The perception of the Thai army as political puppet masters or controllers of Thailand is way of date. Recent evidence points to a disengagement from politics:
The instigator of the last coup undertook to hold elections and hand power back to a civilian government. He did that.
The army has publicly admitted that the last coup created its own problems. They have also publicly stated *ad nauseum* that coups do not resolve political problems and they don’t see them as a solution.
The current chief, Anupong, has publicly stated that the current crisis should be solved by political means rather than force, and publicly dragged his heels on providing it to an extent that was widely regarded as an embarrassment.
It’s difficult to for people to convince people that things change, so all I can say is take a look at recent evidence, does it fit the jackboot stereotypes of the past?
I see no evidence of power mongering or manipulation by the military. The problem for the last two governments has been getting them to do anything at all.
Washington was “deeply concerned that ‘Red Shirt’ supporters have engaged in arson, targeting electricity infrastructure and media outlets and have attacked individual journalists,” said State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid.
“And we condemn such behavior and call on (their) leaders and affiliated opposition politicians to urge their supporters to stop such acts,” he told reporters in Washington.
However, Duguid praised some actions already taken by the protest leaders.
“We are encouraged by the actions of the ‘Red Shirt’ leaders who have surrendered to law enforcement agencies and support their call to supporters to return home peacefully,” Duguid said.
I think the solution to the Thai political problem is the “Presidential System” like in Indonesia and the United states where the people directly elect their Head of State. History repeatedly shows that the Thai monarchy has been the main obstacle to the country’s democratization process. So the best way is to have the direct presidential election.
DaveH
It is a pity that the situation has come to this. You cannot have a peaceful protest with soldiers shooting you. Yes, it might look better for the reds to link arms and die non-violently, but then again, the Thai media certainly would not show it. I think you are not putting yourself in the situation that the protesters find themselves in. The years of perceived injustices done to them, the months of peaceful protest, the rejection of their demands, and the violent crackdown by the army. Many have reacted in great fear and sadness, while many others have reacted with great anger. Arisman seems to be in the latter camp. No, there is nothing ‘productive’ about burning buildings… but neither is there about shooting your own citizens. As for ‘free speech’, if such a concept had any application to Thailand, perhaps this entire situation would have been avoided. Why is there such a double-standard when it comes to the red-shirts? Are there PAD leaders in jail-cells, awaiting the imminent arrival of their UDD counterparts? Of course not! They have government positions! Has the Thai press ever once suggested that maybe the government consider a single demand of the protesters? No! Instead, they harp on the reds for not being grateful for the ‘generous’ concessions of the handsome and talented Mr. Abhisit. Hell, the fascist PAD even gave Abhisit a hard time for not just shooting the protesters outright!
On the whole a good piece but I do feel you are dodging the critical issues surrounding violent protest and resistance.
It is disingenuous to suggest that those who deplore the violence most are those who have denied the legitimacy of the Reds peaceful statements.
Many deplore political violence on moral and ethical grounds. And for strategic reasons many simply do not think that violence will succeed in bringing true democratic change. Violence from the state, PAD or anyone else should be condemned.
I also have my suspicions regarding the democratic credentials of many elements of the Reds, of Phua Thai and of Thaksin himself.
You have conveniently skirted around the issue of whether violence has been a central part of the Red strategy. You have not touched on the fiery oratory from the stage, the promises from Arisman to burn Bangkok and sala glang to the ground, nor Thaksin’s prophesy of guerilla war. Is the current violence a justified outpouring of rage in the face of brutal state repression, or is it part of the original plan? Or a bit of both – now, as is the way with violence, going beyond what was originally expected.
But if you seriously believe that there is no faith in the electoral process – then are you arguing that the path of violence is justified and appropriate?
From your position it seems that nothing short of immediate house dissolution would have been acceptable, and that anything less should be met with violent resistance. If so it hardly presents a stance for negotiation. Sounds more like an ultimatum.
However flawed the electoral process is – surely it is better than armed struggle. Eventually the armed struggle will end in annihilation of one side, or negotiation.
We need to consider who benefits most from violence and chaos. It is usually the precursor to a more repressive government. Nothing the military likes more than a period of chaos.
But Andrew and Nicholas if the red shirts have lost faith in Thai democracy and that’s why they turned their noses up at Abhisit’s road map, where do they go from here? If Thaksin finances an insurgency would you support it?
Heartfelt, let me be the first to tell you; Mr. Walker only printed the letter that was sent to him. So you shouldn’t make quick assumptions it causes one to wonder…
Although we can criticize the Dems in a number of areas, I don’t think anyone puts the “completely depleted foreign reserves” on their backs. True Chuan couldn’t solve the economic meltdown, but cause it…
And I don’t think you can criticize Abhisit for trying to reach the rural vote; it’s about time!
As for Thaksin and “rural debt”, many would argue that only a few top end farmers found relief under Thaksin’s scheme while many found themselves still under heavy debt. Perhaps with time, Thaksin could have helped more farmers, but we will never know.
Jit,
While those protesting in the streets share many common grievances and motivations, they are not a single organism. Each one has weighed the risks and potential gains to their actions. I think that most underestimated the regime’s resolve to maintain power. For my part, I question whether there was ever any prospect of ‘fair trials’. Same goes for elections and ‘independent inquiries’. Please excuse them for being sceptical of this government, which has (in their view) totally disenfranchised them, used relentless propaganda to demonize them and spread hatred, and finally been willing to shoot them. I never once felt that Abhisit was sincerely offering any concessions. Yes, they could have stopped the protest early, possibly been granted some amnesty… and everything would have been the same. I don’t think that ‘burning down Bangkok’ is a strategy so much as an angry reaction. No, it won’t do anyone any good, but neither is it particularly indicative of the nature of the red movement (despite eager cries to the contrary). What you are seeing now is the entirely predictable effects of anger and frustration on the part of people whose last democratic resort has been utterly disregarded. The responsibility for this entire mess lies squarely with Abhisit. At any time since the protests started, all he has had to do, was make a sincere effort to engage meaningfully with the protesters. Instead, he stalled, wavering between hard-line rhetoric and indefinite offers of early elections. From the beginning, it has been clear, that Abhisit was frustrated at the army’s unwillingness to act. If he had his way, the scene today would have happened two months ago. There has been a concerted effort to deprive the people of political power. A collusion of the army, privy council, courts, and other powerful members of Thai society have shown that they will not let democracy, or innocent people stand in their way. You ask if they would have gotten a ‘better deal’, but I ask if there was ever any deal to begin with. I doubt anyone is “looking forward to a civil war” (I hope you were joking). But if anyone is responsible for that eventuality, it is again, Abhisit. He has done more to sow division in Thailand among ‘both’ sides of this conflict through his reckless use of propaganda, and unwillingness to negotiate, than any inconvenience the protesters have caused some Bangkokians.
Perhaps a surveu of the Crown Prince’s classmates at Duntroon should be taken to get another perspective – although they would be bound by the Official Secrets Act
Andrew, good article and right on target pointing out how the government thinks it can simply sweep all of this under the rug, and “get back to normalcy.” I don’t have a TV, but this morning I watched TV in a room on Kaosan Road as my apartment is in an area of martial
law. What did I see? The King, the King, the King.
Mass protests are driven by demagogues armed with an agenda. The Red Shirts’ protest is no exception.
[Demagogue : (disapproving) A person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting people’s emotions rather than by having good ideas]
May be the very well-educated Ambassador has never heard of French Revolution or Russia’s October Revolution. I do not believe V.I. Lenin was a demagogue.
Reading:
Australian “Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says he is pleased the Thai military has shown restraint in dealing with their country’s political crisis.”
Makes my blood boil.
The army shooting unarmed folk for a week was not showing restraint.
They could have easily evicted the protesters as we can see from Wednesday’s crackdown, wtih no soldiers, by sending in (possibly armoured) earth moving equipment to trash the barricades followed by lots of water tankers to “flush out” the demonstrators.
They could have done this at any time in the last 2 months but instead chose murder.
Will Andrew in Canberra kindly shove this message down Steven Smith’s throat and video him choking on it for us all to enjoy?
Steve:
I would like to say ‘yes’ there is a customary system of ‘token gift’ in Thailand and that not giving can be seen as an insult.
Say, the candidate holds a rally. Then it is ‘customary’ to provide a thank-you-for-coming ‘token gift’. This is not dissimilar to reporters getting gift-packs for turning up at press conferences or kids getting goodies bags at birthday parties.
A second point to note is, many of these village voters worked in cities and travelled long distances home to vote (in the 80s, can rural villagers vote in BKK now?) and it is customary to indirectly cover for the time, effort and cost to come home to vote as a courtesy. The actual bribe back then was B800, enough to supply good food for the table for the family for 2 months.
A smart and successful VH will indeed have to know how to manage up and manage down (not dissimilar to middle management in a corporation). I supposed upgraded school roofs and city halls are examples of the occasional largess of the VH to buy the hearts of the villagers who really rarely ask for much. But that should come under provincial government budget, not out of pocket from VH. Out of pocket largess would be say paying to transport sick relative to BKK for treatment. Most of the money to the VH should stay with the VH.
Roads and public utilities for the villagers though, are ways where the politicians make money, often charging the Thai People (government) as much as 10 times the actual cost of construction. Example: some of the overhead bridges in Bangkok cost as much as B4 million to build (an engineer once quoted me B300K for a B3m structure).
“..government USED TO have a better way to deal with this..”
From last year dispersal the protesters have learned that the army wouldn’t really shoot, they were not afraid to engage soldiers anymore.
To supplement this, their leaders told them time and time again that they will be victorious the moment soldiers open live fire – another reason to defy the army.
This is where Abhisit’s “international standards” strategy really failed – it failed to project the image of an overwhelming, irresistible force that would not budge no matter what resistance you put up or how many sacrifices you make.
@Harmony. You are wrong. Even in 1992, two years before Al Gore miraculous invention of the Internet, the international media didn’t report the Suchinda government’s version of events. The news got out anyway, despite the governement’s control and censorship of the sattelite feed. Thais also made widespread use of faxes to spread news and rumours but perhaps you were not around then.
can anyone confirm a rumor that if any red shirt groups were found to gathering in any district in Bangkok that the chief of police of that district will get fire.
@u_chemp #3. Your piece makes Kriangsak look like a master of polemic prose.
– The charge of elitist families only interested in maintaining unschooled labour for their inefficient industries can equally, if not better, be aimed at Thaksin and his elitist TRT crony capitalists when in government. They proved themselves very adept exploiters of cheap labour and uninformed consumers and did very little for education, probably because they fear an educated “phrai” class will eventually reject the concept of selling their votes to corrupt politicians which is an essential component of the Thaksinite marketing strategy.
– Agreed that the army generals are corrupt and incompetent. I also believe that the defence budget consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the national budget that urgently needs to be reallocated to healthcare and education. However, I disagree strongly that the military wanted the situation in the South to escalate. It was Thaksin who set the South ablaze, largely because he wanted to take over the Southern patronage network for himself. He insisted on shifting the responsibility for security, along with the booty from all the criminal activities that went with it, to the police.
– Thaksin did come from a political family. His father and uncle were both politicians and Thaksin,moonlighting from the police, was their bag man, delivering brown envelopes for them to pay for votes in the House.
– Paying back the IMF early achieved nothing at all, since the IMF conditions were already redundant, having already been satisfied by the previous governent. In fact, by that time Thailand was benefitting from the arbitrage of relending out the IMF loans at a higher interest rate. The early re-payment was pure political spin and highly successful too but had nil substance behind it.
– Right. He didn’t take the usual 3% but his wife apparently took 30% of some of the airport related projects which you seem to believe was a crowning achievement.
– I don’t Thailand is one of the most repressive states on the planet. It allows people like you and Thaksin’s sleazeball lawyer to enter freely and do what you like.
I guess part of the difficulty here is how you define vote buying. If it means that the person loses all choice in who they vote for, and this is passed on to someone else (like describes in #12), then from my limited experience of some villages in Korat, this does not and cannot happen in Thailand.
The more tricky definition is if we are talking about the use of money to influence someone to vote a certain way, because this is used widely in all democracies, but in different ways. If a politician or his aide comes to a village, passes out money and says more is coming if you vote for him, is this any differnt to politicians in japan, Aust., US promising reduced taxes, local developments etc?
Perhaps I can help.
This looks genuine to me and what is it about:
1. Preparing folk to peacefully demonstrate against the powers that be.
The bottles of petrol represent a threat to the property of what many are now calling a facist state and its backers. The speaker does not mention bringing weapons to harm any adverseries.
2. Ending military domination of the country. His 3 against 1 suggestion for disarming soldiers of their weapons is excellent advice and it is a pity that this was not followed through. It is advice that anti-war mongers could follow in countries like the USA.
I ave been surprised at the restraint that the Red Shirts showed for days as the army snipers were killing their members. My thought was that should the army attack the demonstrators they would respond by looting and burning the Hiso department stores and hotels around them.
This did not happen until the end and then only in a very calculated fashion starting with Central a company which is key advocate for Hiso interests against the phrai.
Clair’s ‘useful’ post about the Sakdina system in Thailand is anything but. One more attempt to vilify the red movement, this time based on an amateur analysis of scholarly work on the Sakdina system.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chaos, curfew and confusion
The perception of the Thai army as political puppet masters or controllers of Thailand is way of date. Recent evidence points to a disengagement from politics:
The instigator of the last coup undertook to hold elections and hand power back to a civilian government. He did that.
The army has publicly admitted that the last coup created its own problems. They have also publicly stated *ad nauseum* that coups do not resolve political problems and they don’t see them as a solution.
The current chief, Anupong, has publicly stated that the current crisis should be solved by political means rather than force, and publicly dragged his heels on providing it to an extent that was widely regarded as an embarrassment.
It’s difficult to for people to convince people that things change, so all I can say is take a look at recent evidence, does it fit the jackboot stereotypes of the past?
I see no evidence of power mongering or manipulation by the military. The problem for the last two governments has been getting them to do anything at all.
The army is still ashamed of 1992.
Chaos, curfew and confusion
United State’s take on the events:
Washington was “deeply concerned that ‘Red Shirt’ supporters have engaged in arson, targeting electricity infrastructure and media outlets and have attacked individual journalists,” said State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid.
“And we condemn such behavior and call on (their) leaders and affiliated opposition politicians to urge their supporters to stop such acts,” he told reporters in Washington.
However, Duguid praised some actions already taken by the protest leaders.
“We are encouraged by the actions of the ‘Red Shirt’ leaders who have surrendered to law enforcement agencies and support their call to supporters to return home peacefully,” Duguid said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100519/usa/thailand_politics_protest_us
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
I think the solution to the Thai political problem is the “Presidential System” like in Indonesia and the United states where the people directly elect their Head of State. History repeatedly shows that the Thai monarchy has been the main obstacle to the country’s democratization process. So the best way is to have the direct presidential election.
Burning, curfew
DaveH
It is a pity that the situation has come to this. You cannot have a peaceful protest with soldiers shooting you. Yes, it might look better for the reds to link arms and die non-violently, but then again, the Thai media certainly would not show it. I think you are not putting yourself in the situation that the protesters find themselves in. The years of perceived injustices done to them, the months of peaceful protest, the rejection of their demands, and the violent crackdown by the army. Many have reacted in great fear and sadness, while many others have reacted with great anger. Arisman seems to be in the latter camp. No, there is nothing ‘productive’ about burning buildings… but neither is there about shooting your own citizens. As for ‘free speech’, if such a concept had any application to Thailand, perhaps this entire situation would have been avoided. Why is there such a double-standard when it comes to the red-shirts? Are there PAD leaders in jail-cells, awaiting the imminent arrival of their UDD counterparts? Of course not! They have government positions! Has the Thai press ever once suggested that maybe the government consider a single demand of the protesters? No! Instead, they harp on the reds for not being grateful for the ‘generous’ concessions of the handsome and talented Mr. Abhisit. Hell, the fascist PAD even gave Abhisit a hard time for not just shooting the protesters outright!
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Andrew and Nicholas
On the whole a good piece but I do feel you are dodging the critical issues surrounding violent protest and resistance.
It is disingenuous to suggest that those who deplore the violence most are those who have denied the legitimacy of the Reds peaceful statements.
Many deplore political violence on moral and ethical grounds. And for strategic reasons many simply do not think that violence will succeed in bringing true democratic change. Violence from the state, PAD or anyone else should be condemned.
I also have my suspicions regarding the democratic credentials of many elements of the Reds, of Phua Thai and of Thaksin himself.
You have conveniently skirted around the issue of whether violence has been a central part of the Red strategy. You have not touched on the fiery oratory from the stage, the promises from Arisman to burn Bangkok and sala glang to the ground, nor Thaksin’s prophesy of guerilla war. Is the current violence a justified outpouring of rage in the face of brutal state repression, or is it part of the original plan? Or a bit of both – now, as is the way with violence, going beyond what was originally expected.
But if you seriously believe that there is no faith in the electoral process – then are you arguing that the path of violence is justified and appropriate?
From your position it seems that nothing short of immediate house dissolution would have been acceptable, and that anything less should be met with violent resistance. If so it hardly presents a stance for negotiation. Sounds more like an ultimatum.
However flawed the electoral process is – surely it is better than armed struggle. Eventually the armed struggle will end in annihilation of one side, or negotiation.
We need to consider who benefits most from violence and chaos. It is usually the precursor to a more repressive government. Nothing the military likes more than a period of chaos.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
But Andrew and Nicholas if the red shirts have lost faith in Thai democracy and that’s why they turned their noses up at Abhisit’s road map, where do they go from here? If Thaksin finances an insurgency would you support it?
The rebellion of Thailand’s middle-income peasants
Heartfelt, let me be the first to tell you; Mr. Walker only printed the letter that was sent to him. So you shouldn’t make quick assumptions it causes one to wonder…
Although we can criticize the Dems in a number of areas, I don’t think anyone puts the “completely depleted foreign reserves” on their backs. True Chuan couldn’t solve the economic meltdown, but cause it…
And I don’t think you can criticize Abhisit for trying to reach the rural vote; it’s about time!
As for Thaksin and “rural debt”, many would argue that only a few top end farmers found relief under Thaksin’s scheme while many found themselves still under heavy debt. Perhaps with time, Thaksin could have helped more farmers, but we will never know.
Bangkok: This is a massacre
Jit,
While those protesting in the streets share many common grievances and motivations, they are not a single organism. Each one has weighed the risks and potential gains to their actions. I think that most underestimated the regime’s resolve to maintain power. For my part, I question whether there was ever any prospect of ‘fair trials’. Same goes for elections and ‘independent inquiries’. Please excuse them for being sceptical of this government, which has (in their view) totally disenfranchised them, used relentless propaganda to demonize them and spread hatred, and finally been willing to shoot them. I never once felt that Abhisit was sincerely offering any concessions. Yes, they could have stopped the protest early, possibly been granted some amnesty… and everything would have been the same. I don’t think that ‘burning down Bangkok’ is a strategy so much as an angry reaction. No, it won’t do anyone any good, but neither is it particularly indicative of the nature of the red movement (despite eager cries to the contrary). What you are seeing now is the entirely predictable effects of anger and frustration on the part of people whose last democratic resort has been utterly disregarded. The responsibility for this entire mess lies squarely with Abhisit. At any time since the protests started, all he has had to do, was make a sincere effort to engage meaningfully with the protesters. Instead, he stalled, wavering between hard-line rhetoric and indefinite offers of early elections. From the beginning, it has been clear, that Abhisit was frustrated at the army’s unwillingness to act. If he had his way, the scene today would have happened two months ago. There has been a concerted effort to deprive the people of political power. A collusion of the army, privy council, courts, and other powerful members of Thai society have shown that they will not let democracy, or innocent people stand in their way. You ask if they would have gotten a ‘better deal’, but I ask if there was ever any deal to begin with. I doubt anyone is “looking forward to a civil war” (I hope you were joking). But if anyone is responsible for that eventuality, it is again, Abhisit. He has done more to sow division in Thailand among ‘both’ sides of this conflict through his reckless use of propaganda, and unwillingness to negotiate, than any inconvenience the protesters have caused some Bangkokians.
Ambassador Kriangsak in the SMH
Perhaps a surveu of the Crown Prince’s classmates at Duntroon should be taken to get another perspective – although they would be bound by the Official Secrets Act
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Andrew, good article and right on target pointing out how the government thinks it can simply sweep all of this under the rug, and “get back to normalcy.” I don’t have a TV, but this morning I watched TV in a room on Kaosan Road as my apartment is in an area of martial
law. What did I see? The King, the King, the King.
They just don’t get it.
Ambassador Kriangsak in the SMH
Mass protests are driven by demagogues armed with an agenda. The Red Shirts’ protest is no exception.
[Demagogue : (disapproving) A person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting people’s emotions rather than by having good ideas]
May be the very well-educated Ambassador has never heard of French Revolution or Russia’s October Revolution. I do not believe V.I. Lenin was a demagogue.
Chaos, curfew and confusion
Reading:
Australian “Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says he is pleased the Thai military has shown restraint in dealing with their country’s political crisis.”
Makes my blood boil.
The army shooting unarmed folk for a week was not showing restraint.
They could have easily evicted the protesters as we can see from Wednesday’s crackdown, wtih no soldiers, by sending in (possibly armoured) earth moving equipment to trash the barricades followed by lots of water tankers to “flush out” the demonstrators.
They could have done this at any time in the last 2 months but instead chose murder.
Will Andrew in Canberra kindly shove this message down Steven Smith’s throat and video him choking on it for us all to enjoy?
Too many eggs in the royal basket
Steve:
I would like to say ‘yes’ there is a customary system of ‘token gift’ in Thailand and that not giving can be seen as an insult.
Say, the candidate holds a rally. Then it is ‘customary’ to provide a thank-you-for-coming ‘token gift’. This is not dissimilar to reporters getting gift-packs for turning up at press conferences or kids getting goodies bags at birthday parties.
A second point to note is, many of these village voters worked in cities and travelled long distances home to vote (in the 80s, can rural villagers vote in BKK now?) and it is customary to indirectly cover for the time, effort and cost to come home to vote as a courtesy. The actual bribe back then was B800, enough to supply good food for the table for the family for 2 months.
A smart and successful VH will indeed have to know how to manage up and manage down (not dissimilar to middle management in a corporation). I supposed upgraded school roofs and city halls are examples of the occasional largess of the VH to buy the hearts of the villagers who really rarely ask for much. But that should come under provincial government budget, not out of pocket from VH. Out of pocket largess would be say paying to transport sick relative to BKK for treatment. Most of the money to the VH should stay with the VH.
Roads and public utilities for the villagers though, are ways where the politicians make money, often charging the Thai People (government) as much as 10 times the actual cost of construction. Example: some of the overhead bridges in Bangkok cost as much as B4 million to build (an engineer once quoted me B300K for a B3m structure).
Sorry gtg now
Nick Nostitz in the killing zone
“..government USED TO have a better way to deal with this..”
From last year dispersal the protesters have learned that the army wouldn’t really shoot, they were not afraid to engage soldiers anymore.
To supplement this, their leaders told them time and time again that they will be victorious the moment soldiers open live fire – another reason to defy the army.
This is where Abhisit’s “international standards” strategy really failed – it failed to project the image of an overwhelming, irresistible force that would not budge no matter what resistance you put up or how many sacrifices you make.
Chaos, curfew and confusion
@Harmony. You are wrong. Even in 1992, two years before Al Gore miraculous invention of the Internet, the international media didn’t report the Suchinda government’s version of events. The news got out anyway, despite the governement’s control and censorship of the sattelite feed. Thais also made widespread use of faxes to spread news and rumours but perhaps you were not around then.
Day 5 – how much longer?
can anyone confirm a rumor that if any red shirt groups were found to gathering in any district in Bangkok that the chief of police of that district will get fire.
Ambassador Kriangsak in the SMH
@u_chemp #3. Your piece makes Kriangsak look like a master of polemic prose.
– The charge of elitist families only interested in maintaining unschooled labour for their inefficient industries can equally, if not better, be aimed at Thaksin and his elitist TRT crony capitalists when in government. They proved themselves very adept exploiters of cheap labour and uninformed consumers and did very little for education, probably because they fear an educated “phrai” class will eventually reject the concept of selling their votes to corrupt politicians which is an essential component of the Thaksinite marketing strategy.
– Agreed that the army generals are corrupt and incompetent. I also believe that the defence budget consumes a hugely disproportionate amount of the national budget that urgently needs to be reallocated to healthcare and education. However, I disagree strongly that the military wanted the situation in the South to escalate. It was Thaksin who set the South ablaze, largely because he wanted to take over the Southern patronage network for himself. He insisted on shifting the responsibility for security, along with the booty from all the criminal activities that went with it, to the police.
– Thaksin did come from a political family. His father and uncle were both politicians and Thaksin,moonlighting from the police, was their bag man, delivering brown envelopes for them to pay for votes in the House.
– Paying back the IMF early achieved nothing at all, since the IMF conditions were already redundant, having already been satisfied by the previous governent. In fact, by that time Thailand was benefitting from the arbitrage of relending out the IMF loans at a higher interest rate. The early re-payment was pure political spin and highly successful too but had nil substance behind it.
– Right. He didn’t take the usual 3% but his wife apparently took 30% of some of the airport related projects which you seem to believe was a crowning achievement.
– I don’t Thailand is one of the most repressive states on the planet. It allows people like you and Thaksin’s sleazeball lawyer to enter freely and do what you like.
Too many eggs in the royal basket
I guess part of the difficulty here is how you define vote buying. If it means that the person loses all choice in who they vote for, and this is passed on to someone else (like describes in #12), then from my limited experience of some villages in Korat, this does not and cannot happen in Thailand.
The more tricky definition is if we are talking about the use of money to influence someone to vote a certain way, because this is used widely in all democracies, but in different ways. If a politician or his aide comes to a village, passes out money and says more is coming if you vote for him, is this any differnt to politicians in japan, Aust., US promising reduced taxes, local developments etc?
Day 5 – how much longer?
@Sae Guavara
Perhaps I can help.
This looks genuine to me and what is it about:
1. Preparing folk to peacefully demonstrate against the powers that be.
The bottles of petrol represent a threat to the property of what many are now calling a facist state and its backers. The speaker does not mention bringing weapons to harm any adverseries.
2. Ending military domination of the country. His 3 against 1 suggestion for disarming soldiers of their weapons is excellent advice and it is a pity that this was not followed through. It is advice that anti-war mongers could follow in countries like the USA.
I ave been surprised at the restraint that the Red Shirts showed for days as the army snipers were killing their members. My thought was that should the army attack the demonstrators they would respond by looting and burning the Hiso department stores and hotels around them.
This did not happen until the end and then only in a very calculated fashion starting with Central a company which is key advocate for Hiso interests against the phrai.
Chaos, curfew and confusion
Clair’s ‘useful’ post about the Sakdina system in Thailand is anything but. One more attempt to vilify the red movement, this time based on an amateur analysis of scholarly work on the Sakdina system.