blaze

Yes I think it will be a long time. At least until the public is satisfied that courts do not make decisions affecting big people according to the direction the wind is blowing.

I expect the biggest pressure that the junta is facing is from itself. They now have to justify this coup- not just to the people- but to history- which might not mean much to a lot of us, but means a lot to military people. Given that military coups in this country, like most, are not accorded a lot of respect by history.

It was a given that Taksin broke laws- every body 'knew' it. And to satisfy the public and history that any actions taken against him are not simply 'victor's justice', a smoking gun is going to have to be produced. And so far- even in the tax cases, there's a lot of something that smells like smoke- but might just be hot air.

They are all too aware that within a short time, little Somchai is going to be asking mommy, "Why if this Taksin person was so bad that the army had to kick him out, didn't they put him in jail?". And mommy's going to have to say, "Well dear, you'll have to ask the generals".

I doubt that's the legacy these guys want.

I don't say this with any satisfaction Plus, but I think they have caught themselves between a rock and a hard place.

But I may be wrong. This is Thailand and I just can't figger the damned place out at all.

I agree with much of what you say- though I suspect that incitement to commit murder could be handled by a Thai court.

"It will surely end Thaksin's dreams of comeback and it will raise the awareness of human rights violations at home and Thais would want to raise their own standards."

Whether or not "it" (a trial, international or local) "ends Thaksin's dreams of comeback" should not, in the context of this case, be an issue at all. And as long as it is, or equally important, is seen to be, an issue, there is no way that a Thai court can even dream of touching this. If those demanding 'justice' about the killings are deemed as wanting not only that Thais improve their record on human rights, but ALSO to ensure that Taksin never again plays politics, then the whole case is warped. Politicized. No?

" Everytime I breath in I've got this big ass smile, people think I'm on "drugs" or something."

You are. On drugs or something. Quomem is bupropion originally (and still under the name Welbutrin) marketed as an anti-depressent. Don't drink while using it. You might find yourself blacking out. And acting really stupid. Also, welbutrin was associated with a few suicides a few years back. Treat it with respect. It ain't your grandpas' nicorette.

If Taksin is personally charged with inciting the deaths, would any court have the courage to find him innocent? Remember that human rights violations was one of the justifications for the coup. (Though, not, as I recall, in the original set of justifications). To say that Taksin was NOT guilty would mean that that particular justification no longer held water. And I don't think this fact will be lost on the citizenry- or the international community (ok- who cares). Among the citizenry, for those who believe that justice will have been served with a guilty verdict, the message will be, make damned sure you have a government that supports the decision to prosecute your enemies. At any cost. For those who believe it will be a kangaroo court situation, the message will be--- exactly the same.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's not enough that justice be served, but justice must be seen to be served. And for that reason would it not be smarter to postpone prosectution till an elected government is in place? Until the promised checks and balances and mechanisms to ensure judicial independence have been constitutionally implemented.

I can not see how, under the current situation, a verdict will not be regarded as political, even by those who agree with the verdict.

1. Thaksin told every TRT MP to prepare 300,000 people to be ready to come to Bangkok.

The PAD was predicting a rally of 500000 at one time. Five hundred thousand people protesting the government. Yet this was not interpreted as a threat to social order. Why then would 300000 demonstrating their support for the "

"His henchman, Yongyut in charge of the forest rangers, was waiting to attack the PAD rally in Bangkok. Not the first time either. Newin was prepared as well. Any violence would have enabled Thaksin to be able to declare a state of emergency in Bangkok, banning any future protests."

This was the rumor- and actually the media reported that he intended to 'confront' the PAD- that doesn't nescessarily mean 'attack'. It may have been intended as nothing more than a show of support. He did not march on Bangkok however- nor has anyone published proof of his intention to do so.

"3. It's easy for upcountry leaders, MPs, canvassers and village headmen to rent a mob. " That is no justification for tearing up the constitution is it?

4.The opposition to Thaksin was too strong to accept a state of emergency, clashes would have happened.

Yes that's possible- though given that the courts were appeasing the PAD (jailing the EC three), that elections were scheduled, that the PAD rallys had become less frequent and less well attended- that the farmers at Mochit had gone home- it's debateable. Yes, clashes might have happened- and still might- and that's one of the reasons countries have armies- to prevent the clashes from getting rough.

5. 5. How many coups had people welcoming them with people taking photos on the tanks with their kids? It's because Thais' experience of this type of crisis in 1973 and 1976 told them a bloodbath was just around the corner and the coup prevented that.

In time, those pictures on the mantle of little Somchai sharing an icecream with a smiling soldier are the most scary thing about this coup. When the tensions in this society resurface- and they will resurface- if for no other reason than economic disparity- that picutre is going to be all it takes to spur little Somchai to say, enough of this democracy crap- lets go back to tradition -what we need- will welcome- is another coup- just like those nice soldiers back in 06/07 And as history should have showed us, one benevolent dictatorship in no way portends another.

Anyhoo- what's all this got to do with the thread? The suppositions provided above for justifying the coup are based largely on rumor and allegation. Rumor and allegation was precisely how many of the victims of the war on drugs ended up on the blacklists. Yes the Rangers might have attacked- and yes- the grocer in Klong Toey might have been selling ya-ba.

" if the coup had never happened a bloodbath certainly would have.

Which would you prefer?"

Well, I would have preferred that the institutions mandated with preventing a blood bath did their job. I would hope that if my house was about to be over run by a horde of pitch fork weilding peasants, those assigned to keep the peace would not simply- evict me.

Furthermore, that statement- that 'there would have been a bloodbath', is not a given. NOBODY can state that with certainty. In fact one could argue that the polls showing the support for the coup would suggest that not many Taksin supporters were all that devoted to him- if you accept those polls. (Which I kind of do). The nonevent which was Constitution day, similarly didn't see peasants in the streets weeping over the expulsion of their Liberator. That these people were about to lay seige to the city - well- I'm not sure. There was some bluster, a bit of posturing maybe- but the kind of menace that leads to a blood bath?

Of course that was the reason given for the coup. It's the reason given all round the world- to maintain order. And stop corruption. And save the nation. Find me a coup which DIDN'T come in to restore order in a disrupted country.

Going back to my earlier post- the assertion that there would have been a blood bath is the same kind of reasoning that said, unless we (Taksin and crew) forget about such Western niceties as 'the law', the whole country will be plunged into drug addiction. And in fact- there might have been more evidence for THAT than for the notion that unless the army overthrew the government there would be a blood bath if the motocyces down on my corner were any indication.

What astonished me- and I think many farang- at the time, was the aquiescence- if not outright support of the 'drug killings' on the part of almost ALL the Thais that I knew. And as I think we all agree, whether the victims were dealers or not is completely beside the point. Unless a trial- conducted transparantly by an impartial judiciary proved them guilty- every one of them was, in the eyes of the law,- Thai law- innocent.

Yet the society at large scarcely batted an eye. Even during the glory days of last spring, very few of Taksin's most vocal opponents even raised this issue- unless they were courting the NGO/human rights types or enumerating the sins of Taksin to the foreign community.

I know- and I'm sure we all do- people who were at best uninterested in the 'human rights' dimension of the drug wars- -- but now- in their zeal to "get Takky"- have suddenly become champions of habeas corpus and the notion that even suspected drug dealers are entitled to due legal process. (Equally amusing is the way that some that I know have suddenly become fanatical advocates of the most draconian interpretation of tax law!- this transformation occurred at about the same time, curiously- within the last six months).

But what I find hardest to swallow - is how those same people, (and trust me, three years ago neither the murder of suspected drug dealers nor the crude and arbitrary way in which taxes were treated here, concerned those good folk one bit) tjpse same evangelists of the LAW- =don't see much wrong with ignoring the fact that their heros just- tore up the nation's constitution and with tanks on the streets, took it upon themselves to change the government.

Once again, law was circumvented in the interest of expedience. Expedience vs law may solve short term problems- but in the long term- as Taksin is discovering- sooner or later people will learn why the law of the land must take precedence over extrajudicial, extralegal- and yes, extraparliamentary quick fixes no matter how attractive - or even how popular those instant soultions may be.

What astonished me- and I think many farang- at the time, was the aquiescence- if not outright support of the 'drug killings' on the part of almost ALL the Thais that I knew. And as I think we all agree, whether the victims were dealers or not is completely beside the point. Unless a trial- conducted transparantly by an impartial judiciary proved them guilty- every one of them was, in the eyes of the law,- Thai law- innocent.

Yet the society at large scarcely batted an eye. Even during the glory days of last spring, very few of Taksin's most vocal opponents even raised this issue- unless they were courting the NGO/human rights types or enumerating the sins of Taksin to the foreign community.

I know- and I'm sure we all do- people who were at best uninterested in the 'human rights' dimension of the drug wars- -- but now- in their zeal to "get Takky"- have suddenly become champions of habeas corpus and the notion that even suspected drug dealers are entitled to due legal process. (Equally amusing is the way that some that I know have suddenly become fanatical advocates of the most draconian interpretation of tax law!- this transformation occurred at about the same time, curiously- within the last six months).

But what I find hardest to swallow - is how those same people, (and trust me, three years ago neither the murder of suspected drug dealers nor the crude and arbitrary way in which taxes were treated here, concerned those good folk one bit) tjpse same evangelists of the LAW- =don't see much wrong with ignoring the fact that their heros just- tore up the nation's constitution and with tanks on the streets, took it upon themselves to change the government.

Once again, law was circumvented in the interest of expedience. Expedience vs law may solve short term problems- but in the long term- as Taksin is discovering- sooner or later people will learn why the law of the land must take precedence over extrajudicial, extralegal- and yes, extraparliamentary quick fixes no matter how attractive - or even how popular those instant soultions may be.

"Maybe if they let only the army and bureaucracy run the country there would less corruption. Instead politicians take turns and feeding and there's a whole new bunch of them coming every five years for a feast"

If Chang Noi's assertions in the Nation today are to be believed, you are not alone in this sentiment.

Thaksin was a product of a prevailing local culture which has not changed.

A small little fellow who liked to dress up in uniforms and was thought by many to be quite mad led Germany to war. A few years latter along came a little Austrian who did the same. ( bet you thought the first one was Hitler......eh ).

The prevailing German culture allowed for the two leaders ( one by birth one by mas hysteria ) to bring the Nation to it's knees.

If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. Bye bye Thaksin 2006, helloooo Mr. Rumpabumpabaanchat 20-----.

Upon seeing this poster for the first time, my wife expressed some rarely seen anger and said "Who the F*%# does he think he is trying to dress up and look like the K***?

Tony, Tony, Tony....

"A small little fellow who liked to dress up in uniforms" in the original post was Germany's reigning monarch - Emperor Wilhelm II.

Hardly comparable to Thaksin...

Not comparing both. The highlighted sentenced made that poster image pop up in my mind. Thanks for the history lesson.

"The Ministry of Defense has requested a budget proposal for the year 2007, a figure slightly higher than that of year 2006." (Thai National News Bureau).

"The current budget showed the post-coup government would spend 115 billion baht on defense, up 34 percent from the previous fiscal year's 29 billion baht." (AFP)

That is an increase of a lot more than 34 percent. Am I reading this wrong? Although the Bangkok Post yesterday also mentioned an increase of 34 percent in defence spending, the Nation didn't mention this windfall to the military at all. Or did I just miss it?

Hi Storekeeper. Regarding the guy in your scenario who quits his big job and takes a job teaching english: He hasn't failed because he never intended to not work. He simply changed jobs. Is that really retirement?

The biggest problem with retiring in Thailand, is that no longer can you fantasize about retiring in Thailand.

So you better learn to live in the moment. . Something most of us workaday stiffs by and large missed, despite having been the best toilet seat marketer on the block.

And what better place to learn to slow down and enjoy the moment than Thailand, because, really, what is the term "sanuk" all about? It sure isnt' about high-fiving hysteria in the office after clenching a sale for 300 toilet seats.

Some retirees don't face the challenge.(they just devise a new business plan contingent on maximizing distribution of remaing sperm). Others face it and fail (look for any kind of job, not for money but for "something to do").

And some, -they just learn to enjoy being alive. Those are the ones that have learned that there is nothing so profound as the ripening of a pineapple. And that flies right in the face of everything we in the "industrialized" world have learned.

As the Thais say, (and so does Sartre and Buddha)- ... it's all "up to you."

The AVA bar is a homey/trendy little joint run by a guy from Pattalung. Nice guy, used to be a regular at Q bar. The place is relaxing, a real neighborhood bar. Not many tourists, most of the customers seem to be residents President Park.

Music is pretty hip- fits the environment well.

VERY expensive girls. Kinda like part timers, most of them I think. Though they are all quite pleasant. And kind of... sophisticated. (Well, everything's relative).

Decor is affordable hip- black and white photos, kind of artsy. Over all, a really nice place to start the night. And happy hour (s) beer is cheap. Can't recall how cheap but two hours there cost a lot less than half an hour in Nana.

I enetered Thailand with a double entry tourist visa. Stayed 60 days, got an extension for 30 days. Went to Singapore and re-entered Thailand Sept 30. On Nov 26th (almost 90 days)got an extension till Dec 28th. On Dec 26th, got ANOTHER extension till January 27th. All this I have verified by checking stamps in my passport.

I hadn't, I guess, known about the senior extension till I went for the Nov 26th extension. Now it may be that this is only offered once a year. Since I left Thailand in April, it was not necessary to use that "senior" extension. (Figure: new 60 day visa at the end of January-covers till end of march. An extension covered me till end of April.)

I do know that when I brought this up with a receptionist at my apartment, she said she had heard that there was a plan to offer seniors this extra thirty days.

The extension was offered and granted at Immigration on Sathorn rd. Might want to check with the people there.

I'm not surprised that immigration at Nong Khai didn't know about this. Neither did the people at the consulate in Vancouver till I showed them my passport last week.

Go figure!

Checking my passport- my second extension was till Jan 27. 04.Dated Dec 26, 03. This is 30 days. Not four weeks. I was also told by immigration officials that this extension was only available to people over 55. In fact, they recommended it when I went for my first extension. They said is was a new provision, only a few months old and that not many foreigners had used it.

Anyway, if in fact four week extensions after the first extension are available to everybody, then this one (55+ for 30 days) is no big deal.

In reading the posts referring to visa extensions, everyone suggests that there is only one thirty day extension given per tourist visa entry. Perhaps this has been noted elsewhere in the forum, but in fact a second 30 day extension (for 1900bt) is available to those over 55.

Or was all of last year. Anybody know anything about this? Certainly the staff at the Vancouver consulate didn't- but conceded when I showed two back to back extensions in my passport.

Sorry if this is old news to all of you. (I'm new at this).