The Bangkok Post has been running a series on Thai education called “learning curve.” Yesterday’s edition had articles on vocational education and the university admission system.
The PAD could stop insisting on being non-violent (verbally they have never been, even leading to a complaint to the PAD by the Thai chapter of Amnesty International), then the above pictures would not draw criticism based on the protestors claims. Choosing a non-violent approach limits your choice of means, and thus has its drawbacks that you will have to accept. For example, you will have to rely on the police for protection. You can’t have it both–non-violence and weapons in the hands of potential thugs acting as guards.
Moreover, the PAD’s violent attacks of police barricades on their march on government house can by no means be construed as having been done in self-defense against the police. Gandhi would just have sat down in front of the police cordons. Rather, the police had to act in self-defense against the “brutal” (according to one policewoman treated in hospital with a broken arm) PAD attackers. Note that, in legal terms, demonstrators using their constitutional right of peaceful assembly are obliged to follow police orders and are not allowed to go against the orders of legitimate state authority (here expressed by the police barricades). Any such act will result, as the last means, in the arrest of the instigators (here Chamlong, Sondhi, etc.). In order to prevent the worst from happening, the police finally retreated, instead of using the full force of the law, that is water cannons, a full-fledged street fight with the PAD thugs (because they were prepared to do so rather than follow the orders of the police to disperse and return to their previous gathering point), and the arrest of the instigators.
This approach in dealing with the purposeful provocation by the PAD might have been based on some orders from higher up (as Chang Noi suggested), or just be due to the realization by the field commanders that the police did not have sufficient (and sufficiently trained and equipped) forces in place to prevent the violence-inclined PAD stormtroops from breaking through the police lines. Overall, the police acted admirably.
It has to be mentioned in this context that, unlike in many other countries, the Thai audience is not yet used to scenes of street fighting between protestors and the police. Rather, the events of 1973, 1976, and 1992 are always invoked–the spilling of Thai blood by the Thai authorities–to gain discoursive hegemony. Similarly, in Thailand, such incidents are construed as directly impacting on the government, while in other countries, such things are mainly seen as an issue concerning police strategies of crowd control.
Finally, it would be welcome if the PAD stopped claiming that its activities were sanctioned by the constitutional article that guarantees freedom of assembly. The PAD’s activities have nothing to do with it, even if highly respected people such as Anand Panyarachun repeat this line. Freedom of assembly, in a parliamentary system, is designed to give voice to the people, as a remnant of direct democracy. It is not designed to exert pressure by assembling a mass of people to overthrow an elected government. This right is fulfilled if you have marched through the streets for some hours, making speeches at some points. At the end, you go home. PAD had fulfilled the purpose of the article guaranteeing the freedom of assembly after its first day of protests.
But, then, this was not the point. Rather, PAD has been working for the overthrow of the democratic order and acquiring power by other than democratic means (which happens to be prohibited by article 68 of the 2007 Constitution). This has been justified by the claim that the election was rigged and bought and thus illegitimate. Consequently, the resulting government was illegitimate. Therefore, the self-proclaimed PAD saviors of the nation (ku chart) had the right to set the expressed goal of overthrowing the elected Samak government, and of applying all possible means to achieve this end.
Chang Noi (in the Nation of July 21, 2008) was spot on when he said, “The PAD is flirting with the old agent provocateur’s technique of placing its own crudely armed gangs in places where they will be attacked by enemies. This creates violent incidents, apparantly initiated by their opponents, though in truth a result of the inherent violence of the PAD itself…. PAD is an anti-democratic movement … that exploits the fears of the priviledged and a deliberatly anti-rational nationalism, and flirts with militarism and violence.”
My dear Sidh S: Don’t get so excited. You know that any cases brought against Thaksin and/or his family in any of the Thai courts are foredoomed. The verdicts are predetermined even before the judges sit down to pretend to deliberate on the cases. What Thaksin and his family should do is to seek refuge in another country while there is time to do so.
[AN ASIDE TO THIS DISCUSSION]
#3 ref your mentioning of “uneducated rural gullibles”, some comments:
a) I do not use that term (with the word “rural”), but only “uneducated gullibles” because even though most of this subset of Reds are in the north/north eastern region but definitely some in the City. So I used “uneducated gullibles” for those people, and hope they can be turned around to “see the light”
b) Some Reds are not “uneducated gullibles” however; People who have no conviction but are paid to maim/kill for a pay is a “thug”, imho.
c) and in this context, the PADs you see in the picture (and we can only guess but not concluede), I do not think are “uneducated gullibles”. If you’ve been to one event (out of the 60+ days), its very easy to become reasonable and thus ANYONE, sinister looking or not, can be very reasonable, as thus a right to self defense.
Srithanonchai: many thanks for the Bangkok Post article. As a very old university instructor, I can vouch for the fact that many university instructors today are sadly low in intelligence as well as morals. So what can you expect? I would suggest that, if the secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission can do nothing but complain, he should get out.
Thaitaff: I cannot agree with you more on the present state of Thai mentality. We are a country whose people cannot think but rather act on impulses or narrow self-interest. You find this at all levels from prince to pauper. This is why so many are easily misled by ASTV, and why the Parliament is keen on building its new edifice on a fantastic scale incommensurate with the economic state of the country, to cite only two among numerous examples.
Yes, we do hear reports that the PPP supporters had machetes, knives, iron bars, spiked clubs and all manner of cruel weapons.
But when 750 of them attack 150 protestors, the only injured the PAD can roll out is one guy without an obvious wound that I can see, and a wheelchair that is an obvious prop.
I’ve seen fights with two people in which neither have weapons and there are more and worse injuries.
I suggest that the conflict here was much, much more subdued than you imply.
The People for Anarchy and Dumbness (PAD) movement is now revealing its true self. No one in his right mind is surprised, though. This movement is indeed led by veritable thugs who think they are above the law of the land. They have now blocked a roadway under the guise of peaceful protest and let out despicable “peaceful” verbal attacks against anyone they believe does not support their heinous cause.
#3, Srithanonchai, “I think intentionally breaking through the barriers to go through to the other side” is a different kind of violence than to “intentionally hitting the Thai Bobbies and wanting their bodily harm rather than just breaking through the barrier” — which the latter is not a PAD aim.
I think you can think as your PAD “violence” of breaking through the barrier like any contact sport such as Football or Aussie Rules Footie- the aim is to put the ball into the goal (though contact can happen, but that is not the point of it all) and not to maim the opponent players. And ofcourse, football sport is more violent than snooker sport.
The way it looks now, Thaksin would have no way whatever of winning a case in any of the Thai courts, because of the bias of the judiciary against him. All his cases are predetermined and doomed. He’s better get out of Thailand fast while there’s still time. H should find another country to live out his, life.
Vientiane Times newspaper regularly reports on the transfer back home of remains of Vietnamese fighters with official ceremomies and flags.
It reports on the dead American pilots as well.
Just a few comments to gets things going (strange the “neutral” bloggers here don’t seem to think the tax case is big news… hmmm, anyways…)
1. Thaksin family illegally evaded tax by abuse of power, ALTHOUGH IT WAS BASICALLY POCKET CHANGE FOR THEM. This shows absolutely high level of greed, and that was why there was absolutely high level of corruption.
2. This legal “milestone” (in Baker’s words) for Thai courts was achieved in large part due to pressure by the PAD protesters (who were legitimately exercising their right to freedom of assembly, as Human Rights Watch stated). So let’s hope PAD continues to help rule of law ( essential element of democracy and essential element for human rights to be protected) exist for Thailand.
3. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.” says Thaksin spokesman
Fight to the end = Thaksin nominee government will devote EVERYTHING (ie. let’s forget about the citizens who voted us in and who are in trouble during these hard economic times, but let’s just concentrate on Big Boss, make sure he is above the law AT ALL COSTS – including let’s provoke violence – the Udon incident – so that PAD will get angry, do revenge attack on Reds, we and our paid academics will then make PAD scapegoats, in the ensuing violence and chaos which prompts military intervention, we then use it as opportunity to stop the court cases going forward.)
4. “It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.”
Very accurate comment by Baker. Very worry
for the people who care about Thailand. Thaksin has already shown that he can gleefully and willingly sacrifice 2500 lives just to boost his popularity , now when the stakes are so so much higher, many people are wondering, how many lives will he be willing to sacrifice this time?
The Udon incident is a tell-tale sign of Thaksin’s strategy, but hopefully, the “other side” will ensure peacefully that such brutal and inhumane tactics cannot be carried out on wider scale by Thaksin.
ok, so the Article is once again very “academically” (ie. here in NM means pro-Thaksin propoganda) written. Let me just show you:
1. they are not that much different from their counterparts in their acceptance of violence
Hmmm, you mean “not much difference” between:
1. arming oneself to prepare to defend against an attack from armed and brutal aggressors
Vs
2. arming oneself to deliberately launch a brutal attack against unarmed, peaceful protesters
For me (non-academic guy), there is a BIG difference between the acceptance of violence in situations 1 (PAD) and 2 (Reds) above.
Also, the basic right to self-defence is recognized everywhere and from a legal point of view the exercise of this right provides complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced.
2. with both sides now openly showing arms, and their willingness to use them
Again, just want to distinguish between:
Reds = “willingness” to use arms to launch brutal attack.
PAD = “willingness” to protect themselves with arms in the event they are attacked by armed Reds (and remember an actual very brutal attack has already occurred where the authorities were complicit in allowing the violence, so naturally the PAD are very afraid for their own security and safety)
Also, would like to note the difference in weapons .
Udorn Reds = axes, machetes, knives and iron bars,
PAD (in the photos shown here, which anyways I’m sure the blogger already chose the ones he thinks is the worst looking) = bars, bats, sticks and slingshots.
3. Not just their ‘guards’ were armed, but also ordinary protesters, such as the children shown in the photos
Well, I don’t believe that the PAD would deliberately arm children as suggested by the article. My take would be that the children were with their parents and got the bats and sticks to play around with. Obviously, if there was an attack by the Reds, I am sure the children would be rushed away from the scene immediately.
And just to add some perspective to the situation a little, the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to own and carry firearms (yes, GUNS) in a peaceful manner. AND THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATE DOING ITS JOB IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS WITH POLICE PROTECTION. So is it really that big a deal for the PAD to be able to own and carry bars, bats, sticks and slingshots in a peaceful manner IN THE CONTEXT OF VERY POSSIBLE ATTACK BY LARGE GROUP OF ARMED AND BRUTAL REDS AND POSSIBLE LACK OF PROPER POLICE PROTECTION.
Since the Thaksinites are probably still busy with pro-Thaksin propoganda on the tax case, thought I’d just post the article from the Telegraph in this thread for you all, while the Thaksinites are still labouring away at it:
CHRIS BAKER SAYS “LEGAL MILESTONE” FOR THAI COURT (my own title)
Pojaman Shinawatra, 51, was sentenced to three years imprisonment by a court in Bangkok. She was bailed and has 30 days to appeal.
Mr Thaksin is on trial in three other cases and at least a dozen more are under investigation.
“Thaksin is not disheartened,” said his spokesman, Pongthep Thepkanjana, after the verdict. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.”
Mrs Pojaman’s conviction is the first verdict in a criminal case against the Shinawatra family. It centred on the tax-free transfer of ┬г1.1m worth of shares in the family business, but analysts said it has a wider significance.
Hundreds of Thaksin supporters gathered with red roses at the court and the verdict was read live on national television. Thaksin’s many supporters say the legal cases against the family are part of a politically motivated attempt to block his return to power.
Chris Baker, who co-wrote a biography of Mr Thaksin, said: “This is obviously a very black day for the whole family.”
The billionaire entrepreneur became Thailand’s most electorally successful prime minister before being overthrown by a military coup in 2006. The army launched a raft of corruption investigations against him.
After returning from exile earlier this year, Mr Thaksin is locked in a struggle for the political future of the country, pitting his widespread support among the poor against a politically conservative establishment. The battle is being fought in parliament, in street protests and in the courts.
Mr Baker said it was a legal “milestone” for a Thai court to convict such a wealthy and powerful defendant as the former first lady. It is a precedent that Mr Thaksin will find deeply unsettling.
The first of his many criminal trials, in which he is accused of using his office as prime minister to help his wife buy cheap land from the central bank, may produce a verdict as early as September. Because the trial is in the supreme court Mr Thaksin will have no opportunity to appeal against the verdict.
“It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.” Mr Baker said that case is more complicated and the verdict is difficult to predict.
This week the supreme court agreed to hear a further two cases against Mr Thaksin. In one he is accused of giving soft loans of Thai public money to the Burmese junta with the condition that they spend the money on telecommunications services from his private business.
The inability to question the status quo is not restricted to schools.
It is so intractably placed into Thai culture that it is the single largest obstacle to Thailands development in the coming generations. But then a country that can’t tolerate basic questioning of its institutions in a public environment isn’t holding up a very good example to its youth.
The day that Thai society realises that to allow real public discourse makes its society stronger, Thailand society will be able to throw off the blindfold of ignorance.
Is this letter part of saying “Thailand’s-Cambodian Borders are drawn on the UN or universal Principle of Waterways and Mountains ( I don’t know the correct term for it)” as the Borderline and is supposed to be absolute, so does not open way for Inter-Country Dispute. [Think of dispute between a to-be Father and Mother who wants to name their 1st offsring, and so agree that ‘if its a boy, I get to name him’, but if ‘its a girl, you get to name her’].
For Khao Phra Viharn to suddenly be an exception to this rule (Anyone who has seen an areal photograph of the setting could see how obvious it is) from such an Official Body such as UN or World Court, is against this Right and will destabilize the 2 Nations, which would otherwise be quite settled by the Borderline Principle. “Human” as a Nation or its residents are Human.
Perhaps that was the context?
[Again, what is presented here are snippets and I’ve not read this report, so I cannot say that it is “ba!” though I cannot claim it isn’t either]
How about changing the title to “PAD- Ready for Self Defense”?
Sure the guys are sinister looking, but it wouldn’t look cool and preventative of violence to the bad guys if they dressed up anything short. (Good to note on your 5th picture, PAD are also ready for Count Dracula — you never know what you’re gonna get (or what money can buy!) hahaha).
ref #36 – Geez the title “PAD – Ready For Violence” is so violent!
How about “PAD – Ready of Self Defence?” Your choice of words is twisting the context, IMHO, unless you believe they are going to do pre-emtive strikes, which IMHO, I do not think PAD stands for that. (See previous posts)
Analogy: “Even If I were a peaceful country, I still would prefer to have Armed Force. ” Don’t you think so? Perhaps you can think of PAD like the Swiss Army, or the Defense Force of any country especially where Sheriffs side with the Bad Guys.
I would agree with you is, it becomes easier to de-stabilize a situation. No Defense is fine if you are a party with none or few enemies in vicinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)
) which after Udon does not seem to be the case.
As in England with the Bobbies (Policemen) who before only carried Batons, now that the English Bad Guys carry guns and lots of police died because of that, it didn’t take much for the police to arm themselves with Guns: if not to stop the Thugs, for prevention and self-defense purposes.
In any case, I would definitely doubt whether a PADite would ever start a fight (See my view in “Thuggery and madness”) since their aims is to help the Country (including many of the clueless Reds themselves), not exploiting people to destroy it. Also, starting a fight will de-legitimize them even further, which is not the point.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
An essay on “the dismal state of Thai education”
The Bangkok Post has been running a series on Thai education called “learning curve.” Yesterday’s edition had articles on vocational education and the university admission system.
PAD – ready for violence
The PAD could stop insisting on being non-violent (verbally they have never been, even leading to a complaint to the PAD by the Thai chapter of Amnesty International), then the above pictures would not draw criticism based on the protestors claims. Choosing a non-violent approach limits your choice of means, and thus has its drawbacks that you will have to accept. For example, you will have to rely on the police for protection. You can’t have it both–non-violence and weapons in the hands of potential thugs acting as guards.
Moreover, the PAD’s violent attacks of police barricades on their march on government house can by no means be construed as having been done in self-defense against the police. Gandhi would just have sat down in front of the police cordons. Rather, the police had to act in self-defense against the “brutal” (according to one policewoman treated in hospital with a broken arm) PAD attackers. Note that, in legal terms, demonstrators using their constitutional right of peaceful assembly are obliged to follow police orders and are not allowed to go against the orders of legitimate state authority (here expressed by the police barricades). Any such act will result, as the last means, in the arrest of the instigators (here Chamlong, Sondhi, etc.). In order to prevent the worst from happening, the police finally retreated, instead of using the full force of the law, that is water cannons, a full-fledged street fight with the PAD thugs (because they were prepared to do so rather than follow the orders of the police to disperse and return to their previous gathering point), and the arrest of the instigators.
This approach in dealing with the purposeful provocation by the PAD might have been based on some orders from higher up (as Chang Noi suggested), or just be due to the realization by the field commanders that the police did not have sufficient (and sufficiently trained and equipped) forces in place to prevent the violence-inclined PAD stormtroops from breaking through the police lines. Overall, the police acted admirably.
It has to be mentioned in this context that, unlike in many other countries, the Thai audience is not yet used to scenes of street fighting between protestors and the police. Rather, the events of 1973, 1976, and 1992 are always invoked–the spilling of Thai blood by the Thai authorities–to gain discoursive hegemony. Similarly, in Thailand, such incidents are construed as directly impacting on the government, while in other countries, such things are mainly seen as an issue concerning police strategies of crowd control.
Finally, it would be welcome if the PAD stopped claiming that its activities were sanctioned by the constitutional article that guarantees freedom of assembly. The PAD’s activities have nothing to do with it, even if highly respected people such as Anand Panyarachun repeat this line. Freedom of assembly, in a parliamentary system, is designed to give voice to the people, as a remnant of direct democracy. It is not designed to exert pressure by assembling a mass of people to overthrow an elected government. This right is fulfilled if you have marched through the streets for some hours, making speeches at some points. At the end, you go home. PAD had fulfilled the purpose of the article guaranteeing the freedom of assembly after its first day of protests.
But, then, this was not the point. Rather, PAD has been working for the overthrow of the democratic order and acquiring power by other than democratic means (which happens to be prohibited by article 68 of the 2007 Constitution). This has been justified by the claim that the election was rigged and bought and thus illegitimate. Consequently, the resulting government was illegitimate. Therefore, the self-proclaimed PAD saviors of the nation (ku chart) had the right to set the expressed goal of overthrowing the elected Samak government, and of applying all possible means to achieve this end.
Chang Noi (in the Nation of July 21, 2008) was spot on when he said, “The PAD is flirting with the old agent provocateur’s technique of placing its own crudely armed gangs in places where they will be attacked by enemies. This creates violent incidents, apparantly initiated by their opponents, though in truth a result of the inherent violence of the PAD itself…. PAD is an anti-democratic movement … that exploits the fears of the priviledged and a deliberatly anti-rational nationalism, and flirts with militarism and violence.”
“I am ready to fight the Thais…”
My dear Sidh S: Don’t get so excited. You know that any cases brought against Thaksin and/or his family in any of the Thai courts are foredoomed. The verdicts are predetermined even before the judges sit down to pretend to deliberate on the cases. What Thaksin and his family should do is to seek refuge in another country while there is time to do so.
PAD – ready for violence
[AN ASIDE TO THIS DISCUSSION]
#3 ref your mentioning of “uneducated rural gullibles”, some comments:
a) I do not use that term (with the word “rural”), but only “uneducated gullibles” because even though most of this subset of Reds are in the north/north eastern region but definitely some in the City. So I used “uneducated gullibles” for those people, and hope they can be turned around to “see the light”
b) Some Reds are not “uneducated gullibles” however; People who have no conviction but are paid to maim/kill for a pay is a “thug”, imho.
c) and in this context, the PADs you see in the picture (and we can only guess but not concluede), I do not think are “uneducated gullibles”. If you’ve been to one event (out of the 60+ days), its very easy to become reasonable and thus ANYONE, sinister looking or not, can be very reasonable, as thus a right to self defense.
Pithy summary of lese majeste in Thailand
Dear Anderson: Don’t you know that we Thais are chickens, in more ways than one.
An essay on “the dismal state of Thai education”
Srithanonchai: many thanks for the Bangkok Post article. As a very old university instructor, I can vouch for the fact that many university instructors today are sadly low in intelligence as well as morals. So what can you expect? I would suggest that, if the secretary-general of the Higher Education Commission can do nothing but complain, he should get out.
Thaitaff: I cannot agree with you more on the present state of Thai mentality. We are a country whose people cannot think but rather act on impulses or narrow self-interest. You find this at all levels from prince to pauper. This is why so many are easily misled by ASTV, and why the Parliament is keen on building its new edifice on a fantastic scale incommensurate with the economic state of the country, to cite only two among numerous examples.
PAD – ready for violence
Karmablues,
Yes, we do hear reports that the PPP supporters had machetes, knives, iron bars, spiked clubs and all manner of cruel weapons.
But when 750 of them attack 150 protestors, the only injured the PAD can roll out is one guy without an obvious wound that I can see, and a wheelchair that is an obvious prop.
I’ve seen fights with two people in which neither have weapons and there are more and worse injuries.
I suggest that the conflict here was much, much more subdued than you imply.
PAD – ready for violence
The People for Anarchy and Dumbness (PAD) movement is now revealing its true self. No one in his right mind is surprised, though. This movement is indeed led by veritable thugs who think they are above the law of the land. They have now blocked a roadway under the guise of peaceful protest and let out despicable “peaceful” verbal attacks against anyone they believe does not support their heinous cause.
PAD – ready for violence
#3, Srithanonchai, “I think intentionally breaking through the barriers to go through to the other side” is a different kind of violence than to “intentionally hitting the Thai Bobbies and wanting their bodily harm rather than just breaking through the barrier” — which the latter is not a PAD aim.
I think you can think as your PAD “violence” of breaking through the barrier like any contact sport such as Football or Aussie Rules Footie- the aim is to put the ball into the goal (though contact can happen, but that is not the point of it all) and not to maim the opponent players. And ofcourse, football sport is more violent than snooker sport.
The king, the courts and the former PM
The way it looks now, Thaksin would have no way whatever of winning a case in any of the Thai courts, because of the bias of the judiciary against him. All his cases are predetermined and doomed. He’s better get out of Thailand fast while there’s still time. H should find another country to live out his, life.
Bringing them home
Vientiane Times newspaper regularly reports on the transfer back home of remains of Vietnamese fighters with official ceremomies and flags.
It reports on the dead American pilots as well.
“Let the electorate judge”
Just a few comments to gets things going (strange the “neutral” bloggers here don’t seem to think the tax case is big news… hmmm, anyways…)
1. Thaksin family illegally evaded tax by abuse of power, ALTHOUGH IT WAS BASICALLY POCKET CHANGE FOR THEM. This shows absolutely high level of greed, and that was why there was absolutely high level of corruption.
2. This legal “milestone” (in Baker’s words) for Thai courts was achieved in large part due to pressure by the PAD protesters (who were legitimately exercising their right to freedom of assembly, as Human Rights Watch stated). So let’s hope PAD continues to help rule of law ( essential element of democracy and essential element for human rights to be protected) exist for Thailand.
3. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.” says Thaksin spokesman
Fight to the end = Thaksin nominee government will devote EVERYTHING (ie. let’s forget about the citizens who voted us in and who are in trouble during these hard economic times, but let’s just concentrate on Big Boss, make sure he is above the law AT ALL COSTS – including let’s provoke violence – the Udon incident – so that PAD will get angry, do revenge attack on Reds, we and our paid academics will then make PAD scapegoats, in the ensuing violence and chaos which prompts military intervention, we then use it as opportunity to stop the court cases going forward.)
4. “It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.”
Very accurate comment by Baker. Very worry
for the people who care about Thailand. Thaksin has already shown that he can gleefully and willingly sacrifice 2500 lives just to boost his popularity , now when the stakes are so so much higher, many people are wondering, how many lives will he be willing to sacrifice this time?
The Udon incident is a tell-tale sign of Thaksin’s strategy, but hopefully, the “other side” will ensure peacefully that such brutal and inhumane tactics cannot be carried out on wider scale by Thaksin.
PAD – ready for violence
ok, so the Article is once again very “academically” (ie. here in NM means pro-Thaksin propoganda) written. Let me just show you:
1. they are not that much different from their counterparts in their acceptance of violence
Hmmm, you mean “not much difference” between:
1. arming oneself to prepare to defend against an attack from armed and brutal aggressors
Vs
2. arming oneself to deliberately launch a brutal attack against unarmed, peaceful protesters
For me (non-academic guy), there is a BIG difference between the acceptance of violence in situations 1 (PAD) and 2 (Reds) above.
Also, the basic right to self-defence is recognized everywhere and from a legal point of view the exercise of this right provides complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced.
2. with both sides now openly showing arms, and their willingness to use them
Again, just want to distinguish between:
Reds = “willingness” to use arms to launch brutal attack.
PAD = “willingness” to protect themselves with arms in the event they are attacked by armed Reds (and remember an actual very brutal attack has already occurred where the authorities were complicit in allowing the violence, so naturally the PAD are very afraid for their own security and safety)
Also, would like to note the difference in weapons .
Udorn Reds = axes, machetes, knives and iron bars,
PAD (in the photos shown here, which anyways I’m sure the blogger already chose the ones he thinks is the worst looking) = bars, bats, sticks and slingshots.
3. Not just their ‘guards’ were armed, but also ordinary protesters, such as the children shown in the photos
Well, I don’t believe that the PAD would deliberately arm children as suggested by the article. My take would be that the children were with their parents and got the bats and sticks to play around with. Obviously, if there was an attack by the Reds, I am sure the children would be rushed away from the scene immediately.
And just to add some perspective to the situation a little, the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to own and carry firearms (yes, GUNS) in a peaceful manner. AND THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STATE DOING ITS JOB IN PROVIDING THE CITIZENS WITH POLICE PROTECTION. So is it really that big a deal for the PAD to be able to own and carry bars, bats, sticks and slingshots in a peaceful manner IN THE CONTEXT OF VERY POSSIBLE ATTACK BY LARGE GROUP OF ARMED AND BRUTAL REDS AND POSSIBLE LACK OF PROPER POLICE PROTECTION.
Bamboo and Rats and Famine
[…] the years I have sometimes mentioned the social and economic chaos that occurs in parts of mainland Southeast Asia when bamboo […]
“Let the electorate judge”
Since the Thaksinites are probably still busy with pro-Thaksin propoganda on the tax case, thought I’d just post the article from the Telegraph in this thread for you all, while the Thaksinites are still labouring away at it:
CHRIS BAKER SAYS “LEGAL MILESTONE” FOR THAI COURT (my own title)
Pojaman Shinawatra, 51, was sentenced to three years imprisonment by a court in Bangkok. She was bailed and has 30 days to appeal.
Mr Thaksin is on trial in three other cases and at least a dozen more are under investigation.
“Thaksin is not disheartened,” said his spokesman, Pongthep Thepkanjana, after the verdict. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.”
Mrs Pojaman’s conviction is the first verdict in a criminal case against the Shinawatra family. It centred on the tax-free transfer of ┬г1.1m worth of shares in the family business, but analysts said it has a wider significance.
Hundreds of Thaksin supporters gathered with red roses at the court and the verdict was read live on national television. Thaksin’s many supporters say the legal cases against the family are part of a politically motivated attempt to block his return to power.
Chris Baker, who co-wrote a biography of Mr Thaksin, said: “This is obviously a very black day for the whole family.”
The billionaire entrepreneur became Thailand’s most electorally successful prime minister before being overthrown by a military coup in 2006. The army launched a raft of corruption investigations against him.
After returning from exile earlier this year, Mr Thaksin is locked in a struggle for the political future of the country, pitting his widespread support among the poor against a politically conservative establishment. The battle is being fought in parliament, in street protests and in the courts.
Mr Baker said it was a legal “milestone” for a Thai court to convict such a wealthy and powerful defendant as the former first lady. It is a precedent that Mr Thaksin will find deeply unsettling.
The first of his many criminal trials, in which he is accused of using his office as prime minister to help his wife buy cheap land from the central bank, may produce a verdict as early as September. Because the trial is in the supreme court Mr Thaksin will have no opportunity to appeal against the verdict.
“It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.” Mr Baker said that case is more complicated and the verdict is difficult to predict.
This week the supreme court agreed to hear a further two cases against Mr Thaksin. In one he is accused of giving soft loans of Thai public money to the Burmese junta with the condition that they spend the money on telecommunications services from his private business.
He denies all the allegations.
An essay on “the dismal state of Thai education”
The inability to question the status quo is not restricted to schools.
It is so intractably placed into Thai culture that it is the single largest obstacle to Thailands development in the coming generations. But then a country that can’t tolerate basic questioning of its institutions in a public environment isn’t holding up a very good example to its youth.
The day that Thai society realises that to allow real public discourse makes its society stronger, Thailand society will be able to throw off the blindfold of ignorance.
บ้า
Is this letter part of saying “Thailand’s-Cambodian Borders are drawn on the UN or universal Principle of Waterways and Mountains ( I don’t know the correct term for it)” as the Borderline and is supposed to be absolute, so does not open way for Inter-Country Dispute. [Think of dispute between a to-be Father and Mother who wants to name their 1st offsring, and so agree that ‘if its a boy, I get to name him’, but if ‘its a girl, you get to name her’].
For Khao Phra Viharn to suddenly be an exception to this rule (Anyone who has seen an areal photograph of the setting could see how obvious it is) from such an Official Body such as UN or World Court, is against this Right and will destabilize the 2 Nations, which would otherwise be quite settled by the Borderline Principle. “Human” as a Nation or its residents are Human.
Perhaps that was the context?
[Again, what is presented here are snippets and I’ve not read this report, so I cannot say that it is “ba!” though I cannot claim it isn’t either]
PAD – ready for violence
How about changing the title to “PAD- Ready for Self Defense”?
Sure the guys are sinister looking, but it wouldn’t look cool and preventative of violence to the bad guys if they dressed up anything short. (Good to note on your 5th picture, PAD are also ready for Count Dracula — you never know what you’re gonna get (or what money can buy!) hahaha).
Thuggery and madness
ref #36 – Geez the title “PAD – Ready For Violence” is so violent!
How about “PAD – Ready of Self Defence?” Your choice of words is twisting the context, IMHO, unless you believe they are going to do pre-emtive strikes, which IMHO, I do not think PAD stands for that. (See previous posts)
PAD – ready for violence
Analogy: “Even If I were a peaceful country, I still would prefer to have Armed Force. ” Don’t you think so? Perhaps you can think of PAD like the Swiss Army, or the Defense Force of any country especially where Sheriffs side with the Bad Guys.
I would agree with you is, it becomes easier to de-stabilize a situation. No Defense is fine if you are a party with none or few enemies in vicinity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces)
) which after Udon does not seem to be the case.
As in England with the Bobbies (Policemen) who before only carried Batons, now that the English Bad Guys carry guns and lots of police died because of that, it didn’t take much for the police to arm themselves with Guns: if not to stop the Thugs, for prevention and self-defense purposes.
In any case, I would definitely doubt whether a PADite would ever start a fight (See my view in “Thuggery and madness”) since their aims is to help the Country (including many of the clueless Reds themselves), not exploiting people to destroy it. Also, starting a fight will de-legitimize them even further, which is not the point.