Thread: Yingluck praises reds for 'protecting democracy'

The Shinawatra's talking about democracy can be likened to Frank Bruno talking about his career as a university lecturer

Doesn't one have to be in a state of democratic existence beforehand?
What's to protect?

Same as it ever was.

Thailand has never had a "real" democracy since forever, at least when Taksin was around the country actually saw some progress. Unlike today where everything is just a mess.

I think maybe this is more of an example of what people will do for money. Pay me and I will vote for you. Pay me and I will protest for you. Give me money and I will promise to do certain work ... well some of the money will go for that and the rest into my personal bank account.

Yingluck vows to pursue 'true' democracy, rights framework | Bangkok Post: news

Yingluck vows to pursue 'true' democracy, rights framework

• Published: 9/11/2012 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The Pheu Thai-led government will pursue national reconciliation and human rights recognition until "true democracy" is realised, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra told the 5th Bali Democracy Forum (BDF) in Indonesia Thursday.

"History teaches us that freedom is often abused and suppressed. Thailand has experienced many coups d'etat against the will of the people," Ms Yingluck said. "So once a government rises from democratic means, it must be made sustainable."

The prime minister highlighted the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship's 2010 demonstration as an example of the people's push for democracy.

The best way to preserve democracy is to empower people to participate in it, she said.

"When people participate, they feel as if they own democracy and cherish the values. And when democracy is overthrown or abused, people will rise up to defend it. This is what happened in Thailand in 2010," Ms Yingluck told the forum.

But this came at a cost. Families lost their loved ones, and there was suffering for the injured, she said, referring to the military crackdown on red-shirt demonstrators during the April-May 2010 political unrest.

"I was saddened and I am determined to make sure this will not happen again," she said.

"That is why we are pursuing national reconciliation and following the framework of human rights.

"I will continue to pursue this goal until true democracy is realised in Thailand.

"Although my party holds the majority in parliament, I intend to listen to all constituents and representatives.

"I understand fully that for a democracy to be resilient, freedom of speech and respect for diversity of opinions must exist. Mutual respect and understanding among peoples help prevent disagreements and conflict," she said.

She urged countries in the Asia-Pacific region to cooperate to ensure democracy survives when threatened.

"For this reason, we appreciate many of our friends' stance against the overthrowing of the democratic government of Thailand in 2006 and for helping to support us on our path towards a true democracy," she said.

"It is up to all of us to keep democracy alive and prevent future challenges against it."

The BDF was attended by heads of state and leaders from countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ms Yingluck was the first Thai prime minister to attend the forum, which is intended to promote the exchange of experiences in politics and democracy among countries in the region.

Ms Yingluck also held bilateral meetings with the presidents of Afghanistan and Indonesia and the prime minister of Turkey.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

of course if anyone is of the opinion that Thaksin is not running this administration from afar ,they are perfectly at liberty to say so

Yes, just as they are free to say the Yingluck administration is a puppet of Thaksin. It's called Free speech.
Personally, I don't know to what extent Yingluck as PM is influenced by, or a puppet of, Thaksin. I do know however that the Yingluck administration is quite different to the Thaksin administration.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

and just to add something this Country will never be a true democracy until votes are earned on merit and not just bought as they are now.

Always said by the supporters of the losing team, it's like openly displaying your poker hand.
Yes, vote buying is a problem in Thailand- but every party engages in it, even in 'safe' electorates such as Chart Thai's Suphanburi. There is no question however that Thailand got the government that the largest group of people wanted- and there is no question that they didn't when a previous elected government was ousted by a military Putsch.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

and in closing are you saying that Abhisits government was somehow illegal?

I believe it was, and I also believe the circumstances in which it was set up were highly corrupt. More importantly (now), I also think it has damaged Abhisit and the Dem's in an electoral and popular appeal sense. Not sure if you followed my 'theme' thru' the last few years, essentially I am pro-democracy anti-coup- but really don't give a stuff about Thaksin, or Abhi for that matter. It's the system I care about, not the individuals vote.

If, as is widely alleged, the Yingluck govt is just a Thaksin proxy then you would have to say T has learnt some lessons. It is a much more cautious and less rambunctious government administration than was the case when takkie was PM. Some things however, such as senior/ cabinet level appointments, lead me to wonder if Thaksin is the sole lobbyist/ string puller with influence on Yingluck. But it's a moot point, we can guess forever. It's for the people to decide if the current government deserves their next vote.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Doesn't one have to be in a state of democratic existence beforehand?
What's to protect?

Same as it ever was.

Their turn to fill their boots, of course. Surely you've gotten your mind around what democracy means in Thailand by now.

Thai democracy is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by thegent

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Doesn't one have to be in a state of democratic existence beforehand?
What's to protect?

Same as it ever was.

Their turn to fill their boots, of course. Surely you've gotten your mind around what democracy means in Thailand by now.

Thai democracy is an oxymoron.

Yeah quite correct, no need to go any further is there? end of story !

Freedom to starve, is no freedom at all!

Red shirts look past Pheu Thai's faults | Bangkok Post: news

Red shirts look past Pheu Thai's faults

Common aim of fostering democracy helps UDD overcome doubts about the government

• Published: 15/11/2012 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The red shirts may be a disparate bunch, but say their fight for justice and democracy unites them.


Red shirt co-leader Jatuporn Prompan, centre, makes a point during a forum at the Bangkok Post on Tuesday. Also present are Suda Rangkupan of Chulalongkorn University’s faculty of arts, left, and Sirote Klampaiboon, an independent scholar on human rights, right. SOMCHAI POOMLARD

That common aim might explain why they still remain loyal to the Pheu-Thai led government, despite provocations.

The human rights academics, activists, and United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leaders who gathered at a Bangkok Post forum on Tuesday insist their support for the government they helped put in power has not wavered, even as some openly criticise its performance.

Red-shirt activists who spoke at the forum put forth human rights, democracy and justice as their primary aims.

They said the movement had grown stronger as a result of having to overcome obstacles in its path _ including some thrown there by their own side.

Their complaints include the government's apparent tardiness in helping UDD members awaiting trial for alleged offences committed during the 2010 red-shirt led street clashes.

UDD core leader Jatuporn Prompan, who spoke at the forum, insisted the movement has always acted democratically, even if some of its critics would question its conduct during the fiery street protests.

The first thing to note in any gathering of red shirts such as this is that not all red shirts are members of the core UDD group. The movement consists of different groups, such as those whose primary interests centre on human rights issues rather than just politics.

However, the panelists agreed they were all united for the causes of justice and democracy.

"They can topple the government [through a military coup]. They can rule temporarily, for three months or five months. But in the end, they will always lose," said Sirote Klampaiboon, an independent scholar on human rights, talking about the conservative elite.

Mr Sirote cited the evolution of the populace and the strong parliamentary majority held by the Pheu Thai Party as reasons why the other side could not claim victory for long.

"In the old days, people upcountry did not know what was going on in Bangkok," he said. "But nowadays [because of information technology and the media], they know."

According to the scholar, people upcountry are developing a political consciousness and are willing to step up and make their voices heard.

That growing political awareness among the grassroots sets apart the present conflict from previous ones in Thailand, he said.

Critics of the Pheu Thai government and the UDD question their motives and legitimacy, and ask whether the alliance between the UDD and the government can last.

UDD leader Jatuporn posed "theoretical possibilities" of a split between the Pheu Thai Party and its support base. That might occur in the event of corruption, and if Pheu Thai "betrays the people", he said.

But neither he nor the other panelists see this happening as they believe the Pheu Thai government stands for justice and democracy, the same goals they themselves pursue.

Suda Rangkupan, of Chulalongkorn University's faculty of arts, is a leading member of the Patinya Na San Group or Declaration of Street Justice, which helps political prisoners.

She said the UDD still has more than 1,000 members languishing in prisons and more than 30 still missing as a result of the 2010 military crackdown. "We must bring them justice," she said.

The panelists failed to agree on whether Pheu Thai and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra are doing enough to provide justice to UDD members.

Ms Suda said she understands the position of the government, that the economy is the number one priority. She also added that ensuring justice will take time, because civil servants are still entrenched with the conservative elite and stand against attempts to ensure justice. "It's most difficult, especially with the power of the judicial branch," she said.

Phiangkam Pradupkwam, an independent red-shirt poet, but not a UDD member, posed the following questions.

"Do we have to agree with the government on everything?" she asked.

"Can we stand on our own? Can the UDD take the lead?"

Both Dr Suda and Ms Phiangkam work closely with victims of the crackdown.

Ms Phiangkam read out a letter from one UDD member whose suffering led him to state that he's ready to sacrifice his life for the causes he believes in.

Mr Jatuporn, meanwhile, called the direction of the Pheu Thai government "uncertain" and "stagnated".

He warned the Pheu Thai regime is extending a hand to the very people who helped topple previous democratically elected regimes.

"In the end, the government will realise they have only the red populace to lean on," he said.

Both Mr Jatuporn and Ms Phiangkam pointed to different UDD social media networks for evidence the movement does not blindly follow the Pheu Thai Party. UDD factions voice protests and dissatisfaction with the Yingluck government when they believe they are warranted.

Red shirts say the government is preferable to its opponents, who employ "undemocratic tactics".

Panelists were asked that if the 2006 coup was undemocratic, and the storming of Government House and the occupation of Suvarnabhumi airport in 2008 by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) similarly undemocratic, how should the public regard the red-shirt-led storming of the Royal Cliff Pattaya Hotel, where the Asean summit was held in 2009, and the occupation of Ratchaprasong district in 2010 _ should they not also be seen as undemocratic?

The panelists delegated Mr Jatuporn to answer.

According to Mr Jatuporn, the UDD only meant to march on the Asean summit to hand over a petition letter. However, he said soldiers "disguised in blue shirts" fired at them and hurled stones. That's why the incident led to the storming of the hotel.

He said the 2006 coup and the "illegal" Abhisit Vejjajiva government were wrongs which in turn led to the occupation of the Ratchaprasong intersection. "It all started from the wrongs [committed by the other side], and everything else just followed," he said.

When asked whether those wrongs can really serve to legitimise everything which followed, Mr Jatuporn said the occupation of Ratchaprasong was a legal and peaceful demonstration. The burning of the CentralWorld department store was not done by the UDD, he said.

The panelists said the UDD and other red shirt groups had grown out of the coup into a civil movement, gaining strength and unity along the way.

Originally Posted by thegent

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Doesn't one have to be in a state of democratic existence beforehand?
What's to protect?

Same as it ever was.

Their turn to fill their boots, of course. Surely you've gotten your mind around what democracy means in Thailand by now.

Thai democracy is an oxymoron.

I love oxymorons, Halal pork is my favourite.

It is undeniable that talk of revolution always precedes revolution. And talk of overthrowing an elected government always preceeds the act. This should be roundly castigated, deservedly so.
In the same vein, talk of democracy and praising democratic ideals builds the will and knowledge to acheive it. Castigating conversation about democracy is supporting the opposite. Who among you would choose to live in a vicious police state, if you had a choice? I know, right, that is close to the reality in Thailand, but encouraging change will have a much greater chance to succeed if we nurture it. What side of the line do you wish to stand on?

Jatuporn makes a point | Bangkok Post: opinion

Jatuporn makes a point

• Published: 15/11/2012 at 09:09 AM
• Online news: Opinion

In a world where leaders take responsibility and make sacrifices for the people and the nation, the leadership on both sides of our political divide would be standing in front of the judges. Whether any are guilty of anything, is up to the judicial system to decide.

On Tuesday Nov 13 at the Bangkok Post forum with United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) leader Jatuporn Prompan, other red activists and academics, the controversial politician made a point worth considering.

He said amnesty should be given to everyone, red or yellow, but the respective leaderships must surrender to face charges of terrorism and be judged by the law. People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leaders such as Sondhi Limtongkul, Chamlong Srimuang and others must surrender. He himself would also surrender.


Jatuporn Prompan (Photo by Somchai Poomlard)

This, according to Jatuporn, is the road towards justice and reconciliation. Due to time limits, many themes, questions and panelists, the point was not pursued further, but allow me to add on.

Going after each and every ordinary individual on either side of the political divide who might have broken a law would only enrage the conflict. Families suffer and invariably some innocent people get caught up in the witch hunt. It does nothing for national reconciliation, because the leaders are still out and about, provoking more conflict.

However, those who led the violence and destruction must be held accountable for their words – their inspirations, motivations and directions that led to action breaching laws and infringing on the civil liberties of the citizens and residents of Thailand.

While Sondhi has been convicted of fraud, but is still out on bail, he has not faced trial over incidents such as the storming of Government House and the occupation of Suvarnabhumi airport, both in 2008, among others.

Jatuporn, meanwhile, had been detained on terrorism charges, now out on bail and yet to face trial, but said he is willing to step up in front of the court.

But the leaderships of the yellow-shirt PAD and the red-shirt UDD facing trial is not enough, as this conflict is bigger than them.

Corruption charges against Thaksin Shinawatra should have been decided by the judicial system from the beginning. But instead, we had a military coup in Sept 2006. In the interests of justice and national reconciliation, being accountable and making sacrifices for the Kingdom of Thailand, should the generals behind the coup that ousted Thaksin face trial?

But still, that wouldn’t be enough.

In the military crackdown on the UDD protesters the authorities acted to restore law and order, but there are allegations of excessive use of force and of extrajudicial killings. Should the generals in charge of operations, as well as Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep Thaugsuban, who were in charge of national security, also face trial?

But still, that would not be enough.

Thaksin himself, who has been convicted on corruption charges, in the interests of the people and the nation, of peace and reconciliation, should he not make the sacrifice and surrender himself?

Many supporters of both sides no doubt will raise alarm, crying that the other side is the only one that did wrong and that their side is entirely innocent. That they are the good guys and the other side the bad guys. Or at the very least they are much less guilty than the other side.

All of this, of course, is a never-ending argument that puts us back to square one where excuses and self-righteousness take precedent over accountability and sacrifice, keeping the entire nation stuck in first gear and in danger of sliding backward off the cliff.

But none of us wear the black robes, even if many of us suffer from delusions of being the undisputed judge, jury and executioner. It only goes round and round in circles.

Other than those already convicted, everyone else is yet to be proven guilty of anything. Let the due process of law decide.

The question then begs, can we trust the judicial system to be fair and impartial? Of course not. The law is subject to interpretations and the judges are humans with flaws.


Thaksin Shinawatra (Bloomberg photo)

But since Jatuporn is willing to submit himself to the law, then that means the UDD leader is willing to trust the judgment of the courts. As well, if the military, the PAD and the Democrats champion the conviction of Thaksin, then they also have trust in the judgment of the courts.

So since the leaderships on both sides have displayed trust, why not let the judicial system, flawed though it may be, decide?

If, as Winston Churchill pointed out, democracy is the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried – then, the Thai judicial system is also perhaps the worst solution to national conflict, except for military coups, occupation of airports and district offices, storming of hotels and government buildings, as well as shooting, bombing and burning.

The democratic general elections apparently weren’t enough to bring about reconciliation, so perhaps the one-two combination of the electorate and the judicial system could pacify the fear, hatred and anger.

Those leaders should be subjected to the tangible thing that holds a society together, the rule of law. Those followers should respect the tangible thing that holds a society together, the rule of law.

The battle should be fought in the courts through democratic means and the verdicts respected, whether one agrees with them or not. After all, laws on terrorism, arsonsand murder are not subjected to controversy like the lese majeste law, even if the judicial process and the judges are flawed.

Why don’t we challenge the leaders to step up and the judicial system to lay down the law, in the interests of peace and moving forward as a nation?


Writer: Voranai Vanijaka

Originally Posted by Notnow

What side of the line do you wish to stand on?

Too many people, westerners included, seem to be quite willing to trash their so called democratic ideals at the shoddy altar of partisanship and political opposition. In short, they are paragons of democracy when 'their' team wins- but when the other team wins, well that ain't democracy, innit?