Red-Shirt Protests Go Violent

[Guest RichLB]

Warner, in Social Class in America, makes a point that might be applicable to the situation here in Thailand. He identifies 4 social classes - lower, middle, upper AND elite. This last class is separated by the length of time (and source) the family has had their money. For instance, William Gates or Opera Winfrey although rediculously wealthy would not be considered part of this elite class and closed out from many of its perks since their money is new. Even the Kennedys were considered only upper class in spite of the family incuding a president. The elite class included such families as the Cabots and Lodges (for those familiar with US social situations).

 

From what I've read on this thread, it seems Thaksin is not among what Warner would identify as the elite class - his money was too new. This elite class in the US is a closed society and protects its privledged status with a vengence. If the same holds true here, Thaksin would have been seen as an interloper and a threat to the established social structure. If so, to the elite class, it's more about face and status than it is about money or power. The red shirts threaten to tear the entire class system down and this represents a real threat to the Elite.

[macaroni21]

Red shirt movement ( at least Thaksin wing) figths against traditional aristocracy (amataya) which is defined by their economic interests: land ownership. The ultimate goal of Red shirts is redistribute the land in favor of poor peasants.

 

Where did this definition come from? Where has this ultimate goal of land redistribution been enunciated? I am not disputing that it may well be one of their goals, but you seem to be imputing a lot more clarity to the movement than warranted. So far, I see the movement as one that is much more mixed in its motivation and goals, which remain mostly unarticulated, except for slogans like "democracy".

 

.

 

Your definition of elite blurs the boundary between traditional Thai aristocracy and the middle class. That was the goal of PAD: to create impression that the interests of Thai middle class and aristocracy are the same. From economical standpoint it makes no sense:

both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal: rapid economic growth and rising living standards . That at some point will lead to constraint of corruption.

 

Yes and no. Indeed it is possible to make a distinction between the middle class and the aristocracy (and I accept that I was guilty of blurring that distinction - more below), but it is not obvious that "both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal." The wealth and comfort of the middle class (esp the upper middle class and nouveau riche) depends greatly on exploitation and silencing of the poor and this alone puts them in the same bracket as the aristocracy. The wealth of the Bangkok middle class depends on cheap food and labour from the provinces and a concentration of the state budget on projects in the capital city.

 

With due respect, when you speak about "same ultimate goal" I think you are reading more theory into the present situation than called for.

 

I fully agree with you that land reform is a critical ingredient of broad-based economic progress and social equity; I agree too that examples from other Asian countries bear this out well, and that Thailand could do well to attend to this problem. My point is that you are placing it centrestage in this struggle when I haven't seen the actors themselves doing so. Perhaps this is because I can't read Thai whereas you have seen it in their speeches, if so, please share more details.

.

What many people do not understand is that removal of Thaksin from leadership of Red Shirt movement may bring new, more radical leaders (there are plenty of Marxists in the wings) and total change of the ball game.

 

Fully agree. A huge blindspot on the part of the anti-Red Shirt camp.

 

Other comments: While a distinction can be made between the aristocracy and the middle class (and its various segments), during the present struggle there are really two broad camps: Pro and Anti Red Shirt. Generally speaking, the middle and upper-middle class have been standing with the aristocracy on more or less the same side (at least for now). I have used the term "elite" to refer to this side though I accept that it can confuse since "elite" can mean the narrower sense of aristocracy only.

 

Yet - for other readers - before anyone thinks that the struggle is neatly a two-sided one, let me say it is not. Within the Anti-Red Shirts, there are many subgroups, each with their own interests, e.g. the palace and aristocracy, the military brass, the Bangkok middle class, the non-Bangkok middle class. (I thought it was interesting, for example, to see the Pink Shirts appear. Why didn't they wear Yellow Shirts? Was it because the Yellow was identified with the palace and aristocracy and the Pink were more identified with the Bangkok middle class?)

 

The shifting positions of these subgroups will make for many twists and turns in this story yet.

 

And as Voldemar said, the Red Shirts themselves have subgroups with different interests. Again, they will make for more twists and turns as the saga plays out.

[Gaybutton]

On another board I spotted this video from someone who was actually there when the gunfire broke out. I think it is worth watching:

 

[Guest fountainhall]

both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal: rapid economic growth and rising living standards . That at some point will lead to constraint of corruption.

This is, however, impossible without elimination of poverty. The only way to do it is to redistribute the land from amataya to Thai poor. The scenario which I described here was realized in Japan, South Jorea, HK and other advanced Asian Societies. It will be realized in Thailand sooner or later.

Point 1. I agree about your ideas of goals for the middle class and poor.

 

Point 2. I disagree about the fact that constraint of corruption will come about as a result of Point 1. As we have had a voluminous correspondence elsewhere, I will not repeat any of it here, other than to say once again you are wrong about Hong Kong (and you did not rely to my last post!) A rigid drive to eliminate corruption quickly first created the level playing field which was one of the factors which enabled businesses to thrive and living standards to rise rapidly. It was not the other way around.

 

Point 3. Japan and South Korea were very special examples, rather like Germany. Totally ravaged countries where massive amounts of aid coming in from outside helped rebuild the countries basic infrastructure and set the scene for rapid growth.

 

Point 4. Nothing will happen in Thailand unless constraint of corruption either precedes or goes hand in hand with other measures.

[Guest voldemar]

Point 1. I agree about your ideas of goals for the middle class and poor.

 

Point 2. I disagree about the fact that constraint of corruption will come about as a result of Point 1. As we have had a voluminous correspondence elsewhere, I will not repeat any of it here, other than to say once again you are wrong about Hong Kong (and you did not rely to my last post!) A rigid drive to eliminate corruption quickly first created the level playing field which was one of the factors which enabled businesses to thrive and living standards to rise rapidly. It was not the other way around.

 

Point 3. Japan and South Korea were very special examples, rather like Germany. Totally ravaged countries where massive amounts of aid coming in from outside helped rebuild the countries basic infrastructure and set the scene for rapid growth.

 

Point 4. Nothing will happen in Thailand unless constraint of corruption either precedes or goes hand in hand with other measures.

I guess we agree to disagree. I gave you scientific evidence. Your responded with something nobody in scientific community supports. ( To remind: you denied data from HK bureu on census and statistics refering to nonverifiable sources). There is no point to discuss. But your arguments can hardly persude anybody.It is your private opinion which has no scientific merit.

[Guest voldemar]

Where did this definition come from? Where has this ultimate goal of land redistribution been enunciated? I am not disputing that it may well be one of their goals, but you seem to be imputing a lot more clarity to the movement than warranted. So far, I see the movement as one that is much more mixed in its motivation and goals, which remain mostly unarticulated, except for slogans like "democracy".

 

.

 

 

 

Yes and no. Indeed it is possible to make a distinction between the middle class and the aristocracy (and I accept that I was guilty of blurring that distinction - more below), but it is not obvious that "both middle class and poor peasants have the same ultimate goal." The wealth and comfort of the middle class (esp the upper middle class and nouveau riche) depends greatly on exploitation and silencing of the poor and this alone puts them in the same bracket as the aristocracy. The wealth of the Bangkok middle class depends on cheap food and labour from the provinces and a concentration of the state budget on projects in the capital city.

 

With due respect, when you speak about "same ultimate goal" I think you are reading more theory into the present situation than called for.

 

I fully agree with you that land reform is a critical ingredient of broad-based economic progress and social equity; I agree too that examples from other Asian countries bear this out well, and that Thailand could do well to attend to this problem. My point is that you are placing it centrestage in this struggle when I haven't seen the actors themselves doing so. Perhaps this is because I can't read Thai whereas you have seen it in their speeches, if so, please share more details.

.

 

 

Fully agree. A huge blindspot on the part of the anti-Red Shirt camp.

 

Other comments: While a distinction can be made between the aristocracy and the middle class (and its various segments), during the present struggle there are really two broad camps: Pro and Anti Red Shirt. Generally speaking, the middle and upper-middle class have been standing with the aristocracy on more or less the same side (at least for now). I have used the term "elite" to refer to this side though I accept that it can confuse since "elite" can mean the narrower sense of aristocracy only.

 

Yet - for other readers - before anyone thinks that the struggle is neatly a two-sided one, let me say it is not. Within the Anti-Red Shirts, there are many subgroups, each with their own interests, e.g. the palace and aristocracy, the military brass, the Bangkok middle class, the non-Bangkok middle class. (I thought it was interesting, for example, to see the Pink Shirts appear. Why didn't they wear Yellow Shirts? Was it because the Yellow was identified with the palace and aristocracy and the Pink were more identified with the Bangkok middle class?)

 

The shifting positions of these subgroups will make for many twists and turns in this story yet.

 

And as Voldemar said, the Red Shirts themselves have subgroups with different interests. Again, they will make for more twists and turns as the saga plays out.

Well, I see your point more clearly now and I agree with a lot that you suggested.

I also think that Rich LB makes a very important and pertinent point. I think it is important to clarify one issue though. And this is land ownership and Land reform.

I guess, many on this board who participated in real estate transactions know that there is a complicated system of land ownership in Thailand (different types of titles).

It has its roots in 1975 reform (and even earlier land reform of 19 century). In other words, legally speaking not all land is subject tp redistribution and certain concrete categories are stipulated in 1975 reform. That is where the difference between traditional aristocracy and several other types of land owners lies. Their land (which is possible to use for agriculture) is subject to redistribution. I guess the topic is too complex and I may devote to it a separate long post.

If one wants to understand the evolution of any society ( from Thai to modern American),

the only way to do it is through understanding of where the economic interests of various social groups collide. In Thailand there is a direct conflict between traditional aristocracy and landless peasants and the only way to resolve it is through land redistribution. While this topic is not on front pages of Thai newspapers, it is actively discussed (including in press) and , in fact, is a quite dramatic one.

Interstingly, Abhisit tried to address it by introducing the idea of land taxation.

In principle, this is a progressive idea but the devil is in details. I do not trust Democrats on this matter (since they screw the Land reform in a big way) but surely,

if his proposal would jeopardize the interests of Thai aristocrats in any way, the proposal would have no chances to pass.

[Guest voldemar]

I thought their goal was to redistribute wealth into Thaksin's bank account.

And I thought that your comment is quite disrespectful to millions of Thai poor.

Why I am not surprised?

[Gaybutton]

And I thought that your comment is quite disrespectful to millions of Thai poor.

Why I am not surprised?

Is that what you thought? Well, you see that, z909? I forgot to warn you when you signed on as a moderator here. Before you can kid around you first have to make sure it's ok with voldemar.

 

As far as I'm concerned, voldemar, you can take your righteous indignation and . . .

 

Well, I'll just let you fill in the rest of the sentence. How's that for disrespect?

 

Many of your posts are intelligent and well thought out, but you also don't seem to have a problem about personally insulting people. You can dish it out. Now we'll see if you can take it.

 

I don't see z909's joke as disrespectful to anybody, except of course you. That part is fine with me.

[Guest RichLB]

Please, guys. This has been one of the most instructive and interesting threads I've seen on a Message Board in some time. Voldemar and GB, both of you, I impore you not to hijeck this thread into exchanges as to who delivered the first insult and try to outdo each other with retorts. Take that kind of stuff to Sawatdee where it seems to be welcomed.

[Guest jomtien]

I also took the comment at face value. It surprised me but I didn't care to comment. The problem of dropping a joke into a serious and vibrant thread is that some people won't realize it's a joke unless they know you and your sense of humor.

[Guest rhodochrosite]

INCREDIBLE FOOTAGE-Moderator I Cant Seem To Get The You Tube Picture On Here!!!...

 

..... I hope you don't mind. I put it in place for you. GB

 

[Guest aaronaxeiss]

What ever changes made after this bloody incident, make sure Thaksin do not return back. Otherwise the yellow shirt will start their protest.

[Guest RichLB]

What ever changes made after this bloody incident, make sure Thaksin do not return back. Otherwise the yellow shirt will start their protest.

I certanly am not a Thaksin fan, but I think a good point was made by a previous poster (sorry, I forgot who you were). He made the point that if Thaksin is not returned with some role in whatever government is finally established, there are others waiting in the wings who may be far worse. after reading and thinking about that, I backed off my position against Thaksin. It seems to me it's clear he was a crook, but he DID implement programs that helped the poor. Maybe it's a case of better to stick with the devil you know than one you don't.

[Gaybutton]

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has released a video message to Thailand. If you would like to view it (just over a minute long) click the following link:

 

http://www.state.gov/video/?videoid=77621375001

[Guest RichLB]

Hmm, when I clicked on the link I got a message saying, "The video you are attempting to watch is currently unavailable. Please check back soon."

[Gaybutton]

Please check back soon."

I guess it's time to check back. I just tried it and it worked with no problem.

[PattayaMale]

This is an interesting discussion with many opinions. I am surprised that no one mentioned Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, or Burma. Maybe this is because no one feels those other countries have anything in common with Thailand.

 

I admit that most of you have a better handle on history than I do. So maybe you can help answer a couple questions I have.

 

Did any of the current Red Shirts try to put in place a communist regime in the 70's?

 

Is it true Thaskin promised to disband the Red Shirt protests if his billions of baht were given back to him?

 

How are the poor landless farmers financing the protests and acquiring military hardware?

 

How is it that the Red Shirts seemed better prepared than the Thai Govt, police and military?

 

What will happen if the Red Shirts bring down the government? Will the other side just accept it? Will the other side try to take down the government....and how will the back and forth end?

 

Final question, what happens to the foreigners that own property or businesses or live in retirement in Thailand? Will the bars and go go bars still be here?

[Guest]

And I thought that your comment is quite disrespectful to millions of Thai poor.

Why I am not surprised?

 

You should not be surprised at all. After all, it was YOUR THOUGHT. One that's got nothing to do with the truth.

 

Somewhere along the line, Thaksin amassed a fortune worth hundreds of millions, allegedly helped along by his political connections. Whilst he was in power, that fortune was sufficient to spend several hundred million on a Premiership football club.

 

Secondly, land reform is not always the solution. Rhodesia is a fine example. A wealthy food exporting African nation turned into a basket case where people starve. Mainly because the land was re-distributed to cronies of the ruling party, rather than those who have the ability to run successful and profitable farms.

 

A corrupt land re-distribution process would not help Thailand. A fair one might just, but the chances of that are slim.

Laws that guarantee decent minimum wages & allow people to build wealth so they can acquire land would be more effective.

 

Another point: Socialist style handouts only encourage people to sit on their posteriors all day. They tax the wealth creating productive middle classes.

 

At the same time, the "socialists" right at the very top look after themselves very well indeed.

[Guest RichLB]

This is an interesting discussion with many opinions. I am surprised that no one mentioned Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, or Burma. Maybe this is because no one feels those other countries have anything in common with Thailand.

 

I admit that most of you have a better handle on history than I do. So maybe you can help answer a couple questions I have.

 

Did any of the current Red Shirts try to put in place a communist regime in the 70's?

 

Is it true Thaskin promised to disband the Red Shirt protests if his billions of baht were given back to him?

 

How are the poor landless farmers financing the protests and acquiring military hardware?

 

How is it that the Red Shirts seemed better prepared than the Thai Govt, police and military?

 

What will happen if the Red Shirts bring down the government? Will the other side just accept it? Will the other side try to take down the government....and how will the back and forth end?

 

Final question, what happens to the foreigners that own property or businesses or live in retirement in Thailand? Will the bars and go go bars still be here?

 

I'm with you in admitting I'm no expert and await the responses of those who know a lot more about Thai politics than I do, but let me give my take on your questions. Sorry, I can't figure out the multiquote function so it might be a bit clumsy.

 

1. As to actions of the red shirts in the 70's, tha was 40 years ago and most of the current leaders weren't even born yet or were children at the time. But, I've never heard of any communist movement within Thailand, but that doesn't say much.

 

2. I think that story about Thaksin is apocryphal. The red shirt movement is based on a far broader foundation than just Thaksin's welfare. Even if he wanted to disband the red shirts, I dount he could; they appear far too passionate to let him direct them to that extent.

 

3. While there are great numbers of poor landless farmers amongst the red shirts, I don't think they represent the organization or the financial structure. Many within the red shirt movement (not just Thaksin) are relatively wealthy and are participating because they see themselves as patriots - not all are there out of self interest.

 

4. I think both sides are well prepared, not just the red shirts. Frankly, I'm amazed at well organized and managed the red shirts are for what had been characterized as a mish mash of rabble. Clearly, they have planned well and organized effectively. The problem for government preparation (although there clearly has been some anticipation) is that there's really not much they can do that they have yet to try other than escalating to violence.

 

5. Yeah, I wonder about the response of the yellow shirts should the government submit to general elections. You very well could be right - a yellow shirt response, followed by a return of the red shirts, followed by the yellow, and around we go.

 

6. I don't think anything will happen to foreign investments as a result of any change in government. As I understand it, the issue of land reform is primarily based on the agriculture sector. I think foreign residents are most probably safe. And, yeah, I think the gogo bars will survive as long as there are large numbers of willing boys and girls eager to work in them.

 

Anyway, those are my guesses in response to your questions. Be aware, I am not the least bit educated on this subject, but I thought you asked some good questions and deserved a response - as ill informed as it may be.

[Guest RichLB]

 

Somewhere along the line, Thaksin amassed a fortune worth hundreds of millions, allegedly helped along by his political connections. Whilst he was in power, that fortune was sufficient to spend several hundred million on a Premiership football club.

 

Secondly, land reform is not always the solution. Rhodesia is a fine example. A wealthy food exporting African nation turned into a basket case where people starve. Mainly because the land was re-distributed to cronies of the ruling party, rather than those who have the ability to run successful and profitable farms.

 

A corrupt land re-distribution process would not help Thailand. A fair one might just, but the chances of that are slim.

Laws that guarantee decent minimum wages & allow people to build wealth so they can acquire land would be more effective.

 

Another point: Socialist style handouts only encourage people to sit on their posteriors all day. They tax the wealth creating productive middle classes.

 

At the same time, the "socialists" right at the very top look after themselves very well indeed.

 

Until I figure out mulitquote, let me respond to your points one by one.

 

1. Thaksins wealth. Wasn't the majority of it accumulated while he was a private cisizen? I think it was the questionable (and evenually adjudicated illegal) cashing out through a sale that got him in such trouble.

 

2. I'm not familiar with the situation in Rhodesia, but land reform in Cuba worked to improve the lot of the laboring poor. But, let's not get into the plight of Cuba - it is far more complicated than this sidetrack.

 

3. I agree with you that a corrupt land reform mechanism will only make matters worse. But since no one has proposed the system which may be used, it seems unfair to criticize what does not exist. Let's hope that if such a system is imposed, there is sufficient oversite to minimize corruption.

 

4. And, yes, the welfare state you posit might very well have the result of masses of people being unproductive and just receiving stipends from the government. But aren't you creating a strawman? Has anyone proposed such an extreme socialistic solution for the poor?

[Guest fountainhall]

It is your private opinion which has no scientific merit.

What have you been reading? Certainly not my posts. Your so-called "scientific merit" is borne out by nobody who lived in Hong Kong at the time nor who was in charge of government departments at the time. Your knowledge of Hong Kong seems to be one article written, admittedly, by a respected and learned scholar. Once you have spent some more years researching the facts properly and speaking to people who were in a position to know exactly what the situation was, then I am happy to argue further with you. You should be talking about facts - not scientific merit. And the facts do not support your views. Period!

 

A corrupt land re-distribution process would not help Thailand. A fair one might just, but the chances of that are slim.

Laws that guarantee decent minimum wages & allow people to build wealth so they can acquire land would be more effective

I am in full agreement. With corruption rife, who guarantees a fair land distribution? The basic issue is corruption. As long as corruption is so endemic and accepted by, seemingly, all of the population, Thailand will just get nowhere.

 

This is an interesting discussion with many opinions. I am surprised that no one mentioned Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, or Burma.

And what about The Philippines where the demise of the dictator and crook Ferdinand Marcos was supposed to help bring about a cleaning up of politics, a gradual reduction of the influence and wealth of the great clans, and a reduction in poverty? Did that happen? Hardly at all!

[Guest RichLB]

Fountainhall, I read you taking exception to many of the thoughts presented here. Clearly corruption is rampant - and not only in Thailand. So, given that, I am curious what solution you would like to see implemented. If land redisposition is to take place, how would you propose it be done to minimize the corruption which you feel is inevitable? I assume you do not support doing nothing merely because the problems are large.

[Guest]

2. I'm not familiar with the situation in Rhodesia, but land reform in Cuba worked to improve the lot of the laboring poor. But, let's not get into the plight of Cuba - it is far more complicated than this sidetrack.

 

Cuba shows exactly what socialism does for living standards.

 

As for land re-distribution, well the most successful agriculture is where there are large well capitalized & mechanised farms managed by people who know how to farm. These produce affordable food and the majority of the population are freed up to engage in more productive & lucrative employment than merely wielding a spade on a tiny farm.

 

IF some land reform really is required in Thailand, moderate inheritance taxes on large estates, decent minimum wages that allow farm workers to start saving money & a structure which promotes loans to small farmers should help.

That's better than dishing out land as a freebie to the corrupt friends of whichever party is in power.

[Guest RichLB]

Cuba shows exactly what socialism does for living standards.

 

Well, to be fair, Cuba operates in a communist economic model and not a socialist one. But, from what I've seen the living standards of the poor there improved considerably under Castro. And, who knows how much better it would be if the US had not imposed a trade embargo on the island.

 

But, getting back to Thailand. Since no one has proposed a land distribution scheme, or even if there will be one, it seems premature to speculate on how it would be implemented.

 

I am also critical of your proposal for encouraging subsistance farmers to increase their savings. When one does not have enough money to pay rent or buy food, that is likely to fall on deaf ears. Even worse, when banks offer next to nothing in terms of interest there really isn't much incentive to save.

 

The notion of a minimum wage actually exists in Thailand, I believe. The problem is enforcement. In the agriculture sector there is such an influx of illegal workers who toil all day for a fraction of the cost of what the law dictates Tai workers are to receive, it's pretty tough convincing a land owner not to use them. And, in the manufacturing sector the same problem exists, of course, and there is the added dilemma that Thailand has to compete with the labor market in neighboring countries. Laos, Cambodia, and China might very well appear more attractive to manufacturers if labor costs here rise.

 

The ultimate long term solution is, of course, education. Thailand needs to raise its educational standards so workers can produce products competitive in the global market. (By the way, credit Thaksin for developing programs of a sort to accomplish this).

 

As I listen to the red shirt leaders I am surprised that they appear quite bright and recognize problems with the current aristocracy. I just don't see the protestors as lazy louts looking for free handouts so they can sit on their duffs drinking lao kao. Agree with them or not, they are commited, organized, and seemingly succeeding in bringing about some form of change without having resorted to violence. I applaud them for that.

[PattayaMale]

"Agree with them or not, they are commited, organized, and seemingly succeeding in bringing about some form of change without having resorted to violence. I applaud them for that."

 

Kidnapping, breaking and entering, terrorizing a community, breaking up a gay pride demonstrating, stabbing police with sharpened bamboo poles, grenade tossing, shootings, attacks on private property (Royal Cliff), beating a MP, etc.......is not violent????