I think that Thailand is going to have to start giving more and more Western press the “Economist magazine” treatment. More and more the Western press have negative but factual stories about HM. I saw some in the NYT and Guardian already. Headly gets quoted more and more. Look at how the Thai Ambassador to Oz reaction.
Maybe it is trashing someone when they are down, which is typical media behavior. Or maybe they are pushing back against this law that is inconsistent with modern democracy.
Eva, how well have that worked in the United States? Schools lower standards to comply with the government demands. Good students are plagued by bad students who DO NOT WANT an education and end up dropping out. Schools do not need to improve as there is no competition. With so much opportunity and education grants, so many students in the USA is satisfied with a highschool graduation and settles for less than their true potential. Nancy Pelosi just said a few days ago musicians and entrepreneurs no longer have to worry about healthcare as tax payers will pay for their healthcare. Really? It resembles communism more than a free country. Compassion should come from the individual and not from the government. I have the same debate with Christians in the USA. They said as Christians, the people in the USA should give. I said the bible instructs YOU to give, not the GOVERNMENT!!! There is no guarantee of anything in this life, only what you fight for. Any other belief is delusional and equate to legalized robbery via proxy.
“Nattakorn Devakula, has noted that amongst the target of arson & destruction. Few were curiously excluded from that fate.
-Nation building
-ASTV
-Prem’s home
and the list goes on.
Since the reds is clearly the culprit, it’s surprising that their most hated enemies are offered immunity from it.”
And also very strange is the burning of several Big C department stores, which are of course where cheaper goods are sold for those who are a lot poorer than Central World shoppers. Would the Reds be burning their own supporters shopping malls ?
Not also that snipers apparently prevented firemen from entering Central World for several hours.
However, I also read that The Nation WAS attacked – can anyone clarify this ?
Simon# 26 :
You’re quite correct – though Red attacks on the media are understandable (though still unjustified) given the appalling bias shown by just about all Thai media recently, given that the Red’s media has been shut down by the government, except some community media.
Portman (14): next time I will ask WSJ for a full page. On inequality, there is a lot or material easily available – start with the latest UNDP Human Development report which I mentioned in the article.
Re: why the Reds didn’t accept the Nov 14 offer?
My opinion: The UDD did not refuse the offer and I don’t think the lost faith in the election is the explanation.
1. It is not true that the UDD refused the Nov 14 offer. They agree to negotiate on the timing of the dissolution and election. The word “refused” may look a trivial matter. But in this case, the govt’s propaganda used it to create a general perception that the UDD “refused” the offer. This became a pretext for the government to withdrew the offer and went ahead with the crackdown. This narrative has a serious flaw.
2. But as the UDD agreed to negotiate the date, they added on a new demand — Suthep must get charged for the Apr 10 deaths.
What and why this demand? The answer to this is also the answer to the narrative flaw above.
An example of the narrative that becomes the pretext of the crackdown is by Mr. Voranai “Put an end to this rebellion” BKK Post 16/05/2010. Here is my comment on Mr. Voranai’s narrative. (This comment was circulated to the TLC email group)
>>… there is one important piece that is missing in Mr Voranai’s commentary. I assume that it is not intentional. But even if it is not, the missing piece is very telling how much a highly educated person like him fails to understand those protesters. This failure has been written all over pages of most newspapers, facebook, and many web sites throughout the current crisis. Sometimes this missing piece also shows up among the intellectuals who support the Reds too.
The missing piece is the April 10 clash with the 21 deaths of the Reds
people.
In [Mr. Voranai’s] narrative, the UDD refused the government offer for the election in November and turned to anarchy to serve Thaksin’s agenda. This narrative fails to recognise the UDD’s demand for a promise or assurance for justice for the deaths [of the Apr 10 clash]. Their demand for Deputy PM Suthep to get charged is
problematic in terms of legal procedure. But in their views, there is
nothing in the government’s proposal that would guarantee justice for those deaths. To make things more difficult, the government’s records on justice and judicial process, in their view, are not good either; they are known as “double standard”. So it is not easy to convince the UDD that justice will be served. An investigation by a government committee, or by the yellowish National Human Right Commission, is not a satisfactory answer to them. [The fact that] Mr. Suthep turned himself in to the DSI (Thai FBI), in their view, was a joke since the DSI is under Suthep, and the DSI itself is the body that presses charges on the UDD leaders for terrorists and anti-monarchy.
Is the UDD demand for justice for the deaths unreasonable?
Why is this whole matter entirely missing from Mr. Voranai’s account? We may dismiss their demand as unrealistic or politically weak. But somehow the Reds’ overt and public sentiment about the April 10 clash and deaths and their demand for justice to the deaths is not even heard, let alone understood, by Mr. Voranai and the like. The Reds view of deaths and justice to [the deaths] does not exist in Mr. Voranai’s narrative. Once he cannot understand it, his explanation turns to “anarchy” and “Thaksin”. He turns the Reds to a
mob for hire as it has always been a convenient explanation by most Thai media and intellectuals. To these people, there is always a “hidden higher aganda” for Thaksin behind the Reds movement, and it is the tru-er reason than whatever the UDD has said.
The Thaksin agenda is a narrative construct to substitute for the failure by these highly educated, smart intellectuals to understand the protesters. They see the Reds as thugs, based on their
negative stereotypes of the nakleng and chaoban (not unlike the stereotype many educated Thais have for the “black” people even before they meet one).
[The educated urban upper class and intellectuals] don’t understand those Reds’ views of life, death, risk, peace, violence and so on, but instead taking the values held by our tribe (the highly educated urban elite) as the standard for morals, right and wrong. <<<<
In my opinion, the distrust in election was not the issue in the UDD response to the govt's offer. At least it was not as critical, as they were willing to negotiate. The critical issue to them is justice to the Apr 10 deaths.
The Apr 10 bloodshed coumpounded the original demand for dissolution and election, but many observers have not given adequate recognition. Justice, an apparent issue of grievance throughout the protest, had not been duly recognised but got much worse since Apr 1o.
It is justice that people have fought for to their death so many times in human history.
The Reds don't have to articulate straightforwardly as "justice". Actually they did, but observers didn't hear them. The Reds expressed their demand for justice in many terms — they can't go home without an answer about the Apr 10 death; the government must show responsibility, and so on. This is why they want something about Suthep, in ways that, in my opinion, was legally problematic. But I think their demand was just.
I doubt very much that Thaksin would prefer a bloody defeat. Yes, if many of us can foresee it after the govt's offer fell through, why can't he? The protest had done so much damages to the Democrats that a victory in the next election to the Pheu Thai Party is almost certain. Thaksin is smart enough to see the benefits of ending the protest and too high a risk to continue. It doesn't need Thaksin to make this calculation. (I heard that he is pretty good at the risk-benefit calculation, with the only exception for the 2006 coup.)
Contrary to many gurus who argue that the UDD "refused" the govt's offer because Thaksin's told them to, I think the UDD themselves made the decision to add a new demand. And such a demand is for JUSTICE. That is also why they were willing to fight on.
I think the added demand was politically a mistake, no matter how just it may be. But it is our serious mistake if we don't recognise the severe injustice to the Reds that was amplified multifold on Apr 10. They came to fight for justice. In the end, justice may still be missing even after the Apr 10 deaths, even in our analyses.
In an bizarre attempt to justify clinging to leadership, Abhisit claimed that during his premiership he would do his best to bring unity and stability Thailand, and stated that he must be given enough time to realise those goals. He can hardly be blind to the disastrous negative impact he has had on his country ever since he boycotted the 2006 elections (the entire unsavoury history can be found on the net). Given enough time, he can only be expected to do a more thorough job of polarising and destabilising his country. Elections a.s.a.p. may not be a panacea, but would surely be the best next step. The alternative? I dread to imagine.
DaveH,
Do you honestly see no connection between Abhisit and the PAD? All the PAD leaders have been loudly supportive of Abhisit, at least one is a sitting member of his party! Another, Sondhi has used his media empire exclusively to sing the praises of Abhisit, and demonize his opponents. I think that it is safe to say that Abhisit has the support of the PAD, and equally safe to say that he is glad of it.
Your statement “Given the choice between him and the red shirt leaders (who seem to been espousing a doctrine of hatred) I prefer the former”, is ridiculous for two reasons: first of all, do not mistake anger for hatred. Anger is what you hear from the red-shirts, whose one demand has always been only for new elections. They feel they have been robbed of democracy, and they are angry. Hatred is what you hear from many of their opponents in the PAD and the media, who describe the protesters as ‘buffaloes’, ‘terrorists’, ‘king-haters’, ‘thugs’, etc. These are words used to vilify and dehumanize people, and they encourage hatred and violence towards them. Does Mr. Abhisit seem bothered by this kind of ‘support’? I’ve yet to hear him condemn such venom, so can we not easily accuse him of ‘espousing a doctrine of hate’? Furthermore, your statement presents a false choice between Abhisit and “the red shirt leaders”. If you recall, the protesters are demanding ELECTIONS. They are not demanding the installation of one or all of the protest leaders. Who would win the election? I have no idea, and I doubt you do either, yet you ‘prefer’ Abhisit to democratic elections.
You “hope Abhisit can offer something concrete to the red supporters.” Well so do I, my friend, but I’ve got serious doubts that he is willing. After all, in spite of your (fawning) assertion Abhisit “is doing the best he can in a impossible situation”, I saw nothing from him that indicated a willingness to offer anything “concrete” to the reds. Was that really “the best” he could do? If he really had “Thailand’s best interests at heart”, then why didn’t he try a little harder to avert this crisis? And why, now that the protest is largely dispersed, should he be more likely to offer concessions? I would love for Abhisit to prove me wrong, but given his mishandling of the protests, and his fascist support base (PAD), and so much invested in hate-propaganda, I would be very, very surprised.
Benja S. Sariwatta, people wanting a fair pay for their labor has nothing to do with communism. In most Western countries having a minimum pay by law is normal. Everyone deserves a decent pay for their time and effort, without being exploited and also should have access to health care and education. Children should have the opportunity to get a decent education, no matter how much money their parents make, so that they can shape their life, live up to their potential, and not be condemned to poverty just because their parents were. Especially in a Buddhist country I would expect more empathy for other people and understanding for their situation.
If you really want the best for Thailand and it’s economy, you would see that when people don’t have access to a decent education and have no way of escaping poverty due to the lack of legislation and lack of will of the government, it will hurt Thailand more than it will do any good.
Regarding who wrote the laws now in use to suppress information:
Don’t know if it was Thaksin or the Military after, but isn’t the Government breaking the law anyway?
I thought they needed a court order to shut down internet sites? It’s my understanding that plenty of times they don’t have that.
I got asked by many journalists in the past 24 hours why the K remains silent. Here is my answer to everyone of them.
First of all, why do they (journalists) expect him to intervene?
Why does he remain silent?
1. perhaps his health. Can anybody know if he is still capable of dealing with the current crisis? It is so difficult even to all of us with healthy bodies and minds.
2. Suppose health is not a factor: it is super difficult to intervene at the right place, timing and exact words. Given the polarization and heated tension this time, an intervention could be costly, and not rewarding.
3. What does their silence mean? Contrary to the myth among observers of Thailand that the monarch always intervened in a crisis like this one in the past, it is not true. His intervention in 1973 and 1992 helped stop the killings. But he was silent in the 1976 massacre. Why? Those journalists and observers rarely raise this question. What or why he did in 1973 and 1992 but not in 1976? Perhaps the politics and roles of the palace in the 1976 massacre and in the current crisis are similar, but it is different from the one in 1973 and 1992.
It is naive for anybody to discredit the Red Shirt movement because it has violent elements. Non-violence is a viable strategy only in countries where there is rule of law and where the governing power does not commit extrajudicial killings or use unnecessary force. Thailand is not the United States and those who pursue purely non-violent protests are destined for slaughter. You fight back or you die.
It’s even worse in countries like Vietnam or Laos, where non-violent protesters would be immediately seized and disappear into the gulags.
Haven’t read them.
Just wanna comment that all comments (including any articles) are only parts of the whole story. may be all are true, but you need to neatly and cleverly stitch them up.
overall they are just too ‘conclusive’ (including mine).
what happens with the economics first politics later rhetoric which stresses that if the people are fully fed they will be politically submissive. is the overall economic situation of average Thais taht bad these past few years?
anyway where did we leave the environment and climate change?
Interesting points you make. When democracies around the world are going bankrupt, the rhetoric of pro democracy groups starts to verge on the absurd. The blind following the blind?
In this age of failing economies, all forms of government begin to look redundant. The personal struggle for survival tends to figure more prominently than what (wealthy) political leader to back. Your vote goes to whoever will feed you.
That’s no idle speculation. More than one Red Shirt protester indicated that they were there because free food was being provided. Its the way of the future and these people are the vanguard of the new age.
Look closely at Thailand. It are not a third world country slipping into anarchy. It is a road map for the world.
Someone once took a great deal of trouble to explain to to me why this country would fall into civil war after the death of the King
.
The reasoning was strong and compelling and I have no cause to doubt the scenario outlined, the only departure so far has been in the time line. Events has been moving along ahead of schedule.
For those interested, it runs something like this:
1 – King dies
2 – Various factions previously quiescent contend for power
3 – The military takes over government directly
[…] skytrain in bangkok, april2010 by christao] [image6>demonstation underneath skytrain via new mandala] [image7> retro-futuristic elevated train via my urban sherpa] [image8> German visions for […]
The tragic events of last night were devastating for anyone who loves the city of Bangkok. Watching images and reports flood in of landmark buildings like the Central World mall and beloved Siam Theatre going up in flames was heartbreaking. Today many people are quite rightly feeling very angry. But anger isn’t going to get Thailand out of this mess.
A minority of protesters have without doubt acted in a senseless and mindless manner. It is hard to find any justification for these acts of vandalism and arson, the results of which will surely only serve to undermine the causes they claim to fight for and reinforce the divisions in Thai society.
How many protesters were involved in the uncontrolled rioting last night is unclear. I’ve read figures suggesting up to three thousand people. These hardliners urgently need to be brought under control and subjected to a genuine process of justice.
It would be easy to tar the entire red shirt movement with their brush. But if we do that will Thailand ever emerge from its current cycle of protest and conflict? It should not be forgotten that earlier in March estimates of up to one hundred thousand people were involved in the red shirt protests, most of whom engaged in a peaceful and positive manner. No-one who witnessed the earlier red shirt parades around the city could call them violent. Frustrating and inconvenient perhaps, but not violent.
It would also be easy to forget the large number of people who have never joined the protests but sympathise with the red shirt cause. In recent democratic elections at least half of the electorate have voted for Thaksin affiliated parties. That adds up to tens of millions of people. You might not agree with them but they can’t be ignored. They won’t go away.
Neither will endless blaming of Thaksin make Thailand’s problems disappear. Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Thaksin. The human rights abuses committed during the war on drugs and Tak Bai incident under his Government were despicable. I deplore corruption in any form and his moves towards authoritarianism and control of the media were deeply disturbing.
However, I strongly believe that Thaksin is a symptom of Thailand’s problems not the cause. Thaksin is a shrewd politician and publicist and he was simply the man who was clever enough to take advantage of the underlying conditions in Thai society. He worked out how to harness the divisions in Thai society and use them for his advantage. You can certainly accuse Thaksin of increasing those divisions but not of creating them. The disparities in income, education and opportunity that fuel this conflict were there long before Thaksin. To use a metaphor Thaksin may have pulled the trigger but the gun wouldn’t have worked without gunpowder.
It would be easy to take out our feelings of hurt and resentment from lasts night’s events on the whole of the red shirt movement, but if we want reconciliation and a democratic peaceful Thailand, we mustn’t do that. The red shirt movement is well known to be split and we need to engage with and empower the peaceful factions if we want to isolate and weaken the violent groups.
Tonight as you enjoy another night in under curfew shed a tear for your favourite mall and cinema but tomorrow be prepared to forgive and forget. Try to understand the motivations and demands of those on both sides of the conflict. We need to return to the middle ground if we are ever going to get out of this turmoil.
“Terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force …” means governments are not agents of terror – so the Rape of Nanking, the fire bombing of Dresden & Tokyo or the Xmas bombing of Hanoi and Irael’s management of Palestine were or are not terrorism?
There is a phenomenon we call state terrorism, mostly legal, which is by several orders of magnitude more terrific than Khun Arisman suggesting soldiers should be disarmed or that bottles of petrol be prepared to torch buildings if need be.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
20 May 1992
I think that Thailand is going to have to start giving more and more Western press the “Economist magazine” treatment. More and more the Western press have negative but factual stories about HM. I saw some in the NYT and Guardian already. Headly gets quoted more and more. Look at how the Thai Ambassador to Oz reaction.
Maybe it is trashing someone when they are down, which is typical media behavior. Or maybe they are pushing back against this law that is inconsistent with modern democracy.
20 May 1992
Eva, how well have that worked in the United States? Schools lower standards to comply with the government demands. Good students are plagued by bad students who DO NOT WANT an education and end up dropping out. Schools do not need to improve as there is no competition. With so much opportunity and education grants, so many students in the USA is satisfied with a highschool graduation and settles for less than their true potential. Nancy Pelosi just said a few days ago musicians and entrepreneurs no longer have to worry about healthcare as tax payers will pay for their healthcare. Really? It resembles communism more than a free country. Compassion should come from the individual and not from the government. I have the same debate with Christians in the USA. They said as Christians, the people in the USA should give. I said the bible instructs YOU to give, not the GOVERNMENT!!! There is no guarantee of anything in this life, only what you fight for. Any other belief is delusional and equate to legalized robbery via proxy.
Burning, curfew
Leeyianakun @ 58 :
“Nattakorn Devakula, has noted that amongst the target of arson & destruction. Few were curiously excluded from that fate.
-Nation building
-ASTV
-Prem’s home
and the list goes on.
Since the reds is clearly the culprit, it’s surprising that their most hated enemies are offered immunity from it.”
And also very strange is the burning of several Big C department stores, which are of course where cheaper goods are sold for those who are a lot poorer than Central World shoppers. Would the Reds be burning their own supporters shopping malls ?
Not also that snipers apparently prevented firemen from entering Central World for several hours.
However, I also read that The Nation WAS attacked – can anyone clarify this ?
Chaos, curfew and confusion
Simon# 26 :
You’re quite correct – though Red attacks on the media are understandable (though still unjustified) given the appalling bias shown by just about all Thai media recently, given that the Red’s media has been shut down by the government, except some community media.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Portman (14): next time I will ask WSJ for a full page. On inequality, there is a lot or material easily available – start with the latest UNDP Human Development report which I mentioned in the article.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Smith Jones@ 15 – quite agree.
And an even better article @ :
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2441&Itemid=164
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Re: why the Reds didn’t accept the Nov 14 offer?
My opinion: The UDD did not refuse the offer and I don’t think the lost faith in the election is the explanation.
1. It is not true that the UDD refused the Nov 14 offer. They agree to negotiate on the timing of the dissolution and election. The word “refused” may look a trivial matter. But in this case, the govt’s propaganda used it to create a general perception that the UDD “refused” the offer. This became a pretext for the government to withdrew the offer and went ahead with the crackdown. This narrative has a serious flaw.
2. But as the UDD agreed to negotiate the date, they added on a new demand — Suthep must get charged for the Apr 10 deaths.
What and why this demand? The answer to this is also the answer to the narrative flaw above.
An example of the narrative that becomes the pretext of the crackdown is by Mr. Voranai “Put an end to this rebellion” BKK Post 16/05/2010. Here is my comment on Mr. Voranai’s narrative. (This comment was circulated to the TLC email group)
>>… there is one important piece that is missing in Mr Voranai’s commentary. I assume that it is not intentional. But even if it is not, the missing piece is very telling how much a highly educated person like him fails to understand those protesters. This failure has been written all over pages of most newspapers, facebook, and many web sites throughout the current crisis. Sometimes this missing piece also shows up among the intellectuals who support the Reds too.
The missing piece is the April 10 clash with the 21 deaths of the Reds
people.
In [Mr. Voranai’s] narrative, the UDD refused the government offer for the election in November and turned to anarchy to serve Thaksin’s agenda. This narrative fails to recognise the UDD’s demand for a promise or assurance for justice for the deaths [of the Apr 10 clash]. Their demand for Deputy PM Suthep to get charged is
problematic in terms of legal procedure. But in their views, there is
nothing in the government’s proposal that would guarantee justice for those deaths. To make things more difficult, the government’s records on justice and judicial process, in their view, are not good either; they are known as “double standard”. So it is not easy to convince the UDD that justice will be served. An investigation by a government committee, or by the yellowish National Human Right Commission, is not a satisfactory answer to them. [The fact that] Mr. Suthep turned himself in to the DSI (Thai FBI), in their view, was a joke since the DSI is under Suthep, and the DSI itself is the body that presses charges on the UDD leaders for terrorists and anti-monarchy.
Is the UDD demand for justice for the deaths unreasonable?
Why is this whole matter entirely missing from Mr. Voranai’s account? We may dismiss their demand as unrealistic or politically weak. But somehow the Reds’ overt and public sentiment about the April 10 clash and deaths and their demand for justice to the deaths is not even heard, let alone understood, by Mr. Voranai and the like. The Reds view of deaths and justice to [the deaths] does not exist in Mr. Voranai’s narrative. Once he cannot understand it, his explanation turns to “anarchy” and “Thaksin”. He turns the Reds to a
mob for hire as it has always been a convenient explanation by most Thai media and intellectuals. To these people, there is always a “hidden higher aganda” for Thaksin behind the Reds movement, and it is the tru-er reason than whatever the UDD has said.
The Thaksin agenda is a narrative construct to substitute for the failure by these highly educated, smart intellectuals to understand the protesters. They see the Reds as thugs, based on their
negative stereotypes of the nakleng and chaoban (not unlike the stereotype many educated Thais have for the “black” people even before they meet one).
[The educated urban upper class and intellectuals] don’t understand those Reds’ views of life, death, risk, peace, violence and so on, but instead taking the values held by our tribe (the highly educated urban elite) as the standard for morals, right and wrong. <<<<
In my opinion, the distrust in election was not the issue in the UDD response to the govt's offer. At least it was not as critical, as they were willing to negotiate. The critical issue to them is justice to the Apr 10 deaths.
The Apr 10 bloodshed coumpounded the original demand for dissolution and election, but many observers have not given adequate recognition. Justice, an apparent issue of grievance throughout the protest, had not been duly recognised but got much worse since Apr 1o.
It is justice that people have fought for to their death so many times in human history.
The Reds don't have to articulate straightforwardly as "justice". Actually they did, but observers didn't hear them. The Reds expressed their demand for justice in many terms — they can't go home without an answer about the Apr 10 death; the government must show responsibility, and so on. This is why they want something about Suthep, in ways that, in my opinion, was legally problematic. But I think their demand was just.
I doubt very much that Thaksin would prefer a bloody defeat. Yes, if many of us can foresee it after the govt's offer fell through, why can't he? The protest had done so much damages to the Democrats that a victory in the next election to the Pheu Thai Party is almost certain. Thaksin is smart enough to see the benefits of ending the protest and too high a risk to continue. It doesn't need Thaksin to make this calculation. (I heard that he is pretty good at the risk-benefit calculation, with the only exception for the 2006 coup.)
Contrary to many gurus who argue that the UDD "refused" the govt's offer because Thaksin's told them to, I think the UDD themselves made the decision to add a new demand. And such a demand is for JUSTICE. That is also why they were willing to fight on.
I think the added demand was politically a mistake, no matter how just it may be. But it is our serious mistake if we don't recognise the severe injustice to the Reds that was amplified multifold on Apr 10. They came to fight for justice. In the end, justice may still be missing even after the Apr 10 deaths, even in our analyses.
Former Australian Foreign Minister calls for new election in Thailand
In an bizarre attempt to justify clinging to leadership, Abhisit claimed that during his premiership he would do his best to bring unity and stability Thailand, and stated that he must be given enough time to realise those goals. He can hardly be blind to the disastrous negative impact he has had on his country ever since he boycotted the 2006 elections (the entire unsavoury history can be found on the net). Given enough time, he can only be expected to do a more thorough job of polarising and destabilising his country. Elections a.s.a.p. may not be a panacea, but would surely be the best next step. The alternative? I dread to imagine.
Burning, curfew
DaveH,
Do you honestly see no connection between Abhisit and the PAD? All the PAD leaders have been loudly supportive of Abhisit, at least one is a sitting member of his party! Another, Sondhi has used his media empire exclusively to sing the praises of Abhisit, and demonize his opponents. I think that it is safe to say that Abhisit has the support of the PAD, and equally safe to say that he is glad of it.
Your statement “Given the choice between him and the red shirt leaders (who seem to been espousing a doctrine of hatred) I prefer the former”, is ridiculous for two reasons: first of all, do not mistake anger for hatred. Anger is what you hear from the red-shirts, whose one demand has always been only for new elections. They feel they have been robbed of democracy, and they are angry. Hatred is what you hear from many of their opponents in the PAD and the media, who describe the protesters as ‘buffaloes’, ‘terrorists’, ‘king-haters’, ‘thugs’, etc. These are words used to vilify and dehumanize people, and they encourage hatred and violence towards them. Does Mr. Abhisit seem bothered by this kind of ‘support’? I’ve yet to hear him condemn such venom, so can we not easily accuse him of ‘espousing a doctrine of hate’? Furthermore, your statement presents a false choice between Abhisit and “the red shirt leaders”. If you recall, the protesters are demanding ELECTIONS. They are not demanding the installation of one or all of the protest leaders. Who would win the election? I have no idea, and I doubt you do either, yet you ‘prefer’ Abhisit to democratic elections.
You “hope Abhisit can offer something concrete to the red supporters.” Well so do I, my friend, but I’ve got serious doubts that he is willing. After all, in spite of your (fawning) assertion Abhisit “is doing the best he can in a impossible situation”, I saw nothing from him that indicated a willingness to offer anything “concrete” to the reds. Was that really “the best” he could do? If he really had “Thailand’s best interests at heart”, then why didn’t he try a little harder to avert this crisis? And why, now that the protest is largely dispersed, should he be more likely to offer concessions? I would love for Abhisit to prove me wrong, but given his mishandling of the protests, and his fascist support base (PAD), and so much invested in hate-propaganda, I would be very, very surprised.
20 May 1992
Benja S. Sariwatta, people wanting a fair pay for their labor has nothing to do with communism. In most Western countries having a minimum pay by law is normal. Everyone deserves a decent pay for their time and effort, without being exploited and also should have access to health care and education. Children should have the opportunity to get a decent education, no matter how much money their parents make, so that they can shape their life, live up to their potential, and not be condemned to poverty just because their parents were. Especially in a Buddhist country I would expect more empathy for other people and understanding for their situation.
If you really want the best for Thailand and it’s economy, you would see that when people don’t have access to a decent education and have no way of escaping poverty due to the lack of legislation and lack of will of the government, it will hurt Thailand more than it will do any good.
Thai Embassy response to Hartcher
Regarding who wrote the laws now in use to suppress information:
Don’t know if it was Thaksin or the Military after, but isn’t the Government breaking the law anyway?
I thought they needed a court order to shut down internet sites? It’s my understanding that plenty of times they don’t have that.
20 May 1992
I got asked by many journalists in the past 24 hours why the K remains silent. Here is my answer to everyone of them.
First of all, why do they (journalists) expect him to intervene?
Why does he remain silent?
1. perhaps his health. Can anybody know if he is still capable of dealing with the current crisis? It is so difficult even to all of us with healthy bodies and minds.
2. Suppose health is not a factor: it is super difficult to intervene at the right place, timing and exact words. Given the polarization and heated tension this time, an intervention could be costly, and not rewarding.
3. What does their silence mean? Contrary to the myth among observers of Thailand that the monarch always intervened in a crisis like this one in the past, it is not true. His intervention in 1973 and 1992 helped stop the killings. But he was silent in the 1976 massacre. Why? Those journalists and observers rarely raise this question. What or why he did in 1973 and 1992 but not in 1976? Perhaps the politics and roles of the palace in the 1976 massacre and in the current crisis are similar, but it is different from the one in 1973 and 1992.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
It is naive for anybody to discredit the Red Shirt movement because it has violent elements. Non-violence is a viable strategy only in countries where there is rule of law and where the governing power does not commit extrajudicial killings or use unnecessary force. Thailand is not the United States and those who pursue purely non-violent protests are destined for slaughter. You fight back or you die.
It’s even worse in countries like Vietnam or Laos, where non-violent protesters would be immediately seized and disappear into the gulags.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Haven’t read them.
Just wanna comment that all comments (including any articles) are only parts of the whole story. may be all are true, but you need to neatly and cleverly stitch them up.
overall they are just too ‘conclusive’ (including mine).
what happens with the economics first politics later rhetoric which stresses that if the people are fully fed they will be politically submissive. is the overall economic situation of average Thais taht bad these past few years?
anyway where did we leave the environment and climate change?
20 May 1992
CNN commentary.
OH MY GOD! Surely its part of a comedy act? Please, somone tell me it is…
20 May 1992
-Benja
Interesting points you make. When democracies around the world are going bankrupt, the rhetoric of pro democracy groups starts to verge on the absurd. The blind following the blind?
In this age of failing economies, all forms of government begin to look redundant. The personal struggle for survival tends to figure more prominently than what (wealthy) political leader to back. Your vote goes to whoever will feed you.
That’s no idle speculation. More than one Red Shirt protester indicated that they were there because free food was being provided. Its the way of the future and these people are the vanguard of the new age.
Look closely at Thailand. It are not a third world country slipping into anarchy. It is a road map for the world.
Ambassador Kriangsak in the SMH
Stuart
Someone once took a great deal of trouble to explain to to me why this country would fall into civil war after the death of the King
.
The reasoning was strong and compelling and I have no cause to doubt the scenario outlined, the only departure so far has been in the time line. Events has been moving along ahead of schedule.
For those interested, it runs something like this:
1 – King dies
2 – Various factions previously quiescent contend for power
3 – The military takes over government directly
Bangkok or bust, Part 1
[…] skytrain in bangkok, april2010 by christao] [image6>demonstation underneath skytrain via new mandala] [image7> retro-futuristic elevated train via my urban sherpa] [image8> German visions for […]
20 May 1992
The tragic events of last night were devastating for anyone who loves the city of Bangkok. Watching images and reports flood in of landmark buildings like the Central World mall and beloved Siam Theatre going up in flames was heartbreaking. Today many people are quite rightly feeling very angry. But anger isn’t going to get Thailand out of this mess.
A minority of protesters have without doubt acted in a senseless and mindless manner. It is hard to find any justification for these acts of vandalism and arson, the results of which will surely only serve to undermine the causes they claim to fight for and reinforce the divisions in Thai society.
How many protesters were involved in the uncontrolled rioting last night is unclear. I’ve read figures suggesting up to three thousand people. These hardliners urgently need to be brought under control and subjected to a genuine process of justice.
It would be easy to tar the entire red shirt movement with their brush. But if we do that will Thailand ever emerge from its current cycle of protest and conflict? It should not be forgotten that earlier in March estimates of up to one hundred thousand people were involved in the red shirt protests, most of whom engaged in a peaceful and positive manner. No-one who witnessed the earlier red shirt parades around the city could call them violent. Frustrating and inconvenient perhaps, but not violent.
It would also be easy to forget the large number of people who have never joined the protests but sympathise with the red shirt cause. In recent democratic elections at least half of the electorate have voted for Thaksin affiliated parties. That adds up to tens of millions of people. You might not agree with them but they can’t be ignored. They won’t go away.
Neither will endless blaming of Thaksin make Thailand’s problems disappear. Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Thaksin. The human rights abuses committed during the war on drugs and Tak Bai incident under his Government were despicable. I deplore corruption in any form and his moves towards authoritarianism and control of the media were deeply disturbing.
However, I strongly believe that Thaksin is a symptom of Thailand’s problems not the cause. Thaksin is a shrewd politician and publicist and he was simply the man who was clever enough to take advantage of the underlying conditions in Thai society. He worked out how to harness the divisions in Thai society and use them for his advantage. You can certainly accuse Thaksin of increasing those divisions but not of creating them. The disparities in income, education and opportunity that fuel this conflict were there long before Thaksin. To use a metaphor Thaksin may have pulled the trigger but the gun wouldn’t have worked without gunpowder.
It would be easy to take out our feelings of hurt and resentment from lasts night’s events on the whole of the red shirt movement, but if we want reconciliation and a democratic peaceful Thailand, we mustn’t do that. The red shirt movement is well known to be split and we need to engage with and empower the peaceful factions if we want to isolate and weaken the violent groups.
Tonight as you enjoy another night in under curfew shed a tear for your favourite mall and cinema but tomorrow be prepared to forgive and forget. Try to understand the motivations and demands of those on both sides of the conflict. We need to return to the middle ground if we are ever going to get out of this turmoil.
Burning, curfew
Dear Karin Dean
“Terrorism: the unlawful use or threatened use of force …” means governments are not agents of terror – so the Rape of Nanking, the fire bombing of Dresden & Tokyo or the Xmas bombing of Hanoi and Irael’s management of Palestine were or are not terrorism?
There is a phenomenon we call state terrorism, mostly legal, which is by several orders of magnitude more terrific than Khun Arisman suggesting soldiers should be disarmed or that bottles of petrol be prepared to torch buildings if need be.