blaze

Politics must be confined to its proper place. Politicians should do their fighting in Parliament.

I couldn`t agree more.

Indeed parliament acted in a efficient and effective manner to dismiss the unpopular amnesty bill that the PM attempted be force through. Parliamentary politics was working, it wasn`t perfect but where is?

Unfortunately it wasn`t enough for some who seem hell bent on starting a war, even after forcing the government into an election they still wanted more knowing they would loose.

Their efforts to reject democracy now leave Thailand in economic ruin and on the verge of civil war. I dont know how you sleep in your bed (or tent) at night Mr Suthep.

The second largest bunch of politicians decided they didn't want to play anymore.

Its a shame that these street tactics have been allowed to become accepted as a practical way forward.

not only have they become accepted- but many are demanding that the police defend this parliament of the park- this congress of the interesections. As if it represents the true and legitimate authority to govern the nation-- horrifying.

A good article- Thailand is, as others have mentioned above ruled not by law, but by custom- and custom dictates that you leave important decisions to your social betters-- Not think too mut. But follow blindly. The law traditonally has existed as a method of maintaing the status quo- maintaining the harmonious dynamics of a classist society. Yet currently, it is written to reflect the western values of individual rights to justice- that principles trump expedience. This makes no sense to a lot of people- In the west the law has an almost sancrosanct value- here, it is at best a convenience with which to hammer your enemies- or simply an inconvenience to be reinterpreted in the most absurd fashion, to be circumvented- or to be simply ignored.

Maybe- maybe this analysis is wrong-- but...

Learn the real threat that Thaksin poses- and don't tell me that the Silom Businessmen's association is morally offended by whifs of corruption!!! (Or some of the more notorious state agencies!!!)

So many foreigners - and thais- have been enlisted into the ranks of the Useful Idiots. (well meaning, but intentionally misguided).

Businessmen mostly hate corruption. It lowers their profit and they have nothing to gain from it.

And how do you suppose that the small businesses on Silom- in the Patpong area, are able to run fronts for prostitution if they hate corruption?

How do you suppose that building codes are not enforced?

Why do you think sidewalks are designed to crumble after only a couple of years' use?

Why is the tax revenue collection in this country appallingly low?

Nothing to gain from corruption? How about getting bids accepted at inflated costs? and delivering less than their competitors would?

And 'selling' sub-contracts not to the lowest bidder- but to the fattest brown paper envelope.

You are talking about crooks. I'm talking about businessmen. The majority of businessmen want to work in a well regulated society with predictable conditions, so that they can plan long term. Crooks live off a badly regulated society and buy themselves advantages that enable them to get unfair advantages compared to those who run honest businesses. While there are many crooks running businesses in Thailand, the real business it what makes the wheels go round. If Pat Pong disappeared, few would notice except the crooks and some bar girls.

OK- what percent of the people cheering on suthep's mission pay their taxes with full disclosure, do you think?

What percent on principle refuse to gift a good school for their little darling to secure a seat in?

What percent will offer a cop a 'tip' not to take them to court for a DIU?

Etc etc etc- and remember- we are talking about Thailand- not Finland.

You are saying honest businessmen are honest- well- yeah. True. But in Thailand- how many are honest-- how many actually put principle ahead of profit -=- when its so easy to get away with abandoning the first in order to maximize the second?

Anyway, as an addendum to your catalog of conjecture, I proffer the following:

- the people would eventually try to vote out a Thaksin controlled government

- suppressed as you suggest, the people would fight for their democratic rights, as they are doing now

- foreign countries would place trade embargoes on the nation and also cut tourist income to pressure the government

- intervention from the unspeakables would further weaken the government's grasp

- support for tyrannical leadership among government workers and army regulars would wane

- the tyrant's system would crumble from the inside

- the cult of Thaksin would become weak and he would be deposed internally

- the UN would oversee fresh multiparty elections

- the nation will have come through an important and historical lesson, hopefully never to be repeated as in politically more developed countries.

Just like it has in all the other Dictator and Communist countries... riiiiiiight!

What, Peter, do you mean, 'the people would ...try to vote out a Thaksin controlled government'.

the people will vote out or in-- no 'try' =about it- unless you are suggesting the supporters of the T Gov't are not people?

And from there on your conjecture breaks down.

Are you advocating a civil war waged by a minority against the electoral expression of the majority?

do you think the courts are corrupted by the ruling gov't? That there are no checks and balances to protect minority rights in Thailand at present?

Your suggestion that Yingluck is a tyrant is comical and speaks loudly to your lack of knowledge of TRUE tyrannies.

So yes- that was fun- now come down to earth and leave the comic books alone.

Ah, the pitfalls of scanning a post rather than reading fully. I was merely going along with the Munter's scenario in an effort to engage in his game of conjecture, thereby highlighting how ridiculous it is to base a firm political stand on what 'would/could' happen if this government were allowed to complete its term.

I'll let you off this time but misunderstand me again and I'm afraid you will have some fairly withering sarcasm as well as patronizing hyperbole coming your way quicktime.

Whoop- my apologies...

Your post- as quoted above was truncated from the original- and the 'comical' intent removed-- I didn't do that-- I see why the mods frown on quoting only parts of posts-- this is what happens.

MunterHunter- did you truncate Peter's post? and leave me with a face full of egg?

Anyway, as an addendum to your catalog of conjecture, I proffer the following:

- the people would eventually try to vote out a Thaksin controlled government

- suppressed as you suggest, the people would fight for their democratic rights, as they are doing now

- foreign countries would place trade embargoes on the nation and also cut tourist income to pressure the government

- intervention from the unspeakables would further weaken the government's grasp

- support for tyrannical leadership among government workers and army regulars would wane

- the tyrant's system would crumble from the inside

- the cult of Thaksin would become weak and he would be deposed internally

- the UN would oversee fresh multiparty elections

- the nation will have come through an important and historical lesson, hopefully never to be repeated as in politically more developed countries.

Just like it has in all the other Dictator and Communist countries... riiiiiiight!

What, Peter, do you mean, 'the people would ...try to vote out a Thaksin controlled government'.

the people will vote out or in-- no 'try' =about it- unless you are suggesting the supporters of the T Gov't are not people?

And from there on your conjecture breaks down.

Are you advocating a civil war waged by a minority against the electoral expression of the majority?

do you think the courts are corrupted by the ruling gov't? That there are no checks and balances to protect minority rights in Thailand at present?

Your suggestion that Yingluck is a tyrant is comical and speaks loudly to your lack of knowledge of TRUE tyrannies.

So yes- that was fun- now come down to earth and leave the comic books alone.

It's like preferring an unknown outcome to a highly unlikely bad outcome. I don't get it.

You are either new or a Red Shirt...

Highly Unlikely Bad Outcome?

I think it would be fair to say that most (if not all) except the Red Fanatics would agree that letting Thaksin back to the helm is tantermount to suicide... Thailand would be a republic/one party democracy within a very short period of time... His opponents would be targetted and either intimidated into surrender or 'disappear' (as history has already shown us)... He would fill the police and military with his supporters and shut down any opposition (as history has already shown us) He would ride roughshod over the courts and bribe any who might vote against him (as history has already shown us) and his goon squad - the red faction - would hunt down anyone who tried to oppose him (as history is showing us now)

You still think that 'outcome' is 'highly unlikely'? I say to you that outcome is almost guarenteed.

So yeah, i'll take a peoples council and reforms - even though those reforms have not been fleshed out yet - over a Red Thailand controlled with Thaksin's Iron fist...

Thanks for putting me straight on what exactly I am. And there I was thinking I was not new and not a red shirt. Just goes to show how little we know about ourselves, huh...

Anyway, as an addendum to your catalog of conjecture, I proffer the following:

- the people would eventually try to vote out a Thaksin controlled government

- suppressed as you suggest, the people would fight for their democratic rights, as they are doing now

- foreign countries would place trade embargoes on the nation and also cut tourist income to pressure the government

- intervention from the unspeakables would further weaken the government's grasp

- support for tyrannical leadership among government workers and army regulars would wane

- the tyrant's system would crumble from the inside

- the cult of Thaksin would become weak and he would be deposed internally

- the UN would oversee fresh multiparty elections

- the nation will have come through an important and historical lesson, hopefully never to be repeated as in politically more developed countries.

Please feel free to add more of your own 'would/could' predictions. This is fun!

can you give us an estimation of the time that would take and in that time could you give us an estimate of how many would have to die.

Me I would prefer to see something done to now to prevent all the death and destruction.

What would 'be done' in your home country if 'peaceful protesters' had shut down the major arteries, the government, the police (basically through the courts demanding nothing more abraisive than kid gloves)?

The cost so far of this 'peaceful protest' (peaceful because nobody dare oppose it)--

National flag carrier Thai Airways International releases 2013 results on Tuesday and is expected to report a huge loss. It may cite a slump in tourism since the protests began last November as one of the factors.

Trade figures released on Tuesday showed a huge 15.5 percent drop in imports in January from a year before, reflecting weakness in consumption, construction and other activities as the political crisis deepened. Exports dropped 2 percent.

Thailand is an export base for top global car makers and a major producer of hard disk drives.

Imports were lower in most sectors, with machines and parts down 16 percent year-on-year, computers and parts down 19 percent, auto parts down 31.8 percent, steel products down 14.3 percent and consumer goods down 5.3 percent.

Do you understand why this protest is pissing off a lot of people who may NOT be red supporters?

Maybe it's time that all Thais decided to settle their differences at the ballot boxes- a token gesture would be for foreigners to support them in this.

There is no Santa Claus-= and if there were, he wouldn't be a warlord from Surat Thani.

It seems to obvious to say, but of course I will:

"Do we want a country built on bribery, corruption and nepotism?"

bribery, corruption and nepotism exist in every country on earth- children murdered because the norms of conflict resolution have been abandoned, are not normal.

It sounds like you are saying the death of a few children is simply collateral damage in the greater quest: utopia.

that is frightening shit- reminds me of Year Zero talk.

Learn the real threat that Thaksin poses- and don't tell me that the Silom Businessmen's association is morally offended by whifs of corruption!!! (Or some of the more notorious state agencies!!!)

So many foreigners - and thais- have been enlisted into the ranks of the Useful Idiots. (well meaning, but intentionally misguided).

Businessmen mostly hate corruption. It lowers their profit and they have nothing to gain from it.

And how do you suppose that the small businesses on Silom- in the Patpong area, are able to run fronts for prostitution if they hate corruption?

How do you suppose that building codes are not enforced?

Why do you think sidewalks are designed to crumble after only a couple of years' use?

Why is the tax revenue collection in this country appallingly low?

Nothing to gain from corruption? How about getting bids accepted at inflated costs? and delivering less than their competitors would?

And 'selling' sub-contracts not to the lowest bidder- but to the fattest brown paper envelope.

Thais haven't got the bottle for a civil war. Too much like hard work.

What an stupid comment!

Kurnell is not aware of the prolonged existance of communist camps in the hills of Pechabun and NST- and of the battles that were waged for almost 20 years --- nor of the sacrifices made by the students who 'went to the forest' in 73. As Munterhunter says, a truly stupid comment.

It's all a load of balls, anyone who doesn't see it has an agenda against Yingluck/PTP.

People try to portay Thai politics as this deep "you don't understand unlesss your Thai" BS, when it's one of the most transparent politicial messes in recent times.

It would be funny if I didn't feel like puking almost everytime I read the latest story.

Sad situation.

Or....Anybody who is blinded by red propaganda would think the rice scheme is a success.

I mean, come on, THB 780,000,000,000 gone, the rice farmers have no money and they are up to their ears in debt, no figures released ever and the only thing we hear is something about secret (non-existing/fake) G2G deals.

Please do some research concerning this scheme. It is broadly covered in the international community. Loads of info available if you dare to have a look.

You think this is about a failed policy? That Thailand is being plunged into darkeness because of the incompetent administration of a program? What could the citizens of every country that supported the invasion of Iraq (much more costly to the major antagonists than the rice scheme- and much more riddled (in the US with possible corruption_)-- But I don't see developed countries racing head long to join the ranks of Syria and Somalia.

Maybe you should learn something about the power and economic systems of patronage in this country that are being threatened by Thaksin policies and the enfranchisement of the poor.

Learn the real threat that Thaksin poses- and don't tell me that the Silom Businessmen's association is morally offended by whifs of corruption!!! (Or some of the more notorious state agencies!!!)

So many foreigners - and thais- have been enlisted into the ranks of the Useful Idiots. (well meaning, but intentionally misguided).

And this is the new face of Thai politics- intimidation- illegal occupations-- so what next- the major intersections not occupied by yellows become the turf of the reds? The parks that are not squatters camps for boys from Surat become hobo villages for boys from Khon Kaen? The reds are very close to losing whatever moral high ground they have occupied for the last few months.

If we trace it back- where the precedent was set- was it the occupation of the airport? Why were lessons not learned from that? Because nobody has been imprisoned for that action? Or was that ok- and the precedent was set with the red occupation of Ratjaprasong? For which people DID go to jail-- but - maybe not enough of them. Or is it more recent- last night's intimidation of the Voice TV headquarters?

At one time, we could not imagine how a country could become Somalia-- as we didn't understand how a European country (Yugoslavia) could descend into the bloody abyss that it will pay for for generations. Where are the cool heads- man, this country needs them as never before.

"Eventually, Yingluck is going to be forced to step down."

This is news? many- including some I know who hate this gov't- predicted this the day she became PM.

of course she will be booted out- one way or the other- the problem the civil service (in this case the courts) have is how to do so without tarnishing their reputation internationally. Of course, locally, they enjoy less trust than ever right now- and it may be a long time before any semblence of trust is restored- except among those who are more interested in the results than the process.

Somehow- ideally- they have to sell a judicial coup to the reds-- that is going to require hard and incontestible evidence of malfeasance- or better yet, corruption--

Without logical verdicts based on evidence, it will be a hard sell- but Im sure that they are burning the midnight oil- noses to grindstones-- maybe they can get her for accepting a bunch of flowers from an adoring fan- And let this be a warning to any other family or political party that seeks to shake up 'the system'.

Verdicts awaiting process- but all hands are on deck- the process will be ready soon- and its bye bye Yingluck.

If we do not want dead children we avoid war- because chldren die in wars. And we avoid war by adopting methods of resolving conflicting visions of society within the framework of constitutional law.

We do NOT seize government buildings- we do NOT intimidate news organizations- we do NOT block major traffic areas- and we do NOT seek to paralyze the capital city and government of a country.

we do NOT expect that a government will step down and take democracy (such as it is) with it- simply because we order it to.

And we do NOT minimize the risks to ourselves, and to the general public which we claim to represent, from our political enemies if we decide to take the game outside the assigned arena!

And if we are so convinced of the righteousness of our cause- then we take the game outside the arena and accept the consequences without whining and weeping.

Most of the developed world has learned these lessons the hard way- Thailand will eventually also learn them. But it might be too late.

The courts do not enjoy public trust- only the loyalty of those who they benefit at any given time. (Justice must not only be done- it must be SEEN to be done- and this is not happening).

The police has no credibility either- nor does the army- except among those for whom they benefit on any given day. The government of the day enjoys the respect of only those it benefits- in fact the constitution enjoys no universal respect- sacred documents don't get torn up every few years and those who dare tare one up- don't walk away with impunity.

Even the notion of electoral democracy is regarded with skepticism if not downright cynicism by too many influential players.

how can anything good come of this? How can anything that even resembles a social contract with its respect for dissenting opinions bloom from the mess that is now Silom- soon to be a bloody mess.

Are we so naive as to believe that those who support this government will meekly accept its bowing to street protests that in ANY other country would be deemed illegal?

Do we not know what happens when a large section of the population feels that the institutions no longer work for them?

We can blame whoever we want to blame- it will make no difference to the outcome. We have chosen to play by our own rules- I hope we are strong enough to accept the reprocussions without whining and weeping and saying- 'yeah but he started it..."

TV Reds............... will you still be here when propaganda money runs out like it has done to the rice scheme or will you start demanding payment tru this media ?

Do you understand why some question the level of intelligence and education of some of the anti-gov't posters? For people supporting a movement that wants enhanced and purified democracy- you do your side no favors with snippy little girl comments like this.

Maybe if you were to add a good ol' hillbilly guffaw-- some credibility might be rescued.

Don't understand a word you'r saying, lean real English (or even American English) before commenting.

American English says 'you'r' (for you're) and 'lean' for, I assume 'learn'? Hmm--- yes, I can see why debating the role of the public in holding the press toes to the fires of objective truth might be problematic for you. .

DREAMS come true? This was only a dream? It was a certainty for many. OF COURSE they will charge those people with murder-

AND - I am CONFIDENT- they will find them guilty- and it won't drag on for five years either. OK- the verdict might already have been decided- even before anybody died- but for appearances sake- expect a token courtcase with pretended due consideration of facts- but these charges will stick. I have no doubt at all.

And that's no dream.

" I am here to protect democracy. If I resign, there will be a vacuum which paves the way for an abolition of the Constitution and [bringing in] an undemocratic system. I have to protect democracy in my capacity as leader of the government. "

Nonsense from beginning to end. A vacuum is what we have right here and right now. And the constitution is the very instrument that will deal with it. The constitution states that if a parliamentary quorum is not achieved by March 4, the administration folds, and the constitution takes over with the process that follows. Either she steps down now or on March 4 is entirely up to her, but after that the constitution doesn't give her a choice. What she is protecting first and foremost is Thaksin. Thaksin is the only reason she is prime minister, and Thaksin is the only reason she is staying. And instead of going to the province of Saraburi today, why didn't she go to Trat ? Why didn't she go to Ratchaprason ? Is this the example she is setting as prime minister ? Is this how she bonds with the Thai people after such unspeakable crimes against humanity ?

Great post. This is all about Thaksin. Anyone who thinks it isn't, is fooling themselves.

Yes in a sense you are correct.

Thaksin sought to modernize the economy. This involved financially empowering the farmers-- but the real goal (if the history of other countries emerging from the stranglehold of feudal economics is anything to go by) he threatened to open the playing field for 'new capitalists' (you recall of course, the hatred of the PAD for 'capitalism'- which seems strange considering that many of its supporters were very wealthy- but it was the wealth of the hereditary monopoly- not the dog eat dog darwinian struggle that modern capitalism entails.

Back in the 80s it was said that about 12 families controlled the entire economy of the country- More than any one person- Thaksin threatened that system. And in so doing brought the farmers along in order to obtain the votes needed to bring Thailand into the twentieth century.

All the crap about his corruption (do you honestly think Thais hate corruption? That suthep hates corruption?) is pablum tossed to people who can't understand t he bigger picture (like many on this board) the real issue is a marked change in the economic and political power structures of the country- the old is being challenged by the new- and that never goes down easily.

If Thaksin is this great leader, then why hasn't he come back to face the charges against him? People say they are politically motivated, but who is running the country? His very own clone. Why did he have his allies push for his amnesty when he knew full well what the result would be? As far as "financially empowering" the farmers, you don't do that by giving them handouts, which is exaclty what he did. You know the whole thing about teach a man to fish vs. giving him a fish? Thaksin gave them the proverbial fish and they think that's great. Nevermind that he was stealing billions while handing out these "fish" I wonder how much better off they would be if he had instituted policies to help them, help themselves, rather than just blatant vote buying?

If he's this great man, why hasn't he kept his word to stay out of politics? I'm sorry you can't see it, but Thaksin doesn't care about anyone other than Thaksin. He doesn't even care about his own sister.

You have totally missed my point- which is fine- One last attempt- Thaksin used the farmers, through populist policies (which EVERY successful political party in the world indulges in) in order to attain political power. But his real goal- I THINK- was not socialist- but in fact, capitalist- With political power he would be able to break the system of patronage and hierarchy that has characterized the Thai economic and political structures and to create in Thailand something more like modern, western free wheeling capitalism- where the strong and innovative survive- and connections mean little.

I never said he was a great leader- you looking for a straw man? Look elsewhere.

<deleted>. Stop being so crass, all of you, and see this for what it is: a small but positive step. There will need to be many more such steps on all side (and far fewer unnecessary smartass comments) if there's to be any chance of pulling Thailand back from the brink.

You don't think this kind of behavior is indicative of a country that has already gone over the brink?

" I am here to protect democracy. If I resign, there will be a vacuum which paves the way for an abolition of the Constitution and [bringing in] an undemocratic system. I have to protect democracy in my capacity as leader of the government. "

Nonsense from beginning to end. A vacuum is what we have right here and right now. And the constitution is the very instrument that will deal with it. The constitution states that if a parliamentary quorum is not achieved by March 4, the administration folds, and the constitution takes over with the process that follows. Either she steps down now or on March 4 is entirely up to her, but after that the constitution doesn't give her a choice. What she is protecting first and foremost is Thaksin. Thaksin is the only reason she is prime minister, and Thaksin is the only reason she is staying. And instead of going to the province of Saraburi today, why didn't she go to Trat ? Why didn't she go to Ratchaprason ? Is this the example she is setting as prime minister ? Is this how she bonds with the Thai people after such unspeakable crimes against humanity ?

Great post. This is all about Thaksin. Anyone who thinks it isn't, is fooling themselves.

Yes in a sense you are correct.

Thaksin sought to modernize the economy. This involved financially empowering the farmers-- but the real goal (if the history of other countries emerging from the stranglehold of feudal economics is anything to go by) he threatened to open the playing field for 'new capitalists' (you recall of course, the hatred of the PAD for 'capitalism'- which seems strange considering that many of its supporters were very wealthy- but it was the wealth of the hereditary monopoly- not the dog eat dog darwinian struggle that modern capitalism entails.

Back in the 80s it was said that about 12 families controlled the entire economy of the country- More than any one person- Thaksin threatened that system. And in so doing brought the farmers along in order to obtain the votes needed to bring Thailand into the twentieth century.

All the crap about his corruption (do you honestly think Thais hate corruption? That suthep hates corruption?) is pablum tossed to people who can't understand t he bigger picture (like many on this board) the real issue is a marked change in the economic and political power structures of the country- the old is being challenged by the new- and that never goes down easily.

Thaksin sought to harness the farmers as a voting block by using populist policies, paid for by others.

Some worked and his PR teams made sure those that did for a time reinforced his intended legend as

friend of the common man versus the horrible elites. Utterly ignoring the fact he was an elite,

a nouveaux riche elite, but no less an elite by the time those farmers heard of him.

The problem remains; He still has that same mind set of social climbing by gaining power,

face and money sans compunctions, is the same mindset he brought into office,

and caused his downfall from office.

Now he has lost face and money, but clawed back some power over the country

and those who put him lower before. But he still has the same mindset; That he hasn't won.

It still colors his maladministration of Thailand through his string of proxies.

He has finally run those populist policy to their logical conclusion, national bankruptcy a

nd a million farmers broke, starving and enraged, and those who he has stepped on, mistreated

or strong armed in his quest for return to the big game are as angry, and they smell his blood in the water.

The opposition doesn't want to TALK to those who have never talked in good faith in the past.

Their negotiating position starts at removal from power of the Thaksin Political Machine.

Once it is done, those in PTP and other hangers on of the liege lords coat tails who walk away,

will eventually be rehabilitated and returned to the fold in the classic Thai way. Shin clan likely excepted.

They have seen what happens when the hydra is left with one snake left, and it isn't pretty.

But as usual Thaksin is incapable under stress of seeing that things have gone too far and

that he has over reached again, and so he just keeps pushing, no matter the cost to others,

because others really don't matter to him, not compared to his lost face, money and power.

Until you got into Thaksin's 'mindset' I would have agreed with what most of what you said. The way history unfolds has very little to do with the 'mindsets' of the major players- the dynamics of social and economic history create the players. Not the other way around. As far as Thaksin being of the 'neauveau Riche-' did you read my post before you replied to it? This is precisely the conflict- new money fighting for a place at the table with old money without having to play the kow tow game. And old money using all its old tools (connections, the civil service etc) to prevent this 'arriviste' invasion.

If it had not been Thaksin, it would have been someone else- and reasons to demonize that person in the minds of those less educated would be trotted out-- And the best example was the 'new money' of continental Europe after the destruction of the feudal system-- and who represented that urban middle class threat to the strangle hold of the old aristocracies? (hint- they were accused of drinking the blood of Christian babies- at least Thaksin has yet to be accused of THAT).

" I am here to protect democracy. If I resign, there will be a vacuum which paves the way for an abolition of the Constitution and [bringing in] an undemocratic system. I have to protect democracy in my capacity as leader of the government. "

Nonsense from beginning to end. A vacuum is what we have right here and right now. And the constitution is the very instrument that will deal with it. The constitution states that if a parliamentary quorum is not achieved by March 4, the administration folds, and the constitution takes over with the process that follows. Either she steps down now or on March 4 is entirely up to her, but after that the constitution doesn't give her a choice. What she is protecting first and foremost is Thaksin. Thaksin is the only reason she is prime minister, and Thaksin is the only reason she is staying. And instead of going to the province of Saraburi today, why didn't she go to Trat ? Why didn't she go to Ratchaprason ? Is this the example she is setting as prime minister ? Is this how she bonds with the Thai people after such unspeakable crimes against humanity ?

Great post. This is all about Thaksin. Anyone who thinks it isn't, is fooling themselves.

Yes in a sense you are correct.

Thaksin sought to modernize the economy. This involved financially empowering the farmers-- but the real goal (if the history of other countries emerging from the stranglehold of feudal economics is anything to go by) he threatened to open the playing field for 'new capitalists' (you recall of course, the hatred of the PAD for 'capitalism'- which seems strange considering that many of its supporters were very wealthy- but it was the wealth of the hereditary monopoly- not the dog eat dog darwinian struggle that modern capitalism entails.

Back in the 80s it was said that about 12 families controlled the entire economy of the country- More than any one person- Thaksin threatened that system. And in so doing brought the farmers along in order to obtain the votes needed to bring Thailand into the twentieth century.

All the crap about his corruption (do you honestly think Thais hate corruption? That suthep hates corruption?) is pablum tossed to people who can't understand t he bigger picture (like many on this board) the real issue is a marked change in the economic and political power structures of the country- the old is being challenged by the new- and that never goes down easily.

You've fallen for the red propaganda too then? If what you are saying is true, that Thais aren't bothered about corruption, why are there so many fed up to the back teeth of it and thinking enough is enough. If Thaksin wants to distribute the wealth to the poor folk, why are they still poor and he is a multi billionaire?

Why have their been so many deals to benefit the poor folk in Isaan, where the goods and money don't appear but end up with the middle men and higher? He might be battling the ruling Elite but he doesn't give one monkey's about the poor and their needs, only their votes, to fuel his power and ego. If not, why doesn't he pay the farmers out of his own pocket? Why doesn't he pull himself away from this power trip? He has his riches now, he could just walk away, but he doesn't. It's all about power and money, can't you see that? This isn't about democracy, this is about power. Open your eyes. If he really cared about democracy why did he try and force through the Amnesty bill which benefits him and prevents his party getting done for the rice scam.

Uh-= no red propaganda does not refer to open market darwinian capitalism. In fact, a lot of it is opposed to my analysis and prefers to see the conflict as 'class' based

Mine is based on having studied the conflicts that arise in all post feudal societies as old money (landed gentry, aristocracy) is threatened by new money (capitalists, international entrepeneurs etc). As well as an understanding of the way that the system of patronage - not comptetition- permeated all aspects of Thai economic life till recently (and still does to a considerable extent).

And it may be wrong- maybe the old Marxist analysis is better- a class struggle- but I don't think that's what it is (despite what the western press would have us believe).

But the notion that the conflict boils down to the fact that there is corruption in this gov't-= well, you would have to provide ONE instance. Just one- where a sitting member of this gov't has been convicted. This might be the cleanest gov't that thailand has ever known- because this gov't, like none before it, is under a microscope.

But taking your point- that it is about corruption- can I assume that all these small business owners supporting the protest pay their proper share of taxes? Don't offer bribes to traffic cops to avoid court dates? Or is it just raw hypocricy from beginning to end- a sanctimonious self righteous party.

Or is corruption the part of the law that some Thais are trotting out to hit thaksin and his kin with in order to protect something much greater than the sterling reputation of Thais as the world's least coarrupt people