It is sad that, it took you so long to realise that the people behind the PAD are royals / Military and democratic party. I have enunciate this several months ago at the start of the PAD actions, particularly at the bangkok Post commentary pages. The finance for the PAD is mainly supported by Sondhi – the media mogul. It doesn’t take much to see from the obviously propaganda like “news” that the Thai press put out that the media owners are also behind this.

I say it is sad because, an obviously educated Thai like yourself has difficulty seeing through the smoke and mirrors, then the ordinary Thais will have a thougher time. having said that, don’t despair. Unless. Thailand deteriorate into civil war, things will eventually recover and the masses will prevail

Unlike AW, I do not want to see HMK step in to solve things (again) and would prefer it if the people can sort things out amongst themselves (without violence).

Nor do I want to see one group of elites prevail at the expense of the other, enabling the usual ‘winner take all’ plunder.

IMO, the first step required to move forward is for the moderate elements on both sides to acknowledge the democratic deficiciences of their own side, marginalise their more radical leaders, and then try to find common ground with the moderates of the other side.

In short, the PAD mob need to acknowledge that the rural masses have a right to an equal vote, and the Red’s need to accept that some of the things that Thaksin did were unacceptable to many reasonable people.

Once the moderate/reasonable people are on they same page they could them work on how one patronage system can be dismantled without creating another one.

Indeed it is bizarre that it has been repeated many times as you say, that none of it is a secret, and people who are writing articles such as Jim Taylor or Gwynne Dyer http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy/news/article.cfm?c_id=171&objectid=10531139 who seem to know so much yet seem anything but fain to highlight the darker side of the coin along with the light. Why is this?

I am seeing parallels to the Saddam/Iraq debate where some people moan about how Iraq is now is so bad and then some make the leap o don rose tinted glasses for Saddam.

Is Thailand/Iraq in a bad way right now? Yes. Were there some good points about Thaksin/Saddam? Yes. Was getting rid of them a good thing? Hell yes.

I would not argue with what Jim Taylor has to say about the PAD and those behind them, but to leave out the contextualisation of Thaksin’s contribution to the fire that is now smoking is negligent.

in:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/011008_News/01Oct2008_news21.php

A quote from Dale Bailey written to Bangkok Post’s Postbag on the 1st October that perfectly sums up the root cause of Thailand’s deep societal conflict. Jim Taylor is merely polishing the “so shiny” side of that Thaksin coin for us here while PADites dwell on the “so dark” side.

This is why Thai democracy is “withering”. However, it will never be a Burma. The simple fact is that 1) PMThaksin is not Aung San Su Kyi (even if he did not flee and took a stint in Thai jail) 2) He will not live forever – and out of his shadow, Thai democracy will re-adjust to another reality – it will most likely bloom 3) The Thai military has clearly evolved through its involvement in politics marked by critical events in 1932, 1973, 1976, 1992, 2006 (etc.) – being more aware of its limitations each round…

Thank you BkkOptimist this aspect seems to have been rather bizarrely neglected in all the of the debate about the current Thai situation that I have seen.

I am far from pleased at how Thailand has been governed since the 2006 coup and I am rather taken aback by the antics of the PAD and their negative non-message. But I am equally taken aback at how fashionable it has become (particularly in the west) to airbrush over the negative aspects of Thaksin’s administration.

I think we all want democracy to triumph but lets have some perspective here. Thaksin a hero for democracy? I don’t think so. The Economist magazine once described him as a cross between Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez.

The politicians who preceded Thaksin were corrupt, autocratic and cynical, and Thaksin was no different. I would even say that he took the game to another level. I think he did some good things, but for all the wrong motives. He knew who his power base were and he knew how to play to them while the (equally dishonourable) opposition were bewildered, disorganised and still trying to grasp the new level of play. The laudable (and long overdue) universal heatlthcare policy was one example. But there were also things that he did that were downright wrong, like the crackdown on drugs with over 2000 extra-judicial killings. I remember an anti-drug taskforce set up by Surayudh (at the time supreme commander of the army) on orders from the government, in order to deal with the anphetamine problem caused by Burmese Junta-sanctioned drug lords who had their own private armies smuggling the stuff across the border. The unit ( task force 362 I believe it was called) was extremely effective but was mysteriously disbanded without explanation after a visit to Burma by someone from the Thai government.

I regret becoming too jaded to bother remembering many of the details of such things during Thaksin’s tenure.Maybe someone with a better memory me can furnish us with with some perspective here?

My point isn’t to rant about and say booyah! to Thaksin. I just want to remind people that like all the politicians before him he rode roughshod over democracy in Thailand and it really is ironic that he has suddenly become (to some) the poster boy for democracy in Thailand…

and the PPP have also (slightly) gained support … from about 37% to 39.5%

at the expense of the smaller parties that are now in coalition with the
PPP, which still seems to give the PPP-led government a reasonably comfortable 56.2% support overall

but what these numbers also show is that it would not require a huge change in peoples votes to change the government

if the PAD would only develop some positive view of the future, instead of the negative “we hate everything and want to get rid of everybody” approach

then its quite possible they could support the Democrats increasing their vote across the country and, with the usual help from the minor parties that swing in the wind, they could win the next election

perhaps the influential figures behind the PAD are getting tired of the delays in actually achieving anything other than promises that “tomorrow will be the last battle”

sooner or later they will recognise it will be more effective and of more long term benefit if their allies just secure their power by working with the people rather than against them.

of course for this to happen, the PAD, and Democrats, will have to reinvent themselves with positive policies that convince the people that they will develop Thailand and everyone will benefit

its unlikely that the people of Thailand would accept that the PAD has really changed from the hate machine to something that is positive and attractive with its current leadership

the hidden and open supporters of the PAD will need to consider whether to dump all or some of the leaders and give them radically new orders and tasks to achieve their real end objectives

in the end this approach is likely to be more productive for them than changing leadership of the current government which has proven very unproductive and wasteful of PAD and democrat resources

we will still have two, or more, groups that are opposed, sometimes bitterly, but at least they will work within the system trying to destroy each other instead of the current quite destructive situation

- Extra-judicial executions of approximately 2,500 people
- Tak Bo
- Massive corruption
- Curtailment and corruption of Press Freedom

This author and Bangkok Pundit seem to ignore the downsides of Thaksin’s time in power and make the assumption that he was headed for Democracy – this position is highly fanciful and doesn’t gel with the direction that Thaksin was taking.

Once having solidified power in the administration, military and police, it is highly likely that Thaksin would have become an outright Dictator – and then, yes, given his friendship with the Burmese General’s it would have been a natural for him to emulate them. Have you also forgotten that Samak was the guy that said the Burmese generals are really nice Buddhist people?

So whilst the current situation is not good, nor particularly democratic – the alternative could have been much worse. This was the reason for the coup – the established view is that the “elite” are just holding onto power – it is deeper than that and at the same time simpler – it was to stop one man from holding ALL the power.