Over the past couple of days Andrew Walker and I have written a number of analytical pieces about the crisis in Thailand. Today, Andrew has one in the The Wall Street Journal and we both have one over at Inside Story.
Book Reviews
-
Review of Ideal Man
24 May 2013 9:12 AM | No CommentsNew Mandala book review editor Michael Montesano reviews this new work on a key figure in Southeast Asian history.
Read More -
Review of Misalliance
17 May 2013 1:00 PM | 2 CommentsKeith Weller Taylor argues that this new book is thoughtful, lucid, original, analytical, and readable
Read More -
Review of Thailand’s Hidden Workforce
05 April 2013 9:15 AM | 1 CommentInga Gruß reviews a book about the work conditions of Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand at this time of immense change.
Read More -
Review of Gender, Emotions and Labour Markets
21 February 2013 9:10 AM | 1 CommentSri Ranjani Mei Hua reviews a book dealing with experiences of women in Southeast Asia.
Read More -
Review of Authority of Influence
06 January 2013 5:31 AM | 3 CommentsScholarly treatments of gender in Myanmar, past or present, remain scarce. Jessica Harriden’s book thus fills a gap in our understanding of an important and controversial topic.
Read More -
Review of The King in Exile
04 December 2012 8:35 AM | 4 CommentsDonald M. Seekins argues that this book is the story of a dynasty that belongs truly to Burma’s past.
Read More -
Review of Buddhist Fury
13 November 2012 7:57 AM | 21 CommentsThis book explores the relationship between religion and violence in far southern Thailand, where Buddhist monks are a marginalized local minority.
Read More -
Review of Revisiting Rural Places
30 October 2012 7:54 AM | 2 CommentsRevisiting Rural Places should become an essential reference text for researchers who work on social, cultural, political and economic change in Asia.
Read More -
Review of The Institutional Imperative
16 October 2012 7:00 AM | 9 CommentsDe-agrarianisation often isn’t very pretty, but economic disparity may well be the price to be paid for pursuing it as slowly as Thailand has over the past 50 years.
Read More -
Review of Imagining Gay Paradise
09 October 2012 6:55 AM | 2 CommentsThe creation of make-shift, idiosyncratic queer paradises provides shelter, community, and belonging for many who have refused to fit into standard narratives of Southeast Asia.
Read More -
Review of The Fate of Rural Hell
12 September 2012 7:56 AM | 6 CommentsThe models of eroticism and faith in the Hell Garden have been left behind by the robust urban bourgeois consumerist culture increasingly prominent across contemporary Thai society.
Read More -
Review of Revolution Interrupted
24 July 2012 11:46 AM | 6 CommentsQuestioning received notions of revolution, this book offers a passionate and rigorous reconsideration of the period in Thailand between October 1973 and October 1976.
Read More -
Review of Land and Loyalty
17 July 2012 9:18 AM | 9 Comments
Read More -
Review of The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk
11 July 2012 3:44 PM | 9 Comments
Read More -
Review of Saying the Unsayable
19 June 2012 6:27 AM | 19 Comments
Read More
-
Andrew, good article and right on target pointing out how the government thinks it can simply sweep all of this under the rug, and “get back to normalcy.” I don’t have a TV, but this morning I watched TV in a room on Kaosan Road as my apartment is in an area of martial
law. What did I see? The King, the King, the King.
They just don’t get it.
Quality comment or not?
24 
2
But Andrew and Nicholas if the red shirts have lost faith in Thai democracy and that’s why they turned their noses up at Abhisit’s road map, where do they go from here? If Thaksin finances an insurgency would you support it?
Quality comment or not?
9 
9
Andrew and Nicholas
On the whole a good piece but I do feel you are dodging the critical issues surrounding violent protest and resistance.
It is disingenuous to suggest that those who deplore the violence most are those who have denied the legitimacy of the Reds peaceful statements.
Many deplore political violence on moral and ethical grounds. And for strategic reasons many simply do not think that violence will succeed in bringing true democratic change. Violence from the state, PAD or anyone else should be condemned.
I also have my suspicions regarding the democratic credentials of many elements of the Reds, of Phua Thai and of Thaksin himself.
You have conveniently skirted around the issue of whether violence has been a central part of the Red strategy. You have not touched on the fiery oratory from the stage, the promises from Arisman to burn Bangkok and sala glang to the ground, nor Thaksin’s prophesy of guerilla war. Is the current violence a justified outpouring of rage in the face of brutal state repression, or is it part of the original plan? Or a bit of both – now, as is the way with violence, going beyond what was originally expected.
But if you seriously believe that there is no faith in the electoral process – then are you arguing that the path of violence is justified and appropriate?
From your position it seems that nothing short of immediate house dissolution would have been acceptable, and that anything less should be met with violent resistance. If so it hardly presents a stance for negotiation. Sounds more like an ultimatum.
However flawed the electoral process is – surely it is better than armed struggle. Eventually the armed struggle will end in annihilation of one side, or negotiation.
We need to consider who benefits most from violence and chaos. It is usually the precursor to a more repressive government. Nothing the military likes more than a period of chaos.
Quality comment or not?
34 
6
I think the solution to the Thai political problem is the “Presidential System” like in Indonesia and the United states where the people directly elect their Head of State. History repeatedly shows that the Thai monarchy has been the main obstacle to the country’s democratization process. So the best way is to have the direct presidential election.
Quality comment or not?
28 
10
Mrs. Wong,
FYI, the US president is NOT directly elected by the people. It is the electoral college that chooses the president. This is why there have been a number of presidents who have still become president even though they lost the ‘popular vote.’
Quality comment or not?
13 
7
The article was good, but like Jit says (#3) you don’t make any comment on the Red shirt use of violence to achieve ends.
Maybe this is worth a study in itself?
Yesterday’s senseless mayhem has done a lot of damage, to any “people’s movement” taking serious hold in Thailand, for a long time.
We can all only hope, whoever takes the reigns of power in Thailand, will have the guts to address the obvious underlying and major issues.
It seems, the country is once again crying out for a leader to take the people forward – particularly now, “daddy can’t fix”. The problem is, all Thai leaders of this type, so far, have only done for the people when it suits (so they can line their pockets), and/or it helps win elections.
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
Andrew is right on point in WSJ! Even if you don’t talk about everything, he’s talking about he actual reasons Thais refuse to listen/process and fail to understand.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
Nicholas & Andrew,
Great articles.
The use of violence by anyone is certainly sad but in certain situations necessary and unavoidable. This appears to be one of those certain situations; when those holding power are so intent on maintaining the status quo they refuse to play by the rules. As you rightly said in the article, this has been going on for many years.
Is it plausible the only thing separating the UDD hardliners from the moderates is something as simple as their level of tolerance? After the political games of the past 4 years the hardliners have finally said enough of the political wrangling, negotiation and elections. They have determined the only way for permanant change to take place a path of violence.
With each new instance of rule breaking and unequal treatment under the law the established elite power base is pushing more of their opponents past their level of tolerance. At a certain point, there is too few (or no one) left supporting an opinion to negotiate with the opposition. At that instance their options are to either live with the inequality or fight. In a nutshell, it is this type of situation which has led to revolutions.
Many people inside and outside Thailand point out, as you have, that the rural poor are in better financial shape today than they’ve been in the past (although, as you also pointed out, the gap between the wealthy and poor has been growing). Perhaps if these critics lived the life of someone on the receiving end of institutionalized injustice they’d have a different opinion. Can anyone honestly say different standards are not being applied to people on opposite sides of the political line?
**In other words, it’s not just all about money. As you rightly pointed out, the reds have played by the rules and have won, only to have the elites utilize the military or political tactic to again gain the upper hand. It now appears the red shirts are tired of playing this game and brought out their own rulebook.
(**Note: One repeated argument is the rural poor will sell their vote to the highest bidder. What those backing the elites will never acknowledged is the documented and reported accounts that this also takes place in Bangkok and that the practice is a tool all political parties use.)
Quality comment or not?
30 
3
Thailand politically is changed forever. There will be no return.
This government has virtually destroyed the country to keep itself and its attendant opportunists in power. Siam Square, burned down; Central World, burned down; Center One, burned down Big C, heavily damaged – major arson all over the city. So sad. So avoidable.
The economic damage will be in the billions. The investment damage, unfathomable, and rending of the social fabric, irreversible – just so this minority of elite sycophants attempt to hold on to power.
All could have been avoided – just to have let the people vote. But then, there was, after all, a military “government” and then two consecutive elected governments removed by an approved court. Governor Samak was removed from the premiership for doing a cooking show on TV. Unbelievable!
Then there were the abominable yellow shirts that held government house for months and then closed the international airport. Not one of these insurrectionists went to jail.
While Thaksin was in power, this country was making progress. The IMF was repaid, social systems initiated, and in-spite of his alleged venal ways, 60% of the Thai people loved him. Many say the proximate cause of his downfall was not his graft, but the plain fact of his huge popularity and that he would not pay obeisance to the certain persons of high station in the Thai constellation.
The Thailand we love may be lost forever. Lost because the powers that be fractured the social contract. This terrible loss might well have been avoided had they capitulated and held a snap election.
I guess, given the alternatives, the question is: did the fateful decisions that this government made, in these last critical days, benefit the Kingdom?
The answer, I think is self evident. What a terrible price they paid. Again, so sad; so avoidable.
Quality comment or not?
28 
8
turned on CNN, ABC, BBC and what did I see? Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin, or his lawyer Amsterdam. Interviews, blogs, tweets, etc.
You just don’t get it.
Quality comment or not?
6 
13
Excellent analysis by AW (haven’t got to the other one yet).
The North and Northeast were colonized and annexed by Siam (Bangkok). The other colonial powers in the region faced their colonies’ battles for independence long ago. Bangkok is now facing its equivalent.
Quality comment or not?
12 
2
This article is well worth a read.
http://andrewmarshall.com/blog/voices-from-the-aftermath/
.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Team “Yellow” says that Thaksin was bad for the country and ruined the economy. That is an opinion, opinions are not fact. So let’s have a look at the numbers. Here are some GDP Purchasing Power Parity per citizen (Country wealth per citizen) data ranking for Thailand vs the World average. What do the numbers say?
91 World $ 7,900 2002 est.
99 Thailand $ 6,900 2002 est.
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2003/rankorder/2004rank.html
89 World $ 10,000 2006 est.
92 Thailand $ 9,100 2006 est.
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2007/rankorder/2004rank.html
102 World $ 10,500 2009 est.
120 Thailand $ 8,100 2009 est.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Note the improvement during the Thaksin years and the decline after the coup in 2006. Anyone can have an opinion but the numbers don’t lie. Thailand from 2002 closed the gap with the world average in 2006 reaching rank 92 in the world with the global average being 89. After the coup it dropped to 120 in rank with the global average being 102.
*NOTE: all countries had to deal with the financial crisis so that cannot be used as an excuse for Thailand dropping from 92 to 120.
Quality comment or not?
14 
1
Walker’s premise to explain why Thai farmers in the Northeast are angry about being disadvantaged, despite being relatively prosperous, seems to hinge entirely on analysis of economic data that he claims proves that the problem is an increasing wealth gap. After this exciting build up the reader is only titillated as Walker declines to show any of his economic analysis but effectivly invites the reader to find the data for himself before moving on hastily to his predictable conclusions. I suppose this is not a surprise, since Walker has not displayed any numeracy or in depth knowledge of economics in his writings to date, and we can assume that part of his education is still to come.
Quality comment or not?
6 
7
Duncan McCargo writes on subject of this post in “Bangkok’s battles a rehearsal for civil war” published today.
Some excerpts:
“This has been portrayed as a struggle between poor farmers from the countryside and an undemocratic Bangkok elite. Yet despite the sympathetic coverage for the Redshirts in much of the international media, this is not a classic “pro-democracy” struggle between good guys and bad guys. It is a savage and dispiriting civil conflict, from which nobody emerges with much credit.”
“At the election in December 2007, the ruling Democrat Party took 39.63 per cent of the party list vote — almost exactly the same as the 39.6 per cent of the People’s Power Party, from which the Redshirts are largely drawn. Neither side has had a monopoly on popular support; both have some valid arguments and positions; and neither has been playing by the rules.”
“The central problem is that Thailand is torn between two rival camps, each led and directed by rich and powerful factions. Though ostensibly divided by ideological differences, the anti-government Redshirts and the pro-government Yellowshirts are best characterized as competing patronage networks, bound together primarily by personal loyalties and emotional attachments. Supporters on both sides have been mobilized by intermediaries playing on local and family ties.”
“On one level, Thailand’s political crisis is an expression of collective anxiety about the succession. If the sides cannot negotiate a settlement before then, the recent spate of protests may be dress rehearsals for an even more dramatic, and more damaging, confrontation.”
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Bangkok+battles+rehearsal+civil/3050637/story.html
Quality comment or not?
12 
2
This article is also worth a read.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2480&Itemid=185
.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Haven’t read them.
Just wanna comment that all comments (including any articles) are only parts of the whole story. may be all are true, but you need to neatly and cleverly stitch them up.
overall they are just too ‘conclusive’ (including mine).
what happens with the economics first politics later rhetoric which stresses that if the people are fully fed they will be politically submissive. is the overall economic situation of average Thais taht bad these past few years?
anyway where did we leave the environment and climate change?
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
It is naive for anybody to discredit the Red Shirt movement because it has violent elements. Non-violence is a viable strategy only in countries where there is rule of law and where the governing power does not commit extrajudicial killings or use unnecessary force. Thailand is not the United States and those who pursue purely non-violent protests are destined for slaughter. You fight back or you die.
It’s even worse in countries like Vietnam or Laos, where non-violent protesters would be immediately seized and disappear into the gulags.
Quality comment or not?
16 
2
Re: why the Reds didn’t accept the Nov 14 offer?
My opinion: The UDD did not refuse the offer and I don’t think the lost faith in the election is the explanation.
1. It is not true that the UDD refused the Nov 14 offer. They agree to negotiate on the timing of the dissolution and election. The word “refused” may look a trivial matter. But in this case, the govt’s propaganda used it to create a general perception that the UDD “refused” the offer. This became a pretext for the government to withdrew the offer and went ahead with the crackdown. This narrative has a serious flaw.
2. But as the UDD agreed to negotiate the date, they added on a new demand — Suthep must get charged for the Apr 10 deaths.
What and why this demand? The answer to this is also the answer to the narrative flaw above.
An example of the narrative that becomes the pretext of the crackdown is by Mr. Voranai “Put an end to this rebellion” BKK Post 16/05/2010. Here is my comment on Mr. Voranai’s narrative. (This comment was circulated to the TLC email group)
>>… there is one important piece that is missing in Mr Voranai’s commentary. I assume that it is not intentional. But even if it is not, the missing piece is very telling how much a highly educated person like him fails to understand those protesters. This failure has been written all over pages of most newspapers, facebook, and many web sites throughout the current crisis. Sometimes this missing piece also shows up among the intellectuals who support the Reds too.
The missing piece is the April 10 clash with the 21 deaths of the Reds
people.
In [Mr. Voranai's] narrative, the UDD refused the government offer for the election in November and turned to anarchy to serve Thaksin’s agenda. This narrative fails to recognise the UDD’s demand for a promise or assurance for justice for the deaths [of the Apr 10 clash]. Their demand for Deputy PM Suthep to get charged is
problematic in terms of legal procedure. But in their views, there is
nothing in the government’s proposal that would guarantee justice for those deaths. To make things more difficult, the government’s records on justice and judicial process, in their view, are not good either; they are known as “double standard”. So it is not easy to convince the UDD that justice will be served. An investigation by a government committee, or by the yellowish National Human Right Commission, is not a satisfactory answer to them. [The fact that] Mr. Suthep turned himself in to the DSI (Thai FBI), in their view, was a joke since the DSI is under Suthep, and the DSI itself is the body that presses charges on the UDD leaders for terrorists and anti-monarchy.
Is the UDD demand for justice for the deaths unreasonable?
Why is this whole matter entirely missing from Mr. Voranai’s account? We may dismiss their demand as unrealistic or politically weak. But somehow the Reds’ overt and public sentiment about the April 10 clash and deaths and their demand for justice to the deaths is not even heard, let alone understood, by Mr. Voranai and the like. The Reds view of deaths and justice to [the deaths] does not exist in Mr. Voranai’s narrative. Once he cannot understand it, his explanation turns to “anarchy” and “Thaksin”. He turns the Reds to a
mob for hire as it has always been a convenient explanation by most Thai media and intellectuals. To these people, there is always a “hidden higher aganda” for Thaksin behind the Reds movement, and it is the tru-er reason than whatever the UDD has said.
The Thaksin agenda is a narrative construct to substitute for the failure by these highly educated, smart intellectuals to understand the protesters. They see the Reds as thugs, based on their
negative stereotypes of the nakleng and chaoban (not unlike the stereotype many educated Thais have for the “black” people even before they meet one).
[The educated urban upper class and intellectuals] don’t understand those Reds’ views of life, death, risk, peace, violence and so on, but instead taking the values held by our tribe (the highly educated urban elite) as the standard for morals, right and wrong. <<<<
In my opinion, the distrust in election was not the issue in the UDD response to the govt's offer. At least it was not as critical, as they were willing to negotiate. The critical issue to them is justice to the Apr 10 deaths.
The Apr 10 bloodshed coumpounded the original demand for dissolution and election, but many observers have not given adequate recognition. Justice, an apparent issue of grievance throughout the protest, had not been duly recognised but got much worse since Apr 1o.
It is justice that people have fought for to their death so many times in human history.
The Reds don't have to articulate straightforwardly as "justice". Actually they did, but observers didn't hear them. The Reds expressed their demand for justice in many terms — they can't go home without an answer about the Apr 10 death; the government must show responsibility, and so on. This is why they want something about Suthep, in ways that, in my opinion, was legally problematic. But I think their demand was just.
I doubt very much that Thaksin would prefer a bloody defeat. Yes, if many of us can foresee it after the govt's offer fell through, why can't he? The protest had done so much damages to the Democrats that a victory in the next election to the Pheu Thai Party is almost certain. Thaksin is smart enough to see the benefits of ending the protest and too high a risk to continue. It doesn't need Thaksin to make this calculation. (I heard that he is pretty good at the risk-benefit calculation, with the only exception for the 2006 coup.)
Contrary to many gurus who argue that the UDD "refused" the govt's offer because Thaksin's told them to, I think the UDD themselves made the decision to add a new demand. And such a demand is for JUSTICE. That is also why they were willing to fight on.
I think the added demand was politically a mistake, no matter how just it may be. But it is our serious mistake if we don't recognise the severe injustice to the Reds that was amplified multifold on Apr 10. They came to fight for justice. In the end, justice may still be missing even after the Apr 10 deaths, even in our analyses.
Quality comment or not?
20 
4
Smith Jones@ 15 – quite agree.
And an even better article @ :
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2441&Itemid=164
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Portman (14): next time I will ask WSJ for a full page. On inequality, there is a lot or material easily available – start with the latest UNDP Human Development report which I mentioned in the article.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
I admire the way you make tremendous efforts in justifying the Red Shirts, the way you try to figure out all the reasons on earth favoring the validity of the Red Shirts. Now, with only half the efforts, will you refrain from for a while from being tilted towards the “poor”, the “weak”, and search into the facts that have been left out, about how these protesters got to come to Bangkok in the first place. Are you aware of how “canvassers” in rural Thailand operate? Do you know how the figure of “one million protesters” come about, in relation to the number of MPs from Pheu Thai party and the number of protesters each MP was to gather for the protest? Do you have any idea why this final showdown of the protest started soon after the verdict to confiscate Thaksin’s Baht 40 billion and not sooner? etc. I respect all your efforts to analyse the Thai politics so intelligently. But like all researches, it all hinges on the data, the info, the facts—the thoroughness of all these input for analysis. As for the ligitimacy of Red Shirts’s claim on bringing back Thaksin regime, mind you, Thaksin’s party beat the runner up with only few hundreds of thousand votes at the ballot, not like millions and millions of votes as it looks. And the rest of the votes went to all the coalition in this present government. (I would have joined any protests myself if this coalition government came into office with less votes than Thaksin’s (or ex-Thaksin party, if you like). If I were not let down by the way many “good” people always seem to side with the so- called “oppressed”, I would shed light on how Thaksin got all his MPs under his wing; on how his party, which won 200 something seats (out of 400+) in his outset of his office grew to absolute majority of 300+ at the end of his first term—with no election in between! Curious, right? And I would further elaborate on how the number of political parties diminished while his seats in the parliament grew…. and so on, which brought him the absolute power that absolutely corrupted.
And as final words here, I would like to tell you that non-Thaksin votes (or the non-Red shirt) are not merely those in Bangkok, they are among the other “poor” and other “weak” in the rural Thailand, too, if you like. And we are happy and believe in this government, like we used to be with Thaksin’s—in his first term.
Hope this might add to your data base for further research and analysis. Thanks.
Quality comment or not?
11 
11
More Facts Please #22
Re.
“And as final words here, I would like to tell you that non-Thaksin votes (or the non-Red shirt) are not merely those in Bangkok, they are among the other “poor” and other “weak” in the rural Thailand, too, if you like. And we are happy and believe in this government, like we used to be with Thaksin’s—in his first term.”
So why not have an election now ?
Or why not have an election BEFORE this violence started ?
Abhisit made a major misjudgement here – he quite possibly could have won enough seats to form another government, even some in Lanna and perhaps Isaarn.
Quality comment or not?
10 
2
@ Andrew Walker #21. Where is your own economic analysis?
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
Why has this forum taken on the simplistic class analysis of ‘elite’ and ‘poor’ and accepted at face value this divide between Bangkok and rural areas?
The phenomenal social change of Thailand has created an even more complex tapestry of class than can be captured in elite/poor. Class differentiation is layered and complex – the means of production and of exchange are changing rapidly. There is a huge growth in rural entrepeneurship – agricultural or otherwise – although of course this has always been there.
What proportion of Bangkok is purely Bangkokian? From my own personal experience the vast majority of people I know (friend, family, colleagues, neighbours, associates) come from the provinces – i think the majority from backgrounds of farming, petty trading, civil service (teachers, police). These people still go back for Songkhran, weddings, funerals – and many more regularly than this. They are in no way as disconnected from provinces as is assumed.
To suggest that the whole of north and Isaan constitutes one distinct class is bizarre.
What on earth is the middle class in Thailand? How is it defined? Is there really one middle class? If so what proportion of Thailand fits into this class?
And how do we account for patronage in Thai politics? Does it not feature in all political parties – way beyond class consciousness?
It strikes me that there are some huge gaps in political and social analysis in Thailand, and that there is a desperate need for us to catch up if we are to understand and make a constructive contribution to democratic change
Quality comment or not?
10 
2
That Matthew Hunter in the comments part who thinks Bangkok people think western are bias.
And I think, Andrew, your artical is bias.
You know why we complain about western bias? Because you do not know the whole truth. You’re not local and you only listen to someone (western media) who only know tiny part of the truth. And because of that it painted the picture and made one side looks good and the other side looks bad. Just like what you did in the article. You think you knew all but you didn’t even know half of it. We do not mind if you want to say anything coz we like freedom, free media too, but make sure what you said is the truth and that you really know the truth. We do not think that the poor’s people vote shouldn’t count because they’re stupid. That is just wrong. This is why we’re frustrated with people like Matthew Hunter who thinks he knows everything but he doesn’t. If it’s a democratic vote, they are more than entitled to it. But their vote was bought by money. Do you know how this works in Thailand? Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not a local. Do you know how the red shirt protesters were paid 500 baht a day each to be there thinking that they’re there for democratic? Of course, you wouldn’t know all these, again because you’re not local. It’s just like we think, all Australians are bloody lazy and spoiled. No wonder you’re scared of any immigrants coz they will take away your job coz they’re more hard-working than you people. Is it true? I think only you local would know the answer, but that’s what we heard and saw too, just like you heard and saw from the media then made the assumption yourself. I suggest you interview the locals on both sides and at least more than 10 of them.
Quality comment or not?
4 
18
Meeng, please stop. You’re making Thais look bad. Blaming the west for their ‘ignorant views’ shows how small minded you are. Your reason for ‘Free media’ is rendered nil by the Thai gov’s massive blockage on the net. And that’s the most obvious part of it.
So stop, before you confirm more of their views to be correct.
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
Meeng’s voice is not an uncommon one heard on these matters. He/she is to be commended for airing them on this forum. At the same time, the voice shows that many people’s thoughts are fogged by a combination of high-octane emotions, anecdotal evidence, and anti-foreign bias. Many of the problems in the current turmoil come from non-critical way of thinking. Instead mystical thinking is substituted. Only locals know the truth as if Thailand is a secret Free Mason’s Society. This line of thinking descends into tribalism and belligerence and arrogance.
Such thinking is pervasive in Thailand and is the direct product of an educational system that does not place enough value on teaching rationality, process and evidence finding and evaluation, and distinguishing between speculative hearsay and hard evidence. There are enough foreigners who haven’t gone through the Thai educational system who also engage in this way of thinking. Perhaps it is attitude as well as life experience as well as education that explains why and how mental states arise.
If a grown up could step forward and seek to lead people out of the burnt out emotional valley this would be a start. Instead we are likely to enter a phase of quasi-adolescent posturing, finger pointing and name calling. Should that be the case, the fear is, after a short lull, a renewed protest and violence.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
MichaelBkk 13. Interesting analysis. Can you also explain China’s shifting rankings?
Est 2002 rank 129 $4,400
Est 2006 rank 109 $7,600
Est 2009 rank 128 $6,600
Goodness. How did China slip also back so much from 2006 to 2009? One had the sense that the communist central planners there were pushing all the right economic buttons, while the Falangist government in Thailand was doing everything completely wrong. Did Thaksin’s departure from the helm in Thailand also have economic reverberations in his ancestral home? Or was there perhaps something similar happening across Asia? Did the fortuitous entry of several new countries into the rankings in 2009, e.g. Montenegro, also have an impact?
BTW Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is an arithmetical model for calculating theoretical exchange rates based on differences in rates of inflation. What you were referring to is GDP per capita. What you were trying to do is data mining.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Re: Thongchai’s view that “Thaksin is smart enough to see the benefits of ending the protest and too high a risk to continue.”
The latest article from The Economist has following views on Thaksin’s role in the peacetalks:
1. “As the bullets flew and the bodies fell, crocodile tears came from afar, as Mr Thaksin tweeted his sorrow to his followers. From his luxurious exile he denied, once again, that he was giving orders to the red-shirt leaders and urged everyone to embrace peace. There is little doubt, however, that Mr Thaksin holds sway over the splintered, squabbling red-shirt leadership. The two-month protest would not have been possible without his deep pockets, vengeful will and political network, even though the red-shirt cause has become much larger than him. And his stubbornness seems to have undone the peace talks, despite his protestations.”
2. “Many are asking why peace talks failed, when the red shirts had little hope of resisting the troops. Insiders say that Mr Thaksin was a serious spoiler, as were General Khattiya and other radicals.”
3. “That the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the red shirts’ formal title, failed to grasp this olive branch [Abhisit's roadmap] is tragic. They, as much as trigger-happy soldiers, must bear some responsibility for the lives lost.”
4. “When the UDD called for the United Nations to step into the crisis, Mr Kasit retorted that Thailand was “not a failed state”. That is true. But if it does become ungovernable, the fault will not be Mr Thaksin’s alone. Equally culpable is the royalist PAD that Mr Kasit belongs to.”
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16168127
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
Jit has made several good points in his comments that others seem to have missed or simply ignored. I would like to expand on these, adding my own thoughts in two areas:
First, the explanation that a “loss of faith in the electoral process” was behind the Red’s refusal to accept Abhisit’s road map and 14 November elections is unconvincing to me. To accept this begs the question of what exactly the UDD leadership were expecting to accomplish when they launched their protests, given their publicly stated demands (initially) for immediate dissolution of parliament and new elections. These demands were patently not actionable: no government would simply accept them without some compromise, so everyone expected a negotiated settlement. But even if these demands had been met, surely a Red-led government resulting from elections earlier than 14 November could also be overturned by politicized courts or a military coup, so how would this outcome have restored the Red’s lost faith in the electoral process in a way that elections in November could not?
It seems more likely that only two outcomes were ever envisioned as possible by the UDD leadership (and as we have seen, the leaders were not actually united in their goals): (1) a negotiated compromise solution leading to new elections later this year plus unconditional immunity for Thaksin – the latter being the widely rumored sticking point at every stage of negotiations – or (2) violence, bloodshed, and promise of future anarchy as punishment to opponents of UDD and Thaksin, including various commercial interests generally aligned with the Democrats (among these, Bangkok Bank, Central Group, and others whose facilities were shuttered or put to the torch).
The fact that inflammatory rhetoric and actions, such as the blood tossing episode and vows of fighting to the death, actually preceded the tragic events of 10 April (with deadly violence initiated by men in black behind the red lines) seems, in retrospect, not just to have presaged the latest bloodshed and arson, but to have been carefully planned as both warning to the government and preparation of the rank and file protesters in the event negotiations failed to produce a settlement meeting with Thaksin’s approval. General Khattiya (Seh Daeng) publicly stated that Thaksin refused Abhisit’s road map and denounced Veera and others who were inclined to accept the offer.
Time will tell the real extent to which faith in the electoral process has been lost, assuming Abhisit sticks to his pledge of following the road map, but I don’t believe the theory has really been put to the test yet. Thaksin’s agents saw to that.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Dear Meeng (#26)
Your ignorance is a tad embarrassing . Perhaps you should do some research on Andrew before posting comments above. In particular:
‘But their vote was bought by money. Do you know how this works in Thailand? Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not a local.’
Perhaps you would care to know that Andrew has spent years working as an anthropologist in rural Thailand, amongst other things, researching precisely the issue you have raised above. If you have the time and intellectual honesty, why not try reading his article on ‘Thailand’s rural constitution’. It is available online, and is referenced positively in virtually all subsequent Thai academic literature on the issue.
The assuption that foreigners cannot understand Thailand is just epistemologically bankrupt. Why cant they? How can you demonstrate this? As other posters are beginning to suggest, it may well be the fact that indeed foreigners have a distance from Thai culture that allows for greater objectivity and curiosity that for those ‘insiders’. This is worth teasing out in more detail…
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
@ Andrew Walker. I can’t see any statistical evidence in the latest UNDP Human Development Report that supports the main thesis of your WSJ article that red shirts are justified in being angry, despite now being fairly well off middle income peasants, due to deteriorating income equality relative to other countries in the region.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
>>3. “That the leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), the red shirts’ formal title, failed to grasp this olive branch [Abhisit's roadmap] is tragic. They, as much as trigger-happy soldiers, must bear some responsibility for the lives lost.”<<
This I strongly disagree. As much as? So their comrades who died by 'trigger-happy soldiers' share as much blame as the soldiers?
Truely shocking.
It's like he's saying they WANT to die.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
Nov 14 was not open to negotiations.
When Abhisit announced his road map it was non-negotiable, he simply said what he was going to do and that if everything goes to plan the country can have elections on that date.
Investigation of April 10 was very much part of that plan and I don’t believe he meant it would only be conducted by DSI.
Red leaders announced that they accept the roadmap in general, Abhisit that reminded them that if they want Nov 14 they have to stop the rally, the rest of his plan would go forward anyway.
A week had passed and reds showed no sign of moving out, and then there was Suthep goes to police comedy that turned Abhisit’s plan into negotiation over terms of red “surrender”.
That was non-negotiable, and it was never meant to be.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
Continuation of my previous posting…
Second, I would like to offer a working definition of middle class in Thailand as “those who pay income tax”. A large majority of the population, presumably including many of the red shirt ranks, are not in this category – as is entirely appropriate for those with lower incomes under the principles of progressive taxation. However, there is also a small but very wealthy minority who pay far less than their proper due to government through various forms of illegal or marginally legal tax evasion. And it is especially rankling when the tax so evaded represents extraordinary gains from a government concession, privatization, or capital gains on share sales facilitated by dubious legal mechanisms and/or self-dealing political actions.
A fundamental tension in Thai society is the fact that government programs to benefit the poor (rural or urban) have resulted in the red shirt movement and a groundswell of support that has benefited Thaksin and his cronies, rather than support for the government as an institution, and much less for the tax-paying middle class who have disproportionately paid for these programs. One need not be a royalist or moneyed elite to feel indignation toward the red shirt cause. And nobody has talked much about the thousands of shop and office workers in Bangkok who have been put out of their jobs, or the small businesses destroyed, by the recent red shirt protests.
If only Thaksin had chosen to pay capital gains tax on the Temasak share sale (a pittance in retrospect) recent history might have been very different – and he would be no less rich today.
Quality comment or not?
4 
2
Re: Chris Beale #23
It’s beyond the mundane perspective of “winning” or “losing”, it’s the fate of a country we are looking at.
And as I said we are happy and believe in this legitimate government, so why on earth must we have another election? Just because some people sat together in a group on a Bangkok street?
And mind, you Abhisit did offer to have a new election on Nov 14, much to my disappointment, though!
Quality comment or not?
1 
3
“They don’t accept the legitimacy of the way current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers. But most fundamentally, via the red shirts, rural Thailand is vigorously asserting its right to be represented in decision-making about the country’s future development. ”
I watched the count in Parliament. What brought the Democrats to power, ultimately, was the cynical defection of Newin, once one of Thaksin’s allies. But that’s politics. Frankly, “maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers” is slanderous. Unless you are privy to the inner workings of the palace, army and the judiciary, and can provide us with solid evidence.
“vigorously asserting” Oh yes. Very vigorous.
One thing about this forum that has me gritting my teeth in frustration is the attitude that Abhisit is a) some kind of ineffectual poodle for the unseen owners of the levers of power and is b) some kind of fascist ogre. Chaps, he can’t be both.
I think he’s tough (you don’t get to be PM of any country without being very tough) but also understands the problems well. He has also bent over backwards to accommodate the views of the Reds. He even offered early elections – bowing, in effect, to the mob. But they gave him the finger.
Quality comment or not?
3 
3
Portman,
whilst the economic dimension is one of the grievances of the Red Shirts, it is but one of several, and perhaps not even the most important. Just as important, and also commented on by Andrew and Nich, is the issue of meaningful social and political enfranchisement. Their is a significant layer of Red Shirt supporters who are from the provincial middle classes who have either spent time as internal migrant labor in Thailand’s urban centres or who have worked as migrant labor overseas – Dubai, Israel, Taiwan etc come to mind. The point is that these people are no longer the rural villagers of yesteryear. Whilst their identity is still in many ways bound up with the ‘village’, they have had sufficient urban (if not international) exposure to understand the machinations of power and political process. And they know that despite the fact that their income levels may match the urban middle classes, their social and political status lies far behind. That is, whils economically many Red Shirt supporters may be on level terms with their urban brethren, their inclusion in the Thai polity lags far behind. And these people feel it. They know they are looked down upon and that the BKK elites pay little heed to their desires and aspirations. Dignity and respect, for this layer of the movement, is just as significant as economic justice.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
StanG:
Abhisit offered the Nov. 14 election to the Thai people, not just to the red shirts. He had no authority to make deals about election dates with a specific group. Having agreed to a Nov. 14 election, he had no basis to rescind his agreement based on whether one group accepted additional terms or not. This is about democracy for the country, not deals with specific groups. Why is Abhisit not willing to stick to his offer of a Nov. 14 election?
As for Abhisit offering an investigation of April 10, do you seriously believe that any military leader would be held accountable even if an investigation concluded they were culpable? Can you point to a single instance in modern Thai history where the military has been held accountable for any violation of a citizen’s rights?
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
-The Flip Side-
The government in Thailand has been widely criticized for their use of deadly force and censorship in its attempts to maintain peace in that country.
Arguably, the present leadership in Thailand was installed by the military to represent their interests. Maybe that’s true. Does it matter? Democracy from its birth has represented the most powerful factions in a society and in that part of the world, the military is certainly all of that.
For a moment though, lets leave the political catchwords behind and look at the performance of this government.
Thailand’s economy is the region’s second biggest, and the country has made incredible strides forward in the last 20 years. Thais rarely want to leave their country, and westerners flock there in droves. Foreign ownership and exploitation has been kept to a minimum. Government bureaucracy is far less burdensome than in almost any other country you might care to mention. Crime is at very low levels compared to just about anywhere.
This is a country people want to live.
Whatever you want to call the present government, they have been doing a good job. Kingdom, Democracy, Military Junta. Call it what you will, its working and working well.
If there is one fault they have manifested, its the lack of recognition of their own strength. If they were more confident in their position, this government could reach out with an open hand to protesters and dissidents and offer them a greater part in the creation of the paradise that Thailand could become.
Quality comment or not?
2 
6
Nich/Andrew,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to see the Red Shirts as, to a large extent at least, a progressive grassroots movement motivated by the goal of a more egalitarian society, and pitted against a reactionary elite often referred to as the amartya. This is one hypothesis, and possibly the correct one. However, there are others. It could also be argued, for example, that the Red Shirts are actually a reactionary patronage network organised by regional strongmen who see the emerging middle class in Bangkok as a threat to their traditional power and access to state wealth through corruption. I am not entirely sure which of these competing hypotheses is nearer the truth, but having lived in Thailand for seventeen years and having observed the likes of Chalerm, Chavalit and Thaksin at close quarters with growing contempt well before the Red Shirts appeared, you will perhaps understand why I have a suspicion that the second hypothesis may turn out to be more accurate. I suppose my question, then, is this: Can anyone refute hypothesis number 2, that the Red’s are a reactionary patronage network?
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
Nigel – 42
Interesting point
“Red Shirts are actually a reactionary patronage network organised by regional strongmen who see the emerging middle class in Bangkok as a threat to their traditional power and access to state wealth through corruption”
One has to ask whether which came first, the emerging middle class in Bangkok or the emerging middle class in the provinces.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I would like to repeat a comment in another thread that went almost unnoticed, but refers to the elephant in the room that people are afraid to acknowledge. “It is said that only a few words from the top many years ago were taken to heart by the royalists for an all-out war against Thaksin.” We may not know for years whether this is true or not, but it has a great deal of explanatory power, and for this reason I wouldn’t mind betting that it is true. That would mean that the King himself put in train the sequence of events that has left his country in such a miserable state. Being a determinist, I am not charging him with moral responsibility for the tragedy, because its causes go back further than this. One of them is clearly the emergence of a somewhat unsavoury character as Prime Minister. Going back even further than that, is the moral climate in Thailand that causes, amongst other good and bad things, unsavoury characters to be welcomed in high positions (on both sides of the present political divide). The institution of monarchy in Thailand exists in that same moral climate. To invest one person with so much power is asking for trouble, even when the starting material is promising. We are all familiar with Lord Acton’s dictum “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The King is a human being who has been subjected to a long lifetime of flattery and grovelling at levels that were bound to end in trouble for him and his country. The Thai monarchy has evolved into a monster with great power to do evil, even in the hands of one who was possibly (it is hard to tell) a better than average man. Thais secretly realise that the power of the monarchy is out of control, and shudder at the prospect of it passing into the hands of someone who is worse than average. I would argue that the Monster which corrupted the father in mid-life started on the son at birth, and he never had a chance.
Before the outrage starts, the point here is not to pass moral judgement on individuals, but to devise institutions that select better behaviour.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
Bkk Lawyer,
Abhisit indeed offered the Nov 14 date to all Thai people, not just one group. He offered it, he could withdrew it, he wasn’t bound by any promises.
Whatever his calculation of Nov 14 was, it was clear from the start that main condition was discontinuing the red rally, and he had listed other factors that could have postponed the election date even further.
Reds, of course, were right that he didn’t commit himself to anything, and that it’s beyond his authority to set election dates.
That was his offer, however, they agreed to it in principle, and it was hinged on their full cooperation that clearly wasn’t forthcoming.
Probe in Oct 2008 violence named a whole bunch of senior officials from both police and the government. I don’t remember if Somchai, who was the PM at the time, was exonerated or not.
Of course you could argue that it was police, not the army, but then – when did the army commit any serious atrocities?
Tak Bai and Krue Sue under Thaksin? Why would Abhisit resurrect those? He has more pressing matters to attend. Reds didn’t ask to investigate them either.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
More on Thaksin’s role in derailing the peacetalks, this time from James Hookway of Wall Street Journal:
1. “People on both sides of Thailand’s political divide with knowledge of the negotiations say that Mr. Thaksin’s interventions—which they say included a number of new demands that ended up slowing the talks intended to end the political standoff—delayed an agreement for new elections that would have enabled the protesters to call off their months-long rally. His machinations prompted the most senior opposition Red Shirt negotiator to quit in frustration, according to these people.”
2. “But in recent weeks Mr. Thaksin has kept in close contact with rogue military officers training a paramilitary “people’s army” to attack troops and turn Bangkok’s streets into a war zone, according to opposition members involved in the conflict.”
3. “At a luxury hotel near the Red Shirts’ camp in central Bangkok, a team of Mr. Thaksin’s lawyers and advisers regularly conferred with protest leaders and other negotiators to ensure that Mr. Thaksin was kept in the loop over the past several weeks.”
4. “People involved in both government and opposition camps say Mr. Thaksin urged hard-liners to come up with fresh demands that stalled the process, ultimately leading to the talks’ collapse.They say Red Shirt leader Veera Musikapong quit the negotiations in disgust.
“He was questioning why they were bothering to talk when Mr. Thaksin was delaying any progress,” says one person involved in the mediations. Mr. Veera is in army custody and couldn’t be reached for comment.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704852004575257790134925082.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory
Quality comment or not?
7 
3
The only direct stuff from Thaksin that I have seen lately has been conciliatory. However I wouldn’t be surprised if he were making plans for funding the guerrilla warfare he mentioned as a “theory” of the outcome of the violent repression. Also, I suspect that the Wall Street Journal article linked to (46) is lies fed to a lazy journalist by the Thai Government, which probably also planted “Updater” here. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch. All of them are crooks, some worse than others.
Quality comment or not?
1 
3
R.N.England could not be more wrong when he commented “The only direct stuff from Thaksin that I have seen lately has been conciliatory.”
Thaksin S. is vindictive and determined to give the city of Bangkok hell.
The mastermind’s latest comment: Daily News Page 3, Politics Page, Friday May 21, 2010
Translated and Rewritten by Pornchai Sereemongkonpol
*If I can’t live there, then don’t hope that any Thai can live there comfortably.’
Quality comment or not?
3 
2
No more comments from me. I want to withdraw coz I’m sick of people thought they know a lot about what’s happening but they actually don’t. Maybe this news article from a local Thai newspaper might help open up your blue eyes a little bit. Names and VDO clips are the evidence that this is not a made up story. Sorry only available in Thai, if you can read.
พ.อ.สรรเสริญ แก้วกำเนิด โฆษก ศอฉ.ได้มีการเปิดคลิปภาพยนตร์สั้นๆ จำนวนรวม 7 คลิปที่เกี่ยวกับการกล่าวปลุกระดมจากแกนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดงให้มวลชนมีการวางเพลิงเผาบ้านเผาเมือง โดยในคลิปดังกล่าวมีคลิป พ.ต.ท.ทักษิณ ชินวัตร อดีตนายกรัฐมนตรี ระบุว่า “ให้พี่น้องต่างจังหวัดไปที่ศาลากลางกทม.ผมอยากฝากบอกคนเสื้อแดงทั่วประเทศอีกครั้งหนึ่งว่า ถ้ามีอะไรเกิดขึ้นรุนแรงกับพี่น้องคนเสื้อแดงที่กรุงเทพ พี่น้องเสื้อแดงต่างจังหวัดไปที่ศาลากลางกันให้เต็มที่”
หลังจากนั้นมีเสียงนายจตุพร ระบุว่า “ให้พี่น้องเสื้อแดงทุกจังหวัดไปรวมกันที่ศาลกลางเพื่อรอเวลา ฟังสัญญาณจากที่นี่ จอมืดเมื่อไรแสดงว่าส่งสัญญาณปราบแล้ว ให้พี่น้องตัดสินใจทันที”
จากนั้นเป็นคลิปของนายอริสมันต์ พงษ์เรืองรอง แกนนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดง ปราศรัยบนเวทีว่า “ถ้ารู้ว่า เขาจะปราบปราม ให้กลุ่มผู้ชุมนุมนำขวดแก้วมาคนละใบ บรรจุน้ำมันให้ได้ 75 ซีซีหรือ 1 ลิตร หากในกรุงเทพมีน้ำมัน 1 ล้านลิตรรับรองกรุงเทพ เป็นทะเลเพลิงอย่างแน่นอน การต่อสู้คนเสื้อแดงต้องทำให้ได้แบบนี้ อยากให้ทหารรู้ว่า หากเข้ามาทำลายคนเสื้อแดง แม้เลือดออกแม้แต่หยดเดียวหมายความว่า กรุงเทพต้องเป็นทะเลเพลิงทันที ในส่วนต่างจังหวัด หากมีอะไรเกิดขึ้นที่กรุงเทพ ให้ไปรอศาลากลางจังหวัดไม่ต้องรอเงื่อนไข จัดการให้ราบพณาสูญ”
ต่อมาเป็นคลิปภาพการปราศรัยของนายวีระ มุสิกพงศ์ แกนนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดงระบุว่า การสู้ของทหารโดยใช้ยุทธิวิธีแบบนี้จะทำให้คนอื่นเขากลัว คิดว่า ยุทธวิธีแบบนี้จะทำให้ประชาชนแตกฉาน และขอบอกให้รู้ว่า ไฟจะลุกท่วมทุกตารางนิ้วของประเทศไทย
ส่วนคลิปของนายณัฐวุฒิ ใสยเกื้อ แกนนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดง ระบุว่า “ถ้าคุณยึดอำนาจผมให้เผาทั่วประเทศ เผาไปเลยพี่น้อง ผมรับผิดชอบเอง ถ้าใครจะจับมาเอากับผม อย่างที่ผมบอกคนเสื้อแดงขี้ตกใจหากยิงตูม คนเสื้อแดงจะวิ่งเข้าเกสร พารากอน วิ่งเข้าโรงแรม แนวโน้มการตกใจมีหลายประการ บางคนตกใจวิ่งหากระเป๋าแบรนด์เนม บางคนตกใจชอบวิ่งไปหาเครื่องประดับ ทอง เพชร บางคนตกใจชอบขับรถเข้าไปในห้าง บางคนตกใจจุดไฟเข้ามาก็มี”
จากนั้นได้มีการเปิดคลิปนายจตุพร พรหมพันธ์ แกนนำกลุ่มคนเสื้อแดง ปราศรัยว่า “คุณไม่ต้องมาบอกว่า สถานที่สำคัญที่เขาไปก่อวินาศกรรม คุณไม่ต้องไปกุข่าวว่า สถานที่ศาสนสถานของมุสลิม โรงพยาบาล ถนนราชวิถี สะพานข้ามแม่น้ำ โรงพยาบาลศิริราช ทำเนียบ สนามบิน ธนาคารแห่งประเทศ ศาลยุติธรรม องค์กรอิสระ คุณไม่ต้องบอก หากคุณใช้ความรุนแรงกับคนเสื้อแดง รับรองว่า สิ่งที่คุณพูดจะไม่มีเหลืออยู่ในประเทศไทยอย่างแน่นอน วันนี้จะต่อสู้ครั้งสุดท้าย หากไม่ชนะ เป้าหมายคือคุกและตายเท่านั้น เดิมทีคนเสื้อแดงมีแค่พรรคการเมือง และมวลชน แต่วันนี้แก้วอีกประการหนึ่ง คือ กองกำลังไม่ทราบฝ่ายพร้อมปกป้องคนเสื้อแดง”
Quality comment or not?
0 
4
meeng – 49
Local news, which is control by the government will not convince us dude.
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
Here is a post written shortly after the crackdown and reading Andrew Walker’s piece in the WSJ on the plane home. It was pure coincidence that I planned returning to the US during this time.
From http://aanesan.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/reflections-upon-return-aan-the-thai-crisis/
As I wait to fly home tomorrow, the “final crackdown” is taking place in central Bangkok. Protesters willing to fight to the death are destroying public and private property after a week-long, violent struggle with police and military. After working with the AAN for the past few years, I will be returning to a quiet, peaceful part of the U.S. to grow organic vegetables. These years have also been the start of a new time in Thai politics. Things will probably only get much worse before they get any better.
Before this week of violence began, waiting for a ride to Chiang Mai, I received a few of my daily “TheNation” text messages:
“Royal Ploughing Ceremony Thur., abundant water resources, foods predicted.”
“Govt revoked Nov. 14 general election offer, after UDDs refused to move out of Rajprasong late Wed.”
In Yasothon it has rained three times in the past six months. Farmers who planted a second rice crop now let their cows and buffaloes graze in the paddies, eating dried up young rice plants. This is not the picture of a healthy agro-ecological system. Yet we are promised abundance by the royal cows. There are many things wrong with Thailand’s food and agriculture system – small farmers in Esan face a crisis of livelihood, culture, environment and politics. The irony of the Ploughing Ceremony is both environmental and political – as Thailand is elected to the UN Human Rights Council the government sends troops to kill Thai citizens in the streets. As I exchanged some cash at one of the bank branches in the airport, the teller asked me how I would explain the current crisis to people in America. I told him it would take some time to explain the background and certain complexities not reported in the mainstream media. He responded immediately, “and tell them that these people aren’t Thais.” This must be how the government views the Reds as well.
Of course joining with the Red shirts would be appealing or hopeful to those who saw Thaksin come out to find the people and actually enact policies. Now, as I write, the Rajprasong area of Bangkok, a space symbolic of both Thaksin’s “CEO” approach to governance and the massive inequalities still present in Thai society, has been taken back by the government.
As people are murdered by the military, we must speak out against this injustice. The government is staying in power through violence – a massacre is currently taking place. Reds are responding, destroying public and private property in Bangkok, Udon and Khon Kaen. The city hall in Khon Kaen is up in flames and villagers are fighting with the police.
As a network, movement and organization, the Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) doesn’t yet have enough mass to change society. We agree with the need for structural change in the government. Thailand’s non-transparent wealth-accumulation without good governance or citizen’s equality is part of a long-term economic crisis. This political crisis is short-term by comparison – the expansion of private capital into rural Thailand is a trend that has destroyed local peoples’ opportunity and has fueled the anger of many struggling people in Esan.
Over the long-term, this “rural transformation” has brought a response from “civil society advocates…but many of them got sidetracked by their anti-capitalist agenda and constructed an anachronistic stereotype of communal lifestyles and subsistence-oriented farming. This compounded the middle-income peasantry’s cultural marginalization.” Andrew Walker rightly points out that Thai civil society has lost it’s chance to be a bigger voice for social change. But I have come to understand that the AAN orients itself towards creating sustainable livelihoods together with small farmers. This is a process of empowerment that both political movements lack. These farm-based livelihoods are also closely connected to alternative markets that support local, fair systems of connecting producers to urban consumers. This is not a subsistence-orientation, but a recognition of farmers’ interdependence with markets. AAN farmers are actively building networks and strengthening community.
Perhaps we are idealist, with little reach thus far. But for farmers themselves to take a stand against the injustices inherent to Thailand’s economy is to actively promote a progressive agenda aimed at raising awareness in society while supporting farmers rights to food and livelihood. In this “modern rural world of contract farming,” this is activism at it’s best – a problematic system in which agribusiness like CP has benefited and left farmers with new risk and more debt is openly criticized by small fish, sugarcane, vegetable and pig farmers and in response, sustainable practices are developed as solutions to this problematic system. Dissatisfaction with government policy is meaningless without proposals based in concrete alternatives – civil society and Red shirts agree on the need for reform, but the AAN believes that an alternative future is possible.
A different kind of development is possible: a development that empowers local communities to participate in the political and infrastructural changes taking place, values educational institutions as civic centers for next generation of community leaders (and not private investment opportunities) and supports an integrated rural economy with a genuinely local food system. 80% of Thailand’s farmers are small scale – are we going to work to support these communities or sit back and watch this injustice continue?
Quality comment or not?
4 
1