Bangkok Mar 12-14

[Chatty]

They should announce what they wanna do today...

or they like "surprise"?

[CiaranM]

And along the same lines I will say that, Ciaran, you should have posted the news agency that the story about Thaksin's rant was from. Thaivisa always puts it at the end of the report, and it certainly was at the end of that one.

It is the TAN Network which is owned by Sondhi Limthongkul.

Now, I think Thaksin probably said most or all of those things. But knowing it comes from Sondhi, makes me wonder if all of it is accurate or not.

Knowing the ideological prism behind a news report can be important also.

i did say it was taken from thaivisa.com ... wasn't sure which news agency they had taken it from.

[digitalcat]

Thankfully the current gov't is operating under the Democratic principle of free speach

Did you purposely misspell free speech to be Ironic?

[Loburt]

And along the same lines I will say that, Ciaran, you should have posted the news agency that the story about Thaksin's rant was from. Thaivisa always puts it at the end of the report, and it certainly was at the end of that one.

It is the TAN Network which is owned by Sondhi Limthongkul.

Now, I think Thaksin probably said most or all of those things. But knowing it comes from Sondhi, makes me wonder if all of it is accurate or not.

Knowing the ideological prism behind a news report can be important also.

i did say it was taken from thaivisa.com ... wasn't sure which news agency they had taken it from.

It's always at the bottom of the report, take a look next time.

In this case, though, the translation was pretty accurate, even though it came from Thaksin's opponents.

[CiaranM]

And along the same lines I will say that, Ciaran, you should have posted the news agency that the story about Thaksin's rant was from. Thaivisa always puts it at the end of the report, and it certainly was at the end of that one.

It is the TAN Network which is owned by Sondhi Limthongkul.

Now, I think Thaksin probably said most or all of those things. But knowing it comes from Sondhi, makes me wonder if all of it is accurate or not.

Knowing the ideological prism behind a news report can be important also.

i did say it was taken from thaivisa.com ... wasn't sure which news agency they had taken it from.

It's always at the bottom of the report, take a look next time.

In this case, though, the translation was pretty accurate, even though it came from Thaksin's opponents.

i did recheck and saw it 2nd time around !!!! .... but is it just me .... or is thaivisa getting a bit confusing/annoying with so many ads in just about every f**king post in their forums now !!!

[koolbreez]

No, I simply misspelled the word.

Now the red shirts are splitting into, it looks like, three factions. One of which is all for full on violent actions. With a full understanding that nothing will come of the peaceful demonstrations in changing the gov't. I forget his name, but he used to be leader of the now defunct communist party, and believes that the only way change will take place is with full on violence, and real blood in the streets. This separation is now creating a very dangerous situation in how the future days of these demonstrations will develop if he decides to get violent, and there are people, one person in particular, and money to support him if he does go radical.

This devide is very scary.

[bigKus]

Now the red shirts are splitting into, it looks like, three factions. One of which is all for full on violent actions. With a full understanding that nothing will come of the peaceful demonstrations in changing the gov't. I forget his name, but he used to be leader of the now defunct communist party, and believes that the only way change will take place is with full on violence, and real blood in the streets. This separation is now creating a very dangerous situation in how the future days of these demonstrations will develop if he decides to get violent, and there are people, one person in particular, and money to support him if he does go radical.

This devide is very scary.

This is a guy you talked about, I heard he gave interview to TTV last night that he went to meet 'P' TS" at Dubai 4 times present his war startegy. If TS follows plan, Thailand will be so easy under seized.

IMO, he is sounded Ting Tong, (mentally disorder)

He is Seh Deang ! and in the picture is TS's on air live from Dubai

[Chatty]

Now the red shirts are splitting into, it looks like, three factions. One of which is all for full on violent actions. With a full understanding that nothing will come of the peaceful demonstrations in changing the gov't. I forget his name, but he used to be leader of the now defunct communist party, and believes that the only way change will take place is with full on violence, and real blood in the streets. This separation is now creating a very dangerous situation in how the future days of these demonstrations will develop if he decides to get violent, and there are people, one person in particular, and money to support him if he does go radical.

This devide is very scary.

This is a guy you talked about, I heard he gave interview to TTV last night that he went to meet 'P' TS" at Dubai 4 times present his war startegy. If TS follows plan, Thailand will be so easy under seized.

IMO, he is sounded Ting Tong, (mentally disorder)

He is Seh Deang ! and in the picture is TS's on air live from Dubai

His name is Surachai Saedaan kha... leader of Daeng Siam.

[bigKus]

His name is Surachai Saedaan kha... leader of Daeng Siam.

This guy in Picture is Seh Deang, and Surachai Seadarn is another one which is the leader of Deang Siam from South.

Now redshirts are splited to 3

1. Leader are those 3 guys ( For our big boss back )

2. Seh Deang ( War & Hard Cores Violence tendency )

3. Surachai Sea Darn ( Communism oriented )

[Hobbes]

Well, anyone prepared to get himself killed on behalf of T.S. should get posthumously the Darwin Award. :roll:

Anyway, there was a lot of speculation, accusations and threats of violence in the run up to these protests and yet it all stayed peaceful. Chances are some people will keep talking the talk whilst self-preservation will ensure that nobody does anything silly.

[Bruce551]

No peace and little justice

* Published: 18/03/2010 at 12:00 AM

* Newspaper section: News

When will this madness be over? How is this going to end? Why do we have to go through this again and again without any end in sight?

Are you asking these questions while watching the March of the Red Shirts, or when human blood was being splattered as a grim warning against what is to come?

The answers from the red shirts are loud and clear: No justice, no peace. No equal opportunities, no peace.

Who in his right mind can refute the goals of justice and equality? But all political movements claim they are pursuing justice and equality, don't they? That surely includes their arch rival the yellow shirts, who held the country hostage for months.

It must be noted, however, that these high-minded goals are often used to legitimise violence by leaders from all political shades and colours.

Red, yellow, military green or Newin blue - their supporters like to say that since the sources of discontent for their political camps are real, it follows that whatever means their movement leaders propose, are the solutions.

Thaksin's policy corruption and cronyism is real, so the Yellow Shirts believe that getting rid of Thaksin could save the country and the monarchy. The generals made it happen.

But look at the current mess we are in - despite and since the coup.

Interestingly, cronyism and corruption are also the sources of discontent for the red shirts. But for them, Thaksin is small fry.

The big fish is the Establishment which controls the network of power and connections to maintain the structural injustice.

Since Thaksin dares to confront the Establishment, he must be brought back to continue "the change" momentum to dismantle the perceived root cause of social injustice. Hence the demand for a House dissolution to pave the way for Thaksin Shinawatra's return.

No House dissolution, no peace, they roared. But can Thaksin's return bring peace?

Can PM Abhisit's aim to complete his four-year-term bring justice? Can the Red power - with or without Thaksin - make Thailand more just?

And can the change-resistant status-quo do any better?

Yesterday, the only news that could compete with the Red protest was the royal cremation ceremony of Pol Col Sompien Eksomya, who was killed in a bomb attack in the restive South, after his superiors ignored his transfer appeal that came after decades of his service in the face of serious danger.

The outcry did not come only from the public against the positions-for-sale system in the police force. It also came from junior policemen who, like the late Pol Col Sompien, are treated as a different class from their bosses, who are graduates from the police academy.

When there was an attempt to reform the police some years back, junior policemen voiced support for a decentralised workforce with better welfare and a transparent system of promotion. The attempt failed because of fierce resistance from police bosses.

No matter who wins this crazy Thai politics of colours, justice is a pipe dream when the police force remains decadently corrupt.

Pol Col Sompien gave his life to bring normalcy to the restive South. He was not the first, nor will he be the last. But peace remains unreachable when the police and military are a big part of the injustice problem. So is the mainstream society, which has allowed ultra-nationalism to blind itself to the sufferings of the southern Malay Muslims.

The change of guard at the top will not bring peace or justice, no matter how loud you shout the words and how many people you bring on the streets.

So what will, then? Police reform? Land and tax reform? Political decentralisation? Community rights to manage natural resources? Freedom of expression? Respect for cultural diversity and human rights? Regard for the poor? Equitable allocation of resources? A more responsive judiciary? Political tolerance? More responsible media?

Instead of letting the elite from different political and ideological camps define justice and peace for their own good, we must set our own agenda. If not, these senseless political feuds without any meaningful change will haunt us endlessly.

Sanitsuda Ekachai is Assistant Editor (Outlook), Bangkok Post.

Email: [email protected]

And can the change-resistant status-quo do any better? For better or worst the Khun Thai citizens will decide the future for themselves and Thailand as a nation.

[Chatty]

Well, anyone prepared to get himself killed on behalf of T.S. should get posthumously the Darwin Award. :roll:

Anyway, there was a lot of speculation, accusations and threats of violence in the run up to these protests and yet it all stayed peaceful. Chances are some people will keep talking the talk whilst self-preservation will ensure that nobody does anything silly.

hrr don't you see blood? They should know about infection control.

Anyway, peaceful protest is ok to me...

but I don't think you have seen Arismund speech video clip, I download it already, in case ppl lost it. I think he likes to play hard. One place he said it's gonna burn down was Siriraj hospital... Not violence...yet.

[Chatty]

but p'Kussy,

They will do something this Saturday, I hope Central won't put off our hiphop class na.

[PiAnt]

I hope Central won't put off our hiphop class na.

Ahh...

It's all a smoke screen to stop the Central Hip Hop class!

Yes. It all becomes so clear now...

[zeusbheld]

And along the same lines I will say that, Ciaran, you should have posted the news agency that the story about Thaksin's rant was from. Thaivisa always puts it at the end of the report, and it certainly was at the end of that one.

It is the TAN Network which is owned by Sondhi Limthongkul.

Now, I think Thaksin probably said most or all of those things. But knowing it comes from Sondhi, makes me wonder if all of it is accurate or not.

Knowing the ideological prism behind a news report can be important also.

i did say it was taken from thaivisa.com ... wasn't sure which news agency they had taken it from.

Lobs is spot on in mentioning that news also has an ideological prism (prison?) by default...

that said, was sitting with someone watching his rant in Thai (and i say rant because he LOOKED like a ******* nut job) and he deffo made the Hitler comparsion. it's funny, my friend didn't quite get the impact when i said "anyone who does that will be looked at as an idiot in the west." but hey, can't hurt him in the west, he's not highly regarded already. pretty tough to be the victim of a coup and STILL be regarded poorly but TS has done it.

[zeusbheld]

...

Viewing things through our ideological prisms doesn't have to stop us to see things clearly. It does however determine where our sympathies lie. :wink:

there, you and i diverge sharply. i view *any* flavor of "ideological prism" as more of a prison than prism, and innately stopping the prismer from seeing things clearly. as far as i'm concerned "ideologue" = "head firmly up a*s" and you won't see anything there except the health of your colon. the blogger's being the vbroker of the left doesn't make them any less broke (or blatantly dishonest and full of sh*t) merely because it's a *different* ideology.

Whilst its not surprising that we differ here, I was alluding to the idea that all of us view things through some sort of 'ideological' prism shaped by our experiences, knowledge and social interactions.

How much that becomes a prison is down to how much one is willing to leave the comfort zone.

if 'leaving the comfort zone' means refusal to kluge data to fit one's ideology then ok. i'm down. but my entire problem with "ideology" aka "idiotology" is the tendency to pitch facts into the **** heap in order to make the ideological claims fit circumstances. if you don't throw facts away or dramatically shift emphasis to make your ideology work with circumstances your'e not *really* an idiot i mean ideologue in my book. on the other hand, if you do, then idiots look up to you for an example of how to be more of a willfully ignorant piece of **** (VB and the blogger for example).

I know that you have been a fervent and consistent opponent to any opinion pieces tainted by ideology on here. If one was facetious, you could be called an anti-idealogical ideologue... :shock: :wink:

fair enough. but i'd call what's shaped by your experiences, knowledge, and social interactions your "world view" 10 times out of 9.

ideology, i'd go with weakiepedia's first sentence here: "An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. "

generally when one uses the term "ideology" in reference to marxism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, neoconservatism, etc... it implies that the ideology shapes your world view. in other words, your ideological agenda becomes more important than whatever facts inconveniently confront you, more often than not.

i don't think you're playing according to Hoyle if you conflate the two. it's along the lines of saying science is "just opinion" so cretinism i mean creationism should be taught *as science*. which is, to put it bluntly, not just wrong but obscene.

yes i know it's a slippery slope argument... but all i would recommend is extreme caution as a reader where one encounters ideologues of *any* stripe claiming to report facts. and no, they're not hard to spot as teleological arguments generally look stupid to anyone who is paying any attention at all (like Toxin's Nazi comparsion).

PS i think it a bit much to label me an "anti ideology ideologue." it begs an important question among other problems (just in case you're seeing how many informal fallacies you can cram into one short claim, i can list a few more if you want). however, i would have no problem with being labeled as extremely skeptical of ideology in general...

[PiAnt]

That's cleared that up then.

But I think it's all too easy to overlook the most important factor here and the one which everyone seems to be avoiding like the plague.

[Admin_2]

That's cleared that up then.

But I think it's all too easy to overlook the most important factor here and the one which everyone seems to be avoiding like the plague.

Exactly.

The rain is almost here. How will the get enough umbrellas?

Discuss.

[PiAnt]

That's cleared that up then.

But I think it's all too easy to overlook the most important factor here and the one which everyone seems to be avoiding like the plague.

Exactly.

The rain is almost here. How will the get enough umbrellas?

Discuss.

Oh yes. Trivialise it why don't you?

Mate, for some people this stuff is important. For Lob certainly. He for one is reaching the masses. Personally, I'm hanging on his every utterance.

Obviously I'm referring not only to the possibility, no matter how remote,that Hip Hop lessons could very well be disrupted, but that without this thread the forum would barely have moved all day.

Sheesh.

[allseasonsman]

Of course it is virtually impossible to see or have any sort of informed debate about the Political situation in Thailand on this website but still we try!

Vexatious and snide comments which constantly attack the poster rather than the content of a post are so common that it drowns out any hope of clarity. However if one wanted to actually see the bigger picture and understand what is going on in Thailand and how things might develop then below is the sort of in depth analysis that can shed some light on all related matters.

FOUR years of upheaval have set a high bar for street protests in Bangkok. But the demonstration that took place on Sunday March 14th was among the more impressive shows of strength in Thailand. Some 100,000 red-shirted protesters stood under a scorching sun to hear speaker after speaker denounce the current prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, and the ruling elite that installed him. They called for Mr Abhisit to resign and hold fresh elections. On Monday Mr Abhisit rejected their calls from the army barracks where he was holed up, fearful for his security.

The main speech at the red-shirt rally was delivered through a video link by Thaksin Shinawatra, the twice-elected and now fugitive former prime minister. His refusal to go quietly since the army ousted him in 2006 has helped to push Thailand to the brink. The coup paved the way for the courts to order the seizure of $1.4 billion of Mr Thaksin’s fortune, which prompted his red-shirted supporters to call the present round of protests. Even before the court announced the seizure in February the red shirts had spent months preparing this massive operation in the rural north and north-east, where Mr Thaksin is still hailed as a hero. In his speech, he urged the army not to harm the people and denied that he had been expelled from Dubai, his adopted home.

Bangkok’s febrile media, and some officials, had played up the risk of bloodshed at the rally. A similar protest last April spiralled into chaos and saw combat troops deployed to restore order. The red shirts’ leaders say that they have learned their lesson and prefer to preach non-violent change. There was little sign of danger on the streets as protesters sang and danced, carrying flags, placards (“Dictators Go to Hell!â€) and plastic hand-clappers. In terms of numbers, it was a far cry from the “million-man march†promised by its organisers, but nobody seemed to mind.

But the festive spirit showed signs of cracking on Monday. The red shirts attempted to increase the pressure on Mr Abhisit by spreading out across the city. On Monday one large group of marchers surrounded the army base that Mr Abhisit and his political aides had chosen as a base, after a series of embarrassing security breaches at the prime minister's home. His opponents saw his presence there as an illustration of their claim that he is beholden to the generals, who have no intention of loosening their grip on Thailand. Under a tough security law passed by its former junta, the army enjoys sweeping powers to break up the protests, should it see fit.

Mr Abhisit has said that he has no plan to resign and is not about to crack down on “peaceful and orderly†demonstrations. But the protest seemed to take a nastier turn on Monday with a grenade attack on another army barracks in Bangkok, though it is unclear who is responsible. But Mr Abhisit knows that in the calculus of Thailand’s political demonstrations, his government would be likely to take the rap for a bloody confrontation, were anyone to overreact. That is why he cancelled a weekend trip to Australia: to stay at home and keep watch on the rally.

In recent days, red shirts have been arriving in Bangkok by road convoys. A long line of pick-up trucks, buses and cars has streamed into the city, passing police checkpoints that seemed too overwhelmed to search many of the vehicles. As the convoys neared the city centre, footbridges swelled with cheering sympathisers. Far from being an invading army, the red shirts looked more like liberators. Yet so far protestors seem to have failed to close down any more than small pockets of Thailand's capital.

Such scenes suggest that it would be facile to reduce Thailand’s politics to the rural-urban divide that Mr Thaksin exploited while in power, with his populist giveaways. The current divisions are also class-based, regional and, increasingly, ideological. It will be hard to find a compromise when so much is at stake. There are plenty of people in Bangkok who feel that Mr Thaksin got a raw deal—and think that they too have been hard done by. How far they and the protesters are prepared to go to press the point will become clearer in the days ahead.

[allseasonsman]

Political chaos beckons—unless there is an election and an honest discussion about the [u KNOW WHATS] future

FOR decades Thai politics suffered from a surfeit of pragmatism. Indeed, grimy compromises were dignified as “Thai solutionsâ€. Parties tussled over the perks of office, without letting policies or principles get in the way. When the bickering became too intense, the army would step in—18 times since the advent of constitutional monarchy in 1932. Presiding over a messy but largely functioning polity has been a revered king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, whose admirers have no difficulty in reconciling the contradictory ideas that he is both “above politics†and also the guarantor of stability.

These days, pragmatism has given way to dogmatic intransigence. Huge demonstrations on the streets of Bangkok this week by red-shirted anti-government protesters have produced few hints of compromise. Contributing to this febrile atmosphere is an unspoken fear. [You know who], has been hospitalised for several months. Although he is reportedly in better health now, Thailand needs to start thinking about what will come when his reign ends. That the succession may be rocky only adds to the threat from the political stand-off. Thailand urgently needs to rediscover its lost flair for pragmatism and to rebuild a functioning political system.

Looking on the bright side

As a red-shirted sea flooded Bangkok this week, the government’s supporters played down the tumult. At least it was mostly peaceful, unlike the street battles seen in late 2008 and last April. The stockmarket actually rose. Rather than the 1m demonstrators the organisers had promised, “only†100,000-150,000 took part. And they, sneered government supporters, were probably all paid to turn up by the fugitive billionaire and former prime minister they support, Thaksin Shinawatra. The mass blood donations for supplies to splatter on the office of the prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, was a creepy stunt. Under this reasoning, the calm, resolute Mr Abhisit was right to defy mob rule and the demand for the dissolution of parliament, and wait to unveil an orderly, slow electoral timetable.

This complacent analysis flatters Mr Abhisit (the staunch democrat actually scurried to take refuge in an army barracks). It also understates Thailand’s difficulties in four ways.

First, the red shirts do enjoy considerable popular support, and not just in the poor north-east from which so many hail. Mr Thaksin was a high-handed leader convicted of corruption. But his policies, such as affordable health care, helped the poor. “Populismâ€, sniff his critics. But popularity is what competitive politics is about, and the present government has shamelessly borrowed his policies.

Second, whatever Mr Thaksin’s faults, his supporters have a point. He was ousted by a coup in 2006 and the present government was installed, with the backing of the army, by a parliamentary fix, not an election.

Third, the political system has all but broken down, as the government itself tacitly admits when it argues that an election would not solve Thailand’s problems. It may well be right. Democracy works only when the parties that lose an election accept the outcome. And if, as might well happen, Mr Abhisit’s government lost an election to proxies for Mr Thaksin, the same alliance of military and civilian elites that toppled him in 2006 and his allies in 2008 might again reject the popular verdict. Instability would persist.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, the backdrop to this week’s street theatre is the looming U know what succession. U know who, who has reigned for six decades, is widely revered. His anointed successor, the prince, is not. Indeed, he is widely disliked and already shows signs of meddling in politics. Although, in theory, the monarchy inhabits a realm far above the murk of daily government, it has been an important source of legitimacy for the unelected prime minister. The king accepted the coup that overthrew Mr Thaksin in 2006. His senior advisers blessed it. And he never publicly repudiated the yellow-shirted “royalistsâ€, whose revolt in late 2008 led to the downfall of a government led by Mr Thaksin’s proxies.

The sound of silence.

The fear is not just that the present government relies on tacit royal endorsement for its legitimacy. It is that the king’s death will remove a moderating influence that has kept irreconcilable political differences in check. Heightening fears is the almost total silence on the issue in Thai public life. Harsh laws against lèse-majesté ensure that the future of the monarchy is a matter of private gossip, not public debate. This leader, and our article considering the succession in some detail, could not appear in Thailand. Indeed they will cause great hurt and offence in some quarters there. We regret this. But to discuss Thailand’s future without considering its monarchy is itself to belittle an important national institution.

That discussion needs above all to happen in Thailand—as it did in the period up to 1932. The country’s present political quagmire seems impassable partly because debate over what to do is so stunted. But there is a way out. It would involve an early election, producing a government with popular legitimacy. It would probably also entail a decentralisation of power away from Bangkok so that citizens of regions such as the north-east feel less alienated from their rulers—a sense of alienation that, more than ethnic or religious tensions, underpins the long-running, bloody insurgency in the Muslim-majority southern provinces. And a true “Thai solution†would also imply a monarchy genuinely above political meddling or manipulation.

This would be in the royal family’s own interest. Republicans lurk in the wings, but a majority still respects the king. The monarchies in Malaysia and Cambodia have painfully lost influence to populist commoners. By the time Nepal’s princelings woke up they were citizens of a republic. Hence, to endure, the monarchy has to win a debate, not suppress one. And it would surely be better for Thailand to discuss all this under a monarch trusted by many to have their interests at heart. Difficult and distressing today, Thailand’s national soul-searching will only grow harder.

[drlovelife8]

I am losing patience with this countries politics.

[Crustyjuggler]

I can honestly say i have been completely unaffected this whole week. My internet never cut, HBO still running strong and no problems for Sammy Somchai, my KFC delivery boy.

Pfffft... Redshirts smedshirts....

[Chatty]

I am losing patience with this countries politics.

so join the protesters tomorrow? They will come to Ratchada... I don't think they will visit my place... and at that time I might be in my hip hop class, no need to think about politics.

[allseasonsman]

One response to this article says it all really:

As a former Thai resident, I closely follow its politics and mourn the present impasse on Bangkok's streets. Should all sides open their minds and acknowledge their own weaknesses (e.g. Thaksin's ample corruption / PAD's undemocratic leanings), they might begin addressing the deepest political issues concerning their Kingdom:

1. How to justly devolve power from Bangkok's elite power-brokers

2. How to address the marginalised concerns of Thais in the North/Northeast in a more constructive (post-Thaksin) tone

3. How to reform a monarchy which faces growing weakness as the Prince slowly assumes an increased presence in the face of his father's unfortunate eventual demise

Unfortunately these objectives are greatly hindered by Thai ways of thinking which have been ingrained by their cultural propensity towards self-serving patronage and avarice, as well as their lack of critical thinking and civic education. Until now, these weaknesses were mitigated by the King's wisdom and benevolence as he worked hard to better his country and, more importantly, his people.

But using their King as a crutch to counter-balance democratic stagnation has now worn-out its effectiveness (as shown by the current protests). The Thai people need to increase their own political maturity so as to become less dependent upon their monarchy (and military) for national stability. This dependence doesn't work (as evidenced by the 18 coups since 1932!) and distracts from achieving the truly democratic government the people need to show they're ready for...

Articles such as this provoke a deeper debate in the face of Thai media's self-censorship. As such, I thank you.