• Thailand's rising tide of problems ( catch22 )
• The avoidable cost of progress ( catch22 )
• Timesonline refuses to release Thaksin interview tape to Thailand ( catch22 )
• How To Get Rid Of The Poor?....Just Bury Them! ( catch22 )
• Yuri - Abhisit Why Me? ( catch22 )
• Genuine software ( Tow )
• Meet the Gods (5. Zeus) ( yabua )
• Meet you when the country needs you. (พบกันเมื่อชาติต้องการ) ( Pomjuk )
• Amnesty International : Two Faced and Hypocritical !! ( Hermano_Lobo )
• The Democrat Party - Too predictable ?? ( Hermano_Lobo )

more

A Man's Random Walk

politik, economik, foreign affairs
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola

Posted by Ginola , Reader : 846 , 00:46:35  
Print

Prachatai.com recently conducted some interviews with some red shirt protesters in Thai (http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/16212). I think it might be good to pass this on in English, so I have selected some excerpts from the interviews and translated them here.   Waew, a wife of a military officer:   Q: Are you here because of Thaksin? A: No, no. We think that this system [bureaucratic polity] is finished since he [Prem] became the Chairman of the Privy Council... he's not supposed to be involved in politics. But today he gets involved in politics. Don't think that we don't know. We are old enough to know... For whatever reason, he's still involved in what should belong to the people.   Kamthai, 63, a leader of Roi Et red shirts:   Q: Why do you join the reds? A: We do whatever is right. We do not take side with anyone. In 1992, we came to protest with Chamlong (Srimuang) because he was doing the right thing then... Back then, he said no matter what, the [government] must come from elections. But now, why is he with the 70:30 or 50:50... why does he think that way? I am upset that Chamlong, whom I respected for so long, has changed since he joined the PAD. He's not doing the right thing.   Q: So you have participated in politics previously? A: Yes. I participated in Oct 14 (1973), Oct 6 (1976).   Thanaporn, 46:   Q: Why red shirts? A: We want true 100% democracy. Today we don't have democracy at all in Thailand.   Q: How much do red shirts from the province get [to join the protest]? A: We are not hired. Here are people with red hearts. No pay at all. We paid for our buses... to fight for democracy.   Worapol, a leader of Red Shirts Prachuabkirikhan:   Q: How much do you have to pay to come here? A: At least 500 baht. We pay for our buses ourselves.   Mae (mother) Pramuan, Udonthani:   Q: How do you come here? A: We collect money, 100-200 baht each. Who has more contributes more. Some come by bus, some by train.   Q: Why are you here for? A: Democracy.   Jitra, Blangplad, Bangkok:   Q: Why join the reds? A: Because we like righteousness. We like justice.   Q: The coup wasn't right? A: No, it definitely wasn't. I am in a military family. My son is a police officer, my daughter is a military officer and my aunt is also military.   Kiat, 64, retired civil servant, Thammasat University.   We started from consciousness. Because we see the righteousness, we could gather together automatically. The lack of justice... or other processes that are not right. We thus gathered in neighborhoods... We have been to many places... We always pay for our bills by ourselves. I'm retired, I can just stay happily at home, but I still have to come.   In the past, we were not with any side. We chose to stand with what is right. Recently things have not been right. Who's wrong, who's right, you don't need to tell us. We can use our mind to think. Don't insist to us that someone is right and someone is wrong... We are here with a shared goal: we want democracy. We don't fight for Thaksin. Even if he's dead, I will still come.   Chawin, 50, Songkhla.   We're here to stand for what is right.   Q: You're here for Thaksin? A: No. In my opinion, no. Thaksin is not a brand/symbol of the red shirts... but we want democracy like other countries.... Everyone should have equal freedom and liberty, right? But since the 2006 coup, it's like the overthrowing of the electoral system. Why did the military stage a coup against a popularly elected government? Because there is powerful people outside the system.   Q: Are the reds grassroot people? A: No. Red shirts doesn't mean grassroot people. We are democracy lovers. We love egalitarianism... The coupmakers appointed all their people [to positions] in National Counter Corruption Committee, in Election Commission and so on. There is no justice in the society.   We come from all levels, from PhD people to the uneducated. They are all demanding democracy, that's it.   Kanya, with her husband and 1-year old daughter:   Q: Are you here because of Thaksin? A: Not at all. Never met him. We don't get involved in politics; we just make our living. We farm, it's not easy for us to survive. But we cant's stand it any more. We see it and it hurts. All kinds of bullying. We can't stand it, so we are here.   Thawan, 51, "Love Lampang" group:   We have thousands of members. We have our ideology. Nobody hired us. We came here with hearts.   Q: What are your group's activities? A: We organize democracy promotion activities in various districts. We want people to see the injustice in our country.   Q: Are you fighting for one person? A: No. Thaksin is in the democratic framework. He came to power within the democratic system. Majority elected him in, but minority doesn't accept that. How can society survive like this?   ... democratic dictatorship is deeply rooted in the country, stepping on our shoulders all the time.   Ampai, a mother of a police officer, Lampang.   Q: How much do you pay for food each day? A: The center gives us some and people donate too. But I'm very worried when it is reported on the main media that red shirt is hired, 1000 baht each, 500 baht each. Most people watch the main media... We are out here because injustice exists. They don't care about how the grassroot people are. If Thaksin side wins, they would say it's all cheated.

Read comment

comment 20 Ian date : 11/04/2009 time : 10.59 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Comment 19. Peacefulness seems to be unaware that in a constitutional monarchy the King is also subject to the constitution. Just to emphasise this point, this is why it is called a constitutional monarchy. The constitution formulates the will of the people, it is a contract binding upon themselves, parliament and the Monarchy. Thus in the eyes of the people, if any party to this contract is seen to break the terms of this contract, be they MP, Privy councillor, or Royal, the people are entitled to demand redress. The people normally speak through their elected representatives, the members of parliament. Thus parliament as the voice of the people can "sack/replace senior figures in the bureaucracy, and this includes the military and the Privy Council, as they see fit." For peacefulness to claim otherwise is to claim that Thailand is not a constitutional monarchy. Perhaps this is true.

comment 19 peacefulness date : 11/04/2009 time : 09.15 nationmultimedia.com

aussie observer comment 18--you wrote "It is a normal function of a democratically elected government to sack/replace senior figures in the bureaucracy, and this includes the military and the Privy Council, as they see fit." again and again if you do not have any knowledge of thai law/constitution pls shut ur bullshit mouth and get lost. pls make some research or ask ur thai friend before making comments. following just FYI thai constitution 2007 section 12/13 Qte Section 12. The King selects and appoints qualified persons to be the President of the Privy Council and not more than eighteen Privy Councilors to constitute the Privy Council. The Privy Council has the duty to render such advice to the King on all matters pertaining to His functions as He may consult, and has other duties as prescribed in this Constitution. Section 13. The selection, appointment or removal of Privy Councilors shall be at the King's pleasure. Unqte

comment 18 AussieObserver date : 10/04/2009 time : 21.12 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/politics

Ginola, excellent, thank you for translating from Prachathai just a comment on comment 2 and Thaksin's behaviour as PM... the comment was... "For instance, they insist 3 privy councillors intervened political affairs (ref. so called, Amattayathipatai) but the mass can not remember the Thaksin's intervention in dismissal and appointment of new Auditor General. All but only intelligent group of population may remember this is one of primary causes to estrange people from Thaksin's popularity and finally stood in street against him." It is a normal function of a democratically elected government to sack/replace senior figures in the bureaucracy, and this includes the military and the Privy Council, as they see fit. It is dangerous for a healthy democracy for senior bureaucrats to believe they have rights that are superior to the authority of a government duly elected by the people. So replacing an Attorney General or "interfering" with the military hierarchy and their idiot reshuffle and restructuring, replacing members or removing the Privy Council is something they and the Royal Family have to accept. Only after this is accepted by these petty corrupt individuals can Thailand begin to grow up as a civilised community!

comment 17 Ginola date : 10/04/2009 time : 07.49 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

Dr.Thitinan, in his "Thailand since the coup" article written last September, pointed out what I think is the most reasonable analysis of the political crisis that I have heard: "The establishment coalition that engineered Thaksin’s political decapitation needs to accept that not all of what he stood for was wrong. Until his opponents can come to terms with what is positive about his legacy, Thailand’s crisis will remain intractable. Without accommodation from the establishment, there will be no reconciliation and no clear path forward. Thailand’s optimal destination after its most remarkable royal reign would wed the far and the recent past. It would carve out a new consensus and an acceptable middle ground between the forces of globalization and the proponents of a sufficiency economy. It would combine the greater enfranchisement and egalitarianism that the Thaksin regime leaves behind with the fading establishment’s sense of duty, integrity, and traditional ties to values that have long anchored the Thai people’s collective identity and interest."

comment 16 GGrass date : 10/04/2009 time : 07.31 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

Doctor English, always makes me

comment 15 Ginola date : 10/04/2009 time : 02.21 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

A very good article was written a coupld of days ago by Dr.Thitinan Pongsudhirak at Chula: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/14704/red-s

comment 14 Ian date : 09/04/2009 time : 18.57 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Bruin, no offence taken, it was simply that a non native user of English, or a less well versed one, might assume that you were stating facts, not opinions. I happen to disagree with your opinion but then many disagree with mine, the important thing is to accept that opinions may differ without rancour

comment 13 Bruin date : 09/04/2009 time : 17.43 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/bruin

Ian I think it's self-evident that my opening statement is an opinion as well as the whole comment. But thx for the tip. It's not my intention to impose my view on anyone. Sorry if it offends anyone

comment 12 Ian date : 09/04/2009 time : 17.16 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Bruin, peacefulness etc keep posting what they call facts. In reality they are not facts they are opinions, no more valid than anyone elses opinions. Bruin's opening statement was: "Why the reds are protesting? They are misinformed." ..... This is totally wrong. If however he had written: "Why the reds are protesting? In my opinion they are misinformed." ..... it would be totally correct, it is his opinion. One might agree or not agree but it is correctly his opinion. It then becomes the opening comment in a debate, not just another rant peacefulness style.

comment 11 Bruin date : 09/04/2009 time : 14.51 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/bruin

Ginola, Why the reds are protesting? They are misinformed. Everybody wants democracy, justice and fairness, etc. no question about that. It’s like asking do you want clean air and clean water; no one is going to be against that. The question is who you trust to lead in the implementation of those ideals and who do you think is the enemy of democratic development and progress in this country. This is where we have honest disagreement I think. The Red shirts have been misled by Mr. Thaksin into believing that PC or the elites are the enemies of democracy and that they are the cause of their economic hardships. They are not. The fact that there is a part of population that believes this is disconcerting to say the least. It is eerie the similarity of how Hitler had misled German people into believing the Jews were the source of their hardships prior to WWII.

comment 10 peacefulness date : 09/04/2009 time : 10.40 nationmultimedia.com

ginola -- would you please write something like this...... fomer most corrupt, deposed, ousted fugitive criminal pm told the redshirts to stay put not going back empty- handed, and now his family members left for their own safety and enjoy the luxurious life with mansions in many countries and private jet priced as 1,500 million bht...............i will be much appreciated if u do. thanks

comment 9 peacefulness date : 09/04/2009 time : 10.33 nationmultimedia.com

ginola-- stop all these rubbish. it only shows ur naive understandings of the thai political situation now faces our country. the more u write the more nakedly exposed of ur credibilities and trutworthiness of your articles and comments to the general public. amen

comment 8 Ian date : 09/04/2009 time : 10.15 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I think one thing is demonstrated by these interviews, the Red protestors now represent a broad cross section of Thai people. They are not as wch tries to suggest, simply brainwashed Thaksin idolisers. I think this is a major mistake being made by government supporters, they are still seeing these protests as about Thaksin, whereas in reality it has gone beyond that.

comment 7 GGrass date : 09/04/2009 time : 09.17 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

Oh, by the way, that was 'Voice inside my head' by Dixie Chicks. Dixie Chicks have become my new favorite music. Cool chicks, they are...

comment 6 GGrass date : 09/04/2009 time : 09.16 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

People believe what they want to believe. I was only a kid When I said goodbye to you Ten summers ago But it feels like yesterday Lost, scared and alone Nothing I could give to you I tried, I really did But I couldn't find another way And I want and I need Somehow to believe In the choice I made Am I better off this way I can hear the voice inside my head Saying you should be with me instead Every time I'm feeling down, I wonder What would it be like with you around

comment 5 happyjack date : 09/04/2009 time : 08.54

Ha Ha, Kha,so you realise there are paid idiots amongst the few genuine.

comment 4 khamala date : 09/04/2009 time : 06.45 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/khamala

C1: of course this does not represent all red shirts as this is not a quantitative survey but a collection of interviews. it can only demonstrate that not all the red shirts are 'paid idiots'.

comment 3 Ginola date : 09/04/2009 time : 05.31 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ginola ginola

wch, thanks for your comment. I respect your reasoning and would like to respond to it as follows: wch: 1. The 'voices' are unable to illustrate the next, ie they came out to democracy but fail to explain what the democracy is. For justice, then what justice. Ginola: From what they say, it could be implied that they want their vote to count, their voice to be heard, their opinion not rejected/ignored. They don't want some phuyai elites to override their vote and choices. They believe that elections should count the most. This is their definition of democracy. Your definition may differ, but you could not say that they can't define democracy or just simply follow what Thaksin tells them. wch: 2. The 'voices' are guided selectively. The collector of the voices intentionally avoided the primary question - why Sep 19 2006 took place -. Also the collector avoided what happened from Jan 23 2006 to that day, undemocratic coup day. Without addressing this, two questions and with dealing the result - the coup, it is easy for everyone to think ' Coup is against democracy, Coup makers and its masterminds are bad guys, The coup makers' constitution is bad one, Thaksin is under prosecution by the new coup'ers constitution and so on. People in the red are unable to comprehend all such details, unable to establish simple logical thinking - the principle of causality, the logics of Cause and Result (Het-Pon in Thai) but they are only able to recite what is taught by their group leaders. This is main characteristics of this mass in street. Ginola: The coup isn't right in their views because it took away their choices. As simple as that. Maybe if the reporter asks them about Thaksin's corruption or other ills, they may even say that they are fully aware of that but they don't care. I, for one, recognized Thaksin's ills, but I firmly believe that the coup did nothing to correct that or make things better for Thailand. I have my reasons and it does seem to be supported by what has happened in the last few years. Is it wrong for me or others to believe that even if Thaksin was bad, it is not right to remove him using any means? wch: Now, What Nopochor in leadership of Thaksin is doing is exactly the COPY version what their opponents did in last 3 years, including PAD's. For instance, they insist 3 privy councillors intervened political affairs (ref. so called, Amattayathipatai) but the mass can not remember the Thaksin's intervention in dismissal and appointment of new Auditor General. All but only intelligent group of population may remember this is one of primary causes to estrange people from Thaksin's popularity and finally stood in street against him. He caused thing but now he refuses to take the result. Speaking of Prem Tinsulanond, he successfully accumulated his charisma of either political or of personality-wise among general public as well as the military. The political power forms by not only the election but also by such charisma of personality. HMK's political power in law is minimal but he enjoys supreme power only because of affection by general public. This public affection would rather be stronger than ones written in the law including election favor. As a privy councillor, his role shall contain too, any political activity if it is needed to protect his monarch and the ideology of political system - the constitutional monarchy. This two primary mission is overlooked by many people including Thaksin himself. It was Thaksin who challenged first the monarchical institutions with such a public speech " Man of Virtue beyond the constitution intervene PM's power". This pointed mostly the HMK first because the speech of HMK' birthday audience of December 5, 2004.was interpreted as 'scolding' on Thaksin on his power abuses, rampant. Now Thaksin and his proxies use this in name of amatayathipatai - intervention by non-political people. Neverthless of Prem's denial of intervening political and military affairs, the nature of privies assignments can not help but relate to political affairs if it is necessary to protect HMK and to protect the fundamental political system - the constitutional monarchy. Ginola: I don't think it is obvious whether Thaksin had anything in mind against the monarchy. If he does, do you really think that Thai people would let him undermine the monarchy? I for one would stand up against that. I agree that the Privy Council has the duty to serve and protect the monarchy. The question is "how so?". If it does that by going against the democratic rule and disregarding the mass's opinion, then I think that's a wrong way to protect the monarchy. I believe ultimate power should lie within the hands of people. People love and respect the king because of what he has contributed to the people and the country. Protecting the king must not take away people's will. I can't accept the Privy Council intervening in politics to the point that people's votes don't count. People are the best protectors of the monarchy, not the Privy Council. Should Thaksin or anyone try to harm the monarchy, people - even those who benefit from Thaksin - will rise against that. As for Thaksin's intervention in other institutions, I very much agree with you. He was hardly a democratic leader who is open to criticisms and tried to intervene in the military, independent agencies and so on for his favors. I believe that the Thaksin regime would do more harm than good to Thailand over time. But what I disagree is that despite all these ills, the only sustainable way to remove him from power is through democratic and constitutional means that are legitimate in the eyes of the mass. If we use other means, like the coupmakers and their co did, it wouldn't solve the problem. Particularly, people who like thaksin would continue to be upset about the coup, the (politically manipulated) court rulings and would come out and fight for Thaksin. Has Thaksin been allowed to continue to govern, it is my belief that one day people would learn that he's not the right kind of man to lead the country to sustainable progress. It might take time, but at least people would learn. Thus, in my view, all these problems and the crisis never end because the wrong means were used to get rid of the wrong man. The wrong means cannot justify the ends because the wrong means cannot are illegitimate in the eyes of so many people.

comment 2 wch date : 09/04/2009 time : 04.29

Dear Author, It took some time for me to decide, to, or not to write something in your blog and decided to write something because of the first paragraph of yours. 1. The 'voices' are unable to illustrate the next, ie they came out to democracy but fail to explain what the democracy is. For justice, then what justice. 2. The 'voices' are guided selectively. The collector of the voices intentionally avoided the primary question - why Sep 19 2006 took place -. Also the collector avoided what happened from Jan 23 2006 to that day, undemocratic coup day. Without addressing this, two questions and with dealing the result - the coup, it is easy for everyone to think ' Coup is against democracy, Coup makers and its masterminds are bad guys, The coup makers' constitution is bad one, Thaksin is under prosecution by the new coup'ers constitution and so on. People in the red are unable to comprehend all such details, unable to establish simple logical thinking - the principle of causality, the logics of Cause and Result (Het-Pon in Thai) but they are only able to recite what is taught by their group leaders. This is main characteristics of this mass in street. 3. Now, What Nopochor in leadership of Thaksin is doing is exactly the COPY version what their opponents did in last 3 years, including PAD's. For instance, they insist 3 privy councillors intervened political affairs (ref. so called, Amattayathipatai) but the mass can not remember the Thaksin's intervention in dismissal and appointment of new Auditor General. All but only intelligent group of population may remember this is one of primary causes to estrange people from Thaksin's popularity and finally stood in street against him. He caused thing but now he refuses to take the result. Speaking of Prem Tinsulanond, he successfully accumulated his charisma of either political or of personality-wise among general public as well as the military. The political power forms by not only the election but also by such charisma of personality. HMK's political power in law is minimal but he enjoys supreme power only because of affection by general public. This public affection would rather be stronger than ones written in the law including election favor. As a privy councillor, his role shall contain too, any political activity if it is needed to protect his monarch and the ideology of political system - the constitutional monarchy. This two primary mission is overlooked by many people including Thaksin himself. It was Thaksin who challenged first the monarchical institutions with such a public speech " Man of Virtue beyond the constitution intervene PM's power". This pointed mostly the HMK first because the speech of HMK' birthday audience of December 5, 2004.was interpreted as 'scolding' on Thaksin on his power abuses, rampant. Now Thaksin and his proxies use this in name of amatayathipatai - intervention by non-political people. Neverthless of Prem's denial of intervening political and military affairs, the nature of privies assignments can not help but relate to political affairs if it is necessary to protect HMK and to protect the fundamental political system - the constitutional monarchy. People must understand this point correctly without further confusion.

comment 1 Hermano_Lobo date : 09/04/2009 time : 01.51 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

GREAT: RED STORM RISING ! Now the people of Thailand are speaking. For Thailand, for free speech. For the future. And they know it! Writers of The Nation: take note ! "For the times they are changing!" For the better.

Comment

"If you are not member, please register to comment. It take only a few steps." member sign in   |   member register Username: Password:

name :
email :
website :
comment :
		back top

<<	April 2009					>>
s	m	t	w	t	f	s
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30