Steve2UK

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?

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.

Thailand will continue to use diplomatic speech and low key approaches until the weekend Obama thingy is out of the way. Hun Sen will score poltical points with his own people over this but internationally his movement away from protocol wont win him any new friends. His relationship with China will remain though. After the meeting is over Abhisit may have to consider some harder response to satisfy local poltical conditions - ie alpha male PMs go down well in Thailand while quiet reasoned ones dont, and letting Cambodia get one over on Thailand is going to hurt his popularity.

It is about timing now. Hun Sen can attack and goad (and he has been ramping this up) knowing Abhisit cant respond without damaging the weekend meet.

I agree that Abhisit is forced to maintain a very awkward balance between acting in a relatively low key way for foreign consumption (certainly until the Singapore summitry is over and to some extent while Thailand remains Chair of ASEAN) with his need to look strong to his domestic audience - quite a tightrope. Conversely, I don't think Hun Sen has anything like as much need as Abhisit to "score political points with his own people" and thus has much more freedom of manoeuvre to follow his own agenda and relatively little to lose. Agree also that Hun Sen's relationship with China looks safe, but in terms of timing let's not forget what looks to be a similarly solid/reliable relationship with Vietnam - the next Chair of ASEAN and increasingly a force to be reckoned with in the region; seems unlikely that Vietnam would do much to upset their own "close friend".

There's an IMO plausible theory (to say no more than that) doing the rounds that Hun Sen's consistent ramping up of the rhetoric is specifically calculated to force Abhisit into stronger responses - so as to lead directly and deliberately to the breakdown in relations we see now. With that in mind, in a recent opinion piece in the Bangkok Post (assuming we're still allowed to mention them?), the generally sensible Atiya Achakulwisut takes the view that what we're seeing is primarily Hun Sen using Thaksin rather than the other way round; the latter version IMO was never very likely given what an old hand poker player Hun Sen is even compared to the slick Thaksin - even granted that one would naturally also expect Thaksin to act according to his own view of what benefits himself. She goes on to make some very insightful comments about what she regards as Hun Sen's real intentions (basically to stoke the fires of a Thailand v. Cambodia dispute that can be made to look like the big bully pushing around its weak neighbour). IMO what she says makes good sense - in today's UN and related/similar international institutions that plays very well to produce sympathy for the underdog. I think it's also clear that Thailand has won few international friends (or much sympathy) since the 2006 coup. I recommend searching for her article to read the rest.

Considering whether Thailand over-reacted in recalling its ambassador (and not just the usual temporary "for consultations" version) - thus automatically triggering a matching response from Cambodia, word is emerging from a usually well-informed source that the Thai MFA did first summon the Cambodian ambassador to receive a protest (usually the first low key step before escalating to recalling ambassadors). If that version is to be believed, the Cambodian ambassador said she was too busy to come to the MFA (very unusual) - and also declined to send someone to deputise for her (more than very unusual). This would fit very well with Atiya's view - i.e. Hun Sen would have instructed his ambassador to effectively ignore the MFA summons and thus force Thailand's hand........ immediately escalating the dispute.

Never mind the useful Preah Vihear sideshow (useful in the sense that it keeps the antagonism going in a case where Cambodia looks to many if not most observers as having more right on its side), there are far more important border disputes remaining to be settled - i.e. the maritime boundaries of areas identified as containing large and very valuable gas-fields. Cambodia knows that trying to settle these disputes bilaterally with bigger Thailand is less likely to work in its favour than if an international body can be brought in to arbitrate - itself rather more likely now that the dispute has reached its current level and looks set to stay that way if not get worse.

As so often with politics (not only in SE Asia, just more so) - follow the money.

Maybe someone can post some of Saxena's photos.

Where is Sriracha John? I wonder...

Closer than you think - or maybe just as close as you already know?

Apologies for posting the above Nation editorial twice (previously on http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksins-Lan...25#entry3127904 in the General sub-forum) - but it is plainly directly relevant to the Saxena case(s).

More than that, the paragraph third from the end

"In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says." [my bold emphasis]

is IMO relevant to a proper consideration of all cases that can be seen to have a political dimension/context (however you choose to define that).

EDITORIAL

Politics not law will decide Saxena case

By The Nation

Published on November 8, 2009

Extradition of ex-BBC adviser will unleash web of intrigue that could abort the cause of justice

Political influence is bad news in almost all legal cases, and the looming trial of Rakesh Saxena, who has been extradited to Thailand after more than a decade of relative peace as far as the Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC) scandal was concerned, ensures full-blown politicisation. If the web of intrigue was amazing when Saxena fled Thailand, it must be doubly so now. This means the outcome of the case may not depend as much on what the lawyers and prosecutors say as on what the politicians want.

A lot of things have changed since BBC crumbled and Saxena was sent fleeing. The Democrats, who exposed the scandal when they were in the opposition bloc, are now in power. And they have allied themselves with the very people they deemed the worst crooks 13 years ago. Thaksin Shinawatra, who was a virtual nobody politically when the Democrats chopped the Group of 16 to pieces at that time, took the notorious faction under his wing in the early 2000s. But its leader, Newin Chidchob, betrayed him late last year. Now Thaksin is said to be gleefully following the Saxena developments and has reportedly instructed his troops to make the biggest political ammunition out of them.

Theories have varied as to why Saxena was "suddenly" sent back. Some said Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva wanted to get him in order to tame the restless Group of 16, who have not been ideal allies. Others went further, saying Saxena's return was part of a conspiracy to not tame but annihilate the troublesome element before it became a bigger threat. Last, but not least, there are people who looked at Thaksin's over-eagerness about turning Saxena into a lethal political weapon and wondered if the ousted leader had anything to do with Canada's "abrupt' decision to extradite him.

Some observers believe the truth may be less exciting. Canada's Supreme Court decided late last year to send him home. At that time, Thai politics was in turmoil, with a pro-Thaksin government collapsing, the yellow shirts making headlines with the Suvarnabhumi Airport seizure and the Newin group on the verge of abandoning Thaksin for the Democrats. Abhisit could not have plotted or influenced Saxena's return at that time, whereas the pro-Thaksin camp must have been too busy fighting a rearguard battle to look beyond what was happening in front of it.

A tell-tale piece of information was a report in the Canadian media saying there was growing concern last year that the more the extradition saga dragged on, the more it would mock the Canadian justice system. If the BBC case expired and the suspect walked free, someone in the Canadian judiciary was quoted as saying, it could give Canada a really black eye.

If we are to believe that Saxena was sent back simply because Canada was feeling ashamed, we may assume that nobody here really wanted him back. Old wounds had better be left untouched, and Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban must be a leading advocate of this school of thought.

Saxena's return must have unnerved the Group of 16, but politically speaking they have less to lose than Suthep. His censure speech against the Group of 16 all those years ago has been republished in newspapers and it exposes hypocrisy as big as what anyone can expect from our politics. In many other countries, Suthep would have been forced to resign on the spot.

But this is Thailand and the Saxena case will have to continue to tread the murky waters. "I've done my job [in the censure debate 13 years ago] and it will now be up to the justice system," is the best Suthep has had to offer. Translation: I'm not going to go after Newin and Co, who are now my closest allies, and Banharn Silapa-archa, who I called the most untrustworthy prime minister back then, doesn't have to worry, either.

Some may say the circumstances benefit Abhisit, as the Newin group will now be kept at bay and the embarrassment serves Suthep right. But we can't analyse Abhisit based on his satisfaction alone. He came to power thanks to Suthep and Newin and, like it or not, he still needs them to remain in power. Friendship, loyalty and allegiance may change, but not the fact that it is extremely difficult for Abhisit to survive without his reluctant allies.

Thaksin has far less to lose, obviously. It wouldn't mean much even if Saxena dropped a bombshell accusation linking anyone close to the former prime minister with the BBC scam. This is an opportunity to embarrass the Democrats more than at any time in the past. Of course, there was a photo of Newin tearfully hugging Thaksin at the beginning of the latter's downfall, but there has been, arguably, a more famous picture since - the one showing THAT embrace between Newin and Abhisit when the Democrat leader became prime minister.

In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says.

Like it or not, the case is more likely to be driven by political intrigue than legal standpoints. The "opposite sides" when Saxena fled Thailand have rolled into each other, creating a new landscape that the smart and tricky brain of the extradited man has to figure out how to make the make the best use of. Of course, everyone must be hoping they can use him, but, knowing that fact, he can use them, too.

What began as manipulation in the stock market and in bank lending over a decade ago is set to become full-scale political manipulation. The BBC scandal started off as, in Suthep's own words, a financial rip-off, but it may end up being something worse - betrayal.

-- The Nation 8 November 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Announcement

Effective November 1, 2009, Siam Commercial Bank will reduce

an ATM network fee for cash withdrawals or cash advances for Visa and

MasterCard credit cards issued by non-bank institutions and non-ATM

Pool members from 150 baht per transaction to 15 baht per transaction.

Siam Commercial Bank PCL

Why does this story continue to have legs ? READ

Probably a combination of wishful thinking and the fact that Thai institutions' announcements (at least the ones in English) are - shall we say - not exactly famous for their clarity, comprehensiveness and reliability.

No offence intended - I'm just being IMO realistic.

EDITORIAL

Politics not law will decide Saxena case

By The Nation

Published on November 8, 2009

Extradition of ex-BBC adviser will unleash web of intrigue that could abort the cause of justice

Political influence is bad news in almost all legal cases, and the looming trial of Rakesh Saxena, who has been extradited to Thailand after more than a decade of relative peace as far as the Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC) scandal was concerned, ensures full-blown politicisation. If the web of intrigue was amazing when Saxena fled Thailand, it must be doubly so now. This means the outcome of the case may not depend as much on what the lawyers and prosecutors say as on what the politicians want.

A lot of things have changed since BBC crumbled and Saxena was sent fleeing. The Democrats, who exposed the scandal when they were in the opposition bloc, are now in power. And they have allied themselves with the very people they deemed the worst crooks 13 years ago. Thaksin Shinawatra, who was a virtual nobody politically when the Democrats chopped the Group of 16 to pieces at that time, took the notorious faction under his wing in the early 2000s. But its leader, Newin Chidchob, betrayed him late last year. Now Thaksin is said to be gleefully following the Saxena developments and has reportedly instructed his troops to make the biggest political ammunition out of them.

Theories have varied as to why Saxena was "suddenly" sent back. Some said Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva wanted to get him in order to tame the restless Group of 16, who have not been ideal allies. Others went further, saying Saxena's return was part of a conspiracy to not tame but annihilate the troublesome element before it became a bigger threat. Last, but not least, there are people who looked at Thaksin's over-eagerness about turning Saxena into a lethal political weapon and wondered if the ousted leader had anything to do with Canada's "abrupt' decision to extradite him.

Some observers believe the truth may be less exciting. Canada's Supreme Court decided late last year to send him home. At that time, Thai politics was in turmoil, with a pro-Thaksin government collapsing, the yellow shirts making headlines with the Suvarnabhumi Airport seizure and the Newin group on the verge of abandoning Thaksin for the Democrats. Abhisit could not have plotted or influenced Saxena's return at that time, whereas the pro-Thaksin camp must have been too busy fighting a rearguard battle to look beyond what was happening in front of it.

A tell-tale piece of information was a report in the Canadian media saying there was growing concern last year that the more the extradition saga dragged on, the more it would mock the Canadian justice system. If the BBC case expired and the suspect walked free, someone in the Canadian judiciary was quoted as saying, it could give Canada a really black eye.

If we are to believe that Saxena was sent back simply because Canada was feeling ashamed, we may assume that nobody here really wanted him back. Old wounds had better be left untouched, and Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban must be a leading advocate of this school of thought.

Saxena's return must have unnerved the Group of 16, but politically speaking they have less to lose than Suthep. His censure speech against the Group of 16 all those years ago has been republished in newspapers and it exposes hypocrisy as big as what anyone can expect from our politics. In many other countries, Suthep would have been forced to resign on the spot.

But this is Thailand and the Saxena case will have to continue to tread the murky waters. "I've done my job [in the censure debate 13 years ago] and it will now be up to the justice system," is the best Suthep has had to offer. Translation: I'm not going to go after Newin and Co, who are now my closest allies, and Banharn Silapa-archa, who I called the most untrustworthy prime minister back then, doesn't have to worry, either.

Some may say the circumstances benefit Abhisit, as the Newin group will now be kept at bay and the embarrassment serves Suthep right. But we can't analyse Abhisit based on his satisfaction alone. He came to power thanks to Suthep and Newin and, like it or not, he still needs them to remain in power. Friendship, loyalty and allegiance may change, but not the fact that it is extremely difficult for Abhisit to survive without his reluctant allies.

Thaksin has far less to lose, obviously. It wouldn't mean much even if Saxena dropped a bombshell accusation linking anyone close to the former prime minister with the BBC scam. This is an opportunity to embarrass the Democrats more than at any time in the past. Of course, there was a photo of Newin tearfully hugging Thaksin at the beginning of the latter's downfall, but there has been, arguably, a more famous picture since - the one showing THAT embrace between Newin and Abhisit when the Democrat leader became prime minister.

In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says.

Like it or not, the case is more likely to be driven by political intrigue than legal standpoints. The "opposite sides" when Saxena fled Thailand have rolled into each other, creating a new landscape that the smart and tricky brain of the extradited man has to figure out how to make the make the best use of. Of course, everyone must be hoping they can use him, but, knowing that fact, he can use them, too.

What began as manipulation in the stock market and in bank lending over a decade ago is set to become full-scale political manipulation. The BBC scandal started off as, in Suthep's own words, a financial rip-off, but it may end up being something worse - betrayal.

-- The Nation 8 November 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Thailand Jumped The Shark, New Mandala and the excellent Bangkok Pundit are way more informative than The Nation when it comes to anything political in Thailand. The Nation has been caught out many times rewriting history to suit it's master's views.

Exactly.

If you rely on The Nation or Bangkok Post, you are getting bad info put out by the Junta.

As there is bad and tainted info on TJTS, NM and BP. Accepting that none of the sources are free from bias, the intelligent thing to do is to read from a broad and diverse spectrum. Sadly though people often simply choose to read the print that reinforces the conclusions they have already come to.

It would be helpful to have at least some example of what you consider "bad and tainted info on TJTS, NM and BP". That part aside, I 100% agree with what you go on to say - and likewise with the view in your following post "Propaganda has the power to affect people's judgement and establish in them preset beliefs that even the passage of time and the surfacing of new contradictory evidence fails to dim". Speaking of evidence, I note again that there is still no response (from those so vocal and categorical about the "facts" of the land case) to the detailed points raised in the New Orange Cafe "If law is law" link I posted earlier. Just questioning the identity of the writer doesn't deal with the legal specifics raised in it - is what's written there correct or false?

Back to the point about sources of information. Perhaps the following quote looks like it must have dropped off the pages of sites like TJTS, NM and BP (granted I did see it first at BP):

"In Thailand, politics dominates law. Seemingly solid evidence in Thaksin's share-concealment case in 2001 gave way to political factors. His party's violation of electoral laws, which was intended to fix a constitutional deadlock resulting from a Democrat-boycotted election, was dealt with only after he was out of power. In other words, when it comes to the really big cases affecting the status quo, it doesn't quite matter what the laws say or how strong the evidence is. The decisive force is what the politics says." [my bold emphasis]

It's actually from yesterday's editorial in The Nation about the Saxena case (and, to comply with forum rules, I'll post the full article separately next - the quote above is the third paragraph from the end). IMO the view it expresses (it's also the headline of the editorial) cannot help but be applicable to consideration of the land case verdict. Given that this view would certainly seem to fit comfortably on the pages of TJTS, NM, BP etc - one starts to wonder if this is a] The Nation finally catching up and/or b] the wheel of Thai politics is starting to turn more obviously again (perhaps I go too far).

... but he does know that Abhisit is prone to make mistakes when poked a bit...

Any facts to support this statement? You admit to knowing the thoughts of Thaksin, how often do you speak to him? <snip>.............................................

Instead he saw the chance to try and further divide Thailand, and indeed, may even have been one of the architects of the offer, accepted it and is now dithering about what to do. <snip>

Pot, kettle.

Who would have guessed it, it is already going to backfire, Abhisit's popularity is due to Thakasins ongoing attacks against his

"beloved" home country. steadily on the rise!

In comparison to 23.3 per cent in the survey in September, Abhisit's popularity leaped to 68.6 per cent.

The prime minister was most popular in the South (88.2 per cent), followed by the Central region (68.9 per cent), Bangkok (68.8 per cent) and the North (64.6 per cent).

About 53.1 per cent in the Northeast voiced support for his leadership.

Factors attributing to the rise in popularity include the sentiment against Cambodia's attack on the Thai judicial system and concern over the consequences of the Cambodians' appointment of fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra as an adviser.

The Nation

Something The Nation managed to not tell you (surprise, surprise - but, in fairness, neither does Bangkok Post's coverage) is just what questions ABAC asked in their 6 November poll. Courtesy of http://siamreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/abh...y-jumps-30.html and http://www.abacpoll.au.edu/flash/2552/hotpoll110552_g.swf (Thai language), here is what they left out:

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?

The second question was also asked on 19 September - but, of course, without the Hun Sen question being put first (of course not - Hun Sen hadn't said anything at that point). In September, an overall 23.3% said "yes" (they did support the Abhisit government). The 6 November overall figure for those saying "yes" to the same question is 68.6%. That's an astonishing jump - but only if you ignore the Hun Sen question being asked first (81.1% saying they did know about it)......... which entirely predictably turns the Abhisit support question into an Abhisit v. Hun Sen (effectively Thailand v. Cambodia) question.

All of which goes to show how essential it is to know what questions were asked and in what order - so that we can compare like with like. These two polls are like comparing apples and oranges.

Lies, damned lies, statistics - and opinion polls with dodgy methodology. After you with the salt.........

What is the maximum legal loan rate?

As far as I was told 15% p.a.

I'm told by a Thai friend who's in the business that it's actually officially 3% - but also that there are so many wrinkles and conditions that can be brought into play to make effective higher rates "legal" that this figure is pretty well meaningless. Not to mention the usual factor of payments to BiB etc so that higher rates will be "OK"; as usual, I assume that these Phuket "culprits" were mainly guilty of neglecting that aspect of their business arrangements.

I basically agree with surangw's comment and disagree with TAWP if he's suggesting that all the unofficial lenders are simply of the "loan shark" variety. From what I understand many of the gold shops are in the business of money-lending (as well as many neighbourhood phu yai) - and there's simply too much competition in the business for it to work like that as universally as he suggests. Likewise, many Thai - while they may have some kind of bank account - are just not into/equipped for lining up collateral for bank loans.......... too much hassle and paperwork compared to dealing with the neighbourhood moneylenders for a short-term loan.

Hats off to WTK for both his posts. There used to be a tradition on the CM forum of giving advice to "go south, definitely south". Good to see it return in such good form..........

That said, I thought Pai2009's post gave accurate thumbnail sketches of the places named (judging by the ones I know).

Maybe try the large office supplies store on the street-level floor of Panthip Plaza. I saw Filofax-type inserts there (if not actually the "real thing").

<snip> but most hoped this was a weak possibility <snip>

Evidence for this assertion?

And answer came there......... none.

My point being, for those not sober enough to recognize it, is that even if quality of the local formal print media is lacking, the reader knows who the author is.

For all anyone knows, thailandjumpedtheshark is Noppadon and *ink is Jakrapob. Would that be information worthwhile knowing when considering what they are blogging?

Knowing who an individual blogger is can help first time viewers, however for most bloggers its their reputation which is of more importance than their actual identity. Reputations have to be earned, and when earned can be an important source of additional information, even if it is only to put a completely opposite twist on a story.

The main (English Language) bloggers involved with Thai politics are individuals who have taken a particular subject and made it their own.

Bangkokpundit is broadly about politics, but gives his viewers the insight of not only the English Language publications but also the Thai Language ones too. This with an insight into the players, means that his views are quite often interesting. Generally well respected, one of the very few blogs to be mentioned in the English language newspapers, and his tweets as well as Thailandjumpedtheshark are followed by some very influential individuals including the current Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

Thailandjumpedtheshark (TJTS), is a blogger by the name of Fonzi, his speciality is decomposing The Nation editorials and columnists. Sometimes insightful, sometimes funny. But he does seem to do his homework considerably better than the individuals who's columns are decomposed.

<snip>

With regard to TJTS/Fonzi, perhaps "deconstructing" or "debunking" rather than "decomposing"? (but I also like slimdog's term ). Overall IMO a very fair description of these two blogs. I have tracked Bangkok Pundit for some time - long enough to see that he respects facts and fair play in what he writes (something that The Nation has no reputation for). Also that he is well-connected - and when he only thinks/suspects something based on sources he can't openly attribute, that is how he'll refer to it rather than simply stating it as if it were proven fact. No secret that he's critical of this government as well as of PAD, military and sundry other behind-the-scenes operators - but you'll also see some criticism directed at the excesses of Peua Thai, UDD etc (given how much full-on assault on them that's to be found elsewhere, would anyone reasonably expect him to duplicate it?). Similarly, I think it's BP that coined the term "quotemeister" for Thitinan - with whom he has often disagreed. Like TJTS/Fonzi, he does do his homework - and cites detail and linked references for what he says rather than simply re-cycling received dogma; both are a far cry from producing "the angry ramblings of some red shirt terrorist sympathizer" referred to earlier. Both freely publish opposing comments - and IMO the debate there (BP, particularly) is usually more informed and less knee-jerk than one sees all too often on The Nation's forum.......... .

All that said, I would never rely on just one or two or a few sources for information/analysis/comment from which to form my views. As others have said before now, it takes a lot more than that to have any chance of getting to grips with the convolutions of Thai politics and putting events in a viable context.

PS, until being led to the neworangecafe ("If law is law") link I posted earlier I hadn't seen the site - so, as per the quotes above, I can't comment on their reputation for accuracy/reliability. Nevertheless, the detailed legal specifics covered there seem to me to warrant examination - and I note that even the most vocal and categorical champions of the case's legitimacy have been noticeably silent in contesting them let alone showing them to be false. I'm not in the habit of posting links to sites just to "turn up the volume"; if those details are incorrect, let's see the what and why.

I dropped by there this afternoon - wanting to get a closer look at the poster that featured in dave 2's pic (seems to mention a number of performing arts - but I couldn't read much from the pic) and to try and get a leaflet/brochure. Poster nowhere to be seen and they were out of leaflets.

Talking to the guy behind the foyer bar, the current regular show seems to be the same as john b good saw - 2 shows per evening at 8pm and 10pm. All seats cost 500 baht and, if I understood correctly, the show runs 55 minutes. Cheap by big city (e.g. London) standards, obviously - but I don't see many in CM forking out that much for under an hour's show...........

Thanks to john b good for the information. I'd seen the "Playhouse" signage when driving by to get to Tops and hoped that it might mean the venue was shaping up to house some kind of "live" performances. Having a theatre background myself (though too clumsy to be a hoofer and I don't dislike anyone enough to inflict my singing on them), it's one of the things I miss since moving to LOS from London (note to UG - I mean the one in England ).

Shame if it's all going to be lip-synch/mime - but, if well done, that can still be better than curling one's toes while listening to bass-challenged Thai vocal chords trying to reach Howard Keel notes. It also disposes of one of the problems that's the bane of many venues - lousy mics/PA systems. I've also listened to more than a few live Thai performers "doing" ballads with English lyrics that they've plainly learned phonetically.......... and with unintentionally amusing results (kind of like Elvis singing in German).

Good suggestions for forthcoming shows to be featured - mainly Rice/Lloyd Webber hits that are known almost worldwide and across generations. Thinking of older vintages like Howard Keel, I guess we're unlikely to see excerpts from any musical that Yul Brynner made famous............ On the other hand, it could be useful to include some traditional Thai dance/music in the mix - there seems to be plenty of such performers around to provide it.

You mention good choreography and dance routines. While most of what we see from from background dancers fronted by singers in Thai stage shows on TV looks like it has come from a near-comatose choreographer, I've also seen shows here in the past (years ago, there was a drag show venue at some place opposite CMU on upper Huay Kaew Road - long since disappeared) that were impressively inventive and slickly performed - not just go-go bar type. Interesting to know where the performers are from - e.g. the Pattaya show circuit or locally recruited?

Agree it would be good to see CM gain a decent larger scale live performance venue - and also that it's difficult to get the mix right to ensure enough "bums on seats". We should try to support the place while they get it sorted and bedded in...... otherwise it'll just die before it gets going properly.

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Ah so you fall into the trap.

Perhaps I was quoting another...

Sooooo, By adding the word POLITICAL it is OK to throw out the rule of law,

but remove it and crimes are still crimes. Righty O!

The impasse is caused by some old school pols not liking certain laws that limit their ability

to use graft as a daily method of enrichment. A long history of this crew doing this is public record.

Ignoring the rule of law only exacerbates the basic cause of all this trouble.

So you are equating the 70 years of Ireland's "Troubles" to Thailand's political impasse now?

You mean Thaksin is one kind of Buddhist godhead, and Abjhisit is from another sect?

Or the fight by Mandela and his supporters in South Arfrica

to Thaksin and the Redshirts fight for his power and money?

Maybe a trifle closer of you say rich Chinese Thais and poor native Thais,

still quite a stretch.

How wonderfully ironic of you. You forgot 'The Lady' In Yangoon too.

Thaksin can't compare to her though, he hasn't got the balls.

Which "trap" would that be - and to what purpose? Which "another" might you have been "quoting"? You reproduce part of my post and then sally off on a tack based on something I didn't say - which leads one to wonder why you bother quoting any of my post. More of the same reductio ad absurdum/straw man-style gambit with your "So you are equating....... etc" stuff. I try to choose my words carefully - and don't equate the examples as you try to suggest. The South Africa and Northern Ireland examples "equate" only in that they were both instances where entirely pragmatic, hard-nosed decisions were (albeit reluctantly) taken to set aside/override existing laws in order to deal with exceptional situations. That IMO is the one common factor in true amnesties of this type. Other than the fact the Burmese junta has been cited as using the word "amnesty"* to describe their alteration of ASSK's recent sentence, I have no idea why you then choose to drag "'The Lady' In Yangoon" into this - unless it's just more of the same. Whatever Hun Sen may say comparing her situation to Thaksin's, it's not a view I share - nor will you find anything I write suggesting any such thing. Is that just another of your "traps"? Seems rather pointless to me.

*Incorrectly IMO - it's "clemency" if anything though I still regard her sentence and detention as iniquitous however long and wherever it confines her.

While I have your attention, you might turn it to answering the question (Post #112) I asked you on the now re-opened thread at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-fear...00#entry3115084

Thanks jfc too.

I'm pretty sure that the teller I asked today was the one who told me I could make this transaction just three weeks ago (after I'd made a more-expensive-than expected SWIFT transfer). This kind of thing has happened to me many times before over the years too: eg. I used to get UK cheques cashed instantly by this branch, but always only after insisting on speaking to the big boss. Then one day the front desk people said it would be OK but next time I tried it no-one would allow it any more. Frustrating. And no explanations. Will soldier on.

CMMCB

I'm supposing that by "main" SCB branch in Chiang Mai you're referring to the building in Hang Dong Road close to/across from Airport Plaza? If so, I can confirm that I have made Debit card counter withdrawals there. In any case, the teller was definitely wrong (for the reasons outlined by jfc). Lately, I have been using the small SCB branch at Carrefour (car park level) on the Superhighway. Don't know if that's too far out of your way but, in the unlikely event of you meeting the same response when you return to the "main" SCB branch, I can assure you that you'll have no problem with a Debit card at the Carrefour branch - manager speaks excellent English and is very helpful.

As noted before, it must be a Debit card (i.e. one that you can use for shopping) and not just a "cashcard". Others have confused the two and I hope that you haven't.

Politics and Thailand's wealth gap

By Chang Noi

THE POLITICAL DIVISION remains fierce and emotional. Much of the country is a no-go area for members of the government. Abhisit's delivery of a compensation check to Granny Hai required a helicopter-borne military operation that cost many times the value on the cheque. Talk of "reconciliation" has faded away.

Little by very little, more people accept that this intense division is not caused by one man but a massively unequal distribution of wealth and power. Several worthy, middle-of-the-road institutions have found a new interest in the subject of economic and social inequality. These include the King Prajadhiphok Institute, Thailand Development Research Institute, and Thailand Research Fund.

The inequality in income in Thailand is much worse than it should be, given the relative success of the economy over the past generation. A simple way to measure income inequality is to estimate the gap between the top fifth and bottom fifth of the population. In countries like Sweden and Japan, where people value the advantages of living in a relatively equal society, the difference is 3 to 5 times. In Europe and North America, it's 5 to 8 times. Among Thailand's Asian neighbours, it's 9 to 12 times. In Thailand, it's 13 to 15 times. Almost all the countries worse than Thailand are African states with civil wars or Latin American states with endemic populist movements. The risks are very clear.

The economist Simon Kuznets proposed that developing economies would tend to get more unequal at first, because the benefits would be monopolised by a minority, but later would become more equal as many more people shared in the fruits of growth. That theory has generally been proven true, including among Thailand's neighbours. Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines have all turned the corner from worsening to improving distribution. But Thailand defies Kuznets' rule. Recently, a Thammasat economist used Kuznets' method to calculate when Thailand should have turned the corner if it conformed to the pattern of most of the world. Her answer was 1994. But it still has not happened.

All these calculations are about income. But what about wealth? How unequal is the distribution of property, savings, and other assets in Thailand? Government began collecting data on this only in 2006, and the first analyses are now appearing. They are rather shocking. While the difference in income between the top and bottom fifths is 13 to 15 times, the difference in wealth is around 69 times. In terms of the Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality in which a higher figure means more unequal, the figure for income is a bit over 0.5 while that for wealth is 0.7.

What's more, we can be pretty sure that this calculation is an underestimate. It's not too difficult to count the assets of the poor. It's very difficult to count the assets of the rich because they are very shy people. If a certain former prime minister is a good guide to general practice, then the rich hide a third to a half of their wealth. That would mean that the wealth Gini is more like 0.8, and the wealth gap between the top and bottom fifths is more like 80 to 100 times.

Other data tend to corroborate this picture of a truly enormous wealth gap. According to the Bank of Thailand, there is almost Bt3 trillion in bank accounts.

Two-fifths of this total is held in just 0.1 per cent of all the accounts. Most people, especially rich people, tend to have more than one account. On a rough calculation, assuming the rich have two accounts apiece, half of the total savings in banks is owned by around 50,000 people.

The stock market is much the same. Between 1995 and 2004, the same 11 families appeared constantly as the top five holders on the exchange: Maleenont, Shinawatra, Damaphong, Chirathiwat, Benjarongkul, Damrongchaitham, Asavaphokin, Liewpairat, Photharamik, Kannasut and Joranajit.

Land is similar. In eight provinces where data has recently become available, the top 50 landholders (persons or juristic persons) hold on average a 10th of the total land. In Bangkok, the top 50 own 10.1 per cent of the land, and the single largest holder has 14,776 rai.

There are many, many reasons why income and wealth have become so unevenly distributed. One reason that is simple and can be relatively simply changed is the way the government raises revenue and spends that money.

Some countries use these mechanisms to even out equality by redistributing from the rich to the poor. Many other countries aim that the system should be roughly fair for all. In Thailand, the government redistributes from the poor to the rich.

How much is hard to calculate accurately. One study from 1981 showed that the poorest 10th were taxed over twice as much as the rich as a percentage of income. A 1994 study showed that the situation had improved but was still marginally pro-rich. Since then, nobody has looked. It's too embarrassing. The reasons for the skew are the heavy reliance on indirect taxes (VAT, excise) which fall more heavily on the poor, and the high levels of evasion. Some 8.6 million people file income tax returns, but only 5 million pay any tax, and only 4 per cent of those are taxed in the two highest brackets. The number of payees has been dropping in recent years.

Spending is similar. A World Bank study by Hyun Hwa Son showed that Thai government spending on health, education, and infrastructure benefited the rich more than the poor. So do subsidies on public utilities. The reasons lie in past development policy. Spending was concentrated on such things as Bangkok infrastructure and higher education on grounds these would have the largest impact on economic growth. Policies have since changed, but the legacy remains.

Just making government's tax and spending a bit fairer would begin to counter the trend to inequality. Is there the political will to make those changes? How much time is left?

-- The Nation November 2 2009

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/11/02...on_30115689.php

Strange-looking link but worth a read as part of the background to understanding the case - for those who can be bothered to do their own research as opposed to simply swallowing the pre-digested script.

http://neworangecafe.org/index.php?option=...1:top-headlines

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Yeh, okay, let's have a Truth Commission in Thailand - The Thailand Truth Commission.

And let's make Chavalit the chairman

Oh - very droll. Well, I guess that's as suitable a post as any to mark the end of anything resembling grown-up, non-knee-jerk discussion on this thread.

"Discussions and analyses such as the recent posts to this thread reflect that it is entirely possible and indeed is the case that an advocate of either side, or one who is aligned but not an advocate, can make a resonably 'neutral' observation or analysis pertaining to either side or to all sides. It's possible and indeed doable to step back occasionally to offer a somewhat detached perspective regardless of one's known and acknowledged leanings. A cooler analysis not only is always welcome, but the more of it the better."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Udon-Thani-G...03#entry3109603

But, of course, that was last month.

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Much ado about almost nothing. Just substitute poor farmers with peasants in your mind and be done with it!