The violence at Kru-Se and and Tak Bai were appalling acts by the Thaksin government. The war on drugs represents an equally appalling legacy of violent repression.
Amidst the political chaos of the past two years one of the positive points has been the extraordinary restraint exercised by security forces in the face of legitimate protest and illegitimate provocation. October 7 represents something of an exception, though even then only one person was killed directly, albeit unintentionally, by police action. For a range of reasons, some of them pragmatic rather than honourable, harsh and violent action against protesters has become politically unacceptable.
The PAD is determined to destroy this fragile culture of restraint. The PAD message is clear – if the security forces exercise restraint, the protesters will increase their provocation. For all their rhetorical outrage about October 7, the PAD leadership is determined to expose their supporters to death and injury. Some observers of Thai politics may have had doubts about this in the past. Now, there is no reasonable doubt.
There must be many in the security forces who are seething at their current humiliation. PAD has made a mockery of their moderation. Violent repression is, once again, on the agenda.
Restraint is discredited.
35 responses so far ↓
1 HC lau // Nov 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Did you just write one (1) person killed? I guess you do not considere policemen killed as people then?
2 Frank G Anderson // Nov 29, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Making a mockery of moderation has been the result of the Great Thai Illusion from day one. Moderation has led to continuation of human rights abuses and lack of freedoms that upon occasion Thai leaders enjoy explaining away in terms that “Thailand needs a Thai democracy.” That kind of moderation, which is really rationalization, has paved the way for the kind of Thai society that exists and the consequences that have followed. Anyone believe that Buddhism in Thailand has become more of a farce than a force? Anyone believe that various interest groups in Thailand are really interested in resolving issues instead of just returning to the status quo?
Let’s not ignore what brought the PAD into being in the first place, and how not only the PAD but any Thai in Thailand gets treated when advocating, in a serious manner, human rights and democracy. He or she is likely to become a social outcast or dead, possibly both.
I am sure that if Thaksin and Sondhi had not had personal differences that today would not have come about. But besides seeing behind Sondhi, we also need to see beyond. The beyond consists of a future where Thais can individually speak their minds and practice what they preach without being called un-Thai or being kidnapped and shot to death. For the more dense, this translates into ridding Thai society of the mentality that permitted the likes of Thaksin to come to power in the first place, and the likes of a government to come into being that commits such despicable acts as Takbai and more.
We can all throw up our hands and stand open-jawed aghast of what the PAD is currently involved in, but it won’t be the first time that armchair warriors have been wrong. We can ju dge the PAD harshly, as harshly as we should be judging the government and this Thaksin-proxy setup still ruining (no typo) the country.
And to note, I am not attempting to justify the PAD or offer apologies for some of its wrong actions. But when you jump off the boat because you assumed the ride was going to be quiet, that’s an earlier error in judgment. I cringe when I think of the extent of influence that Thaksin still exercises over Thai politics – does no one else?
3 amberwaves // Nov 29, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Yes, absolutely.
And we can thank the PAD’s enablers in the Thai NGO and human rights community, who constantly decried every effort at law enforcement whenever the PAD sought to escalate tensions with another illegal act.
Thank you very much, Gothom, Parinya, Somchai H., Rosana and friends. You’ve helped destroy civil society in Thailand.
Hypocrites.
4 MawHom // Nov 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
Walker is correct. PAD’s intent is to provoke violence against its own protesters in order to claim a moral victory.
5 Maylee Thavat // Nov 30, 2008 at 1:50 am
Well it’s hardly surprising really, when the airport is full of middle class, bejewelled housewives. Any man handling by the military is likely to be used for further pro-PAD fuel
Young angry males are one thing, middle class housewives are an entirely different matter.
6 R. Dayley // Nov 30, 2008 at 1:59 am
The PAD admit to the world they are “Suicide Protestors.” Moderation? Where is the moderation in that? The sad thing is that onces the bullets fly, those who are enforcing the law will be villified by the Thai public for not being moderate.
Restraint by those enforcing the law in recent years indeed deserves recognition. Restraint by the PAD does not. It is immoral for the PAD to force Thai security forces to choose between nothing or pulling the trigger for the suicide of a protestor. The PAD tells the world its people are willing to die for the cause. Doesn’t the morality of the cause matter? Don’t the tactics of protesting have to pass a moral test as well?
Gandhi led protestors against the immorality of colonial rule. His tactics were broad-based: economic, political, altering international opinion. MLK led protestors to claim legitimate rights under a constitution that demanded full recognition. When his protestors clashed with security forces, being handcuffed, dragged, and imprisoned were planned tactics that forced the hand of the legal system and public opinion. Forcing legal reform, not seizure of government proved effective. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for his cause.
Yes, I know. Thailand is different. But is it so different that its considered moral for a few thousand people to seize government buildings and airports and say “kill me or give me governmental power.” Where will Thailand be if every sizable minority can simply demand the same thing against any sitting government (democratic or not)?
The PAD leaders tell the security forces you must kill us or we get what we want. They are exploiting Thai moderation by employing extremism. I find this tactic repugnant. I believe most Thais do as well.
The PAD’s immorality is found it its suicide element attached to their “final battle” protest. I find no Thai-style moderation in that.
7 JG // Nov 30, 2008 at 2:22 am
No, I don’t cringe when I think about Taksin’s influence over Thai politics. I see Taksin as his country’s incarnation of a master politician with dominant control of a political patronage machine. Not, maybe, a representation of the most attractive of political ideals, but certainly not uniquely evil and certainly not undemocratic. On the other hand the PAD seems yet another incarnation of the ‘Thais aren’t ready for democracy’ forces that have consistently blocked any kind of long term political process in the country. Who says the Thai electorate wouldn’t get tired enough of Taksin and his cronies to vote them out in a couple of years? Who says that some other political entrepreneur wouldn’t come along and build his or her own machine and throw him out? The PAD and before them the army or the Privy Council or who ever the hell it is in the shadowy back rooms don’t want to chance that? Well, I’m bored with these people. I was enjoying Taksin.
8 Joy // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:03 am
Is it possible to ask for help from the UN (or international community?) to use their commando unit or something to remove the PAD from the airports with none or as little bloodshed as possible? Someone from Prachathai suggested that Thai police force is way too ineffective to deal with this. And the military, of course, refuses to help. I fully agree with this..I ‘m of the opinion that without international or UN interference the crisis will worsen and loss of lives is almost a certainty. Iused to be against this government (but never pro-PAD, mind you,)seeing it as Taskin’s proxy, but now I realize this is irrelevant now coz greater danger seems to lie in the so-called ‘invisible’ hands who seem to pull strings behind the PAD. I agree that politicians can be voted out if people don’t like them, but the military and other highly conservative groups will never be rid from Thailand once they succeed in securing firm control in their hands. This morning i listened to ABC radio which seems to give a rather favourable coverage of the PAD airport seige and stated that PAD protestors at the airport are largely non-violent as constrasted to the Red Shirst who are more aggressive and provocative (of course the ABC shows sypathy for Australian tourists stranded in Thailand)I ‘m fully aware that there are certainly violent thugs (perhaps paid by someone) among the redshirts but then after taking into account everything, the PAD and the force(s) behind it emerge as more dangerous and threatening to democracy, freedom of speech and critical thinking. Perhaps the ABC should try more to give a more balanced coverage abt the PAD. By the way, I’m Thai.
9 Martin // Dec 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm
If the ‘PAD’ get their way, then that will ensure that Issaan can never sway the result of an election in this country again. There has been a call for 30% of MPs appointed (by?); that call was later upped to 50%.
Whatever the final figure, the appointed members will always have more power than elected members.
What we are witnessing is an attack on an electoral system of government. Yes it was flawed, but so are others e.g U.S. 2001.
If the government steps aside and fresh elections are held, we’ll be repeating this scenario in a year or two.
If the courts have their way, the ‘PAD’ will have their way, and the electoral system will be destroyed.
The only solution is the ‘73, ‘76, ‘92 solution: the people hit the streets. No, I don’t believe ‘the people’ are on the streets yet, but if they do, there’ll be blood, but there might be a resolution to the ongoing stalemate: resumption of the 1997 Constitiution and greater representation of the population’s interests.
10 Frank G Anderson // Dec 1, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I guess it would be better to shut up and ignore the cacophony here, but the simplistic dismissal of PAD and its anti-Thaksin stance is disturbing to the nth degree.
Thaksin is not THE problem per se, but a Thaksin-like M.O. is, and that is what has been haunting Thailand for decades. Claims that the PAD is forcing members to be martyrs, that the PAD is only looking for violence, that the PAD is wrong and violent and harmful to the nation’s interests,…well, this all sounds like reactionary pro-government knee-jerking at best. At worst, it is a huge misunderstanding of what is going on in the country and overlooking the real issues that the so-called civil society everyone is wont to retain is in fact not so civil as oppressive.
And saying that I, the PAD, PAD supporters, etc., are advocating or supporting violence is sheer nonsense.
I said it before and will say it again, a lot of factors are at work in the current standoff. The police, army and others just don’t want to be blamed for damaging the country’s image – they could not care less about the country’s welfare per se. All they want is personal gratification and the right to plunder so they can help their friends. those in the northeast who support the TRT and PPP and other minions of madness are ignorant and unfortunate, just as those are who voted for Bush the second time around. Call it democracy if you will, but it is not.
11 Joy // Dec 1, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Quote: “The only solution is the ‘73, ‘76, ‘92 solution: the people hit the streets. No, I don’t believe ‘the people’ are on the streets yet, but if they do, there’ll be blood,”
I don’t think this is a good suggestion, letting ordinary people die in the streets so that the ‘bigger boys’(whoever they are0 can reap the benefits.
i think the UN and the international community should put a pressure on the PAD (i.e. strongly condemn the PAD leaders’ actions) AND provide help for the Thai government to remove the PAD protestors (at the airports) proficiently and effectively with the priority of causing as little bloodshed as possible, then put all those leaders in jail without bail, also detain all violent followers. Most Thai people are now against the PAD because they fear airport closure can make the economy collapse.. so I don’t think anyone will protests if PAD+followers are arrested and charged with terrorist attempt.
If the UN/inter. community cannot provide commando unit help, perhaps they should pressure the Thai military/generals to take action and help the government rid the airports of the PAD (without causing loss of lives).
12 Martin // Dec 1, 2008 at 5:50 pm
If I might clarify my point;
who or what will break the current stalemate between elements of the power elite in this country?
My belief is that ‘the people’ (students, general public) need to get involved. Not, under any of the current banners and their coloured shirts, but as a population. It has happened before (’73, etc) and it needs to happen again. Unfortunately, the power elite see this as a threat to their personal wealth, rather than a warning from the people that things need to change. As demonstrated in the past, when the elite seem/are threatened, they put guns in the hands of the security forces and the murder and disappearances begin.
To be blunt, the international community will not get involved. If the Burmese junta was able to ride out the complaints that arose with their lack of acceptance of aid after cyclone Nargis and the UN sat idly by as hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, then involvement in Thailand is not going to happen (Joy, forgive my somewhat direct rejection of your argument).
Of course, my ideas are somewhat idealistic and maybe heading into the streets will never happen.
As an aside, I wonder if we will ever know, or is it known already, who the members of the (real) power elite are?
13 Joy // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Martin, Thank u. Now I know what u mean by encouraging ordinary people to get involved, and after a second thought, I also realize that my previous suggestion is not realistic. But even during the 1973.. when there were demonstrations against the then dictators, it was only a brief period of ‘victory’ and only a few years afterwards, there was a massacred that allows the rise of more or less the same elitist class..(of course some miltary men were got rid of but their likes remains)..
I think some Thais know who are the invisible hands behind the PAD, however, many simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and will vehemently denounce whoever dare to suggest this.I don’t know what these powerful figures still feel the need to strive for.. they already have everything– wealth, prestige, etc… why not just sacrifice a bit for ordinary people’s sake…
14 Joy // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm
But again perhaps we don’t need their ’sacrifice’.. it’s time to allow truly egalitarian values to replace hierarchical power structure.. or else there won’t be any chance for ordinary people to pose challenge to other inequalities, conservative and oppressive social and cultural norms…And I do mean it when I say this– that cliche abt Thailand being the land of smiles– I would say it’s more oppressive than all-smiles.. Perhaps I will get a lot of flak for saying this, maybe even be labelled unpatriotic and treacherous..never mind..
15 Roger // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Frank G. Anderson, “Claims that the PAD is forcing members to be martyrs, that the PAD is only looking for violence, that the PAD is wrong and violent and harmful to the nation’s interests,…well, this all sounds like reactionary pro-government knee-jerking at best.”
I don’t see where you”re coming from. It’s the PAD with its “new politics” that is the reactionary group here. They have repeatedly stated that they will not negotiate. They have repeatedly denied they have done wrong, while clearly conducting insurrection, unlawfully detaining citizens, destroying property, shooting at bystanders, intimidating news reporters, and causing the airports to close. They have said that the resignation of the Prime Minister is not enough. They have even said that dissolution of parliament is not enough. They have said that new elections will not solve the problem.
Look, fundamentally government is based on force. If people refuse to pay taxes, the government can use force to make them pay and/or go to jail. If people break the law, the police can use force to seize them and take them to the court for judgment. If a group refuses to obey the law the army can use force to disperse or kill them. If a government is not able to use force it is not able to govern.
This government lost its ability to govern when Gen. Anupong mutinied in August (that’s what refusal to obey orders is, mutiny). They should have tried to sack him then. Since they didn’t, he has essentially already carried out a coup, and what we see now is simply the winners of the coup (the PAD) in the process of establishing their authority.
16 amberwaves // Dec 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Frank G Anderson said:
>I guess it would be better to shut up and ignore the cacophony here, but the simplistic dismissal of PAD and its anti-Thaksin stance is disturbing to the nth degree.
It’s not just hotheaded blog commentators who define the centrality of the current problem as NOT being Thaksin, it’s about 95% of the serious commentary by academics, Thai and farang, who take the same position. Many have come around from positions that were somewhat sympathetic to the PAD before — I’m thinking particularly of Acharn Kasien’s New Left Review piece in 2006, but by now I think you could add the somewhat enigmatic Nidhi and others to the list.
I’m not saying that there are no scholars who stick to their pro-PAD guns or a more ambiguous position (for the former see various law school deans, for the latter consider Michael Connors). And there is of course the Manager stable, folks like Chai-anan, whose writing is almost religious in nature with its apocalyptic overtones (assassination of ‘bad’ politicians, etc).
It’s pretty hard to find a coherent and current analysis that doesn’t condemn the PAD. Please refer us to any you might come across.
If you look at Thaksin, the problem is Thaksin. If you look at Thailand, it is pretty clear that Thaksin is just part of the problem.
It’s easy to figure that out unless you believe Thaksin was given the heave-ho in 2006 because of his corruption and terrible record on human rights and civil liberties. I’m guessing even you don’t believe that.
17 Ralph Kramden // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Lost me Frank. Maybe you can explain more clearly. Are you saying that PAD is a legitimate civil society-based reaction to oppression or is it something else?
18 Anthony // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:37 am
There is an extraordinary air of unreality about many of the observations set out above. Participants in and supporters of the PAD protests include many well-educated, well-travelled and thinking Thai people. Among those whom I know personally are many women, some of whom are academics and successful business-women. Many of them are middle-aged. It is a complete nonsense, born of ignorance or idealogical blindness (I am unsure which), to suggest that these people have as their goal the provocation of violence. One of the problems with fora such as this is that they are filled with the ramblings of pundits commenting on the ramblings of commentators and vice versa. Rather than speculate about the motives of PAD participants and supporters why not ask them to state them? There is nothing particularly difficult about this: there is no secret as to who they are, where they are or what they are doing.
19 amberwaves // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:06 am
Anthony -
Actually many of us have talked to PAD supporters. Including in some cases the ones wearing masks and carrying sharpened iron rods, not just your nice middle aged women friends.
It is no exaggeration to say that at least 80 percent of the time they say nothing beyond a sort of mantra that “Thakisn is bad, we are fighting to save the country. ” That’s as far as it goes. In some cases, in response to specific questions, they have replied “I don’t know, they haven’t told us about that yet.”
Did you ask them if they know PAD guards carry guns? What was the answer?
You are really kidding yourself if you think that a movement that considers shaking plastic noisemakers at people the height of political discourse is a movement of intellectual rigor and honesty.
It’s also pretty clear that you haven’t a clue about the demagoguery that emanates from the stage and is uncritically echoed by the PAD rank and file.
It’s quite noticeable that you haven’t even tried to rebut any of the “ramblings” you criticize. I’m sure your middle-aged women friends are very nice. And they don’t carry guns. But that doesn’t make them right.
20 Ralph Kramden // Dec 2, 2008 at 9:54 am
Anthony you really have missed the boat. What do you think ASTV and ASTV Manager are for? They are the official PAD media. Maybe you should read them and see what PAD really stands for.
21 Barry // Dec 2, 2008 at 10:44 am
The PAD leadership definately have a different agenda to that of their followers.
The leadership knew early on that they really didn’t have the support of the majority of Thais. The process to aquire the support involved getting sympathy votes through being seen as innocent victims of police brutality. They have always hoped that the police will kill and injure enough of the PAD supporters to force a coup.
Every action that the PAD took, the police exercised constraint. So the PAD leadership have continually uped the anti.
Sondhi says that its a battle to the death, but you can be sure its not his death that he’s talking about. its only the death of the sheeple that follow him.
22 Marty // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Never in the history of Thailand’s fledgling democracy have so few done so much damage to the country.
Never in Thailand’s fledgling democracy have politicians stolen collectively as many baht as the PAD has from the Thai citizen in the last few weeks.
While never a true Ra Ra Thaksin supporter, I saw that he did have the betterment of the poor as part of his agenda, and he followed through on his promises. Was it for his own good?, history will will tell us in a hundred years. One thing is a certainty under the Thaksin administration the country prospered and the world community looked at Thailand as one of Asia’s glowing examples of an emerging nation.
Now with the PAD in the airports and the Reds possibly showing restraint for a few days more, will the Glow of Thailand to the world show as the embers left from the meltdown?
23 Anthony // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Amberwaves, I am heartened to read that you have spoken with some PAD supporters. I do not know with how many such supporters you have spoken, but I do not doubt that 80% of them spoke in the terms you have described. Even so, permit me to answer your question. No, I have not asked, and would not ask, such a naive and, frankly, pointless question about guns. As all Thais and many others know, many guns are carried in Thailand and I doubt that any interested observer would think that no “PAD guard” does carry, or has carried, a gun – particularly when there is recent televisual evidence to the contrary. You suggest that I think that “a movement that considers shaking plastic noisemakers at people the height of political discourse is a movement of intellectual rigor and honesty” (sic). No, sorry, that is not what I think. And nor do I think that you describe fairly or accurately all PAD supporters. As to whether you are fair or accurate in your assertion that I “haven’t a clue …”, I shall refrain from endevouring to respond to such inarticulate personal denigration. However, you are correct to say that (until now, perhaps) I have not sought to “rebut any of the ramblings [ I] criticise”. After all, the utility of endeavouring so to do was the very point of the post which drew your response. For the sake of accuracy, and contrary to the inference which may be drawn from your post: (1) I have not said that I have “friends” participating in PAD protests, (2) I have not said that anyone is “nice”, (3) I have not said that anyone in particular does not carry a gun or guns; and (4) a fortiori, I have not said that anyone in particular is “right”.
Ralph, no part of my post comprised an attempt to state or describe “what the PAD really stands for”. On the contrary, my object (plainly misunderstood by you) was to draw attention to the fact that not all supporters of the PAD are part of a homogeneous mass. As to the balance of your contribution, I shall continue to refrain from endevouring to respond to such inarticulate personal denigration.
Barry, I am pleased that you understand, share and have given voice to the view that there are, in fact, differences between the agendas of some PAD leaders and followers.
24 Marty // Dec 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Anthony, I’ll defend you..:D
There are huge differenced between the agendas of some PAD leaders and followers.
Probably a very select few followers know who is supporting the PAD, the rest are just followers. We all suspect and we all surmise but we could all be wrong. If the PAD manages to subvert democracy and manages to wrestle in some even more sinister idea than “New Politics”. I feel there will be a lot of Pad’s supporters, who in good faith believe what they are going is right and just, will feel let down and duped.
Throughout history the sheep of the world have always blindly followed very suspect leaders. It must be a human trait to try and self destruct. Thailand is in the post Thaksin era after following him and now we have a new group that borders on a Cult that a few thousand well offs feel they should follow to the death. My hope is Sondi and Chanlong don’t make them drink the Kool-Aid, before they give up the airports.
25 Ralph Kramden // Dec 2, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Anthony, you said: “Rather than speculate about the motives of PAD participants and supporters why not ask them to state them? There is nothing particularly difficult about this: there is no secret as to who they are, where they are or what they are doing.” My point was that there is no need – you’ve missed the boat on this – as there is an “official” media on what PAD thinks and most especially its leadership, so why not use it? If that is personal denigration then you are probably rather too sensitive.
26 amberwaves // Dec 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Anthony said -
>Rather than speculate about the motives of PAD participants and supporters why not ask them to state them? There is nothing particularly difficult about this: there is no secret as to who they are, where they are or what they are doing.
Well, instead of talking about what people on the forum are saying, why not tell us what these women said to you? That might be a useful contribution.
Basically all you are saying now is ‘Nyah nyah, you’re wrong, I know the truth, and now I’m not telling you because you all are being nasty to me.”
As for asking about the guns, the point is that the answer you will often get is that “The PAD have no guns,” which I believe offers a useful look into the mindset of PAD supporters.
Marty has it quite right, there is huge difference between the views of PAD leaders and most of the people following them. My sarcastic reference to these women (who are not friends of your, just people you “know personally,” oh my apologies for that woeful misrepresentation) not carrying guns was apparently a failed effort to convey the same point.
You said: “On the contrary, my object (plainly misunderstood by you) was to draw attention to the fact that not all supporters of the PAD are part of a homogeneous mass.”
Point taken. Probably the reason it was misunderstood is that no one had been pushing the point, but if you were left with that impression that it was a major issue here, it’s reasonable to try to discuss it. Just don’t be taken aback at the reaction — your argument was not exactly to the point.
Apologies too for jumping to the conclusion that these friends, oops, sorry, “well-educated, well-travelled and thinking Thai people…. many women, some of whom are academics and successful business-women…” are nice.
Free advice: writing about the issues instead of parsing sentences will probably win you more cred here.
27 Anthony // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Amberwaves, I am pleased that you, Marty and I agree that not all supporters of the PAD are part of a homogeneous mass and, concomitantly, there are differences in the views held by PAD leaders and supporters. It is, after all, a short point which should not be obscured by, and does not warrant, your vituperation. Incidentally, I do not seek “cred” nor your “free advice”. I am, nevertheless, interested in your views. Do you not know any PAD “supporters” who are critical of the short-sightedness and naivete of PAD “leaders”?
28 amberwaves // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Anthony –
To address your last question, it’s a bit difficult to be a critical supporter of the PAD, as one gets treated as an apostate. Critics of the PAD get much more vituperative treatment, on several orders of magnitude, than anything you have faced here.
Some people at the airport have said things like “I know this is not right, but it is something we have to do (for the nation, monarchy etc etc.)”
I’m really not sure what to make of that, an awareness that something is wrong but a willingness to go along with it.
29 Frank G Anderson // Dec 2, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Amberwaves speaks of being treated worse than an apostate when criticizing the PAD. Apparently he has never sat in a prolonged local Thai government/media press conference to see how officials treat media or the common man. As well, the social matrix in the LOS easily provides ammunition for such vituperative treatment, no matter what particular group you belong to.
With the court’s most recent decision dissolving the three parties, anyone honestly think that a decent Thai government is on the way? I see more protests, and more divisiveness amongst Thais and foreigners, most of whom either don’t really know what’s going on or who for their own reasons don’t care or can’t afford to care.
All of that backlog of charges and detailed investigations done against the Thaksin regime and other pro-TRT ilk – why is it that this material does not seem to be widely published or available? Just like the Handley book and others, it does not fit the polite nature of Thai culture. Instead, it gets buried and so do investigative reporters who try to resurrect it.
30 Marty // Dec 3, 2008 at 3:26 am
amberwaves – The truly frightening aspect of PAD is that they are using standard brainwashing tactics the same as the communists did in the vietnam era. Collect your people and bombard them with your line until they are re-educated. You have to stop and ask yourself why every PAD supporter spouts the exact same line in the exact same order.
While there are problems with Thailand’s democracy the problems do not lie squarely on the government (TRT/PPP), the Democrats are just as much to blame for failing to offer any form or realistic opposition with ideas that are sound, The EC has to be fair they cannot target a political group or an ideology as they have once again ( A democrat exec was caught buying votes but they decided to only prosecute the Government), the courts have to act responsibly (they cannot let the PAD free while dissolving the PPPetc) and the military has to be firmly purged of all the elements that also have blame squarely on their shoulders by showing their view by their non action to the country in time of crisis.
The main problem with the PAD is that the leadership is so disjointed with their own individual ideas, often based on hate, that they do not have a cohesive idea of what they want and every day they want something different.
31 Frank G Anderson // Dec 3, 2008 at 6:34 am
Marty, wow!
The PAD exhibits all those evils you imagine and Thai society as a whole does not?
I rest my case.
32 John Bullen // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:39 am
Well, people, despite all of the rhetoric here, life will go on.
Soon Thaksin will appoint a new Prime Minister, who will continue in the same vein as Samak and Somchai, while Thailand slides further into the abyss.
Somebody has to do something – it cannot be the government – because it is the government itself (or rather the lack of it) that is the problem.
33 Frank G Anderson // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:47 am
John Bullen:
Succinct and to the point.
It’s that “someone has to do something” issue that bothers peaceniks and men of letters et. al, all of whom would rather, like the rest of us sane souls, have a moral and ideal end to the ongoing chaos.
Let’s hope for the best and expect the worst, a sad adage, might well be the case here.
But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?”
As I said before, no society that I know of came out of social morass without use of force. Consensus is notan issue when it comes to solutions between extremists. In this, the PAD has not been an extremist all along the way, as the state has.
34 Ralph Kramden // Dec 4, 2008 at 8:08 am
Frank, I know you were harassed a couple of years ago, but if you think this is what every aspect of Thai society is about, you must be miserable. The argument might be that the PADdies have allowed a darker side to re-emerge once again. I don’t think this is genetic or necessary the result of deep cultural imprinting. I’m hopelessly optimistic.;)
35 amberwaves // Dec 4, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Frank-
I’m not sure I follow your last argument, it seemed a bit hurried.
Are you making a moral argument that the state should not have a monopoly on force? I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement with that.
But it seems to me that contradicts “But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?” Isn’t that what the PAD has been saying explicitly since Oct. 7, i.e., ‘we are being attacked so we have the right to fight back with weapons.’ I believe even Chamlong said words to that effect.
Actually, why the fuss when the DAAD makes threats and uses force? Why exactly shouldn’t people say “Well, what do you expect?” Does the PAD have a monopoly on righteousness?
I don’t really understand your final point about extremists. Aren’t you saying that the PAD are good revolutionaries? I guess it’s a question of semantics, but I’d say that revolutionaries are by definition extremists.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.