.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Steve2UK
-
Posts
2,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by Steve2UK
-
-
<snip>
Out of interest, what is it exactly about my assertion that you disagree with? That there are a significant number of Chaing Mai based members of this forum who sympathise with the red's cause? Or that the reason they sympathise has anything to do with it also being Thaksin's home ground? Both perhaps? Do tell.
<snip>
I see no correlation between where members live and their views for/against/indifferent to any of the issues raised on TVF - except interest in local eateries etc. Regarding any members based in Chiang Mai that might happen to "sympathise with the red's cause", I see no evidence for "it also being Thaksin's home ground" having anything whatever to do with their views. Come to that, I do struggle to think of a reason why it would have any effect; something in the water? exposure to a red bacillus? peer pressure from Thai partners and friends dragooned/brainwashed/bribed into being "pro red"? Still no evidence of ("large" or now "significant") numbers and likewise no rationale as to a cause for what hasn't even been demonstrated.
A fanciful few on TVF lately seem intent on painting CM as some kind of red "fortress Chiang Mai" - an ongoing political maelstrom of a place overrun with red-clad goons......e.g. "who would want to visit RED Central HQ in the current political climate?", "Until 'great leader for life' Takki is taken care of, I will continue to warn people about venturing to that area", "Chiang Mai is now separated from Bangkok and Thailand, in the hands of goons, thugs and other assorted insurrectionists. Why are tourists now going to visit a city controlled by violent minded anti government factions?", "I would not feel safe there in the present climate. Not for any extended visit, pop in pop out maybe. And not if I had any schedule to keep" etc etc. It's a challenge for those actually living here to reconcile such stuff with the rather humdrum facts of our real rather than their imagined CM daily life - even for those in CM who are conspicuously anything but "pro red". Regardless of stance, I've seen CM-based members (in parallel with most others living elsewhere) roundly condemning intimidation of and actual violence towards visiting politicians, a gay parade etc - both in the CM sub-forum as well as in News Clippings etc. My conclusion overall - member location is not a factor; ignorance of the actual local situation combined with a fertile imagination and usually an agenda to drive probably is a factor.
-
Well, last time I looked, this was a forum. Someone posts their thoughts, and hopefully gives reasons for them. Someone else gives a rebuttal, and hopefully their reasons for that rebuttal. If I say "this is that and that is this", I'm not going to be upset when someone else says "no, this is this and that is that". (But it does appear that many here do take offence to anyone disagreeing with them). If they give no reason then I will ask why they think that. If they give a reason I disagree with I will say why I disagree with it. Nothing personal, a fact sadly missed by a number of posters here. I couldn't really care less what someone who doesn't know me thinks and writes about me on a public forum, but I am interested in the thinking behind what they write (the non personal attack part).
Excellent points made (as opposed to scored) and well put.
-
Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.
1) Who are they? (If the number is really too large to list in full, just the first half-dozen or so that spring to mind will do)
2) Please define "pro-red stance".
1) Mr Fun from this thread has been a good example. As for compiling a list, not sure what that would achieve, besides two or three of the following pages on this thread filled with bickerings and denials (much as it is already!). If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.
2) Define "pro-red stance"??? Really? You want me to define that? Which part of "pro-red stance" are you struggling with? Seems pretty clear to me.
The "large number" is....... one
? Since you invite a statement of the obvious, a list would provide some evidence to back up your statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; so, your declining to provide any evidence is, obviously enough, not proof either way.......... but people will draw their own conclusions. I've been on the receiving end of accusations of "Thaksin is your guy", "False-Flag Friend syndrome" and other such froth from a pair of the more loquacious posters here (thus far with zero evidence to back up any of it) and have also seen them and others slinging the accusation around - including evidence-free accusations of members being paid to post (one of which was directed at a specific individual - that post was promptly and rightly deleted). So, I'm inclined to think that the bar of what constitutes "pro red stance" is set very differently by some and is thus far from "pretty clear" - hence my request for your definition. Up to you if you also decline to provide that.
-
The offer of money merely serves to attract the media's attention and allows for a cost effective means of saying the people making these claims are full of sh*t.
One of the key words in the line quoted from geriatrickid is "saying".
Nothing key about that word at all. It doesn't in any way attribute the statement "the people making these claims are full of sh*t" to anyone other than the person who wrote it. If those aren't his feelings he should have stated so.
Perhaps you are confusing "saying" with "they think it says..." or "they think that means....".
<snip>
Back in my carefree schooldays, my English language teacher used a simple device which will also serve here - disregard the section in [brackets]:
"The offer of money [merely serves to attract the media's attention and] allows for a cost effective means of saying the people making these claims are full of sh*t."
Ergo - the "offer of money" is doing the "saying". Granted geriatrickid is imputing "these claims are full of sh*t" to Noppadon - and I have no way of knowing if that's the terminology Noppadon would use, but the gist of Noppadon's gesture (stunt) seems clear.
Can we move on now?
-
It's certainly stopped any on topic discussion for a while.
Agreed - and echoes the point I already made in a report about many of the preceding bickerfest posts that have nothing to do with the topic. Enough - from all sides - surely.......
[Edit: apologies to Webfact - our posts crossed]
-
Go for it reds.
The precedent has already been set following the yellows occupation.
Its acceptable , no comeback, no accountability.
But that was under an ineffective government that had lost control of the civil and military powers. When this government does what the PPP one should have done and removes any protestors disrupting the running of the airport (and I don't mean kicking out any group peacefully sitting in a corner somewhere), should it even be allowed to get to that stage, then I bet we'll see the hypocrisy of the posters who continually bleat about how the yellows were allowed to shut down the airport here.
In passing, isn't there something of a disconnect here? Have to agree with the first sentence - allowing (from memory) that the police were somewhere between inept and unenthusiastic in their efforts and the military declined to follow orders...... so that the already conspicuously weak and inept Somchai government was hung out to dry........ which begs the question of just what physical means were available to the then PPP government to actually do what they "should have done" (maybe Somchai leading a posse of clerks and typists to the airports to dislodge PAD)? But this subject is an old battlefield trampled many times and it's unlikely anyone will change their views of events on it now.
Viewed as a stunt/gesture/theatre, one can see the notional logic of now staging a "point-making" rally/protest at the airport - but it's so fraught with complications and potential repercussions as to make the event self-defeating. Given how things are, there will almost certainly be more such nonsensical suggestions; if nothing else, they keep the attention where UDD/PT seem to want it to be.
-
As to comments about Chiang Mai, don't write us off completely. In my offices of 100 staff, about 90 percent are very anti Thaksin, though sadly many of their families are still pro...they don't discuss politics at home, only vent at work. Chiang Mai is by no means red.
Good to hear
Tis funny though that a large number of posters on this forum who take a pro-red stance, do seem to hail from that region. I guess it's the home-boy hero thing that sucks them in.
1) Who are they? (If the number is really too large to list in full, just the first half-dozen or so that spring to mind will do)
2) Please define "pro-red stance".
-
The offer of money merely serves to attract the media's attention and allows for a cost effective means of saying the people making these claims are full of sh*t.
Offer a reward for evidence. Noone comes forward. Declare accused innocent, declare accusers "full of sh*t". Case closed. Nice work.
Seems of late Mr Geriatrickid, you are really nailing your colours to the post with gay abandon. Get tired of the "not taking sides" charade, did we?
One of the key words in the line quoted from geriatrickid is "saying". Withdrawing 1,000,000 baht from the bank and waving it to create a photo-op at a press conference is clearly a stunt ("piece of theater" as per A_Traveller) that costs nothing.
Want to accuse me of some "not taking sides" charade? Others have - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for their "evidence" to emerge from all their smoke.
-
If you make an allegation; there will be some people who believe it, some people who don't, and many people who are simply unsure whether an allegation is true or false or has at least some basis to it.
In the past, only two options were used by people to fight these allegations:
- Publically deny the allegation
- Take legal action
Neither of these have proved particularly sucessful.
Even in extrememly serious cases like the Finland Declaration, where the denials were coming from many people and where the criminal court last year passed a guilty verdict against The Manager group, the fact remains that few people actually heard the verdict, and even those that did, many may not have changed their opinions. The damage was done.
If public denials or legal action are found to be unsucessful, there really are few options open to high profile people to successfully fight against rumours, allegations or published works. I guess that means that un-conventional methods need to be used.
I wonder how many people today are searching the internet, scouring over court records, and making calls to the anyone in the U.K to prove that the British Government really did seize 4 billion dollars from Thaksin, in the hope that they will be able to pick up the 1 million baht reward.
This may prove a far more effective way..
Interesting points.
I guess the first part above can be summed as the "no smoke without fire" approach. No shortage of smoke rising from all this - and not a few mirrors on all sides. Thanong's opinion pieces certainly seem to rely on smoke - and, come to that, generate considerably more heat than light.
On the allegedly seized 4 billion dollars and the alleged Gazprombank loan, Bangkok Pundit (no, I'm not on commission
) has indeed been searching and scouring - but I doubt he has in mind any prospects of winning the reward. His (very lengthy and detailed) appraisal is athttp://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...ssians#comments
- Publically deny the allegation
-
Bangkok Pundit has a (well-deserved IMO) reputation for following the southern situation closely and for being well-informed about it. With that in mind, his brief comment about when negotiations/talks actually started is worth a look at
http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...-t-want-to-talk
with more detail on denials and contradictions of denials (with links to sources) at
http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...ief-and-tal.htm
As I've commented previously, it's par for the course (e.g. British government in Northern Ireland) for politicians, officials, generals etc to maintain forcefully that they never, never talk to/negotiate with the other side............. until they do.
-
[OPINION]
Southern militants have scant desire to negotiate
By DON PATHAN
THE NATION
Published on January 19, 2010
The staged surrender of Suthirak Kongsuwan, one of the suspects behind the massacre at a Narathiwat mosque in June 2009, may not bring needed breathing space for the Abhisit government because, say members of separatist groups, the damage may be irreversible. A secret peace process has been derailed and it will take some time before it gets back on track.
JUST OVER seven months ago, six gunmen sneaked up on a mosque full of people conducting evening prayer in a village surrounded by military camps. They opened fire, killing ten and injuring 11 others.
The 11th victim died in hospital the following day. In a typical knee-jerk reaction, Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Tuegsuband insisted that the June 8, 2009 massacre at Ai Bayae village mosque in Narathiwat was not the work of Thai security forces, although he could not say for sure who the gunmen were.
Local media reported unnamed security officials saying the massacre was the work of Malay Muslim militants bent on driving a bigger wedge between the Malay-speaking region and the state. Other reports quoting unnamed sources said the massacre stemmed from conflict between Muslim missionaries and the Malay villagers, who embrace different schools of thought. While their theological outlook may differ, never in the history of Islamic missionary service in the deep South have such differences turned to violence, much less massacre.
In the past six years of intense violence, there has been only one incident in which suspected insurgents carried out target killing inside a mosque. The place was a village mosque in Panare district of Pattani, and the victim was a Border Patrol Police officer. The gunman waited until he completed his prayers before he shot him at point blank range from behind.
The Ai Bayae massacre should not be compared to the Kru Se Mosque stand-off on April 28, 2004 when insurgents fortified themselves inside the historic mosque as they engaged in a lengthy gunfight with Thai security forces until they were overpowered and killed. Local Malays see their act as heroic, as they gave up their lives just to be heard. All were buried as Muslim martyrs. In this respect, a mosque being the main scene enhances their legitimacy as fighting for a just cause. The June 8 massacre didn't fit that bill. And so when the authorities suggested that the killings may have been the work of insurgents, nobody believed them, not even key security and administrative officials in this highly volatile region.
According to military and civilian officials monitoring the situation from the region, the June 8 massacre was a result of an intense tit-for-tat exchange of bombings and shootings between the insurgents and security units, with the help of pro-government death squads.
While murder has been an everyday occurrence since a January 2004 arms heist, the spate of violence that led to the Ai Bayae massacre was sparked by a court decision. The verdict cleared all security officials from any wrongdoing at the Tak Bai massacre in September 2004, when 78 unarmed Malay Muslim demonstrators died from suffocation. Security officials had stacked them one on top of another in the back of military transport trucks.
Immediately after the ruling, soft targets such as schools and restaurants that were off the militants' radar in the previous year, returned to the hit list. For the insurgency in the deep South, a new threshold had been crossed and the insurgents were not about to let the government forget about it.
For PM Abhisit Vejjajiva, the massacre was a setback in more ways than one. Besides driving a deeper wedge between the state and the Malay Muslim community, it threatened to derailed a peace process his government has been carrying out.
The so-called Geneva Process was jump-started by the government of Surayud Chulanont but was not continued by the following administrations of Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, who were beset by vicious street protests. Abhisit set up a small steering committee made up of trusted MPs and officials from the National Security Council (NSC) to talk to the long-standing separatist groups in exile. These groups include the Patani United Liberation Organisation (Pulo) and various branches of the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN). The idea is to get these old guard to act as brokers between the government and the new generation of militants.
Things were moving along accordingly until the June 8 massacre. According to Pulo and BRN-Coordinate members, the militants on the ground demanded that the Thai authorities arrest the six gunmen in exchange for their endorsement of the peace process.
Essentially, the ball was in the government's court: Arrest the six and bring the peace process back on track. But to get officials to make the arrests wasn't going to be easy, especially when the gunmen were, according to various sources, including Human Rights Watch, members of a pro-government death squad.
Thus began some serious arm-twisting. Mug shots of the suspects were downloaded from the Interior Ministry's ID card databank and distributed around villages. Among the six was a Narathiwat Muslim who had been working as a spy for a local military task force.
According to an informed source, the police eventually detained five gunmen - the sixth had committed suicide, possibly out of fear of retribution - and their secret agent. But it was the military that stalled the due process that was supposed to proceed afterwards. Others said the suspects were kept in a "safe house" until all the stakeholders on the government side could figure out what to do.
The staged surrender of Suthirak stemmed from the enormous pressure from various stakeholders, including lawmakers from the region, who feared the inaction of the government could cost them politically. If the "staged" surrender of Suthirak pays off politically, the public could see more suspects being made public, according to a government source.
But the so-called "surrender" of Suthirak last week raised a new set of questions. Officials in the deep South wonder what is to be gained from it.
Pulo and BRN members said they are not hopeful that the surrender of Suthirak, one of the five supposedly detained, will bring the peace process back on track any time soon.
"The Thai authorities knew from the beginning that the longer they waited, the harder it would be to put the dialogue back on track," said a BRN-Coordinate member.
Moreover, said the BRN member, the juwae - a term he used to describe the new generation of militants - are not that interested in talking to the Thais anyway.
"The way they see it, they are winning. They can hit the Thai authorities more or less at will, at any time, in any place. Unless the government is willing to make some serious concessions, one can forget about seeing peace in the region any time soon."
-- The Nation January 19, 2010
[newsfooter][/newsfooter]
http://nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/19/opi...on_30120564.php
-
That will be a test of whether the reds are a poltical clique solely out for the interests of one man or really do care about iniquities.
Sarayud should give up the land etc etc and then we should call on the red movement to move to Alpine. Lets see if they really care or are utter hypocrites.
Get real Hammered.These are political activists not Guardian readers from Hampstead.
Jayboy puts it rather more harshly than I would - but I go along with what I take to be the basic premise. Yes, they are political activists - though I'd swap in "opportunists". They are out to score points in a political contest - if "principle" serves the purpose in a chosen gambit, then (for them) so be it. Other times it will revolve around being a nuisance/obstacle to what the coalition are out to do; all too rarely (if ever) it might actually be promoting an idea or approach arguably more valid/sensible/productive than the government's chosen tack on an issue.
Put another way, apply the same test (do "they really care or are [they] utter hypocrites?") to any of the political groupings and bodies (PAD, Democrats, smaller parties/factions, military et al.) and just which of them comes up smelling of across-the-board principled, no-way-hypocritical roses?
PS> Thanks to steveromagnino for the "Yes [Prime?] Minister" quote. I've noted before that both series versions should be required viewing for all looking to understand the realities of politics........ painfully accurate as well as painfully funny.
-
So, let's see if I've got this straight. Land ownership is complicated so therefore a privy council member shouldn't be held responsible? It's not like he didn't have a bevy of staff who could check out his land title. Or maybe he wasn't aware of the government's plan to allow poor farmers to have land? This would make him a rather naive person, which I don't think he is.
I think the crux of the problem is the perceived difference in treatment between groups of people.
The Prime Minister
GENERAL SURAYUD CHULANONT
...........
Special Assignments:
...........
* since 1997 President of Foundation for Khao Yai National Park Protection
...........
http://www.cabinet.thaigov.go.th/eng/pm_24.htm
-------------------------------------
Foundation for Khao Yai National Park Protection
...........
In 1997, Yongsak consulted with General Surayud Julanon about the intention of protecting Khao yai to its status of a natural heritage of the country. The idea of establishment of the Foundation for Protection of Khao Yai Foundation was raised in order to improve work of the old foundation by including ranger training, research, social support for all park staffers.
During the first meeting in 1997, the committee made an unanimous resolution to take more action on conservation work in Khao Yai as well as social support for all park staffers. General Sorayod became the foundation's new president.
The Foundation for the Protection of Khao Yai National Park was named in March 23, 2000.
Objectives
* Support the management of Khao Yai National Park and all activities which will result in the protection of natural resources and wildlife and the park as well as others in the country.
* Support the management of Khao Yai National Park to meet the international scheme of national park management.
* Support the improvement of work efficiency of park rangers and permanent workers by improving their knowledge, physical and mental conditions including equipment.
* Support welfare of workers and their families to encourage their morale during normal time, emergency, and risks of physical and mental injury from work.
* Support research on flora, fauna and natural resources of the park to increase knowledge beneficial to the management of the park as well as to the public.
* Support the education which will increase awareness and knowledge about the importance of the park among youth as well as adult citizens.
* Support residents around Khao Yai and other forest reserves to increase awareness and participation in protection of the park.
* Co-operate with other organisations for benefits of the society.
* No any political activities operated.
.............
-
I'd actually forgotten how hilarious Fox News can be......... does anyone ever get work with a respectable news station after working for them? Sorry to lose BBC and Deutsche Welle (English as well as German language programming - and always so earnest). But France 24 actually starts to look promising - all English language from what I've seen so far. Ausnet is IMO more valuable than some here seem to think - some very good documentaries originated by BBC and PBS (see http://australianetwork.com/guide/week_thailand.htm ) as well as interesting variations on news coverage. Sci Fi channel also suits me. The two English language movie channels are still available (so I can get my nightly double-fix of "24"). Universal may also offer some useful movie options. Sorry for those who will miss out on their sports coverage - but, for me, I have no trouble getting off to sleep without it.....
Overall thoughts - wish it hadn't changed but could be a lot worse.
-
The last paragraph of the report above strikes me as significant. On the one hand, it's clear that individuals should have some means to protect themselves against unfounded or ill-founded allegations; on the other, the health ministry's committee is an official body set up by the PM's office - and one would think that members of such bodies shouldn't be put in a position of feeling threatened by those against whom they find evidence of wrongdoing, negligence etc.
Thoughts?
-
Health ministry pushes through some projects despite graft allegations
By The Nation
Published on January 8, 2010
Despite corruption allegations surrounding its Thai Khemkhaeng stimulus package, the Public Health Ministry yesterday gave the go-ahead to Bt1.75billion worth of projects that had not been put on hold by the investigation committee.
Permanent secretary Phaijit Warachit, who is one of the 12 individuals implicated in the corruption case, yesterday signed a "most urgent" directive to provincial governors whose projects had been approved already, saying they could go ahead with the procurement deals and management contracts under their jurisdiction. None of these projects involve construction.
The Bt1.75billion projects are part of several other Thai Khemkhaeng projects attached to the government's stimulus package, under which Bt1.43 trillion will be spent from now until 2012.
At present, the ministry's committee has suspended projects worth about Bt11 billion with four politicians and eight senior ministry officials being implicated in corruption charges. These charges prompted Witthaya Kaewparadai to quit as public health minister, though when his deputy Manit Nopamorbodhi refused to follow suit it created conflict among coalition parties.
Most of the approved projects involve the purchase of several vehicles and ambulances for provincial hospitals, including 839 ambulances for health stations at the tambon level, with 10 for strifetorn southern provinces, as well as 63 trucks for carrying medical equipment and support systems.
The other vehicles to be purchased are 181 twowheel drive pickup trucks, 34 fourwheel drive trucks and 37 buses. Part of the Bt1.75billion budget has been allocated for nonprocurement projects under the ministry's other three departments.
Meanwhile, the Senate committee on corruption and good governance has been getting calls from the media and the Rural Doctors' Society - which detected and made public charges of corruption last September - to transfer Phaijit to an inactive post to make way for a fullscale investigation. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, meanwhile, has stayed mum on the issue.
In response to Manit's statement that he would sue the ministry's committee for implicating 12 individuals, the Senate panel's chairwoman Rossana Tositrakool has called for political investigative teams to be given legal immunity in the future. She also called on the PM Minister's Office, which appointed the health ministry's committee, to provide some legal assistance or counselling in response to Manit's threat of possible lawsuits.
-- The Nation January 8, 2010
[newsfooter][/newsfooter]
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/08...al_30119888.php
-
Attorney-general decides against charging Surayud
The attorney-general decided Friday against charging former prime minister and Privy Councillor Surayud Chulanont for encroaching upon the forested land in Nakhon Ratchasima.
Thanaphit Moolpruek, the spokesman of the Office of the Attorney-General, said the charge against Surayud was dropped because he did not have intention to encroached on the land.
But the chief public prosecutor in Nakhon Rachasima has informed the provincial forestry office to take back the land in line with the Cabinet resolution issued in 1975. The resolution allows landless villagers to use the land for farming without the rights to sell it to other people.
Surayud has bought the land at the Khao Yai Thieng Mountain from villagers and built a vacation house there.
-- The Nation 2010-01-08
[newsfooter][/newsfooter]
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...harging-Surayud
-
thanks, although I don't think much of it is up for debate really; as he really did bring a slickness to campaigning including some market research and party management tools that were very very astute in recognising trends and what the people wanted, and how the people perceived his efforts. I can absolutely see why for a time he had such massive popularity; it is almost like when the health nuts start complaining about how come so many kids eat McDonalds...you want to smack their vegan munching faces in and tell them, it is so easy to make kids want to eat that junkfood; give them a playground, some fun characters, sugar and toys - give the parents cleanliness, no dysentry and hosted parties plus good pricing. There is nothing hard about it, and Thaksin's TRT machine delivered the right formula to the various stakeholders.....I have my own ideas of his end objectives, others have theirs.
At a certain point, however, many of the consultants to TRT and to various elements of the party machine did start to get disenchanted when the results, logic, economic advice from smart people and so on was abandoned....in favour of Burmese fortune tellers, avoiding wearing the colour yellow without something covering it....and the like.
This mostly was immediately after the 2nd election...but started really the moment the asset declaration fiasco was concluded; when the regional factions started to flex their muscles when they saw just how much cash they were missing out on. It was also when the economic policies started to fall over as the cash ran out and the oil prices climbed.
As an aside, I do wish steveromagnino would post more often - and I often wonder where he goes between posts? Astute, largely agenda-free insights. Rather reminds me of another Steve (Hawking) - writer of more books never read by those who bought them than just about anyone else. Off-topic paean over; everyone else - please do continue with your agenda.
[Edited to remove extraneous material - as per Maestro's reminder. Generally, I will edit quotes featured in my replies - for brevity and clarity and not as "creative editing" as suggested recently. I also make a point of ensuring that my quoting (edited with "<snips>" or otherwise) always links back to the full post quoted in part - a policy and courtesy I suggest others would do well to follow].
-
Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,
we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of
greater amounts of older data, to work with.
Just for reference..
Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..
Yes indeed,
one of the things that makes The Nation worth getting.
I await his next book of clear observations on where this has all gone,
I suspect he is waiting to find out where it has gone..
For further reference - the second edition came out in summer 2009. To quote from the back cover:
"This book was first published in 2004. Four new chapters provide a detailed account of the turmoil of Thai politics over the subsequent five years".
-
I recall the news reports during the late summer of 2006 of Prem giving Thaksin a wai from Prem's navel. I guess that maybe it's like a secret handshake in the West.
Or maybe not. Prem giving Thaksin a wai from the navel. ??
Not sure where you see news and such,
but a picture of this incident has been posted many times in TVF.
It was quite the discussion because the wai WAS so low as to be a DIS big time in Thai circle.
Featured in this iconic photo was Anupong Center looking on, Prem with a VERY low wai,
and Thaksin, bent hands under chin supplicant style, the clear message coloquially is 'this guy is toast....'
No forgiveness on offer today, you have gone to far Mr. T.
<snip>
Perhaps the picture featured on the The Nation/Daily xPress report at the time is the "missing one"? I would never claim to be an expert on Thai body language, but I think I've been here long enough to recognise any form of "wai" when I see one and this picture doesn't show Prem wai-ing at all - not low or otherwise....... his hands are clasped.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30074453
For those anxious to deduce messages from their choice of single photographs, there is a rather more informative alternative available in NBT's video report of the funeral - which also prominently features the impressive line-up of royal wreaths. While I'm also no expert on Thai royal protocol, I think one might reasonably surmise that Gen Prem as President of the Privy Council is attending not only as a friend/colleague of Gen Anupong but also as personal representative of HM the King. As it happens, the video does show Prem both bowing his head to and wai-ing Thaksin at 1'23". I'll leave it to others to dissect what significance they choose to find in just how low Prem's head does or doesn't bow and agonise about how high his hands were for the wai......
-
Watch what you say, because someone will parse it to death, or at least the nth degree.
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3238358
------------------
and still others for simple the joy winning a point against a rival in any way possible,Game, set, match, retired your side.-------------------
Projection
Description
When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.
Projection may also happen to obliterate attributes of other people with which we are uncomfortable. We assume that they are like us, and in doing so we allow ourselves to ignore those attributes they have with which we are uncomfortable.
* Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself.
* Complementary projection is assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/beha.../projection.htm
-
and who would want to visit RED Central HQ in the current political climate?
Simple question: have you ever even set foot in Chiang Mai?
Simple answer: No
Simple answer; many times.
Watched the 2005 election cycle first hand.
Vote buying with rice, aggressive canvassers the whole ten yards.
Recently? Not in two+ years,
and much of that is because I would
not feel safe there in the present climate.
Not for any extended visit, pop in pop out maybe.
And not if I had any schedule to keep.
-
Bhum Jai Thai decides against Manit's resignation
Bhum Jai Thai Party Tuesday decided to keep its Deputy Public Health Minister Manit Nopamornbodi in post, allowing him to defend the controversial projects in the censure debate.
Manit said he would resign if indicted by the National AntiCorruption Commission.
-- The Nation 5 December 2009
[newsfooter][/newsfooter]
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...nit%27s-resigna
-
BURNING ISSUE
Forget Thaksin, PM should rethink strategy, ties to Pheu Thai
By Avudh Panananda
The Nation
Published on January 5, 2010
Although chief royal adviser General Prem Tinsulanonda and fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra appear to be worlds apart, the two are bound to collide with one another, causing shocks and reverberations.
The Prem-Thaksin collision is fuelled by political polarisation and not any personal grudges between the two. The government has a pivotal role to end the polarisation and ensure normalcy.
Once the polarisation has dissipated, Prem and Thaksin are likely to diverge from their colliding paths and go separate ways.
But the problem is how to convince parties on either side to see the light, when they choose to believe what they want - instead of embracing the truth. This is the dilemma Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva faces.
Society expects Abhisit to project his leadership to bring about reconciliation. The pressure on this task multiplies; the longer the polarisation persists, the more harm will be done to the monarchy.
Thaksin and his army of red shirts may insist on loyalty to the King. But their relentless attacks on Prem, whose office in the Privy Council is intrinsic to the country's revered institution, have sown seed of doubt about the monarchy.
The proliferation of messages in cyberspace questioning and blaming the monarchy for what people perceive to be setbacks for democracy should be a cause for alarm.
If allowed to spread unchecked, the attacks, despite being barmy and false, can and will alter perceptions about the monarchy in the long run.
As president of the Privy Council, Prem is duty-bound to uphold the monarchy. Since his heyday Thaksin has attributed his predicament to the "power beyond the Constitution".
Even though Prem and the Privy Council have never had any involvement in the unfolding of political events, Thaksin and the red shirts blame the King's men for his downfall.
It is a moot point to argue what really happened when Thaksin and the red shirts convinced a vast number of people, particularly those in rural areas, into believing that Prem had a role in the 2006 coup.
Even to this day, Thaksin and the red shirts have effectively portrayed Prem and the Privy Council as villains against democracy. The false portrayal of Prem is an effective tool to rouse the masses.
Whenever the sentiment for street protests sinks into a lull, the red shirts rally their mob by faulting the King's men, while cheekily professing their undying loyalty.
Next week, rally organiser Weng Tojirakarn will lead a march at Khao Yai Thiang, Nakhon Ratchasima, to attack Privy Councillor Surayud Chulanont for alleged forest encroachment. This is seen as a ploy to boost the red shirts' morale ahead of a planned rally to oust the government.
Only Thaksin, who insists on being a royalist, can answer for why he keeps encouraging the red shirts to pick on the King's men.
Regardless of Thaksin's wrath, Abhisit is obligated to try to stop, or at least cushion the adverse impacts from this bashing of the Privy Council.
The prime minister and his government might have limited options, or none at all, in reasoning with Thaksin, but fences can still be mended with the opposition Pheu Thai Party and the red shirts.
If Abhisit can sever or weaken the ties between Thaksin and his supporters, this will help overcome the polarisation. In the past year the government did almost nothing to reason with the opposition movement.
It is high time for Abhisit to rethink his strategy. A sincere commitment to negotiate an acceptable solution on how to proceed with the charter rewrite might be a good starting point to mend some fences.
-- The Nation January 5, 2010
[newsfooter][/newsfooter]
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/05...cs_30119690.php
Or maybe not. 
All-out Attempt By Red Shirts To Bring Down Government
in Thailand News Headlines
Posted
I'm far from "adamant" about that - I'm just waiting to see someone make the case. As rationale for what's claimed, at least Samuian mentions (if I understand him correctly) something akin to what I mentioned - "domestic peace and understanding" being a reference to potential pressures/influences from a Thai partner/family/friends? With more of them "pro red" in areas that are known for voting TRT/PPP/PT? I can see some scope for that happening - but nothing beyond subjective comment to show that it actually does, let alone to what extent. Against this, I also see references to (I paraphrase) "my wife/partner her/his family disagree but........" which indicates to me that either can be the case.
So, it appears to come down to individuals' opinions about the relative numbers - which looks to me like a cue for one of Jingthing's more interesting polls to gauge how many TVF members think they are/aren't influenced by their home location and situation in forming their views (or are willing to admit that they are?). What do you say, Jingthing?