I have to agree with Ralph Kramden. I think the PAD have already harmed the monarchy by claiming to be acting to protect the institution. I think the military are going to do the monarchy more harm than good because of their misperception. Unfortunately, every time I see one of these warnings I think back to the “good old days” of the “communist” suppression campaigns and the red barrels.
I think in the long run these guys are doomed, but we see the example of their good friends in Burma. Once established a ruthless military can hold on for decades. The question is whether Anupong, Prawit, and Prayuth are more ruthless than Sarit and his protege Thanom were.
Glenn: Breaking the Law? According to Article 176 of the current [Khor-Mor-Chor] 2007 Constitution the Cabinet has to declare (within fifteen days after the king’s endorsement) its Policy to the Parliament prior to governing the country. The definition of “Parliament” according to this Constitution Article 88 states that it consists of members of the House of Reps (Sor-Sor) and Senate. All these folk and the skewed and biased Constitutional Court and Tribunal have to give a clear definition of these articles as these are related to the action of the current govt in breaking with tradition in declaring its policy statement. The previous govt you may recall interpreted this to mean that they had to declare inside Parliament as had govts in the past. Essentially, the current Constitution works on the principle of ambiguity so that it can be interpreted by vested interests as it wishes. Normally a meeting of all parliamentarians has to be called first and the policy has to be declared in front of them. This must be done inside Parliament in accordance with the principles of debate. This cannot be declared anywhere (including cyberspace Glenn) without MPs. Dodgey, all very dodgey: this epitimises the current status quo and direction toward state fascism. Incidentally, PAD knew that Somchai had 7 October deadline when it had to declare its policy last year- so they intended to block this process. According to its leaders the Reds did not want to stop this process this week (that is the difference with PAD) only to show that Abhisit was supporting the PAD and that he should show support to all sectors through symbolically walking through the pathway of the Reds into Govt House as he had with PAD. As well, police interviewed this week at Parliament were not concered as they had been with PAD. One police officer stated that he was scared because PAD brought in weapons supplied by the military and yaa-baa (speed). Aside from the legitimacy of the appointment, Abhisit is clearly not suitable to be PM or able to reconcile the deep divide brought about by PAD in Thai society.
Pisit, get real, the real challenge is to right the wrongs created by current illicit forces in power. As popular Bangkok activist monk Phra Payom Kalayano said: rather than fixing the economy Abhisit has to fix the deep seated hatred felt in Thai society caused by the Democrat/Amaat/military alliance against Thaksin. The demonizing and re-imagining of Thaksin by consistant fiction was as an attempt to pull people over to the Democrats/and the status quo ante. The trouble is it went too far and did not work as most people who saw the direct benefits of a Thaksin led Government in improving the quality of their lives (even below the sub-district level) were not convinced by the sophisticated propaganda campaign through the media. How to heal the rift? That has to the responsibility of those who stage-managed this hatred four years+ back.
Narongsak is the name of the UDD/DAAD man who was killed in that first clash with PAD. Of course every one knows there was no royally sponsored cremation for him.
“My brother died because PAD protesters fatally attacked him. I want police to bring the culprits to justice,” she said. “I don’t want my brother to have died for nothing. I want everyone to know who is responsible for his death. I want the PAD to stop what they’re doing,” she added.
This response it the velvet glove response. In Thailand, things could get more iron-fisted. For a taste, see Wassana Nanuam’s Opinion piece ” On guard against lese majeste on the internet” in the Bangkok Post of 1 January.
Some interesting bits in it regarding and acknowledgment from the highest levels – Generals Anupong and Prem – that the monarchy is under threat, with the former claiming a threat to national security. Gen. Anupong Anupong has ordered “army units to ‘x-ray’ areas in the North and Northeast where lese majeste is believed rife. The crime is reported to be perpetrated by coordinated networks responsible for handing out leaflets, rumour-mongering and even vandalising portraits.”
Gen. Prem claims to be aghast at the whole situation, especially at the rapid proliferation of web sites attacking the monarchy – says he can’t bear to read them.
The author suggests that the drive against lese-majeste has brought the Democrats and the military back together. Gen. Prawit, the defence minister will lead this concerted effort.
Finally, General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin.
I cannot recall a more hysterical time for the royalists since perhaps 1975-77. Of course, the times then were quite different and the avenues for expressing republicanism are now more open. I doubt that the military and Democrats can close this down, especially as it is not a concerted effort as they seem to believe. However, they can clearly make life difficult for those who have been outspoken.
The problem for the royalists, however, is that repression may provide more support for this emerging republicanism.
Does it really matter if these policy statements are read in Parliament or elsewhere? Why not just post them on the internet? If that is the worst thing they ever do Thailand will be in good shape.
Sarap said: “…It seems everyone has forgotten the terrorist attacks carried out against the PAD by the UDD nightly…”
The UDD carried out terrorist attacks against the PAD? Maybe. Presumably you have evidence of this. Can you post it here? Have you gone to the police with it?
I’m tired of seeing this “conventional wisdom” without any facts to back it up. People who just parrot Manager and ASTV used to be irritating, now they are merely boring.
…This was against the law- as this should have been declared in Parliament – but then the law as we have seen over the past few years can be made on the run to suit particular interests.
This statement cannot get any truer, especially when the current court of law is extremely unjust.
in your reference to the PAD-UDD/DAAD standoff, were you referring to the (foolish) march by some UDD people from Sanam Luang to the PAD-occupied Government House area?
if so, perhaps you missed it, the first media report said that a PAD supporter was killed, a day or two later this was amended because it was a UDD supporter that was killed, and about a week after that another UDD supporter died from the injuries he sustained during the encounter
just thought it better that you not get caught out with this specific statement again
I am confused — is UDD pro-democracy or pro-Thaksin, or both, and how can that be? Or is this about different concepts of democracy? Could UDD eliminate Thaksin from its strategy and still remain a pro-democracy movement, or perhaps even increase their democraticness by leaving out Thaksin?
Thaksin started a “democratization process?” Hmmm….. What does the village fund has to do with democratization (empowerment, perhaps, as Nick Nostitz has repeatedly pointed out)? And how is both related to decentralization?
Increased decentralization was mandated by the 1997 constitution. Accordingly, the Chuan government passed the decentralization act in 1999 (although it had to bow to the resistance of the Council of State in important respects). Thaksin had no clue about this issue whatsoever (an academic pro-decentralization co-founder of TRT told me how he had tried to explain the issue to Thaksin, who, however, responded with total incomprehension).
Rather, Thaksin did not implement the 35% budget share mandated by the act, but instead introduced the CEO governor scheme, widely seen at that time as contradicting decentralization. There was even serious talk about abolishing the PAO altogether. This, however, did not materialize, probably because it would have made Thaksin rather unpopular with many provincial politicians, including most of TRT’s MPs.
You begin confusing some issues here.
And thank you, the sublime argument here, that my “entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for” me i vehemently reject. I have been already accused to have accepted bribes by Thaksin, nothing new there, just because i have not followed PAD ideology. For the record – i haven’t, none were ever offered. I am broke as i ever was, work with the cheapest photo equipment that a professional can use, and drive to events with a cheap Thai made motorcycle, and not a hired limousine and driver. I would ask you here not to continue in this tone.
I do try my best to report objectively, and base my arguments on what i see in the field, and not what ideologues churn out from stages.
Farmers have been worse off since the beginning of the political turmoil, and not because of Thaksin. I have been building up a farm here during the Thaksin years, and after at first rejecting to take advantage of the revolving loans, my family has in the end greatly benefited from them. We have taken loans for very modest rates of interest to finance crops, and repaid them in full. We have taken a loan to buy a “Lot Thailand” – one of the cheap all purpose lorries, and only through renting its services out besides our own farm work we can pay back the loan and interest.
The family has now motorcycles, TVs, fridges, without being in unmanageable debt, where previously they had nothing. And after having traveled in and reported from many provinces, i have seen that my wife’s family was not an exception.
And i clearly recall the first “blood” that was drawn. That was already three odd years ago on Royal Plaza, when lone Thaksin supporters held up pro-Thaksin signs at the first Sondhi L. event there. I was there.
Violence in political conflict in Thailand is ever present. Nothing new about this, both sides have inflicted violence on the other. The first person that was murdered though was a Red Shirt, who was beaten to death during the clash of Sept. 2nd. I was there, less than 40 meters away.
Please don’t pretend that the PAD only defended itself. PAD has inflicted heavy violence – the last seriously injured was in Vibhavadi Soi 3 on Dec. 6th (after the retreat from the airports), shot through his arm with a 11mm bullet during a PAD attack on the radio station there.
Missing activists etc, yes, but that just did not only happen under Thaksin, it happened under every government, and unfortunately will continue to happen. Make Thaksin responsible for what he has actually done wrong (and there is plenty), but please do not follow the PAD line of exaggeration, so that it appears that Thaksin is responsible for all of Thailand’s evils, including those that happened before he was born.
The drug war was highly necessary, because the situation was very bad. The major deterioration happened under the Democrat led administration after the ’97 crises, when the Chuan government has done almost nothing about the rise of drugs. What in the drug war was not necessary, were the killings.
I might misunderstand you, but you imply that the drug war was responsible for the rise of drugs. That is a clear distortion of facts.
Drugs have risen again, since the political turmoil initiated by PAD has bound so much of the police force that day to day operations were not able to have been kept up.
I would suggest researching the drug situation in the field, from both sides – police and drug scene – before making any statement on this subject. Interview both police officers in drug supression units, and pushers/addicts, go in the field, and then let us know of what you found out.
People have to work harder to get by. Oh well.
There is a world crises going on, and people all over the globe have to work harder. Here in Thailand, the effects of this crises have only been accelerated tremendously by the massive street protests (initiated by PAD), and the occupation of the airports (by PAD).
Appointing a PAD member as foreign minister, and one who even made publicly distasteful remarks about the Suvarnabhumi occupation will hardly restore investor confidence and “unity”, somewhat countering Abhist’s statements.
I really have to wonder about the rationality of your statement of “more power” to this PAD foreign minister.
The 30 Baht health scheme has not “cost the country” a lot. On the opposite. Many lives were saved and kept productive by including ARV’s. The first after coup statement on the country’s finances, and the numbers presented, especially regarding debt, were in the international standard. Even today, after the PPP government was ousted, the financial situation, foreign exchange reserves, and banking, is in order.
Where, please, is the evidence that the policies have “cost the country a lot”? Not PAD exagerration, but evidence that the country is financially in dire straights as the result of Thaksin’s policies.
We ask the world to give us a hand. We are fighting against injustice.
We believe all men are born equal.
We all are endowed with the rights to liberty and freedom.
With that desire, we participate in democratic process.
However, democracy has been robbed from us with dirty tricks.
What we end up having is fake democracy.
The dark forces that manipulative the events are beyond our ability to cope. Our political history has always been ended with good people destroyed. Our national hero Dr. Pridi Banomyong was exiled on November 8th, 1947.
Our ancestors fought for our democracy since June 24, 1932
66 years later, in 2008 the dark forces still can manipulate the events to destroy our hope for equality, human decency and justice.
The mix of domestic politics and international affairs is beyond our grass roots ability. We ask the world to help us.
In the hasty mailing just a couple of corrections: Thaksin’s reform policies mentioned above were in gestation during the formation of the TRT in the late 1990s – but of course were not put into action until some years later, post-2001. Decentralisation started some years back even in the preceeding Chuan Government time (when I was working with CDD) but the Government at the time did not have the wherewithal to carry these out and were strongly resisted by vested interests. Only Thaksin was able to do this.
I am not sure whether any comment on these weak presentations in the name of argument will prove of any benefit.
Farmers are worse off, not better; people in general have to work harder to get by, not less; drugs are again rampant and the idea that the thousands of killings were somehow “bad.”
Your entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for you.
That a so-called PAD member should become foreign minister, the more power to him.
Recall who it was that drew first blood in the PAD/UDD-DAAD standoff? And did the government step in? No.
Thailand is replete with missing activists, dead bodies on the streets, silenced voices and a near-Mussolini-type worship of certain individuals and institutions. These are danger signals.
Thaksin is rumored to have benefitted the country this way and that, usually without comparable statistics and reference against what the situation is now and what part Thaksin had in it.
The 30 Baht health scheme, as beneficial as it was and is, cost the country dearly because it was populist and not properly planned or budgeted for.
Without the voting process you don’t have democracy. Modern democracy is based upon the idea of equal voting rights for all. Everything else, especially the strange ideas of representation by associations and appointed (by whom?) representatives as suggested by PAD is pure hogwash.
Can things go wrong? Yes. Democracy does not promise to give a “good” government – only a system of peaceful settling of political differences through parliament and as a basic function – the electoral process.
It is well known that the TRT rule had significant problems, especially in the checks and balances systems. These problems are still there. As we can see with the so called “independent” organizations siding with PAD, where organizations such as the National Human Rights commission, Poll Watch, and the National Counter Corruption Commission are still, against all proof and evidence, call the PAD protests “non-violent”.
It also is rather transparent when arrest warrants against PAD offenders, even though names and identities are known (such as the driver of the blue pick up truck on 7/10, or the shooters at Vibhavadi Soi 3) are not issued by the supposedly independent courts.
The 30 Baht system, with all its faults, was a clear improvement over the previous systems for the poor. Especially significant was the inclusion of ARV’s for HIV infection, which has changed almost overnight the death rate in villages, such as in my wife’s village. Problems of implementation? Yes, many. Underfunded, partially? Yes.
But it was a start.
Initially i was very critical about some of the revolving loan systems. But i have been convinced otherwise. For many people this became a clear improvement. Necessary funds needed for planting and harvest were now available for acceptable interest rates, and not anymore for completely outrageous rates from underground money lenders.
Of course this increased the statistical average household debt. But were the debts with money lenders of the underground economy ever counted in the statistics?
As bad (and unnecessary) as the drug war killings were, overall the drug war has resulted in a significant decrease of the spread of drugs (which have made a huge return in especially the last months of political turmoil). Drugs were, and are again, a massive threat to society here, especially the poor sectors. Many urban and rual communities did, especially in the period of ’97 to ’02 run on drug economy.
These are the reasons why people voted for Thaksin/TRT/PPP. These policies have improved people’s lives. These are simple policies that should have been introduced already in the early 90s, but weren’t.
If the Democrat Party cannot manage to campaign based on a policy platform, and draw a popular vote, then they should stop complaining about TRT/PPP/Puah Thai, and start becoming a modern political party which offers something to the rural electorate.
People will vote in every democracy for the government that improves their life. And the Democrat’s track record, especially in the Chuan 2 administration, is not impressive in this aspect.
It obviously does not help gaining the trust of the upcountry population to appoint a high profile PAD member as foreign minister.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Defending the taboo – the royal response
I have to agree with Ralph Kramden. I think the PAD have already harmed the monarchy by claiming to be acting to protect the institution. I think the military are going to do the monarchy more harm than good because of their misperception. Unfortunately, every time I see one of these warnings I think back to the “good old days” of the “communist” suppression campaigns and the red barrels.
I think in the long run these guys are doomed, but we see the example of their good friends in Burma. Once established a ruthless military can hold on for decades. The question is whether Anupong, Prawit, and Prayuth are more ruthless than Sarit and his protege Thanom were.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Glenn: Breaking the Law? According to Article 176 of the current [Khor-Mor-Chor] 2007 Constitution the Cabinet has to declare (within fifteen days after the king’s endorsement) its Policy to the Parliament prior to governing the country. The definition of “Parliament” according to this Constitution Article 88 states that it consists of members of the House of Reps (Sor-Sor) and Senate. All these folk and the skewed and biased Constitutional Court and Tribunal have to give a clear definition of these articles as these are related to the action of the current govt in breaking with tradition in declaring its policy statement. The previous govt you may recall interpreted this to mean that they had to declare inside Parliament as had govts in the past. Essentially, the current Constitution works on the principle of ambiguity so that it can be interpreted by vested interests as it wishes. Normally a meeting of all parliamentarians has to be called first and the policy has to be declared in front of them. This must be done inside Parliament in accordance with the principles of debate. This cannot be declared anywhere (including cyberspace Glenn) without MPs. Dodgey, all very dodgey: this epitimises the current status quo and direction toward state fascism. Incidentally, PAD knew that Somchai had 7 October deadline when it had to declare its policy last year- so they intended to block this process. According to its leaders the Reds did not want to stop this process this week (that is the difference with PAD) only to show that Abhisit was supporting the PAD and that he should show support to all sectors through symbolically walking through the pathway of the Reds into Govt House as he had with PAD. As well, police interviewed this week at Parliament were not concered as they had been with PAD. One police officer stated that he was scared because PAD brought in weapons supplied by the military and yaa-baa (speed). Aside from the legitimacy of the appointment, Abhisit is clearly not suitable to be PM or able to reconcile the deep divide brought about by PAD in Thai society.
Light at the end of the tunnel? Red or yellow?
Pisit, get real, the real challenge is to right the wrongs created by current illicit forces in power. As popular Bangkok activist monk Phra Payom Kalayano said: rather than fixing the economy Abhisit has to fix the deep seated hatred felt in Thai society caused by the Democrat/Amaat/military alliance against Thaksin. The demonizing and re-imagining of Thaksin by consistant fiction was as an attempt to pull people over to the Democrats/and the status quo ante. The trouble is it went too far and did not work as most people who saw the direct benefits of a Thaksin led Government in improving the quality of their lives (even below the sub-district level) were not convinced by the sophisticated propaganda campaign through the media. How to heal the rift? That has to the responsibility of those who stage-managed this hatred four years+ back.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
Narongsak is the name of the UDD/DAAD man who was killed in that first clash with PAD. Of course every one knows there was no royally sponsored cremation for him.
See this link to read more:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30082618&keyword=Narongsak+DAAD
Below is what Narongsak’s sister said:
“My brother died because PAD protesters fatally attacked him. I want police to bring the culprits to justice,” she said. “I don’t want my brother to have died for nothing. I want everyone to know who is responsible for his death. I want the PAD to stop what they’re doing,” she added.
Defending the taboo – the royal response
This response it the velvet glove response. In Thailand, things could get more iron-fisted. For a taste, see Wassana Nanuam’s Opinion piece ” On guard against lese majeste on the internet” in the Bangkok Post of 1 January.
Some interesting bits in it regarding and acknowledgment from the highest levels – Generals Anupong and Prem – that the monarchy is under threat, with the former claiming a threat to national security. Gen. Anupong Anupong has ordered “army units to ‘x-ray’ areas in the North and Northeast where lese majeste is believed rife. The crime is reported to be perpetrated by coordinated networks responsible for handing out leaflets, rumour-mongering and even vandalising portraits.”
Gen. Prem claims to be aghast at the whole situation, especially at the rapid proliferation of web sites attacking the monarchy – says he can’t bear to read them.
The author suggests that the drive against lese-majeste has brought the Democrats and the military back together. Gen. Prawit, the defence minister will lead this concerted effort.
Finally, General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin.
I cannot recall a more hysterical time for the royalists since perhaps 1975-77. Of course, the times then were quite different and the avenues for expressing republicanism are now more open. I doubt that the military and Democrats can close this down, especially as it is not a concerted effort as they seem to believe. However, they can clearly make life difficult for those who have been outspoken.
The problem for the royalists, however, is that repression may provide more support for this emerging republicanism.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Does it really matter if these policy statements are read in Parliament or elsewhere? Why not just post them on the internet? If that is the worst thing they ever do Thailand will be in good shape.
Defending PAD defender
Sarap said: “…It seems everyone has forgotten the terrorist attacks carried out against the PAD by the UDD nightly…”
The UDD carried out terrorist attacks against the PAD? Maybe. Presumably you have evidence of this. Can you post it here? Have you gone to the police with it?
I’m tired of seeing this “conventional wisdom” without any facts to back it up. People who just parrot Manager and ASTV used to be irritating, now they are merely boring.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Bon Courage!!!!
The red army at the gates of parliament
thanks Jim,
good firsthand account, great pics
The red army at the gates of parliament
…This was against the law- as this should have been declared in Parliament – but then the law as we have seen over the past few years can be made on the run to suit particular interests.
This statement cannot get any truer, especially when the current court of law is extremely unjust.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
hi Frank…
just a minor point….
in your reference to the PAD-UDD/DAAD standoff, were you referring to the (foolish) march by some UDD people from Sanam Luang to the PAD-occupied Government House area?
if so, perhaps you missed it, the first media report said that a PAD supporter was killed, a day or two later this was amended because it was a UDD supporter that was killed, and about a week after that another UDD supporter died from the injuries he sustained during the encounter
just thought it better that you not get caught out with this specific statement again
The red army at the gates of parliament
Whoever is pumping out the banners (for both PAD and UDD) could do with a decent editor.
The red army at the gates of parliament
I am confused — is UDD pro-democracy or pro-Thaksin, or both, and how can that be? Or is this about different concepts of democracy? Could UDD eliminate Thaksin from its strategy and still remain a pro-democracy movement, or perhaps even increase their democraticness by leaving out Thaksin?
Thaksin started a “democratization process?” Hmmm….. What does the village fund has to do with democratization (empowerment, perhaps, as Nick Nostitz has repeatedly pointed out)? And how is both related to decentralization?
Increased decentralization was mandated by the 1997 constitution. Accordingly, the Chuan government passed the decentralization act in 1999 (although it had to bow to the resistance of the Council of State in important respects). Thaksin had no clue about this issue whatsoever (an academic pro-decentralization co-founder of TRT told me how he had tried to explain the issue to Thaksin, who, however, responded with total incomprehension).
Rather, Thaksin did not implement the 35% budget share mandated by the act, but instead introduced the CEO governor scheme, widely seen at that time as contradicting decentralization. There was even serious talk about abolishing the PAO altogether. This, however, did not materialize, probably because it would have made Thaksin rather unpopular with many provincial politicians, including most of TRT’s MPs.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Now the “reds” are emulating the “yellows”, they should at least get someone to proof-read their English banners.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
“Frank G Anderson”:
You begin confusing some issues here.
And thank you, the sublime argument here, that my “entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for” me i vehemently reject. I have been already accused to have accepted bribes by Thaksin, nothing new there, just because i have not followed PAD ideology. For the record – i haven’t, none were ever offered. I am broke as i ever was, work with the cheapest photo equipment that a professional can use, and drive to events with a cheap Thai made motorcycle, and not a hired limousine and driver. I would ask you here not to continue in this tone.
I do try my best to report objectively, and base my arguments on what i see in the field, and not what ideologues churn out from stages.
Farmers have been worse off since the beginning of the political turmoil, and not because of Thaksin. I have been building up a farm here during the Thaksin years, and after at first rejecting to take advantage of the revolving loans, my family has in the end greatly benefited from them. We have taken loans for very modest rates of interest to finance crops, and repaid them in full. We have taken a loan to buy a “Lot Thailand” – one of the cheap all purpose lorries, and only through renting its services out besides our own farm work we can pay back the loan and interest.
The family has now motorcycles, TVs, fridges, without being in unmanageable debt, where previously they had nothing. And after having traveled in and reported from many provinces, i have seen that my wife’s family was not an exception.
And i clearly recall the first “blood” that was drawn. That was already three odd years ago on Royal Plaza, when lone Thaksin supporters held up pro-Thaksin signs at the first Sondhi L. event there. I was there.
Violence in political conflict in Thailand is ever present. Nothing new about this, both sides have inflicted violence on the other. The first person that was murdered though was a Red Shirt, who was beaten to death during the clash of Sept. 2nd. I was there, less than 40 meters away.
Please don’t pretend that the PAD only defended itself. PAD has inflicted heavy violence – the last seriously injured was in Vibhavadi Soi 3 on Dec. 6th (after the retreat from the airports), shot through his arm with a 11mm bullet during a PAD attack on the radio station there.
Missing activists etc, yes, but that just did not only happen under Thaksin, it happened under every government, and unfortunately will continue to happen. Make Thaksin responsible for what he has actually done wrong (and there is plenty), but please do not follow the PAD line of exaggeration, so that it appears that Thaksin is responsible for all of Thailand’s evils, including those that happened before he was born.
The drug war was highly necessary, because the situation was very bad. The major deterioration happened under the Democrat led administration after the ’97 crises, when the Chuan government has done almost nothing about the rise of drugs. What in the drug war was not necessary, were the killings.
I might misunderstand you, but you imply that the drug war was responsible for the rise of drugs. That is a clear distortion of facts.
Drugs have risen again, since the political turmoil initiated by PAD has bound so much of the police force that day to day operations were not able to have been kept up.
I would suggest researching the drug situation in the field, from both sides – police and drug scene – before making any statement on this subject. Interview both police officers in drug supression units, and pushers/addicts, go in the field, and then let us know of what you found out.
People have to work harder to get by. Oh well.
There is a world crises going on, and people all over the globe have to work harder. Here in Thailand, the effects of this crises have only been accelerated tremendously by the massive street protests (initiated by PAD), and the occupation of the airports (by PAD).
Appointing a PAD member as foreign minister, and one who even made publicly distasteful remarks about the Suvarnabhumi occupation will hardly restore investor confidence and “unity”, somewhat countering Abhist’s statements.
I really have to wonder about the rationality of your statement of “more power” to this PAD foreign minister.
The 30 Baht health scheme has not “cost the country” a lot. On the opposite. Many lives were saved and kept productive by including ARV’s. The first after coup statement on the country’s finances, and the numbers presented, especially regarding debt, were in the international standard. Even today, after the PPP government was ousted, the financial situation, foreign exchange reserves, and banking, is in order.
Where, please, is the evidence that the policies have “cost the country a lot”? Not PAD exagerration, but evidence that the country is financially in dire straights as the result of Thaksin’s policies.
The red army at the gates of parliament
Gee, I wish I had been alive to know that this “messiah” called Thaksin had been amongst us……………
Get real, Jim Taylor
The red army at the gates of parliament
We ask the world to give us a hand. We are fighting against injustice.
We believe all men are born equal.
We all are endowed with the rights to liberty and freedom.
With that desire, we participate in democratic process.
However, democracy has been robbed from us with dirty tricks.
What we end up having is fake democracy.
The dark forces that manipulative the events are beyond our ability to cope. Our political history has always been ended with good people destroyed. Our national hero Dr. Pridi Banomyong was exiled on November 8th, 1947.
Our ancestors fought for our democracy since June 24, 1932
66 years later, in 2008 the dark forces still can manipulate the events to destroy our hope for equality, human decency and justice.
The mix of domestic politics and international affairs is beyond our grass roots ability. We ask the world to help us.
The red army at the gates of parliament
In the hasty mailing just a couple of corrections: Thaksin’s reform policies mentioned above were in gestation during the formation of the TRT in the late 1990s – but of course were not put into action until some years later, post-2001. Decentralisation started some years back even in the preceeding Chuan Government time (when I was working with CDD) but the Government at the time did not have the wherewithal to carry these out and were strongly resisted by vested interests. Only Thaksin was able to do this.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
I am not sure whether any comment on these weak presentations in the name of argument will prove of any benefit.
Farmers are worse off, not better; people in general have to work harder to get by, not less; drugs are again rampant and the idea that the thousands of killings were somehow “bad.”
Your entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for you.
That a so-called PAD member should become foreign minister, the more power to him.
Recall who it was that drew first blood in the PAD/UDD-DAAD standoff? And did the government step in? No.
Thailand is replete with missing activists, dead bodies on the streets, silenced voices and a near-Mussolini-type worship of certain individuals and institutions. These are danger signals.
Thaksin is rumored to have benefitted the country this way and that, usually without comparable statistics and reference against what the situation is now and what part Thaksin had in it.
The 30 Baht health scheme, as beneficial as it was and is, cost the country dearly because it was populist and not properly planned or budgeted for.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thailand’s second coup
“Frank G Anderson”:
Without the voting process you don’t have democracy. Modern democracy is based upon the idea of equal voting rights for all. Everything else, especially the strange ideas of representation by associations and appointed (by whom?) representatives as suggested by PAD is pure hogwash.
Can things go wrong? Yes. Democracy does not promise to give a “good” government – only a system of peaceful settling of political differences through parliament and as a basic function – the electoral process.
It is well known that the TRT rule had significant problems, especially in the checks and balances systems. These problems are still there. As we can see with the so called “independent” organizations siding with PAD, where organizations such as the National Human Rights commission, Poll Watch, and the National Counter Corruption Commission are still, against all proof and evidence, call the PAD protests “non-violent”.
It also is rather transparent when arrest warrants against PAD offenders, even though names and identities are known (such as the driver of the blue pick up truck on 7/10, or the shooters at Vibhavadi Soi 3) are not issued by the supposedly independent courts.
The 30 Baht system, with all its faults, was a clear improvement over the previous systems for the poor. Especially significant was the inclusion of ARV’s for HIV infection, which has changed almost overnight the death rate in villages, such as in my wife’s village. Problems of implementation? Yes, many. Underfunded, partially? Yes.
But it was a start.
Initially i was very critical about some of the revolving loan systems. But i have been convinced otherwise. For many people this became a clear improvement. Necessary funds needed for planting and harvest were now available for acceptable interest rates, and not anymore for completely outrageous rates from underground money lenders.
Of course this increased the statistical average household debt. But were the debts with money lenders of the underground economy ever counted in the statistics?
As bad (and unnecessary) as the drug war killings were, overall the drug war has resulted in a significant decrease of the spread of drugs (which have made a huge return in especially the last months of political turmoil). Drugs were, and are again, a massive threat to society here, especially the poor sectors. Many urban and rual communities did, especially in the period of ’97 to ’02 run on drug economy.
These are the reasons why people voted for Thaksin/TRT/PPP. These policies have improved people’s lives. These are simple policies that should have been introduced already in the early 90s, but weren’t.
If the Democrat Party cannot manage to campaign based on a policy platform, and draw a popular vote, then they should stop complaining about TRT/PPP/Puah Thai, and start becoming a modern political party which offers something to the rural electorate.
People will vote in every democracy for the government that improves their life. And the Democrat’s track record, especially in the Chuan 2 administration, is not impressive in this aspect.
It obviously does not help gaining the trust of the upcountry population to appoint a high profile PAD member as foreign minister.