Red-Shirt Protests Go Violent

[Guest RichLB]

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????

I'll take some of my claim of non-violence back, but you are being a little overzealous, I think.

 

Kidnapping - A pretty broad definition for detaining army personnel who were attacking them. I don't think there was any ransom demand (although I'm not sure about that).

 

Breaking and entering - Yep, they did that, but only to government meeting places and the goal was to disrupt.

 

Terrorizing a community - Well, they certainly disrupted business in the protest areas, but "terrorizing"? That doesn't seem to be a fitting characterization to me.

 

Breaking up a gay pride demonstration - Nope, that occurred in Chiang Mai and was done through exertion of influence on the parade permit people. Not violent and had nothing to do with the current protests.

 

Stabbing police - Well, I certainly saw them using bamboo poles to repel the charging police who were firing (what has been admitted) real bullets at them. Seems pretty defensive, to me.

 

Grenade tossing - But only into vacant premises. There have been no claims that grenades were launched by the protesters during the demonstrations, but some have claimed the army did.

 

Shootings - But not by the protesters. The army has admitted it was THEM that fired the live bullets and the government is blaming it on "terrorists", not the red shirts.

 

Attacks on private property - Guilty. But, an incident that occurred months before and not part of the current demonstrations.

 

Beating an MP - I haven't read or seen any reports of this, but if it occurred, that is certainly violent.

 

I still claim that both sides have shows tremendous restraint - in spite of last Saturday's terrible event. It is unclear who actually started that incident, although the press seems to be blaming the government and not the red shirts for the terrible result. It was, after all, the decision of the government to charge the protesters (who seemed to be asking for it).

[macaroni21]

On this thread, we've touched on about corruption, why it needs to be eliminated if Thailand is to progress, and how it can be done. I was a little amused to see on the thread "Army Time" (post #7 by cdnmatt) a comment that if you loved your Thai boyfriend enough, you could "donate" 30,000 baht to have him excluded from the conscription lottery. Evidently, corruption has its uses, even to farangs

[Guest fountainhall]

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.

I have taken considerable exception to voldemar's continuing comments about the recipe for developing nations and improving the life of the poor. His oft expressed view is firstly to make the poor richer, and only then to tackle endemic corruption. He has highlighted precisely one academic thesis and listed a few other countries - Japan, Korea, Hong Kong - to 'prove' his point

 

The point I have been making from the start of this discussion (on another thread in which the matter is discussed extensively) is that Hong Kong does NOT prove his point. In fact, Hong Kong proves the exact opposite of his point. Hong Kong's example clearly shows that you have to tackle corruption first and only then, once a level playing field for everyone has been established, do you have a chance of spreading wealth and improving living standards.

 

I have provided examples of the way voldemar has taken statistics and twisted them. He totally fails to acknowledge what those who worked for the Hong Kong government and others in positions of authority in Hong Kong at the time, were aware of: namely, that population statistics in the 1950s and 1960s bore little relation to actual population, primarily as a result of the massive illegal immigration of millions from the mainland. If you cannot quantify your population figures, you have no way of calculating accurate GDP per head of population. So the argument that Hong Kong people first got richer in the 1960s and then rooted out corruption with the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in 1974, is just plain baloney.

 

Re land distribution, I am on less solid ground than I am in discussing Hong Kong (where I moved in 1979, lived for more than 20 years, and where my business is still based). Frankly, in Thailand I have not the faintest idea how you achieve much to help the poor before you get down to the business of rooting out corruption. A more or less level playing field is vital.

 

I agree entirely with your comment about education. You cannot do much unless and until the entire education system is overhauled. Yet, equally, you cannot do much until the mass of the population accepts that corruption solves nothing and agrees that they will have no part of it. But if you wait for the former to lead to the latter, you are talking about a wait of several decades before having something of a solution.

 

Without serious, meaningful and wide-ranging anti-corruption measures, the rich just get richer, corrupt politicians and those with special interests to protect will become more corrupt, votes will continue to be bought, one set of corrupt politicians is succeeded by another, money-lenders will continue to harass the poor by lending at extortionate rates . . . and so on ad infinitum.

 

Corruption is an insidiously evil disease. Try to redistribute land without first having taken serious measures to tackle corruption, and sadly I can see no way it will succeed. As I said in my last post, the perfect example is The Philippines where corruption remains as bad, if not worse, than here in Thailand, poverty remains endemic to a horrific degree, and the mega-rich landowning clans continue on their merry way amassing even greater riches.

 

A question that inevitably arises is: can any excessively corrupt democratic system deliver greater wealth for the mass of the population? Personally I am pessimistic. I doubt it.

[Guest fountainhall]

Whilst he was in power, that fortune was sufficient to spend several hundred million on a Premiership football club.

In the interest of accuracy, I think we should establish that Thaksin only purchased Manchester City Football Club after he was deposed as Prime Minister. He then had to sell the Club less than a year later when the English Football Association determined that he did not meet the

[Guest fountainhall]

I'll take some of my claim of non-violence back, but you are being a little overzealous, I think.

Personally, I don't think PattayaMale is being over zealous. And with all respect, RichLB, I think you illustrate in your comments in response many of the things which happen when there is a break-down in law and order, however much restraint you think there has been on each side. And when law and order breaks down, all hell can break loose - unless the forces of law and order do their duty and restore that law and order.

 

For example, you seem to suggest kidnapping is acceptable as long as there is no ransom demand. So storming an office and kidnapping the head of a major telecoms corporation is acceptable just because the red shirts want a channel on air again? To me, that is outright hooliganism, a breach of the law and punishable in law.

 

And grenade tossing is acceptable provided it is in to empty premises? What other civil society accepts that without again prosecuting the perpetrators to the full extent of the law?

 

Then there is the issue of 'real' bullets. The question of who attacked whom, who fired real bullets v. who fired blanks etc., will probably continue to be a matter of debate until the real truth finally emerges - if it ever does. I have no knowledge of the police action - and so I take your word for it. But some people in the red shirt mob were firing 'live' rounds? Or did the army kill their own soldiers?

 

You - and the government - talk about "terrorists". That's an easy cop-out, for we all know that "terrorists" is a catch-all description. If it is accurate that "terrorists" have infiltrated the demonstrations and are firing 'live' rounds, if indeed the red shirts are innocent bystanders and if, as you suggest, there is "restraint on both sides", why are the red shirts themselves not controlling and policing their own people more effectively? After all, enough red shirts will have witnessed the shootings and will know who at least some of these supposed "terrorists" are. It would be a simple and effective way of illustrating their wish for non-violent protest by turning these people in. Then again, if the "terrorists" are just red shirt thugs, hiding them in their midst is the obvious tactic. I know what I think!

[Guest RichLB]

Personally, I don't think PattayaMale is being over zealous.

I must not have been as clear as I had hoped. I certainly did not intend to imply that any of the transgressions you mention are acceptable. However, comparing the red shirt protests to those currently in the newsin other countries and which have happened in the US in the past, they seem quite benign, to me. As I follow these events, in over a month there was only one day in which systemic violence broke out - and even that is murky as to who is to blame. I also think it is unfair to blame isolated events (grenade tossing, bullets flying, etc.) as reprentative of either the red shirt "program" or the government "policy". I still feel both sides have shown miraculous restraint in the face of what appears to be an insolvable conflict. But, I again emphasize, ANY violence is unacceptable and I certainly do not intend to endorse it.

[PattayaMale]

Possibly RichLB and I are using different meanings of the word when I wrote terrorize. Maybe this will help us talk about the same thing.

 

upset, threaten

Synonyms: alarm, appall, awe, bludgeon, browbeat, bulldoze, bully, coerce, cow, dismay, dragoon, fright, frighten, hector, horrify, intimidate, menace, oppress, petrify, scare, scare to death, shock, spook, startle, strike terror into, strong-arm, terrify

 

In kidnapping no ransom is necessary. Detain by force should be sufficient.

 

Sharpened bamboo poles are very deadly. Re: Vietnam war

 

The thing that is most surprising to me is the lack of respect for the law and OTHER peoples rights. I believe RichLB is a US citizen. How would the police in Long Beach or Washington DC deal with a group like the Red Shirts if this was happening in USA. Would it be ok to invoke the violent over turn of the US Government?

 

I am not taking the side of Red or Yellow. But the rule of law in Thailand seems to be the rule of the lawless.

[Guest fountainhall]

comparing the red shirt protests to those currently in the newsin other countries and which have happened in the US in the past, they seem quite benign, to me . . . I still feel both sides have shown miraculous restraint in the face of what appears to be an insolvable conflict.

Thanks for the clarification. I am not a US citizen, but to the best of my memory I can't recall any protest in the USA which has virtually paralysed the centre a city for as long as the red shirts have in Bangkok. The civil rights protests in the '60s were certainly widespread, but did not the security forces restore order relatively more quickly in each city?

 

I totally agree with PattayaMale that allowing an unruly mob to continuously assert its rights with seemingly little respect for the law, to say nothing about the rights of other citizens, is quite unacceptable. WIth such major splits within the country, the government, the army and the police, I suspect the country is rapidly becoming ungovernable.

[Guest]

WIth such major splits within the country, the government, the army and the police, I suspect the country is rapidly becoming ungovernable.

 

Thailand could always try the Korean model.

 

The red shirts could create a socialist utopia in the north and the yellow shirts could run a prosperous capitalist economy in the south.

[Guest RichLB]

I am not a US citizen, but to the best of my memory I can't recall any protest in the USA which has virtually paralysed the centre a city for as long as the red shirts have in Bangkok. The civil rights protests in the '60s were certainly widespread, but did not the security forces restore order relatively more quickly in each city?

 

At the risk of betraying myself to be an old codger, in the US protests against what were perceived to be unjust government actions often regressed to violence. One only has to recall the Chicago riots of the 60's, the killing of students at Kent State, etc. And, unfortunately, the civil rights struggle did not resolve itself quickly in any city and resulted in many deaths and lynchings. Back in the Vietnam War days, there were many protests which turned violent when confrontations took place. Hell, in the US we seem to even have riots when a favored football team wins a championship. I'm not trying to denigrate the US (I'm just most familiar with our internal struggles), but applaud Thailand for resisting our example.

[Guest RichLB]

The thing that is most surprising to me is the lack of respect for the law and OTHER peoples rights. I believe RichLB is a US citizen. How would the police in Long Beach or Washington DC deal with a group like the Red Shirts if this was happening in USA. Would it be ok to invoke the violent over turn of the US Government?

 

Ah, there's the rub - respect for the law and other people's rights. It seems to me it is the governemt which has shows a lack of respect for the law. Don't forget, when Abhisit took over he was to hold elections within 6 months. As I remember it, the election took place, the yellow shirt people lost, and then the relection was overturned. New elections were to take place quickly, but they have not To forestall elections because those in power foresee that they will lose that election seems a violation of the people's rights.

 

You go on to ask how people would react in Long Beach or Washngton DC if they believed the government was behaving wrongly. Civil disobedience has been a strategy since the time of Ghandi (and most probably before) and I confess to participating in such demonstrations during the Vietnam era and more recently for lifting the ban against gays in the US military. In one such demonstration we sat in the middle of Wilshire and Westwood Blvd (a busy intersection in the LA area) for hours to express our outrage. You might be reminded of the Stonewall Riats (reputed to be the beginning of the gay rights movement in the US). That, too, turned violent when the police attempted to enforce an unjust law. The entire civil rights movement utilized civil disobedience repeatedly. I can't imagine anyone would insist on African Americans sitting in the back of the bus (as the law demanded) or to sit at a private restaurant's lunch counter (again, as the law permitted). Even the founding fathers in the US proclaimed that when a law is unjust, the citizenry has a responsiblity to defy it (damn, I wish i could rmember who said that!!).

 

I'm certainly not advocating violence - in fact I abhor it - but when those in power refuse to follow the law or create unjust ones, what option other than civil disobedience do the masses have? Like you, I do not take sides on the red vx. yellow shirt issue. I simply do not have the facts enough to know. But, I take exception to the use of hyperbole when an organized group masses to express their grievances.

[Guest fountainhall]

Civil disobedience has been a strategy since the time of Ghandi (and most probably before)

Too true. But you appear to forget that Gandhi preached non-violence, a philosophy ('ahisma') that is, I believe, partly rooted in Buddhism. Ahimsa is the expression of the deepest love for all humans, including one

[PattayaMale]

Ah, there's the rub - respect for the law and other people's rights. It seems to me it is the governemt which has shows a lack of respect for the law. Don't forget, when Abhisit took over he was to hold elections within 6 months. As I remember it, the election took place, the yellow shirt people lost, and then the relection was overturned. New elections were to take place quickly, but they have not To forestall elections because those in power foresee that they will lose that election seems a violation of the people's rights.

 

You go on to ask how people would react in Long Beach or Washngton DC if they believed the government was behaving wrongly. Civil disobedience has been a strategy since the time of Ghandi (and most probably before) and I confess to participating in such demonstrations during the Vietnam era and more recently for lifting the ban against gays in the US military. In one such demonstration we sat in the middle of Wilshire and Westwood Blvd (a busy intersection in the LA area) for hours to express our outrage. You might be reminded of the Stonewall Riats (reputed to be the beginning of the gay rights movement in the US). That, too, turned violent when the police attempted to enforce an unjust law. The entire civil rights movement utilized civil disobedience repeatedly. I can't imagine anyone would insist on African Americans sitting in the back of the bus (as the law demanded) or to sit at a private restaurant's lunch counter (again, as the law permitted). Even the founding fathers in the US proclaimed that when a law is unjust, the citizenry has a responsiblity to defy it (damn, I wish i could rmember who said that!!).

 

I'm certainly not advocating violence - in fact I abhor it - but when those in power refuse to follow the law or create unjust ones, what option other than civil disobedience do the masses have? Like you, I do not take sides on the red vx. yellow shirt issue. I simply do not have the facts enough to know. But, I take exception to the use of hyperbole when an organized group masses to express their grievances.

 

Which of those things you recalled, advocated VIOLENT overthrow of the Government, and also last for months on end? I am very aware of Kent State because I was there. Many of us agreed that the Vietnam War was wrong, and we agreed that the tactics used by fellow students were wrong by looting businesses and burning down campus buildings and cutting fire hoses so fires could not be put out.

 

I participated in 2 very large protests in Washigton DC. The one in 1987 was well over 200,000. We all layed in the streets for 10 minutes in civil disobedience showing those dying of AIDS. The demonstration lasted for 6 days without any call for violence! Those interested may see this link Equal rights

 

When Government Pete Wilson vetoed the Gays right bill I lived in West Hollywood California and marched to the Federal Building and onto UCLA where Wilson was holding a meeting. Never did anyone seek to violently over through the Government.

 

I was a Union activist and on several occasions demonstrated in Los Angeles which blocked streets and expressways. When many of us were arrested we did not use force against the police, we went limp and just made the job to clear us much harder for them.

 

We never attacked the police or military with rocks, bamboo spears, bullets. Nor did we push them and take them prisoner. We practiced civil disobedience.

 

Some people may feel that the poor farmers are rising up. This in my opinion is bullshit. The entire mess has little to do with human rights or justice. In my opinion it is a quest for political power PERIOD! It is all about political FAMILIES (including police and military) trying to line their pockets. This goes for BOTH sides. This crap about Reds seeking justice for the poor vs the aristocrats wanting to keep the farmers poor is given since no one is going to say, "We want to run the Government to make our political families richer".

 

I think that many of us like to pontificate that we are great analyzers of history. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Mandela....civil disobedience..human rights.. peasants..landless farmers..redistribution of wealth..

 

Thailand has a history of doing just what it is doing now. Trying to justify, in the name of the people, who will get the spoils. Busted!!!

 

Where did RichLB find that Abhisit was supposed to have new elections? He is a leader of a collation government. Different parties formed the government and chose him as Prime Minister. Many ministers left what is now the red wing to form a government. There is an opposition party, sort of like the Republican party in the US.

[Guest RichLB]

 

I don

[Guest RichLB]

Which of those things you recalled, advocated VIOLENT overthrow of the Government, and also last for months on end?

I'm not aware that any of them did. However, your implication that the reds are calling for a violent overthrow of the government doesn't reflect anything I've seen or read. Isn't what they are asking for immediate elections (as unrealistic as that may be). The fact that some isolated incidents of force (and that defensive for the most part) have taken place does not, to me, justify labeling the goals of the red shirts as a violent overthrow of the government. If you have read anything supporting this contention, I stand corrected.

 

Apologies for not having figured out how to quote bits and pieces so I'll have to cut and paste.

 

"We never attacked the police or military with rocks, bamboo spears, bullets. Nor did we push them and take them prisoner. We practiced civil disobedience"

 

That is laudable, but were you fired upon with live ammunition, charged with baton wielding flanks of police, or beaten while you laid in the street? Would you have remained so placid? I certainly don't applaud the actions of last Saturday, but to only see one side of that violent day seems very unfair to me.

 

"I think that many of us like to pontificate that we are great analyzers of history. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Mandela....civil disobedience..human rights.. peasants..landless farmers..redistribution of wea"

 

I think so, too. And the truth is, many of the posters here are far better at it than I am and I'm learning a lot from their inputs.

 

"Where did RichLB find that Abhisit was supposed to have new elections? He is a leader of a collation government. Different parties formed the government and chose him as Prime Minister. Many ministers left what is now the red wing to form a government. There is an opposition party, sort of like the Republican party in the US"

 

Am I mistaken? It was my understanding that after Abhisit was installed as Prime Minister he was to hold elections to convene a new parliament. From what I remember those elections were held, but they were nullified due to charges of illegal votes having been cast (in some Isaan communities more votes were cast than there were people living there). To escape prosecution, one of the smaller red shirt parties bolted and joined with the yellow forces to form the current government in a new coalition. At this point, those new election have not taken place. If I am mistaken, and I very well could be, I welcome being educated.

 

I'm afraid I remain impressed by the red shirt leaders and by Abhisits restraint in handling this. I wish I had some magic solution to offer, but being one sided or engaging in hyerbole is certainly not going to resolve anything.

[Guest fountainhall]

Apologies for not having figured out how to quote bits and pieces

When you press the 'Reply' box, you get the full post preceded by an initial line in square brackets - e.g. on this post it looks like this (but with the brackets deleted) -

 

quote name='RichLB' date='17 April 2010 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1271442749' post='35826'

 

- and at the end of the post you have -

 

/quote

 

- also in square brackets.

 

I am sure there is a simpler way, but what I do is first click 'Reply', then immediately copy the whole post once again and insert it after a few line spaces. This I can use for later copying of other points on which I wish to comment. So, first I isolate my first point for reply by deleting the parts I do not need. For replying to second and subsequent points, all you have to do is click and copy that opening line (and the brackets) once again, isolate a point by copying it from the full post you copied earlier, and at the end click and copy /quote in its brackets.

 

FInally, delete that second copy of the post. Hope that works.

[Gaybutton]

Red-Shirts, Yellow-Shirts, Pink-Shirts, Blue-shirts - and now "No Color-Shirts."

__________

 

'No colours' rally against red shirts at army base

 

Published: 17/04/2010

Bangkok Post

 

Thousands of protesters opposed to dissolving parliament have converged on the 11th Infantry Regiment base in a show of moral support for the government and the military.

 

And now they vow to gather at Victory Monument to support the government every day.

 

Friday's rally opposed the demands of the red shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship which has repeatedly called on the Abhisit government to dissolve the lower house.

 

The protesters also called for severe legal action to be taken against the red shirt rally at Ratchaprasong intersection to return peace and normalcy to the capital.

 

'No colours' rally against red shirts at army base

 

__________

 

 

'No colour' group holds out new hope for civil society

 

17/04/2010

Bangkok Post

 

The political impasse presents an opportunity for civil society and business groups to play a larger role in bringing Thailand out of crisis.

 

While civil society groups have existed in Thailand for decades, they were only formalised under the 1997 constitution.

 

These groups provide a channel for people to communicate with the government. Unfortunately, many of them have been weakened and exploited by political influence.

 

This has created a lost opportunity for Thais, especially those in urban areas like Bangkok.

 

'No colour' group holds out new hope for civil society

[Guest fountainhall]

My hope is, though, that by refusing to lay down and accept things as they are might, just might, bring about an end (or at least the beginning of an end) to rampant corruption.

Abhisit is a highly educated individual with considerable knowledge and experience of the political process in Europe and the USA. When he, the Democrats and their shaky coalition assumed power, I hoped he would have the sense to act quickly to address some of the grievances of the poor. After all, isn't a politician's main objective to be reelected? Knowing that Thaksin's money would fund the opposition, he will also have known he needed a substantial chunk of the 'poor' vote by the time of the next election if he had any chance of remaining Prime Minister. After all, unlike the USA, the UK and other democracies where governments are usually elected by a minority of the population, voting in Thailand is compulsory. So the winner should, barring corruption and other influences, truly reflect the will of the people.

 

Maybe Abhisit thought that by holding on long enough and letting the courts do their work, he would finally get rid of the Thaksin problem and emasculate his ability to fund elections and buy votes. If so, then he wildly miscalculated. The few measures that have been adopted to help the poor are just a drop in the ocean, and Thaksin remains like a black storm cloud hovering over the nation.

 

My guess is that the army is about to get tough with the red-shirt demonstrators and there will be further bloodshed. That will immediately lead to the imposition of Martial Law in Bangkok and perhaps elsewhere. Once a fragile order has been restored, Martial law will be lifted and life will slowly return to normal - until, that is, the next general election. In theory this has to be held not later than 4 years from the previous one - so some time in 2011. But unless serious attempts are made before then to resolve some of the major the yellow/red differences, the country will again return to confrontational mode. I really hope I am wrong, but . . . .

 

Bangkok Post

 

The political impasse presents an opportunity for civil society and business groups to play a larger role in bringing Thailand out of crisis.

This really has to be a joke!

[Guest Soi10Tom]

Rather than looking at the in's and out's of the current situation take the long view of Thai history. It seems evident that every time there is an election the poor people win by whatever means and the folks that have run this country for a long time are unhappy with the result of the election. What follow has been quite predictable: by using the courts, some political act of trickery, or by direct intervention of the military the group the won the election is disposed of by the old line rich and powerful. I see this cycle continuing on until there is a decision to actually give democracy a real chance or the military just simply steps in and sets up a military government without using the makeup and mirrors previously use create a democracy in name only as has happened repeatedly in the past.

 

I make no prediction as to how the current situation will play out.

[Guest fountainhall]

I see this cycle continuing on until there is a decision to actually give democracy a real chance

I suspect we all agree with you. But, given the conditions and social divisions in Thailand - including all the endemic corruption and vote buying which we have spent a lot of time discussing on this site - surely the key question is: how on earth do you give "democracy a real chance"? Will you be satisfied with the outcome of corrupt elections? If not, how do you ensure they are 'clean'?

[Guest RichLB]

how do you ensure they are 'clean'?

 

I suppose it's naive of me, but couldn't Thailand ask for international overseeing of the election as has been done in other countries where rampant voting fraud is anticipated? I assume this would be such a loss of face the request would never be made, but it might be a way to molify accusations of election fraud.

[Guest fountainhall]

I suppose it's naive of me, but couldn't Thailand ask for international overseeing of the election as has been done in other countries where rampant voting fraud is anticipated? I assume this would be such a loss of face the request would never be made, but it might be a way to molify accusations of election fraud.

It's not just loss of face. There are at least 2 other reasons I cannot see it working -

 

1. The fat-cat politicians who'd lose the most would oppose it with as much force as they could muster.

2. International election monitors can only oversee the election process - i.e making sure the ballot boxes are not stuffed or tampered with, and the vote count has no irregularities. How can they monitor bribes paid before or after the election to millions to secure their votes? No-one can - unless there are enough honest people around to blow lots of whistles.

[Guest fountainhall]

A new and curious twist in the protests! According to AFP, red shirt leader Nattawut Saikuar has said: "On May 15, 24 of us will surrender. All of the leaders. We'll surrender and ask for bail. For now the 24 of us will keep rallying to show sincerely that we won't run away," Nattawut said, without explaining the reason for the planned timing of the leaders' surrender.

 

I wonder if this is a move to fend off further action by the military?

[Guest fountainhall]

Those who do not live in Thailand may be suffering from overload at the constant talk of corruption in the Kingdom, perhaps doubting that it can really be

[Guest RichLB]

There is no argument that corruption is rampant in Thailand. Even we farang participate in this - or at least I have. When stopped for a traffic ticket, I much prefer handing the police 200 to 500 baht rather than go through the hassle of getting a real ticket and dealing with it. If such bribes were offered in the US, you'd be in serious trouble. I'm sure there are many other examples, but the point is, it's not only the Thais who take advantage of corruption, it's all of us.