Violence Rocks Thailand

[DisturbedPervert]

That didn't seem to work for the opposition who weren't discredited after riots 

The old opposition didn't have riots.  They had 6 months of peaceful rallies, which were occasionally interrupted by attack from Thaksin's paid thugs.

Thaksin's forces killed civilians, burned buses, hijacked fuel tankers and threatened to blow up apartment buildings, attacked cars with government officials in them, threw petrol bombs at police officers, soldiers, and civilians, and trashed the city on the biggest holiday of the year, all under orders and funded by Thaksin.

The dude is finished.  He already was, but this violence had put the nail in the coffin.

[DisturbedPervert]

Are you sure you're not simply reflecting the views of bangkok and not of the hinterland?  There tends to be a substantial difference in perceptions between the two which is at the root of much of the domestic strife.

I'm aware of the difference in views in different parts of the country, and I certainly am biased and am sure there will be political conflict in the future.  But this violence was just crossing the line.  Thaksin isn't that popular even before, he got 35% of the vote in the last nationwide election, and even less in by elections in January.  He was hoping for a popular uprising, and it failed.

[Admiral Yi]

Were there incidents of rioters and police just hauling off and bashing their shins together?

[Razgovory]

Good   Let the place burn down.

[Sheilbh]

The old opposition didn't have riots.  They had 6 months of peaceful rallies, which were occasionally interrupted by attack from Thaksin's paid thugs.

Thaksin's forces killed civilians, burned buses, hijacked fuel tankers and threatened to blow up apartment buildings, attacked cars with government officials in them, threw petrol bombs at police officers, soldiers, and civilians, and trashed the city on the biggest holiday of the year, all under orders and funded by Thaksin.

The dude is finished.  He already was, but this violence had put the nail in the coffin.

I think Thanksin's trying to, as you say, provoke a form of revolution. 

What I don't get is how this is any worse than the King supporting a coup and mass protest to overthrow a democratically elected government.  And then for the Palace and the military to use their influence to force the winners of the election after the coup out of holding office.

I think it's hardly surprising that there's possibly even some real anger after that sort of charade.

Of course I'm sure the Thaksin supporters are being far more polite about the King because he is, for God knows what reason, hugely revered by Thais.  But frankly this monarchy deserves a revolution.

[DisturbedPervert]

Were there incidents of rioters and police just hauling off and bashing their shins together?

The rioters pretty much all ran once the army got organized and advanced on where they were blocking roads. A few dozen rioters run fast from two hundred soldiers armed with shields, clubs, and M-16s.  There were plenty of injuries but no deaths as far as it is known, aside from rioters killing 2 civilians.

[DisturbedPervert]

But frankly this monarchy deserves a revolution.

Maybe so, but Thaksin isn't the one to replace him.  The only thing that man deserves is a noose around his neck.  He's a mass murderer who ordered the executions of nearly 3000 citizens without trail, solely to deflect media attention from the numerous corruption charges against him.   

Thaksin isn't trying to provoke any revolution other than one for him.  He wants his money back, and the ability to continue plundering freely, without pesky things like courts or media to get in the way.

Despite all his rhetoric he didn't "win" the last election.  Over 60% of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties.  Thaksin's party got well under half the seats, and 35% of the total vote, with massive voter fraud employed.  Some of the parties who campaigned as anti Thaksin initially formed a weak coalition government with the PPP, which they later abandoned after voter fraud convictions.  The government wasn't forced out.  Coalition governments fall apart and reform all the time.  The current government is far, far more representative than the previous one.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe so, but Thaksin isn't the one to replace him.  The only thing that man deserves is a noose around his neck.  He's a mass murderer who ordered the executions of nearly 3000 citizens without trail, solely to deflect media attention from the numerous corruption charges against him.   

I don't dispute that he's a nasty piece of work and I think he hugely undermined the constitution Thailand had and was particularly unpleasant to the South, but it remains the case that he's been consistently re-elected.

Despite all his rhetoric he didn't "win" the last election.  Over 60% of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties.  Thaksin's party got well under half the seats, and 35% of the total vote, with massive voter fraud employed.  Some of the parties who campaigned as anti Thaksin initially formed a weak coalition government with the PPP, which they later abandoned after voter fraud convictions.  The government wasn't forced out.  Coalition governments fall apart and reform all the time.  The current government is far, far more representative than the previous one.

Well his party did win.  They were, initially, 14 seats short of 247 which is, I believe, the half-way point and in terms of percentage they did better than the Labour party.  That they didn't get a majority of the vote is surely because that's how multi-party democracy works and that they didn't get a majority in seats is also just part of that.  I'd also add that in my opinion the goal of government is to govern, not to be widely representative.  So, generally, it's better that a group of parties who can form a majority do so on the basis of a shared platform and common ideological basis than that parties ally to be representative.

My understanding is that the PPP formed a coalition government with three small parties that the military had tried to dissuade from joining the coalition.  According to Freedom House the main difficulty in the 2007 elections was that the military extended martial law in 34 and then 25, mainly rural, provinces that heavily restricted campaigning. 

After that and after months of the yellow protests which occupied government ministries, airports and news channels and seemed to have the tacit approval of the Royal family, after the Prime Minister was dismissed because he had an employer other than the Thai state (that is, he'd hosted a couple of cook programmes right?), after all that the PPP was dissolved over voter fraud.  But, after all that I don't know that it's entirely clear that there wasn't a politically motivated attack on the party by the establishment that had supported the coup, that had supported the protests, that had got rid of PM on a technicality.

[DisturbedPervert]

I don't dispute that he's a nasty piece of work and I think he hugely undermined the constitution Thailand had and was particularly unpleasant to the South, but it remains the case that he's been consistently re-elected.

He won his first election, however the next one was a complete farce.  In the face of corruption charges, and members of his own party threatening to switch to the opposition and throw him out of power, he dissolved parliament and called a snap 30 day election.  He then kicked out disloyal MPs and replaced them with loyal ones.  This left the former MPs that would have won unable to run for office, as you have to be a member of a party for longer than 30 days to run for office.  In the face of such blatant cheating everyone boycotted the election.

He does not have a shred of democracy in him, he will do anything, from vote buying, election manipulation, to murder of political rivals, or million dollar lawsuits against unfriendly journalists to win power.  And these days even that isn't enough anymore.

Well his party did win.

No, it didn't.  He managed to stitch together a coalition, which violated every promise made by it's members to their electorate.  Military pressure had nothing to do with them joining or not joining, they joined solely in order to secure ministerial seats.  A Democrat coalition would have been too weak at the time, and there was nothing in them joining the opposition except for a sense of honor at upolding their campaign promises.

After 29 seats were found guilty of voter fraud, and reelections were held, the situation changed dramatically, and the original coalition that everyone had planned suddenly became possible again.   The PPP was dissolved, but all member kept their seats except for the 29 convicted, and reformed a new party.  That is why this government is in power now, not because the military forced them to switch, they had wanted to ally from the beginning.

And if you think a coalition should be formed on a shared ideological basis, then the current coalition is much better than the previous, whose ideology was getting back Thaksin's scrilla and handing the minority parties a few bones to keep them on board.  They had nothing in common ideologically, they joined for ministerial seats, the coalitions ideologies were in opposition.

According to Freedom House the main difficulty in the 2007 elections was that the military extended martial law in 34 and then 25, mainly rural, provinces that heavily restricted campaigning.

Sorry,that's just ridiculous.  Upcountry there is no control on campaigning at all, even under 'heavy restriction' you might think of under martial law.  Anyone whose ever been up country can see that.  The districts up there have largely been controlled by the same political families for generations, and had allied with the PPP.  They did whatever they wanted, and watch out if you run against them.

Anyway, you have no idea how tired I am of this subject as I've read so many threads on it elsewhere, especially since the situation is possibly over now.  This is (I assume, maybe wrong) page number 2 for you, but page 200 of an never ending flame war for me.  And the arguments one way or the other don't even matter to me. 

[Sheilbh]

Anyway, you have no idea how tired I am of this subject as I've read so many threads on it elsewhere, especially since the situation is possibly over now.  This is (I assume, maybe wrong) page number 2 for you, but page 200 of an never ending flame war for me.  And the arguments one way or the other don't even matter to me.

Yeah I can believe it.  But, please keep posting about it.  I find it interesting to get a perspective from the actual place rather than (what I'm very guilty of) the normal situation where we are discussing and judging things from many miles and cultures away.

[Razgovory]

[Malthus]

It's basically over already.  The leaders of the riot have agreed to surrender and face charges, the government is providing free transport home for protesters not involved in violence, and Thaksin is completely discredited after ordering riots in the capital city.

Are you sure you're not simply reflecting the views of bangkok and not of the hinterland?  There tends to be a substantial difference in perceptions between the two which is at the root of much of the domestic strife.

My impression when I was in Thailand was that Bangkok and the countryside were like two seperate countries, that didn't like each other much. Those from Bangkok tended to look down on country Thais as basically a bunch of ignorant peasants (some truth in this), and more, to exploit them ruthlessly and without much fellow-feeling for their plight - particularly those Thais who were more Khmer or hill-tribe in origin (a big percentage in places like Issan).

I suspect this Thaksin fellow is, like gangsters everywhere, exploiting a huge swell of real anger in the countryside to get support. He's a crook, but like the Mafia in the south of Italy he's able to tap into populist rural resentment even though he's a product of the corruption and exploitation that is at the root of that resentment.