I agree with Shan. Whomever they can do business with in any shape or form. Even those deemed beyond the pale such as the Burmese generals, given the first opportunity in showing some relaxation in the relentless repression which makes it rather untenable politically.
“International business circles” are mainly interested in stability. The classic concept of “left” and “right” has no meaning in Thailand, anyway. It’s completely irrelevant to the politics of today that some red key figures have been associated with communism in the 70s. That was yesterdays fashion. Today it’s globalization and democracy.
Free markets promise higher profits for “international business” than protected (partly nationalized) ones but the “circles” know what they can realistically expect from SEA countries and will gladly ally with ANY and EVERY system configuration that promises enough stability for mid-term business planning.
Even if you don’t think it’s possible to become fully self sufficient, you can still aim for partial self sufficiency in certain areas of your life.
Food is an obvious choice and for good reason. Prices keep going up while the quality and safety of that food is getting worse.
Plant some fruit trees, berry bushes, nut trees and strawberries. All of these food producers will happily yield a prolific amount of nutritious food within a few years of planting.
A vegetable garden can provide you with more food than you can handle and if you add some chickens or ducks to the mix, you will find that you can eat from your garden a great deal over the summer months.
Barter produce with neighbours or just give it away, you’ll often get a lot more in return, especially goodwill which is priceless.
Wow! And here I was thinking that Singapore was a squeaky clean country that had all forms of serious crime (the seedy kind) – drugs, trafficking of people, etc under control.
Is there organised crime in Singapore or just the PAP?
Not so much international business circles, more about local business circles getting worried. About two hours ago I walked past the SET Building on my way to the book fair and now we have railings and big gates around the block. We used to be able to walk across the entrance road of that building to get to the exhibition hall. Shame really.
Then again the last time I was there I watched a bunch of boys on motorbikes trying to burn it down. (I know they weren’t on bikes while trying to burn it down, they had got off them to do that.) Must have been those blue shirts or an army paid mob if some of the posters are to be believed.
Any one who thinks that Australia has a free press and not subject to government control must be typcal PC wanker,, any media that tried or did publish views not PC approved ie: racist etc. would be taken to task by law or threats or canceling of addvertising contracts, remember haveing racist views is a right, even if the are wrong,,,, for a start who is to decide racist views are wrong,, secondly even if they were , with real freedom of speach such views should be expressed,, freedom of speac will alway offend some one,, thats the nature of it,, with no real freedom of speach thereis no freedom,,, and freedom doe,s not just mean being able to get in your car and drive where you want to, or go about your business as you wish,, Australians live under a regime of political correctness oppression, regulated by are fined , punished, and stressed out by an over policed nanny state, give me Thailand any time
Singapore is open for all kinds of businesses, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, as long as the fine city state and her entrepreneurial citizens get their cuts or the commissions.
If one knows the right person and affords to pay the asking price one can easily buy kilos of heroin or container loads of 75mm reconciles rifles, delivered to wherever one wants.
But they are willing to stretch one’s neck nicely for having a few grams of heroin or a couple of bullets on one’s person through the airport.
SGD10,000 for a parking fine but no qualms about the value of peoples life i.e. death sentences or doing business with corrupt juntas that kill and maim their citizens.
I think we have to define what a `revolution` in Thailand could be. Till now in Thailand all parties are more defined by family connections and informal networks than by really programms. So I think it is more a fight to win the budget-basket and to have the control to make personal profit. That is not a really revolution and for that the buisness game is not changing to much, only the players will have maybe a different color. But I think there will not much happen in that in nearer future. Therefore the important power positions are now solid new occupied from the conservatives and the red network looks like effectively suppressed for a while.
Sure. Those democracies that actually have free and fair elections and as a result of those elections, the people that gain power are the ones that the people voted for.
I would say that the EU, US, Canada, Australia all qualify.
That I excluded other true democracies like Costa Rica, my bad. But don’t know enough about most of them.
As for PM Mark being able to get a few photo-ops it can be with the likes of Robert Mugabe or Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov or Robert Michael James Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury.
Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects?
No. The generals are back in charge. They know how to deal with generals.
The Thai elites wish to smother the rebirth of a democratic and popular movement in the cradle. They use all means to do this: prolongation of the state of emergency in numerous provinces, arrests in the hundreds, censorship and recourse to laws like the “crime” of lèse-majesté (punishable by 3 to 15 years in prison) or computing “crime” (which allows the blocking of thousands of Internet sites), institutional counter-reforms, reactivation of far right royalist militias, extra-judicial killings and so on. The regime benefits from the support given by the USA and to a lesser extent Europe which show little concern over the violation of human rights in the kingdom.
No problem from their point of view. They like dealing with the generals.
It would be really a pity, if Malaysia is left to its own devices, should Najib and UMNO resort to a Mugabe, Karzai or Musharaff style control of the government.
(a)Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects? (b) Or, to invert this question, would they be far more worried if the more leftist Reds looked like they were developing seriously revolutionary potential?
Answer to (a):
Anybody watching CNBC news, or even CNN, would frequently get a perspective of how ‘big international money’ views Thailand prospects, relative to other countries of the world of course. There is a need to mention though that ‘big international money’ is ‘hot money’, seeking yields for their investors and quick to bolt at any sniff of trouble, political or otherwise (remember the 1997 global financial crisis that started in Thailand?)
At the moment Thailand is right there among top five destinations for big international money flows (in not out). Les (#6) above already pointed out Bank of Thailand’s headaches trying to stem the money flows that’s causing unwanted impact on Thai exports and inflation. Primarily of course because of the economic/banking crisis in USA and almost every country in Europe. But also because international money men view Thailand as a financial (or even political) oasis amidst a turbulent world.
Answer to (b) –
But of course they (the moneymen) would be worried if there is a serious threat of revolution to threaten Thailand’s stability! But at this very moment, they don’t sense such a threat exists:
(1) The Nonthaburi explosion caused by a hardcore Red who accidentally self-detonated himself must have elevated bankers’ heartbeats for a few minutes, but news that the incident probably was an isolated case, and not widespread, quickly restored calm.
(2) No recognizable Red leader has surfaced so far who could lead the revolutionary charge. Not Arismun, not Ji, not anybody else.
(3) conclusion: The probability of a serious hardcore-leftist revolution surfacing within the next 2-5 years seem remote. And the Thai people expect an election (damn you Abhisit, why not hold the election NOW?) by end of year 2011. So how to justify a violent (Red) revolutionary uprising in the meantime, and who will lead????
Ask, demand, request, etc whatever word you like to use its all of the same meaning.
“Demand” is far more forceful than “ask” and is more likely to have an “or else” clause. The UDD demanded dissoultion of the House, but why should the government yield to such a demand when it is a legitimately elected government? In a parliamentary system, parties can join forces to form coalitions, just as the small parties in Thailand had done previously with PPP; this time they decided, as is their right, to form a coalition with the Democrats instead of Thaksin’s proxies. Those who lost power may not like it, but it gives them no right to take a large area of the city centre hostage and use military weapons to fight against the dispersal of their illegal occupation. The military on the other hand had a right to disperse the occupation to return the city centre to the ordinary people of Thailand, and the fact that the occupation lasted for two months before any action was taken is proof that they exercised a lot of restraint, prompting many ordinary people who wanted their city back to complain of lack of action. There were many requests and warnings given to protesters prior to any physical action.
violence doesn’t actually start until the military start their operation
On 10 April 2010 the military started their operations to disperse the protesters with tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets at the Phan Fa bridge, but armed militants siding with the UDD responded with M16 machine guns and M79 grenades. Soldiers were never ordered to shoot indiscriminately, and were only allowed to use real bullets in self defence. If the military had shot indiscriminately, there would have been many more than 25 people who died on that day. 5 of those deaths were soldiers. Col Romkhlao Thuvakam, deputy Army chief-of-staff from the Second Infantry Regiment in Prachin Buri, was killed by a gunshot to the head. Maj General Valit Rajanaphakdi, the chief of the Second Infantry Regiment, was seriously wounded, with his legs hit by an M79 grenade. Other key commanders also sustained wounds. It is likely that they were targetted. Why were there were no mention of these deaths in Amsterdam’s report? The renegade Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdiphol (“Seh Daeng”) bragged about the government soldiers losing this battle, and admitted that a group of fighters came over to assist them. Do you call this a peaceful democratic protest? They had no right to occupy public space for weeks, nor to respond with violence through the use of military weapons when an attempt was made to disperse (and not “massacre”) them after having been asked to do so over the prior few weeks.
You point to Amsterdam’s account of Abhisit’s offer of early elections (page 18), however it is a biased account with much detail omitted. The UDD made further demands before agreeing to disperse. They demanded a specific date of House dissolution, but that could be easily worked out based on Section 108 of the Constitution that stipulates that an election must be held between 45-60 days of a dissolution. They demanded Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban to report to police over the deaths on 10 April 2010. So Suthep appeared at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) the next day. However that didn’t satisfy the UDD, so they demanded that he report to the police’s Crime Suppression Division instead. It was a silly demand anyway – did they really expect Suthep to be charged and taken into custody? They also demanded UDD’s People’s TV channel to be restored. It was shut down under the State Of Emergency decree, so it couldn’t be restored unless the State Of Emergency decree was lifted, which shouldn’t happen any time before the protesters had fully dispersed. So it was a “Catch 22” situation. Abhisit was willing to compromise (setting an early election date was a huge compromise, as the government was under no legal obligation to do so), however the UDD was not willing to compromise and go along with his reconciliation road map. Their demands were not for the good of the people of Thailand, but for their own interests. They had the chance for early elections, and could have gone along with the offer even if they questioned Abhisit’s sincerity, as any kinks could have been worked out along the way. That path would have been in the best interest of the people of Thailand. They claim that they are fighting for democracy, but in reality that is just a facade; it is power that they are fighting for (and the money that comes with it), not any socio-political ideology.
If you want to talk about corruption in court, do you remember in June 2008 that three of Thaksin’s lawyers were sentenced to 6 months in jail for trying to bribe court judges with a bag containing 2M baht? This was when Thaksin’s PPP was in government with Samak Sundaravej as PM. I think Thaksin’s corruption far outweighs the corruption of any other person or group in Thailand, including the courts, and he should come back and face the charges instead of cowardly escaping them, living in self-exile as a fugitive criminal abroad.
You speak as if everything is fine so far as there’s an election, but did election solve anything? did the coup makes anything better?
Isn’t another election what the UDD has been demanding? Thaksin’s proxies got into power after the elections that followed the coup; they later lost power and now want elections again to try to get back into power. They mention the coup event in their argument “for democracy”, when they really aren’t fighting for democracy or for the good of the people of Thailand, but only for their own power and the money that comes along with it, money that comes from both the State and Thaksin (arguably the same).
you think the 92 people that die during April-May really die for Thaksin money?
Some of those who died were soldiers. Do you think they fought for free? They are paid to fight, so the soldiers do their job for money. People do a lot of things for money; I’m sure Thaksin himself is clearly aware of that fact. It is common knowledge that people were paid at least 500 baht per day just to attend the protests, which is much more than what most people in rural areas earn. It is alleged that the UUD leaders themselves earned millions; many people would accept such a lucrative position if they were offered it just for the money. Did you actually think the UDD leaders worked for free? During interviews, Robert Amsterdam, was often asked whether Thaksin was funding the protests. He never said “no”, as he would then by lying. His responses were always “that is not the issue”, and diverted back to his main talking point of the so-called brutality of the government.
Another point to consider is how the UDD used particular techniques to brainwash their followers. Being exposed to all the hate speech every day either on radio or at the protest sites would have had an effect on the mind of those who were subjected to it. I have walked through the Phan Fa protest site and encampment at around 03:00 after a night out at Khaosan Road, and the speeches were still going on and blasted loudly through massive speakers even though most people were asleep.
“The red shirt people have been told over and over that greedy people in authority have denied them justice and their fair share. They have been pumped full of toy-town leftism and told to hate every institution that has held this country together. I worry that the bitterness and hatred produced by this propaganda now runs so deep it will cause tension and problems for a long time,” Therdpoum said.
“Many of them are now absolutely convinced that Thaksin was the best leader in Thai history, that he was a kind and generous man who holds the solution to all their problems. They don’t need a program – they just need a new Thai state with Thaksin in charge. It has become very emotional – as it was designed to be,” he added.
How do you gauge which policies is long term or short term? last time I check Abhisit still continue using Thaksin’s policies only after he changed the name, so what are you trying to say here?
Yes, Abhisit still maintains Thaksin’s populist policies, and even has improved upon them (such as free healthcare instead of 30 baht), so what are people crying about if tey still have these policies that won the hearts of the poor? Is it a “first love is true love” thing? Or has it been the result of successful brainwashing?
One of the problems with Thaksin’s policies was the increased loans to farmers. Thaksin ordered Thailand’s state-owned banks to increase loans to farmers, villages and SMEs, and so banks often made loans without proper due diligence to people who had little means to repay the loans. This caused major consumer indebtedness. there are now around 80,000 farmers with non-performing loans. In June 2010, the Cabinet of the Abhisit government approved a programme under which four state banks will grant a 50% reduction of farmer’s debts, provided they join a related career-development plan. They will be allowed to clear their remaining debts over 15 years with special interest terms.
Pheu Thai and UDD, on the other hand, have had nothing to offer in the way of policies to help the people. All they have been ranting on about are elections, “democracy”, and anything that makes the Abhisit government look bad (such as Robert Amsterdam’s report). Recently, Chalerm has revealed his campaign platform for the next election: Thaksin. That’s his entire campaign platform! He even states “The future of Puea Thai does not depend on its political and economic policies. It depends on Thaksin. We can’t ignore this fact.” You can read about his strategy in these articles: Everybody’s Best Buddy Chalerm sees tough road ahead for party
Chalerm’s own sons have been involved in quite a bit of trouble, one major incident being the murder of Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Suwichai Rodwimuti in 2001.
Chalerm’s three sons acquired a public reputation for violence and troublemaking for their repeated involvement in altercations in Bangkok’s massage parlors and pubs. The phrase “Do you know whose son I am?” became associated with the three as a mark of derision for their abuse of their father’s political influence. They were involved in multiple lawsuits, which were usually settled out of court.
The most infamous of these cases was the 2001 murder of Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Suwichai Rodwimuti in a pub on Ratchadaphisek Road. Chalerm’s youngest son, Duangchalerm, fled the scene and eventually surrendered himself to authorities more than six months after the killing. Chalerm, fiercely protective of his son, threatened the press reporting on the case, resulting in a temporary press boycott of Chalerm. Following this incident Chalerm and his sons published a short-lived magazine criticizing the press for alleged unfair treatment.
The murder case was eventually dismissed by the Criminal Court when witnesses were unable to clearly identify Duangchalerm as the killer. During the investigation Chalerm had given a statement to the police claiming the true killer was Chalermchon Burisamai, or “Ai-Pued”, a close friend of his son’s. The police have not pursued a case against this man.
Pushing aside socio-political ideologies, which actually do not matter to those fighting over power, would you want to have people like Chalerm leading Thailand into the future?
Appreciating the fact that hatred of the hard-left is strong, both in Thailand and in quarters of the web (as in many other places, I might add)…
And yet Nich I suspect the real angry criticism of Rousset will again come from other members of the ‘hard’ left, probably from other parts of the Fourth International.
Anyway before answering your question the Rousset article is not wholly bad. In fact in some parts he takes a far more reasonable line than some of our posters. I don’t think he realizes though it wasn’t that the unions were unable to come to the aid of the UDD, it was that they didn’t want to. The state sector unions dislike Thaksin because of his neo-liberal pro-privatization policies.
So back to the question Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects? They don’t seem to be if capital inflows and the strength of the Baht are anything to go by. In fact local export orientated businessmen are losing their support of the Abhisit government because of its inability to stop the rise of the Baht. Then again if the red shirt occupation of Bangkok couldn’t bring down the value I’m not sure if the government can do much at all.
No need to worry for the business elite.
It will take a very long time until some fundamental change is coming.
The left still suffers from the eliminations of the 1976 aftermath. And a typical thai peasant is much more political illiterate then a south american peasant thanks to the 80 years of constant brainwashing and trained obedience.
The worst Thai enemy to the international business elite is still a thai loving judge with his very flexible interpretation of contracts.
I don’t really see a point here. Are you really expecting that NoBoCho will nationalize private enterprizes when they come to power? For me this sounds a bit far off reality. First, if they really get a foothold into parliamentary Thai politics and grow stronger towards a majority in the parliament, business elites will try to change the political camps and align with them – as usual. Second, the heavily monetarized society in Thailand will not stop in seeking economic profit. Therefore, it doesn’t matter who is in power..
There was some concern about a young lady last year who had the temerity not to stand up during the anthem, and after it made an insulting gesture and shouting something impolite. Well, she got off on extenuating circumstances. Having translated most of the judgment in her case, I found that she had been given probation, reduced from a guilty 1.5 yr. sentence, because she was declared mentally unstable and paranoid, fearing someone would harm her. A psychiatrist testified on her behalf and was able to convince the court she was really not in control of her faculties.
Note that she had been found initially guilty, given three years, but reduced to half with the guilty plea. Wonder if any lawyer is ever present at these guilty pleas.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Come the revolution?
I agree with Shan. Whomever they can do business with in any shape or form. Even those deemed beyond the pale such as the Burmese generals, given the first opportunity in showing some relaxation in the relentless repression which makes it rather untenable politically.
Come the revolution?
“International business circles” are mainly interested in stability. The classic concept of “left” and “right” has no meaning in Thailand, anyway. It’s completely irrelevant to the politics of today that some red key figures have been associated with communism in the 70s. That was yesterdays fashion. Today it’s globalization and democracy.
Free markets promise higher profits for “international business” than protected (partly nationalized) ones but the “circles” know what they can realistically expect from SEA countries and will gladly ally with ANY and EVERY system configuration that promises enough stability for mid-term business planning.
Self-sufficient Pyramid Scheme
Even if you don’t think it’s possible to become fully self sufficient, you can still aim for partial self sufficiency in certain areas of your life.
Food is an obvious choice and for good reason. Prices keep going up while the quality and safety of that food is getting worse.
Plant some fruit trees, berry bushes, nut trees and strawberries. All of these food producers will happily yield a prolific amount of nutritious food within a few years of planting.
A vegetable garden can provide you with more food than you can handle and if you add some chickens or ducks to the mix, you will find that you can eat from your garden a great deal over the summer months.
Barter produce with neighbours or just give it away, you’ll often get a lot more in return, especially goodwill which is priceless.
Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock
Wow! And here I was thinking that Singapore was a squeaky clean country that had all forms of serious crime (the seedy kind) – drugs, trafficking of people, etc under control.
Is there organised crime in Singapore or just the PAP?
Come the revolution?
Not so much international business circles, more about local business circles getting worried. About two hours ago I walked past the SET Building on my way to the book fair and now we have railings and big gates around the block. We used to be able to walk across the entrance road of that building to get to the exhibition hall. Shame really.
Then again the last time I was there I watched a bunch of boys on motorbikes trying to burn it down. (I know they weren’t on bikes while trying to burn it down, they had got off them to do that.) Must have been those blue shirts or an army paid mob if some of the posters are to be believed.
The Embassy and the ABC
Any one who thinks that Australia has a free press and not subject to government control must be typcal PC wanker,, any media that tried or did publish views not PC approved ie: racist etc. would be taken to task by law or threats or canceling of addvertising contracts, remember haveing racist views is a right, even if the are wrong,,,, for a start who is to decide racist views are wrong,, secondly even if they were , with real freedom of speach such views should be expressed,, freedom of speac will alway offend some one,, thats the nature of it,, with no real freedom of speach thereis no freedom,,, and freedom doe,s not just mean being able to get in your car and drive where you want to, or go about your business as you wish,, Australians live under a regime of political correctness oppression, regulated by are fined , punished, and stressed out by an over policed nanny state, give me Thailand any time
Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock
Singapore is open for all kinds of businesses, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, as long as the fine city state and her entrepreneurial citizens get their cuts or the commissions.
If one knows the right person and affords to pay the asking price one can easily buy kilos of heroin or container loads of 75mm reconciles rifles, delivered to wherever one wants.
But they are willing to stretch one’s neck nicely for having a few grams of heroin or a couple of bullets on one’s person through the airport.
That’s Singapore for Dummies!
Democrat dissolution videos
3 additional clips has been uploaded,
http://www.youtube.com/user/ohmygod3009#p/c/F6A8A0BFF8C7DFC8
Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock
Quite a weird universe, don’t you think.
SGD10,000 for a parking fine but no qualms about the value of peoples life i.e. death sentences or doing business with corrupt juntas that kill and maim their citizens.
Singapore is a very fine city indeed.
Come the revolution?
I think we have to define what a `revolution` in Thailand could be. Till now in Thailand all parties are more defined by family connections and informal networks than by really programms. So I think it is more a fight to win the budget-basket and to have the control to make personal profit. That is not a really revolution and for that the buisness game is not changing to much, only the players will have maybe a different color. But I think there will not much happen in that in nearer future. Therefore the important power positions are now solid new occupied from the conservatives and the red network looks like effectively suppressed for a while.
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
‘respectable western leaders in true democracies’
elaborate
Sure. Those democracies that actually have free and fair elections and as a result of those elections, the people that gain power are the ones that the people voted for.
I would say that the EU, US, Canada, Australia all qualify.
That I excluded other true democracies like Costa Rica, my bad. But don’t know enough about most of them.
As for PM Mark being able to get a few photo-ops it can be with the likes of Robert Mugabe or Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov or Robert Michael James Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury.
Come the revolution?
Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects?
No. The generals are back in charge. They know how to deal with generals.
No problem from their point of view. They like dealing with the generals.
Nick Nostitz in the killing zone
[…] […]
UMNO dies defending Putrajaya
It would be really a pity, if Malaysia is left to its own devices, should Najib and UMNO resort to a Mugabe, Karzai or Musharaff style control of the government.
Come the revolution?
(a)Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects? (b) Or, to invert this question, would they be far more worried if the more leftist Reds looked like they were developing seriously revolutionary potential?
Answer to (a):
Anybody watching CNBC news, or even CNN, would frequently get a perspective of how ‘big international money’ views Thailand prospects, relative to other countries of the world of course. There is a need to mention though that ‘big international money’ is ‘hot money’, seeking yields for their investors and quick to bolt at any sniff of trouble, political or otherwise (remember the 1997 global financial crisis that started in Thailand?)
At the moment Thailand is right there among top five destinations for big international money flows (in not out). Les (#6) above already pointed out Bank of Thailand’s headaches trying to stem the money flows that’s causing unwanted impact on Thai exports and inflation. Primarily of course because of the economic/banking crisis in USA and almost every country in Europe. But also because international money men view Thailand as a financial (or even political) oasis amidst a turbulent world.
Answer to (b) –
But of course they (the moneymen) would be worried if there is a serious threat of revolution to threaten Thailand’s stability! But at this very moment, they don’t sense such a threat exists:
(1) The Nonthaburi explosion caused by a hardcore Red who accidentally self-detonated himself must have elevated bankers’ heartbeats for a few minutes, but news that the incident probably was an isolated case, and not widespread, quickly restored calm.
(2) No recognizable Red leader has surfaced so far who could lead the revolutionary charge. Not Arismun, not Ji, not anybody else.
(3) conclusion: The probability of a serious hardcore-leftist revolution surfacing within the next 2-5 years seem remote. And the Thai people expect an election (damn you Abhisit, why not hold the election NOW?) by end of year 2011. So how to justify a violent (Red) revolutionary uprising in the meantime, and who will lead????
Robert Amsterdam’s preliminary submission to the International Criminal Court
Ask, demand, request, etc whatever word you like to use its all of the same meaning.
“Demand” is far more forceful than “ask” and is more likely to have an “or else” clause. The UDD demanded dissoultion of the House, but why should the government yield to such a demand when it is a legitimately elected government? In a parliamentary system, parties can join forces to form coalitions, just as the small parties in Thailand had done previously with PPP; this time they decided, as is their right, to form a coalition with the Democrats instead of Thaksin’s proxies. Those who lost power may not like it, but it gives them no right to take a large area of the city centre hostage and use military weapons to fight against the dispersal of their illegal occupation. The military on the other hand had a right to disperse the occupation to return the city centre to the ordinary people of Thailand, and the fact that the occupation lasted for two months before any action was taken is proof that they exercised a lot of restraint, prompting many ordinary people who wanted their city back to complain of lack of action. There were many requests and warnings given to protesters prior to any physical action.
violence doesn’t actually start until the military start their operation
On 10 April 2010 the military started their operations to disperse the protesters with tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets at the Phan Fa bridge, but armed militants siding with the UDD responded with M16 machine guns and M79 grenades. Soldiers were never ordered to shoot indiscriminately, and were only allowed to use real bullets in self defence. If the military had shot indiscriminately, there would have been many more than 25 people who died on that day. 5 of those deaths were soldiers. Col Romkhlao Thuvakam, deputy Army chief-of-staff from the Second Infantry Regiment in Prachin Buri, was killed by a gunshot to the head. Maj General Valit Rajanaphakdi, the chief of the Second Infantry Regiment, was seriously wounded, with his legs hit by an M79 grenade. Other key commanders also sustained wounds. It is likely that they were targetted. Why were there were no mention of these deaths in Amsterdam’s report? The renegade Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdiphol (“Seh Daeng”) bragged about the government soldiers losing this battle, and admitted that a group of fighters came over to assist them. Do you call this a peaceful democratic protest? They had no right to occupy public space for weeks, nor to respond with violence through the use of military weapons when an attempt was made to disperse (and not “massacre”) them after having been asked to do so over the prior few weeks.
You point to Amsterdam’s account of Abhisit’s offer of early elections (page 18), however it is a biased account with much detail omitted. The UDD made further demands before agreeing to disperse. They demanded a specific date of House dissolution, but that could be easily worked out based on Section 108 of the Constitution that stipulates that an election must be held between 45-60 days of a dissolution. They demanded Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban to report to police over the deaths on 10 April 2010. So Suthep appeared at the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) the next day. However that didn’t satisfy the UDD, so they demanded that he report to the police’s Crime Suppression Division instead. It was a silly demand anyway – did they really expect Suthep to be charged and taken into custody? They also demanded UDD’s People’s TV channel to be restored. It was shut down under the State Of Emergency decree, so it couldn’t be restored unless the State Of Emergency decree was lifted, which shouldn’t happen any time before the protesters had fully dispersed. So it was a “Catch 22” situation. Abhisit was willing to compromise (setting an early election date was a huge compromise, as the government was under no legal obligation to do so), however the UDD was not willing to compromise and go along with his reconciliation road map. Their demands were not for the good of the people of Thailand, but for their own interests. They had the chance for early elections, and could have gone along with the offer even if they questioned Abhisit’s sincerity, as any kinks could have been worked out along the way. That path would have been in the best interest of the people of Thailand. They claim that they are fighting for democracy, but in reality that is just a facade; it is power that they are fighting for (and the money that comes with it), not any socio-political ideology.
If you want to talk about corruption in court, do you remember in June 2008 that three of Thaksin’s lawyers were sentenced to 6 months in jail for trying to bribe court judges with a bag containing 2M baht? This was when Thaksin’s PPP was in government with Samak Sundaravej as PM. I think Thaksin’s corruption far outweighs the corruption of any other person or group in Thailand, including the courts, and he should come back and face the charges instead of cowardly escaping them, living in self-exile as a fugitive criminal abroad.
You speak as if everything is fine so far as there’s an election, but did election solve anything? did the coup makes anything better?
Isn’t another election what the UDD has been demanding? Thaksin’s proxies got into power after the elections that followed the coup; they later lost power and now want elections again to try to get back into power. They mention the coup event in their argument “for democracy”, when they really aren’t fighting for democracy or for the good of the people of Thailand, but only for their own power and the money that comes along with it, money that comes from both the State and Thaksin (arguably the same).
you think the 92 people that die during April-May really die for Thaksin money?
Some of those who died were soldiers. Do you think they fought for free? They are paid to fight, so the soldiers do their job for money. People do a lot of things for money; I’m sure Thaksin himself is clearly aware of that fact. It is common knowledge that people were paid at least 500 baht per day just to attend the protests, which is much more than what most people in rural areas earn. It is alleged that the UUD leaders themselves earned millions; many people would accept such a lucrative position if they were offered it just for the money. Did you actually think the UDD leaders worked for free? During interviews, Robert Amsterdam, was often asked whether Thaksin was funding the protests. He never said “no”, as he would then by lying. His responses were always “that is not the issue”, and diverted back to his main talking point of the so-called brutality of the government.
Another point to consider is how the UDD used particular techniques to brainwash their followers. Being exposed to all the hate speech every day either on radio or at the protest sites would have had an effect on the mind of those who were subjected to it. I have walked through the Phan Fa protest site and encampment at around 03:00 after a night out at Khaosan Road, and the speeches were still going on and blasted loudly through massive speakers even though most people were asleep.
I found this particular article very illuminating: Thai power grows from the barrel of a gun
Here is an excerpt:
“The red shirt people have been told over and over that greedy people in authority have denied them justice and their fair share. They have been pumped full of toy-town leftism and told to hate every institution that has held this country together. I worry that the bitterness and hatred produced by this propaganda now runs so deep it will cause tension and problems for a long time,” Therdpoum said.
“Many of them are now absolutely convinced that Thaksin was the best leader in Thai history, that he was a kind and generous man who holds the solution to all their problems. They don’t need a program – they just need a new Thai state with Thaksin in charge. It has become very emotional – as it was designed to be,” he added.
How do you gauge which policies is long term or short term? last time I check Abhisit still continue using Thaksin’s policies only after he changed the name, so what are you trying to say here?
Yes, Abhisit still maintains Thaksin’s populist policies, and even has improved upon them (such as free healthcare instead of 30 baht), so what are people crying about if tey still have these policies that won the hearts of the poor? Is it a “first love is true love” thing? Or has it been the result of successful brainwashing?
One of the problems with Thaksin’s policies was the increased loans to farmers. Thaksin ordered Thailand’s state-owned banks to increase loans to farmers, villages and SMEs, and so banks often made loans without proper due diligence to people who had little means to repay the loans. This caused major consumer indebtedness. there are now around 80,000 farmers with non-performing loans. In June 2010, the Cabinet of the Abhisit government approved a programme under which four state banks will grant a 50% reduction of farmer’s debts, provided they join a related career-development plan. They will be allowed to clear their remaining debts over 15 years with special interest terms.
There are plenty of other policies the Abhisit government have been putting into place for the people of Thailand, too many to mention here, so I’ll provide a link: Populist policies in the work ahead of next election in 2011
Pheu Thai and UDD, on the other hand, have had nothing to offer in the way of policies to help the people. All they have been ranting on about are elections, “democracy”, and anything that makes the Abhisit government look bad (such as Robert Amsterdam’s report). Recently, Chalerm has revealed his campaign platform for the next election: Thaksin. That’s his entire campaign platform! He even states “The future of Puea Thai does not depend on its political and economic policies. It depends on Thaksin. We can’t ignore this fact.” You can read about his strategy in these articles:
Everybody’s Best Buddy
Chalerm sees tough road ahead for party
Chalerm’s own sons have been involved in quite a bit of trouble, one major incident being the murder of Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Suwichai Rodwimuti in 2001.
Chalerm’s three sons acquired a public reputation for violence and troublemaking for their repeated involvement in altercations in Bangkok’s massage parlors and pubs. The phrase “Do you know whose son I am?” became associated with the three as a mark of derision for their abuse of their father’s political influence. They were involved in multiple lawsuits, which were usually settled out of court.
The most infamous of these cases was the 2001 murder of Pol. Sen. Sgt. Maj. Suwichai Rodwimuti in a pub on Ratchadaphisek Road. Chalerm’s youngest son, Duangchalerm, fled the scene and eventually surrendered himself to authorities more than six months after the killing. Chalerm, fiercely protective of his son, threatened the press reporting on the case, resulting in a temporary press boycott of Chalerm. Following this incident Chalerm and his sons published a short-lived magazine criticizing the press for alleged unfair treatment.
The murder case was eventually dismissed by the Criminal Court when witnesses were unable to clearly identify Duangchalerm as the killer. During the investigation Chalerm had given a statement to the police claiming the true killer was Chalermchon Burisamai, or “Ai-Pued”, a close friend of his son’s. The police have not pursued a case against this man.
Source: Chalerm Ubumrung
Pushing aside socio-political ideologies, which actually do not matter to those fighting over power, would you want to have people like Chalerm leading Thailand into the future?
Come the revolution?
Appreciating the fact that hatred of the hard-left is strong, both in Thailand and in quarters of the web (as in many other places, I might add)…
And yet Nich I suspect the real angry criticism of Rousset will again come from other members of the ‘hard’ left, probably from other parts of the Fourth International.
Anyway before answering your question the Rousset article is not wholly bad. In fact in some parts he takes a far more reasonable line than some of our posters. I don’t think he realizes though it wasn’t that the unions were unable to come to the aid of the UDD, it was that they didn’t want to. The state sector unions dislike Thaksin because of his neo-liberal pro-privatization policies.
So back to the question Are “international business circles” genuinely worried about Thailand’s current condition and future prospects? They don’t seem to be if capital inflows and the strength of the Baht are anything to go by. In fact local export orientated businessmen are losing their support of the Abhisit government because of its inability to stop the rise of the Baht. Then again if the red shirt occupation of Bangkok couldn’t bring down the value I’m not sure if the government can do much at all.
Come the revolution?
No need to worry for the business elite.
It will take a very long time until some fundamental change is coming.
The left still suffers from the eliminations of the 1976 aftermath. And a typical thai peasant is much more political illiterate then a south american peasant thanks to the 80 years of constant brainwashing and trained obedience.
The worst Thai enemy to the international business elite is still a thai loving judge with his very flexible interpretation of contracts.
Come the revolution?
I don’t really see a point here. Are you really expecting that NoBoCho will nationalize private enterprizes when they come to power? For me this sounds a bit far off reality. First, if they really get a foothold into parliamentary Thai politics and grow stronger towards a majority in the parliament, business elites will try to change the political camps and align with them – as usual. Second, the heavily monetarized society in Thailand will not stop in seeking economic profit. Therefore, it doesn’t matter who is in power..
Come the revolution?
There was some concern about a young lady last year who had the temerity not to stand up during the anthem, and after it made an insulting gesture and shouting something impolite. Well, she got off on extenuating circumstances. Having translated most of the judgment in her case, I found that she had been given probation, reduced from a guilty 1.5 yr. sentence, because she was declared mentally unstable and paranoid, fearing someone would harm her. A psychiatrist testified on her behalf and was able to convince the court she was really not in control of her faculties.
Note that she had been found initially guilty, given three years, but reduced to half with the guilty plea. Wonder if any lawyer is ever present at these guilty pleas.