During the looting and burning two days ago, some undesirables attacked a TV newstation here. Supposedly, Channel 3 was broadcasting 'lies' as the red shirts maintained that the media here do not accurately report the red shirt platform. While I do tend to agree with this sentiment -- though I don't believe it lies rather an artful retelling of the truth -- I wouldn't go burn down any building because of it.
Then again, if I ran Channel 3, or any other media outlet for that matter, I might think twice about artful truth retellings if I thought my distortion would result in my building burning down or people getting hurt.
Supposedly, the Bangkok Post had to evacuate its offices due to threats from angry red shirt protesters. In this instance, I do know why the red shirts are angry with this particular publication; here's a case in point: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/178472/facts-about-thailand-and-the-red-shirts
In place of the Bangkok Post's opinion, it publishes letters deemed most accurate in their approximation of Thai politics. In this particular letter, the writer asserts that Red Shirts are misinformed and uneducated puppets of Thaksin. If the red shirts get their way, the letter reads, "(l)arge businesses would lose their cheap, obedient labour force were the present government to introduce true democracy and a comprehensive education system."
Lol :-)
God forbid that our pliant citizens educated themselves and were no longer obedient to the country's large businesses. Then what would we do? We'd actually have true democracy and a comprehensive education system where all people were encouraged to work harder and achieve.
I know that makes people uncomfortable, but come on, do you think that this is an argument that red shirts or outsiders would find palatable? I think its a line like this that motivates protesters to threaten your place of business, which is what you are. Government or hirearchical sponsorships aside, your business is billed as a balanced relater of Thai news.
And that does not square with a continued painting of red shirts as unreasonable (which might be accurate :-P) or uneducated drones always tied to one master or the other. This is why these people target the BP place of business. The paper, however, continues on, even today, calling out red shirt leaders: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/178623/wounds-will-take-a-long-time-to-heal.
Supposedly, we should all take time to heal the wounds, tend to each other, right wrongs and 'reduce gaps' in society. We should of course do this, but not forget what happened. I guess we shouldn't forgive either. Just to summarize, we should 'heal the wounds' but we shouldn't forgive.
"The actions of some among the red shirts of the past several weeks were unconscionable, actions taken with full knowledge of their leaders and tacit approval by Thaksin to wreck havoc and destabilise the government, the country’s image and economy for their own aims."
Yeah, so about that healing the wounds thing :-P... Honestly, I don't see any wound healing here. I see a half-hearted effort to admit social inequality exists, and then a strong lash at all things opposing the goverment.
Honestly, I don't see any connection between healing wounds and accusing the opposition of terrorist acts. I have found no hard reporting that shows Thaksin or red shirt leaders knew or ordered buildings destroyed or people shot. Nor have I seen any encouragement or 'tacit approval' from red shirt leaders to riot and destroy public buildings. To the contrary, albeit belatedly, it seems that leaders were calling for the protesters to disburse.
Anyway, this is not journalism; it is argumentative accusation.
It's exactly why the red shirts are angry. It's partly why they are shooting, running, and burning down buildings. No one really tries to understand the basics of their calls for democracy; instead it's about a corrupt billionaire and an overpriced shopping mall that sells things no one really needs.
"Red shirt leaders have repeatedly, and conveniently, said they had no control over the unruly elements. But as leaders, they cannot deny responsibility for the protesters – whatever faction they belong to."
I'm wondering what the BP editors would do if an employee killed a red shirt protester. Would their argument be that they had no idea it could happen? Would they call for calm and peace?Would they not argue at all? Would they pat the employee on the shoulder?
Then I wonder what would happen when the red shirts retaliated. More fires, more anger, more chaos. Just deeper wounds and pointing fingers slowly but surely digging in to the cuts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Elites that control newspaper of course are not very sympathetic to the red shirts so don't expect a balance analysis from them.
ReplyDeleteNeither side has been totally blameless in the conflict, but on the balance, I would attribute more responsibilities to the red shirts:
- the actions of the red shirts (occupying a business district) if repeat in any other developed countries, they would have been dealt with harshly and certainly would not have taken 2 months
- the leaders have spent 2 months inflaming the opinion of their supporters, even if they did not explicitly give the order, they should still hold some responsibilities of their followers' actions
- there are no excuses for the destruction of properties and the loss of lives
- they stormed the hospital, setup checkpoints and organizing random searches: effectively took the law into their own hand
- the government offered to dissolve the parliament in November. Instead of accepting the government plan, they keep adding conditions to it until the government withdrawn the plan
- let's not forget the protest began with the court decision to seize Thaksin's assets, so even though the grievance of the red shirts are valid, the motivation of the protest is compromised
The present government is trying to do the right thing, I have faith in the personal integrity of the PM and the direction he is leading the country. However, the root of the problem will take a long time to resolve as it revolves around the education system and I am not sure if the rural people have that kind of patience or willing to put in the effort. They may prefer the little freebies that are given out by politician who want their votes instead.
Democracy is not the highest principles in determining what is a good government, especially when the population is not well informed/educated.
There were cases where a popularly elected government was deemed unacceptable to the developed countries and they sabotaged it (e.g. Vietnam before the war, Hamas in Palestine). I don't condole it but it illustrates a point.
A point well-taken, and well made. I don't think anyone can argue that destroying property and intense violence are any means to an end. The red shirts, especially the radical factions, have a great weight to bear from the destruction and havoc caused these past two months.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Abhisit did do his best in a very complex and difficult situation. I don't question his integrity, or that not everyone with authority was behind him 100%. No doubt, no other westernized country would permit a downtown to be effectively closed for a month long stand-off.
Then again though, I think there was a reason the government continued to allow the rally to continue. An early crackdown would have looked heavy-handed to western outsiders, and perhaps legitimized the red shirt arguments. Both sides therefore allowed the inflamed situation to intensify until the events on Tuesday.
I'm not saying that red shirts do not bear responsibility. I do believe, however, that the government and not just the Prime Minister allowed the rally to continue knowing it gave 'ammunition' for a future crackdown. Moreover, I still believe that firing live rounds at the protesters a month ago, and then trying to justify the use of force by blaming the red shirts and 'terrorists' seriously inflamed the conflict.
I agree that Mr. Abhisit made overtures to later create a time table, but after shooting at the demonstrators and then attempting to justify it through manipulated news seriously upset those people. It made a volatile situation much, much worse, and that gave the red shirt leaders combustible ammuntion to seriously inflame protesters way before the events of the past two weeks.
So while I agree that Mr. Abhisit did his best to lead the Thai people; someone has to answer for what happened. There are many disenfranchised people now because of the week's events.
Unfortunately, a life in politics sometimes puts a decision to you. Sometimes, you have to make a tough decision, a sacrifice.
Many times in life, you tried your best but it still wasn't enough. That has to be accepted, and then a leader must make the tough decision that shows he or she is worthy of that station. I'm interested to see what Mr. Abhisit will do.
Thanks again for your comment, I appreciate your valid points, and think the Thai red shirt leadership might learn something by reading it :-)!
My thought is that the PM has not had much control over the army and police and they were reluctant to crackdown on the red shirts since a lot of them are sympathizer.
ReplyDeleteThe army chief insisted that a political problem require a political solution for awhile and refused to act.
When they finally acted on 10 April, they were surprised by how well armed the red shirts are (those black gunmen) and have to retreat and reassessed the situation in the new light.
Given the outrage about the deaths on 10 April, they adopted a strategy of siege and attrition that minimize the casualties for the second assault, in addition they couldn't afford to fail a second time so they were extra cautious.
If the PM's resignation would drain the poison out of the current situation, lead to national reconciliation, then I am all for it. However, I am afraid even if he does, all that it would do is for the red shirts and its party to score some political points and strengthened them further.
The root cause of the problem runs so deep that a few symbolic gestures are not going to help, concrete actions are needed to show the rural people that the inequalities will be addressed. In this regard, I think the PM has more ideas than the red shirts party.
The easy way out for the PM is to resign, and people will praise him for accepting the responsibilities of the unrest and he can let other people to sort out the problems.
The harder way is for him to endure if he thinks he is the right leader for this country to solve these problems.
Again, points well made! It's interesting that Abhisit may have already made a decision regarding his political future. I write this because he is currently preparing to contest a 'no confidence' vote in the Thai Parliament.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, given that he may very well experience dissension in his ranks, the Prime Minister continues to 'endure' as leader of the country. It bears noting then that having a fractured government may be reason enough to address his position.
The issue, however, I believe, is that Mr. Abhisit was never elected by the people. Therefore, the disenfranchised identify the Prime Minister as the unelected 'elite' who are continuing to hold steadfastly to power.
He is supposed to make the decision what is 'right' for the people, yet the majority of people in the country never elected him to make that decision. This, I believe, is the heart of the moderate red-shirts' argument.
No matter Mr. Abhisit's occupational future, it cannot be argued that leaders must address deep-seated issues in Thai society (e.g. lack of education, government indoctrination, societal inequality (this is everywhere in the world I might add), and elitist censorship). If there is a continued failure to face the issues, and instead engage in press and rhetorical campaigns, we will likely see continued and mounting discontent within Thailand.
It has been simmering here for a very long time.
Thanks again for your comments, they are valid and persuasive. I'll continue to think about them tonight :-)!
I agree that the fact the current government is not elected by the population is one of the common grievances among the people, even some educated Thais.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, it is the goals and policies that the government is persuading that are more relevant - Singaporean and Chinese governments are not democratic but they do a decent job. To quote a Chinese statesman "it does not matter whether it is a black cat or white cat, the one that catches the mouse is a good cat".
The Thais however seem to be more concerned about the forms than the substances. They still cannot see the shortcomings of a democratic system and in the way it is practiced in Thailand, instead of policies debating, the politicians are entrenched in their own camps and preoccupied with posturing than solving problems.
The issues you listed are the key issues that need to be addressed for Thailand to go forward, but there don't seem to much of political will to tackle most of it. I can envisage that once Number One is gone, they may find a revolution in their hands.