Thread: Five injured as Thai Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts clash

My view is very simple really.

The red shirts need to find leaders who aren't working for a certain person who left the country of his own volition (to see the Beijing Olympics....) and chose not to return. (If he truly believes in justice he should put his money where his mouth is and come back and face the charges leveled at him, as normal people have to. Face up to his responsibility, not get others to do his dirty work).

Then maybe things will change.

In the meantime, read my signature line

"Slavery is the daughter of darkness; an ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction; ambition and intrigue take advantage of the credulity and inexperience of men who have no political, economic or civil knowledge. They mistake pure illusion for reality, license for freedom, treason for patriotism, vengeance for justice."-Simón Bolívar

^ agreed. spooner obviously has a poor understanding of the meaning of 'troll' despite engaging in it here - rather effectively as he is actually getting a reaction, which is what trolls crave.

Compare that with the incontinent efforts of 'LooseBowels' who comes online every day in the early morning and posts pro red inflammatory gibberish - yet everyone ignores him (his sports threads are hilarious as well, no response or comments in them from anyone no matter how hard he tries)

^ it's the standard mo of what i have read of his writing; nasty insinuating ad hominem stuff, you can see his hypocrisy laid bare here.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

it's my view that the broad Red Shirt movement represents the better option to promote democracy than the PAD, who are openly anti-democratic, and the Democrats, who represent the interests of an arrogant, brutal elite.

you seem to be thinking in very naive terms, the reds (that is their leaders) are only motivated by power, not democracy, they think that by being "popular" in a certain demographic (the massive poor) give them the right to claim they are pro-democracy, they are not. Of course the PAD is a fascist movement, we all know that, but labeling anyone who disagree with you a PADist just remind us of prolific UDD trolls we have had here previously, and they can be quite amusing.

As for the Democrats, they are the Royalist party, never been anything else. Not sure why they don't make it official, they would become extremely popular overnight. Of course, it would raise certain interesting questions. Like all moderate conservative movements, they have no vision or ideas. PT for example, is a progressive conservative movement, they have a vision and ideas. Their vision is not about more democracy but more economic success, which some would argue could bring "western democratic values". If you look at Singapore and China, you will know that economic success doesn't lead to more democracy, au contraire.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

I'm perfectly entitled to that view.

there is nothing wrong for holding the wrong and incorrect view, you are perfectly entitled to that.

In a democracy people put themselves and their policies before the electorate who then vote and decide who they want in government. Despite some level of vote-buying (which even Korn admitted in an interview with me is something all parties engage in) it would be impossible to argue that the Thaksin-led political programme has not achieved a long and sustained democratic mandate. That programme has won 5 straight elections and secured, in 2011, a percentage of the vote for a single party that is unmatched in nearly every single democracy on earth.

My experience of dealing with politicians is that they, as individuals, are driven by some level of self-interest (as is nearly every person I've met in any walk of life) but most are also driven by a genuine belief in a set of ideals.

I've spent time with UDD leaders and senior Dem Party people. I would say that the above analysis - mix of self-interest and genuine ideals - applies to both. The big difference for me is that the UDD people, while certainly not perfect and very much products of the political environment they exist in, were more prepared to put their ideas to the people. When I met Korn he spoke of a land tax and a living wage, built on tax breaks for those companies who'd pay it. As a genuine left-leaning liberal I'd support such policies. But I'd never support them from a party which can't win an election and imposes itself, via force, on a population.

I'd agree that the UDD are not "socialist". Most of their supporters appear to be petit bourgeois or aspirational farmers etc. They want a modicum of a free market but also seem to want some kind of safety net via cheap healthcare and European-style farm subsidies etc. Key to this is that they want their political rights recognised. They want their vote, even if it is used for a dodgy billionaire, to be respected and who they choose for govt not thrown out by a coup, violent fascists or courts. On other things, such as law and order, they'not particularly liberal at all. They remind me more of your typical aspiring middle class European than any Dem Party supporter does.

These, for me, are the realities. What we think, on this forum, is entirely irrelevant to those political facts. We can have all the opinions we want about if Thaksin or Abhist is the biggest asshole but the democratic will of the Thai people is clear and has been since 2001.

Now, as quite a partisan UK Labour Party member I pretty much loathe the present coalition Tory/Lib Dem government. I can't wait until the next election until we can get these bastards out.

But, if tanks rolled out tomorrow and attempted to remove the coalition by force, I and thousands of other Labour members would do all we could to prevent a coup.

For me we can argue over policy, ideals and political position but a coup or an imposition of an unelected govt, by force, on a population is simply unacceptable. People have an enshrined, legal right to resist that and attempt to throw out an unmandated govt.

Ordinary Red Shirts put their lives on the line to achieve that. Those that stand against that are holding back the future in my view.

Fascism is not in itself a... at BrainyQuote

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

In a democracy people put themselves and their policies before the electorate who then vote and decide who they want in government. Despite some level of vote-buying (which even Korn admitted in an interview with me is something all parties engage in) it would be impossible to argue that the Thaksin-led political programme has not achieved a long and sustained democratic mandate. That programme has won 5 straight elections and secured, in 2011, a percentage of the vote for a single party that is unmatched in nearly every single democracy on earth.

I understand you would support Hitler, Stalin, and PolPot in their quest of Democracy and electoral populism, but I think otherwise in my typical pro-active leftist ideals. Democracy is not mobs rule, per your definition above, and in Thailand it's a recipe for disaster.

Your points are valid in theory and in principles, don't disagree entirely with them. But after 50 years of decolonization and Democratization of third world countries, we know it's a recipe that doesn't work for everyone. Sure it could be worse, Thailand could be in a post-communism era like Cambodia or worse, Burma or Laos, but it isn't thanks to the Royal elite you despised so much. I only see the UDD as an alternative to the exact same issue of political mess, so where is the Democratic progress ? there is none, as long as there is no credible opposition (at least a socialist one), voting PT/UDD or Democrats it is the same for that ideal. Better the devil you know in that regard.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

I'd agree that the UDD are not "socialist". Most of their supporters appear to be petit bourgeois or aspirational farmers etc. They want a modicum of a free market but also seem to want some kind of safety net via cheap healthcare and European-style farm subsidies etc. Key to this is that they want their political rights recognised.

UDD is nothing more than a fascist group, I understand that moderate conservatives like Sabang and DrB can be tempted by those ideals, but anyone who claim to respect Democracy or social equality can't possibly endorse them in any way without compromising that ideal greatly. It's not so much of a political choice but an economic one. Peasants vote PT/UDD because they think it will make them rich, not because they think it's more democratic. Choosing a dictator to participate in his populist ideals is not a sign of Democracy, au contraire.

What I find disturbing is how a "leftist" could support blindly such a foolish enterprise. Your points are valid about giving people a choice, except for one thing, there is no choice in Thailand, it's the same old snake behind all those apparent choices. There is no opposition, there is no political conviction, there is nothing like a democratic debate here, it's all a beauty contest for choosing the next pig with lipstick.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

For me we can argue over policy, ideals and political position but a coup or an imposition of an unelected govt, by force, on a population is simply unacceptable.

This is an old debate. Thaksin was a dictator, was it right to overthrow him ? In absolute terms, probably not, but in relative terms, he is just another dictator who was deposed, so who gives a shit. Likewise, we could lament about the death penalty of child rapists, and it would be a valid debate, but at the end, those sex offenders are better off dead.

A good dictator is a dead dictator, may it be politically or physically, democracy is not even the issue here because the greater danger is the dictator, not the respect of Democracy. This is what you and so many others are missing. You worry about cleaning the carpet when the house is on fire.

It would seem that the two sides in this debate are not that far apart, the only difference in being that one sees no redemption in Thaksin, the other sees him as someone who edged the country towards democracy, albeit at a cost.

I tend to take the view that Thaksin should come back and lead. He has, I think, learnt his lesson and would pursue power in a less authoritarian way. I think his economic prowess is worth the risk of him coming back. He IS good for the country in the economic arena. I think he HAS become more accommodating of other views and I do think he can play a useful role. I think Thailand has gone too far down the democratic path now for the army to do much about it, there would be rumblings, but that is all, they can flex and preen, but I think their true power has gone. 2006 was too much of a disaster for them. In the main 2010 was a bungled attempt at control, but both sides of the divide were to blame for what went down, both had arch manipulators and both wanted a fight.

The rest of the show is just that - a show. There will always remain groups who are self-interest money politicking, but hopefully the direction of the country can be ushered towards a nearly democratic nation. Money politics is the real evil here, the politics of self-interest and not ideology. I believe that the old guard is interested in maintaining their power base, I believe the assorted new groups are (in the main) equally absorbed by their money politics. Destroy the evil of money politics and Thailand may stand a chance.

Originally Posted by goostewart

It would seem that the two sides in this debate are not that far apart, the only difference in being that one sees no redemption in Thaksin, the other sees him as someone who edged the country towards democracy, albeit at a cost.

I tend to take the view that Thaksin should come back and lead. He has, I think, learnt his lesson and would pursue power in a less authoritarian way. I think his economic prowess is worth the risk of him coming back. He IS good for the country in the economic arena. I think he HAS become more accommodating of other views and I do think he can play a useful role. I think Thailand has gone too far down the democratic path now for the army to do much about it, there would be rumblings, but that is all, they can flex and preen, but I think their true power has gone. 2006 was too much of a disaster for them. In the main 2010 was a bungled attempt at control, but both sides of the divide were to blame for what went down, both had arch manipulators and both wanted a fight.

The rest of the show is just that - a show. There will always remain groups who are self-interest money politicking, but hopefully the direction of the country can be ushered towards a nearly democratic nation. Money politics is the real evil here, the politics of self-interest and not ideology. I believe that the old guard is interested in maintaining their power base, I believe the assorted new groups are (in the main) equally absorbed by their money politics. Destroy the evil of money politics and Thailand may stand a chance.

He certainly knows how to get things done here, I always thought he was over rated regarding his economic prowess, but only until you compare him to his opponents.

I don't think he has learnt his lesson, he has just made things too complicated for himself for the time being, not sure how he will find a way to come back in the next 1-2 years.

I agree with the rest of what you have to say, what is hindering democratic progress here goes far beyond the army and royalist interference. I think this is what separates the 2 sides here, there is a group of people here, who mistakenly try to pin everything on the army, without looking at the reality of the situation.