Fair Analysis.... I Think So

[shygye]

[color:green]He says the Democrats should have emphasized Thaksin's human rights violations rather than corruption. Good point since Thaksin committed gross human rights violations, but this is shaky ground for the Democrats, particularly since they rely on the military for backing.[/color]

 

Well that would blow back on ALL the Thais in power. They all supported it. Not a single MP during the drug war killings said it was wrong. Neither did the Thai Lawyers Assoc., or the Privy counsel, etc. There is blood on the Democrats hands.

[Lord Toad]

There is little doubt in my mind that Tak Bai was a crime against humanity - a war crime.

Thaksin was the Commander in chief same a Milosovic/Kadic in Serbia. I have always thought he could/should be charged and tried in the Hague. If I was the Thai Government that would be great solution. Gets rid of him and somebody else is to blame.

But as suggested I suspect several others are also in the loop.

[shygye]

Then Ahbisit should be charged with crimes against humanity. He was in charge when the Thai navy towed Burmese refugees out to sea and set adrift!

[drogon]

Too heated debate, no objective opinions especially from the the people who are there right in the middle of things (and of course you can't expect a serious analysis from people living abroad who never ever went to Thailand)

 

Historians in 50-80 years will most certainly (if some of them have a look at it)do a better job.

 

Just a few points though:

. Presenting the red movement as 'Robin hoods' is wrong and pure crap, this was a gullible crowd following some self-interested leaders

 

. Labelling the whole red movement as terrorists is propaganda and inaccurate, most of the reds were relatively peaceful

 

. Revolution? General popular uprising? Nope, no way just a minor movement ,even at the peak of the protest they were only 200-300K at most -> compare that to the 60+ million Thais so in no way can they be called anything major.

-> if they had been 5-10 million openly protesting in various parts of the country then yes it could have been considered a revolution

 

Just my 2 cents

 

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly Said:

...(e.g., "the parliamentary process by which the Democrat coalition came to power was the same process by which the Lib Dems and Tories have attained power in Britain" - I don't think so)...

 

 

Explain to me like I am a 5th grader just why you think this is so...

 

I don't recall there being a coup where the military came in to power to dislodge Tony Blair or his successor. There weren't two dubious judicial decisions removing Tony Blair's successor(s). I never thought much of Samak, but he was elected by a majority of the MPs. He was removed because he continued to run a cooking show??

 

But for these events, Abbhisit would not be the PM today. I don't think you can say anything remotely liked this happened in the Britain. And I haven't gotten into the behind the scenes armed twisting by the armed forces (don't need to make the point, but it certainly reinforces the point).

 

The irony here is that I thought Abbhisit would make a better PM than his predecessors. Let's hope he is sincere about reconciliation, but also let's not delude ourselves about how he came into power. It certainly was not "the same process by which the Lib Dems and Tories have attained power in Britain."

 

Even if you favor the reds or the yellows (I prefer neither), we need to be honest about these matters.

[Gadfly]

. Presenting the red movement as 'Robin hoods' is wrong and pure crap, this was a gullible crowd following some self-interested leaders

 

. Labelling the whole red movement as terrorists is propaganda and inaccurate, most of the reds were relatively peaceful

 

. Revolution? General popular uprising? Nope, no way just a minor movement ,even at the peak of the protest they were only 200-300K at most -> compare that to the 60+ million Thais so in no way can they be called anything major.

-> if they had been 5-10 million openly protesting in various parts of the country then yes it could have been considered a revolution

 

I agree with virtually all of this. But I wouldn't characterize the "red movement" (to the extent it includes the PPP) as a "minor movement". If there were elections tomorrow or anytime in the foreseeable, the current government would fall and the PPP would come into power.

 

That has been a constant since Thaksin was ousted from power in a coup. We saw it in two elections. And there is a group here that detest Thaksin (many good reasons to detest him) to such an extent they are willing to use unjustifiable means to keep any of his successors out of power.

 

If the North and Issan don't see the current government as legitimate, how are they going to govern the country? I do think there has been a fundamental change in how the less fortunate here (there not really that poor and perhaps that is part of the issue) view the power system here as being fundamentally unfair.

 

I am not sure if that counts as a revolution, but it's a big headache for anyone trying to govern this country without the support of the majority in the rural areas of Thailand. I am not sure if this can be done now without further unrest.

[Lord Toad]

Abhist came to power after a group of MPs changed sides - crossed the floor of the house is the usual description. On that basis he is legitimate.

 

Samak knew as PM he could do not other work - nor should he. If in any other country a PM ran a cooking show he would be laughed out of office - with the possible exception of Belesconi.

 

If it were me there are two suggestion I would propose:

1 A federalization of the country with say five states Issan, Central, North West (Chiangs), South and the Extreme south (Muslim area.) Give plenty of autonomy to the new states.

2 What we English call magistrates courts which would take much power from the police as everybody would get there day in court and quickly at that.

[Gadfly]

Abhist came to power after a group of MPs changed sides - crossed the floor of the house is the usual description. On that basis he is legitimate.

You are right, provided we ignore the following:

 

1. It took a military coup to oust the opposition TRT.

 

2. After the military government left and even after banning leading politicians of the opposition TRT (now PPP) and re-drafting the constitution to favor the Democrats, the opposition PPP still easily obtained a majority and a member of the PPP became PM. It took a dubious court decision to oust this PM.

 

3. A second round of elections were held, and the opposition PPP again easily won and a member of the PPP became PM. Again, a dubious court decision ousted this PM. (Come on, I don't like Samak either, but kicking the guy out of office for a cooking show??)

 

4. In the third try to make sure the PPP didn't come into power, coalition partners of the PPP were strong armed into switching sides.

 

5. If elections were held tomorrow or even next month, its certainty that the PPP would win with an overwhelming majority.

 

But if we ignore all of this, we aren't being honest with ourselves and it certainly isn't the way coalition governments are typically formed in Britain.

 

Look, I don't like Thaksin or what he represents either (I much prefer Abbhisit and Korn, although some of their yellow partners make my stomach turn), but we need to be honest about how he came to power. It's a big part of the problem here in Thailand, and no "fair analysis" can ignore it.

 

This week's The Economist has a good analysis. So did Khun Pasuk and Chris Baker in the Wall Street Journal. But not this other stuff.

[Gadfly]

A federalization of the country with say five states Issan, Central, North West (Chiangs), South and the Extreme south (Muslim area.) Give plenty of autonomy to the new states

 

I thought about this as well (I like this part of your post) and I have seen others make references to this solution. I don't think it's going to happen and I am pretty sure the powers-that-be will do their most to prevent it from happening, but if you look at Thai history, Issan only became part of the Thai nation when Western colonial powers forced Thailand to draw its boundaries.

 

Before that time, Issan was essentially a separate vassal state, and central Thailand (Bangkok) has historically had problems and conflicts with many parts of what we now call 'Thailand', including particularly Issan and the far south.

 

Now, I would like to see the reaction if The Economist or the Wall Street Journal suggested something this radical. Unfortunately, if matters continue down the current path...

[Flashermac]

<< 2. After the military government left and even after banning leading politicians of the opposition TRT (now PPP) and re-drafting the constitution to favor the Democrats, the opposition PPP still easily obtained a majority and a member of the PPP became PM. It took a dubious court decision to oust this PM. >>

 

 

PPP easily obtained a majority? And here I was thinking it was a coalition government.