Perhaps it was not just the action of Red’s hotheads (who could not control themselves), and was something more orchestrated?
Just like PAD seems to have backers in higher places, so does the UDD/DAAD, including ‘links’ to the PPP – the final outcome might provide some more insight.
After all those many years of being fed government propaganda, many people would probably find it difficult to accept that TRT had done many bad things. Probably a similar argument about why a lot of royalists would find it difficult to accept any criticism about the monarchy. Many people genuinely had fallen in love with Thaksin (he was very charismatic and his policies did bring perceived and real benefits) and can’t accept criticism about him. I have seen it happen on many occasions. They get very very angry when people speak negatively about him or TRT. There are many who are not open to debate about whether Thaksin/TRT is good or bad for the country.
Would be nice if someone would contact the ABC – their reporter Karen Percy clearly doesn’t have a clue what is driving the situation, despite being ‘on the ground’.
Indeed, what’s so wonderful about Thaksin’s friends, ex-friends and enemies too? Ordinary Thais were be left picking up the scraps with any of these plonkers.
Karma Blues: Of course Thaksin must take the initial blame, but after his true colors were shown, it was up to the voters to do the weeding out.
(by my count there have been 3 elections since 2001)
Dog Lover: No need to be facetious/sarcastic – I have said many times that the PAD leaders have been unreasonable – that still did not stop the government from being competent & reasonable, so that the dispersal by force would have been warranted, justified, acceptable & defendable to all but the most radical elements (who will never be able to be satisfied anyway).
Notice that I have used the past tense, because now that a state of emergency has been declared all bets are off – it’s a pity it had to get to this stage, but once those reds got involved it’s fairly predictible what would happen.
btw, It’s also a pity that the PAD leaders did not use the declaration of the state of emergency as an opportune time to call it quits for now – IMO that was a big mistake, as I doubt very much there will be a coup.
That’s probably one good thing about the last military coup – it didn’t solve anything, so hopefully we’ve seen the last of them and they should be off the table from now on (in my Goldilocks dream?)
Considering that it has flamed out, what’s to address?
Is this going to be one of those, “I’ve lived here for twenty years, and this is how we’ve always done things” diatribes against people you perceive to be interlopers in your bailiwick?
Sorry, I thought you were sticking out for “A reasonable compromise would be for PAD to withdraw the resignation demand.” My comment is on that. Your blog then suggests something which has no element of compromise. That is, that the govt do all the right things – that would be nice – and PAD keeps doing what it is doing until reason prevails based on the results of the govt’s decisions on PAD demands. And then Goldilocks tried the small bed and found it just right.
When PAD members with yellow shirts stormed NBT and Govt House, some people don’t consider these as violent actions ? Some people conveniently condone these illegal acts. Anyway, three cheers to Samak for declaring a state of emergency. Please arrest these nine PAD leaders quickly.
While I agree with Chang noi’s assertion that the issue of vote-buying has at times been overblown, I am also taken aback by the “[electoral democracy] seems to be working” bit.
The only explanation for the “seems to be working” comment by Chang noi, would be, that in 2005, Chang noi was listening to Thaksin’s election campaigns, and was cheering away along with other Thaksin supporters in agreement to Thaksin’s own perverted vision of Thai democracy (which Thaksin had in fact already implemented very successfully).
Baker and Pasuk described it as follows: “In his 2005 election speeches, he suggested to his audience that the bundle of liberal democracy – rule of law, freedom of criticism, human rights, oversight by parliamentary opposition, checks and balances on the executive had done little for them in the past, and that making him into a powerful executive would deliver them greater benefit. He described criticism by press or opposition as “destructive”…. In his public criticism of opponents, he focused especially on people associated with Thailand’s history of democratic development (Thirayuth Boonmi) or with the reform pressure of the 1990s (Prawase Wasi, Anand Panyarachun). On several occasions, he encouraged people to draw parallels between himself and authoritarian military leaders in the past, especially Sarit Thanarat, whose memory had become associated with direct and decisive action.”
It is difficult to deny that democracy had not been seriously sabotaged by Thaksin, but blaming it on voters making the wrong choice is misdirected. I blame it on Thaksin, rather than the voters. People had high hopes for Thaksin when he first came into office and I think many good-willed people in 2001 actually thought that the masses had indeed used their votes wisely. But many would later realize that they were wrong. For example, Sulak Sivaraksa said in 2004:
“PM Thaksin Shinawatra, whom this writer and other well-meaning members of civil society supported when he first came to office because his policies appeared to be pro-poor, has shown himself to be a conceited, intolerant, dictatorial ruler, who has no respect for democratic values, good governance, or the rule of law. Thaksin lost no time in showing his true colors. He made enemies of anyone with dissenting views, particularly academics, intellectuals, NGOs and civil society.”
Nick: There are conflicting reports and everything is blurred at the moment, but it is hard to escape the fact that whenever the Reds get involved, violence is not far away.
It’s a pity they cannot exercise more control, or they might just fall into a PAD trap (and I’m not talking about a war battle)
Dog Lover: Obviously you and I have different opinions on what compromise is, and also what competent government is.
I have shown a simple & reasonable solution that would enable dispersal of the protesters.
If the government followed my proposal they would have no problem justifying the use of appropriate force, they would still be in power, the constitution could still be amended (but in a consultative manner), and PAD would be sidelined if they did not come to the party.
Is the government interested in governing well, or do they have another agenda?
Media bias:
Here is a text from the online Bangkokpost:
“The army intervened early on Tuesday after pro-government demonstrators attacked opponents occupying Government House and killed at least one protester from the People’s Alliance for Democracy”.
The truth? it was actually a taxi driver shot in the head by a PAD thug. Anti-PAD groups against dictatorship do not carry firearms.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Report on last night’s clash
Perhaps it was not just the action of Red’s hotheads (who could not control themselves), and was something more orchestrated?
Just like PAD seems to have backers in higher places, so does the UDD/DAAD, including ‘links’ to the PPP – the final outcome might provide some more insight.
Academic commentary on Thai crisis
Oh, and another thing…
A big thank you to Andrew and Nicholas for your coverage.
Chang Noi backs the rural constitution
nganadeeleg: “after his true colors were shown, it was up to the voters to do the weeding out.”
remember who was in control of the media during the period? his true colors were not shown to most of the people.
for just a few examples, see:
http://www.theasiamediaforum.org/node/415
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15547
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/thai.php?page=1
After all those many years of being fed government propaganda, many people would probably find it difficult to accept that TRT had done many bad things. Probably a similar argument about why a lot of royalists would find it difficult to accept any criticism about the monarchy. Many people genuinely had fallen in love with Thaksin (he was very charismatic and his policies did bring perceived and real benefits) and can’t accept criticism about him. I have seen it happen on many occasions. They get very very angry when people speak negatively about him or TRT. There are many who are not open to debate about whether Thaksin/TRT is good or bad for the country.
Academic commentary on Thai crisis
Would be nice if someone would contact the ABC – their reporter Karen Percy clearly doesn’t have a clue what is driving the situation, despite being ‘on the ground’.
State of Emergency in Bangkok
Indeed, what’s so wonderful about Thaksin’s friends, ex-friends and enemies too? Ordinary Thais were be left picking up the scraps with any of these plonkers.
Describing the People’s Alliance for Democracy
PAD now should be understood to stand for Pigs’ Anarchy Detonators
State of Emergency in Bangkok
What’s so wonderful about Thaksin now?
Chang Noi backs the rural constitution
Karma Blues: Of course Thaksin must take the initial blame, but after his true colors were shown, it was up to the voters to do the weeding out.
(by my count there have been 3 elections since 2001)
Report on last night’s clash
Second the motion by Rookie.
An extract from Handley’s TKNS
Dog Lover: No need to be facetious/sarcastic – I have said many times that the PAD leaders have been unreasonable – that still did not stop the government from being competent & reasonable, so that the dispersal by force would have been warranted, justified, acceptable & defendable to all but the most radical elements (who will never be able to be satisfied anyway).
Notice that I have used the past tense, because now that a state of emergency has been declared all bets are off – it’s a pity it had to get to this stage, but once those reds got involved it’s fairly predictible what would happen.
btw, It’s also a pity that the PAD leaders did not use the declaration of the state of emergency as an opportune time to call it quits for now – IMO that was a big mistake, as I doubt very much there will be a coup.
That’s probably one good thing about the last military coup – it didn’t solve anything, so hopefully we’ve seen the last of them and they should be off the table from now on (in my Goldilocks dream?)
State of Emergency in Bangkok
It’s about time our friends who have illegitimately taken over the Government House leave and not forget to pay for the damage done to the property.
Volunteering to fight in Burma
Considering that it has flamed out, what’s to address?
Is this going to be one of those, “I’ve lived here for twenty years, and this is how we’ve always done things” diatribes against people you perceive to be interlopers in your bailiwick?
An extract from Handley’s TKNS
Sorry, I thought you were sticking out for “A reasonable compromise would be for PAD to withdraw the resignation demand.” My comment is on that. Your blog then suggests something which has no element of compromise. That is, that the govt do all the right things – that would be nice – and PAD keeps doing what it is doing until reason prevails based on the results of the govt’s decisions on PAD demands. And then Goldilocks tried the small bed and found it just right.
Report on last night’s clash
When PAD members with yellow shirts stormed NBT and Govt House, some people don’t consider these as violent actions ? Some people conveniently condone these illegal acts. Anyway, three cheers to Samak for declaring a state of emergency. Please arrest these nine PAD leaders quickly.
Chang Noi backs the rural constitution
While I agree with Chang noi’s assertion that the issue of vote-buying has at times been overblown, I am also taken aback by the “[electoral democracy] seems to be working” bit.
The only explanation for the “seems to be working” comment by Chang noi, would be, that in 2005, Chang noi was listening to Thaksin’s election campaigns, and was cheering away along with other Thaksin supporters in agreement to Thaksin’s own perverted vision of Thai democracy (which Thaksin had in fact already implemented very successfully).
Baker and Pasuk described it as follows:
“In his 2005 election speeches, he suggested to his audience that the bundle of liberal democracy – rule of law, freedom of criticism, human rights, oversight by parliamentary opposition, checks and balances on the executive had done little for them in the past, and that making him into a powerful executive would deliver them greater benefit. He described criticism by press or opposition as “destructive”…. In his public criticism of opponents, he focused especially on people associated with Thailand’s history of democratic development (Thirayuth Boonmi) or with the reform pressure of the 1990s (Prawase Wasi, Anand Panyarachun). On several occasions, he encouraged people to draw parallels between himself and authoritarian military leaders in the past, especially Sarit Thanarat, whose memory had become associated with direct and decisive action.”
It is difficult to deny that democracy had not been seriously sabotaged by Thaksin, but blaming it on voters making the wrong choice is misdirected. I blame it on Thaksin, rather than the voters. People had high hopes for Thaksin when he first came into office and I think many good-willed people in 2001 actually thought that the masses had indeed used their votes wisely. But many would later realize that they were wrong. For example, Sulak Sivaraksa said in 2004:
“PM Thaksin Shinawatra, whom this writer and other well-meaning members of civil society supported when he first came to office because his policies appeared to be pro-poor, has shown himself to be a conceited, intolerant, dictatorial ruler, who has no respect for democratic values, good governance, or the rule of law. Thaksin lost no time in showing his true colors. He made enemies of anyone with dissenting views, particularly academics, intellectuals, NGOs and civil society.”
Report on last night’s clash
My round-up of early-morning reports out of Bangkok, including a video:
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/09/mobs-police-clash-in-bangkok.html
Volunteering to fight in Burma
To those living and working in Mae Sot, Thailand: I think it’s time we addressed the Thomas/Daniel/Slade issue. Please contact me at [email protected]
Report on last night’s clash
Nick: There are conflicting reports and everything is blurred at the moment, but it is hard to escape the fact that whenever the Reds get involved, violence is not far away.
It’s a pity they cannot exercise more control, or they might just fall into a PAD trap (and I’m not talking about a war battle)
An extract from Handley’s TKNS
Dog Lover: Obviously you and I have different opinions on what compromise is, and also what competent government is.
I have shown a simple & reasonable solution that would enable dispersal of the protesters.
If the government followed my proposal they would have no problem justifying the use of appropriate force, they would still be in power, the constitution could still be amended (but in a consultative manner), and PAD would be sidelined if they did not come to the party.
Is the government interested in governing well, or do they have another agenda?
A PAD strategy?
Media bias:
Here is a text from the online Bangkokpost:
“The army intervened early on Tuesday after pro-government demonstrators attacked opponents occupying Government House and killed at least one protester from the People’s Alliance for Democracy”.
The truth? it was actually a taxi driver shot in the head by a PAD thug. Anti-PAD groups against dictatorship do not carry firearms.