It’s not the rich against the poor

[Simon Ong]

This is the problem of the situation in Thailand now. Yes, having an election now will surely impede the implementation of policies and visions set by incumbent government. However, is there anyone asking the same thing two years ago when the yellow shirts have illegally sabotaj the law and justice of country? In fact, that time was the 2nd time they tried to disrupt the regulation and law of country. The coup in 2006 was the 1st. Why the majority needs to listen and succumb to minority? This country is a democracy-based and if the national election is held without any meaning or effect, then, better cancel this democratic system and replace with the system applied in Burma.

The current street protest is making most of the ppl feeling uneasy and inconvenient, it is truly understandable. But, if you want the book of history to record the methods the incumbent government seizing the power is legal and acceptable, then you will be misleading the mind of the new young generation in future. Only an immediate election will truly and completely bring the situation back. If the incumbent government believe that they are the choice of most people, what do they scare as an open and democratic election will only bolden their position, intergrity among global and belief of thais. And by no mean of offence, I see no great visions, policies and plans sincerely set, deployed and arranged by incumbent government which is for nation sake. Instead, every now and then, they only focus on one thing: how to demolish the power of Thaksin? Thaksin is their main agenda after all.

Maybe you will sense that a football match example is too lightly to describe current situation, but believe it or not, this is majority of street protestors stand for. Not because they have been paid a daily wages by Thaksin, nor they are deliberating how much money they will get if thaksin is back in place, nor they are thinking the GDP of country and all in all, they stand no for any grandious reasons. The main reason is: they are feeling the unfair treatment from the current situation and they think they need to stand up to fight for what the country deserve to be.

I have read a lot of articles writing about the plight condition and innocence of the grassroot red-shirt protesters that at the end, all their effort will only bring good to certain ppl, but surely not themselves, as they will return to live life as before even after what they fight for has declared victory. Thus the query here: is it worth for them to scarifice themselves for somebody who later maybe not recognising their effort?

Instead taking all the things like money, reputation, national security, democracy sake, etc in to weight the agenda they are waging for, lets us narrow down the scale so that we can see it clearly. I would use a football game to describe what most of them stand for actually.

This is the final match of FIFA European Champion Cup, between Tottenhem Hot Spurs (T - Thaksin) and AC Milan (A - Abbhisit). The game finished with Tottenhem claimed victory by narrow 1-0 win over AC Milan. After the match, the AC Milan's verdict that the victory should be cancelled as the player who scored the goal is obviously off-site (the election is manipulated and the vote is bought). Unfortunately due to the bad weather, there is no satellite to broadcast and record that game thus, the claim by AC Milan is true or not still in doubt. Instead asking for re-match, AC Milan has singled out the chance for Tottenhem and monolithically, claim itself a victory. To make the things worse, the president of FIFA, has accepted the result. Ok, being a supporter and fan of Tottenhem FC, how do you feel? You are still cheering with other fans over the victory of your team, then suddenly the other side come in and snatch the victory. And now the Tottenhem is demanding for a re-match, not even asking AC Milan to return them the fame. But AC Milan refuse and in return, dubbed the opposite as "terriorist". And may put them in jail if they further any protest and struggle.

The queries arise here:
1) Is it an act of "terriost" to ask just even for a re-match?
2) Is it the victory claimed is in place though they have never ever really beaten the opposite team?
3) Where is the justice?

The current street protestors in Bangkok is just like a football team fan who is vexed by the outrageous treatment form other parties. Maybe what they support will not grant them any return at last, but this is the sentiment which does matter. A footballer like Messi is earning millions per year, but why u still support him (if u were his fan) since all the money earned by him will not share with you and he even doesnt know who u are. To put it in simple, because we admire his hardwork, contributions and, or may be just merely like him, with no special reason. If you want to understand the thinking of the street protestors, just match their sentiment with the above mentioned case that they are none others than loyal Tottenham FC fans who witness how the team they love and admire had been treated unfairly.

Hereby is the message to all so called "elite", journalist and social thinker: Dun try to complicate the sentiment of the red-shirt protestors with all the things like money, fortune, financial return, reputatation, paid by Mr. Thaksin to carry out the demonstartion, etc. As long as you still keep such thinking in judging protestors ability, prowess, endurance and motive, you will forever stay in ur own world which is dirty and with money and reputation driven mind. Of course, there is no room for any comments and arguments of you which is able to resolve the crisis.However if you were not a football nor any other sport team fans, I forgive you, as you will never truly understand the sentiment of a loyal fan.

(P/s: For any fans of Tottenham FC and AC Milan, the above illutrasted match is just to emblem the current street chaos. No offence, sincerely)

What the red shirt is asking is like asking a rematch the next day, when everyone is tired.

Anyway this example is fallacious as a country is much more than a football and there are many factors affecting how the country is run.

If you keep on having too frequent elections the country is going to be unstable as policies cannot be implemented by the govt as effectively as giving the govt time. The election no doubt will happen by 2011 as scheduled, the red shirts just want it earlier for some hidden incentives.

[Hard_done_by]

... The election no doubt will happen by 2011 as scheduled, the red shirts just want it earlier for some hidden incentives.

While I'm not sure a soccer match is a good analogy for anarchy, and I'm not sure that you'd really like to see your red-shirted friends treated by the Thai army as the Burmese might treat their citizens (as you allude to), I am however interested in your last paragraph which I've quoted.

Would you care to explain what you mean by 'hidden incentives'?

I think the problem is T-land is starting to rise like the problem Israel has in the middle east with the Palestinians, it's always tit-for-tat, and never ending conflict - each always blaming the other.

In T-land, it seems that both sides always seem to be able to point to something, and in seems in most cases to be the same issue but from each other's standpoint - mostly it's about corruption. The PAD say Mr. T. and his successors were corrupt, the reds says Mr. A. is corrupt.

How do you think that an election (even if it brings in a red shirt-backed government) would solve the problem?

Don't you think that the PAD would just step in where the reds are now, and use the same tactics to achive the same outcome?

Rather than say what is right for the reds, do you have a solution which will please both sides in the conflict (I mean, the PAD and red shirts)?

[Simon Ong]

Dear Mr. Hard_Done_By,

The current political impasse is impossible to solve overnight. However a re-election is the only pathway to gradually solve the problem, with the conditions as below:

1) Both sides must (in fact all parties take part in the election) sign off an official letter/memoradum and swear that they will respect the outcome of the election (if possible, broadcast through tv so that every audience can be the witness)

2) If possible, though a bit shameful, invite a representative from UN to chair the election;

3) Military and other non-political parties should not take part, step in, carry out coup, etc in the election;

4) Prior and during the election, all media should not bias in their report (fake and bias news will only ignite the fire among ppl). If possible, all the columnist, reporters, journalists should not make any extreme comment and obviously loopsided report);

5) The system of the election must be clear: that is democracy based election, where minority need to succumb to majority; This is the message for all voters that this is the rule of election;

6) No street protest and chaos during the election period; The military should carry out their job here;

7) Every vote is counted regardless he is a farmer or what so called "elite".

... The election no doubt will happen by 2011 as scheduled, the red shirts just want it earlier for some hidden incentives.

While I'm not sure a soccer match is a good analogy for anarchy, and I'm not sure that you'd really like to see your red-shirted friends treated by the Thai army as the Burmese might treat their citizens (as you allude to), I am however interested in your last paragraph which I've quoted.

Would you care to explain what you mean by 'hidden incentives'?

I think the problem is T-land is starting to rise like the problem Israel has in the middle east with the Palestinians, it's always tit-for-tat, and never ending conflict - each always blaming the other.

In T-land, it seems that both sides always seem to be able to point to something, and in seems in most cases to be the same issue but from each other's standpoint - mostly it's about corruption. The PAD say Mr. T. and his successors were corrupt, the reds says Mr. A. is corrupt.

How do you think that an election (even if it brings in a red shirt-backed government) would solve the problem?

Don't you think that the PAD would just step in where the reds are now, and use the same tactics to achive the same outcome?

Rather than say what is right for the reds, do you have a solution which will please both sides in the conflict (I mean, the PAD and red shirts)?

[Jefferson]

Simon.....you actually believe that all sides would honor any such agreement? If so, then clearly you have not been paying attention to all of the lies and deceptions from all parties. Your anaysis is superficial, as a new election at this time will solve nothing. This is not about democracy, this about Thaksin. If new election held and PT wins, and then attempts amnesty for Thaksin.......the mob will return and have yellow shirts. If non-PT wins, then Thaksin will have his reds back on the street.

Nope, a new election will solve nothing, as losers will not honor it regardless of any agreements. To think otherwise here is simply naive and ignores all recent history.

There is a government now is power. Voters who do not like that should campaign and vote them out the next election. The cycle of outcomes being determined by street mobs must cease and the law needs to be fairly enforced against all.

Of course this will never happen, so we are all essentally just wasting our time with these posts.

[Hard_done_by]

..

Thanks for replying Simon, but with respect, you really didn't answer any of my questions. Clearly you think that what the UDD is doing is reasonable, but I think that westerners would see the UDD as attempting to achive a political goal by means of anarchy - I really don't believe for a second that any leader in the civilized world would allow an action as that undertaken by the UDD in any of their respective cities/countries - I don't think there is any argument that the UDD are anachists and not mere demonstrators. They have destroyed property without concern, caused physical harm to hundreds of people and caused economic harm to perhaps millions of people, and they say they have a right to protest - I think the truth is that there isn't much sympathy for them in the rest of the world, however, there is great concern in the rest of the world for the people of T-land.
I think the red's are acting like a poker player who wants to stay in the game but not play by the rules. That is, to ask for a new hand, and expect everyone else to keep the hand they've got. Why would you think that the PAD won't play by the same rules as the UDD? After all, if it works for the UDD, it'll work just fine for the PAD too. A bit of violence, kill a few here and there, cause economic damage - it's an age old game - agitate - use the masses to achieve goals - clearly there'll be interested folk behind the PAD just like there's interested folk behind the UDD.
No thinking person would say that the PAD had a right to do the things it done, like closing the airport, but two 'wrongs' won't make a 'right' - two wrongs make what is wrong right: the UDD have made one really big mistake and that's to ligitimise anarchy, and then somehow be naive enough to expect that life in Bangkok would somehow return to 'normal' after they achieve what they want - but it won't.
So, how do you solve the cyclical logic that applies to T-land as it finds itself today? This whole thing should have been nipped as a bud, but it wasn't, and it grew and now it's a problem which will not be easily solved.
Just as an observation, I think that UN oversight would be as useful as a pair of sandals in the snow , especially in a country where the UN doesn't understand the culture and the language, and yes, to see the UN in T-land would be more than quite an embarassment for the Thai government and people.

[trtrz]

Dear Mr. Hard_Done_By,

The current political impasse is impossible to solve overnight. However a re-election is the only pathway to gradually solve the problem, with the conditions as below:

1) Both sides must (in fact all parties take part in the election) sign off an official letter/memoradum and swear that they will respect the outcome of the election (if possible, broadcast through tv so that every audience can be the witness)

A piece of paper is nothing, if no side throughly agree with it. Look at the law now, no one agrees with it.

This would be worth nothing more than a piece of paper that Chamberlain signed with Hitler not to got o war with each other.

2) If possible, though a bit shameful, invite a representative from UN to chair the election;

could be possible, but this doesn't solve the problems that will arise after the election.

3) Military and other non-political parties should not take part, step in, carry out coup, etc in the election;

agreed. But each side gonna blame each other in some ways regarding this.

RIght nwo red shirts are making ABhisit somekind of military puppet, when this claim may not actually be true.

4) Prior and during the election, all media should not bias in their report (fake and bias news will only ignite the fire among ppl). If possible, all the columnist, reporters, journalists should not make any extreme comment and obviously loopsided report);

agreed.

But PTV and ASTV won't probably agree on this.

5) The system of the election must be clear: that is democracy based election, where minority need to succumb to majority; This is the message for all voters that this is the rule of election;

true, but what is the majority?

Abhisit is voted in by the majority as well, since the majority of the representatives that people vote for voted for him to be PM.

6) No street protest and chaos during the election period; The military should carry out their job here;

In what context is carrying out job? Inevitably there gonna be violence if military need to crackdown and alot of people are against that and at the same time ask the military to take action.

7) Every vote is counted regardless he is a farmer or what so called "elite".

Unfortunately, I believe that in Thailand, votes of the farmers are the votes of the elites. in some way the farmers are brought or forced by local elites to get themselves into the parliament.

Right now regardless of side, the grassroots never win the election, it's always the different sides of elites.

[Jefferson]

..

Thanks for replying Simon, but with respect, you really didn't answer any of my questions. Clearly you think that what the UDD is doing is reasonable, but I think that westerners would see the UDD as attempting to achive a political goal by means of anarchy - I really don't believe for a second that any leader in the civilized world would allow an action as that undertaken by the UDD in any of their respective cities/countries - I don't think there is any argument that the UDD are anachists and not mere demonstrators. They have destroyed property without concern, caused physical harm to hundreds of people and caused economic harm to perhaps millions of people, and they say they have a right to protest - I think the truth is that there isn't much sympathy for them in the rest of the world, however, there is great concern in the rest of the world for the people of T-land.
I think the red's are acting like a poker player who wants to stay in the game but not play by the rules. That is, to ask for a new hand, and expect everyone else to keep the hand they've got. Why would you think that the PAD won't play by the same rules as the UDD? After all, if it works for the UDD, it'll work just fine for the PAD too. A bit of violence, kill a few here and there, cause economic damage - it's an age old game - agitate - use the masses to achieve goals - clearly there'll be interested folk behind the PAD just like there's interested folk behind the UDD.
No thinking person would say that the PAD had a right to do the things it done, like closing the airport, but two 'wrongs' won't make a 'right' - two wrongs make what is wrong right: the UDD have made one really big mistake and that's to ligitimise anarchy, and then somehow be naive enough to expect that life in Bangkok would somehow return to 'normal' after they achieve what they want - but it won't.
So, how do you solve the cyclical logic that applies to T-land as it finds itself today? This whole thing should have been nipped as a bud, but it wasn't, and it grew and now it's a problem which will not be easily solved.
Just as an observation, I think that UN oversight would be as useful as a pair of sandals in the snow , especially in a country where the UN doesn't understand the culture and the language, and yes, to see the UN in T-land would be more than quite an embarassment for the Thai government and people.

I applaud your logic and wisdom HDB, and unfortunately feel that both are wasted uppn most here.

[lostagain]

I am an ignorant farang. Although I have read closely many of the post and stories regards the current unrest in thailand I can not clearly determine which side is right or wrong. However I do observe the reports: tourist industry off (6% of the Thai economy), businesses in Bangkok closing their doors, businesses reporting huge losses, foreign governments warning their citizens not the travel to Thailand, Thai stock market down. Yet in all this the baht remains strong with high rate of exchange (compared to recent history) against other currencies both inside and outside of Thailand. This is not natural. It is indicative that there is a rich puppet master(s) somewhere pulling "all" the strings.

[Hard_done_by]

(hard) I must agree with your statement as fallows.
Thanks for replying Simon, but with respect, you really didn't answer any of my questions
He sure used many big words in English for being a Thai...lol with out answering your question.lol

Don't worry about english - we all struggle with it.. I really can't see the government giving in, because the future for Thailand is just too uncertain if it does - and of course, there is the matter of Mr. T. If another government came to power and gave him his money back, then all hell would break loose anyway.

I respect Simon's views and I understand he is expressing what so many of the red shirts believe, that if the parliament is dissolves then Thailand will become the land of smile for everyone again - but I think he's wrong: it's much more complicated than that. I think that if it really was that simple then the government would just give up and throw the whole thing open to a new election a long time ago. However, that is not to say that the red shirts don't have a real beef against the government, for example, the provision of a better life by way of wealth redistribution from the rich.

The interim government had a chance to bring the people of Thailand together, and it simply failed to do it - to my mind, it's as simple as that. Instead of working to solve the difference between the various factions within Thai society, the interim goverment (as I understand it) sought to appoint members to the goverment in order to give stability to the country.

I would hope that such appointees are a short term resolution and that the real mission of the government should be to move Thailand a little more to the left by sharing some of the country's wealth with the poor. [I am not a socialist].

..

[Jefferson]

Hi Hard By,

I continue to agree with almost everything that you say, so no reason for me to repeat it. But I do take issue with one comment, when you said, "The interim government had a chance to bring the people of Thailand together, and it simply failed to do it - to my mind, it's as simple as that." I respectfully disagree. This government has not had the oppportunity to really make the effort, but has been trying. The land tax bill is a major step that has not gotten enough publicity. The farmers' debt relief is a major step. But everyday this government's energy has been diverted to resist Thaksin. Constant red rallies with Thaksin's daily phone-ins. Angry red mobs interfering with and hounding in public every government official. Why? Not for elections or democracy, but for Thaksin. They view elections merely as the vehicle to eventually return Thaksin to Thailand without jail time and to restore his wealth.

A vocal and effective opposition is a necesssary element of any functioning democracy. But the opposition must also be loyal to the country, not merely the ego and financial interests of one person. There are many elements at work in the present complex situtaion, but this one is the key. The present government's efforts to bring the people together will never be effective as long as many are paid to resist the government and then many more choose to follow their lead.