Non-Extremists are Reaching a Consensus

[Ricardo]

I see. The first author says that if the reds give up Thaksin and Thaksinism then the yellows will forgive them (and maybe even stop calling them khwais). Very magnanimous.

But exactly why should the people who have benefited from his policies give up on Thaksin? Access to cheap health care, loans, farm support, etc. - Thaksinism or populism, whatever you want to call it - has transformed the lives of millions in rural Thailand.

So, why should these people give up on Thaksin or Yingluck or the clan they see as the first to not treat them as second-class Thais born only to serve on Bangkok plantations?

I would suggest Suthep and the Dems contemplate why they're in the electoral wilderness and devise policies that'll bring them back by way of the ballot box. It's not impossible. If Thaksin could do it, so can they.

Riding in behind tanks may seem an appealing short-cut but the power will be short-lived too.

"why should the people ... give up on Thaksin"

Because those things you mention were all achieved a decade ago, when the global-economy was booming, and continued or even improved under subsequent governments, but the Great Thinker's more-recent ideas have mostly been stinkers !

The rice-purchase scheme, which out-bid the Dems more-modest/affordable policy, has been shown to be unaffordable & a disaster for the industry. The cheap shoddy tablet-computers built overseas for some (not all) school-kids, the car-subsidies for the already-better-off, the infrastructure-projects to enable those in-power to cream off ever more tea-money whilst saddling the country with a 50-year debt, these aren't in the best interests of the poor, whether in Isaarn or elsewhere.

If the poor take control of their political-party, then it might (only might) produce further improvements across the country, but if it remains in the hands of one family & their supporters, it will remain a vehicle for those who want to be the new Amart. Welcome to the New Boss, same same as the Old Boss, in the end !

What counts now, is what can further be done in-the-future, to build on those decade-old improvements.

And trying to do anything, with a 30%-millstone of corruption round the country's neck, would only make future improvement harder ! Time to say 'Thanks, But No-Thanks, and Good-Bye !".

[Fryslan boppe]

This attempt at representing both sides in a balanced way, while in fact it is representing the Electoral Majority perspective in a most biased way imaginable....Having a PAD/Dem author write the perspective of that majority is ridiculous...Let me point out the imbalances to demonstrate my point:

Many red shirts died to get Thaksin back into power....No they didn't. This is pure PAD/Dem agenda of those who are electorally-challenged. They died protesting a coup-rooted Govt. who had nullified their previous vote via a coup...Same as is being attempted today. Their battle cry was for electoral rectification. The minority attempt to demonize Govts. and individuals who defeat them in elections, instead of reforming themselves to appeal to a diverse electorate, is self-evident...

Remember in 2010 when the government offered a compromise of a few months before dissolution and things looked like they were headed to a peaceful end, then the leadership including Mr Thaksin threw it away through arrogance and impatience?..What compromise?...The so-called AV offer that was in effect an ultimatum?...In negotiations, offers are an advance of discussions via counter-offers leading to an agreement. To make an offer, or suggest a compromise as it is termed here, and then refuse considerations of counter-offers are in effect, ultimatums. Only agreements are valid. Offers of compromises without considerations of counter-offers and counter-compromises are not. Again, to demonize the negotiation team across from the PAD/Dem negotiating team is agenda.

"...unite together to oppose those that lead us..."..This sounds suspiciously like the PAD/Dem politician-demonization agenda. That is an agenda seeking to negate electoral democracy by demonizing its product - elected members of Parliament...The same people the current protesters are seeking to replace by their preferred appointees.

For the red side that means it has to break free from the shackles of Khun Thaksin...To reduce the defense of Electoral Democracy in this way is again pure PAD/Dem agenda.. We can only speculate about the motives of the electoral majority, and undoubtedly the policies introduced by Thaksin have a significant effect in electoral choices today. They heralded the political rise of the country’s poor, long-silenced rural majority. Bangkok’s entrenched elite didn't like that, but, instead of learning to compete for the votes of Thailand’s rural poor, the country’s urban elite (including the powerful military) sought to delegitimize those votes... Bottom line, voters will vote for policies that serve their self-interest. The PAD/dem's need to accept that, and align themselves accordingly, instead of lazily demonizing those who originated some of them.

"Elections in February will just lead to more of an impasse..."...Failure to mollify coup-intentioned people trying to negate Electoral Democracy is not a stalemate or an impasse. It is a principled stand in support of Democracy. Protester and electoral minority attempts to obstruct parliamentary normality after the elections, and to agitate in such a way as to create the impression of ungovernability, will be seen for what it is. It will be overruled by the electoral majority...To imply that elections are futile will not be accepted in a Democracy. Should any so-called independent entity such as the judiciary, coupist-instigated military and other Elitist elements force the country away from an Electoral form of governance, they will need to accept the consequences..There is a huge swath of the electorate that is now thoroughly politicized unlike in 2006.

This attempt to provide a balanced perspective is admirable, but would have been more effective if it had been a collaborative thing between someone from each side of the political divide, rather than written in its' entirety by someone from one side.

[whybother]

This attempt at representing both sides in a balanced way, while in fact it is representing the Electoral Majority perspective in a most biased way imaginable....Having a PAD/Dem author write the perspective of that majority is ridiculous...Let me point out the imbalances to demonstrate my point:

Many red shirts died to get Thaksin back into power....No they didn't. This is pure PAD/Dem agenda of those who are electorally-challenged. They died protesting a coup-rooted Govt. who had nullified their previous vote via a coup...Same as is being attempted today. Their battle cry was for electoral rectification. The minority attempt to demonize Govts. and individuals who defeat them in elections, instead of reforming themselves to appeal to a diverse electorate, is self-evident...

<snip>

They were protesting a coup government 4 years after the coup??

[Mentors]

Thais are champion in 'to beat around the bush'.

[mojorison]

TLDR

[SantiSuk]

Both these points of view are highly intelligent and well posed. Indeed, there is much to be said on both sides of this debate. Taking a look down the road, I can actually see the amalgamation - or synthesis - of both these points of view. To be sure, for peace to be a long-term prospect in Thailand, they will have to be. A winner-takes-all attitude will not solve this problem. Because a winner-takes-all attitude is what got us into it. But there is - for the first time in years - a genuine window of opportunity here for a path that takes us into the amalgamated direction posed by these two opinions. And it is an opportunity that has actually nothing to do with the PDRC. The window of opportunity - as it happens - has to do with the election itself. On February 2 the election will take place. It will doubtless be the most disruptive, raucous election in Thai history. But it will take place. In parts of the country it will be fairly smooth. In other parts of the country it will be not so smooth. It will be sheer chaos in others. Yet the election will take place. The election will not produce a parliamentary quorum. And that is the window of opportunity. Because the lack of a parliamentary quorum will be a constitutional crisis - one without precedent, there will be a genuine vacuum for which there is no legislative path forward. The administration will be stripped of all power. They will be frozen, so to speak. Once that becomes apparent, the army could then quietly step in, and assume a non-participatory role as mediator between all the parties, including the two major parties. It means public reform forums would take place on a scale unprecedented. It would be immensely healthy. If the reforms were applied to a forced timeline of say, three months, a constitution might emerge that has the collective backing of all participants, including the two major parties. That would be put to a referendum, and if passed, could lead to a new national election. The biggest mistake a reform process could have would be to exclude Pheu Thai. This has never been about Pheu Thai, or even a Pheu Thai administration. It has always been about Thaksin. If that umbilical cord could be cut, it would free the path forward and act as a glue for both parties. The success of such a forum - in my view - would be dependant on the PDRC having nothing to do with it. But it is very, very important that both Pheu Thai and the main opposition Democratic party - both of whom have undeniably huge constituencies - come to some form of an agreement or consensus in this clearly sharply divided country. I do not personally believe that the Democratic party will ever - for at least the foreseeable future - be the government. Their base is simply not that extensive. Nor do I think Pheu Thai can govern from the North alone, pretending that the rest of the country doesn't exist. But if Thaksin were somehow to be cut off from the Pheu Thai party, I have absolutely no doubt that a possible future Pheu Thai administration would have much more backing in parts of the country that may surprise them now. Indeed, as these articles collectively suggest - the way forward comes with sacrifices - from both parties. If Pheu Thai can give up Thaksin, and the Democratic party can concede the realities of the electoral map, then I think that that would have a real chance for success, and would lead to the beginnings of greater trust between these age-old factions.

I wish I could share your confidence in the (any?) army's ability or desire to promote a balanced and fair outcome between conflicting parties. I suppose there must be some precedent in history for army generals promoting peace and harmony but they don't immediately come to mind.

I am much less sanguine about how peace will arrive. I suspect it will arrive only as a recoil in horror reaction to the first stages of revolution once the army has reinstalled an elitist regime. There is far more precedent in history for this as a solution.

[gabruce]

This wont work. Asking people to drop their right to choose who they want to vote for ?

nice yellow try but won't work.

The 2 Yes 2 No suggestion is a far more intelligent proposal.

The “2 Yeses 2 Nos” slogan refers to the ideas that the people in the network have at least in common. “2 Yeses” refers the two things that they support, namely the “rights to have democratic election” and the “need for reform to occur democratically”. “2 Nos” points to their opposition to any “military coup” and any form of “violence”.

So you think the red supporter who wrote this has been turned yellow? I think the article is well thought out and well written and offers sensible suggestions.

[JCauto]

I was looking forward to hearing the middle ground compromise about what the Thai could agree about and use as a basis to start forward. Must have missed it somehow. Instead, it sounded like someone from each side trying for some reason to convince the extremists on that side that everything they think is wrong. Usually, in my experience, that isn't very effective.

[Fryslan boppe]

I was looking forward to hearing the middle ground compromise about what the Thai could agree about and use as a basis to start forward. Must have missed it somehow. Instead, it sounded like someone from each side trying for some reason to convince the extremists on that side that everything they think is wrong. Usually, in my experience, that isn't very effective.

"...it sounded like someone from each side trying for some reason to convince...".......There certainly was not someone from each side trying anything...There was someone from one side trying to portray both sides....As per post #32 above, one can see that doesn't work.

[Fryslan boppe]

This attempt at representing both sides in a balanced way, while in fact it is representing the Electoral Majority perspective in a most biased way imaginable....Having a PAD/Dem author write the perspective of that majority is ridiculous...Let me point out the imbalances to demonstrate my point:

Many red shirts died to get Thaksin back into power....No they didn't. This is pure PAD/Dem agenda of those who are electorally-challenged. They died protesting a coup-rooted Govt. who had nullified their previous vote via a coup...Same as is being attempted today. Their battle cry was for electoral rectification. The minority attempt to demonize Govts. and individuals who defeat them in elections, instead of reforming themselves to appeal to a diverse electorate, is self-evident...

<snip>

They were protesting a coup government 4 years after the coup?? (Whybother)

Oops, Fryslan boppe's response below, to Whybother's comment immediately above.

Yes. ....Out of context that would be true...One must remember that the 2010 protests were the culmination of many regional rallies and protests...They began shortly after the 2006 coup. It took some time for it to sink in to the electoral majority to that yet again, one of their elected Govts. had been coup'ed out of existence....Momentum built regionally based upon that realization...Reporting on this was studiously avoided in the pro-coup, pro-elitist mainstream media. And to the coup-maker's chagrin, a most-unwelcome unintended consequence, which afflicts them to this day, and will continue into the future.

This had the effect of catching Bangkok people by surprise. They were astonished by the size and intensity of these pro-electoral, anti-coup people.....The Media quickly tried to marginalize this majority by trying to delegitimize their political aspirations and by trying to render them uni-dimensional...denigrating their political awareness and making them singularly focused on Thaksin. You will notice in the article above, they are still trying to do that.

In summary, one must position the 2010 thing on a continuum that started way before......Because of that background and politicization, it is not a leap for this electoral majority to position the current protesters in context, and not be fooled by their self-righteous and holier-than-thou pontification about vague Reform demands. They are simply cover for anti-electoral and self-serving coupist motives no different than what motivated many of these same people in 2006....A little like that saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

[rickirs]

How many times in the history of the modern post-1900's world do we hear that "to save democracy, we must destroy democracy?" Because if a minority tried to work within the framework of democracy, it cannot easily achieve by itself dominance over or alter the government policies or laws. This is especially difficult when the minority is unwilling to balance any of its dogma with the majority to gain support outside of its own party; when the minority refuses any negotiation except on its own terms and those terms begin with the complete capitulation of the majority-led government. As a result the minority must resort to radical actions outside the law such as the physical removal of government leaders, shutdown of the government services, and paralyze the freedoms of the majority's supporters to force unilateral concessions to the minorty This is led by the war cry of tryanny and insurrection. The propangda becomes, "Trust us, your loss of a democractic system, loss of your loss of vote, loss of your voice is a worthwhile price for the minority to change government in the way it sees fit." This approach has been the method used by dictatorships, neo-communists, and military coups. I hope for Thailand that its people choose to work within the democratic system to peacely bring resolution between conflicting philosophies of government; otherwise anything less will forever mar Thailand's civil and political history.

[whybother]

This attempt at representing both sides in a balanced way, while in fact it is representing the Electoral Majority perspective in a most biased way imaginable....Having a PAD/Dem author write the perspective of that majority is ridiculous...Let me point out the imbalances to demonstrate my point:

Many red shirts died to get Thaksin back into power....No they didn't. This is pure PAD/Dem agenda of those who are electorally-challenged. They died protesting a coup-rooted Govt. who had nullified their previous vote via a coup...Same as is being attempted today. Their battle cry was for electoral rectification. The minority attempt to demonize Govts. and individuals who defeat them in elections, instead of reforming themselves to appeal to a diverse electorate, is self-evident...

<snip>

They were protesting a coup government 4 years after the coup??

Yes. ....Out of context that would be true...One must remember that the 2010 protests were the culmination of many regional rallies and protests...They began shortly after the 2006 coup. It took some time for it to sink in to the electoral majority to that yet again, one of their elected Govts. had been coup'ed out of existence....Momentum built regionally based upon that realization...Reporting on this was studiously avoided in the pro-coup, pro-elitist mainstream media.

This had the effect of catching Bangkok people by surprise. They were astonished by the size and intensity of these pro-electoral, anti-coup people.....The Media quickly tried to marginalize this majority by trying to delegitimize their political aspirations and by trying to render them uni-dimensional...denigrating their political awareness and making them singularly focused on Thaksin. You will notice in the article above, they are still trying to do that.

In summary, one must position the 2010 thing on a continuum that started way before......Because of that background and politicization, it is not a leap for this electoral majority to position the current protesters in context, and not be fooled by their self-righteous and holier-than-thou pontification about vague Reform demands. They are simply cover for anti-electoral and self-serving coupist motives no different than what motivated many of these same people in 2006....A little like that saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Out of context? One must remember that the 2010 protests were 4 years after the coup, 3 years after elections, even 1 year after Abhisit was elected PM, BUT, it was only 2 weeks after Thaksin was stripped of 46 billion baht.

[allan michaud]

when Osama Bin Laden was just a peripheral figure in the middle east. He’s dead now

And has been since at least 2010.

May 2011, and your point is?

[jayboy]

I see. The first author says that if the reds give up Thaksin and Thaksinism then the yellows will forgive them (and maybe even stop calling them khwais). Very magnanimous.

But exactly why should the people who have benefited from his policies give up on Thaksin? Access to cheap health care, loans, farm support, etc. - Thaksinism or populism, whatever you want to call it - has transformed the lives of millions in rural Thailand.

So, why should these people give up on Thaksin or Yingluck or the clan they see as the first to not treat them as second-class Thais born only to serve on Bangkok plantations?

I would suggest Suthep and the Dems contemplate why they're in the electoral wilderness and devise policies that'll bring them back by way of the ballot box. It's not impossible. If Thaksin could do it, so can they.

Riding in behind tanks may seem an appealing short-cut but the power will be short-lived too.

You raise a very good point.Both the authors are from the very high echelons of Thai society.As their letter suggests they are civilised and decent human beings with their hearts in the right place.Certainly they are also quite correct that all sides will need to compromise.But there is a slightly troubling note to the letter which is somewhat as the French say "de haut en bas", an element of condescencion if you like.It's not really for two very upper class types to suggest to the Thai majority how it should reform itself.The shoe should be on the other foot, to wit the old elite should be considering how to reform itself before the Thai people are won over by some politician, far more threatening than Thaksin.And once again all need to be rerminded the current conflict is not really about Thaksin at all.

And as a lesser issue, Cod isn't really representing the redshirt position at all.He is an old fashioned Whig (my favoured political stance incidentally).To make the letter compelling Somtow should have written it with a redshirt leader as co-author,

[Fryslan boppe]

This attempt at representing both sides in a balanced way, while in fact it is representing the Electoral Majority perspective in a most biased way imaginable....Having a PAD/Dem author write the perspective of that majority is ridiculous...Let me point out the imbalances to demonstrate my point:

Many red shirts died to get Thaksin back into power....No they didn't. This is pure PAD/Dem agenda of those who are electorally-challenged. They died protesting a coup-rooted Govt. who had nullified their previous vote via a coup...Same as is being attempted today. Their battle cry was for electoral rectification. The minority attempt to demonize Govts. and individuals who defeat them in elections, instead of reforming themselves to appeal to a diverse electorate, is self-evident...

<snip>

They were protesting a coup government 4 years after the coup??

Yes. ....Out of context that would be true...One must remember that the 2010 protests were the culmination of many regional rallies and protests...They began shortly after the 2006 coup. It took some time for it to sink in to the electoral majority to that yet again, one of their elected Govts. had been coup'ed out of existence....Momentum built regionally based upon that realization...Reporting on this was studiously avoided in the pro-coup, pro-elitist mainstream media.

This had the effect of catching Bangkok people by surprise. They were astonished by the size and intensity of these pro-electoral, anti-coup people.....The Media quickly tried to marginalize this majority by trying to delegitimize their political aspirations and by trying to render them uni-dimensional...denigrating their political awareness and making them singularly focused on Thaksin. You will notice in the article above, they are still trying to do that.

In summary, one must position the 2010 thing on a continuum that started way before......Because of that background and politicization, it is not a leap for this electoral majority to position the current protesters in context, and not be fooled by their self-righteous and holier-than-thou pontification about vague Reform demands. They are simply cover for anti-electoral and self-serving coupist motives no different than what motivated many of these same people in 2006....A little like that saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Out of context? One must remember that the 2010 protests were 4 years after the coup, 3 years after elections, even 1 year after Abhisit was elected PM, BUT, it was only 2 weeks after Thaksin was stripped of 46 billion baht.

".... 1 year after Abhisit was elected PM, BUT, it was only 2 weeks after Thaksin was stripped of 46 billion baht..."

Huh?...One year after AV was elected?..Elected?...Getting into all of that is beyond the scope of this thread, but everyone knows the reality of this thing, which was driven home the last election, magnified by attempts to avoid an election this time......

"Thaksin stripped of 46 billion baht?"....

Permit me address that old PAD/Dem saw.

There is no evidence that the 46 billion baht in question came from "dubious sources". By the Court's own reckoning the figure simply represents the amount by which Thaksin's family interest in Shincorp appreciated between the day he took office and the day it was sold to Temasek; an increase of 168%. This was the justification for the charge that Thaksin had accrued "unusual wealth". Over exactly the same period the whole SET appreciated by 161%. Many shares, notably Siam Cement and the major banks fared much much better. Notably DTAC, a direct competitor of Shincorp's AIS also performed even better.

The increase in value of ShinCorp's shares between 2001 and 2005 is simply explained. ShinCorp's AIS was Thailand's leader in a huge growth market. Mobile phone subscriptions in Thailand increased from 12 per 100 head of population in 2001 to 46 per 100 in 2005; ie virtually quadrupled. This alone explains the mere 168% increase in ShinCorp's market valuation and thus the 46 billion baht increase in the value of Thaksin's family holdings. So everyone here who gives the matter a moment's thought know's perfectly well where Thaksin's supposed "unusual wealth" actually came from and how it was in fact entirely legitimately acquired.

A lot of this is merely coup-makers demonizing those they coup'ed in order to justify themselves...One can see an attempt to re-enact the same pattern today.