Well, i am sorry again, but reducing the Red Shirt discussion to pro or anti Thaksin ignores many important developments that have taken place in Thailand over the past 4 or 5 years, as is reducing Thaksin to a simple “corrupt authoritarian anti-democrat”, while ignoring that is rule here was a lot more complex.
I was wondering if you could give us more details to flesh out yr account. I mean it’s great in itself that the movement is becoming more bottom-up, but I suppose if they’re choosing bad leaders & the rhetoric on the stage is just lowest common denominator populism, then it might not be all that good (I’m not saying either of those things is true though). What sort of ideology is developing? Is the political thought of red shirts generally moving beyond the hero-worship and attacks on particular persons, rather than the structure? I.e. I’m not opposed to antagonistic rhetoric, about say, Prem, but it’s not really Prem himself who’s the problem, is it? It’s the total structure which requires radical reform, but I appreciate this is a difficult idea to communicate, particularly to people who probably haven’t had much exposure to political theory before.
Also, I wondered if you’d been to any of these “red schools”? Many people say it’s pure indoctrination which amounts to little more than hagriographic accounts of what Thaksin’s done for people. I doubt that’s the case, but can you shed any more light on it?
As to “sponsoring” the Red Shirts, i have seen things a bit more complicated. What is generally reported is that it is all “Thaksin”. Well, there is no doubt that there are large amounts of cash from Thaksin and other self interested parties involved.
Nevertheless, there is much grass roots efforts that are mostly overlooked, but are important to mention. In most small stages you can see donation boxes where ordinary Red Shirts donate their own money (the question here is less the amounts – a million from a billionaire is less than 100 baht from a poor man). At fund raising concerts people pay their own entry fees, usually 300 baht.
Food for the protests was prepared in many communities around town, the raw materials mostly donated in collections in villages. Things aren’t simple – besides the use of the Red Shirts by self interested parties there is a very strong level of empowerment under ordinary Red Shirts.
There are independent local Red Shirt groups on all levels on society in constant discussion, who meet regularly both in cyberspace and real life, on city and village levels, and develop both ideologically and strategically.
This is a movement under constant development, there are conflicts inside the Red Shirt movement between groups with more long term approaches and naive short term strategies. Unfortunately not much of those aspects are reported about in the mainstream media. We can only watch and see where it goes.
Les, you always receive a bad rating here, but even as someone with definite red shirt sympathies, I certainly agree with some of what you have to say. What I’ve found is that while many red shirts will certainly agree that the WOD was a tragedy, most are myopic when it comes to Thaksin’s role in it. I don’t attribute the blame wholly to Thaksin, but he’s certainly the most prominent figure and bears ultimate responsibility as premier (just, as, in the end, Abhisit does for Ratchaprasong etc, even though we know he was actually one of the moderates amongst those who organized the crackdown). Most red sympathisers know that it’s hard to square support for Thaksin with their concern for human rights, so look for mitigating factors which will excuse Thaksin. But as far as I’m concerned, there may well be mitigating factors, but he should never be excused and the deaths in the war on drugs should never be forgotten.
Of course, you’ll find some red shirts (and certainly not just red shirts, I know many Thais that despise Thaksin but still admire the war on drugs, including some self-describing “liberals”), try to paint the war on drugs as a good thing, as drug dealers are evil and a scourge etc. I’ve got zero sympathy for this view, even though I know first-hand what a huge problem methampetamine is in Thailand. Chastising people for their callousness towards the dead protesters, complaining about ill treament of red shirts is totally justified, but when you whitewash Thaksin’s own crimes, it’s very easy to ignore those arguments. Similarly there are people that roll on about the war on drugs, but whitewash anything the current government, does, so it works both ways.
As for Weng and Thida, I’m inclined to agree with you again. I mean on the one hand they’ve tried to distance themselves from Thaksin but on the other, in an interview with The Nation a couple of days ago, Thida says the red shirts will fight for Thaksin even if they’re bare handed. I was a bit surprised to read that, as it doesn’t square with other things she’s said. As far as I know both Thida and Weng were part of anti-Thaksin protests a mere five years ago, so surely they know that he’s not all that great? But I understand they can’t be too critical whilst playing a leading role in the movement. I hope when we look back in history, we’ll see that they were just brilliantly using Thaksin (as opposed to him using them) to achieve real social change… after all, you don’t achieve anything alone and at least there’s a genuine movement for change now, which is capable of overcoming its limitations and past mistakes to become a truly progressive force.
Maybe you should check first of where the figure came from?
Tarrin I have never used the 2275 number. I have little faith in newspaper stats. (I have to admit I used thousands when I should have probably used the singular thousand. ) At the same time the 72 number is obviously for police PR use. Let’s just take the homicide rate doubling from the start of Thaksin’s anti-drug campaign. That seems to be a safe bet doesn’t it? Or can we blame that thousand on a ‘third force’ like the UDD leadership use for so many of their more uncomfortable actions.
Nick Nostitz – 100
I am sorry, but i do not get the point you are trying to make here.
In 2006 some thought they could ‘have their cake and eat it too’. That is they could support the red shirts but still be anti-Thaksin. In the intervening four years their attacks on Thaksin have dwindled and almost disappeared while their defense of the worse excesses of Thaksin’s rule has almost become a mantra for them.
We should not forget that Thaksin was a corrupt authoritarian anti-democrat. That there are others just as bad or even worse doesn’t change this first point. It’s like arguing who was the worst, Hitler or Stalin. In the end the concentration camps of Hitler and Stalin’s gulags were all evil things.
I’ve seen it in at least three bookshops, not including Asia Books. I think the title is misleading, it would have been more appropriate for Handley’s book. The book retains an academic refrain throughout and the writers choose their words carefully, in the vein of WORSHIPPING THE GREAT MORDERNIZER and LORDS OF THINGS, although unlike these, the current political situation is discussed.
Also recently released is a hardback book called SMILES OF THE KING detailing the King’s achievements and featuring many colour plates of him smiling. It is a high-profile release and sits next to THE STORY OF TONGDAENG in most bookshops.
Silkworm, the Southeast Asia distributor, tells me that it is available in Bangkok at Asia Books, and to call specific branches to check if they have it in stock.
Dear-oh-dear do you really need me to read between the lines for you. These were real bodies
Maybe you should check first of where the figure came from? its not that I said killing the small time dealer is ok but then, what is the real casualties here?
From our good old BKKpundit it seems like the number was first mentioned by HRW (or the first the dramatized it).
Furthermore, if we are to talk about this extra-jurisdiction killing then someone should be working on who were responsible for the other 78 deaths (and several more that were later) during and after April-May 2010, I think they are very real right?
#95 “Which then, if it would reach a large amount of supporters, would then not result in a violent crackdown by the state…?”
And this has happened umpteen times since 1932 precisely because there are members of the elite who have no qualms about sending people into the line of fire for the purposes of their own cash and power enrichment. The problem with both the redshirts and the yellow shirts is that that neither has any real strategy (other than that handed down to them) beyond direct confrontation. In each case since 1932, such short-term thinking has created the intended divide-&-rule mayhem, but has resulted in no tangible benefits for those at the bottom of the pile. Clearly, there are many here espousing confrontational ideas that have already failed this country abysmally on many occasions.
“Anyhow, there simply is not the infrastructure for a large enough socialist party, especially no organized labor unions to speak of. ”
Gi Ungkapakorn has often pointed out this mistake. Do we engage in the big gesture (supposed fasttrack) politics of direct confrontation (and no real social action) or in a less confrontational & more attritional longer-term approach. (Not that there is anything particular fasttrack about the abyssmal failure of Thai ‘democracy’ from 1932 to 2010.) Current day Thai labor unions have obviously been hijacked by criminals and/or those who have an interest in keeping them intentionally weak. They were basically abandoned by fashionista idealogues post 1976, after said clothes horses had become obsessed with the ‘overnight’ rural-based revolutions in some other countries in the region.
“Every social movement needs sponsorship by somebody or some organization that has money, eg. some “disgruntled” elite faction. A movement without money is romanticism and completely unrealistic. The PAD had massive sponsorship (not in the same vehemence investigated as Red Shirt sponsorship was).”
I am, of course, ALSO thinking about the PAD. At no point do you seem capable of addressing the very real problem of just WHO it is advisable to accept the sponsorship of. If you can’t also see the massive and highly dubious sponsorship of redshirts by self-interested individuals, then there really is no hope for you. There is a huge difference between socially-interested organizations & individuals and those who just aspire to running monopolies with fake reform credentials. And even then, I’m not sure I would really want to be on a ‘foundation’ payroll without knowing a great deal more about their real motivations. One could definitely argue that foundations have taken over a lot of the CIA’s grunt work, for example.
“Successful revolutions recently such as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and other in eastern Europe countries, had large amounts of money from US and European foundations (which could be in some way seen as even more questionable as Thaksin’s sponsorship of the Red Shirts as this is quite direct foreign involvement in national politics).”
You said it! The initial fervor is withering on many East European vines, as they captitulate the little they have won to the multinationals.
Truly weird how most of the contributors to this site are now so totally incapable of ever using the word socialist. Ain’t it always the same? The initially-obsessed repent like the drama queens they always have been.
The book is not supposed to be simply an analysis of the palace’s role in recent events, it also tries to shed light on the phenomenon of the modern Thai monarchy, why it has become such a controversial subject and why Bhumibol personally is the object of such reverence. There is much of interest in terms of how the dynamics of this reverence have evolved, albiet not a great deal of new thinking for those well-versed in this subject. It does contain some interesting chapters by anonymous Thais.
Perhaps the book would not be the first choice for someone wanting a comprehensive account of contemporary Thai politics, but it certainly helps to shed light on a critical aspect of the latter.
Giles asserts that the military uses a weak palace as a legitimating mask. Those who sympathise with this argument would have to acknowledge that the palace must in fact wield some degree of influence by virtue of the military’s dependence on it. Were it to choose to come out in vocal opposition of a particular clique or interest group, this would clearly cause considerable public relations problems for that group.
But then Nick we are back at that old chestnut of double standards. It’s not an argument. Just because others do it and get away with it doesn’t make it right. Thaksin had the chance to change the base of Thai politics and he blew it.
The UDD can stand up on the stage and say why is Thaksin attacked and prosecuted for this and that? Others do it. Look at the army or Abhisit or Suthem or Sanan or so on through the whole lot. They do it and they aren’t dragged into court.
The government does it because they can. Thaksin opened himself up to these attacks by being corrupt. If he had been clean, they could still have removed him, but now he would be sitting in exile organizing the red shirts without anyone like me being able to besmirch his character.
c80 “It doesn’t work because it’s all on record and in in peoples, albeit weak for some of us, memory.”
To “weak” we should perhaps add “selective” – or how about “inventive”? Perhaps “partial” covers it best – as in being both incomplete and not impartial. Yes, most is “on record” and readily accessible with just a little effort – which makes it all the more curious that there’s quite so much blatant re-working of that historical record when it suits the writer’s purpose. And all the more ironic that this writer dwells so much on references to “Stalinist” re-writing of history…..
c93 “Dear-oh-dear do you really need me to read between the lines for you.”
Errrr……. no thanks. I neither need nor want a LesAbbey (or anyone else) to filter and predigest allegedly “on record” statements into easy-to-swallow doses of processed “truth-as-they-see-it” – particularly when they bring their own slant to misreporting what was actually said. Let’s see the original words (assuming Bangkok Dan provided a faithful report in the first place) and then make up our own minds as to the what and why of Weng’s replies. I welcome seeing others’ opinions on such things – but not what boils down to passing off their “take” as a matter of record.
“In which case, it is obvious that one needs to start outside the jurisdiction of the EC. Let’s face it.”
Which then, if it would reach a large amount of supporters, would then not result in a violent crackdown by the state…?
Anyhow, there simply is not the infrastructure for a large enough socialist party, especially no organized labor unions to speak of.
Every social movement needs sponsorship by somebody or some organization that has money, eg. some “disgruntled” elite faction. A movement without money is romanticism and completely unrealistic. The PAD had massive sponsorship (not in the same vehemence investigated as Red Shirt sponsorship was).
Successful revolutions recently such as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and other in eastern Europe countries, had large amounts of money from US and European foundations (which could be in some way seen as even more questionable as Thaksin’s sponsorship of the Red Shirts as this is quite direct foreign involvement in national politics).
“LesAbbey” said:
“Do we all take the Weng view that it’s unproven so Thaksin must be innocent. Am I inventing Thaksin’s hard line in the South? Is that unproven also?”
You should ask a different set of questions:
Why has until today no government after Thaksin, including the Surayudh and the Abhisit government made any meaningful investigations into the many human rights violations under Thaksin’s government?
The only court case i can recall here in terms of the human rights violations was in the Tak Bai deaths, under this government, and the accused soldiers were cleared.
Why do the allegations against the military in terms of human rights violations in the South continue, as you can read in many statements by Human Rights Watch, ICC, etc.?
This does not exactly mean that we have seen on the post Thaksin governments any major change of policy regarding the three southern provinces.
A great idea in principle but it would be irresponsible not to inform foreign volunteers that, if that don’t have work permits, they will be liable for a fine of up to 100,000 baht and up to 5 years in prison under the 2008 Working of Aliens Act, even if they are not paid a salary, not to mention deportation at their own expense and possible blacklisting by Immigration.
The police were very happy because they were able to extort extra protection money from bars that wanted to serve alcohol which was being openly served in some places.
#77 See Suttachai Yimprasert’s unsuccessful attempt last year to form a socialist party which was not allowed by the election commission.
In which case, it is obvious that one needs to start outside the jurisdiction of the EC. Let’s face it. The police are totally incapable of controlling any ‘crime’ here, least of all the political or quasi-political hoodlum stuff. Start with an illegal (named, none of this sentimental “we all love each other” cultural fake-up stuff) socialist party, and work for its legitimization through sheer numbers -rather than always looking for the supposed fasttrack of disgruntled elite faction sponsorship. Playing by the richman’s rules all the time has led to zero progress in any field since 1932.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
How hardline have the redshirts become?
“LesAbbey”:
Well, i am sorry again, but reducing the Red Shirt discussion to pro or anti Thaksin ignores many important developments that have taken place in Thailand over the past 4 or 5 years, as is reducing Thaksin to a simple “corrupt authoritarian anti-democrat”, while ignoring that is rule here was a lot more complex.
A small stage, a ping pong bomb and a burning spirit house
Hi Nick, great piece as usual.
I was wondering if you could give us more details to flesh out yr account. I mean it’s great in itself that the movement is becoming more bottom-up, but I suppose if they’re choosing bad leaders & the rhetoric on the stage is just lowest common denominator populism, then it might not be all that good (I’m not saying either of those things is true though). What sort of ideology is developing? Is the political thought of red shirts generally moving beyond the hero-worship and attacks on particular persons, rather than the structure? I.e. I’m not opposed to antagonistic rhetoric, about say, Prem, but it’s not really Prem himself who’s the problem, is it? It’s the total structure which requires radical reform, but I appreciate this is a difficult idea to communicate, particularly to people who probably haven’t had much exposure to political theory before.
Also, I wondered if you’d been to any of these “red schools”? Many people say it’s pure indoctrination which amounts to little more than hagriographic accounts of what Thaksin’s done for people. I doubt that’s the case, but can you shed any more light on it?
How hardline have the redshirts become?
“Neverfree”:
As to “sponsoring” the Red Shirts, i have seen things a bit more complicated. What is generally reported is that it is all “Thaksin”. Well, there is no doubt that there are large amounts of cash from Thaksin and other self interested parties involved.
Nevertheless, there is much grass roots efforts that are mostly overlooked, but are important to mention. In most small stages you can see donation boxes where ordinary Red Shirts donate their own money (the question here is less the amounts – a million from a billionaire is less than 100 baht from a poor man). At fund raising concerts people pay their own entry fees, usually 300 baht.
Food for the protests was prepared in many communities around town, the raw materials mostly donated in collections in villages. Things aren’t simple – besides the use of the Red Shirts by self interested parties there is a very strong level of empowerment under ordinary Red Shirts.
There are independent local Red Shirt groups on all levels on society in constant discussion, who meet regularly both in cyberspace and real life, on city and village levels, and develop both ideologically and strategically.
This is a movement under constant development, there are conflicts inside the Red Shirt movement between groups with more long term approaches and naive short term strategies. Unfortunately not much of those aspects are reported about in the mainstream media. We can only watch and see where it goes.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
Les, you always receive a bad rating here, but even as someone with definite red shirt sympathies, I certainly agree with some of what you have to say. What I’ve found is that while many red shirts will certainly agree that the WOD was a tragedy, most are myopic when it comes to Thaksin’s role in it. I don’t attribute the blame wholly to Thaksin, but he’s certainly the most prominent figure and bears ultimate responsibility as premier (just, as, in the end, Abhisit does for Ratchaprasong etc, even though we know he was actually one of the moderates amongst those who organized the crackdown). Most red sympathisers know that it’s hard to square support for Thaksin with their concern for human rights, so look for mitigating factors which will excuse Thaksin. But as far as I’m concerned, there may well be mitigating factors, but he should never be excused and the deaths in the war on drugs should never be forgotten.
Of course, you’ll find some red shirts (and certainly not just red shirts, I know many Thais that despise Thaksin but still admire the war on drugs, including some self-describing “liberals”), try to paint the war on drugs as a good thing, as drug dealers are evil and a scourge etc. I’ve got zero sympathy for this view, even though I know first-hand what a huge problem methampetamine is in Thailand. Chastising people for their callousness towards the dead protesters, complaining about ill treament of red shirts is totally justified, but when you whitewash Thaksin’s own crimes, it’s very easy to ignore those arguments. Similarly there are people that roll on about the war on drugs, but whitewash anything the current government, does, so it works both ways.
As for Weng and Thida, I’m inclined to agree with you again. I mean on the one hand they’ve tried to distance themselves from Thaksin but on the other, in an interview with The Nation a couple of days ago, Thida says the red shirts will fight for Thaksin even if they’re bare handed. I was a bit surprised to read that, as it doesn’t square with other things she’s said. As far as I know both Thida and Weng were part of anti-Thaksin protests a mere five years ago, so surely they know that he’s not all that great? But I understand they can’t be too critical whilst playing a leading role in the movement. I hope when we look back in history, we’ll see that they were just brilliantly using Thaksin (as opposed to him using them) to achieve real social change… after all, you don’t achieve anything alone and at least there’s a genuine movement for change now, which is capable of overcoming its limitations and past mistakes to become a truly progressive force.
Is it really saying the unsayable?
Why is “ATM” so insulting ?
How hardline have the redshirts become?
Tarrin – 99
Maybe you should check first of where the figure came from?
Tarrin I have never used the 2275 number. I have little faith in newspaper stats. (I have to admit I used thousands when I should have probably used the singular thousand. ) At the same time the 72 number is obviously for police PR use. Let’s just take the homicide rate doubling from the start of Thaksin’s anti-drug campaign. That seems to be a safe bet doesn’t it? Or can we blame that thousand on a ‘third force’ like the UDD leadership use for so many of their more uncomfortable actions.
Nick Nostitz – 100
I am sorry, but i do not get the point you are trying to make here.
In 2006 some thought they could ‘have their cake and eat it too’. That is they could support the red shirts but still be anti-Thaksin. In the intervening four years their attacks on Thaksin have dwindled and almost disappeared while their defense of the worse excesses of Thaksin’s rule has almost become a mantra for them.
We should not forget that Thaksin was a corrupt authoritarian anti-democrat. That there are others just as bad or even worse doesn’t change this first point. It’s like arguing who was the worst, Hitler or Stalin. In the end the concentration camps of Hitler and Stalin’s gulags were all evil things.
Is it really saying the unsayable?
I’ve seen it in at least three bookshops, not including Asia Books. I think the title is misleading, it would have been more appropriate for Handley’s book. The book retains an academic refrain throughout and the writers choose their words carefully, in the vein of WORSHIPPING THE GREAT MORDERNIZER and LORDS OF THINGS, although unlike these, the current political situation is discussed.
Also recently released is a hardback book called SMILES OF THE KING detailing the King’s achievements and featuring many colour plates of him smiling. It is a high-profile release and sits next to THE STORY OF TONGDAENG in most bookshops.
Is it really saying the unsayable?
Silkworm, the Southeast Asia distributor, tells me that it is available in Bangkok at Asia Books, and to call specific branches to check if they have it in stock.
So much for “saying the unsayable.” 🙂
Is it really saying the unsayable?
I think ‘Hia sang ka’ would mean something like ‘the big boss who orders people to be killed’.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
“LesAbbey”:
I am sorry, but i do not get the point you are trying to make here.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
LesAbbey
Dear-oh-dear do you really need me to read between the lines for you. These were real bodies
Maybe you should check first of where the figure came from? its not that I said killing the small time dealer is ok but then, what is the real casualties here?
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from.html
From our good old BKKpundit it seems like the number was first mentioned by HRW (or the first the dramatized it).
Furthermore, if we are to talk about this extra-jurisdiction killing then someone should be working on who were responsible for the other 78 deaths (and several more that were later) during and after April-May 2010, I think they are very real right?
How hardline have the redshirts become?
#95 “Which then, if it would reach a large amount of supporters, would then not result in a violent crackdown by the state…?”
And this has happened umpteen times since 1932 precisely because there are members of the elite who have no qualms about sending people into the line of fire for the purposes of their own cash and power enrichment. The problem with both the redshirts and the yellow shirts is that that neither has any real strategy (other than that handed down to them) beyond direct confrontation. In each case since 1932, such short-term thinking has created the intended divide-&-rule mayhem, but has resulted in no tangible benefits for those at the bottom of the pile. Clearly, there are many here espousing confrontational ideas that have already failed this country abysmally on many occasions.
“Anyhow, there simply is not the infrastructure for a large enough socialist party, especially no organized labor unions to speak of. ”
Gi Ungkapakorn has often pointed out this mistake. Do we engage in the big gesture (supposed fasttrack) politics of direct confrontation (and no real social action) or in a less confrontational & more attritional longer-term approach. (Not that there is anything particular fasttrack about the abyssmal failure of Thai ‘democracy’ from 1932 to 2010.) Current day Thai labor unions have obviously been hijacked by criminals and/or those who have an interest in keeping them intentionally weak. They were basically abandoned by fashionista idealogues post 1976, after said clothes horses had become obsessed with the ‘overnight’ rural-based revolutions in some other countries in the region.
“Every social movement needs sponsorship by somebody or some organization that has money, eg. some “disgruntled” elite faction. A movement without money is romanticism and completely unrealistic. The PAD had massive sponsorship (not in the same vehemence investigated as Red Shirt sponsorship was).”
I am, of course, ALSO thinking about the PAD. At no point do you seem capable of addressing the very real problem of just WHO it is advisable to accept the sponsorship of. If you can’t also see the massive and highly dubious sponsorship of redshirts by self-interested individuals, then there really is no hope for you. There is a huge difference between socially-interested organizations & individuals and those who just aspire to running monopolies with fake reform credentials. And even then, I’m not sure I would really want to be on a ‘foundation’ payroll without knowing a great deal more about their real motivations. One could definitely argue that foundations have taken over a lot of the CIA’s grunt work, for example.
“Successful revolutions recently such as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and other in eastern Europe countries, had large amounts of money from US and European foundations (which could be in some way seen as even more questionable as Thaksin’s sponsorship of the Red Shirts as this is quite direct foreign involvement in national politics).”
You said it! The initial fervor is withering on many East European vines, as they captitulate the little they have won to the multinationals.
Truly weird how most of the contributors to this site are now so totally incapable of ever using the word socialist. Ain’t it always the same? The initially-obsessed repent like the drama queens they always have been.
Is it really saying the unsayable?
The book is not supposed to be simply an analysis of the palace’s role in recent events, it also tries to shed light on the phenomenon of the modern Thai monarchy, why it has become such a controversial subject and why Bhumibol personally is the object of such reverence. There is much of interest in terms of how the dynamics of this reverence have evolved, albiet not a great deal of new thinking for those well-versed in this subject. It does contain some interesting chapters by anonymous Thais.
Perhaps the book would not be the first choice for someone wanting a comprehensive account of contemporary Thai politics, but it certainly helps to shed light on a critical aspect of the latter.
Giles asserts that the military uses a weak palace as a legitimating mask. Those who sympathise with this argument would have to acknowledge that the palace must in fact wield some degree of influence by virtue of the military’s dependence on it. Were it to choose to come out in vocal opposition of a particular clique or interest group, this would clearly cause considerable public relations problems for that group.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
Nick Nostitz – 95
You should ask a different set of questions:
But then Nick we are back at that old chestnut of double standards. It’s not an argument. Just because others do it and get away with it doesn’t make it right. Thaksin had the chance to change the base of Thai politics and he blew it.
The UDD can stand up on the stage and say why is Thaksin attacked and prosecuted for this and that? Others do it. Look at the army or Abhisit or Suthem or Sanan or so on through the whole lot. They do it and they aren’t dragged into court.
The government does it because they can. Thaksin opened himself up to these attacks by being corrupt. If he had been clean, they could still have removed him, but now he would be sitting in exile organizing the red shirts without anyone like me being able to besmirch his character.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
c80
“It doesn’t work because it’s all on record and in in peoples, albeit weak for some of us, memory.”
To “weak” we should perhaps add “selective” – or how about “inventive”? Perhaps “partial” covers it best – as in being both incomplete and not impartial. Yes, most is “on record” and readily accessible with just a little effort – which makes it all the more curious that there’s quite so much blatant re-working of that historical record when it suits the writer’s purpose. And all the more ironic that this writer dwells so much on references to “Stalinist” re-writing of history…..
c93
“Dear-oh-dear do you really need me to read between the lines for you.”
Errrr……. no thanks. I neither need nor want a LesAbbey (or anyone else) to filter and predigest allegedly “on record” statements into easy-to-swallow doses of processed “truth-as-they-see-it” – particularly when they bring their own slant to misreporting what was actually said. Let’s see the original words (assuming Bangkok Dan provided a faithful report in the first place) and then make up our own minds as to the what and why of Weng’s replies. I welcome seeing others’ opinions on such things – but not what boils down to passing off their “take” as a matter of record.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
“Neverfree” said:
“In which case, it is obvious that one needs to start outside the jurisdiction of the EC. Let’s face it.”
Which then, if it would reach a large amount of supporters, would then not result in a violent crackdown by the state…?
Anyhow, there simply is not the infrastructure for a large enough socialist party, especially no organized labor unions to speak of.
Every social movement needs sponsorship by somebody or some organization that has money, eg. some “disgruntled” elite faction. A movement without money is romanticism and completely unrealistic. The PAD had massive sponsorship (not in the same vehemence investigated as Red Shirt sponsorship was).
Successful revolutions recently such as the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, and other in eastern Europe countries, had large amounts of money from US and European foundations (which could be in some way seen as even more questionable as Thaksin’s sponsorship of the Red Shirts as this is quite direct foreign involvement in national politics).
“LesAbbey” said:
“Do we all take the Weng view that it’s unproven so Thaksin must be innocent. Am I inventing Thaksin’s hard line in the South? Is that unproven also?”
You should ask a different set of questions:
Why has until today no government after Thaksin, including the Surayudh and the Abhisit government made any meaningful investigations into the many human rights violations under Thaksin’s government?
The only court case i can recall here in terms of the human rights violations was in the Tak Bai deaths, under this government, and the accused soldiers were cleared.
Why do the allegations against the military in terms of human rights violations in the South continue, as you can read in many statements by Human Rights Watch, ICC, etc.?
This does not exactly mean that we have seen on the post Thaksin governments any major change of policy regarding the three southern provinces.
Is it really saying the unsayable?
What is “Hia Sung Ka” supposed to mean? I’m fluent in Thai but the transliteration makes no sense.
Volunteer English teaching programs in Thai temples
A great idea in principle but it would be irresponsible not to inform foreign volunteers that, if that don’t have work permits, they will be liable for a fine of up to 100,000 baht and up to 5 years in prison under the 2008 Working of Aliens Act, even if they are not paid a salary, not to mention deportation at their own expense and possible blacklisting by Immigration.
Thai happiness spikes
The police were very happy because they were able to extort extra protection money from bars that wanted to serve alcohol which was being openly served in some places.
How hardline have the redshirts become?
#77 See Suttachai Yimprasert’s unsuccessful attempt last year to form a socialist party which was not allowed by the election commission.
In which case, it is obvious that one needs to start outside the jurisdiction of the EC. Let’s face it. The police are totally incapable of controlling any ‘crime’ here, least of all the political or quasi-political hoodlum stuff. Start with an illegal (named, none of this sentimental “we all love each other” cultural fake-up stuff) socialist party, and work for its legitimization through sheer numbers -rather than always looking for the supposed fasttrack of disgruntled elite faction sponsorship. Playing by the richman’s rules all the time has led to zero progress in any field since 1932.