Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Julian2

On Behalf Of the Rural Farang.

Recommended Posts

Hi Kim, I fixed the editorial. Don't mention it sir. No link currently, but will also fwd to the WSJ, always known for its keen insight into the 'real Thailand.'

Actually it's just an Op-ed, not a WSJ staffer writing it. To my great surprise, it's actually a Chang Noi's piece. I don't think there is any question about Chang Noi's insight into the real Thailand.

 

other link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say one consequence of the assassination was the fires.

 

 

Maybe, or maybe Thaksin had his own guy wacked...still can't find a red hater to say no way he'd ever do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am concerned that if the elections do not happen by at least November, then the "protest" will be on again.

 

Also, why did the gov not have spies to know that all the destruction was going to happen at the end? Are the Red Shirts so well organized and secret about their plans?

Recall that the alleged Red Shirt leaders trained with some of the best revolutionary minds on the planet.

 

That's not a joke, and it isn't sarcasm. Say whatever else you want to say about the ChiComs, and their star pupils the North Vietnamese, but the fact is that those boys KNOW how to plan and throw a proper revolutionary shindig such as this one.

 

Yes, the government SHOULD have had spies inside the Red Shirt enclave, and probably did, but that doesn't mean they were all the way inside the inner circle. AND, it is not at all certain that the really nasty stuff was planned and executed from inside the encampment. If this was a properly-planned ChiCom party, the Black Shirt Militia, and their command structure, was Somewhere Else, where the inevitable police raid would NOT have been able to touch it before the party got properly under way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I agree with you. I sympathize with the reds, but that is not done on this board.

 

If a country wants democracy, you have to sit out the shit storm if a bad government is elected. You can't overturn two governments who won the elections by a huge margin and expect the rural people to move on as if it's business as usual.

 

I understand the elite's concern that Thaksins' reign could spell the end of democracy, but that is no reason to end democracy yourself and outlaw the winning party of the next elections based on relatively minor issues. That was a stupid, stupid move that backfired.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say one consequence of the assassination was the fires.

 

 

Maybe' date=' or maybe Thaksin had his own guy wacked...still can't find a red hater to say no way he'd ever do it.[/quote']

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This did cross my mind. Seh Daeng had a big mouth and could be seen as a detriment once his usefulness was over.

 

Cent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[color:red]You can't overturn two governments who won the elections by a huge margin[/color] and expect the rural people to move on as if it's business as usual.

 

 

 

Which governments were those? Takky won by 51% his second time around. He himself dissolved that government to call a new election. It was boycotted and no government could be formed, since there were not enough MPs elected. Then the Army's coup gave him the boot.

 

In the next election NO PARTY won a majority. Takky's supporters formed a coalition government, which collapsed when the party was dissolved for blatant corruption (on videotape).

 

Not to say the red proles have no complaint, but it is not quite the way they chose to portray it. Let's have a new election and see what happens. (There is still talk the November election may take place.)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, I agree with you. I sympathize with the reds, but that is not done on this board.

 

No, that is complete nonsense. Sympathize with the recent Red Shirt protest all you want - others here just find it difficult to understand that perspective, and tried to get someone to discuss this point. And with the exception of Julian2 - don't remember anyone actually trying to discuss in a rational manner.

 

If a country wants democracy, you have to sit out the shit storm if a bad government is elected. You can't overturn two governments who won the elections by a huge margin and expect the rural people to move on as if it's business as usual.

 

Yes, somewhat agree to your first part about sitting out the bad government or bringing them down in parliament as prescribed by the constitution. But the second part I don't agree with even your facts. With all that is wrong with Thailand (and some find this loose level of authority the main attraction here) - I find that the judicial system is probably the most transparent. Every major decision from the top courts have been issued with full written justification for everyone to read. The courts/judges were not set up or appointed by the military - they continued to function throughout the last 5 years unchanged.

 

I understand the elite's concern that Thaksins' reign could spell the end of democracy, but that is no reason to end democracy yourself and outlaw the winning party of the next elections based on relatively minor issues. That was a stupid, stupid move that backfired.

 

Again, I disagree with the premise of this whole argument.

 

1. Issues were not minor, especially since they were specifically put in both the 1997 Constitution and the 2007 version.

 

2. The government was not overthrown at all - only Samak's ability to be the PM in the first case, and Somchai's executive team in the second case. Neither ruling brought down the government Soongmak, so your argument is completely misleading.

 

What brought down the ruling party was that their own members moved to form a coalition with the Democrats - a coalition that is still together.

 

Finally, the winning party is expected to govern for the benefit of the country. You would expect that they would implement their specific policies of course - but still the overall benefit of the country should come first - right?

 

So look at the aftermath:

 

a. Rural poor in what, 65 out of 76 provinces did not rise up in protest.

 

b. The provinces that did have protests - what was the common denominator? The plight of the poor? Or something else?

 

The Assembly of the Poor has been protesting their conditions for generations - that part of what some of the Red Shirt protesters actually believed in will finally get some real government action - not just a quick handout.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was boycotted and no government could be formed, since there were not enough MPs elected. Then the Army's coup gave him the boot.

 

And why was it boycotted? Because the other parties knew they would lose. They wanted to get rid of Thaksin, no matter what the consequences for Thailand. Around this time people began to talk about Isan people basically being to stupid to vote. Not a good argument if you want a democracy.

 

 

Not to say the red proles have no complaint, but it is not quite the way they chose to portray it. Let's have a new election and see what happens. (There is still talk the November election may take place.)

 

Agree. That goes for both sides, though. I do think a simplification is in order because it really is about the right to vote and decide who you want to be in charge, and that is a legitimate need in any democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...