Some beauty hints, cut the hyperbolic self-gratifying leftist verbage: fascist thugs, dictators, middle class intellectual enemies,…yawn, yawn…
PAD violent? Someone keeps lobbing bombs with a grenade launcher
into their camp while they sleep (aerobics commander Khattiya?).
The grenade launch down the street in Klong Toey market last week at 2am even woke me up. If you don’t mention facts like this you are simply not being objective Giles. Supporting pro-democracy Red Shirts, while refusing to support ex-PM Thaksin? Are you sure you have your head screwed on straight this morning Giles? The latest from ASTV makes PAD sound very dangerous indeed:
11:15 The food situation has apparently been taken care of, but now there is an urgent call from Suwarnabhumi for toothpaste and toothbrushes. With all the shops closed there, the announcers are saying this is a great opportunity for PAD supporters to sell goods there. They also say foreign tourists who missed their flights, especially Russians, are sitting with the protestors and enjoying the music. PAD rallies are always full of live performances.) http://www.readbangkokpost.com/articles/airportupdates.php
Though I did agree with most of Giles’s idea about PAD, still I considered the red shirt movement was too close to Thaksin for me to comfort.
I do agree with most comments here that PAD desparately seek none but violence, tring in vain to pave way for coup. That’s the reason why PMSomchai kept avoiding clashes at least for the moment. But once the majorities turn their sentiment from PAD to the government , PAD will face some fierce “fight back”
My stance is of course, against PAD, but Thaksin did cast too long a shadow on the red shirts for me to support.
@Frank: To sum up your point: “Change” (good), through “violence” (er, good), leads us to disenfranchisement of those “gullibe and ignorant” (bad) voters (this is the confirmed agenda of the PAD). How is this democratic and what is the medium and long-term outlook? How will democracy thrive? Or is Thailand “not ready for democracy” as you seem to imply also: “…”things in Thailand will not change for the better without force being used..”. What if those disenfranchised voters use violence to further change for their own ends against the “elite” (old ladies paid or not)? What about the Democrat party finally working as an effective opposition with a viable platform as a more non-violent option? Sorry for adding another half-witted comment.
When the police and the army is not under the jurisdiction of the elected govt, but under instructions from elsewhere or are an authority unto themselves, on e can never tell what the agenda really is.
All I know is that the PAD and its supporters, intellectuals or otherwise have an uncanny ability to turn a blind eye and lie to themselves.
never mind the constant call to battle and war declarations of the leadership.
never mind the footages of PAD “guards” armed and trigger happy
never mind PAD “guards” beating up on old ladies…. the list goes on and on. This is not hearsay, but reported by the very PRO-PAD and bias bangkok newspaper.
Despite all of the above and more.. the “intellectual” supporters of the PAD still claim “peaceful” protest. How does one debate logically with them.
For the record, I am not a supporter of any particular camp or person, but I am certainly against the PAD actions and the violent and selfish path that they have chosen.
As for going to Burma to fight, I know for a fact that no one here will stop anyone from going, however that is NOT the case when anyone goes to Mae Sot.
I fully described in my book “War in Karen Country” the scene in Mae Sot with regards to the local intel groups that are posted around town.
The situation has gotten to be more of a problem since early October when the SPDC attacked the KNLA from Thai territory.
Army troops are now posted on the major road leading out of Mae Sot to Um Phang and are not permitting foreigners (unless they are NGO’s to go on this road.
many think its time for the police and maybe the military at the airport to move in heavily on the PAD
now that the PAD are in the airport its very difficult because they are mixed with so many ordinary people
and if arrests are made out on the streets it is possible the PAD could start taking hostages
despite our desires to see the PAD finished, unfortunately, we need to be patient before touching the PAD slaves
however, it could be time to arrest the leaders and, because of the risk of re-offending if they are allowed out on bail, keep them in gaol pending charges and court appearances
that was the real scandal, why were the leaders allowed out on bail when they were arrested last time?
we should all carefully investigate the judges and their actions then! and make sure the same does not happen again!
I Ji is dead wrong when he states that the king has no power. This is a really odd position to take when Ji actually spends considerable time talking about why the old guy hasn’t intervened. My answer is that he needs the right time to intervene when he knows he can’t lose. We might be close to that now.
Apart from this, Ji hammers many a good point, and readers might want to compare with the Bangkok Post’s insipid editorial (http://www.bangkokpost.com/261108_News/26Nov2008_news14.php). It is a travesty for they cannot bring themselves to condemn PAD’s methods and agenda. Rather they are just critical of the airport siege. We expect this from the Nation, but increasingly desperate supported of the PAD at the Bangkok Post seem to be holding sway. Look at the reports regarding the alleged constitutional changes that were meant to be in the works on Monday. That journalism (sic) is direct from the PAD stage.
Ji has gone from calling PAD proto-fascist to fascist. On that, I think he is looking pretty sharp.
Those who support democracy and social justice in Thailand must condemn the PAD and those advocating a dictatorship. We must be with the pro-democracy Red Shirts, while refusing to support ex-PM Thaksin, who has a record of Human Rights abuses. I hope that all those friends of Thailand abroad will support all our efforts to defend Thai democracy and to defend those of us who may face arrest in the future.
I was going to email you to get an up to date report for today’s show but now I don’t have to as I just read it.
polo – I’ve known Nick for a number of years and he’s the consummate professional and never gets too emotional but he does have deep feelings and that is to be expected because of the situation he often finds himself in.
Nick, nice report – really looking forward to the next one! Question on this: “Several bombs were launched against PAD, costing the lives of two people. But in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.” What’s the evidence?
Frank, old chap, you missed my earlier posting, where I asked some questions about the nature of violence and its outcomes. Violence is not just violence. There are different kinds of violence and violence occurs in many different contexts. There might be violence that has “good” outcomes and other kinds of violence. So while I agree with your basic point, I feel you are being a bit too shallow in your discussion.
All of this claiming of one thing or another happening seems a bit half-witted, even my own comments BTW. For example, the idea that the PAD is seeking confrontation – I would both agree and disagree with that. Anyone in Thailand, in fact, who wishes to speak openly on any issue will be in direct confrontation with most apathetic players, of which there are indeed many, many of them. That the PAD and/or some of its members have resorted to violence seems to be a focus by those already assuming that things would change peacefully in Thailand if a normal regimen is adhered to. Whatever that means. I submit, as more than hinted recently, that things in Thailand will not change for the better without force being used. In Thai political terms, as elsewhere, this means violence. We can argue pro and con all the way to the grave, but political and social systems such as exist in Thailand don’t offer much in the way of human rights and democracy, to name but two, unless they are forced to change. Thai authorities are not amenable to peaceful change, by the way.
There is another aspect of overview here, and that is the idea that Thaksin brought a form of democracy to Thailand that is somehow wonderful and that it has to be copied, promoted and idolized. Those in this group who also see what Thaksin did to human rights and instigated cold-blooded killings and more will not share the same proclivity toward idol worship.
If Thaksin accomplished one thing with his overwhelming pseudo-democratic victories, it’s proving beyond a doubt the gullibility and ignorance of the Thai voter, notably out of the urban areas. Of course, Bush did likewise in the States, but we are addressing Thailand for this argument.
Marko suggests a pox on both their houses. If we believe him (and some of his observations suggest a short memory), what happens? Sit back and watch Bangkok burn? Just nihilism? Go shopping when there is a break in the lawlessness? Recall that when there were angels and devils in the past (1992), not all the angels were pure white. One of the points of political activity is choosing least worst outcomes, as you indicate. Indeed, not everyone writes history as they want it. Actors get caught up in events which they think they control and the whole “shebang” gets somewhere other than a planned destination.
It may be significant that the UDD have shown a capacity to bring their goons under control, whereas PAD’s leadership is letting their’s off the leash. Maybe that won’t last, but its a start.
Principles and conviction matter but so too do strategy and tactics. Please explain to me how PAD imagines how Thailand will be once they rule and “New Politics” is instituted? Will they allow their opponents the right to engage in the same types of “civil disobedience” strategies and tactics they did for years? Will a PAD government (if it ever were to be) show the kind of restraint on protesters as PPP governments? Very few governments worldwide would ever allow PAD-style siezures and disruption without cracking down.
Please convince me that PAD strategies today wouldn’t come back to haunt them later (assuming they could actually oust this government and end majority rule democracy in favor of “New Politics”). I don’t get it. Don’t they simply want to rewrite the rules in their favor just like everybody else before them? The core problem in Thailand is not Thaksin or the PAD, the problem is a political culture that values political victory over the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Thaksin…PAD… they are all the same: no respect for the rule of law. I feel sorry for Thais who crave the rule of law. Democracy, above all, is about the management of peaceful political conflict and peaceful transfer of power of one set of leaders to another, is it not?
Please explain why PAD is any different than Thaksin in this respect.
I have generally appreciated Nick Nostitz’s observations but I think he has gotten a little too emotional this time, or written too quickly, to make sense, especially in these graphs:
“Both groups have to understand that nobody can win this conflict by violence. It will in the end only alienate the average citizen, and the country will descend into a circle of violence that might bring it to the brink of civil war. Especially in a country like Thailand, where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition, leaders of such protests groups have to make sure that they find ways to discourage these elements within their own ranks.”
“If PAD guards cannot be disarmed completely, and that means also that demonstrations are not anymore led by hooded men holding sticks and iron bars, then these people have to be expelled from the PAD. The PAD has to clearly distance itself from these groups. And, ideally, PAD should redefine itself, leave Government House, and return to a constitutional form of protest.”
In fact the language of PAD leaders has been to stoke violent feelings, warning of clashes and threatening clashes. I would go so far as to say hoping for violence that they hope would lead to a (1) coup or (2) conflagration. And (3): they have a jihad-martyr complex which requires provoking a violent end to themselves — and that is clear throughout Sondhi’s and Chamlong’s speeches.
Nick is exhorting them to break from the viiolent side but in fact they are dependent on the threat of a violent outbreak. This is brinkmanship as the busienss of the protest, not non-violence.
“These people have to be expelled from PAD” — what does that mean, that they aren’t part of it. They absolutely are. PAD has never been a movement away from these goons. (An I am not a Thaksin backer, BTW). They are just a part of it as much as the committed no-violent elements — and the DO NOT include Sondhi, and in my view not even Chamlong.
Furthermore, what does this phrase mean: “where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition,”
What “tradition” of violence? On whose side? (If I recall, the police/military attacked protestors in Oct 1973, Oct 1976, and May 2001.) In fact, Nick himself denies this — he warns of a breakdown toward civil war. That is a break from the recent past, only “traditional” if you refer to 1933 and the 1975-78 national split.
I hope Nick will go back to his detailed descriptions of what is happening in the streets and back off the emotional interpretation and calls for PAD to do this or that.
With all due respect to “Rookie”, and his comment of today, “Now only the Red Shirts dare to provide a counter balance to PAD but this movement is playing its cards carefully and wait for the correct time to act” I beg that the article misses the point slightly.
Whilst neither a supporter of red or yellow, wasn’t it red who marched 3-4km to attack yellow in the middle of the night just a couple of months ago?
Isn’t it yellow who openly seek confrontation? So why do red offer it? That’s not playing your cards carefully, that’s responding to the slightest provocation.
Choosing between red and yellow is like choosing between Communism and Fascism, they are the same except in name.
They both seek to control the media. At least one seeks to remove the checks and balances that a “mature democracy” should have (no pun intended) They both hold mass rallies of ‘yellow/red/brown’ (delete as applicable) shirts decrying the opposition whilst proclaiming their own righteousness.
They both seek a ‘final battle’ or ‘Reichstag fire’ scenario where the other side is vanquished. This is through the argument that one side holds, “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” and the other side, “he’s always wrong” The moderates are squeezed out as the fringe gains control.
There are no angels here, only demons, we just stand aside and hope our lives aren’t affected too deeply.
Democracy is indeed the least worse form of government we have but without checks and balances, it is nothing. Why was the OAG redundant for two years? Because a democratically elected leader didn’t want to be investigated. Why has government house been occupied? Because a group of political thugs chose to do so.
It’s also a waste of time quoting the current PM, you should just get a quote from the UK’s recent reject or the chap exiled in Cambodia! Why else do cabinet members fly to meetings in Hong Kong or a casino in north-west Cambodia??
The whole shebang is just an argument between two right-wing groups seeking to gain/maintain their grip on power.
Just watched a Thai tv at 9:30 pm local time showing police at Dindaeng station arresting a PAD guard who drove a pick-up truck and he was found to be carrying an Uzi submachinegun and ammunition. After checking, it was confirmed that the Uzi rifle was one of those missing from the Govt House, now still occupied by PAD. Now what happens to Sonthi/Chamlong’s claim that their movement is peaceful and without weapons ? These men are hypocrites and I am truly puzzled why some postings in this forum still defend PAD !!!
Now the issue is no longer pro and anti-Thaksin, but pro- and anti PAD ! Many people who are now anti PAD were/are not Thaksin cronies. Even Panlop who was once sacked by Thaksin has now shown its opposition to PAD and become Thaksin’s ally.
Forgive me for quoting some previous posts first (please read on, you’ll see why).
above, Frank G Anderson write (Nov 20) : ….current and past Thai administrations and their cabinet members, elected reps and so on ….have been disregarding the law for decades and decades – why else is Thailand so corrupt and its social infrastructure on the verge of collapse?
and (Nov 25) : KhunHC Lau, you’ve never addressed the shortened list of PMThaksin/TRT abuses of power and conflicts of interests that I asked you to that is RECENT Thai history that led to today’s deep conflicts… Until you do so, you have no right to call anyone “simple minded”…
KhunHCLau, yes, everyone is behaving above the law – but my argument is quite basic. The prime minister, in any functioning democracy, must be the standard-bearer of the rule of law. It is his clear role under the constitution. In any mature democracy, the issue of accountability is fundamental and the punishment is much more severe for office-holders that break the law – as it should be.
The problem we have today, where everyone disregards the law, stems from PMThaksin’s power abuses and cynical approach to the 1997 Constitution…
…………..
Now what I’m writing below has “nothing to do” with the above quotations “whatsoever”. I just feel like it. I’m just bored, having too much time on my hand etc. But, read on please …
(I think I wrote about this hear somewhere before. Forgive me, but as I said I’m just dying with boredom.)
On 16 September 1957 immediately after the historic coup d’etat by Sarit Thanarat that toppled Phibun, the last remaining leader of the 1932 People’s Party still in power, King Bhumibol issue a Royal Proclaimation (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕бр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╣Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕г – a literal translation would be A Royal Order) titled “Appoining the Military Defender of the Capital”. It reads: “I thereby appoint General Sarit Thanarat as the Military Defender of the Capital [р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕г] I urge all the people to stay calm and all the civil service personel to follow the orders of General Sarit Thanarat from now on.”
(Royal Gasett, vol 74 section 76, 16 September 1957, special issue page 1)
What is remarkable about this Royal Order is that: it is issued under the King’s name only, there is no counter-signature whatsoever. In effect, this means the King alone was responsible for this document.
Furthermore, at the time, the 1952 Constitution was still in force, it had not been overturned by the coup group. Article 98 of that “supreme law of the land” stated (my translation):
…all laws, all royal writings [р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕лр╕▒р╕Хр╕Цр╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╕▓], and all Royal Proclaimations regarding official business of the land [р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕Фр╕┤р╕Щ] must be counter-signed by a minister.
………………
As I said earlier, I just got some time to kill, my post “has nothing whatsoever” with all the above posts by Anderson and Sidh S., our passionate defender of the law, who would be trembling with rage to see any Thai elite break the law (no matter when it happened “for dacades and decades” – see Anderson above), and would denounce them mercilessly, with all the force of their moral fortitude …..
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
PAD back to form
Is this the best you can do to be convincing Giles?
Nidhi Eoseewong was more convincing:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/261108_News/26Nov2008_news19.php
Some beauty hints, cut the hyperbolic self-gratifying leftist verbage: fascist thugs, dictators, middle class intellectual enemies,…yawn, yawn…
PAD violent? Someone keeps lobbing bombs with a grenade launcher
into their camp while they sleep (aerobics commander Khattiya?).
The grenade launch down the street in Klong Toey market last week at 2am even woke me up. If you don’t mention facts like this you are simply not being objective Giles. Supporting pro-democracy Red Shirts, while refusing to support ex-PM Thaksin? Are you sure you have your head screwed on straight this morning Giles? The latest from ASTV makes PAD sound very dangerous indeed:
11:15 The food situation has apparently been taken care of, but now there is an urgent call from Suwarnabhumi for toothpaste and toothbrushes. With all the shops closed there, the announcers are saying this is a great opportunity for PAD supporters to sell goods there. They also say foreign tourists who missed their flights, especially Russians, are sitting with the protestors and enjoying the music. PAD rallies are always full of live performances.)
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/articles/airportupdates.php
PAD back to form
Though I did agree with most of Giles’s idea about PAD, still I considered the red shirt movement was too close to Thaksin for me to comfort.
I do agree with most comments here that PAD desparately seek none but violence, tring in vain to pave way for coup. That’s the reason why PMSomchai kept avoiding clashes at least for the moment. But once the majorities turn their sentiment from PAD to the government , PAD will face some fierce “fight back”
My stance is of course, against PAD, but Thaksin did cast too long a shadow on the red shirts for me to support.
The beginning of the end for PAD?
@Frank: To sum up your point: “Change” (good), through “violence” (er, good), leads us to disenfranchisement of those “gullibe and ignorant” (bad) voters (this is the confirmed agenda of the PAD). How is this democratic and what is the medium and long-term outlook? How will democracy thrive? Or is Thailand “not ready for democracy” as you seem to imply also: “…”things in Thailand will not change for the better without force being used..”. What if those disenfranchised voters use violence to further change for their own ends against the “elite” (old ladies paid or not)? What about the Democrat party finally working as an effective opposition with a viable platform as a more non-violent option? Sorry for adding another half-witted comment.
PAD back to form
David,
When the police and the army is not under the jurisdiction of the elected govt, but under instructions from elsewhere or are an authority unto themselves, on e can never tell what the agenda really is.
All I know is that the PAD and its supporters, intellectuals or otherwise have an uncanny ability to turn a blind eye and lie to themselves.
never mind the constant call to battle and war declarations of the leadership.
never mind the footages of PAD “guards” armed and trigger happy
never mind PAD “guards” beating up on old ladies…. the list goes on and on. This is not hearsay, but reported by the very PRO-PAD and bias bangkok newspaper.
Despite all of the above and more.. the “intellectual” supporters of the PAD still claim “peaceful” protest. How does one debate logically with them.
For the record, I am not a supporter of any particular camp or person, but I am certainly against the PAD actions and the violent and selfish path that they have chosen.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
As for going to Burma to fight, I know for a fact that no one here will stop anyone from going, however that is NOT the case when anyone goes to Mae Sot.
I fully described in my book “War in Karen Country” the scene in Mae Sot with regards to the local intel groups that are posted around town.
The situation has gotten to be more of a problem since early October when the SPDC attacked the KNLA from Thai territory.
Army troops are now posted on the major road leading out of Mae Sot to Um Phang and are not permitting foreigners (unless they are NGO’s to go on this road.
PAD back to form
thank you… we are all waiting
many think its time for the police and maybe the military at the airport to move in heavily on the PAD
now that the PAD are in the airport its very difficult because they are mixed with so many ordinary people
and if arrests are made out on the streets it is possible the PAD could start taking hostages
despite our desires to see the PAD finished, unfortunately, we need to be patient before touching the PAD slaves
however, it could be time to arrest the leaders and, because of the risk of re-offending if they are allowed out on bail, keep them in gaol pending charges and court appearances
that was the real scandal, why were the leaders allowed out on bail when they were arrested last time?
we should all carefully investigate the judges and their actions then! and make sure the same does not happen again!
PAD back to form
I Ji is dead wrong when he states that the king has no power. This is a really odd position to take when Ji actually spends considerable time talking about why the old guy hasn’t intervened. My answer is that he needs the right time to intervene when he knows he can’t lose. We might be close to that now.
Apart from this, Ji hammers many a good point, and readers might want to compare with the Bangkok Post’s insipid editorial (http://www.bangkokpost.com/261108_News/26Nov2008_news14.php). It is a travesty for they cannot bring themselves to condemn PAD’s methods and agenda. Rather they are just critical of the airport siege. We expect this from the Nation, but increasingly desperate supported of the PAD at the Bangkok Post seem to be holding sway. Look at the reports regarding the alleged constitutional changes that were meant to be in the works on Monday. That journalism (sic) is direct from the PAD stage.
Ji has gone from calling PAD proto-fascist to fascist. On that, I think he is looking pretty sharp.
PAD back to form
Those who support democracy and social justice in Thailand must condemn the PAD and those advocating a dictatorship. We must be with the pro-democracy Red Shirts, while refusing to support ex-PM Thaksin, who has a record of Human Rights abuses. I hope that all those friends of Thailand abroad will support all our efforts to defend Thai democracy and to defend those of us who may face arrest in the future.
Lacks substance, but kind of ironic statement
Violence, non-violence and the PAD’s “last battle”
Hi Nick…
I was going to email you to get an up to date report for today’s show but now I don’t have to as I just read it.
polo – I’ve known Nick for a number of years and he’s the consummate professional and never gets too emotional but he does have deep feelings and that is to be expected because of the situation he often finds himself in.
Later, my friend.
Violence, non-violence and the PAD’s “last battle”
Nick, nice report – really looking forward to the next one! Question on this: “Several bombs were launched against PAD, costing the lives of two people. But in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.” What’s the evidence?
The beginning of the end for PAD?
Frank, old chap, you missed my earlier posting, where I asked some questions about the nature of violence and its outcomes. Violence is not just violence. There are different kinds of violence and violence occurs in many different contexts. There might be violence that has “good” outcomes and other kinds of violence. So while I agree with your basic point, I feel you are being a bit too shallow in your discussion.
The beginning of the end for PAD?
All of this claiming of one thing or another happening seems a bit half-witted, even my own comments BTW. For example, the idea that the PAD is seeking confrontation – I would both agree and disagree with that. Anyone in Thailand, in fact, who wishes to speak openly on any issue will be in direct confrontation with most apathetic players, of which there are indeed many, many of them. That the PAD and/or some of its members have resorted to violence seems to be a focus by those already assuming that things would change peacefully in Thailand if a normal regimen is adhered to. Whatever that means. I submit, as more than hinted recently, that things in Thailand will not change for the better without force being used. In Thai political terms, as elsewhere, this means violence. We can argue pro and con all the way to the grave, but political and social systems such as exist in Thailand don’t offer much in the way of human rights and democracy, to name but two, unless they are forced to change. Thai authorities are not amenable to peaceful change, by the way.
There is another aspect of overview here, and that is the idea that Thaksin brought a form of democracy to Thailand that is somehow wonderful and that it has to be copied, promoted and idolized. Those in this group who also see what Thaksin did to human rights and instigated cold-blooded killings and more will not share the same proclivity toward idol worship.
If Thaksin accomplished one thing with his overwhelming pseudo-democratic victories, it’s proving beyond a doubt the gullibility and ignorance of the Thai voter, notably out of the urban areas. Of course, Bush did likewise in the States, but we are addressing Thailand for this argument.
The beginning of the end for PAD?
Marko suggests a pox on both their houses. If we believe him (and some of his observations suggest a short memory), what happens? Sit back and watch Bangkok burn? Just nihilism? Go shopping when there is a break in the lawlessness? Recall that when there were angels and devils in the past (1992), not all the angels were pure white. One of the points of political activity is choosing least worst outcomes, as you indicate. Indeed, not everyone writes history as they want it. Actors get caught up in events which they think they control and the whole “shebang” gets somewhere other than a planned destination.
It may be significant that the UDD have shown a capacity to bring their goons under control, whereas PAD’s leadership is letting their’s off the leash. Maybe that won’t last, but its a start.
What next in Thai politics?
Sidh. S.,
Principles and conviction matter but so too do strategy and tactics. Please explain to me how PAD imagines how Thailand will be once they rule and “New Politics” is instituted? Will they allow their opponents the right to engage in the same types of “civil disobedience” strategies and tactics they did for years? Will a PAD government (if it ever were to be) show the kind of restraint on protesters as PPP governments? Very few governments worldwide would ever allow PAD-style siezures and disruption without cracking down.
Please convince me that PAD strategies today wouldn’t come back to haunt them later (assuming they could actually oust this government and end majority rule democracy in favor of “New Politics”). I don’t get it. Don’t they simply want to rewrite the rules in their favor just like everybody else before them? The core problem in Thailand is not Thaksin or the PAD, the problem is a political culture that values political victory over the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Thaksin…PAD… they are all the same: no respect for the rule of law. I feel sorry for Thais who crave the rule of law. Democracy, above all, is about the management of peaceful political conflict and peaceful transfer of power of one set of leaders to another, is it not?
Please explain why PAD is any different than Thaksin in this respect.
Violence, non-violence and the PAD’s “last battle”
I have generally appreciated Nick Nostitz’s observations but I think he has gotten a little too emotional this time, or written too quickly, to make sense, especially in these graphs:
“Both groups have to understand that nobody can win this conflict by violence. It will in the end only alienate the average citizen, and the country will descend into a circle of violence that might bring it to the brink of civil war. Especially in a country like Thailand, where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition, leaders of such protests groups have to make sure that they find ways to discourage these elements within their own ranks.”
“If PAD guards cannot be disarmed completely, and that means also that demonstrations are not anymore led by hooded men holding sticks and iron bars, then these people have to be expelled from the PAD. The PAD has to clearly distance itself from these groups. And, ideally, PAD should redefine itself, leave Government House, and return to a constitutional form of protest.”
In fact the language of PAD leaders has been to stoke violent feelings, warning of clashes and threatening clashes. I would go so far as to say hoping for violence that they hope would lead to a (1) coup or (2) conflagration. And (3): they have a jihad-martyr complex which requires provoking a violent end to themselves — and that is clear throughout Sondhi’s and Chamlong’s speeches.
Nick is exhorting them to break from the viiolent side but in fact they are dependent on the threat of a violent outbreak. This is brinkmanship as the busienss of the protest, not non-violence.
“These people have to be expelled from PAD” — what does that mean, that they aren’t part of it. They absolutely are. PAD has never been a movement away from these goons. (An I am not a Thaksin backer, BTW). They are just a part of it as much as the committed no-violent elements — and the DO NOT include Sondhi, and in my view not even Chamlong.
Furthermore, what does this phrase mean: “where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition,”
What “tradition” of violence? On whose side? (If I recall, the police/military attacked protestors in Oct 1973, Oct 1976, and May 2001.) In fact, Nick himself denies this — he warns of a breakdown toward civil war. That is a break from the recent past, only “traditional” if you refer to 1933 and the 1975-78 national split.
I hope Nick will go back to his detailed descriptions of what is happening in the streets and back off the emotional interpretation and calls for PAD to do this or that.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Are you interested in facts, read new report of Karen Human Right Group “Village Agency: Rural rights and resistance in a militarized Karen State”
http://www.khrg.org/khrg2008/khrg0803.html
or the short form “Residents of eastern Burma actively engaged in peaceful resistance”, says Karen Human Rights Group
http://www.monnews-imna.com/newsupdate.php?ID=1245
The beginning of the end for PAD?
With all due respect to “Rookie”, and his comment of today, “Now only the Red Shirts dare to provide a counter balance to PAD but this movement is playing its cards carefully and wait for the correct time to act” I beg that the article misses the point slightly.
Whilst neither a supporter of red or yellow, wasn’t it red who marched 3-4km to attack yellow in the middle of the night just a couple of months ago?
Isn’t it yellow who openly seek confrontation? So why do red offer it? That’s not playing your cards carefully, that’s responding to the slightest provocation.
Choosing between red and yellow is like choosing between Communism and Fascism, they are the same except in name.
They both seek to control the media. At least one seeks to remove the checks and balances that a “mature democracy” should have (no pun intended) They both hold mass rallies of ‘yellow/red/brown’ (delete as applicable) shirts decrying the opposition whilst proclaiming their own righteousness.
They both seek a ‘final battle’ or ‘Reichstag fire’ scenario where the other side is vanquished. This is through the argument that one side holds, “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” and the other side, “he’s always wrong” The moderates are squeezed out as the fringe gains control.
There are no angels here, only demons, we just stand aside and hope our lives aren’t affected too deeply.
Democracy is indeed the least worse form of government we have but without checks and balances, it is nothing. Why was the OAG redundant for two years? Because a democratically elected leader didn’t want to be investigated. Why has government house been occupied? Because a group of political thugs chose to do so.
It’s also a waste of time quoting the current PM, you should just get a quote from the UK’s recent reject or the chap exiled in Cambodia! Why else do cabinet members fly to meetings in Hong Kong or a casino in north-west Cambodia??
The whole shebang is just an argument between two right-wing groups seeking to gain/maintain their grip on power.
The beginning of the end for PAD?
Just watched a Thai tv at 9:30 pm local time showing police at Dindaeng station arresting a PAD guard who drove a pick-up truck and he was found to be carrying an Uzi submachinegun and ammunition. After checking, it was confirmed that the Uzi rifle was one of those missing from the Govt House, now still occupied by PAD. Now what happens to Sonthi/Chamlong’s claim that their movement is peaceful and without weapons ? These men are hypocrites and I am truly puzzled why some postings in this forum still defend PAD !!!
Now the issue is no longer pro and anti-Thaksin, but pro- and anti PAD ! Many people who are now anti PAD were/are not Thaksin cronies. Even Panlop who was once sacked by Thaksin has now shown its opposition to PAD and become Thaksin’s ally.
The beginning of the end for PAD?
Forgive me for quoting some previous posts first (please read on, you’ll see why).
above,
Frank G Anderson write (Nov 20) :
….current and past Thai administrations and their cabinet members, elected reps and so on ….have been disregarding the law for decades and decades – why else is Thailand so corrupt and its social infrastructure on the verge of collapse?
and (Nov 25) :
KhunHC Lau, you’ve never addressed the shortened list of PMThaksin/TRT abuses of power and conflicts of interests that I asked you to that is RECENT Thai history that led to today’s deep conflicts… Until you do so, you have no right to call anyone “simple minded”…
similarly, at another topic
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/11/19/what-next-in-thai-politics/#comment-580583
Sidh S. writes (Nov 24}:
KhunHCLau, yes, everyone is behaving above the law – but my argument is quite basic. The prime minister, in any functioning democracy, must be the standard-bearer of the rule of law. It is his clear role under the constitution. In any mature democracy, the issue of accountability is fundamental and the punishment is much more severe for office-holders that break the law – as it should be.
The problem we have today, where everyone disregards the law, stems from PMThaksin’s power abuses and cynical approach to the 1997 Constitution…
…………..
Now what I’m writing below has “nothing to do” with the above quotations “whatsoever”. I just feel like it. I’m just bored, having too much time on my hand etc. But, read on please …
(I think I wrote about this hear somewhere before. Forgive me, but as I said I’m just dying with boredom.)
On 16 September 1957 immediately after the historic coup d’etat by Sarit Thanarat that toppled Phibun, the last remaining leader of the 1932 People’s Party still in power, King Bhumibol issue a Royal Proclaimation (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕бр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╣Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕г – a literal translation would be A Royal Order) titled “Appoining the Military Defender of the Capital”. It reads: “I thereby appoint General Sarit Thanarat as the Military Defender of the Capital [р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕г] I urge all the people to stay calm and all the civil service personel to follow the orders of General Sarit Thanarat from now on.”
(Royal Gasett, vol 74 section 76, 16 September 1957, special issue page 1)
What is remarkable about this Royal Order is that: it is issued under the King’s name only, there is no counter-signature whatsoever. In effect, this means the King alone was responsible for this document.
Furthermore, at the time, the 1952 Constitution was still in force, it had not been overturned by the coup group. Article 98 of that “supreme law of the land” stated (my translation):
…all laws, all royal writings [р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕лр╕▒р╕Хр╕Цр╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╕▓], and all Royal Proclaimations regarding official business of the land [р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕Фр╕┤р╕Щ] must be counter-signed by a minister.
………………
As I said earlier, I just got some time to kill, my post “has nothing whatsoever” with all the above posts by Anderson and Sidh S., our passionate defender of the law, who would be trembling with rage to see any Thai elite break the law (no matter when it happened “for dacades and decades” – see Anderson above), and would denounce them mercilessly, with all the force of their moral fortitude …..
The beginning of the end for PAD?
have just seen news that foreign travellers are upset and confused as police and security move them to security zones at Suvarnabhumi airport…
seems the PAD have arrived