Steve2UK

I didn't categorically say he did it, I am just pointing out the reasons

he sits high on a short list.

<snip>

Of course if Sae Daeng's little night time grenade attacks hadn't driven PAD from GH

and on the march to somewhere more important, and defensible,

this incident wouldn't have happened.

<snip>

<snip>

YEP! The attack dog wanted a Milkbone and pat on the head.

And now to publicly take credit, by inuendo, of course.

Coincidence...

Doubtful.

Access, motive, technique, ego, willingness.

Let me see....... It's been about a year since you started stating categorically that he was responsible for the grenade attacks on PAD at Government House. During that time, I (for one) have asked you at least twice to produce some valid evidence for the assertion - and I think I'm not the only one to ask. Result - zip.

This time - 24 hours after the event - here you are again. Only transparent and heavy-handed innuendo for now, but here you are again.

"Access, motive, technique, ego, willingness". Great list - but, without a scrap of viable evidence to support let alone confirm your latest assertion, it's as flightworthy as a dodo.

Come on LP.. I don't think it matters all that much, and to be honest, if he's going to make a gesture like that then Abhisit is a fairly safe choice, Thailand haveing been close allies to the USA for decades. What is he gonna do, hug the Burmese or Vietamese guy? The USA has very friendly relations with Thailand regardless of who's in office, so it's good so see Obama make that gesture.

I know that some on here and some newspapers are trying to make 'Cambodia' and 'The Thaksin & Hun Sen Romance' to be a colossal news event no matter if they call it brilliant or treason, but in the real world it really is quite insignificant. And now you're doing the same; you don't really have to politicize every time Abhisit farts or goes to the bathroom or gets a hug. Not everything in the world is about Thaksin, Hun Sen or Abhisit.

This is true. The US will support any Thai government in power bar possibly one that comes from a very violent coup. Chinese hegemony is growing in Asia and the US wont let little things liek vaguely undemocratic governments get in the way of its attempts to remain number one in as many areas as possible. The US quite happily supports and describes as good friends quite a number of unelected governments with hideous human rights records. Things like a peaceful coup or a government formed by a party that didnt win anywhere near the most seats in parliament are not going to bother them. If Thaksin were to return they would similarly be on good terms with him and even if there were another smooth coup it is likely apart from a few comments that relations wouldnt be that different.

Edited to add: the pic though was a good one from a PR point for Abhisit.

All good points - and I agree 100%. Similarly, the pic is indisputably good PR for Abhisit and will be spun for all it's worth - and more besides (as we have seen). Here's a prediction (though I think we'll be waiting the maximum span of this government's allotted time to see if I'm right): it will feature fairly prominently in the Democrats'/Abhisit's ("re-")election materials come that time; after all, who could resist advertising "a little touch of Barry Barack in the night" - even if Obama will be gearing up to run for re-election himself by then?

Interesting that there has been much speculation over the bomb and a sprinkling of the red concert things but there has to my knowledge been no analysis of what was said at the PAD rally or at the way it was slanted. Both were very interesting as were comments that attendees were not all natural PAD supporters. The date of the next PAD rally is also of interest.

Do we need a new thread or do we use this one for such comments?

Weren't the organizers of the Sanam Luang rally very clear that this was not a PAD rally?

Was it or wasn't it?

The organisers have called it a rally of no colour and called for people to rally around certain common things.

The media have termed it a PAD or yellow rally.

PAD opponents call it a PAD rally.

I dont think it is clear in general terms as media affects opinion more than the rally organisers. However, it is an interesting tactic to see the PAD who organised it try to open themselves again. In recent months they have become quite marginalised with their drift to extremism and with the Democrats being in government. Now are they trying to reverse this or is it a genuine call for new alliances? I suspect the former although in the current multi-faction morass anything is possible in terms of new alliances and changes of sides.

Seems this thread is appropriate, so here is a link to Nick Nostitz's pics and text following his attendance at both the Khao Yai and Sanam Luang events:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2...re-rises-again/

Yes, it's on a blog-type site - so people will view it through whatever filter is their wont. Likewise people can reach (or jump to) their own conclusions as to the accuracy of his reports. With that in mind, I won't select details to mention and won't comment on what he says and shows - I imagine plenty here will do their usual performance in that regard. That said, I haven't seen anything of what he says or shows contradicted by reliable reports elsewhere (except maybe Matichon's crowd number estimate already mentioned, but I've never paid any great attention to such estimates - and I've seen too many wild variations over the years to start now).

Well there has been no topic about todays Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation/ASEAN/USA meeting.

I find that strange.

BPost had a BIG picture of a smiling Abhisit,

with Pres. Obama putting a friendly hand on his shoulder for the photo op,

and both with big warm smiles.

In diplomatic terms this is a very significant vote of confidence and support.

And no pics so far of Obama and Hun Sen at all, if any surface, it would seem

only a group photo and not more. Clearly USA is backing Abhisit strongly,

and that fact can not be lost on Thaksin and Hun Sen,

nor much of Thailand that isn't totally myopic.

<snip>

Wondrous to see how athletic the jump to conclusions........ A Thai national newspaper has a big BIG picture of the US president putting a friendly hand on the shoulder of his co-Chair for the US-ASEAN meet who just happens to be a Thai PM - and from that you establish that "Clearly USA is backing Abhisit [presumably against Hun Sen?] strongly" ?

In diplomatic parlance this is a landslide towards positive gesture by Obama.

No other way to see it in the present situation. It was a large, intentional gesture.

Spin it as you must the other way, but that bird don't hunt.

Perhaps you mean fly - like a kite?

A word of advice (not that I can recall you ever taking any): you might like to think about checking your own posting for conspicuous signs of it collapsing under massive gyroscopic forces before spuriously claiming to find spin in what others have written. That might salvage some credibility for the content - mote, plank etc.........

Forgive my ignorance, but how does anyone ride a bike near the stage? There are 10k people there. Or did someone throw something from a long way away landing near the stage? Hundreds if not thousands of coppers, 10k/15k protesters, and 2 people on a motorcycle get close enough (50m) to throw a bomb into the crowd and get away?

The brief Bangkok Post report has it as one unidentified rider on a motorbike throwing a bomb/grenade (they use both terms) backstage while Sondhi was onstage. I believe Sanam Luang is basically flat open ground with some trees/bushes; that being the case, one would think it's not that difficult to get near enough to the rear of the stage to do the deed.

Well there has been no topic about todays Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation/ASEAN/USA meeting.

I find that strange.

BPost had a BIG picture of a smiling Abhisit,

with Pres. Obama putting a friendly hand on his shoulder for the photo op,

and both with big warm smiles.

In diplomatic terms this is a very significant vote of confidence and support.

And no pics so far of Obama and Hun Sen at all, if any surface, it would seem

only a group photo and not more. Clearly USA is backing Abhisit strongly,

and that fact can not be lost on Thaksin and Hun Sen,

nor much of Thailand that isn't totally myopic.

<snip>

Wondrous to see how athletic the jump to conclusions........ A Thai national newspaper has a big BIG picture of the US president putting a friendly hand on the shoulder of his co-Chair for the US-ASEAN meet who just happens to be a Thai PM - and from that you establish that "Clearly USA is backing Abhisit [presumably against Hun Sen?] strongly" ?

I read an interesting opinion in the Phnom Penh Post (hope that doesnt mean I am collaborating with the enemy from a Thai perspective or spying from a Cambodian one) by a guy called Tonkin. I no longer have the link to hand. However, after going through the history and from a Cambodian standpoint he made an interesting comment that by withdrawing ambassador and taking the other actions he had Abhisit may have done enough to keep support with him and stymie the more extreme demands of unelected power brokers. I thought it was an interesting take although of course it could always be a Cambodian talking point, or even a (unfounded?) fear of those in Cambodia that some in Thailand may really want to bite

Thanks for the tip - good (brief but balanced) piece. I hope the same as you - the more so because here comes the link :

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200...in-dispute.html

Looking around I see it's Derek Tonkin - British Ambassador to Vietnam 1980-82 and to Thailand 1986-89. So, I guess he knows his stuff?

Xangsamhua, excellent post.

Phew - that's a relief........ thought we were going to get more Jefferson.

<snipped> (savagely - but only for brevity)

Take the point. However,......

<snipped>

I think we're pretty much of like mind on all this. For the record, as 'twere , the description on BP of the Cambodian ambassador's (should I be saying "alleged"?) response was from a regular comment contributor of good standing, previously known for good connections and reliable accuracy etc. Bangkok Pundit published it without response which, busy though he often is, with this kind of factual comment one can usually take to mean he has reason to accept the contents at face value. As I've pointed out elsewhere to those who sneer at and love to dismiss blogs when something inconvenient is cited from them, context is all. Not the press, not blogs, nor this forum are courts of law - so it's crazy to look for "burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt" in them before accepting the "verdict"........ but I do want to see some kind of track record of dependable accuracy if not balance. Some blogs (Pundit particularly) consistently show more of that than this forum's bedfellow.

Conversely, I see repeated examples (in much of the press, some of the blogs and on here) of wild distortions of known facts (with obvious exaggeration of some and deliberate disregard of others certainly known to the writer) and blatant blending of those cherry-picked "enhanced" facts with speculation masquerading as fact - all to cobble together a quasi-case that falls apart with even cursory scrutiny. Plainly, propositions can be built on hypothesis (well into that myself) - but it better be clear which parts are evidence-based fact and which are "if that's the case, then......" theorising. While I don't (and won't) put anyone here on "ignore", the needle of my attention/credibility meter soon moves closer to zero when I see the same people churning out their familiar concoction of half-truths - and more often than not doing a flit or at best obfuscating when asked to back up their statements with something approaching evidence let alone confirmation.

But I digress - and it won't change anyway.......

For those crying overreaction what should th egovernment have done when a convicted criminal ex-politican sought for extradition(technically all of this is fact whether you or I like it) was appointed government adviser by a neighbouring country? Consider too that the Cambodian ambassadort was summoned to explain why and refused to go or sens a deputy which is quite an amazing lack of protocol and also very challenging. The recall of the ambassador was the logical step in diplomatic prootocl after the neighbouring country refused to discuss the issue.

Think for a minute if for example madoof nipped over to Mexico and was appopinted a government adviser and then the mexican ambassador refused to explain why.

Anyway I await expalantion of what the Thai government should have done and an explanation that would logically fit with what other countries would have done under similar circumstances, and just ignored it is a niave answer as no country would have done. That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact.

There are many things I dont condone about what both countries have done but arguing that Thailand overreacted by recalling the ambassador is wrong and this now seems to have been accepted by many based on the Cambodian refusal. Everything after this stage was tit-for-tat in diplomatic terms and has been reported so by outside media.

Hammered, twice in one post you refer to the Cambodian ambassador (and deputy) refusing to go to the MFA when summoned as if it were established fact. I myself reported it earlier as "word is emerging from a usually well-informed source that...... " etc and was careful to follow with "If that version is to be believed......." etc.

( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3135326 )

Maybe someone else has posted evidence/proof of it or you at least found some confirmation elsewhere; if so, I missed it. In the absence of that, it's effectively no more than a rumour ("version" as I referred to it) - and certainly not "That Thailand tried to take a lesser form of escalation but Cambodia amazingly refused an ambassadorial summons remains a fact".

I'm used to seeing others routinely and seamlessly blend (consciously or carelessly) rumour, speculation, opinion and confirmed facts as if they're all one and the same - but not you.

It isn't is H using T, or T using H, it is a symbiotic and mutually parasitic relationship.

Intriguing. What happened to

Thaksin is clearly playing Hun Sen like a fiddle at this point

or was that just yesterday's pronouncement? Seems these same pages we're on turn rather quickly.

mca - I wasn't trying to get at you personally...... and apologies if you think I was. I agreed with hammered's basic comment and my closing "all of the above" was intended to relate to what I then went on to say as general points. Plenty (far too many) worse examples of out and out messenger-shooting on the forum than anything you said.

I guess I'm just way irritated by so much of the red/yellow labeling that I see...... smacks to me of football supporters - and the more mindless ya-boo variety at that.

A couple of observations about this "Letter from Phnom Penh" above..........

First is that I'm still reeling with shock that a journalist for an English-language Thai newspaper actually showed the initiative to try "to snake [sneak?] into the meeting venue". Makes me think that there's hope yet - even for something as sad as The Nation.

I could mention that it's also a bit of a surprise to see a Nation writer saying "former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra" rather than what seems to the mandatory "fugitive self-exiled.... etc" formula, but the second (and more serious than the first) observation is actually about the Nation writer's closing line: "What they feared was questions from Thai journalists".

Imagine my (and maybe his?*) surprise to see that the Bangkok Post's reporter encountered no problems putting questions (or at least being present in a group of Thai reporters putting questions) to Thaksin after the lecture. Things being what I understand them to be (I assume there's still no progress on the negotiations, talks, talks about talks.... etc?), I won't post even a link to the story - but it's dated 13/11/2009 in the Local News section of the Post online and thus easy to find. I recommend it - if only to locate another mine of ammunition for those so-minded. According to Bangkok Pundit, it seems to be only the second post-coup interview opportunity Thaksin has given to a Thai journalist (a group of them in this case). The first was the MCOT FM 100.5 radio phone-in last September to Jom (the show's host) who then felt obliged to "resign". Let's hope the Thai journalists present for this Q&A won't feel obliged to do the same.

Two newspapers - two rather different versions of events. Not in itself unique, but it underlines what a pity it is that we still can't even just link (i.e. without quoting text) to the other national English-language Thai newspaper. OK, moan over............ until the next time.

* I can already see two potential lines of defence for him better than "the dog ate my homework" type of thing. I'll keep them to myself for now and wait to see how long it takes before others here come rushing to his support. Sorry, no prizes for coming up with them - and you really ought to include some evidence for anything less speculative than "probably" and "maybe".

Letter from Phnom Penh

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

Published on November 13, 2009

Cambodia is relatively open for foreign journalists to report everything happening in the country but coverage of this visit by former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is different.

It is no big deal for local and international journalists to report Thaksin's high profile visit.

Cambodian authorities allowed them access to Thaksin when he landed in Phnom Penh airport Tuesday. Some local journalists and those who accompanied Thaksin were selected to attend a press briefing on Wednesday. Many local and foreign journalists were allowed to briefly attend Thaksin's lecture at the Economic and Finance Ministry Thursday.

However all coverage was off-limits to Thai journalists. They were not allowed to cover Thaksin's economics lecture, which was the highlight of the visit.

Thai journalists of all kind in print and broadcasting were blocked to hanging around near the fence of the ministry where Thaksin delivered his speech.

There was a brief push-and-pull action between Thai journalists and Cambodian guards when Thaksin arrived and Thai journalists tried to shout to put questions to him.

At first Thaksin seemed to walk from his car to speak to Thai journalists. But finally Cambodian security guards stopped and pushed him into the meeting room.

I tried to utilise my Khmer-looking appearance to snake into the meeting venue but failed as a security guard recognised me. A few guards later escorted me out of the ministry compound, and that's the end of story.

In fact, the content of Thaksin's lecture was no secret and Cambodian authorities released the whole lecture through National Television Kampuchea. And Thaksin's media also broadcast it yesterday.

What they feared was questions from Thai journalists.

-- The Nation 13 November 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

100 Peu Thai MPs are going to Phnom Pehn, right on schedule.

So what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers.

What is that line about "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Hun Sen is actively trying to destabilize Thailand.

That qualifies as an Enemy of the State.

Peu Thai is so desperate to get back Thaksin, and sole access to the money trough,

no move and now ally of convenience is too low a stoop.

A little clarification, please. Is there some punctuation missing from your second line - and it should read "So, what if Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers?" ?

Or does the "So what if" equate to "So what that Cambodians are fighting on the border with Thai soldiers"?

Either way, all the reports I've seen relate that all* is quiet on the border - and have been (PAD permitting) for some time. Do you know different?

Do you mean Hun Sen qualifies as an "Enemy of the State"? That label's universally applied to a national of the State of which he's deemed to be an enemy. I know much is made of Siamese/Khmer hegemony moving around quite a bit over the centuries, but I can't help feeling that you're stretching things a tad far if you're suggesting that Hun Sen's really a Thai national in some way. Or do you mean that the label should apply to the 100 MP's going to visit Thaksin while he's in Cambodia because you see that as somehow "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".......... whichever "enemy" in the proper legal sense that is? From imagined fighting to an imagined state of war - all in just a couple of lines......... that's impressive .

*To be fair there was a report of a bit of a punch-up about the right and wrongs of what's been said - between a pair of traders in a border market; but no Thai soldiers were involved and it hasn't (yet, anyway) led to the formal state of war that would be required for most of your post to make any sense at all.

Steve I had been driving for 8 hours that day.

I would say that actively helping destabilize the Thai government with Thaksin does NOT qualify him as a friendly.

Enemy or enemy of the state, as a semantic difference, it is an enemy none the less.

Lets call Chavalit, 'the great unifier' and Thaksin 'Enemies Of The State' in this case then.

They have together blown this international cock-up into high gear.

Even if a state of war is not declared a " Shoot To Kill" at Thai soldiers IS in place.

Not a friend's action.

Thaksin was not supposed to do any political work from Cambodia,

and yet 100 Peua Thai MP's winged out to see him. Oops sounds VERY political.

We can nit pick my punctuation, but the basic premise remains.

Perhaps we should add "don't drive and post" to "don't drink and drive"?

For the rest - terms are important and these are not semantic trivia when you deploy so much hyperbole; "unfriendly" does not make an "enemy" in any legal sense of the term - the "basic premise" of your original post. For that matter, while Hun Sen's "Shoot To Kill" declaration was certainly "unfriendly" (and IMO deliberately provocative - for reasons I've outlined elsewhere), it was specifically directed at those entering Cambodian territory........ an important qualification wouldn't you say? Not dissimilar to notices announcing "Use of deadly force is authorised beyond this point".

I don't "nit pick" people's punctuation - or spelling or syntax. My question about yours was (IMO obviously) to establish just what you meant - which was far from obvious.

"The Khmer empire stretched across the West to Kanchanaburi"?

I don't believe you. Please prove it.

Thailand has always been Thai.

I haven't decided if you're a troll. a fully paid up member of PAD or just woefully ignorant. I'm aiming for the latter at the moment.

This poster is one of the few on here who has posted stuff over time that could be seen as supporting both sides in various comments. This is something we should encourage rather than criticse imho as most posters are pure party line ones. There really is no need to label or categorise posters or denigrate them.

Seconded .

Could we also see an end to posts saying "the reds on here", "the yellows on here" etc? Offhand, I can think of very few members who have stated that they are actually supporters (let alone paid-up members) of one side or another - kudos to those who do. Otherwise, we have no business assuming someone is a PAD-lover, Red-lover, Thaksinista or any of the other facile labels that are thrown around here with such abandon. Even worse IMO are suggestions that a member is being paid to post - I hope mods will delete all instances of that and warn the offending poster.

Frankly, I think all of the above just show the inability of some to tackle the content - so they fall back on trying to disqualify the writer.

The types of tourists that tour in Cambodia are typically NOT

the valued high end tourists that Thailand seeks, and that get scared off easily.

Hun sen will see plenty coming from the Nam side and even Lao,

and not worry about the short term loss from the Thailand border,

which is not closed yet anyway.

But short term is Thaksin's game he wants the whole shebang NOW.

Two words in answer to your opening ill-informed assertion: Angkor Wat.

This post of yours is your answer to my question about the grounds for your earlier assertion that "Hun Sen could care less about tourism" ? Do you ever give a straight answer to a straight question - and without sallying off the subject?

According to Pundit there was second poll later (Nov 5?) without the push and there were similar percentages, which doesnt surprise me as it matches anecdotal evidence I find. I think the LM thing is a distractor. The anger I encounter is over other stuff. There has just been a poll (no link off hand) and something like 30+% think Thaksin deliberately tried to insult, 20% think he didnt and 40+ % are unsure. Thaksin needs more movement from the middle to his side. Doubt is something in electoral poltics that is damaging as negative certainty.

<snip>

(I'll make this my last post on the subject (before somebody jumps in with remarks about so much going "off-topic").

Yes, I read that post from Bangkok Pundit ("Thaksin's Cambodia gambit") - it was another ABAC poll on 5 November. As he puts it: "the day after the decision to recall the Ambassador, so emotions were quite raw. Nevertheless, the answers are fairly clear.

When asked if they agreed or disagreed with the recall of the Thai Ambassador in Cambodia? 64.7% agreed, 35.3% disagreed.

When asked who they supported to be PM, 21% answered Thaksin, 60% answered Abhisit (NOTE: if we were to take the push poll then Abhisit has dropped by 8%! so hence better to ignore it)

When asked whether they would give an opportunity for the government to continue: 78% said yes and 14.5% said no."

He goes on to compare short/long term prospects - and also make the same point as you have previously i.e. "The strong man leader is a popular characteristic for Thai prime ministers" ("alpha male" in your phrase). There can be no doubt let alone surprise that the new perception of Abhisit as "strong man" and chief waver of the Thai flag currently boosts his ratings.

I actually disagree with BP that the questions as asked (i.e. the order of them) make this poll as clean as it could/should be. IMO context is highly significant (if not everything) and comparing either of the November polls (as the press and others have done) simplistically with the September poll results is - at best - partial and misleading. Voters are not asked leading questions before they go into an election booth - so why aren't the survey context/knowledge questions asked last? That IMO would be clean.

100% agree with your other points above.

Still red-shirt leaders and Phua Thai MP's have fled over the border this morning (chasing the satang, no doubt).

"fled over the border"? Going to Cambodia to talk to Thaksin, yes - but fled?

Apologies for the poor choice of wording. I'm a few months early.

<snip>

Hun Sen could care less about tourism, No doubt Abhisit does, but this is not in his power to control,

Thaksin ONLY wants to embarass and bring down Abhisit, and all the Thais working in tourism,

and it's support structures, can just sod off in his estimations.

Thaksin is clearly playing Hun Sen like a fiddle at this point,

but if things turn sour for Hun Sen, the fiddle could play while he burns Thaksin....

Makes a change to be able to agree with at least part of a post of yours - <snipped> above - it's S.O.P. when diplo-pingpong gets going.

"Hun Sen could care less about tourism"? Grounds for saying this? According to Wiki, "the tourism industry is the country's second-greatest source of hard currency after the textile industry" - or do think an omnipotent Thaksin is now offering to replace it? According to Cambodian Deputy PM Sok An ( http://www.un.int/cambodia/Bulletin_Files/...ambodia_GDP.pdf ), in 2008 tourism made up about 19% of Cambodian GDP - a fall from before (global tourism downturn etc) but, from memory, I make that to be still more than double the reported percentage in Thailand. So, just how likely is your comment to be accurate?

Some fun wordplay in your last stanza but, as I've described elsewhere, IMO you get the first line exactly the wrong way round.

<snip>

No one has quite identified any wrongdoing in the methodology of the ABAC survey, including especially yourself.

<snip>

Don't try to put words in my mouth by asking me if I'm "still happy" with the results of the ABAC scientific survey research sampling. The sequence of questions in the ABAC methodology is, as I've pointed out, determined by context, ie, time, place and circumstance. Given the three core criteria of determining people's judgements, a person or personality is of distant consequence or significance.

You might have the beginnings of a case if I had actually asked if you're "still happy" with the results. But, of course, I didn't - I asked "Still happy about 'the general validity of the Abac survey's findings'?" The validity - not the results. So, who's trying to put words in whose mouth? In all your wordy response, you still sidestep the key factor - the skewing produced by that first "push" question. "No one has quite identified any wrongdoing"? Just what would constitute "wrongdoing" (I actually said "dodgy methodology") for you if not what has already been identified? Do you think Gallup, Mori et al would be happy with the validity of ABAC's methodology?

To re-state the obvious (but briefly): yes, the more polls the better the likely accuracy - but their methodology has to be less dodgy and result-skewing than the 6 November ABAC version.

Moving back to the thread's subject, I daresay Abhisit is "happy with" the general Thai reaction to what they have been told The Times' article contains. I'll also be surprised if the tape of the interview and an authorised court-ready Thai-language transcript ever see the light of day in Thailand - though it can't be long before an unofficial Thai translation of the transcript joins the article translation which is already circulating. The differences between what was reported (first in The Times article then in Thailand reporting/commenting on The Times article) and what the transcript shows Thaksin to have actually said would IMO only weaken an LM case as well as undermine the boost Abhisit is currently enjoying.

To those who say that even mentioning the succession is an obvious affront to Thai sensibilities, the high institution etc - I would ask why the same criteria were/are not applied to German magazine Der Spiegel's April 2009 interview with M.R. Sukhumbhand Paribatra - Democrat Governor of Bangkok - in which he gives frank answers to questions on that subject among others. While there's clearly nothing dangerous in the article, given current nervousness, I won't provide a link here but it's easy enough to Google. Personally, I found the candour of his comments about the coup and other matters very refreshing - and something of a surprise given his background. Just goes to show again that we shouldn't simply lump people into convenient pro/con groupings.

As with most observers, I would like to see a second poll to the Abac poll that would be similar to the Abac poll, which would thus confirm the general validity of the Abac survey's findings. I say confirm.

You say confirm. Would the similarity of your desired second poll extend to asking the same "push" question immediately before the Abhisit support question as ABAC did in their 6 November version? Not mentioned by The Nation or Bangkok Post or, as I now see, by Crispin in his article. Following up information on the Siam Report and the ABAC websites, I posted about this previously ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3124520 ). Perhaps you missed it? Then again, I see there's a post of yours following right after mine just a few minutes later..........

Tedious to repeat what I wrote there (and anyway, you can click on the link), but to summarise as briefly as possible........

Question 1: "Do you know about Hun Sen's interview in which he attacked the fairness of the Thai judicial system?"

Question 2: "Do you support the Abhisit government?"

Still happy about "the general validity of the Abac survey's findings"? I doubt Abhisit is - he must know the difference between a properly conducted opinion survey and what amounts to a Hun Sen v. Thai PM beauty contest with all Thai judges. IMO the only surprise in the November 6 poll's overall rating of 68.6% support for Abhisit (effectively as opposed to Hun Sen) was that the figure wasn't much, much higher. I suspect Abhisit may be worried by that and I'd be surprised if they aren't conducting extensive private polling with proper methodology to establish a reliable picture for themselves. It certainly wasn't provided by this poll.

^^ A good analysis Steve.

Agreed, but an international body is not beyond influence either whether it be regional or global (or whatever such as OECD). By its very nature, for instance, the UN is the most politicized body of the world.

Why the "but"? Otherwise, I fully agree with you. If the US stays effectively neutral (and I'd say even if they don't), who is a bigger influence in those bodies now than ever-more-expansive China? Is China notably pally with Thailand or with Cambodia? Does China have any strategic interests in or affected by Thailand? Coincidentally but topically, I notice that the Chinese premier en route to Singapore stopped off in KL to sign several trade agreements and industrial development MOU's - not Bangkok.

Note that Abhisit himself has been very careful about what he has said on this. I think he asked for clarification. Of course others in the government havent been quite so measured in response. However, to date the only LM charge brought has come form outside government. I suspect the government apart from requesting the tape dont really need to push this one as others will do that and also every time the other sdie play a defence it still attracts people with the "what did he really say reaction". I also suspect there will be several versions of what was said out there as word spreads. True the technical LM case is very difficult from an international perspective but I suspect the local political import of this will play out on a very different playing field.

Not getting at you, Hammered, but I think we should be clear. If by "others in the government" you mean Abhisit's many spokesmen (he seems to be getting more all the time) then let's recognise that they are speaking for him. OK, it's standard operating procedure for a political leader to put out the bad word/stick the knife in on a non-attributable "lobby" basis - but Abhisit's people are speaking openly (usually on camera), very much "on the record" - and for him. That includes Thepthai Senpong saying* "Thaksin's comments were offensive to the monarchy, and may warrant 'seven generations of beheading'" . If you mean the likes of Kasit, doesn't at least some form of cabinet responsibility apply - making a PM responsible for what his ministers say unless he refutes it? Granted, either way Abhisit gets out the word he wants and that becomes the effective reality.

Fully agree about the "different playing field" - and Abhisit must be counting his lucky stars that he got handed two extra balls to play with (no pun intended) - in the shape of the Times article (as printed and now spun for all it's worth) and Thaksin's IMO vanity-driven acceptance of the economic adviser post.

* http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/S...ory_452395.html