It Ain't Over 'Till It's Over

[Gaybutton]

After yesterday's announcements that the Red-Shirts have accepted the Prime Minister's peace proposals, many of us breathed a big sigh of relief. Unfortunately, the first thing I'm seeing in the morning news is that sigh of relief turns out to be somewhat premature. The Red-Shirts have set conditions for full acceptance and have made it clear that the protests will continue until the Red-Shirt leadership is satisfied.

____________________

 

Acceptable if...

 

By The Nation

Published on May 5, 2010

 

Leaders of the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) appear ready to accept Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's five-point road map for national reconciliation, but have set the following conditions:

 

DAAD CHAIRMAN VEERA MUSIGAPONG

 

 The government must set a clear date for the dissolution of Parliament. The November 14 elections, as set by Abhisit, might not be correct because polls come under the authority of the Election Commission.

 

 To show its sincerity, the government must stop making threats.

 

 Red-shirt leaders do not need an amnesty for terrorism and lese majeste charges.

 

 The government must stop dragging the monarchy into political conflicts.

 

DAAD SECRETARY-GENERAL NATTHAWUT SAIKUA

 

 The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) must take over all cases involving incidents on April 10, 22 and 28.

 

 If arrest warrants are issued for red-shirt leaders over charges of terrorism and lese majeste, the DSI should also issue warrants for those who killed protesters in the three bloody incidents, because "equality is the beginning of reconciliation".

 

 The government should return basic rights to the citizens such as the freedom of movement, expression and the right to know. It was unfair that the government had the armed forces and the freedom to distort information, while the red shirts had nothing.

 

PROTEST LEADER JATUPORN PROMPHAN

 

 The DSI should also charge the yellow-shirt group, which had earlier closed Bangkok airports, on counts of terrorism and lese majeste.

 

 The red-shirt protesters reserve the right to continue their rally in the heart of the capital until Abhisit announces the date for House dissolution.

 

ARISMAN PONGRUANRONG

 The government should reopen all red-shirt media outlets and give the movement freedom of communication.

 

Acceptable if...

[Guest RichLB]

Gee, I'm surprised. Without really knowing all the subtleties of these conditions, they all sound pretty reasonable to me, except for maybe wishing to continue congrgating until a date certain is set for the dissolution of parliament. The bottom line is thank god it appears on the way to resolution and many of our worst fears did not come to pass.

[Guest GaySacGuy]

It is really too bad that these "leaders" of the red shirts aren't leaders!! They are stalling the end of the demonstration, for what IMHO is their own personal need and greed.

 

From ThaiVisa this morning:

 

Reds to stay put, for now

By The Nation

 

Secret negotiations stall over amnesty for banned politicians; DAAD wants details of plan before ending protest

 

BANGKOK: -- The red shirts yesterday said they would continue their protest in the Rajprasong business area until they obtained all the details of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's road map for national reconciliation.

 

They want this to include an amnesty from all charges and a clear stance on the road map from the ruling Democrat Party and its coalition partners.

 

"The government still poses a threat to us while the prime minister talks about reconciliation," said red leader Natthawut Saikua.

 

Reconciliation cannot happen in this tense atmosphere, he said.

 

"Even militants in the restive South have never been charged with terrorism. May I ask why the government charged nine red leaders as terrorists?" he asked. "Prime Minister Abhisit should take time to reconsider this matter."

 

See the complete post at:

Bangkok Red-Shirt Rally - Live Thursday - Thailand Forum

 

 

I bet the real sticking point is amnesty for all the leaders...this is what they really want now that they have acted like common criminals, including major weapon charges!!

[Guest]

The red shirts yesterday said they would continue their protest in the Rajprasong business area until they obtained all the details of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's road map for national reconciliation.

 

They want this to include an amnesty from all charges and a clear stance on the road map from the ruling Democrat Party and its coalition partners.

 

"The government still poses a threat to us while the prime minister talks about reconciliation," said red leader Natthawut Saikua.

 

Do you really blame them for this? The current opposition leaders are not the most trustworthy group. In a negotiation for anything, do you jump ship before you know EXACTLY what is going to happen? Do you rely on promises and handshakes?

[Guest joseph44]

What a bunch of twats!

Just shoot them all and if possible today!! (the reds)

[Guest RichLB]

Ok, Joseph44, now that it appears to be winding down, I'm curious which of the STATED objectives of the red shirts did you find so objectionable? There were lots of rumors reported as facts in the press, but in listening to their presentations on TV and hearing pundits I didn't find them over the edge.

 

Perhaps it was their method to get change accomplished. After wating two years - and several decades before that - to have their grievances addressed I wonder what other option they had except public demonstrations. I certainly don't support any violence they may or may not have instigated, but with so many thousands of citizens congregating to express their anger, it surprised me they were so constrained. If you had been in their shoes, what would you have done?

[Guest GaySacGuy]

I certainly don't support any violence they may or may not have instigated, but with so many thousands of citizens congregating to express their anger, it surprised me they were so constrained. If you had been in their shoes, what would you have done?

 

 

These "thousands of citizens" weren't there to express their anger...they were there to make money, and to try to get more money flowing to the rural areas. These citizens were being paid more to demonstrate than they could ever hope to make in their villages. And, not withstanding some violent interruptions, they were enjoying a party like atmosphere in their demonstration area.

 

The red shirts also know, that had the rains come to Issan, and rice planting started in mass, there would have been fewer and fewer demonstrators staying in Bangkok.

[Guest RichLB]

These "thousands of citizens" weren't there to express their anger...they were there to make money, and to try to get more money flowing to the rural areas.

 

I am sure many were paid, but I know several Thais who participated out of conviction and they were not paid. I would still like to know what grievances they espressed that those opposed to the red shirts found objectionable. Getting side tracked on paid/not paid, 100,000 or 10,000, who started the violence on April 10, etc. seem to be red herrings to me. What is it that people other than the entrenched power base did detractors find unreasonable?

[mahjongguy]

What is it that people other than the entrenched power base did detractors find unreasonable?

My #1 complaint: the hypocrisy of their whining in English about "we are peaceful protestors and the gov't wants to murder us" when their Chief of Security is bragging in Thai about how much military hardware he has at his command. I think their current campaign would have accomplished a lot more had the leaders not allowed (and not participated in) so much hateful posturing.

[Guest RichLB]

My #1 complaint: the hypocrisy of their whining in English about "we are peaceful protestors and the gov't wants to murder us"

I did see the first part of your quote, but as much as I followed the events on TV I must have missed the second part. But, since you are addressing the rhetoric of the red shirts and not their grievances, shll I assume you are in accord with them?

By the way, if you wish to castigate their methodology, I think you can do even better than their slogans. I thought the blood tossing and the hospital invasion was stupid and did little to further their cause. But, I still want to know what it is they want (wanted?) that those opposed object to.

[mahjongguy]

I did see the first part of your quote, but as much as I followed the events on TV I must have missed the second part.

What TV were you watching? Listening to what the red leaders said from on stage on the People's Channel was chilling. Holding up a picture of Abhisit and saying "someone must kill this man".

But, since you are addressing the rhetoric of the red shirts and not their grievances, shll I assume you are in accord with them?

I was hoping that the red shirts would stubbornly and peacefully insist on legislation that would tilt the economic balance towards fair treatment of all classes. But the only real agenda they articulated was revenge towards those who chased Thaksin away.

...I still want to know what it is they want (wanted?) that those opposed object to.

Again, they didn't call for legislation, only for re-installment of their legislators. So, for me, it was about power, not about change. It was about how defiantly they could break the law, not about new laws that they wanted to see implemented.

 

The good news, I like to believe, is that over time this movement may actually evolve into a positive force for Thai society, but first the leaders need to figure out what they want instead of just what they hate.

[PattayaMale]

Ok, Joseph44, now that it appears to be winding down, I'm curious which of the STATED objectives of the red shirts did you find so objectionable? There were lots of rumors reported as facts in the press, but in listening to their presentations on TV and hearing pundits I didn't find them over the edge.

 

Perhaps it was their method to get change accomplished. After wating two years - and several decades before that - to have their grievances addressed I wonder what other option they had except public demonstrations. I certainly don't support any violence they may or may not have instigated, but with so many thousands of citizens congregating to express their anger, it surprised me they were so constrained. If you had been in their shoes, what would you have done?

 

When considering "STATED" objectives, I am not a big believer that politicians/protesters are straight shooters. I think it is a little like being told the "tooth fairy" will bring me money if I put my tooth under my pillow.

 

I believe ALL poor people of the world deserve a better life, not just Thais. I think it is a good goal to preach and believe in. But those here in Thailand that are so concerned, do they tip the waiter 20% of the restaurant bill; pay the taxi driver the same as when being transported in Los Angeles, give their "boy friend" of that night 4000 - 9000 baht (equivalent of New York) or even pay the London price of an apartment or dinner in Paris, pay higher taxes so that the poor can have the benefits provided by many other US or European countries.

 

The question as to why the protesters were in Bangkok for so long has not really been answered. Most were paid. In California we have petitions gatherers that may even oppose what they are trying to get people to sign up for but get paid for each signature. Sometimes those signatures are forged.

 

I still maintain, that this is NOT about helping the poor as some posters proclaim. It is all about power and enhancing one's own wealth, just as the policeman pays large sums of money to get a better position. Does anyone believe that some one would pay several million baht to become police chief in Pattaya just because they want to "serve and protect"??

[Bob]

I believe ALL poor people of the world deserve a better life, not just Thais. I think it is a good goal to preach and believe in. But those here in Thailand that are so concerned, do they tip the waiter 20% of the restaurant bill; pay the taxi driver the same as when being transported in Los Angeles, give their "boy friend" of that night 4000 - 9000 baht (equivalent of New York) or even pay the London price of an apartment or dinner in Paris, pay higher taxes so that the poor can have the benefits provided by many other US or European countries.

 

Huh? Quite a load of non-sequiturs, Khun PM. Somehow you are suggesting that a person has no concern for the poor of a given country unless he behaves and pays the same as he would do in another country? Rather illogical nexus in my view.

 

You also suggest that all of this is about "power and enhancing one's wealth" right after you say that this is "NOT about helping the poor!" Again, your logic in part escapes me. The rural poor, who are powerless and obviously without wealth, are struggling to get a piece of the action - and they happened to like Thaksin as he (a corrupt politician just like the rest of them) was the first national politician to ever do anything for them. There are others, the so-called amataya who are generally championed by the yellow-shirts and PAD, who don't want to lose any of their power and wealth and certainly do want to rural poor to stay on the farm and out of their business of controlling everything (including, obviously, electing national leaders when one of the PAD's primary tenets is that one house of parliament should be 70% appointed by the elite and not elected by those unwashed and ignorant rice farmers).

 

I agree that most of what's been happening in Thailand is all about a background struggle for power and money (and it's been going on in the Land of Smiles forever and, I'd note, is somewhat the common theme in most if not all other countries). If you would include in your concept of "helping the poor" that they ought to have the right to vote for their leaders and also have a right to an equal share of the wealth of the country, then I don't agree with your premise at all.

[PattayaMale]

Huh? Quite a load of non-sequiturs, Khun PM. Somehow you are suggesting that a person has no concern for the poor of a given country unless he behaves and pays the same as he would do in another country? Rather illogical nexus in my view.

 

You also suggest that all of this is about "power and enhancing one's wealth" right after you say that this is "NOT about helping the poor!" Again, your logic in part escapes me. The rural poor, who are powerless and obviously without wealth, are struggling to get a piece of the action - and they happened to like Thaksin as he (a corrupt politician just like the rest of them) was the first national politician to ever do anything for them. There are others, the so-called amataya who are generally championed by the yellow-shirts and PAD, who don't want to lose any of their power and wealth and certainly do want to rural poor to stay on the farm and out of their business of controlling everything (including, obviously, electing national leaders when one of the PAD's primary tenets is that one house of parliament should be 70% appointed by the elite and not elected by those unwashed and ignorant rice farmers).

 

I agree that most of what's been happening in Thailand is all about a background struggle for power and money (and it's been going on in the Land of Smiles forever and, I'd note, is somewhat the common theme in most if not all other countries). If you would include in your concept of "helping the poor" that they ought to have the right to vote for their leaders and also have a right to an equal share of the wealth of the country, then I don't agree with your premise at all.

 

Sometimes what I think and how I state it maybe confusing to some. But what you said I meant is not true. I don't deny people of some wealth may be sympathetic to the plight of the poor. However, many of us benefit from the current system. And I believe that it is easy to talk about solutions when there is no cost to us personally.

 

Some may talk about the difference between Reds and Yellows. But aren't there really more layers than that? How about the military...which seems to be the real seat of power?

 

Does anyone really think that this struggle will be over soon? As was said by Bob this has been going on in the Land of Smiles forever.

[Guest RichLB]

What TV were you watching? Listening to what the red leaders said from on stage on the People's Channel was chilling. Holding up a picture of Abhisit and saying "someone must kill this man".

 

Well, I was listening to the same TV station as you were. I never saw such a sign, but was not glued to it 100 percent of the time. I did listen to the speakers and they, to a man, either said or implied their demand for non-violence.

[Guest RichLB]

When considering "STATED" objectives, I am not a big believer that politicians/protesters are straight shooters. I think it is a little like being told the "tooth fairy" will bring me money if I put my tooth under my pillow.

 

Agreed and I assume most of the red shirt leaders feel the same way. I suggest this is why they have remained until some concrete action and dates of compliance are established to avoid looking under the pillow and finding the tooth still there.

 

I believe ALL poor people of the world deserve a better life, not just Thais. I think it is a good goal to preach and believe in. But those here in Thailand that are so concerned, do they tip the waiter 20% of the restaurant bill; pay the taxi driver the same as when being transported in Los Angeles, give their "boy friend" of that night 4000 - 9000 baht (equivalent of New York) or even pay the London price of an apartment or dinner in Paris, pay higher taxes so that the poor can have the benefits provided by many other US or European countries.

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of what you've written. Are you suggesting that those who do not abide by the spending habits of their home country when in Thailand are somehow unconcerned with the welfare of those less fortunate? If so, I fail to see the logic of your thinking.

 

The question as to why the protesters were in Bangkok for so long has not really been answered. Most were paid. .

While some were undoubtedly reimbursed, I don't think the assertion that "most were paid" is supportable. Do you have any evidence for this?

 

I still maintain, that this is NOT about helping the poor as some posters proclaim. It is all about power and enhancing one's own wealth,

I don't think anyone has claimed that the red shirts are about some altruistic "helping the poor". My belief is that the rural poor, having had a taste of some benefits from government under Taksin, merely want their share of the pie. The sorry truth is that if valid elections are held the reds have the advantage of numbers and the current balance of power will shift. It seems to me that the prolonged demonstrations were/are a means of throwing down the gauntlet and demanding that the government represent all the people and not just those with traditional power. Unfortunately, I'm not real optimistic that the reds will be any more even handed in runnng the country than the yellows have been.

[Bob]

And I believe that it is easy to talk about solutions when there is no cost to us personally.

 

I understand and agree in part with your concerns.

 

I see no reason why we can't talk about it - understanding we're not part of it and we very likely can't understand it in the way many Thais do - and not incur any responsibility to pay for it. I'm fairly certain Thais in recent days have talked about the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but I see no basis to suggest it ought to cost them something (or, more pointedly, to tell them that: you know, it's easy for you to talk about it when it doesn't cost you anything).

 

We're falang (most of us are, I think) who are reacting to and chatting about the goofiness happening in Thai society and politics. As long as we remember that we're non-participants and our cultural backgrounds color our views, I see no reason to feel guilty in any sense that it doesn't cost us anything. That lack of cost, financial or otherwise, doesn't logically indicate in my view that any of the views expressed in the forums by falang are either easy (whatever that means) or less valid.

[Guest fountainhall]

While some were undoubtedly reimbursed, I don't think the assertion that "most were paid" is supportable. Do you have any evidence for this?

I have evidence from friends whose employee quit and told them he was going so he "could earn Bt. 1,000 per day". And unlike many posters here, I spent a couple of hours walking through the red-shirts encampment only 3 weeks ago. I saw hundreds of new demonstrators lining up at the registration booth where their names and ID numbers were being recorded and money paid over. I saw it! Of course, I can not definitely deduce from that that "most were paid". But if new recruits were being paid, I think it would take a huge leap of something or other to even consider that those who had been there longer received lesser conditions of payment. I have zero doubt that "most" were indeed paid.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the red shirts, I maintain that what has been done in Bangkok should never have been tolerated. OK, some posters think the red shirts are fighting for the rights of the poor. That's fine with me. But to do so and at the same time close off a huge chunk of the city centre for many weeks, cause incalculable damage to the overall economy, ensure that tens of thousands of employees who are just trying to make a living and normally work in that area have either been thrown out of work or are on unpaid leave, or whose small businesses - like that of a young Thai friend of mine - are on the verge of bankruptcy just because they happen to be located on the perimeter of a fortified fortress-like barrier and get no customers, is totally unjustifiable - under any circumstances.

 

None of this has much to do with democracy in a country where corruption ensures that few really understand what democracy means. The red shirts are a disgrace - as were the yellow ones before them. The government for its inaction and utter stupidity in allowing things to get this far is a disgrace. The security forces which have been fighting each other are a disgrace. And not to acknowledge these failings is a disgrace!

[Guest RichLB]

 

None of this has much to do with democracy in a country where corruption ensures that few really understand what democracy means. The red shirts are a disgrace - as were the yellow ones before them. The government for its inaction and utter stupidity in allowing things to get this far is a disgrace. The security forces which have been fighting each other are a disgrace. And not to acknowledge these failings is a disgrace!

Surpringly enough, I tend to agree with you. Hell, if I remember the election of Bush vs. Gore. Democracy doesn't even seem to work well in the US. But, this brings me back to my original question. If, for the sake of argument, you and all those you knew believed that you were systematically being deprived of your rights (election results voided, promised infrastructure improvements never begun, large corporations being allowed to contaminate rice fields with their industrial run off, etc.) what would you do? In addition, if even the lowest paying jobs were being taken by illegal aliens from Myanmar, Laos, or Cambodia with no government intervention, the teachers in your school were barely literate, and darkend skin shut you out of meaningful employment regardless of educational achievements, what would you do?

 

Sure, the red shirt's demonstrations disrupted the lives of a lot of people, but how long would you suggest they sit in the back of the bus and accept the status quo? I don't applaud their actions, but in answer to my own question, I don't know what else I would do except protest and demonstrate. What else would you suggest?

[Bob]

The government for its inaction and utter stupidity in allowing things to get this far is a disgrace.

 

 

From a westerner government's point of view, of course you're right. Yet, the events of the 1976 Bangkok student "massacre" and the firing on the Bangkok protestors in 1992 remain deeply ingrained in the Thai psyche - and help explain the government's inability to do anything meaningful. The condemnations for those actions were sustained and deeply etched into Thai society and they just can't handle a repeat of that.

 

And, of course, they did nothing when the yellow shirts took over Government House for months and essentially nothing when they took over Suvarnabhumi. Asking them to all of a sudden change their modus operandi is asking a bit much. Plus, it could be argued that the current protestors have been led to believe by prior inactions that they could get away with just about anything and it might be a bit "unfair" to change the ground rules just because of the color of their shirts.

 

Hell, they still haven't tried anybody for the Suvarnabhumi takeover!

 

Seems like nothing changes (I'm not happy about it but, then again, it's not my country or psyche we're talking about).

[Guest]

Some very good points by Bob. Not prosecuting people for previous disruptive occupation of premises such as the airport encourages other people to try the same tactics.

[Smiles]

" ... None of this has much to do with democracy in a country where corruption ensures that few really understand what democracy means. The red shirts are a disgrace - as were the yellow ones before them. The government for its inaction and utter stupidity in allowing things to get this far is a disgrace. The security forces which have been fighting each other are a disgrace. And not to acknowledge these failings is a disgrace! ... "

Very much agree with Fountainhead, as well as his concise way of putting it: a proverbial nutshell.

 

One point though: Abhisit has always struck me as a very weak and do-nothing Prime Minister. Let's face it, he's had over a year to "do something" vis-a-vis his party's very low popularity in the entire North and North East area of Thailand but has stupidly neglected doing that kind of leg work. He's squandered a political opportunity and he'll probably pay for that whenever the next election is held ... and his inaction in this area was so lazy, and ultimately self defeating.

 

However, I don't think he gets quite enough credit for his wary and careful tip-toeing through the maze of complication and chaos surrounding this whole red shirt occupation of the very heart of Bangkok . . . that is to say, the underlying possibility ~ close to the surface ~ that things could go incredibly wrong at some level on the street and end up blowing up into a Thai version of Tienanmen Square. If there was an "above all" scenario in this whole coloured-shirt debacle it was that that horrible disastrous result did NOT happen.

Twenty seven Thai (and foreign) folks have lost their lives, but it could have been much much worse. Perhaps Abhisit, with his seeming 'take it slow' reactions to some very dramatic provocations deserves some decent amount of credit that a doomsday scenario on the Chinese scale has been avoided.

 

I do agree with Fountainhead that there is a lot of shameful behavior from both sides ~ often inexplicable (to 'western' opinion) ~ which has happened here over the last two months on all sides. The reds, the yellows, the government, the police and army, should be down on their knees now apologizing to the Thai people as a whole.

Bjut we all know that's not going to happen.

[Guest fountainhall]

Not prosecuting people for previous disruptive occupation of premises such as the airport encourages other people to try the same tactics.

I totally agree that the present government really should have done far more in this respect.

 

I don't applaud their actions, but in answer to my own question, I don't know what else I would do except protest and demonstrate. What else would you suggest?

I guess it's a Catch-22 situation. Personally I don't know. But I still maintain that paralysing the centre of a major capital city and doing all I mentioned in my earlier post is unacceptable and disgraceful. There have to be limits as to what type of protests are permissible and can be tolerated. If not, you end up with chaos - which is the state we are rapidly approaching.

[Guest fountainhall]

I'm coming back briefly to this topic which resulted in a considerable correspondence last month - the issue of the red-shirts protests being primarily a spontaneous uprising, or much more a movement paid for and funded by parties far more interested in their own personal power (or more or less that theme, in a nutshell).

 

A number of posters claimed that there was no evidence of payments to large groups of protestors, as in this from RichLB -

 

While some were undoubtedly reimbursed, I don't think the assertion that "most were paid" is supportable. Do you have any evidence for this?

I claimed on more than one thread that most were paid and that I had seen protesters lining up for payments within their camp. As to amounts, I said this -

 

I have evidence from friends whose employee quit and told them he was going so he "could earn Bt. 1,000 per day"

PattayaMale agreed on the payments issue-

 

The question as to why the protesters were in Bangkok for so long has not really been answered. Most were paid.

Those who doubted the payment issue might perhaps take a look at the front page article in this morning's Bangkok Post which starts -

 

Billions of baht were withdrawn from the accounts of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's family during the recent anti-government protests, the Department of Special Investigation has found

Rally billions uncovered

 

Do I believe everything I read in the Thai media? Absolutely not! Do I believe the sums listed in the newspaper are accurate? Almost certainly, yes, for it would be far too easy to disprove such allegations. Deposits of Bt. 17 billion into the Shinawatra children's accounts when they are already hugely wealthy individuals does reek of something in my view. As does withdrawals of more than Bt. 15 billion from the accounts of the children and Thaksin's brother-in-law starting from April 28.

 

Of what does it reek? Corruption of some description comes most immediately to mind. For what reason? I can prove nothing. But it is yet further evidence that the protests would not have happened as they did without the Shinawatra billions.

[Bob]

I remain a strong believer in the concept noted by Smiles and others that it's painfully obvious that we falang have difficulty understanding the Thai political psyche. But I also happen to believe, rather strongly, that it's much too simplistic to put this whole thing down to Shinawatra or some people being "paid" to protest.

 

For those that haven't, I continue to recommend the reading of Wyatt's history of Thailand and Hadley's "The King Never Smiles." Both books are filled with a very long history of one group using the "anti-monarchy" label to attack others politically and a history of the relationship of the north and Isaan peoples with their Bangkokian rulers.

In my view, that history (along, of course, with the more recent history of the yellow shirts and the government's reaction or non-reaction to that mess) provides one with a perspective to understand at least a little better what's going on now.