the government, while the noisy protesters are seeking to bring it down. They may comprise mainly middle-class citizens but they share the same goal as the poor. They are fed up with the endemic corruption that has left Thai politics trapped in a vicious circle. Corruption breeds military opportunism, which in turn brings bloodshed. A new election is called and the cycle starts again.

Take out the colour of their shirts and Thais of all social strata share the same wish - to escape this political vicious circle.

The myth of a battle between the Bangkok establishment and a democratic government is concealing a crucial truth: the sincere wish of most Thais for a clean and accountable democracy.


-- The Nation 2013-12-11

[jaidam]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

[Gsxrnz]

"the sincere wish of most Thais is for a clean and accountable democracy".......provided each Thai can individually carry on with their own graft and corruption, free from administrative and governmental interference brought on by a true democracy.

Oh, the irony.

[plachon]

I don't know about all or even most of the foreign press being duped into this mis-portrayal of the Thai political conflict at present, although it was definitely the case back in 2010 when the Red Shirts were out on the streets protesting and later, causing mayhem. I think some of them may have learned from their earlier simplistic positions, even the naive Jonathan Head at the BBC, who seemed to lap up every word fed to him by Jakkaphob Penkair, Thaksin's former spokesman. Head's still a bit wet behind the ears with his reports, but I think he's a little less gullible in taking one side or the other's words at face value, unlike 2010. He could learn a trick or two from Al Jazeera for a more critical viewpoint and interview technique.

[whybother]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

That's why the article is titled:

"Elites versus the grass-roots is a dangerous myth."

[TomTao]

This protest group is inclusive of a broad spectrum of society, it has more people involved than just the yellow shirts, people from every walk of life are there, yellow shirts, disenchanted red shirts, business people, the very rich and the very poor from all over the nation are involved. I don't think this protest can be labelled as a Bangkok elite against Thaksin protest, it is at least for the people, a movement against rampant corruption, whether it is the same for the leaders or not, I don't know, but it seems that the people have finally had enough of corrupt government.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Gsxrnz]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

Um......yeah, but traditionally the educated are wealthy (the elite), and the uneducated are poor (the great unwashed). Same,Same really.

The elite from both sides of the political coin don't really give a toss about the uneducated poor. There are no philosophical arguments as in left v right, socialist v democrats.

Thai politics is about the Yellow Elite v the Red Elite, not about the grass roots electorate regardless of what political fodder the electorate from either side have been convinced to swallow.

It's really just about money. And you need to be in power if you want to control the money. Simple really.

[soundman]

Trying to explain this to people outside Thailand is like banging your head against a brick wall. They actually believe the BS written by a few biased international journalists.

[Emptyset]

Another more dangerous myth is opposition set up by the anti-govt protesters between the 'good people' (the protesters) who're educated and know best, vs the ill educated village illiterates and drunks that only vote because they're paid by Thaksin. Since that's the myth that's being widely propagated at the moment, by those who wish to overthrow the government and install a 'People's Council', reminiscent of Mussolini's Fascist Grand Council, you'd think that myth would be more worthy of an article by The Nation at this point in time.

The idea that the foreign media think this is a battle between the downtrodden and the elite is a straw man at this point. Any journalist familiar with the conflict is well aware that it's broadly speaking a battle between two groups of elite, with ordinary people on either side. Further to that many articles in the foreign press are far more sophisticated than anything The Nation produces.

It's this article which is overly simplistic. So it's a battle between Thais who hate corruption and the state? What is the state? Is it the government? Is it the bureacracy? Is it the police? Is it the military? Is it the courts? Can all of these said to be under the power of the 'Thaksin regime'? It seems the state isn't monolithic, many parts of it act autonomously, and in any case, the elected government is now in danger of losing control of any grip it has of state apparatus.

Also, does The Nation actually want this 'People's Council'? Because this article strongly indicates it does - but is afraid to say it clearly. Yet yesterday we had an article saying that having an unelected PM was a step backwards. So what do they want?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

I don't know about all or even most of the foreign press being duped into this mis-portrayal of the Thai political conflict at present, although it was definitely the case back in 2010 when the Red Shirts were out on the streets protesting and later, causing mayhem. I think some of them may have learned from their earlier simplistic positions, even the naive Jonathan Head at the BBC, who seemed to lap up every word fed to him by Jakkaphob Penkair, Thaksin's former spokesman. Head's still a bit wet behind the ears with his reports, but I think he's a little less gullible in taking one side or the other's words at face value, unlike 2010. He could learn a trick or two from Al Jazeera for a more critical viewpoint and interview technique.

So first of all, Jonathan Head wasn't even in Bangkok during 2010. Yet people seem to keep criticizing him for his coverage then. Al Jazeera's Wayne Hay is good but I doubt his basic position is much different to JH's, really. I think the idea that AJ is better is because they often produce half an hour programs allowing them to cover multiple perspectives, whilst Jonathan Head generally gets three minutes. I don't think Jonathan Head is naive. As far as I know, he also speaks pretty good Thai and has been based in Bangkok (in total) for several years. He's not someone they've just flown in who doesn't know Bangkok from Jakarta.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Emptyset

[UncleJ]

I don't know about all or even most of the foreign press being duped into this mis-portrayal of the Thai political conflict at present, although it was definitely the case back in 2010 when the Red Shirts were out on the streets protesting and later, causing mayhem. I think some of them may have learned from their earlier simplistic positions, even the naive Jonathan Head at the BBC, who seemed to lap up every word fed to him by Jakkaphob Penkair, Thaksin's former spokesman. Head's still a bit wet behind the ears with his reports, but I think he's a little less gullible in taking one side or the other's words at face value, unlike 2010. He could learn a trick or two from Al Jazeera for a more critical viewpoint and interview technique.

Jonathan Head (and the foreign press) is naive?

Perhaps the foreign press have access to the reading material banned by the army and you know who?

Have you read that stuff?

Maybe you are the naive one?

There is a very good reason the Thai press is rated real low in the freedom of press ratings.

[edwinchester]

Trying to explain this to people outside Thailand is like banging your head against a brick wall. They actually believe the BS written by a few biased international journalists.

And we all know The Nation is a shining example of homegrown impartiality.

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[LomSak27]

Those seeking to portray the protests as a battle between rich and poor are missing the truth: most Thais are united by frustration with corrupt govt

The real problem is when you talk to those "poor" red supporters they are suprisingly articulate about the Dems and corruption in general which no one has cared a tinkers cuss about until now.They also do not expect anyone of the yellow crowd to give a hoot about corruption once the PTP are out of goverment.

Those a re big attitudes to change - Good to see The Nation - Democratic Parties media Division - is hard at work to "correct" that idea among outside observers, the real issue is to convince the Reds supporters of it

Good Luck and intersting that they do not even try

[Thai at Heart]

Another more dangerous myth is opposition set up by the anti-govt protesters between the 'good people' (the protesters) who're educated and know best, vs the ill educated village illiterates and drunks that only vote because they're paid by Thaksin. Since that's the myth that's being widely propagated at the moment, by those who wish to overthrow the government and install a 'People's Council', reminiscent of Mussolini's Fascist Grand Council, you'd think that myth would be more worthy of an article by The Nation at this point in time.

The idea that the foreign media think this is a battle between the downtrodden and the elite is a straw man at this point. Any journalist familiar with the conflict is well aware that it's broadly speaking a battle between two groups of elite, with ordinary people on either side. Further to that many articles in the foreign press are far more sophisticated than anything The Nation produces.

It's this article which is overly simplistic. So it's a battle between Thais who hate corruption and the state? What is the state? Is it the government? Is it the bureacracy? Is it the police? Is it the military? Is it the courts? Can all of these said to be under the power of the 'Thaksin regime'? It seems the state isn't monolithic, many parts of it act autonomously, and in any case, the elected government is now in danger of losing control of any grip it has of state apparatus.

Also, does The Nation actually want this 'People's Council'? Because this article strongly indicates it does - but is afraid to say it clearly. Yet yesterday we had an article saying that having an unelected PM was a step backwards. So what do they want?

Exactly. It's old elite versus new elite. It's about who controls business and gets access to government funds and sets the policy.

The Thaksin : evil, other guys : good propaganda is going into over drive. This has the army written all over it.

[Local Drunk]

First, one has to define what an elitist is and the answer will vary according to anyone's particular bias regarding any particular person. Does it mean that one is talented, gifted and able to do something that most people can't? The elite are at every strata of society and wealth and success are more often than not the natural concomitant of being better at doing something than someone else. However it's wrong to confuse those with wealth and privilege as being elite.

[Thai at Heart]

Trying to explain this to people outside Thailand is like banging your head against a brick wall. They actually believe the BS written by a few biased international journalists.

Do you know why it's hard to explain?

Because it needs the implicit meaning that a huge amount of the thai population are genuinely stupid and utterly naive, and that it's OK to be utterly patronising.

Or you go down the route that all Thai politicians of all sides are just liars and thieves who don't give a crap about the people.

In which case, you are turfed out of the country for insulting it. If you take route 1 you are telling the audience that you think that the supposedly intelligent people (what a laugh that idea is) know better than the majority.

Or that none of the politicians are any good so you support a dictatorship.

What the BBC is doing a bad job of doing is really telling the warts and all history of the army and people like Suthep.

Thaksin might be a thief, but these other guys aren't much better.

[binjalin]

it's bloody obvious it's a class struggle

the BKK rich and their rich kids running amok - Thais are fed up with reading another Thai has been killed by a Ferrari and nothing happens

It might sound very simplistic but it is the 'deferential voters' vs. the 'frustrated voters'

2010 the 'frustrated' were on the streets now the 'deferential' are on the streets

Edited December 11, 2013 by binjalin

[citizen33]

One section of the elite is clearly doing all it can to explain why it is right for Thailand to walk away from democracy, but few outside the Kingdom will find the argument convincing. Articles like this do nothing for the credibility of the Nation.

[Thai at Heart]

Another more dangerous myth is opposition set up by the anti-govt protesters between the 'good people' (the protesters) who're educated and know best, vs the ill educated village illiterates and drunks that only vote because they're paid by Thaksin. Since that's the myth that's being widely propagated at the moment, by those who wish to overthrow the government and install a 'People's Council', reminiscent of Mussolini's Fascist Grand Council, you'd think that myth would be more worthy of an article by The Nation at this point in time.

The idea that the foreign media think this is a battle between the downtrodden and the elite is a straw man at this point. Any journalist familiar with the conflict is well aware that it's broadly speaking a battle between two groups of elite, with ordinary people on either side. Further to that many articles in the foreign press are far more sophisticated than anything The Nation produces.

It's this article which is overly simplistic. So it's a battle between Thais who hate corruption and the state? What is the state? Is it the government? Is it the bureacracy? Is it the police? Is it the military? Is it the courts? Can all of these said to be under the power of the 'Thaksin regime'? It seems the state isn't monolithic, many parts of it act autonomously, and in any case, the elected government is now in danger of losing control of any grip it has of state apparatus.

Also, does The Nation actually want this 'People's Council'? Because this article strongly indicates it does - but is afraid to say it clearly. Yet yesterday we had an article saying that having an unelected PM was a step backwards. So what do they want?

They will want exactly what the army and the powers that be want them to want.

It's just that hasn't been settled yet. How to get rid of yingluck and not have any elections yet apparently still love democracy.

[Thai at Heart]

One section of the elite is clearly doing all it can to explain why it is right for Thailand to walk away from democracy, but few outside the Kingdom will find the argument convincing. Articles like this do nothing for the credibility of the Nation.

Exactly.

Of course they can't say exactly why they are so petrified of thaksin.

They needed to get their ducks in a row before yingluck called for the elections.

Ppppp.

Too late now

[fab4]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

That's why the article is titled:

"Elites versus the grass-roots is a dangerous myth."

Oh, Jaidam was just demonstrating how educate he was and now you've gone and spoilt it. He'll be advocating suthep to assume power for 10 years is a good thing next -, Oh, sorry, he has, in another thread.

[Thai at Heart]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

That's why the article is titled:

"Elites versus the grass-roots is a dangerous myth."

Oh, Jaidam was just demonstrating how educate he was and now you've gone and spoilt it. He'll be advocating suthep to assume power for 10 years is a good thing next -, Oh, sorry, he has, in another thread.

What jaidam hasn't realised yet is that Suthep isn't on his side either.

[gemini81]

Pure BS. It is not a case of elite against grass roots. The Shin dynasty are just as elite, if not more so than any of the democrats or their backers.

What we are witnessing is a classic case of educated versus uneducated. So simple really, once you understand.

The Thaksin group is indeed an oligarchy/elite, whatever you want to call it. I know Suthep is not saint, but we don't see him nor Abhisit robbing, plundering, murdering and avoiding consequences along the way. I am sure no politician would be in the game without some goodies along the way, as we as people are motivated by self interest. But at least these two characters have far fewer character flaws, and show more concern for the country on a macro level than Thaksin's family. If the world were without this poison gene, Thailand could be the exotic paradise we imagined in those alluring pictures pulling us to initially come here.

What we're dealing with is the desire to develop, improve, move forward VS. a Draconian system of mixed politics that is based around feudalism run by oligarchies.

This is one place that really keeps the old culture strong, and I admire that; but it makes it seemingly hard to balance wanting to move forward when constrained by the ways of the old world. That's part of what makes Thailand so unique, unpredictable, and maybe the reason we were drawn here? If it were so developed, there wouldn't be cheap food on the road, that adventurous feeling of unpredictability, and far, far less birds looking for a western man. Just saying, we have to remind ourselves that we like it at the same time. It was put best when I heard that everything in life is a love/hate relationship, when you can recognize & admit it.

Edited December 11, 2013 by gemini81

[UncleJ]

Ironic that a plunderer like Suthep ( a guy that lost the election) is leading the charge?

Is he the cleanest guy they can find? A guy that stole land from the poor and gave it to the wealthy.

Remember the last Army coup?

The general they appointed as PM got caught with a house he had built in a national park.

These guys are thieves that don't want elections.

Edited December 11, 2013 by UncleJ

[noitom]

Thais are not "frustrated" with corruption, rather they are frustrated that they have no cut. The "cut" is in the hands of the elite privileged class. When the newspaper speaks frankly about the cut, it will be taken seriously by foreign press. Same as its point of view on adherence to law and order depends on which side of the fence you're on as to which side gets covered and investigated. The editorial fails to make a case for truth and facts.

[UncleJ]

23 attempted coups since 1932. Thaksin fault!

[whybother]

23 attempted coups since 1932. Thaksin fault!

I disagree. Only the last one was Thaksin's fault.

(/sarc)

[DocN]

I think, it is all a bit of this and a bit of that.

Of course, in a time were every household has access to internet, it is more likely that "the poor" might want to have a piece of what "the rich" have.

Having said that: it is not about "rich vs poor", "red vs yellow", "Suthep vs Thaksin"...there are shades of gray and many things play into what we see of Thailand now.

The biggest part of it is, that you can not take a feudal society and say "...and from now on, we are a democracy"!

What this country urgently needs, is a "crack down" on the hierarchy- system, followed by education, education and more education.

And here we are again: who will mainly be opposed to that crack down (and the education of "the uneducated")?

To say it is not at all about "elite" vs "poor" is as wrong as the opposite.

[gemini81]

Thais are not "frustrated" with corruption, rather they are frustrated that they have no cut. The "cut" is in the hands of the elite privileged class. When the newspaper speaks frankly about the cut, it will be taken seriously by foreign press. Same as its point of view on adherence to law and order depends on which side of the fence you're on as to which side gets covered and investigated. The editorial fails to make a case for truth and facts.

I'm not so sure you can generalize it that way; there are always exceptions. I find every day, that there are as many differences within a culture as there are between other cultures.

For me, and particularly in the case of politicians, I try to look at their actions and less at their words.

I didn't see Abhisit nor Korn in endless corruption. One could make the argument that maybe some are clever enough not to get caught. But I think there really are no secrets at the end of the day- it comes out.

Bottom line is the two guys above seem to benefit the country, economy as a whole much more so than any PTP member has shown to do. As for Suthep, well, not the holiest saint, but at least not an absolute devil like Thaksin.

[robblok]

Another more dangerous myth is opposition set up by the anti-govt protesters between the 'good people' (the protesters) who're educated and know best, vs the ill educated village illiterates and drunks that only vote because they're paid by Thaksin. Since that's the myth that's being widely propagated at the moment, by those who wish to overthrow the government and install a 'People's Council', reminiscent of Mussolini's Fascist Grand Council, you'd think that myth would be more worthy of an article by The Nation at this point in time.

The idea that the foreign media think this is a battle between the downtrodden and the elite is a straw man at this point. Any journalist familiar with the conflict is well aware that it's broadly speaking a battle between two groups of elite, with ordinary people on either side. Further to that many articles in the foreign press are far more sophisticated than anything The Nation produces.

It's this article which is overly simplistic. So it's a battle between Thais who hate corruption and the state? What is the state? Is it the government? Is it the bureacracy? Is it the police? Is it the military? Is it the courts? Can all of these said to be under the power of the 'Thaksin regime'? It seems the state isn't monolithic, many parts of it act autonomously, and in any case, the elected government is now in danger of losing control of any grip it has of state apparatus.

Also, does The Nation actually want this 'People's Council'? Because this article strongly indicates it does - but is afraid to say it clearly. Yet yesterday we had an article saying that having an unelected PM was a step backwards. So what do they want?

Everyone knows that it all started when the government did the tricks with the amnesty bill. This would never have happened if they had not been that stupid. They thought they could be so corrupt and nobody could stop them.

I and many others would not mind a red government in charge if they played by the rules and were checked good. The reds however were constantly busy to remove all the checks and balances and tried to do things outside of budgets so they would not have to be transparent. That is the whole case.

Now Suthep, I have no love for him or his idea's but he is a tool to break the reds at this point. Others think just the same, he is a tool nothing more and many of his idea's are crazy. But if his idea's restore the checks and balances and keep the government from raping the country then so be it.