Somsak#40 “Now, about the actual working of the leadership. I know both Jaran and Weng and some other Red Shirts activists close to the leadership personally, and talked with them or people working with them. I had, for example, a telephone conversation with Weng on the night in April (12 or 13 I have to check) before the Red Shirts ’surrendered’ their rally surrounding the Gov House the next morning. (I strongly suggested to him that they must disperse, not fight, to avoid blood shed.) During this last rally, I also followed closely and talked to people who knew or were well informed of what’s going on among Red leaders, etc – just as I’ve been doing these past few years.”
Curious: I am half the globe away from those leaders. So I claim absolutely no “inside” info. But I have talked to several people who claim similar connections to those leaders, a few even closer than phone calls and Jaran. That is, they are in similar position like Somsak for access to info. Yet, what they told me are so different from Somsak in regard to 1) the leadership and its relationship to their organized supporters and to their “mass”; 2) the relationship with Seh Dang and the MiB issue.
So I have people in similar “positions” to the source (in this case, those leaders), Somsak included. I put aside the delicate details to judge who is more or less credible than whom. Suffice to say that all claim to own the truth — those who disagree/ dispute “must be living in a dream”. Yet, their “truths” are so different.
(The above paragraph assumes that the “leaders” is a single entity, a unanimous source, who spoke the same voice wand choices of words. If they are very diverse, please multuply by thier factors.)
I do NOT think that some tell the truth and some lies. I see no reason why these people have to lie. Instead, I believe that ALL (or most of them) mix facts/info and their interpretations in reporting to us as “facts”. “Facts” and “info” are shaped instantaneously at the moment they are informed, thanks to their own perspectives, presumptions, biases, politics, and so on.
Think about those differing journalist accounts. For sure, some simply lie to their readers as instructed by their bosses. But I believe that many are simply so human that they reported what they witnesses as “facts” while in fact those direct experiences went through their perspectives, ideology, biases, politics, instructions from their bosses, and so on, and result in certain words, many of which reflect their thought-process but are not bias-free or ideology-free. Then readers, government, red-supporters, yellow-supporters, read those accounts, add more interpretations and views of their own. The rest is “history”.
Dunno Colin. . . if there was a Purcell . . . there must be more.
But the Aussie-expatriates I know who actually live in Bangkok are for the most part turned off by Thaksin S. politics, turned off by the Reds leadership and turned off by the incitement to Red violence. So makes me wonder why many NM readers appear so enamored of the Reds and Thaksin.
Thanks Somsak J. for trying to keep these NM readers honest and the fact that the Reds movement “moves” primarily because of Thaksin, through his agents.
Not that it will help with people like Jim Taylor, David Brown and John Francis Lee . . . I bet these three could continue on with their fantasy posters nevertheless.
Also I think a Cambodian cartoonist had about Abhisit’s s taking power by wearing yellow shirt, jumping over people heads, with tanks as his skate shoes. etc.
Anyway, some one claimed that he is very stubborn person, even in his family since he is a spoiled child from rich family. His sister once said he doesn’t know how to use ATM card. His house maid, working for long time, stole his credit card, and he didn’t know that.
My conclusion, he does not know how ordinary people live, so how could he understand about the basic rights of people?
I can’t help but think that most of the posters here are missing the point. There has already been elections in Thailand…lots of them…and as a Thai once told me…. ‘we (Thais) don’t like the results because they continually vote in the wrong party’. This was from an educated, thinking Thai. As for the benefits of a ‘stable’ government….I remember that Hitler had a very stable government. I was walking through Siam Centre tonight, looking at all the happy shoppers on their iphones and Blackberries, lovely people all of them, but they seemed oblivious to what was going on around them. They were ‘back to normal’, everything was OK again. I am reminded of the guy who fell out of a 13 story building and, as he fell past the 10th floor was heard to say …’well, everything looks OK so far’. Don’t ask me what the answer is…I’m merely a guest in this country.
There were so many deaths because of two reasons: 1) a grenade was launched against the soldiers; 2) the protesters resisted the soldiers.
The grenade changed everything and brought in deadly force from soldiers. Soldiers aren’t paid to parse out international law in the heat of battle. Snipers were brought primarily because of these Ronin. Please, everyone, stop blaming the soldiers. They are exploited just like the red shirts.
The real violence was how military generals, the elite, and the monarchy throughout the sovereignty of a majority with a coup d’etat, banned political parties they didn’t like.
I don’t have a problem with how these soldiers acted. Imagine this happening in China? Even in my own country it wouldn’t have lasted this long.
The problem is that Abhisit is not a democratically elected leader and thus had no authority to stop people from “breaking the law.”
All the pro – PAD / Democrat bunch seem to insinuate that the problems with Thailand started with Thaksin. They also seem to think that anyone asking to analyse the real problems as being Pro -Red and in the pay of Thaksin….
Breaking News…. that’s not true…. troubles in Thailand started long before Thaksin… coups happened before Thaksin… and people looking for more balance view with historical (recent 2-3 decades) perspective are not on the payroll. If they are, I am still waiting for my cheque!
Just have to repeat this until it gets thru to their thick heads.
Nuclear Ambitions?
Well, honestly, which military in the world won’t have that?
Attempts and intents?
Well, if ambitions exist, intent exist, and therefore attempts exist.
But actual capability and implementation?
Nah, neither the technology or equipment
As for other chemical based WMDs, well, I have a feeling information on how to create a good number of those are freely available online coming out of the various countries such as America. I find this the scariest – the simplest ones tend to be the most used because it is easy and possible.
First, I never hint that he might be making up the story.
I said, we know different sets of people.
That some are paid – yes that is true. But not all as I know, because I know some that are there on their own free will.
But the letter did not name a number. As a matter of fact, Father Maier’s letter said : EVERYONE. From your post, in fact.
But me, I believe what Father Maier wrote given the tone of the letter was a “figure of speech” and not to be taken LITERALLY as EVERY SINGLE ONE gets a stipend.
Therefore, it is not FAIR to Father Maier, for anyone to QUOTE Father Maier for a very INNOCENT letter to his friends and FORCE another who do not know Father Maier to judge if Father Maier is honest or not. Father Maier might be the KINDEST person in the world, but if one does not know him, why should one take another stranger’s word for it? So what if he is a “father”? I know there are pedophile and corrupted priests and monks aplenty. Once you force the issue of judgment, then anyone will have to judge based on the dataset that one has – and my example is: I know someone who did not receive a stipend. That means, if I have to judge, in the fairest sense, I will have to say, Father Maier is lying – by the very fact that his letter said “EVERYONE” and I knew at least one who did not. Now, if Father Maier said MOST – then I can agree and say “MOST” because I knew only ONE.
At best, a fair use of that letter is to say that this long time social worker at the slum saw many taking the stipends – and leave it to others to decide how they want to add the info to their dataset.
It is not what Father Maier wrote I protest to. In fact, I believe it in the sense that many do get the stipend. But to force another to believe Father Maier or call that good man a liar – that is the low blow of yours I protest. Father Maier is a very nice guy, so please don’t do that to him. And yes, I know of him. He is known. That is also a simple heartfelt letter of faith, grateful at surviving the violence. Please do not turn it and him into a tool.
You are not the only one. I have friends now angry with Father Maier for lies. And it was because of what people like you did. You may not realize what you are doing (and I have given many a thumbs up for your various posts), but what you did mirrored PAD tactic of leveraging the “good name” of “King Bhumibol” to force Thais to take a stand.
leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network
That various people show up at a redshirts’ rally, funded by whomever, and cause trouble does not somehow make them the “leadership” of the redshirts. The government shows up and causes untold trouble as well and they are certainly not the redshirt leadership.
Even when Thaksin was PM he was riding the secular, people’s movement, not its leader. A lot of people were ready to back him because his political acuity yielded them more direct results from the government than they’d every had. He can be given “credit” for demonstrating to the people their own political power by exploiting it. But he was not then and is not now the leader of the people’s movement. He is a surfer on the wave.
Prem said of the military that it is “ridden” by politicians but owned by the king. I think it’s more nearly the king who is ridden by the military, contrary to what Prem said. The people have been ridden by the politicians forever, most winningly by Thaksin, but they belong to themselves, they are the true sovereigns of Thailand. I hope they soon throw their would-be riders. I think it’s too late for HM the King to throw his.
I know that my quote from Ambassador Rodriguez above overlaps with Srithanonchai’s (edited) one, but I felt that a fuller, ‘read-my-lips’ one was called for, in view of Les Abby’s much later question.
Actually the ex-Ambassador’s quote reminds me of what uni students in Jakarta told me in the 80s & 90s. They would attend an ‘anti’ demonstration on one day, & leave with a fee & a tee-shirt, having had a free lunch & drinks. On the following day, they’d get a similar reward for attending a ‘pro’ demo on the same issue.
Les Abby #75: “Just out of interest does anyone know of paid attendees at for examples the people power demonstrations in eastern Europe, the native American protests in Mexico and Brazil, or, closer to home, the people’s power movement in the Philippines?”
From former Philippines Ambassador: “Mr Rodriguez said he had been involved in several demonstrations in his country that were totally different from the crowds he observed at Phan Fa and Ratchaprasong. In the Philippines, many people join rallies because they are paid, he said. They show up, participate lackadaisically, get their money and leave.
”But the red shirts listened intently to the speeches – clapping and shouting – and responded enthusiastically to the speeches of the leaders.
”I said to myself, this is maybe worse than what everybody thought because initially, my impression was that these were people who were there because they were bought or given money – this is what I had read in the newspapers. Therefore, it was important to be there and to compare what you read with the reality on the ground.”
Mr Rodriguez added that it would be impossible for many of the demonstrators to have been there unless they had financial assistance.” (Bkk Post article, link @ #69.)
Well this Thailand, and that is just not going to happen…
Seems to me that’s it’s you that has a low opinion of Thai people. I saw Thais quite capable of protesting without being paid in 92. I think Thais from the northeast are also quite capable of protesting without getting paid for doing it. Those who left their farms to join the CPT were I doubt getting paid for it. (It wasn’t only students who went into the bush. The CPT was already there when the students joined them.)
Actually you misunderstood my point, all I am saying is that if we talk about whether 1 month – 3 months time frames achievable? yes I believe it is, whether Abhisit should dissolve the house? no he shouldn’t IMO, Japan economic situation isn’t good but the PM still wants to step down, that’s the point I want to make.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “proper democratic society”, but my idea of democracy is not only voting, representation, and getting things done
The proper democratic society is the society that have the following criteria,
1. Right to vote
2. freedom of speech and expression
3. Total sovereignty
4. Rule of law
5. Power by the people
Other than number 1 Thailand pretty much lack in everything, even that some people is trying to take away that one right. Furthermore, Abhisit was not being elected by general election, but rather by the help of the military and PM who willing to switch side to clear of the corruption charge, I hope you know something about Newin’s rubber shoot corruption case and how he manage to escaped jail term from the charge. So your statement ” Everyone should be willing to have time on democracy’s side” is not going to fly because we are not talking about normal democracy here. However, I still insisted that Abhisit shouldn’t dissolve and I’m glad that he didn’t, not because he was elected democratically but because I believed that voting will not give you a proper democracy, which some of the red seems to think that way. Actually I have to thank Abhisit that he brought in tanks and sharpshooters to killed those 88 Reds so they could stop asking for new election and really fight for proper democracy this time.
Jim Taylor #37 So after Saedaeng died “black warriors” appeared
You’re kidding, right? On the night of 10 April when the M-i-B appeared Seh Daeng was still very much alive and well; in fact he sort of took credits for their actions. In interviews, he of course formally denied he had anything to do with them, but also effectively confirmed their existence. You may say he just ‘playing mental game’ with the gov, but you wouldn’t say report of the AT is entirely made up, would you? When he was assassinated on the night of 13 May, the first thing on my mind was: this is the beginning of the crackdown, the gov-military had drawn lessons from 10 April, they killed the M-i-B’s defacto leader first.
Jim Taylor #34 Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all united in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
and David Bronw #35 I dont think it is Thaksin-Peur Thai that control the redshirt movement
the trio Veera, Jatuporn and Nattawut are the ones the reds listen to and follow with Weng, Arisman, Seh Daeng, etc as also leaders
First of all, I never use the word ‘control’: the word I use is ‘leadership’. I also say quite clearly that the mobilisation and organization of the masses from the province (who composed the majority of the Red Shirts) are the work of Thaksin-Phua Thai network. To deny this is just to close one’s eyes and live in dream land.
Now, about the actual working of the leadership. I know both Jaran and Weng and some other Red Shirts activists close to the leadership personally, and talked with them or people working with them. I had, for example, a telephone conversation with Weng on the night in April (12 or 13 I have to check) before the Red Shirts ‘surrendered’ their rally surrounding the Gov House the next morning. (I strongly suggested to him that they must disperse, not fight, to avoid blood shed.) During this last rally, I also followed closely and talked to people who knew or were well informed of what’s going on among Red leaders, etc – just as I’ve been doing these past few years.
Now, while people like Jaran or Weng may have had some say in the decision, it’s the Thaksin’s people whe were really in charge. (Who else could have mobilized-organized folks from provinces if not Thaksin’s MPs and local supporters?) Among the top UDD leaders, especially during this last rally, it’s Jatuporn who had a biggest say. Why? Because he had, so to speak, Thaksin’s ears more than anybody else. I could go on discussing this issue, but I don’t think it’s necessary. As I said, anyone who writes as you two did (quoted above), i.e. denying that the Red Shirt movement’s leadership is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network, must be living in a dream.
(How much do you think, to take another example, this last rally costed in terms of money spent in organizing and maintaining it? I’ve seen some put the number in hundreds of millions of Baht. I’m not sure how much really, but think that at the very least it must have been in tens of millions. [I’ve been told that, to organize a 5-6 hours stationary, evening rally then disperse would cost around 50-60 thousand baht. You imagine overnight, 2 months long-protracted rally, with frequent moving around] The donation from the masses or people who attended or support the rally would not cover that amount. I absolutely have no problem with Thaksin-Phuathai network financing the rally (or mobilizing-organizing it). But I insist that, to say that this is just a ‘grass-root’, mass movement with ‘diverse’ leadership, is a romantic / ‘narodism’ fantasy, and not a realistic analysis.) I say again: it’s a movement of ‘grass-root’ mass character alright, but it’s also led-mobilized-organized by one of the major factions of the elite itself.
That Purcell guy is an embarrasment to Aussies in Thailand…there are many wealthy educated supporters of the Reds, do you think they oppose the rampage?
I was told once that true Thais are ONLY from Issan from another Aussie. This guy reckons he knows all about Thailand and even speaks the language. He then goes on and on about how the Chinese take all the business’ and I am pretty sure you get the drift and may have heard all this before, maybe you agree, not sure.
Anyway, to get to the point, you presumed that most Pro-Red posters are Australian. Do you believe that many from Aus are Red-Supporters and if so, what do you think make them support the Reds?
While it is unfortunate that ‘ngo’ in Lao means stupid, it is difficult to believe that the NGO community in Laos could be so foolish as to lobby the government to adopt policies, however cautious, that small farmers will ‘have trouble adjusting to’ – maybe a ‘not’ is missing here.
The NGO s may (no, do) have some valid points to make, but I find it difficult to credit that so many (but by no means all) NGOs continue to sneer self-righteously at a project like Sepon Mine which on an area of around 3,000 hectares produces at least a third of of Lao PDR exports by value (hardly ‘land intensive’); which employs 5,000 Lao people in decent conditions (everybody in the area just about wants to work for the mine); which adds value enormously, since in the ground the gold and copper isn’t actually worth anything; which has an approval rating from the people affected by its operations of over 75%; and which is in the process, through its strong support for and close liaison with Lao and foreign archaeologists, transforming the whole pre-history of southeast Asia (see papers by Thongsa and Chang) by showing that large scale mining at Sepon has been going on for over 24 centuries.
And, for John Hall an update: I only work for Sepon occasionally nowadays.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Les Abbey
Now your are being very naughty nowhere did I say that Thais were not capable of protesting without being paid.
Since you have completely written off this protest movement maybe you can enlighten us of how you believe Thailand can achieve democracy.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Somsak#40 “Now, about the actual working of the leadership. I know both Jaran and Weng and some other Red Shirts activists close to the leadership personally, and talked with them or people working with them. I had, for example, a telephone conversation with Weng on the night in April (12 or 13 I have to check) before the Red Shirts ’surrendered’ their rally surrounding the Gov House the next morning. (I strongly suggested to him that they must disperse, not fight, to avoid blood shed.) During this last rally, I also followed closely and talked to people who knew or were well informed of what’s going on among Red leaders, etc – just as I’ve been doing these past few years.”
Curious: I am half the globe away from those leaders. So I claim absolutely no “inside” info. But I have talked to several people who claim similar connections to those leaders, a few even closer than phone calls and Jaran. That is, they are in similar position like Somsak for access to info. Yet, what they told me are so different from Somsak in regard to 1) the leadership and its relationship to their organized supporters and to their “mass”; 2) the relationship with Seh Dang and the MiB issue.
So I have people in similar “positions” to the source (in this case, those leaders), Somsak included. I put aside the delicate details to judge who is more or less credible than whom. Suffice to say that all claim to own the truth — those who disagree/ dispute “must be living in a dream”. Yet, their “truths” are so different.
(The above paragraph assumes that the “leaders” is a single entity, a unanimous source, who spoke the same voice wand choices of words. If they are very diverse, please multuply by thier factors.)
I do NOT think that some tell the truth and some lies. I see no reason why these people have to lie. Instead, I believe that ALL (or most of them) mix facts/info and their interpretations in reporting to us as “facts”. “Facts” and “info” are shaped instantaneously at the moment they are informed, thanks to their own perspectives, presumptions, biases, politics, and so on.
Think about those differing journalist accounts. For sure, some simply lie to their readers as instructed by their bosses. But I believe that many are simply so human that they reported what they witnesses as “facts” while in fact those direct experiences went through their perspectives, ideology, biases, politics, instructions from their bosses, and so on, and result in certain words, many of which reflect their thought-process but are not bias-free or ideology-free. Then readers, government, red-supporters, yellow-supporters, read those accounts, add more interpretations and views of their own. The rest is “history”.
Thailand in crisis – ANU video series
Dunno Colin. . . if there was a Purcell . . . there must be more.
But the Aussie-expatriates I know who actually live in Bangkok are for the most part turned off by Thaksin S. politics, turned off by the Reds leadership and turned off by the incitement to Red violence. So makes me wonder why many NM readers appear so enamored of the Reds and Thaksin.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Thanks Somsak J. for trying to keep these NM readers honest and the fact that the Reds movement “moves” primarily because of Thaksin, through his agents.
Not that it will help with people like Jim Taylor, David Brown and John Francis Lee . . . I bet these three could continue on with their fantasy posters nevertheless.
Abhisit’s human rights education
Quite agree with Nong Ju,
Also I think a Cambodian cartoonist had about Abhisit’s s taking power by wearing yellow shirt, jumping over people heads, with tanks as his skate shoes. etc.
Anyway, some one claimed that he is very stubborn person, even in his family since he is a spoiled child from rich family. His sister once said he doesn’t know how to use ATM card. His house maid, working for long time, stole his credit card, and he didn’t know that.
My conclusion, he does not know how ordinary people live, so how could he understand about the basic rights of people?
Thailand in crisis – ANU video series
I can’t help but think that most of the posters here are missing the point. There has already been elections in Thailand…lots of them…and as a Thai once told me…. ‘we (Thais) don’t like the results because they continually vote in the wrong party’. This was from an educated, thinking Thai. As for the benefits of a ‘stable’ government….I remember that Hitler had a very stable government. I was walking through Siam Centre tonight, looking at all the happy shoppers on their iphones and Blackberries, lovely people all of them, but they seemed oblivious to what was going on around them. They were ‘back to normal’, everything was OK again. I am reminded of the guy who fell out of a 13 story building and, as he fell past the 10th floor was heard to say …’well, everything looks OK so far’. Don’t ask me what the answer is…I’m merely a guest in this country.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
That’s “threw out” not “throughout,” sorry!
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
There were so many deaths because of two reasons: 1) a grenade was launched against the soldiers; 2) the protesters resisted the soldiers.
The grenade changed everything and brought in deadly force from soldiers. Soldiers aren’t paid to parse out international law in the heat of battle. Snipers were brought primarily because of these Ronin. Please, everyone, stop blaming the soldiers. They are exploited just like the red shirts.
The real violence was how military generals, the elite, and the monarchy throughout the sovereignty of a majority with a coup d’etat, banned political parties they didn’t like.
I don’t have a problem with how these soldiers acted. Imagine this happening in China? Even in my own country it wouldn’t have lasted this long.
The problem is that Abhisit is not a democratically elected leader and thus had no authority to stop people from “breaking the law.”
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
All the pro – PAD / Democrat bunch seem to insinuate that the problems with Thailand started with Thaksin. They also seem to think that anyone asking to analyse the real problems as being Pro -Red and in the pay of Thaksin….
Breaking News…. that’s not true…. troubles in Thailand started long before Thaksin… coups happened before Thaksin… and people looking for more balance view with historical (recent 2-3 decades) perspective are not on the payroll. If they are, I am still waiting for my cheque!
Just have to repeat this until it gets thru to their thick heads.
Question of the month: Burma and WMD?
Nuclear Ambitions?
Well, honestly, which military in the world won’t have that?
Attempts and intents?
Well, if ambitions exist, intent exist, and therefore attempts exist.
But actual capability and implementation?
Nah, neither the technology or equipment
As for other chemical based WMDs, well, I have a feeling information on how to create a good number of those are freely available online coming out of the various countries such as America. I find this the scariest – the simplest ones tend to be the most used because it is easy and possible.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Les:
First, I never hint that he might be making up the story.
I said, we know different sets of people.
That some are paid – yes that is true. But not all as I know, because I know some that are there on their own free will.
But the letter did not name a number. As a matter of fact, Father Maier’s letter said : EVERYONE. From your post, in fact.
But me, I believe what Father Maier wrote given the tone of the letter was a “figure of speech” and not to be taken LITERALLY as EVERY SINGLE ONE gets a stipend.
Therefore, it is not FAIR to Father Maier, for anyone to QUOTE Father Maier for a very INNOCENT letter to his friends and FORCE another who do not know Father Maier to judge if Father Maier is honest or not. Father Maier might be the KINDEST person in the world, but if one does not know him, why should one take another stranger’s word for it? So what if he is a “father”? I know there are pedophile and corrupted priests and monks aplenty. Once you force the issue of judgment, then anyone will have to judge based on the dataset that one has – and my example is: I know someone who did not receive a stipend. That means, if I have to judge, in the fairest sense, I will have to say, Father Maier is lying – by the very fact that his letter said “EVERYONE” and I knew at least one who did not. Now, if Father Maier said MOST – then I can agree and say “MOST” because I knew only ONE.
At best, a fair use of that letter is to say that this long time social worker at the slum saw many taking the stipends – and leave it to others to decide how they want to add the info to their dataset.
It is not what Father Maier wrote I protest to. In fact, I believe it in the sense that many do get the stipend. But to force another to believe Father Maier or call that good man a liar – that is the low blow of yours I protest. Father Maier is a very nice guy, so please don’t do that to him. And yes, I know of him. He is known. That is also a simple heartfelt letter of faith, grateful at surviving the violence. Please do not turn it and him into a tool.
You are not the only one. I have friends now angry with Father Maier for lies. And it was because of what people like you did. You may not realize what you are doing (and I have given many a thumbs up for your various posts), but what you did mirrored PAD tactic of leveraging the “good name” of “King Bhumibol” to force Thais to take a stand.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network
That various people show up at a redshirts’ rally, funded by whomever, and cause trouble does not somehow make them the “leadership” of the redshirts. The government shows up and causes untold trouble as well and they are certainly not the redshirt leadership.
Even when Thaksin was PM he was riding the secular, people’s movement, not its leader. A lot of people were ready to back him because his political acuity yielded them more direct results from the government than they’d every had. He can be given “credit” for demonstrating to the people their own political power by exploiting it. But he was not then and is not now the leader of the people’s movement. He is a surfer on the wave.
Prem said of the military that it is “ridden” by politicians but owned by the king. I think it’s more nearly the king who is ridden by the military, contrary to what Prem said. The people have been ridden by the politicians forever, most winningly by Thaksin, but they belong to themselves, they are the true sovereigns of Thailand. I hope they soon throw their would-be riders. I think it’s too late for HM the King to throw his.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
I know that my quote from Ambassador Rodriguez above overlaps with Srithanonchai’s (edited) one, but I felt that a fuller, ‘read-my-lips’ one was called for, in view of Les Abby’s much later question.
Actually the ex-Ambassador’s quote reminds me of what uni students in Jakarta told me in the 80s & 90s. They would attend an ‘anti’ demonstration on one day, & leave with a fee & a tee-shirt, having had a free lunch & drinks. On the following day, they’d get a similar reward for attending a ‘pro’ demo on the same issue.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Les Abby #75: “Just out of interest does anyone know of paid attendees at for examples the people power demonstrations in eastern Europe, the native American protests in Mexico and Brazil, or, closer to home, the people’s power movement in the Philippines?”
From former Philippines Ambassador: “Mr Rodriguez said he had been involved in several demonstrations in his country that were totally different from the crowds he observed at Phan Fa and Ratchaprasong. In the Philippines, many people join rallies because they are paid, he said. They show up, participate lackadaisically, get their money and leave.
”But the red shirts listened intently to the speeches – clapping and shouting – and responded enthusiastically to the speeches of the leaders.
”I said to myself, this is maybe worse than what everybody thought because initially, my impression was that these were people who were there because they were bought or given money – this is what I had read in the newspapers. Therefore, it was important to be there and to compare what you read with the reality on the ground.”
Mr Rodriguez added that it would be impossible for many of the demonstrators to have been there unless they had financial assistance.” (Bkk Post article, link @ #69.)
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
doyle2499 – 76
Well this Thailand, and that is just not going to happen…
Seems to me that’s it’s you that has a low opinion of Thai people. I saw Thais quite capable of protesting without being paid in 92. I think Thais from the northeast are also quite capable of protesting without getting paid for doing it. Those who left their farms to join the CPT were I doubt getting paid for it. (It wasn’t only students who went into the bush. The CPT was already there when the students joined them.)
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Ajarn Somsak #13
Your understanding of my statements is correct.
Do you plan to write a systematic English-language article on the protests?
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Ben // Jun 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm – 36
Actually you misunderstood my point, all I am saying is that if we talk about whether 1 month – 3 months time frames achievable? yes I believe it is, whether Abhisit should dissolve the house? no he shouldn’t IMO, Japan economic situation isn’t good but the PM still wants to step down, that’s the point I want to make.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “proper democratic society”, but my idea of democracy is not only voting, representation, and getting things done
The proper democratic society is the society that have the following criteria,
1. Right to vote
2. freedom of speech and expression
3. Total sovereignty
4. Rule of law
5. Power by the people
Other than number 1 Thailand pretty much lack in everything, even that some people is trying to take away that one right. Furthermore, Abhisit was not being elected by general election, but rather by the help of the military and PM who willing to switch side to clear of the corruption charge, I hope you know something about Newin’s rubber shoot corruption case and how he manage to escaped jail term from the charge. So your statement ” Everyone should be willing to have time on democracy’s side” is not going to fly because we are not talking about normal democracy here. However, I still insisted that Abhisit shouldn’t dissolve and I’m glad that he didn’t, not because he was elected democratically but because I believed that voting will not give you a proper democracy, which some of the red seems to think that way. Actually I have to thank Abhisit that he brought in tanks and sharpshooters to killed those 88 Reds so they could stop asking for new election and really fight for proper democracy this time.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Jim Taylor #37
So after Saedaeng died “black warriors” appeared
You’re kidding, right? On the night of 10 April when the M-i-B appeared Seh Daeng was still very much alive and well; in fact he sort of took credits for their actions. In interviews, he of course formally denied he had anything to do with them, but also effectively confirmed their existence. You may say he just ‘playing mental game’ with the gov, but you wouldn’t say report of the AT is entirely made up, would you? When he was assassinated on the night of 13 May, the first thing on my mind was: this is the beginning of the crackdown, the gov-military had drawn lessons from 10 April, they killed the M-i-B’s defacto leader first.
Jim Taylor #34
Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all united in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
and David Bronw #35
I dont think it is Thaksin-Peur Thai that control the redshirt movement
the trio Veera, Jatuporn and Nattawut are the ones the reds listen to and follow with Weng, Arisman, Seh Daeng, etc as also leaders
First of all, I never use the word ‘control’: the word I use is ‘leadership’. I also say quite clearly that the mobilisation and organization of the masses from the province (who composed the majority of the Red Shirts) are the work of Thaksin-Phua Thai network. To deny this is just to close one’s eyes and live in dream land.
Now, about the actual working of the leadership. I know both Jaran and Weng and some other Red Shirts activists close to the leadership personally, and talked with them or people working with them. I had, for example, a telephone conversation with Weng on the night in April (12 or 13 I have to check) before the Red Shirts ‘surrendered’ their rally surrounding the Gov House the next morning. (I strongly suggested to him that they must disperse, not fight, to avoid blood shed.) During this last rally, I also followed closely and talked to people who knew or were well informed of what’s going on among Red leaders, etc – just as I’ve been doing these past few years.
Now, while people like Jaran or Weng may have had some say in the decision, it’s the Thaksin’s people whe were really in charge. (Who else could have mobilized-organized folks from provinces if not Thaksin’s MPs and local supporters?) Among the top UDD leaders, especially during this last rally, it’s Jatuporn who had a biggest say. Why? Because he had, so to speak, Thaksin’s ears more than anybody else. I could go on discussing this issue, but I don’t think it’s necessary. As I said, anyone who writes as you two did (quoted above), i.e. denying that the Red Shirt movement’s leadership is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network, must be living in a dream.
(How much do you think, to take another example, this last rally costed in terms of money spent in organizing and maintaining it? I’ve seen some put the number in hundreds of millions of Baht. I’m not sure how much really, but think that at the very least it must have been in tens of millions. [I’ve been told that, to organize a 5-6 hours stationary, evening rally then disperse would cost around 50-60 thousand baht. You imagine overnight, 2 months long-protracted rally, with frequent moving around] The donation from the masses or people who attended or support the rally would not cover that amount. I absolutely have no problem with Thaksin-Phuathai network financing the rally (or mobilizing-organizing it). But I insist that, to say that this is just a ‘grass-root’, mass movement with ‘diverse’ leadership, is a romantic / ‘narodism’ fantasy, and not a realistic analysis.) I say again: it’s a movement of ‘grass-root’ mass character alright, but it’s also led-mobilized-organized by one of the major factions of the elite itself.
Thailand in crisis – ANU video series
Del,
That Purcell guy is an embarrasment to Aussies in Thailand…there are many wealthy educated supporters of the Reds, do you think they oppose the rampage?
I was told once that true Thais are ONLY from Issan from another Aussie. This guy reckons he knows all about Thailand and even speaks the language. He then goes on and on about how the Chinese take all the business’ and I am pretty sure you get the drift and may have heard all this before, maybe you agree, not sure.
Anyway, to get to the point, you presumed that most Pro-Red posters are Australian. Do you believe that many from Aus are Red-Supporters and if so, what do you think make them support the Reds?
Lao development debates in the news
While it is unfortunate that ‘ngo’ in Lao means stupid, it is difficult to believe that the NGO community in Laos could be so foolish as to lobby the government to adopt policies, however cautious, that small farmers will ‘have trouble adjusting to’ – maybe a ‘not’ is missing here.
The NGO s may (no, do) have some valid points to make, but I find it difficult to credit that so many (but by no means all) NGOs continue to sneer self-righteously at a project like Sepon Mine which on an area of around 3,000 hectares produces at least a third of of Lao PDR exports by value (hardly ‘land intensive’); which employs 5,000 Lao people in decent conditions (everybody in the area just about wants to work for the mine); which adds value enormously, since in the ground the gold and copper isn’t actually worth anything; which has an approval rating from the people affected by its operations of over 75%; and which is in the process, through its strong support for and close liaison with Lao and foreign archaeologists, transforming the whole pre-history of southeast Asia (see papers by Thongsa and Chang) by showing that large scale mining at Sepon has been going on for over 24 centuries.
And, for John Hall an update: I only work for Sepon occasionally nowadays.