Vichai: The worst-case scenario is for the military. In the original article there is this sentence before the extract: “What about the military, responsible for 18 coups since 1935? One prominent Thai entrepreneur …”
Your point d) is definitely the worst-case scenario for the military.
I completely agree with your 4 points, but not your addendum. If really someone can achieve your 4 points, or even 3 of them, never mind if he is not incorruptible ! That would already be a miracle.
Showed the photo to my students and they all laughed (it’s a free country, you know). I asked them to interpret its message; for images can be very powerful mediums of communication. So a male pupil from a country that harbours known terrorists (Iraq, or is it Iran? I get the two mixed up) raised his hand and volunteered this humorous exchange:
HM: Prostrate like you mean it, boy. The lower you go the longer you stay. Ask Chuan, he learned his lesson after ’95.
ABHISIT: Please Your Majesty, let me keep the job. I’m very good at following orders.
All the while, Thong Daeng (or, is it Thong Sia?) is looking at this kow-towing human being and reflecting on some rather peculiar Nine Inch Nails lyrics:
“Bow down before the one you serve.
You’re going to get what you deserve. ”
That being said, I do agree wholeheartedly with Ajarn George’s observations. He is a sage of contemporary Thai politics. At least that’s what my colleagues over at ASTV told me.
I feel you are missing the point, whatever your ideals, how does dissolving parliament help anything? You will get elections in the not too distant future, without these protests.
The red shirts have a golden opportunity to come up with meaningful reforms, Abhisit is not your enemy, he needs your votes to win in the next election, the rallies have given you great leverage, and you can force these on to the government. Stage a real coup and out manuvere Thaksin and the military elite.
There is absolutely nothing constructive coming out of the red shirt movement.
Would the red shirts be able to accept the result of a referendum on whether early elections should be called? Can you face the answer to that?
Why should anyone listen to you? There is nothing democratic about your current goals. Chalerm as PM, what a joke. What next, barham as Finance minister? and all they will do is rig the courts until Thaksin get whatever he wants. This in the name of democracy. Its ludicruous. And all this will happen only after a protracted and wasteful power struggle.
“And no one seems to want to mention the significant numbers of Thais, probably the majority, whose feelings are essentially ‘a pox on both your houses.’”
“Party loyalty?” I have never officially joined DP. My family supported the Dems in the past, during the leadership of Khun Chuan Leekpai; and whether or not they still do is beyond my knowledge since I spend most of my time outside Thailand. Of course, I do take party loyalty as one of my most important “values” (“virtue” is an incorrect term.) When I decide to join one, I’ll live with it through thick and thin.
Don’t worry too much, it has been an unequal battle from the beginning. Nobody in their right minds expect the Red folks to win. They’re just showing the civilised and the moralists of Bangkok that they, too, have style.
Don’t get panic, I have not attacked your party – “When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticise or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.” – Winston Churchill.
This is precisely our own experience and the home page may be accessed easily by employing SSL encryption to the URL.
So…are Thai censors truly incompetent? Are they pursuing some hidden agenda? Or perhaps they are just trying to give the appearance of blocking!
The number of blocked websites is not as important as whether or not those websites are in high demand. I rarely run across a blocked site, and it’s so easy to get around the block.
Sorry, I made a boo boo on that statement. It should be read, “At least 5 Sydney cabbies were killed in some year”.
That particular year was real bad. In addition to that old Aussie woman two more cabbies were killed in same Northern Beaches area. One from Bangladesh was stabbed more than twenty times from behind by a deranged couple and one from India was pushed out off and then run over by his own cab. I couldn’t recall the details of other cabbie killings from the western suburbs though.
All those killings of the migrant cabbies had finally forced the NSW government to act and now the Security cameras and the GPS locators are mandatory in all the Sydney taxis.
I think the safety situation now in Sydney City is much better than twenty years ago as the population demographic has changed from majority blue-collar and poor whites to mixed affluent Asian and white educated middle class.
Becoming a gay-friendly city also improved the taxi drivers’ safety a lot. The shift of violent alcohol culture to the soft drug culture also helped as most cab-related violence are due to alcohol.
I’d like to address some of the points raised by Longway and Portman. I hope they come back and read this as I was away for the weekend and unable to comment.
1) Within the broad term of ‘red shirt’ group, there are different sub-groups with different opinion on Thaksin and the current establishment. I happen to belong to the group that is not a big fan of Thaksin (oh, yes there are some people in the reds who couldn’t care less about him).
2) In general, I like to believe that all red shirts have a common goal of achieving a true democracy for Thailand (which may mean different things to different people but definitely not the one that we have right now).
3) Thaksin did not ‘awaken’ me from anything. The 2006 coup did that job.
4) Closet red shirts will remain in the cupboard as long as a certain draconian law still exists. Until this law is done away with, a lot of reds will not be able to argue fully what is wrong with Thailand and what should be the ‘ideal’ way forward.
I feel I’ve already said too much and trust NM good judgement in editing my comment in this respect.
Yes, there exists such groups in Malaysia. In fact, Barisan Nasional was formed under that concept (each race to be politically represented).
There are also many race based pressure groups – in fact most of Malaysia is organised along racial lines (e.g. Chambers of commerce, trades association, NGOs, etc). Of course then, there is the popular HINDRAF and Su Qui.
While I agree to the right of their existence under Malaysia’s constitution, I honestly do not support this approach.
Malaysia needs to move away from race-based politics.
“Fear of civil war is utter hogwash when we’ve had it going on for six decades already. The minorities have borne the brunt, and the Burman’s turn, ……. ”
I dare you to go back Burma and give someone a chance to shoot you in the guts with a 7.62 mm caliber G3 so that you know the fear of civil war is not utter hogwash but flesh and blood real.
Inlet wound is so small but the exit wound is so big one can put his whole fist inside the jagged wound and it will normally take about half-a-day of ultimate suffering till you die. And you wouldn’t even dare to cry while your are slowly dying as it could hurt you more.
Believe me, Moe Aung, I ‘d seen with my own eyes many tens of young men and boys, both ethnics and Burmans, dying that way.
Frank Lee – 57 let me answer point by point on how I think of your statement.
Democracy is a means of reaching a political accommodation between groups holding diverse political views, if not beliefs.
The current constitution (n.b. approved, albeit narrowly, by popular referendum) re-set the rules of the game.
There is no re-set here, the group of people (the elite to be precise) still hold on to their power, if the actual re-set actually happen there wouldn’t be the PAD protest and the dissolution of PPP in the first place. Furthermore this constitution reflect the one written in the 1982 which was the same one that cause the Coup of 1992 and partially response to the crisis of 1997 because of the weak executive branch (let me stress this again “partially” its not responsible for the whole collapse) so in term of Democracy progression Thailand was actually took a 20 years step backward.
Throughout his years in power, both as PM and then ruling from behind the scenes through his proxy PMs, ‘Samak the Outlaw’ and ‘Somchai the Inlaw’, Thaksin arrogantly flouted the will of the people (as well as the law in general) enshrined in the previous 1997 Constitution and the rules of the game therein.
More than 16 million people had caste the vote for Thaksin, he didnt go against the will of the majority, he did go against the minority, the PAD. Furthermore, I cant stress this enough and let me repeat again, under the Parliamentary system, Thaksin has all the right and power that is set by the constitution of 1997, he didnt break any law, it is only the trough the declaration of the Military Government that they finally can sue him on something not even illegal during his time as PM.
His very unwise decision not to compromise with those hundreds of thousands of demonstrators representing all those appalled at his unbending efforts to, as you put it yourself, “monopolize political power”, gave the military all the reason it needed after six years of Thaksin’s “ugly crony capitalism” to call ‘Game Over’.
Again, as a representative, Thaksin has no right to compromise to the minority, as a PM, he has to answer to the people that vote for him, the majority. Furthermore, you must be mistaken, I never say Thaksin “monopolize political power” I simply said that under Parliamentary system the PM has all the right when to call for election or what law should be add because PM is de facto head of legislative and executive. If Thailand is as democratic as the UK, with no intervention from the military or the “unknown hand” Thaksin might have been in the office for 15 years like Thatcher, can you say that Thatcher monopolized her political power?
In my opinion, the best way forward is not to try and monopolize political power under the self-serving justification of needing 78% or so of the vote to ensure strong government (as Thaksin continues to argue, I presume because he would, once more, like to be immune to parliamentary censure and return to ‘business as usual’) but to work with what we have intelligently by providing both the necessary political stability and the appropriate ‘carrots and sticks’ to curtail military influence in both politics and business over the medium term to long term. Mutual trust is the key: as we have seen before, if trust (or at least patience) in democratic institutions and processes is sufficiently eroded, a coup will remain a real possibility.
You are implying that people’s vote alone cannot be the way forward, and Thailand better off providing bath to the military so that they dont get involve in the politic and stage a coup every once in a while?? and to trust our fate to the 5 tigers who are not even directly appointed my the people?
Then we shouldn’t be a democratic society, then its better to just let the military run the government, which will lead to the 1976 all over again and those people who gave up their life would die in vain.
However, even if Thaksin’s frequent exhortations for a “revolution” succeed in returning him or new Thaksin proxies to power (none of the Red Shirt leaders have publicly dissociated themselves from him – yet – as far as I know) I believe that trust will remain the decisive factor in determining which political grouping will ultimately prevail.
I really have no idea what you are saying here, maybe you might have to clarify a bit.
While politics cannot be defined exclusively in terms of power, but we can conservatively say that power is always an essential element of politics. Politicians would do just almost anything to stay in power, Najib is the case in point.
In order to understand a political issue, it’s not enough to know what the point at issue is. It is necessary also to know between whom it has arisen. An issue raised by a small number of isolated individuals is not the same political fact as the issue raised by a powerful and well-organized organization. If the Chinese and the Indian in Malaysia were serious about One Malaysia Policy, they would have to create an organization like NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) or AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and decisively play the politics. These two organizations play both parties: the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, to achieve their goals. This is how Obama came to power.
Oh David Brown . . . shouldn’t you change your surname to Red?
I have long given up on Thaksin as The-One-to-lead-Thailand. Thaksin’s honest mistakes, extra-judicial rampage, massive vote-buying, and attempts to suborn Thailand institution (to cite a few of his virtues) may make him ‘charismatic’ to the Thai naives . . . but dangerous to my liking.
But if Thaksin does believe in reincarnation and does believe he was the reincarnation of King Thaksin . . . why was he so cowardly as to bolt Thailand rather than face criminal charges. Even if the worse come to worst (meaning his voodoo armor had failed), there is still another reincarnation ahead, right David?
A coward could hardly be ‘inspirational’ much less ‘charismatic’
Nothing personal. Whilst I actually enjoy reading your accounts tremendously, and I’d say you fulfill a great need for true stories to be told about our country’s post-independence and recent past, a fictionalised account seems more your forte than a factual one. Embellishment can be acceptable up to a point, but playing fast and loose with facts in aid of spinning a line in the Burmese military’s favour on a regular basis would appear to indicate a barely disguised agenda notwithstanding your anti-regime rhetoric. The cynic would say you could well be a deliberate plant on their payroll in the wake of the 1988 uprising like they infiltrated the ranks of students who fled to the border and beyond.
AP
“Please join me to that Burmese people get enough strength to them and some sense to poor soldiers to throw away this military junta and bring peace and prosperity to this beautiful and resourceful country.”
I have argued in a number of threads on the NM and news articles in The Irrawaddy in favour of regime change by our own efforts inside the country. This People Power movement must encompass the Burman majority and the ethnic minorities in a unified struggle to overthrow the military dictatorship in its current and future incarnations – the real scourge of Burma.
The NLD has been boxed into a corner as we speak, and it’s do or die now. It will be banned and outlawed by the unjust and undemocratic election laws, not just ASSK and other political prisoners barred from participation, if it refuses to capitulate. Even if it decides to field a proxy made up of those among the leadership who wish to contest the polls (an amicable split taking a leaf out of the KIO’s book, allowing the main party to stand firm on the Shwegondaing Declaration of last April), it will face a ban nonetheless.
Or it can make a united stand and organise a mass boycott that will more than likely lead to a brutal crackdown. It must therefore prepare for a recurrent worst case scenario, and get everyone on side – urban workers, rural farmers, students, monks, small and middling businessmen, and civil servants including the police, in a show of solidarity and organised mass action. It must prepare for a general strike. It must win over the Tatmadaw rank and file to help level the playing field. It must have the courage of its conviction to fight to the bitter end, and prepare for an uprising.
Outside help in the form of funds and arms is more than welcome both before and especially after a parallel government is declared which will enable the international community to recognise and assist immediiately. If state violence is legitimate, so is armed resistance. The NLD must not remain hamstrung by its nonsenical Western liberal dove commitment to non-violence.
Fear of civil war is utter hogwash when we’ve had it going on for six decades already. The minorities have borne the brunt, and the Burman’s turn, although it also started soon after independence in 1948 when the Communists were driven underground, a fate now awaiting the NLD, only became full blown with urban unrest and bloody crackdowns. Whither the NLD?
The Nation has reported that the Red Shirt leadership will ask Banharn to move his Chat Thai Pattana party from the current coalition to support their movement as wider move to bring down the current government. It seems they will also be lobbying others to do the same.
The local Red Shirt leader was delighted that I knew the king Taksin reincarnation story and averred that it’s 100% true. His nephew — a good friend of mine — was mortified to hear his kinsman buying into “that Hinduism and Buddhism stuff”. (No word on whether he’s sent a vial of extra-strong Pathan blood to be spilled on the doors of the powerful.)
As a Berkeley grad and 3rd generation San Franciscan, my solution involves the creation of a No Shirt Party. Those are the brave lads and lasses who sacrifice their honor and delicate skin to turn themselves into human weapons of mass distraction. Who’s gonna be thinking about chucking ‘blood specimens’ (as the US Embassy alert put it) when there’s a battalion of hunks and supermodels marching around?
No, I’m not serious. However, local reaction to my proposal has been largely positive. This probably has more to do with the soap-opera absurdity of the political situation than the merits of my idea. Ya think?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The “worst-case scenario”
Vichai: The worst-case scenario is for the military. In the original article there is this sentence before the extract:
“What about the military, responsible for 18 coups since 1935? One prominent Thai entrepreneur …”
Your point d) is definitely the worst-case scenario for the military.
I completely agree with your 4 points, but not your addendum. If really someone can achieve your 4 points, or even 3 of them, never mind if he is not incorruptible ! That would already be a miracle.
The Economist stomps on some media taboos
Any Dog can be promoted in the Thai Army, their standards are quite low.
The “worst-case scenario”
Vichai N:
Good list. I think we may have found that soon-to-be “charismatic leader” that fits your checklist (plus with the cash to burn).
In a different “subject” nonetheless.
Politics is full of intrigue.
HAHAHAHAHA
Thai style democracy?
Showed the photo to my students and they all laughed (it’s a free country, you know). I asked them to interpret its message; for images can be very powerful mediums of communication. So a male pupil from a country that harbours known terrorists (Iraq, or is it Iran? I get the two mixed up) raised his hand and volunteered this humorous exchange:
HM: Prostrate like you mean it, boy. The lower you go the longer you stay. Ask Chuan, he learned his lesson after ’95.
ABHISIT: Please Your Majesty, let me keep the job. I’m very good at following orders.
All the while, Thong Daeng (or, is it Thong Sia?) is looking at this kow-towing human being and reflecting on some rather peculiar Nine Inch Nails lyrics:
“Bow down before the one you serve.
You’re going to get what you deserve. ”
That being said, I do agree wholeheartedly with Ajarn George’s observations. He is a sage of contemporary Thai politics. At least that’s what my colleagues over at ASTV told me.
Support for Reds from Bangkok at large
to siammiddlepath and a thai:
I feel you are missing the point, whatever your ideals, how does dissolving parliament help anything? You will get elections in the not too distant future, without these protests.
The red shirts have a golden opportunity to come up with meaningful reforms, Abhisit is not your enemy, he needs your votes to win in the next election, the rallies have given you great leverage, and you can force these on to the government. Stage a real coup and out manuvere Thaksin and the military elite.
There is absolutely nothing constructive coming out of the red shirt movement.
Would the red shirts be able to accept the result of a referendum on whether early elections should be called? Can you face the answer to that?
Why should anyone listen to you? There is nothing democratic about your current goals. Chalerm as PM, what a joke. What next, barham as Finance minister? and all they will do is rig the courts until Thaksin get whatever he wants. This in the name of democracy. Its ludicruous. And all this will happen only after a protracted and wasteful power struggle.
Support for Reds from Bangkok at large
“And no one seems to want to mention the significant numbers of Thais, probably the majority, whose feelings are essentially ‘a pox on both your houses.’”
Because this makes too much sense …?
A red show of strength, but then what?
giant,
“Party loyalty?” I have never officially joined DP. My family supported the Dems in the past, during the leadership of Khun Chuan Leekpai; and whether or not they still do is beyond my knowledge since I spend most of my time outside Thailand. Of course, I do take party loyalty as one of my most important “values” (“virtue” is an incorrect term.) When I decide to join one, I’ll live with it through thick and thin.
Don’t worry too much, it has been an unequal battle from the beginning. Nobody in their right minds expect the Red folks to win. They’re just showing the civilised and the moralists of Bangkok that they, too, have style.
Don’t get panic, I have not attacked your party – “When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticise or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.” – Winston Churchill.
Translation of The Economist on succession
This is precisely our own experience and the home page may be accessed easily by employing SSL encryption to the URL.
So…are Thai censors truly incompetent? Are they pursuing some hidden agenda? Or perhaps they are just trying to give the appearance of blocking!
The number of blocked websites is not as important as whether or not those websites are in high demand. I rarely run across a blocked site, and it’s so easy to get around the block.
The scourge of Burma, Part 4
I, too, find this figure hard to believe–I think it must be higher!
This part of Hla Oo’s essay is precisely my own experience of Sydney.
I have never experienced any society with such deep racial divides and complex layers of criminality.
The scourge of Burma, Part 4
Sorry, I made a boo boo on that statement. It should be read, “At least 5 Sydney cabbies were killed in some year”.
That particular year was real bad. In addition to that old Aussie woman two more cabbies were killed in same Northern Beaches area. One from Bangladesh was stabbed more than twenty times from behind by a deranged couple and one from India was pushed out off and then run over by his own cab. I couldn’t recall the details of other cabbie killings from the western suburbs though.
All those killings of the migrant cabbies had finally forced the NSW government to act and now the Security cameras and the GPS locators are mandatory in all the Sydney taxis.
I think the safety situation now in Sydney City is much better than twenty years ago as the population demographic has changed from majority blue-collar and poor whites to mixed affluent Asian and white educated middle class.
Becoming a gay-friendly city also improved the taxi drivers’ safety a lot. The shift of violent alcohol culture to the soft drug culture also helped as most cab-related violence are due to alcohol.
Thanks wentworth for pointing out my mistake.
Support for Reds from Bangkok at large
I’d like to address some of the points raised by Longway and Portman. I hope they come back and read this as I was away for the weekend and unable to comment.
1) Within the broad term of ‘red shirt’ group, there are different sub-groups with different opinion on Thaksin and the current establishment. I happen to belong to the group that is not a big fan of Thaksin (oh, yes there are some people in the reds who couldn’t care less about him).
2) In general, I like to believe that all red shirts have a common goal of achieving a true democracy for Thailand (which may mean different things to different people but definitely not the one that we have right now).
3) Thaksin did not ‘awaken’ me from anything. The 2006 coup did that job.
4) Closet red shirts will remain in the cupboard as long as a certain draconian law still exists. Until this law is done away with, a lot of reds will not be able to argue fully what is wrong with Thailand and what should be the ‘ideal’ way forward.
I feel I’ve already said too much and trust NM good judgement in editing my comment in this respect.
Check-mate Najib!
Hi Susie,
Yes, there exists such groups in Malaysia. In fact, Barisan Nasional was formed under that concept (each race to be politically represented).
There are also many race based pressure groups – in fact most of Malaysia is organised along racial lines (e.g. Chambers of commerce, trades association, NGOs, etc). Of course then, there is the popular HINDRAF and Su Qui.
While I agree to the right of their existence under Malaysia’s constitution, I honestly do not support this approach.
Malaysia needs to move away from race-based politics.
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
“Fear of civil war is utter hogwash when we’ve had it going on for six decades already. The minorities have borne the brunt, and the Burman’s turn, ……. ”
I dare you to go back Burma and give someone a chance to shoot you in the guts with a 7.62 mm caliber G3 so that you know the fear of civil war is not utter hogwash but flesh and blood real.
Inlet wound is so small but the exit wound is so big one can put his whole fist inside the jagged wound and it will normally take about half-a-day of ultimate suffering till you die. And you wouldn’t even dare to cry while your are slowly dying as it could hurt you more.
Believe me, Moe Aung, I ‘d seen with my own eyes many tens of young men and boys, both ethnics and Burmans, dying that way.
Thai style democracy?
Frank Lee – 57 let me answer point by point on how I think of your statement.
Democracy is a means of reaching a political accommodation between groups holding diverse political views, if not beliefs.
The current constitution (n.b. approved, albeit narrowly, by popular referendum) re-set the rules of the game.
There is no re-set here, the group of people (the elite to be precise) still hold on to their power, if the actual re-set actually happen there wouldn’t be the PAD protest and the dissolution of PPP in the first place. Furthermore this constitution reflect the one written in the 1982 which was the same one that cause the Coup of 1992 and partially response to the crisis of 1997 because of the weak executive branch (let me stress this again “partially” its not responsible for the whole collapse) so in term of Democracy progression Thailand was actually took a 20 years step backward.
Throughout his years in power, both as PM and then ruling from behind the scenes through his proxy PMs, ‘Samak the Outlaw’ and ‘Somchai the Inlaw’, Thaksin arrogantly flouted the will of the people (as well as the law in general) enshrined in the previous 1997 Constitution and the rules of the game therein.
More than 16 million people had caste the vote for Thaksin, he didnt go against the will of the majority, he did go against the minority, the PAD. Furthermore, I cant stress this enough and let me repeat again, under the Parliamentary system, Thaksin has all the right and power that is set by the constitution of 1997, he didnt break any law, it is only the trough the declaration of the Military Government that they finally can sue him on something not even illegal during his time as PM.
His very unwise decision not to compromise with those hundreds of thousands of demonstrators representing all those appalled at his unbending efforts to, as you put it yourself, “monopolize political power”, gave the military all the reason it needed after six years of Thaksin’s “ugly crony capitalism” to call ‘Game Over’.
Again, as a representative, Thaksin has no right to compromise to the minority, as a PM, he has to answer to the people that vote for him, the majority. Furthermore, you must be mistaken, I never say Thaksin “monopolize political power” I simply said that under Parliamentary system the PM has all the right when to call for election or what law should be add because PM is de facto head of legislative and executive. If Thailand is as democratic as the UK, with no intervention from the military or the “unknown hand” Thaksin might have been in the office for 15 years like Thatcher, can you say that Thatcher monopolized her political power?
In my opinion, the best way forward is not to try and monopolize political power under the self-serving justification of needing 78% or so of the vote to ensure strong government (as Thaksin continues to argue, I presume because he would, once more, like to be immune to parliamentary censure and return to ‘business as usual’) but to work with what we have intelligently by providing both the necessary political stability and the appropriate ‘carrots and sticks’ to curtail military influence in both politics and business over the medium term to long term. Mutual trust is the key: as we have seen before, if trust (or at least patience) in democratic institutions and processes is sufficiently eroded, a coup will remain a real possibility.
You are implying that people’s vote alone cannot be the way forward, and Thailand better off providing bath to the military so that they dont get involve in the politic and stage a coup every once in a while?? and to trust our fate to the 5 tigers who are not even directly appointed my the people?
Then we shouldn’t be a democratic society, then its better to just let the military run the government, which will lead to the 1976 all over again and those people who gave up their life would die in vain.
However, even if Thaksin’s frequent exhortations for a “revolution” succeed in returning him or new Thaksin proxies to power (none of the Red Shirt leaders have publicly dissociated themselves from him – yet – as far as I know) I believe that trust will remain the decisive factor in determining which political grouping will ultimately prevail.
I really have no idea what you are saying here, maybe you might have to clarify a bit.
Check-mate Najib!
While politics cannot be defined exclusively in terms of power, but we can conservatively say that power is always an essential element of politics. Politicians would do just almost anything to stay in power, Najib is the case in point.
In order to understand a political issue, it’s not enough to know what the point at issue is. It is necessary also to know between whom it has arisen. An issue raised by a small number of isolated individuals is not the same political fact as the issue raised by a powerful and well-organized organization. If the Chinese and the Indian in Malaysia were serious about One Malaysia Policy, they would have to create an organization like NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) or AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and decisively play the politics. These two organizations play both parties: the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, to achieve their goals. This is how Obama came to power.
The “worst-case scenario”
Hm. Perhaps a young Kruba Si Wijay, but wearing red instead of saffron?
The “worst-case scenario”
Oh David Brown . . . shouldn’t you change your surname to Red?
I have long given up on Thaksin as The-One-to-lead-Thailand. Thaksin’s honest mistakes, extra-judicial rampage, massive vote-buying, and attempts to suborn Thailand institution (to cite a few of his virtues) may make him ‘charismatic’ to the Thai naives . . . but dangerous to my liking.
But if Thaksin does believe in reincarnation and does believe he was the reincarnation of King Thaksin . . . why was he so cowardly as to bolt Thailand rather than face criminal charges. Even if the worse come to worst (meaning his voodoo armor had failed), there is still another reincarnation ahead, right David?
A coward could hardly be ‘inspirational’ much less ‘charismatic’
The scourge of Burma, Part 3
Hla Oo
Nothing personal. Whilst I actually enjoy reading your accounts tremendously, and I’d say you fulfill a great need for true stories to be told about our country’s post-independence and recent past, a fictionalised account seems more your forte than a factual one. Embellishment can be acceptable up to a point, but playing fast and loose with facts in aid of spinning a line in the Burmese military’s favour on a regular basis would appear to indicate a barely disguised agenda notwithstanding your anti-regime rhetoric. The cynic would say you could well be a deliberate plant on their payroll in the wake of the 1988 uprising like they infiltrated the ranks of students who fled to the border and beyond.
AP
“Please join me to that Burmese people get enough strength to them and some sense to poor soldiers to throw away this military junta and bring peace and prosperity to this beautiful and resourceful country.”
I have argued in a number of threads on the NM and news articles in The Irrawaddy in favour of regime change by our own efforts inside the country. This People Power movement must encompass the Burman majority and the ethnic minorities in a unified struggle to overthrow the military dictatorship in its current and future incarnations – the real scourge of Burma.
The NLD has been boxed into a corner as we speak, and it’s do or die now. It will be banned and outlawed by the unjust and undemocratic election laws, not just ASSK and other political prisoners barred from participation, if it refuses to capitulate. Even if it decides to field a proxy made up of those among the leadership who wish to contest the polls (an amicable split taking a leaf out of the KIO’s book, allowing the main party to stand firm on the Shwegondaing Declaration of last April), it will face a ban nonetheless.
Or it can make a united stand and organise a mass boycott that will more than likely lead to a brutal crackdown. It must therefore prepare for a recurrent worst case scenario, and get everyone on side – urban workers, rural farmers, students, monks, small and middling businessmen, and civil servants including the police, in a show of solidarity and organised mass action. It must prepare for a general strike. It must win over the Tatmadaw rank and file to help level the playing field. It must have the courage of its conviction to fight to the bitter end, and prepare for an uprising.
Outside help in the form of funds and arms is more than welcome both before and especially after a parallel government is declared which will enable the international community to recognise and assist immediiately. If state violence is legitimate, so is armed resistance. The NLD must not remain hamstrung by its nonsenical Western liberal dove commitment to non-violence.
Fear of civil war is utter hogwash when we’ve had it going on for six decades already. The minorities have borne the brunt, and the Burman’s turn, although it also started soon after independence in 1948 when the Communists were driven underground, a fate now awaiting the NLD, only became full blown with urban unrest and bloody crackdowns. Whither the NLD?
Support for Reds from Bangkok at large
The Nation has reported that the Red Shirt leadership will ask Banharn to move his Chat Thai Pattana party from the current coalition to support their movement as wider move to bring down the current government. It seems they will also be lobbying others to do the same.
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk/2010/03/21/entry-1
I’m assuming that Banharn will assert his ideological rectitude as reason for not accepting the offer.
Or, will he change sides for the ‘love of country, the people and the king’ etc. etc.
Good grief.
Ps. I wonder what possible incentives will be discussed at this meeting?
Keyes on Thailand’s blood protests
The local Red Shirt leader was delighted that I knew the king Taksin reincarnation story and averred that it’s 100% true. His nephew — a good friend of mine — was mortified to hear his kinsman buying into “that Hinduism and Buddhism stuff”. (No word on whether he’s sent a vial of extra-strong Pathan blood to be spilled on the doors of the powerful.)
As a Berkeley grad and 3rd generation San Franciscan, my solution involves the creation of a No Shirt Party. Those are the brave lads and lasses who sacrifice their honor and delicate skin to turn themselves into human weapons of mass distraction. Who’s gonna be thinking about chucking ‘blood specimens’ (as the US Embassy alert put it) when there’s a battalion of hunks and supermodels marching around?
No, I’m not serious. However, local reaction to my proposal has been largely positive. This probably has more to do with the soap-opera absurdity of the political situation than the merits of my idea. Ya think?