“faux outrage at the financial backing allegedly received by the red shirt protesters.”
Well perhaps you shouldn’t set too much store by what this government thinks. Practically all Thai politics is airhead posturing anyway. Try talking to people who haven’t yet sold out to either side, for example. You aren’t going to provide us with any “new perspectives” if you continue to make excuses for those who have been playing this moronic game of succession poker for decades. The trouble with New Mandala and Bangkok Pundit is this. You have become so addicted to the soap opera of Thai politics that you too have become an integral part of the endless plot of screaming, slapping and backstabbing harridans.
All revolutions are financed by someone or other, usually foreign powers. The Tibetan government in exile for example is financed by the CIA about which the Beijing makes a big issue of course.
What is usual about the red movement is that it financed by private commercial interests, which is perhaps the wave of the future….
And are you suggesting that the Burmese pro-democracy movement does not have financial backers? Seriously?
In answer to my –
To those that argue that legitimate pro-democracy movements need this funding to get poor people into the streets, could they tell us who was the billionaire behind the Burmese protesters? Do you think maybe there wasn’t one?
Well go on Andrew tell me who the billionaire was in Burma? How much were the monks getting paid per day? How much did the last protest cost?
Make it even easier Andrew. Don’t limit it to Burma. Where else in the world over the entire history of man has a legitimate pro-democracy movement been funded almost only by one billionaire and his family? I’m sure there must be at least one or two, isn’t there? If not we must be in a unique situation.
Now as for political parties being funded by rich people, we know that far to well, but that is not what you seem to be arguing for.
No straw man here Les. How much do political campaigns cost in other countries? And are you suggesting that the Burmese pro-democracy movement does not have financial backers? Seriously?
Thanks John Spies: “and generally they do vote for the person who paid them”. How do you know? Or are people in your village sufficiently immoral to sell their votes but insufficienly immoral to lie?
Or maybe one of the professors has an answer. It can’t just be in Thailand 2009/2010 can it?
But a test would be when in Thailand, or where else in the world, has a legitimate pro-democracy movement paid its supporters to protest for weeks on end with the money coming from, in the main, one man and his family?
Andrew did you just put up the post to be a straw man? Or do you see it as the invention of a new way of building a real pro-democracy movement.
To those that argue that legitimate pro-democracy movements need this funding to get poor people into the streets, could they tell us who was the billionaire behind the Burmese protesters? Do you think maybe there wasn’t one?
If you need to be paid to go to a protest, should you be considered a protester or an employee? Are your political grievances your own, or that of your patron?
Paid protesters aren’t “people power”. They are lackeys doing the bidding of their elite masters. Mercenaries, not revolutionaries.
You guys are still missing the point – Please answer for the “yellows” first or ask the”yellows” to answer. The “reds” and their backers does not have a monopoly of protests – violent or otherwise. Why the persecution on the “reds” or sorry prosecution.
People in my village in Northern Thailand are offered and accept money for every election – from village headman to kamnan to tambon administration representatives and parliamentarians . It is now around 500 baht per person per election, and generally they do vote for the person who paid them. Obvious to all is the fact that the elected persons will recoup their ‘investment’, just as the finacial backers of the red shirts intended to. Corruption and diversion of budgets on the village level is a reason for much grumbling but very few people dare to complain or resist. Bullets are cheap! In Thailand, wealthy individuals do not ‘invest’ millions of baht for altruistic goals like ‘democracy’. The people who are capable of providing the level of finacial support that Andrew talks about (and finds no problem with) paid the red shirt leaders and protesters to essentially bring down the government. It was an investment opportunity. It is a sorry state of affairs when people with genuine greivances can be and allow themselves to be manipulated by wealthy individuals who are spending/reinvesting for less noble reasons.
My questions for Andrew are: Does the source of the money matter? Must the backers be Thai citizens, or any entity with their own agenda? Would it be ok for the Thai government, for example, to finance a protest movement in Myanmar with the intention of bringing down the junta?
If the protest turns violent, as it did in Bangkok, and war weapons are used by some supporters of the protest movement, should the backers be at all responsible for the outcome? Or can they just say they had no power over how their money was spent and are therefore not to be held accountable. Would it be different if Taksin knew his money was finacing MIB who intended to fire back at soldiers?
Perhaps after so many years and elections TRT/PPP/PTP stronghold in many areas doesn’t need any extra headmen support, ditto for the Democrat voting areas.
On the other hand, we have former House Speaker Yongyudh busted for buying off govt officials from a whole region, not sure if there were any headmen among them.
I guess he felt it was pretty important to bring them all to Bangkok (they were from Chiang Rai) and show them his party generosity.
There was P-net or some similar organization report on 2000 elections that detailed how the vote buying worked in the provinces then, and there was an article on Prachatai about a year ago about local Tamboon elections in the North. Still not much hope for “democracy” there.
I have interviewed with a villager from Renu-Nakhon district, Nakhonpanom province (North Eastern region of Thailand) who visited her family in Melbourne last week. She said that Hua-Kanan (Voting-Recruiter) is the person who persuades many people to vote for a person in the election. Every Thai political party also has Hua-Kanan in every village where people are so poor. They normally offered 500 baht for voting a person in the election (minimum rate is 500 Baht).
During Red-Shirt rally days, she told me that Hau-Kanan earned salary approximately 1 million baht per month because they help Taksin to recruit many villagers to join the red shirt rally in Bangkok. Hau-kanan promised to pay villager 500 baht per day including free meals during the protest.
I asked her why villagers decided to go for the protest in Bangkok. She told me that villagers were so poor. They had no choice. The most of them had nothing to eat and high debt. She says “It doesn’t matter which side is good or bad. It doesn’t matter with a real democracy or a fake one. They are going to die. They have nothing to eat. If there has a helping hand that offer them money. They would join that side.”
What do you think? The real problem is not just people education but it is also poverty problem. Who’s going to fix this problem under high corruption everywhere in Thailand?
Les Abbey: “they failed in that when the UDD leaders gave up the leadership and left their supporters to the mercy of the army, there was nobody from the left ready to jump in and take control”.
Maybe there was a shortage of bullet proof armor at that point in time?
(or perhaps those potential left leaders were already in exile, or on the way to the detention camps?)
Adding to my previous comment let me also say why I think some on the left got it so very very wrong.
It must have been so tempting while trying to build a movement to protest the 2006 coup to link themselves to the pro-Thaksin movement even though up until that point they had been very anti-Thaksin. Maybe they looked at the numbers of people from outside their usual academic world they would have access to. Maybe the thought of being able to hire a ten-wheeler to carry a big sound system on demonstrations. Maybe the pro-Thaksin leaders said they could talk about class warfare on the stages. Maybe they said we will the money but not lose our principles.
Whatever the impetus it was like being a little bit pregnant or taking money for sex, just this one time. It doesn’t work that way. The rhetoric against Thaksin becomes more muted until you end up with good men like Dr. Weng defending each unpleasant action that Thaksin ever directed.
Those on the left that merged into the red shirts ended up being corrupted Thaksin’s money. They became just propagandists for him. If the hidden intention was to take over the movement and turn it into a true pro-democracy or socialist revolutionary organization, they failed in that when the UDD leaders gave up the leadership and left their supporters to the mercy of the army, there was nobody from the left ready to jump in and take control.
Should they be discredited because of a more centralized organization and money coming from a small number of big sources instead of a large number of small sources?
Answering T and a number of the other comments, I think yes is the answer. As the financial data starts to leak out it becomes hard to dismiss the thought that Thaksin was buying a movement. Were there people there that believed it was a fight for democracy and would have been there for nothing? Of course. But that will not change the facts.
It’s all about the terrible corrupting influence that money has on Thai politics, and this isn’t only from Thaksin and his friends. In fact we can see it in other countries like America where money plays such a large pert in political campaigns .
But a test would be when in Thailand, or where else in the world, has a legitimate pro-democracy movement paid its supporters to protest for weeks on end with the money coming from, in the main, one man and his family?
[…] by former Prime Minister Thaksin with a very large amount of money, for example, because of what I reported about the 7 October 2008 clash at Government house between police and yellow shirts, first […]
You really think the situation is in any way comparable to the 68s in the western world? In the west, we are talking about people who usually
– had strong ideologies, political ideas,
– didn’t focus on living standards / material well-being,
– didn’t need to worry about being out of work for weeks, that is, had sufficient means to support themselves (food and shelter), and no dependent family,
– came from a society were individualism was seen as positive, …..
What I’m saying is that when people have an ideological agenda (no war, communism, whatever) their motivation is quite a different one, especially when time and money are not an issue, and when they live in (or are fighting for) a society in which individualism is highly appreciated – individualism as opposed to group-oriented “fitting in”. I believe this would, at least partly, apply to the students in 73/76 as well, wouldn’t it? Even these people couldn’t have done without money, only that the financial burden was taken by lots of small shoulders. Sure there are numbers out there on the “cost” of these protests …
So yes, I would say that in Thailand 2010 we are talking about little politicized people from a hierarchical, group-oriented society who were mainly fighting for their own good – that is, having their say in the political process, which they see is taken away from them whenever an elected government gets overthrown.
Should they be discredited because of a more centralized organization and money coming from a small number of big sources instead of a large number of small sources? Could they really have afforded to pay for transportation, food and their families at home? Is protest only legitimate if one can pay for it oneself, no matter how little spare money is available?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
“faux outrage at the financial backing allegedly received by the red shirt protesters.”
Well perhaps you shouldn’t set too much store by what this government thinks. Practically all Thai politics is airhead posturing anyway. Try talking to people who haven’t yet sold out to either side, for example. You aren’t going to provide us with any “new perspectives” if you continue to make excuses for those who have been playing this moronic game of succession poker for decades. The trouble with New Mandala and Bangkok Pundit is this. You have become so addicted to the soap opera of Thai politics that you too have become an integral part of the endless plot of screaming, slapping and backstabbing harridans.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
All revolutions are financed by someone or other, usually foreign powers. The Tibetan government in exile for example is financed by the CIA about which the Beijing makes a big issue of course.
What is usual about the red movement is that it financed by private commercial interests, which is perhaps the wave of the future….
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Andrew – 20
And are you suggesting that the Burmese pro-democracy movement does not have financial backers? Seriously?
In answer to my –
To those that argue that legitimate pro-democracy movements need this funding to get poor people into the streets, could they tell us who was the billionaire behind the Burmese protesters? Do you think maybe there wasn’t one?
Well go on Andrew tell me who the billionaire was in Burma? How much were the monks getting paid per day? How much did the last protest cost?
Make it even easier Andrew. Don’t limit it to Burma. Where else in the world over the entire history of man has a legitimate pro-democracy movement been funded almost only by one billionaire and his family? I’m sure there must be at least one or two, isn’t there? If not we must be in a unique situation.
Now as for political parties being funded by rich people, we know that far to well, but that is not what you seem to be arguing for.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
No straw man here Les. How much do political campaigns cost in other countries? And are you suggesting that the Burmese pro-democracy movement does not have financial backers? Seriously?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Thanks John Spies: “and generally they do vote for the person who paid them”. How do you know? Or are people in your village sufficiently immoral to sell their votes but insufficienly immoral to lie?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Nganadeeleg – 12
Care to answer my last question?
Or maybe one of the professors has an answer. It can’t just be in Thailand 2009/2010 can it?
But a test would be when in Thailand, or where else in the world, has a legitimate pro-democracy movement paid its supporters to protest for weeks on end with the money coming from, in the main, one man and his family?
Andrew did you just put up the post to be a straw man? Or do you see it as the invention of a new way of building a real pro-democracy movement.
To those that argue that legitimate pro-democracy movements need this funding to get poor people into the streets, could they tell us who was the billionaire behind the Burmese protesters? Do you think maybe there wasn’t one?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
If you need to be paid to go to a protest, should you be considered a protester or an employee? Are your political grievances your own, or that of your patron?
Paid protesters aren’t “people power”. They are lackeys doing the bidding of their elite masters. Mercenaries, not revolutionaries.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
You guys are still missing the point – Please answer for the “yellows” first or ask the”yellows” to answer. The “reds” and their backers does not have a monopoly of protests – violent or otherwise. Why the persecution on the “reds” or sorry prosecution.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
People in my village in Northern Thailand are offered and accept money for every election – from village headman to kamnan to tambon administration representatives and parliamentarians . It is now around 500 baht per person per election, and generally they do vote for the person who paid them. Obvious to all is the fact that the elected persons will recoup their ‘investment’, just as the finacial backers of the red shirts intended to. Corruption and diversion of budgets on the village level is a reason for much grumbling but very few people dare to complain or resist. Bullets are cheap! In Thailand, wealthy individuals do not ‘invest’ millions of baht for altruistic goals like ‘democracy’. The people who are capable of providing the level of finacial support that Andrew talks about (and finds no problem with) paid the red shirt leaders and protesters to essentially bring down the government. It was an investment opportunity. It is a sorry state of affairs when people with genuine greivances can be and allow themselves to be manipulated by wealthy individuals who are spending/reinvesting for less noble reasons.
My questions for Andrew are: Does the source of the money matter? Must the backers be Thai citizens, or any entity with their own agenda? Would it be ok for the Thai government, for example, to finance a protest movement in Myanmar with the intention of bringing down the junta?
If the protest turns violent, as it did in Bangkok, and war weapons are used by some supporters of the protest movement, should the backers be at all responsible for the outcome? Or can they just say they had no power over how their money was spent and are therefore not to be held accountable. Would it be different if Taksin knew his money was finacing MIB who intended to fire back at soldiers?
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Perhaps after so many years and elections TRT/PPP/PTP stronghold in many areas doesn’t need any extra headmen support, ditto for the Democrat voting areas.
On the other hand, we have former House Speaker Yongyudh busted for buying off govt officials from a whole region, not sure if there were any headmen among them.
I guess he felt it was pretty important to bring them all to Bangkok (they were from Chiang Rai) and show them his party generosity.
There was P-net or some similar organization report on 2000 elections that detailed how the vote buying worked in the provinces then, and there was an article on Prachatai about a year ago about local Tamboon elections in the North. Still not much hope for “democracy” there.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Lots of red leaders are in jail now, why those who paid for this debacle should be let off scott free?
They can always hire new front men to entice the peasantry with fiery rhetoric and start it all over again.
Let’s see how much of a popular movement it is without the big money.
And, of course, the money trail points to movement’s real goals, nobody would spend so much without getting something in return.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
I have interviewed with a villager from Renu-Nakhon district, Nakhonpanom province (North Eastern region of Thailand) who visited her family in Melbourne last week. She said that Hua-Kanan (Voting-Recruiter) is the person who persuades many people to vote for a person in the election. Every Thai political party also has Hua-Kanan in every village where people are so poor. They normally offered 500 baht for voting a person in the election (minimum rate is 500 Baht).
During Red-Shirt rally days, she told me that Hau-Kanan earned salary approximately 1 million baht per month because they help Taksin to recruit many villagers to join the red shirt rally in Bangkok. Hau-kanan promised to pay villager 500 baht per day including free meals during the protest.
I asked her why villagers decided to go for the protest in Bangkok. She told me that villagers were so poor. They had no choice. The most of them had nothing to eat and high debt. She says “It doesn’t matter which side is good or bad. It doesn’t matter with a real democracy or a fake one. They are going to die. They have nothing to eat. If there has a helping hand that offer them money. They would join that side.”
What do you think? The real problem is not just people education but it is also poverty problem. Who’s going to fix this problem under high corruption everywhere in Thailand?
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Les Abbey: “they failed in that when the UDD leaders gave up the leadership and left their supporters to the mercy of the army, there was nobody from the left ready to jump in and take control”.
Maybe there was a shortage of bullet proof armor at that point in time?
(or perhaps those potential left leaders were already in exile, or on the way to the detention camps?)
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
Adding to my previous comment let me also say why I think some on the left got it so very very wrong.
It must have been so tempting while trying to build a movement to protest the 2006 coup to link themselves to the pro-Thaksin movement even though up until that point they had been very anti-Thaksin. Maybe they looked at the numbers of people from outside their usual academic world they would have access to. Maybe the thought of being able to hire a ten-wheeler to carry a big sound system on demonstrations. Maybe the pro-Thaksin leaders said they could talk about class warfare on the stages. Maybe they said we will the money but not lose our principles.
Whatever the impetus it was like being a little bit pregnant or taking money for sex, just this one time. It doesn’t work that way. The rhetoric against Thaksin becomes more muted until you end up with good men like Dr. Weng defending each unpleasant action that Thaksin ever directed.
Those on the left that merged into the red shirts ended up being corrupted Thaksin’s money. They became just propagandists for him. If the hidden intention was to take over the movement and turn it into a true pro-democracy or socialist revolutionary organization, they failed in that when the UDD leaders gave up the leadership and left their supporters to the mercy of the army, there was nobody from the left ready to jump in and take control.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
T – 9
Should they be discredited because of a more centralized organization and money coming from a small number of big sources instead of a large number of small sources?
Answering T and a number of the other comments, I think yes is the answer. As the financial data starts to leak out it becomes hard to dismiss the thought that Thaksin was buying a movement. Were there people there that believed it was a fight for democracy and would have been there for nothing? Of course. But that will not change the facts.
It’s all about the terrible corrupting influence that money has on Thai politics, and this isn’t only from Thaksin and his friends. In fact we can see it in other countries like America where money plays such a large pert in political campaigns .
But a test would be when in Thailand, or where else in the world, has a legitimate pro-democracy movement paid its supporters to protest for weeks on end with the money coming from, in the main, one man and his family?
What happened on 7/10/2008?
[…] by former Prime Minister Thaksin with a very large amount of money, for example, because of what I reported about the 7 October 2008 clash at Government house between police and yellow shirts, first […]
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
Andrew,
How they do it, well thats a very hard question to answer.
What they do it with, well, I have seen cash and alcohol being used.
Regardless of how they do it, offering cash and alcohol for votes is vote buying.
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
@4/LesAbbey:
You really think the situation is in any way comparable to the 68s in the western world? In the west, we are talking about people who usually
– had strong ideologies, political ideas,
– didn’t focus on living standards / material well-being,
– didn’t need to worry about being out of work for weeks, that is, had sufficient means to support themselves (food and shelter), and no dependent family,
– came from a society were individualism was seen as positive, …..
What I’m saying is that when people have an ideological agenda (no war, communism, whatever) their motivation is quite a different one, especially when time and money are not an issue, and when they live in (or are fighting for) a society in which individualism is highly appreciated – individualism as opposed to group-oriented “fitting in”. I believe this would, at least partly, apply to the students in 73/76 as well, wouldn’t it? Even these people couldn’t have done without money, only that the financial burden was taken by lots of small shoulders. Sure there are numbers out there on the “cost” of these protests …
So yes, I would say that in Thailand 2010 we are talking about little politicized people from a hierarchical, group-oriented society who were mainly fighting for their own good – that is, having their say in the political process, which they see is taken away from them whenever an elected government gets overthrown.
Should they be discredited because of a more centralized organization and money coming from a small number of big sources instead of a large number of small sources? Could they really have afforded to pay for transportation, food and their families at home? Is protest only legitimate if one can pay for it oneself, no matter how little spare money is available?
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
[…] a blog post at New Mandala, the human rights activist Kwanravee Wangudom has published a response to an op/ed in the Bangkok […]
Money – don’t give me that do goody good bullshit
>Am I really missing on what should be considered the norm here?
Why would it matter ? Again the implicate assumption is that the Thai motivation was money.
We can turn it around and ask the corollary – if that was so are Thai peasant lives really only worth a few dollars a day ?