Should Prime Minister Abhisit Step Down?

[TotallyOz]

The street riots which culminated with the arson of Bangkok's central business district have been put down as inevitable. Both the ragtag red shirts' perpetrators of violence and the more organised armed "men in black" were no match for a uniformed army supported by armoured columns in the end.

 

The 70-odd death toll so far from the Ratchaprasong-centred protests over the last two months exceeds each of the previous crises - the entwined Octobers of 1973 and 1976 and the straightforward pro-democracy uprising in May 1992.

 

On the other hand, the arson attacks have set back the Bangkok-concentrated capitalist boom by at least a decade. The symbolic damage could be more costly as the knock-on effects on tourism and investment come to the fore.

 

While all stakeholders assess the mounting costs, several troubling questions warrant clarity in the days during the immediate aftermath of the Ratchaprasong rage and rampage.

 

First, had the various peace overtures run their course? On the eve of the crackdown, a senate-sponsored peace deal appeared in the works. Leading senators were shown on state-run and army-owned television stations in discussion with the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.

 

Perhaps the UDD hardliners hijacked and vetoed the negotiations. Perhaps convicted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra told the UDD hardliners loyal to him to pull the plug. Perhaps the rank-and-file protesters at Ratchaprasong were intransigent to any deal, having been indoctrinated day in and day out on the stage rhetoric of social injustice and al leged murders of their fellow demonstrators from the April 10 clash.

 

But it was clear that the UDD moderates were intent on standing down. Might more time allotted to them for persuasion of their crowds and bargaining with their opposing hardliners have helped bring a peaceful way out?

 

And the failures of earlier olive branches need to be explained.

 

What happened to the promising negotiations brokered by Bangkok Governor MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra? Was it scuttled by the Thaksin hardliners, rejected by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, or both? Mr Abhisit came up with a five-point peace proposal with a concrete election timetable for November polls just two weeks before street riots spiralled out of control. This proposal was accepted by the UDD with the additional condition that Deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban turn himself in to police to own up to the civilian deaths on April 10.

 

Why did Mr Suthep surrender to the Department of Special Investigations instead of to the police when he was certain to be freed because no charges had been filed against him? Such gamesmanship and leveraging between the two sides have incurred sombre costs in the streets of Bangkok. And why did PM Abhisit withdraw his peace offer and election timetable if he was intent on finding a peaceful exit out of the brinkmanship? This reversal may have strengthened the hand of UDD hardliners and tipped the balance among the UDD leadership towards a more violent outcome.

 

Second, should the Abhisit government preside over what its finance minister calls a "healing process" when it has been party to the conflict and is culpable for the dead and injured?

 

Early government noises suggest more pacification policies and campaigns to placate the reds in the countryside. But we have been here before. After the Songkran riots in April 2009, Mr Abhisit pledged reconciliation and reform. The consequent recommendations for con stitutional amendments came to naught. Further antagonism and alienation of the reds have partly brought on the Ratchaprasong protests. He and his government had the entire year in 2009 to bridge the divide and bring the red shirts on side, but the result has been the opposite. What can the Abhisit government do this time that they did not do after the reds' rioted in April 2009?

 

Third, what now happens to the reds? Having been forcefully dispersed and roundly condemned for the burning of Bangkok, will the rank-and-file reds simp ly go home and sit quietly? For the reds, nothing has changed. They rioted then and now in April 2009 and May 2010. Their grievances remain unaddressed. What they see as injustice, including their systematic disenfranchisement through the judicial dissolutions of their poll-winning parties not once but twice, the banning of their politicians, and the street-based ouster of their elected governments in 2008, persists. Will these claims of injustice be accommodated by the pro-Abhisit coalition? If not, will the reds come to Bangkok in rage again? Or will they resort to underground activities, including an overtly armed insurgency, and establish their own Thailand away from Bangkok in enclaves of the North and Northeast?

 

Finally, will the arson and looting of the capital be condemned as vehemently in the North and Northeast as in Bangkok? Will the net effect from the protest and crackdown further divide or begin to reconcile Thai society? More questions will emerge while answers will be hard to come by. Picking up the pieces from the last two months will be arduous, and this is all just a beginning.

 

In the eyes of Bangkokians, the reds are disgraced yet again. But the reds may not care because they no longer accept the Thai state such as it is and the political system it upholds, because the system is seen as rigged and stacked against them.

 

The onus rests squarely now on the Abhisit government to bring the reds back into the fold beyond Thaksin. Lumping all the reds under Thaksin's long and manipulative tentacles has been a mistake all along. Accommodating the rank-and-file reds and working with their more moderate leaders, including some of the banned politicians from 2007, may offer a way to bypass Thaksin.

 

If Mr Abhisit is too compromised and tainted for this task, he should consider his position and make a personal sacrifice to enable others to be put in place for the healing to take place.

 

Troubling questions after Operation Ratchaprasong

[macaroni21]

A refreshingly forthright op-ed posing very good questions. I fear though that the present government is not capable of doing anything more than cosmetic in its own reconciliation plan. And then, as the article says, it will bubble up again.

[Guest]

Mr Abhisit needs to stay put and show some leadership.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I agree with Z909. He needs to initiate some healing of the inequality and afford opportunities for the less fortunate. I think he also needs to ask whatever country the former PM happens to be in for extradition of the convicted felon to stop him meddling and inciting and funding riots.

[KhorTose]

He should go, and I think he will as the real powers need a scapegoat.

[Guest joseph44]

Abhisit should stay on and finish his job.

Restore order and prepare Thailand for the next elections in 2011 or 2012.

 

He might be partly responsible for what has happened, but given the circumstances he did pretty well in not giving in on the protesters demands.

[Gaybutton]

I don't know whether he ought to stay or go. The easiest thing in the world is to look back after it is essentially over and say this is what he should or should not have done. To me, if there are any "should haves" to be discussed, then formal negotiations with non-binding arbitration should have taken place to start with, before the riots.

 

What has been the result? Downtown Bangkok has been destroyed. Many people killed, injured, and arrested. Soldiers forced to attack their own people. Hatreds, resentment, and ill-feeling now seething just like a volcano that erupted, settled down, but is on the verge of erupting again. You actually have to be careful about what color shirt you wear, for crying out loud. Businesses and jobs lost. Tourism nearly destroyed.

 

And for what? I don't see how either the Red-Shirts or the government is any better off now than they were before this whole madness got started. I also don't see any of this as having paved the way toward reconciliation.

 

I'm already hearing hints that the Red-Shirts may be planning even more protests. That is currently in the rumor mill, but would anyone truly be surprised if more trouble starts up, and soon?

 

Other than destruction, lives lost, livelihoods lost, major financial loss, and Thailand's reputation as a wonderful holiday destination close to destroyed, what has been accomplished? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.

[Guest]

I'm already hearing hints that the Red-Shirts may be planning even more protests.

 

If these protests go any further than a civilised walk in the park, then the government should clamp down on them immediately.

Disruption of other peoples lives, businesses and hospitals plus of course all the arson & vandalism should not be tolerated.

[Guest fountainhall]

He should go, and I think he will as the real powers need a scapegoat.

This was the conclusion of a long and very different article in this morning's South China Morning Post in Hong Kong. Sorry I cannot find it on-line but it indicated that Abhisit will not last long. He will either be shoved out by some of his coalition partners or be made to carry the can for the bloodshed.

[Bob]

He should go, and I think he will as the real powers need a scapegoat.

 

As you and others suggest, Abhisit will likely go if and when others decide that for him.

 

What's puzzling and "inscrutable" to me is how there has seemed to be a total failure of governance over the years, especially since the coup. It seems like a rudderless ship and I haven't read a single article about a single Thai politician (dressed in a suit, a military uniform, or one of those silly imitation military uniforms) who seemingly has stood up and expressed any clue about any long-term vision for this country. It's almost as if every day is some juvenile experiment in how to run a country. And doing nothing* seems to be the national sport.

 

Sometimes I think a group of cub scouts could run this country better than what I've witnessed for years.

 

(*a few examples: essentially doing nothing when a group takes over Government House or later takes over your one and only international airport, doing nothing when it's found out that the coup-appointed prime minister and several other higher-ups have essentially stolen state lands, doing nothing about the redshirt build-up until long after it's an accomplished fact and too dangerous to deal with at that point, etc., etc...)

[Guest rpt777]

He should be tried in an International Court for murder

[Guest aot87]

1 person could have stopped all this trouble

[Guest cdnmatt]

Absolutely not. Abhisit can not stand down. If he steps down, that tells everyone in Thailand, and the rest of the world, that the ruthless mob rules this country. Not to mention, after watching how Abhisit handled this crisis, I now have nothing but respect for him.

 

A couple notes though:

 

One thing I don't understand is, why hasn't Abhisit and all coalition leaders stood behind a TV camera together yet? Generally when something like this breaks out in any country, there's a big media show, with many leaders in front of the camera to show unity and resolve. Why didn't this happen during the protests? Media reports say they're all together, but why didn't they show it?

 

Second, some farangs in Thailand are so unbelievably hypocritical, it's laughable. Some aer even saying Abhisit should be tried for war crimes in the ICC. All the while, if the same protests happened in their home country, they wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if the police cracked a few heads open.

[pong]

you all seem to assume that he will be carrying on, unless some farang tell him to stop?

Just think first of this: Will Thaksin now give up or keep on spending millions of THB via whatever means to restart the next uprising? Its abundantly clear that Thaksin is the main foe of khun Abhisit.

The BKK democrat rumour mill says this:

a.that khun Abhisit felt enormously cheated by getting lured in such a difficult job

b.that he was several times at the verge of stepping down and simply going away-and had to be kept going on by others

c.but that he would really like a big clean up of police-but realises very much that if that would be done-he would create a few dozen of utmost revengeful and very mean mid-age male persons going after him as the culprit.

[Guest]

you all seem to assume that he will be carrying on, unless some farang tell him to stop?

 

It is quite obvious to me that politicians in Thailand do not listen to anyone that isn't of Thai blood. Abhisit will not listen to any foreigner and I don't think he has to.

 

However, I do think he should do what is best for the entire country and not just himself, his party, or those he is aligned with. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

[KhorTose]

All the while, if the same protests happened in their home country, they wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if the police cracked a few heads open.

 

Really???? I cannot speak for every country, only America. However, each and every Western country does have similar examples. All America lost sleep during the Boston massacre and we ended up with a new nation. All America lost sleep during the slave revolts led by Prosser, Vesey, and Nat Turner, and we ended slavery. In fact, the Turner revolt was a contributing factor to Britain's outlawing slavery. All America lost sleep during the Haymarket riots and we ended up with labor unions. All America lost sleep during the march on Selma and the other civil rights riots, and we passed the civil rights act. All America lost sleep during the Chicago riots and the Kent state Massacre and we finally got out of the war we could not win. Finally closer to home, all America lost sleep during the riots at Stonewall in New york, and we are slowly getting civil rights for homosexuals. I suspect you have taken history in the great state of Texas.

 

Which brings me to the real core of the arguments we are having on this forum. Lack of understanding what the Red Shirts are really about. To you they are a bunch of rabble lead by a meglomaniac, to me and others (especially those of us who live in the North or Northeast) it is a civil rights movement. We know and talk to these red shirt people and we know they are not Thaskins dupes, or are they illiterate farmers, but people just like you and me who want a real voice in their government. Finally, I have been looking at Mr. Thaskin and trying to figure out why some gays seem to hate him. His party---Thailand for Thais---did the following. They stopped around the clock liquor sales, they set a minimum age for drinking, they required the sex workers in the clubs to be clothed at all times, they set and enforced a minimum age for being in a club, they set a time for the clubs and bars to close, and finally they gave land, jobs, health care and opportunity to many Thais throughout Thailand. Yes, there is little doubt that while doing this, Thaskin lined his own pockets, but on the whole his administration gave more benefits to the average Thai then all of anothers man's, who I cannot name, did in his entire lifetime. Where Thailand appeared to be heading under Thaskin was to become a more modern country with a greater distribution of the wealth similar to Singapore. Which means the standard of living would have climbed, the boys would have real jobs and you would have to pay much much more for a young man to have sex with you. I am not saying this is your motive for hating the Thailand for Thais movement, but I am sure there are many out there, who want to return to the "good old days" of wide open Thailand, who do have this motive. All I can say is shame on them.

[Guest fountainhall]

One thing I don't understand is, why hasn't Abhisit and all coalition leaders stood behind a TV camera together yet? Generally when something like this breaks out in any country, there's a big media show, with many leaders in front of the camera to show unity and resolve. Why didn't this happen during the protests?

Surely the reason is perfectly obvious. The coalition, the military and the police are all split in various directions. They cannot speak with one voice because few speak the same language, as it were.

 

Really???? I cannot speak for every country, only America. However, each and every Western country does have similar examples.

I am personally not convinced that history is always a guide to future events. The particular circumstances that led to an historical event embrace economics and living conditions, culture, politics, 'society' at the time and other historical factors prior to the event in one particular country and one particular time. So to use the Boston Massacre, the Turner Revolt, the Haymarket and Selma riots etc. and their aftermaths as a 'guide' to the situation and its likely aftermath in Thailand is, I suggest, somewhat simplistic. Whilst I am not American and will willingly withdraw the following comment if more Americans contradict me, I do not agree that "all America lost sleep" in each and every case, especially the Stonewall riots.

 

Which brings me to the real core of the arguments we are having on this forum. Lack of understanding what the Red Shirts are really about. To you they are a bunch of rabble lead by a meglomaniac, to me and others (especially those of us who live in the North or Northeast) it is a civil rights movement. We know and talk to these red shirt people and we know they are not Thaskins dupes, or are they illiterate farmers, but people just like you and me who want a real voice in their government. Finally, I have been looking at Mr. Thaskin and trying to figure out why some gays seem to hate him. His party---Thailand for Thais---did the following . . . Where Thailand appeared to be heading under Thaskin was to become a more modern country with a greater distribution of the wealth similar to Singapore. Which means the standard of living would have climbed

Having talked with committed red-shirt supporters over recent months (those living here in Bangkok although hailing from the provinces), I accept KhorTose's view on the lack of understanding many people have of the red-shirt movement. It is certainly on the verge of becoming a civil rights movement - of sorts. But it is, again in my view and from my experience as outlined above, wrong even to imply that Thaksin is nowhere in the mix. Yes, he did a lot to help redress the balance between rich and poor, city and countryside. And yes, Lee Kwan Yu was one of his idols and I am sure he was looking on Singapore as a model for Thailand in the future.

 

But of the red-shirts I spoke to, all - I repeat ALL - wanted Thaksin back, all believed he was some sort of saint, and all believed he would solve all their problems. All seemed a lot less interested in civil rights than they were in Thaksin leading a campaign for civil rights. Is not the fact that almost all the merchandise for sale within the red-shirt area in Bangkok had images of Thaksin on it - and no other 'leader' - indicative of this? Take Thaksin out of the equation and, as far as these people were concerned, I could see their interest in reform gradually fizzling out.

 

Lastly, going back to the subject of Singapore, KhorTose seems to forget that Singapore is close to being a right-wing dictatorship where no opposition is tolerated and where the government dictates much of people's lives. I agree that the Lee dynasty has generated an economic miracle, there is a much fairer distribution of wealth and few Singaporeans want a change. But is this type of dictatorship what the civil rights campaign is seeking to install in Thailand? Is this not what the rest of Thailand saw in Thaksin's other activities as Prime Minister when, for example, the war on drugs was declared and than 2,000 were gunned down, many of them innocent of any drug-related crime, only for Thaksin then to get up on his soapbox and declare Thailand had won the drugs war? Well, he sure got that one wrong!

[Guest]

I am sure there are many out there, who want to return to the "good old days" of wide open Thailand, who do have this motive. All I can say is shame on them.

 

Thank you for a great post. Many things you said I agree with. However, the above I just cannot imagine that some would want the Red Shirts to fail out of their own desire for more availability of sex, booze, and wild west days. It is unfathomable to me.

[KhorTose]

Thank you for a great post. Many things you said I agree with. However, the above I just cannot imagine that some would want the Red Shirts to fail out of their own desire for more availability of sex, booze, and wild west days. It is unfathomable to me.

 

I know just how you feel, but I can cheerfully point out some posts on other sites that clearly say that. One person who was banned from this board bragged about how Thailand used to be wide open day and night, with nude boys and f.. shows in every club, where booze was cheap and offs could be had for 200 BHt. This is a 2 year old post, but it is interesting that the author is now very anti red shirt in his posts. Try "good old days in Thailand" on SGT and wade through the 183 post and then go to the present and see who is the most anti-red. You can also see who is anti-red and then go back and read their old posts. Shocking. I am going to add one thing. I do not think that anyone on this board is that self-centered. At least I hope not.

[Gaybutton]

Just for the record, is everyone aware that you can actually use the word "fuck" here instead of "f***"? I know at least three or four of us have seen that word before. I think at least two of us can handle seeing the word.

[Guest jomtien]

Just for the record, is everyone aware that you can actually use the word "fuck" here instead of "f***"? I know at least three or four of us have seen that word before. I think at least two of us can handle seeing the word.

 

 

Oh, fuck you!

 

 

 

(gotta admit, you walked into that one )

[Gaybutton]

(gotta admit, you walked into that one )

I wish I had one baht for each person out there who would love to tell me the same thing. I'd have more money than Thaksin and Bill Gates combined . . .

[Guest]

Just for the record, is everyone aware that you can actually use the word "fuck" here instead of "f***"? I know at least three or four of us have seen that word before. I think at least two of us can handle seeing the word.

 

 

It's rather distasteful & may lead to a general lowering of standards.

[Gaybutton]

It's rather distasteful & may lead to a general lowering of standards.

To me it's much more distasteful to post as if we're seven year olds, disguising words with asterisks when we all know perfectly well what the word is. I think doing that is just ridiculous. How is the use of asterisks any less distasteful? How will using asterisks save our standards? I think if a word is to be used, then use the word or don't use the word at all. I'm a little too old to worry about f**k or shhhhhhh, it's the 'F' word!

 

Meanwhile, a thread about whether Abhisit should step down or remain in office has turned into a thread about whether we should use the word "fuck" with all its letters intact. I think the discussion about Abhisit is just a wee bit more important and we might consider getting back to the subject of the thread.

[Bob]

I think the discussion about Abhisit is just a wee bit more important

 

Hmmmm....I don't fucking think so!

 

Abhisit can't help himself in more ways than one. He'll be gone after the next election or whenever the army says so. Actually, I'm hopeful he stays out of the public eye for a while as he's likely a target for a whole lot of people.