UPDATE:
I've slept on it, read some more reports of the 'reconciliation talks' and offer the following additional thoughts (based on a comment response I made over at Bkk Dan's site):
I’d love to believe Abhisit and his backers were genuine, but I just cannot drink their Kool-Aid – cannot see their ‘concession to talk’ as anything more than trasformismo (change without change).
The people of Thailand are more informed now than ever – yesterday’s live tv talks were better than most leaders debates I’ve seen leading up to elections in western democracies.
Come on Abhisit, do the right thing for once – stop your delaying tactics, just dissolve the house, let the people decide who they want to govern the country, and who they want to be in control of its political reform process.
If you don’t do it, the only conclusions I can reach are that you are afraid of elections, afraid of democracy, afraid of the people, and afraid of your military/elite backers (or you are not the upstanding ‘Democrat’ you make youself out to be, and are only in it for your ego, and the vested interests of your backers)
Believing Abhisit is genuine in these ‘reconciliation talks’ is the ultimate in naivety IMO (as is believing he has any legitimacy with anywhere near the majority of the Thai population – even Abhisit knows it, and thats why he will do whatever he can to delay & avoid elections – if he & his backers thought they could win an election they would jump at it, never mind the constitution & political reform
Style v's Substance (Smoke & Mirrors)
My quick thoughts on the talks between government (Abhisit) and Red Shirt leaders.
- Wow! I was out all day and got quite a shock to see the talks already happening when I got home.
- Initially I was hopeful, but seeing Abhisit in action I got that same old feeling
(he's trying to smooth things over with talk, but all the while having no intention of really following through!)
- Abhisit is clearly about 'appearing' reasonable, but delaying at all costs.
(hopefully the viewing public can see through his smoke & mirrors)
- For Abhisit and his backers this latest 'concession' is 'trasformismo' (change without change)
- Abhisit has the style, but Dr Weng & Veera have the substance
(that's my take, as a farang, but I expect various Thai groups will see it differently)
- Dr Weng scored the most points, but his lengthy speaking style is a handicap on public tv
(that said, only the most partisan would miss that he's clearly intelligent, knowledgeable, passionate and sincere)
What do I expect tomorrow?
Well, Thai politics is like a magic world to me, unfathomable! - so the only prediction I will make is that Abhisit will continue delaying, and any timetable he proposes will make sure the army reshuffle is bedded down before the ammart control is (seen to be) relinquished.
What comes first: Dissolution or Constitution changes?
Why not do both in the one stroke?
At the election, give the people a chance to choose between the 1997 or 2007 constitutions.
(whichever is chosen can be amended later anyway, through the parliamentary process)
I'm a lazy philistine when it comes to legal procedures, but am wondering why couldn't the negotiations agree that Parliament propose the 1997 constitution as the amendments to the current constitution, and seek a referendum to ratify it?
Update: Yes, I know thats unrealistic, so how about we just make the main theme of the election: 'Which political parties do the people want to be in control of leading the political reform process?' - basically let the people choose the make up of the parliament as the country embarks on another political reform process - seems fair, reasonable, sensible & logical to me (unfortunately none of those things are usually seen as desirable qualities when it comes to the Thai political system, especially on the non-red side:)
What's the minimum reds should accept before ending protests?
I'd say their bottom line should be a firm commitment that parliament will be dissolved within 2 weeks, and an election within 3 months.
5 comments:
Dr. Weng nearly lost iot for them. He ceratinly lost my family with his arjarn lecturing style. I doubt even a Power Point woukd have helped him.
This was a giant step in Thai politics - don't knock it by being focused on people. Even Dr.Weng might learn that on television brevity is mre effective.
Even if much of what he said was historical, he did make some good points in amongst it all.
I also think there were 6 people in that room who all want to see a better Thailand.
Let's just hope that there was no call from/to Dubai durimg the toilet break and that sms sound which cam near the end was a "wrong number".
...the only prediction I will make is that Abhisit will continue delaying...
I agree there. If the opposition can keep the putsch from enacting anything really regressive while the holding pattern obtains the reds can live... and thrive and mature... while waiting for the inevitable.
The Reds look better everyday... and the putsch cannot help but look like what they are. Everyone of their bombs drives home their view... "If we have to kill some Thais to keep the status quo... well, collateral damage."
It shows the utter bankruptcy of their 'ends justifies the means' 'reasoning'... which is the only figleaf in their wardrobe.
So while we're waiting public support for the Reds is building, their essential aims are crystallizing, and more and more people are involving themselves with he solution as opposed to the problem.
I think we're in good shape. And its all due to People Power.
GeGee: Agree Dr Weng is a bit too academic/sophisticated/boring for the average punter, but I'm a political junkie, and thought he was very impressive.
JFL: I agree things are taking shape for the peoples movement, but am very dubious about their (devious) elite opponents.
However one comment I got in the street in CM on the way home was "more and more people know what's going on now"
That's encouraging.
I don't watch TV... so I was happy to be referred here by a monkey at Prachatai...
What Abhisit said in response to Red Shirt demands for immediate democratic elections
The Red Shirt leaders called for a dissolution of Parpament and immediate elections so that the electorate could decide on whether... to amend the miptary Constitution of 2007...
Abhisit gave no commitment to... elections and questioned the reason for such elections....
Abhisit falsely claimed that he was “democratically elected, not manoeuvred into power by the miptary”.
He claimed that he “always” opposed the “methods” of the 2006 coup.
When challenged about whether he would reject all laws and bodies which stemmed from this illegal coup... he said that any amendments to the miptary Constitution of 2007... would have to be made by both the elected House of Representatives and the Senate. Half the Senators were appointed by the miptary after the coup... while Abhisit claimed to oppose the 2006 coup, he supports... the miptary appointed senators.
He also asked if the Red Shirts would accept the interventions of courts after any future elections if a poptical party was found to be in breach of election laws. This imppes that Abhisit supported the manoeuvring... which dissolved the elected Samak government on the grounds that Samak engaged in a cooking programme on TV.
Abhisit... thinks that the PAD should be involved in negotiations.
He also resurrected the old chestnut... that the Red Shirts did not represent the majority... repeated elections and the size of Red Shirt mass demonstrations undermines Abhisit’s claim.
Abhisit refused to answer whether the present Thai state was controlled by the miptary...
He refused to comment on the fact that the miptary Constitution enshrines the legitimacy of the 2006 coup.
He refused to answer the charge that the miptary had illegally allowed the PAD to seize the international airports...
He claimed that the miptary Constitution of 2007 was accepted by a democratic referendum. He ignored the fact... that many provinces were under martial law at the time of the referendum...
Abhisit stated that before fresh elections could be held, the issue of Constitutional amendments should be solved and society had to be “peaceful”.
PM secretary-general Korbsak Sabhavasu also stated that the Constitution should not be amended by the party that wins a future election because this would not be “democratic”.
...the Red Shirt leaders affirmed that they wanted Parpament dissolved now and fresh elections held as soon as possible...
They maintained that fresh elections should be held before any new amendments to the Constitution are made... so that the people can give their opinion in fresh elections about how to proceed with the Constitution...
Abhisit claims he is representative of the majority of the electorate he shouldn’t be worried about fresh elections.
The PAD now have their own poptical party... their support can be tested... by elections.
PM secretary-general Korbsak Sabhavasu claimed that elections would solve nothing and possibly lead to a crisis. What guarantee was there that people would accept the result?
The Red Shirts repeatedly gave assurances that Red Shirts would accept the result of democratic elections.
Korbsak failed to mention... that the crisis resulted from the fact that the miptary, the PAD and the Democrat Party refused to accept the results of democratic elections ever since 2005.
The Red Shirts proposed... that Parpament should be dissolved within 2 weeks... they would wait until tomorrow to hear the answer of the Government.
Hobby
well said !
read Thinitan's op-ed (BP has link) - he explained it all clearly there about what is change and what's not:
"The government’s allies have deliberately fixated on the corruption and abuse of power during the Thaksin years because they fear that the reforms demanded by the red shirts can only be detrimental to their interests. This political brinkmanship may not culminate in the red shirts’ favor. But if this vicious cycle of protests continues the current political system cannot endure.
Though they are insecure and fearful of what change might bring, the forces behind Mr. Abhisit must come to terms with Thailand’s transformation. Concessions need not be limitless. They can still keep much by letting go some. The risk of trying to keep all is that they may end up with very little at the end of the day."
exactly ! that's why I guess "democrats" ( = Amart) are busy hurriedly sharing the "cake" - coz they know what is coming : economic crisis worsens and money loose value as well as peasants may get completely pissed and revolt for real, then as Thinitan said, all the blood-suckers will lose everything. ;)
Post a Comment