Just like to add my agreement with superanonymous #61 above, regarding the issues raised and dicussed by Ajarn Thongchai and Somsak. Some of the best postings I’ve read in the last few months on New Mandala.
I’ve always admired Ajarn Thongchai critical analysis and contributions to Thai Studies, even if I don’t agree with everything you are putting forward here regarding the current Red movement.
In fact, Somsak comes as close as anyone has to my own views/feelings on the current situation – it’s nice to know I’m not alone in viewing this as a struggle between various elite groupings, and the key roles/motivations being played out by the UDD leadership (and their leading of those in the crowd). I’ll mention again here that this does not detract from the genuine grassroots sentiments for more equality/justice etc…But the flood of pro-red commentary on this site always seems to breeze over (or ignore entirely) any close anlysis of the real movers and shakers within the red movement, and as Somsak says in #55 above, instead see the Reds as a kind of modern day peasant rebellion. My previous postings here have illicted little or no response on this issue, hence my pleasure in reading your opinion Somsak!
Agree with Jan 100%. Also agree with David Brown 100%… “huge information gathering leading to a report that gives the conclusion they think their boss wants”… aka “fixing the facts around the policy”, as the Downing Street memo put it.
The government is a fraud. The Military is a fraud. Military intelligence is a fraud. They’re out to terrorize the population and think they can do whatever they want and make up whatever lies they need to “explain” their policies before, during, and after the fact. It’s lies, lies, lies all the way down.
The only people that stand between The Burmese Solution for Thailand and the present are the reds.
“First they came for the reds, but I wasn’t a red, so I didn’t speak up…”
If I were a red shirt I would insist on an unconditional date certain for dissolution and an unconditional date certain for an election.
These “points” are just the means for Ahhisit to claim that the parliament cannot be dissolved and elections cannot be held when they are not met. He, after all, has created these conditions from whole cloth and will be the exclusive arbiter of whether they are met or not. And they won’t be.
This is a fraud, and I am sure the reds are not taken in by it.
Where does an unelected putsch get off placing conditions on the peoples simple demands for an election? This is ridiculous on its face.
Name the date of dissolution and the date of the election without conditions and be done with it.
Point by point :
1. The monarchy is the exclusive property of the government, to be used as a club against any and all opposition. The opposition has been named republicans and regicides and if they open their mouths to defend themselves they will be charged with lese-majeste and thrown in prison.
2. The government will do its best to eliminate injustice, discrimination, and disenfranchisement suffered by international neoliberal, capital, as at Map Ta Phut where international capital has been terribly mistreated.
3. The government owns the media and has shut down the opposition and that’s the way it is and will be.
4. The government will create a committee to dither, to hem and to haw, to protect those responsible for the deaths of 26 Thais and to see that no harm comes to them.
5. The government will remain the government and you can just get used to it.
No. This is all crap. Reality check.
The government will dissolve the parliament in 30 days and there will be elections in 90 days, as the people demand.
This unelected government is not sovereign, the people are sovereign.
It is not up to the unelected government to tell the people how it will be, it is up to the people to elect a government.
Andrew Walker – 38 [Note: comment 38 was from a reader, not from me. I just posted it for him due to technical problems at his end. AW]
The post got some mistakes, firstly there was a popular referendum for the 1997 constitution. Moreover the 1997 has been draft by the Democrat party with more than 98 or so other independent organizations and individuals, due to popular demand of stronger executive branch (the 1992 constitution was partly to blame on the 1997 economic crisis) and not by any junta as the post claimed as oppose to about 12 for the 2007 version.
I don’t have all the detail on the differences since I believed there are more than 250 articles? I’m not even sure about the exact number.
Anyway, the first major change was that the Senate is 50% elected and 50% selected for the 2007 while the 1997 its all 100% elected.
Second major change was the ability for the court to be able to dissolve a political party for the 2007 and not for the 1997. The third major change was the reduction of the MP from 500 odd number to around 370 which has increase the bargaining power of the minor party quite significantly. This is so far the major change which I think should be noted.
Btw, the reason why many Thais vote for this constitution was because about a week for the date for referendum, the PM Sorayuth came out and said if people dont accept this constitution then the panel might come out with a worst one….. yeah if the PM said that just before the referendum then it certainly sway many people opinion.
Pharris #26 and Michael#34 – excellent posts.
Abhisit has made a smart move, with this just before Coronation Day. But it’s simply window-dressing.
And with numbers very much down, the Reds need a face-saving formula so they can exit to fight another day, if they’re to avoid being massacred.
Obvious next crunch points are the coming military re-shuffle – how much inter-military violence will there be in the run-up to that, given what happened on April 10 ?
And of course there’s the mother of all potential conflicts – the looming succession.
Not to mention potential election violence.
Ben Doherty, in Melbourne’s The Age yesterday wrote that :
“Thailand’s long-running and bloody political stand-off appears almost over”. Surely overly optimistic.
To me it seems we’re simply seeing the end of one round, and the beginning of another.
I honestly don’t get it why Thongchai repeatedly accuses me of using ‘conspiracy’ approach. (I count perhaps a dozen time the word ‘conspriacy’ in his reply above.) Which part of my criticism of UDD leadership that can be contrued such?
Take, for instance, these supposedly criticisms of mine of the UDD leadership:
“using them as pawns for a higher or hidden agenda, that there is a secret deal or collusion or conspiracy”
or
” Why must it be the result of a conspiratorial hidden agenda (with Thaksin) or secret deal (with government)?”
First of all, PLEASE be so kind as to tell me, where did I mention ‘secret deal or collusion with the government“?!! This would be a serious accusation indeed had I made it. But I search my brian (and my computer) out, and couldn’t even find a trace of such thought.
In fact my criticism is the exact opposite of what Thongchai says I made: namely, I repeatedly suggest that the UDD should not break off, but continue the negotiation with the government. I repeatedly maintain that even if, on negotiation, the government’s original 9 month proposal could not be bargained with, it’d still represent a victory, though I think it’s highly likely that a negotiation would have produced at least a couple of month reduction of the gov’s original proposal (perhaps like the one the UDD is preparing to accept at this moment).
Instead, my criticism goes, the UDD leadership chose to end negotiation as soon as the second round concluded and initiated a highly risky tactics of occupation of Ratprasong (and the associated actions like the one in the morning of 10 April in front of army barrack), which I maintain would surely result in a massive armed crackdown (so long as the UDD refuse to enter negotiation and give-and-take on its original proposal).
Didn’t the crack down happen as I predicted, by the way?
That’s what I actually said as far as my criticism of the UDD’s dealing with (or tactics to fight) the gov goes. Seriously, which part of that is ‘conspiracy”? Which part I accuse them of ‘collusion or secret deal with the government“? Had such reading of my criticism of UDD-gov relations been made by someone else, I would cirtainly have thought that person totally insane. For Thongchai, well, I can only think that he must have never really read what I wrote on the issue.
The part about my supposedly charging the UDD of having ‘hidden agenda with Thaksin’ is somewhat complicated, but my real criticism wouldn’t fit the conspiracy either.
First of all, it’s important to set the context. I don’t think, and I believe the great majority of rural Reds supporters of Thaksin don’t think either, that Thaksin’s and the UDD leadership’s ultimate aims and agenda are anything ‘hidden’ or mysterious. They’re quite plain: in short, to reverse the outcome of the 2006 coup, which would mean, among the most important, the annulment of all the legal cases, settled and pending, against him, and consequently, the return of all his assets; his return to the country and, preferably, to power, possibly through general elections; and in order to secure against future coup, prohibition of involvement in politics by the unelected elements, the privy councilors, the judges and the military.
I fully support all these aims and ‘agenda’, as do, I’m quite sure, most of the rural Reds. (This doesn’t mean, of course, that I don’t have my own ‘agenda’ or aims, apart from them). It’s important to stress this, because my criticism of the UDD-Thaksin leadership is never about their aims at all, still less about whether they’re ‘hidden’ or ‘conspiratorial’. It’s about what, to achieve these ultimate aims, would be the best strategy or tactics; ‘best’ in accord with democratic principles which naturally include great respect of the lives and safety of the masses who take part in the movement.
Now, I began my criticism of the current (March) campaign of the UDD with the question (premise): if the target of this campaign really is the dissolution of the parliament, why the UDD had to be so intransigent about the ’15 days’ proposal [*], to the point of refusing to negotiate and, more important, to the point of using such high risk tactics that they themselves realisze would very likely invite gov’s armed crackdown? (I will explain the bold-faced part of the sentence in a moment.)
[* I should add that, in my view, the dissolution whether it happens immediately or in (Thongchai and academics’ supported) 3 months (or even in 9 months – see earlier) makes no ‘life-and-death’ difference to the long-term cause of democracy as well as to Thaksin-UDD’s ultimate aims. Many UDD-Thaksin supporters themselves had replied to me that the UDD-Thaksin have an unspoken, undeclared aim of preventing the expected August-September ascension to the Army Commander-in-Chief post of Prayut Chan-o-cha. Having not (!) been one who believes in conspiratorial story myself (555), I never took seriously this alledged unspoken, undeclared aim.]
The bold-faced part of my above sentence, that the UDD ‘themselves realize (their tactics) would very likely invite gov’s armed crackdown – is it not me using conspiratorial approach, throwing unfair accusation at the UDD as Thongchai said?
This is important, and also somewhat cruelly ironic: while Thongchai accuses me of accusing the UDD of ‘conspiracy’, my whole criticism (not only about this point), is based precisely on my taking seriously what the UDD themselves said at face value! They themselves (on stages, at press conferences, etc) said repeatedly that the gov was a bloodthirsty enemy that was about to suppress the rally with forces. It is precisely THIS, that my main criticism is made of: I insist (still do) that, to use the tactics which they realize would risk bloody confrontation, while at the same time refusing the other obvious, safer one of negotiation, is highly irresponsible, and contrary to the spirit of democracy that they themselves declared their aim.
Which part of this central criticism of mine is ‘conspiratorial’?
Of course, my criticism goes further. I connect this IRRESPONSIBLE (and anti-democratic spirit) tactics to an important thinking, the one that is so widespread not only among the UDD but among political observers in this country before the recent crackdown. (A former Wisconsin-Medison Ph.D. student, now a TU lecturer, Yukti Mukdawijit, even wrote an article about it when it was NOT materialized). The thinking can be put in these colloquial sentences: “р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╣Бр╕Щр╣Ир╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕Ир╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Ар╕ер╕в р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Щр╣И” (roughly translated: “If you [Aphisit] think you’re such capable of cracking down on us, then bring it on! If you do, you’ll be dead, you’ll be finished!”) In other words, if the government suppresss the rally, resulting in many deaths, it will not survive, just like what happened to the Thanom gov in 1973 and Sujinda in 1992.
Again, am I here accusing the UDD leaders of having ‘secret-hidden’ thought? Am I not just putting my own conspiratorial mind to the UDD leaders’ mouth? Absolutely not. I took this kind of sentences, this kind of thinking from the UDD leaders’ own mouth! And yes, I take them seriously at face value, as I’m not in favor of conspiracy! 555 (In fact, I almost took the sentences verbatim from one of Chatuporn Phromphan’s speeches. I also heard similar declaration on stage from Wisa Khanthap.)
My criticism of this thinking is two-fold. First, I suggest that the social-political structure of the country has definitely changed from what it was in 1973, or even in 1992, and it’s not certain that a government’s bloody crackdown would result in the head of that gov having to step down. (How the UDD leaders really had followed this kind of thinking can be seen, not only from the fact that they themselves said so in many words as I summarized above, but also from their immediate and rather laughable demand on the night of 10 April, that Aphisit must leave the country! – “14 October model”, anyone?)
Second, even if this kind of thinking turned out to be true, even if Aphisit was in fact forced to step down after bloody suppression, I still insist it’s wrong, and irresponsible, to follow this thinking. I repeatedly say Aphisit stepping down isn’t worth the risk of losing the lives of the mass.
Notice carefully also in the colloquial sentence above: I didn’t use the word “want” as in “We [the UDD] want you [the gov] to crackdown on us” i.e. I never said, never made the accusation, that the UDD “want” the crackdown to happen to achieve their aims. There’s a huge difference. But I maintain, the kind of thinking that influenced their risky tactics, as summerized in the sentence, is still wrong and irressponsible.
(By the way, “р╣Гр╕Ър╕Хр╕нр╕Зр╣Бр╕лр╣Йр╕З” wrote in an article a few days ago that, he “believe[s] the UDD want р╕бр╕┤р╕Др╕кр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕╡” (total chaos / total lawlessness / total societal breakdown) I guess he must be a closet conpriacy nut, on Thongchai’s cirteria.)
All my views and arguments above are in many of my writing in recent weeks, they are plain for anyone who can read Thai to see. (And should be much easier to grasp than in my poor English summary here.)
The paragraph Thongchai writes about the UDD’s thinking isn’t like my thinking, etc. almost makes me laugh. Why else would anybody make any criticism at others, if one’s thinking is similar to theirs, or if theirs is similar to one’s own? But of course Thongchai is accusing me of not trying to ‘understand’ their different thinking, and instead taking the ridiculous route of conspiracy. It almost makes me laugh because I honesty feel that it applies to Thongchai himself, not me.
But I guess it’s too late. The initial , shall we politely call it misinformation, from Suthep (a retraction and apology would be nice but don’t hold your breath!!!) that the grenades were fired by the redshirts from Lumpini Park has already gone into most people’s histories as the true event and this will probably be buried in a couple of three line articles in the Post and the Nation and probably won’t get a run on TV.
I hope I’m wrong and it’s good to see that the redshirts have rejected the offer of an amnesty (otherwise known as a traditional cover-up).
And if there has to be any spin, this is what the script will be. The reason the redshirts invaded the hospital was to take out the cameras. Dates, times and reason will be lost in the confusion.
“Parliament does not initiate or even deliberate legislation. Laws are proposed to the Council of State–a mostly or completely appointed body” (38).
This is a travesty of democracy because the ordinary people are subject to laws that they may not understand or accept. When laws are made by the people’s representatives, the people are ruled by laws that match their own sense of fairness, and the laws are generally supported. In the most civilised countries of modern Europe, levels of violence and exploitation are extraordinarily low. The rule of law prevails there because laws are either made by the people’s representatives, or have been long accepted.
The rule of law is weak in Thailand, not because the ordinary people are immoral, but because laws are handed down from an ivory tower in Bangkok.
Dear Ajarn Somsak- Thanks you very much for elaborating on Manoonkit. One should certainly despair for the Red Shirt movement if he is on on its side!
However – and I’m taking you as the authority on such things – I’m not so sure that what you cited -a letter printed in Red Shirt publications and read repeatedly from the Red Shirt stage – justifies putting him in the Thaksin camp. The link seems more in the nature of the links in the government’s anti-monarchy conspiracy mind map.
At any rate, I don’t mean to distract you from the broader issues that you are discussing with Ajarn Thongchai, which is some of the most interesting reading on Thailand that has come out of the current crisis.
Many thanks for helping to keep alive critical thinking.
NNT has just reported:
“M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan.” http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050012
Porntip is, of course, a member of CRES, and it is difficult to believe that Suthep and other members of CRES were not made aware of her findings, perhaps even a few days ago.
We are still awaiting a full account of the all autopsy and injury reports which relate to the mayhem on the evening of 10 April. I wonder who is sitting on that information.
I need some help/information from this blog group:
I have readlong time ago (at least 20 years) a book on Siam. In that book, it mentioned that (modern) Thai flag was designed by a Dutch officer who was not appy with a Thai petty officer who hoisted the Dutch flag up side down, so he designed Thai flag as ‘mirror’ image of the Dutch’s. i.e Red, White, Blue – Blue, White and Red….so that the (modern) Thia flag would never be hoisted up side down.
Could some body tell me where it was written? (what book, title, etc….)
I think we should remember the lurking issue of the Democrats’ two donations cases – one of which has already been fast-tracked from the EC direct to the Constitution Court while the other is due to be passed to the OAG (who have 30 days to either forward it to the CC or return it to the EC – who can then hand it direct to the CC).
Plainly, it’s a wild card – but either case could lead to the Democrat Party being dissolved before November 14. Quite a calculation….. should UDD just disregard the potential dissolution and, for now, go along with Abhisit’s proposal (maybe with some minor modifications) – knowing that there’s a potential game-changer around the corner?
——————————————————————————–
Andrew Walker [Note: this refers to comment 38 which was from a reader, not me. I just posted it for him due to technical problems at his end. AW]
The red shirts may want to hang on in hopes that the courts will decertify the Democrat party just to end the standoff.
————————————————————————————-
I’m sorry, but this is a complete red herring. It just isn’t going to happen.
Perhaps the explanation on the Reds and the monarchy is more that some of their leaders and agitators, in speeches, in meetings, on the internet, suggested the idea of the monarchy as a problem to see if their followers would bite at it. There were enough occasions in speeches when this idea was introduced, in varying levels of indirectness/directness.
When it was clearly directed at Prem and the coup, enough did bite to take some action there. But otherwise the rank and file never really responded and so anyone who might have hoped to take the Red uprising to that level found it was not going to be possible.
[…] New Mandala reader has provided this alternative account: here. Tags: Abhisit Vejjajiva, amaartyatipitai, News about Thailand, State of Emergeny, Thailand's […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Abhisit’s offer
He who swallows a coconut places great trust in his anus. (C├┤te d’Ivoire).
Sufficiency democracy
[…] a 2006 post on New Mandala, Andrew Walker also suggested that a “sufficiency democracy” was […]
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Just like to add my agreement with superanonymous #61 above, regarding the issues raised and dicussed by Ajarn Thongchai and Somsak. Some of the best postings I’ve read in the last few months on New Mandala.
I’ve always admired Ajarn Thongchai critical analysis and contributions to Thai Studies, even if I don’t agree with everything you are putting forward here regarding the current Red movement.
In fact, Somsak comes as close as anyone has to my own views/feelings on the current situation – it’s nice to know I’m not alone in viewing this as a struggle between various elite groupings, and the key roles/motivations being played out by the UDD leadership (and their leading of those in the crowd). I’ll mention again here that this does not detract from the genuine grassroots sentiments for more equality/justice etc…But the flood of pro-red commentary on this site always seems to breeze over (or ignore entirely) any close anlysis of the real movers and shakers within the red movement, and as Somsak says in #55 above, instead see the Reds as a kind of modern day peasant rebellion. My previous postings here have illicted little or no response on this issue, hence my pleasure in reading your opinion Somsak!
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Update on the ‘proof’ that the M79 grenades were fired from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital.
The backtracking begins:
http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050052
http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050055
It does seem very strange that none of this stuff has yet emerged in the online versions of either the Bangkok Post or The Nation.
Thai military intelligence in action
Agree with Jan 100%. Also agree with David Brown 100%… “huge information gathering leading to a report that gives the conclusion they think their boss wants”… aka “fixing the facts around the policy”, as the Downing Street memo put it.
The government is a fraud. The Military is a fraud. Military intelligence is a fraud. They’re out to terrorize the population and think they can do whatever they want and make up whatever lies they need to “explain” their policies before, during, and after the fact. It’s lies, lies, lies all the way down.
The only people that stand between The Burmese Solution for Thailand and the present are the reds.
“First they came for the reds, but I wasn’t a red, so I didn’t speak up…”
Abhisit’s offer
If I were a red shirt I would insist on an unconditional date certain for dissolution and an unconditional date certain for an election.
These “points” are just the means for Ahhisit to claim that the parliament cannot be dissolved and elections cannot be held when they are not met. He, after all, has created these conditions from whole cloth and will be the exclusive arbiter of whether they are met or not. And they won’t be.
This is a fraud, and I am sure the reds are not taken in by it.
Where does an unelected putsch get off placing conditions on the peoples simple demands for an election? This is ridiculous on its face.
Name the date of dissolution and the date of the election without conditions and be done with it.
Point by point :
1. The monarchy is the exclusive property of the government, to be used as a club against any and all opposition. The opposition has been named republicans and regicides and if they open their mouths to defend themselves they will be charged with lese-majeste and thrown in prison.
2. The government will do its best to eliminate injustice, discrimination, and disenfranchisement suffered by international neoliberal, capital, as at Map Ta Phut where international capital has been terribly mistreated.
3. The government owns the media and has shut down the opposition and that’s the way it is and will be.
4. The government will create a committee to dither, to hem and to haw, to protect those responsible for the deaths of 26 Thais and to see that no harm comes to them.
5. The government will remain the government and you can just get used to it.
No. This is all crap. Reality check.
The government will dissolve the parliament in 30 days and there will be elections in 90 days, as the people demand.
This unelected government is not sovereign, the people are sovereign.
It is not up to the unelected government to tell the people how it will be, it is up to the people to elect a government.
Abhisit’s offer
the role and makeup of the Councol of State has been a mystery to me
I have noted the government sending question needing a legal opinion for their consideration
so, who are they (are they privy councillors, under prems “guidance”, Attorney General/ Dept of Justice bureaucrats or what?)
and do they initiate laws or give opinions or what?
and anyway I take your point, the laws come from Bangkok (basically the generals) and are not owned by the people
Abhisit’s offer
Andrew Walker – 38 [Note: comment 38 was from a reader, not from me. I just posted it for him due to technical problems at his end. AW]
The post got some mistakes, firstly there was a popular referendum for the 1997 constitution. Moreover the 1997 has been draft by the Democrat party with more than 98 or so other independent organizations and individuals, due to popular demand of stronger executive branch (the 1992 constitution was partly to blame on the 1997 economic crisis) and not by any junta as the post claimed as oppose to about 12 for the 2007 version.
I don’t have all the detail on the differences since I believed there are more than 250 articles? I’m not even sure about the exact number.
Anyway, the first major change was that the Senate is 50% elected and 50% selected for the 2007 while the 1997 its all 100% elected.
Second major change was the ability for the court to be able to dissolve a political party for the 2007 and not for the 1997. The third major change was the reduction of the MP from 500 odd number to around 370 which has increase the bargaining power of the minor party quite significantly. This is so far the major change which I think should be noted.
Btw, the reason why many Thais vote for this constitution was because about a week for the date for referendum, the PM Sorayuth came out and said if people dont accept this constitution then the panel might come out with a worst one….. yeah if the PM said that just before the referendum then it certainly sway many people opinion.
Abhisit’s offer
Pharris #26 and Michael#34 – excellent posts.
Abhisit has made a smart move, with this just before Coronation Day. But it’s simply window-dressing.
And with numbers very much down, the Reds need a face-saving formula so they can exit to fight another day, if they’re to avoid being massacred.
Obvious next crunch points are the coming military re-shuffle – how much inter-military violence will there be in the run-up to that, given what happened on April 10 ?
And of course there’s the mother of all potential conflicts – the looming succession.
Not to mention potential election violence.
Ben Doherty, in Melbourne’s The Age yesterday wrote that :
“Thailand’s long-running and bloody political stand-off appears almost over”. Surely overly optimistic.
To me it seems we’re simply seeing the end of one round, and the beginning of another.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
I honestly don’t get it why Thongchai repeatedly accuses me of using ‘conspiracy’ approach. (I count perhaps a dozen time the word ‘conspriacy’ in his reply above.) Which part of my criticism of UDD leadership that can be contrued such?
Take, for instance, these supposedly criticisms of mine of the UDD leadership:
“using them as pawns for a higher or hidden agenda, that there is a secret deal or collusion or conspiracy”
or
” Why must it be the result of a conspiratorial hidden agenda (with Thaksin) or secret deal (with government)?”
First of all, PLEASE be so kind as to tell me, where did I mention ‘secret deal or collusion with the government“?!! This would be a serious accusation indeed had I made it. But I search my brian (and my computer) out, and couldn’t even find a trace of such thought.
In fact my criticism is the exact opposite of what Thongchai says I made: namely, I repeatedly suggest that the UDD should not break off, but continue the negotiation with the government. I repeatedly maintain that even if, on negotiation, the government’s original 9 month proposal could not be bargained with, it’d still represent a victory, though I think it’s highly likely that a negotiation would have produced at least a couple of month reduction of the gov’s original proposal (perhaps like the one the UDD is preparing to accept at this moment).
Instead, my criticism goes, the UDD leadership chose to end negotiation as soon as the second round concluded and initiated a highly risky tactics of occupation of Ratprasong (and the associated actions like the one in the morning of 10 April in front of army barrack), which I maintain would surely result in a massive armed crackdown (so long as the UDD refuse to enter negotiation and give-and-take on its original proposal).
Didn’t the crack down happen as I predicted, by the way?
That’s what I actually said as far as my criticism of the UDD’s dealing with (or tactics to fight) the gov goes. Seriously, which part of that is ‘conspiracy”? Which part I accuse them of ‘collusion or secret deal with the government“? Had such reading of my criticism of UDD-gov relations been made by someone else, I would cirtainly have thought that person totally insane. For Thongchai, well, I can only think that he must have never really read what I wrote on the issue.
The part about my supposedly charging the UDD of having ‘hidden agenda with Thaksin’ is somewhat complicated, but my real criticism wouldn’t fit the conspiracy either.
First of all, it’s important to set the context. I don’t think, and I believe the great majority of rural Reds supporters of Thaksin don’t think either, that Thaksin’s and the UDD leadership’s ultimate aims and agenda are anything ‘hidden’ or mysterious. They’re quite plain: in short, to reverse the outcome of the 2006 coup, which would mean, among the most important, the annulment of all the legal cases, settled and pending, against him, and consequently, the return of all his assets; his return to the country and, preferably, to power, possibly through general elections; and in order to secure against future coup, prohibition of involvement in politics by the unelected elements, the privy councilors, the judges and the military.
I fully support all these aims and ‘agenda’, as do, I’m quite sure, most of the rural Reds. (This doesn’t mean, of course, that I don’t have my own ‘agenda’ or aims, apart from them). It’s important to stress this, because my criticism of the UDD-Thaksin leadership is never about their aims at all, still less about whether they’re ‘hidden’ or ‘conspiratorial’. It’s about what, to achieve these ultimate aims, would be the best strategy or tactics; ‘best’ in accord with democratic principles which naturally include great respect of the lives and safety of the masses who take part in the movement.
Now, I began my criticism of the current (March) campaign of the UDD with the question (premise): if the target of this campaign really is the dissolution of the parliament, why the UDD had to be so intransigent about the ’15 days’ proposal [*], to the point of refusing to negotiate and, more important, to the point of using such high risk tactics that they themselves realisze would very likely invite gov’s armed crackdown? (I will explain the bold-faced part of the sentence in a moment.)
[* I should add that, in my view, the dissolution whether it happens immediately or in (Thongchai and academics’ supported) 3 months (or even in 9 months – see earlier) makes no ‘life-and-death’ difference to the long-term cause of democracy as well as to Thaksin-UDD’s ultimate aims. Many UDD-Thaksin supporters themselves had replied to me that the UDD-Thaksin have an unspoken, undeclared aim of preventing the expected August-September ascension to the Army Commander-in-Chief post of Prayut Chan-o-cha. Having not (!) been one who believes in conspiratorial story myself (555), I never took seriously this alledged unspoken, undeclared aim.]
The bold-faced part of my above sentence, that the UDD ‘themselves realize (their tactics) would very likely invite gov’s armed crackdown – is it not me using conspiratorial approach, throwing unfair accusation at the UDD as Thongchai said?
This is important, and also somewhat cruelly ironic: while Thongchai accuses me of accusing the UDD of ‘conspiracy’, my whole criticism (not only about this point), is based precisely on my taking seriously what the UDD themselves said at face value! They themselves (on stages, at press conferences, etc) said repeatedly that the gov was a bloodthirsty enemy that was about to suppress the rally with forces. It is precisely THIS, that my main criticism is made of: I insist (still do) that, to use the tactics which they realize would risk bloody confrontation, while at the same time refusing the other obvious, safer one of negotiation, is highly irresponsible, and contrary to the spirit of democracy that they themselves declared their aim.
Which part of this central criticism of mine is ‘conspiratorial’?
Of course, my criticism goes further. I connect this IRRESPONSIBLE (and anti-democratic spirit) tactics to an important thinking, the one that is so widespread not only among the UDD but among political observers in this country before the recent crackdown. (A former Wisconsin-Medison Ph.D. student, now a TU lecturer, Yukti Mukdawijit, even wrote an article about it when it was NOT materialized). The thinking can be put in these colloquial sentences: “р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╣Бр╕Щр╣Ир╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕Ир╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Ар╕ер╕в р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ р╕бр╕╢р╕Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Щр╣И” (roughly translated: “If you [Aphisit] think you’re such capable of cracking down on us, then bring it on! If you do, you’ll be dead, you’ll be finished!”) In other words, if the government suppresss the rally, resulting in many deaths, it will not survive, just like what happened to the Thanom gov in 1973 and Sujinda in 1992.
Again, am I here accusing the UDD leaders of having ‘secret-hidden’ thought? Am I not just putting my own conspiratorial mind to the UDD leaders’ mouth? Absolutely not. I took this kind of sentences, this kind of thinking from the UDD leaders’ own mouth! And yes, I take them seriously at face value, as I’m not in favor of conspiracy! 555 (In fact, I almost took the sentences verbatim from one of Chatuporn Phromphan’s speeches. I also heard similar declaration on stage from Wisa Khanthap.)
My criticism of this thinking is two-fold. First, I suggest that the social-political structure of the country has definitely changed from what it was in 1973, or even in 1992, and it’s not certain that a government’s bloody crackdown would result in the head of that gov having to step down. (How the UDD leaders really had followed this kind of thinking can be seen, not only from the fact that they themselves said so in many words as I summarized above, but also from their immediate and rather laughable demand on the night of 10 April, that Aphisit must leave the country! – “14 October model”, anyone?)
Second, even if this kind of thinking turned out to be true, even if Aphisit was in fact forced to step down after bloody suppression, I still insist it’s wrong, and irresponsible, to follow this thinking. I repeatedly say Aphisit stepping down isn’t worth the risk of losing the lives of the mass.
Notice carefully also in the colloquial sentence above: I didn’t use the word “want” as in “We [the UDD] want you [the gov] to crackdown on us” i.e. I never said, never made the accusation, that the UDD “want” the crackdown to happen to achieve their aims. There’s a huge difference. But I maintain, the kind of thinking that influenced their risky tactics, as summerized in the sentence, is still wrong and irressponsible.
(By the way, “р╣Гр╕Ър╕Хр╕нр╕Зр╣Бр╕лр╣Йр╕З” wrote in an article a few days ago that, he “believe[s] the UDD want р╕бр╕┤р╕Др╕кр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕╡” (total chaos / total lawlessness / total societal breakdown) I guess he must be a closet conpriacy nut, on Thongchai’s cirteria.)
All my views and arguments above are in many of my writing in recent weeks, they are plain for anyone who can read Thai to see. (And should be much easier to grasp than in my poor English summary here.)
The paragraph Thongchai writes about the UDD’s thinking isn’t like my thinking, etc. almost makes me laugh. Why else would anybody make any criticism at others, if one’s thinking is similar to theirs, or if theirs is similar to one’s own? But of course Thongchai is accusing me of not trying to ‘understand’ their different thinking, and instead taking the ridiculous route of conspiracy. It almost makes me laugh because I honesty feel that it applies to Thongchai himself, not me.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
Thanks Banphai for drawing our attention to that.
But I guess it’s too late. The initial , shall we politely call it misinformation, from Suthep (a retraction and apology would be nice but don’t hold your breath!!!) that the grenades were fired by the redshirts from Lumpini Park has already gone into most people’s histories as the true event and this will probably be buried in a couple of three line articles in the Post and the Nation and probably won’t get a run on TV.
I hope I’m wrong and it’s good to see that the redshirts have rejected the offer of an amnesty (otherwise known as a traditional cover-up).
And if there has to be any spin, this is what the script will be. The reason the redshirts invaded the hospital was to take out the cameras. Dates, times and reason will be lost in the confusion.
Abhisit’s offer
3) The government will ensure that the media will function as a constructive tool.
Did someone here say that condition is truly Orwellian News speak Burmese Style? Or me just dreaming!
Abhisit’s offer
Juan Carlos #23 “No need to uphold it since it’s already hoist by its own petard”
Can’t agree more. But what it is up to from now on is the question
Abhisit’s offer
“Parliament does not initiate or even deliberate legislation. Laws are proposed to the Council of State–a mostly or completely appointed body” (38).
This is a travesty of democracy because the ordinary people are subject to laws that they may not understand or accept. When laws are made by the people’s representatives, the people are ruled by laws that match their own sense of fairness, and the laws are generally supported. In the most civilised countries of modern Europe, levels of violence and exploitation are extraordinarily low. The rule of law prevails there because laws are either made by the people’s representatives, or have been long accepted.
The rule of law is weak in Thailand, not because the ordinary people are immoral, but because laws are handed down from an ivory tower in Bangkok.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Dear Ajarn Somsak- Thanks you very much for elaborating on Manoonkit. One should certainly despair for the Red Shirt movement if he is on on its side!
However – and I’m taking you as the authority on such things – I’m not so sure that what you cited -a letter printed in Red Shirt publications and read repeatedly from the Red Shirt stage – justifies putting him in the Thaksin camp. The link seems more in the nature of the links in the government’s anti-monarchy conspiracy mind map.
At any rate, I don’t mean to distract you from the broader issues that you are discussing with Ajarn Thongchai, which is some of the most interesting reading on Thailand that has come out of the current crisis.
Many thanks for helping to keep alive critical thinking.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
NNT has just reported:
“M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan.”
http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050012
Porntip is, of course, a member of CRES, and it is difficult to believe that Suthep and other members of CRES were not made aware of her findings, perhaps even a few days ago.
We are still awaiting a full account of the all autopsy and injury reports which relate to the mayhem on the evening of 10 April. I wonder who is sitting on that information.
The King Never Smiles?
Hi All Bloggers,
I need some help/information from this blog group:
I have readlong time ago (at least 20 years) a book on Siam. In that book, it mentioned that (modern) Thai flag was designed by a Dutch officer who was not appy with a Thai petty officer who hoisted the Dutch flag up side down, so he designed Thai flag as ‘mirror’ image of the Dutch’s. i.e Red, White, Blue – Blue, White and Red….so that the (modern) Thia flag would never be hoisted up side down.
Could some body tell me where it was written? (what book, title, etc….)
Hope to hear from you soon.
Thanks.
Abhisit’s offer
Steve // May 4, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I think we should remember the lurking issue of the Democrats’ two donations cases – one of which has already been fast-tracked from the EC direct to the Constitution Court while the other is due to be passed to the OAG (who have 30 days to either forward it to the CC or return it to the EC – who can then hand it direct to the CC).
Plainly, it’s a wild card – but either case could lead to the Democrat Party being dissolved before November 14. Quite a calculation….. should UDD just disregard the potential dissolution and, for now, go along with Abhisit’s proposal (maybe with some minor modifications) – knowing that there’s a potential game-changer around the corner?
——————————————————————————–
Andrew Walker [Note: this refers to comment 38 which was from a reader, not me. I just posted it for him due to technical problems at his end. AW]
The red shirts may want to hang on in hopes that the courts will decertify the Democrat party just to end the standoff.
————————————————————————————-
I’m sorry, but this is a complete red herring. It just isn’t going to happen.
Thongchai Winichakul on the Red “germs”
Perhaps the explanation on the Reds and the monarchy is more that some of their leaders and agitators, in speeches, in meetings, on the internet, suggested the idea of the monarchy as a problem to see if their followers would bite at it. There were enough occasions in speeches when this idea was introduced, in varying levels of indirectness/directness.
When it was clearly directed at Prem and the coup, enough did bite to take some action there. But otherwise the rank and file never really responded and so anyone who might have hoped to take the Red uprising to that level found it was not going to be possible.
Chulalongkorn Hospital – an alternative account
[…] New Mandala reader has provided this alternative account: here. Tags: Abhisit Vejjajiva, amaartyatipitai, News about Thailand, State of Emergeny, Thailand's […]