Steve2UK

Getting back to the the topic from which I digressed a bit, Bangkok Pundit has a useful piece ( http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...tend%20rallies- ) on the whole question of military individuals appearing at rallies whether "ex-" or still serving. According to Bangkok Post, Suthep has said the army will investigate why 200 ex-paramilitary troopers were present last Thursday. As Pundit remarks, it's not clear what the army can have to say about ex-military attending - but it's a different matter with still-serving Maj Gen Khattiya in full uniform who (I now see) is reported as saying openly that he brought them there to provide security.

That said, Pundit also compares Khattiya's appearance at the rally with the 2008 appearance(s) of Gen Pathompong Kasetsuk, [then] chief adviser of the Supreme Command, who wore his full military uniform on the PAD stage to "express his disagreement that the government allowed Cambodia to register Preah Vihear as a world heritage site. He also called on soldiers to show courage. He said that getting on the stage of the PAD was not against the code of conduct. He wasn't doing it for personal benefit and the wearing of the full military uniform is so that the population feels comforted." From the Flickr photos posted earlier, it looks like Thursday's UDD rally-attendees were also at least "comforted" by Khattiya in full combat uniform - what with posing for happy snaps with him and getting him to autograph their shirts.....

Meanwhile, back in 2008, Puea Thai predecessors PPP objected strongly (get ready for yet another general moved into politics mode):

"Former supreme commander Gen Ruangroj Mahasaranon Wednesday criticised Gen Pathompong Kasetsuk, chief advisor of the Supreme Command, for going on stage of the People's Alliance for Democracy in full military uniform. Ruangroj, a deputy leader of the People Power Party, said a senior military officer should set a good example to the members of the public so Pathompong should not have attacked the government in public.Pathompong went up on the PAD stage Tuesday evening. Ruangroj said Pathompong's action could contribute to social rifts." [ http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30077687 ]

I think we can't say it isn't interesting how the wheel turns here.

The Thai military have been involved in poltics for many a year and they have been split backing different sides before. However, they would normally remain behind the scenes and normally follow a code even when doing a coup. The latest stuff is more dangerous because if it actually happens it could be members of a military unit at a demonstration and demos are always volatile. It is a tendancy towards almost warlord like allegiances where individual generals may move their men around ignoring the chain of command.

However, with the asset seizure case rapidly coming to conclusion expect things to be very unpredictable in the run up to it and the immediate aftermath. These are not normal poltical times in Thailand and there are many different things going on at different levels with a massive powwer struggle and inter-elite battle mixed up with issues over democracy and wealth distribution.

Yes, I meant to include "so conspicuously" in my earlier "Overall, I find the recent moves of so many senior military....... joining parties a worrying development." They've always been there, largely in the shadows - but not in recent times so "front and centre" in supposedly civilian set-ups.

I imagine some will find the "warlord" analogy a bit extreme, but I think it's still fairly apt. One only needs to see how commanders are re-assigned to recognise that it counts for something here - even if it's not on a par with, say, freewheeling generals/warlords in twenties/thirties China or now in Somalia, Afghanistan etc largely because there was/is no effective central government there. That said, personal allegiances to individuals do seem to be strong and that cuts both ways - I also left out of my PS above that Witthaya ruled out Chavalit as one of the "Ch" candidates in Prachin Buri precisely because the area is not "a stronghold" for him.

Probably redundant from day 1.

Arguably true. As usual, the event (non-event for some?) has been hyped in varying directions all according to varying points of view: marring the birthday celebrations of HM the King or a relevant date (Constitution Day, a public holiday and celebrated since 1932) on which to make a political point about the 1997 charter. Needless to say, both dates are long-standing fixtures in the Thai calendar.

IMO the more significant factor this time has been the suggestion that up to 1,000 paramilitary "rangers" (serving or former according to which version you see) would be brought by Maj Gen Khattiya aka Seh Daeng to join the rally - at least by implication as "security". While both sides have previously made use of "guards" - some of them reportedly turning up for both colours (three if you include "blues"), this looks to me like a worrying potential escalation. From the available pictures and reports, that IMO "threat" seems to have not materialised this time - although Puea Thai member Gen Panlop later stated (Post article today) that about 200 former border rangers were voluntarily present in a show of "respect" for new Puea Thai Chairman Gen Chavalit and that more were expected to join rallies next year. Nonetheless, we still saw a serving general (Khattiya) turning up in uniform at a political rally. I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that there should at least be strict and strictly-enforced rules about serving officers and other ranks participating in political rallies - and certainly that it should never be in the King's uniform. Just as certainly, none of them should be training any protest group in paramilitary/violent methods.

AFAIK unreported by The Nation, there was a revealing detail in a Bangkok Post article on December 9 - the day before the rally: Gen Apichart (Permanent Secretary for Defence) reportedly said that existing military regulations (since 1933, IIRC) only provide for serving generals to be reprimanded - i.e. that's the current limit on any disciplinary action available against them under military regulations. I've long thought that this is what you get when foxes raiding chicken coops are judged by other foxes. He did go on to say that the military is considering amendments to this limit.......

Overall, I find the recent moves of so many senior military (no shortage of Thai generals, after all ) joining parties* a worrying development. The presence of what amounts to a growing militia at rallies looks like just the most visible product of that. "Old soldiers never die" said MacArthur - and it looks increasingly like old Thai soldiers rarely fade away either.

*Particularly Puea Thai but also Sonthi's gambit with Matubhum etc.

PS> I was going to finish this there, but then what do I see? Today's Post also carries an article about the upcoming Prachin Buri by-election. Puea Thai Chief Whip Witthaya Buranasiri announces that their candidate (and thus potential opposition party leader in parliament.....) will be a general whose name begins with "Ch". Suggestions of who that might be are: Gen Chavalit (now Puea Thai chairman), Gen Chettha (former army chief) and Gen Chaisit (former supreme commander - family name Shinawatra).

I wish The Nation would sack this writer..... seems to f&%k something up on every story! I'm sure they can afford to to pay at least one native speaker.

Wow, seems you'd be a hard boss to please. A few minor typos (responsibility of the sub-editor) and you want to sack "this writer" (not named) who "seems to f&%k something up on every story"? Assuming the detail of who said/didn't say what is correct, this item is near enough a model of proper reporting - I wish there was more of it.

EDITORIAL

Education is not only about formal qualifications

By The Nation

Published on December 11, 2009

Society can progress if we listen to the ordinary person; the vast untapped well of real-life knowledge

The unequal relationship between so-called professionals and experts and ordinary folk is nothing new. People depend on lawyers, doctors, journalists and even economists, bureaucrats and political scientists for information and various other practical needs. Such dependence reinforces a top-down hierarchical structure and is not helpful for society in the long term.

While experts and professionals may, and should continue to, excel and learn more about their specialised fields of knowledge and practice, ordinary people are also entitled to, and should learn to become less dependent and less intimidated by professionals.

It is worth noting that in areas such as health, ordinary people have, over the past few decades, gained more knowledge about medical science by themselves without actually specialising in the discipline as a trained professional. People know more about medical conditions - especially if directly affected by illness or disease - and this has led to a less passive relationship with physicians.

This situation has come about through communications technology and wider access to information. It is also illustrated in publications like medical dictionaries for lay people. Anyone with a basic education can look up references and gain greater understanding of, for example, medical conditions like heart disease or diabetes.

As a result of this trend, some patients are no longer content to merely take whatever prescription doctors hand out to them. They are asking more questions of doctors and becoming more active in deciding what might be the best medical treatment or alternatives.

In Thailand, too much blind faith is placed on those with higher educational degrees, be they technocrats, bureaucrats or academics. The mainstream media are over-reliant on seeking views and judgements from so-called experts in academia and beyond. This attitude is far more prevalent here than in Western countries like the US or the UK, and the views of ordinary Thai citizens are thus often neglected.

Our society has remained passive and dependent upon this minority class of experts from the well-educated elite. It is time that we recognised that ordinary citizens do have valuable views to contribute beyond five-second sound bites on television. Only through their participation can society become more self-reliant. Only through their determination to have their views heard can we produce more able and honest leaders to replace the substandard, self-serving crop that we suffer today.

It seems that education only refers to formal education, and that what one learns from work and real-life experience doesn't really count as part of our educational qualification.

The term "highly educated" can be very misleading, and therefore it might be more appropriate to refer to experts and professionals as highly "formally" educated. More recognition of the average person is needed so society can tap into the great wealth of informal experience and knowledge.

We all may not be formally educated to the same level or have graduated from the same prestigious universities, but each and every citizen surely has something to contribute. We should not be cowed into thinking that we must always depend on an expert's advice.

An education system that promotes wide-ranging basic knowledge must be encouraged so that people can know more about more, and not just more about less. Only then can society start to maximise its vast, untapped potential. Only then will more people become confident about themselves and their place and potential in society.

A strong and self-reliant society requires less hierarchy. In any large society, a few highly formally educated people can only push social progress so far. The bulk of the task rests with the rest of us.

-- The Nation December 11, 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/12/11/opi...on_30118313.php

I'd still suggest that, when you're trying to show how much support a party has with the electorate, and whether or not TRT/PPP/PTP has "the support of the majority of the Thai people" as termad claimed, it's the proportional vote, which gives the best idea.

Allowing for what hammered described, I'll defer to your take on this - and I'm sure you realise that I wasn't trying to back up termad's claims but rather just supplying qualifying detail to what you said earlier about the neck-and-neck (my paraphrase) 2007 result. Speaking of results, as hammered points out, it's ultimately the seats won that count and not the voter (proportional or constituency) percentages. As I'm sure you know, there's no shortage of examples (US, UK etc) where the losing side actually had the higher percentage of national/popular vote - and still didn't "win" (as in become president or form the next government).

Just another poll - but interesting considering who conducted it (the military )........ and how accurate their polling was in the run-up to the 2007 general election.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...0an%20election-

True, why didn't the "big wigs" in charge of the airport have enough "rice balls" to sue? (conflict of interest?)

See Post # 64 above.

Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"!

It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum!

Are u for real? Good God!

The one time I ever agreed with Samuian about anything, it was about bullying not being welcomed by anybody. I've had enough foaming-at-the-mouth groundless bile slung at me here that I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Let's stay with tackling the issues and not the members, eh?

Didn't now-PM Abhisit, at the time the leader of the Opposition, not criticise the PAD's action at the time ?

I'm racking my brains trying to think what the "criticising" equivalent of "damning with faint praise" is. So far, the best I can come up with is something like "token noises of disapproval". Any suggestions?

[bTW - it looks like you've got an inadvertent double negative in there, Ricardo, old thing ]

Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"!

It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum!

I was wondering how long before this would start..........

If enough companies/groups etc got together, they could start a class action!

The Airport was closed by AOT as a direct result of PAD demonstrations! Had the PAD not been there, the airport would NOT have had to close.

FF

I can't agree with you more. But why has there not been any move by AOT about this?

Gutless management.

I rather think that this action reflects the fact that a new man is in control at Thai - and one that seems willing to make the hard choices and (if he lives long enough) to take on the vested interests (corruption in equipment purchases, backhanders on catering etc, nepotism in recruitment aka hiring daughters of senior airforce officers etc). I hope he succeeds as what was once a rather good airline is now a shadow of its former self.

Ref the legal action, the point is accountability rather than money. At best Thai will have the satisfaction of bankrupting those primarily resposible (although I am unsure what the consequences sre in Thailand). More importantly, people would have to factor in such consequences before they make massive disruption - and that includes those running the lads in red!

Not sure why The Nation (apparently) haven't mentioned this, but Bangkok Post reported on 27 November this year that AOT (responding to similar comments about inaction) confirmed that they do already have a civil suit against twelve PAD leaders for damages of 150 million baht under way - also due to be heard (coincidentally or not) next August - as well as a criminal suit against them. AOT President Serirat Prasutanond is quoted as saying that AOT lodged criminal complaints on 26 November 2008 (Rachathewa police station re Suvarnabhumi) and at Don Muang police station on 27 November 2008.

As per current restrictions, I can't post a link here. Easy enough to Google Bangkok Post and, once on their site, use their search facility entering the word "blockade".

With all due respect to ThaiVisa's commercial partner, I suggest that TVF members might do well to bookmark the Bangkok Post website and glance through it from time to time rather than rely on what gets re-published here. It self-evidently contains a lot of information that The Nation either doesn't report at all - or, if it does, leaves out relevant detail. It should go without saying that neither operation is perfect, but it must surely be better to "use" both rather than rely on just what one of them chooses to publish.

42 billion baht or 4.2 billion baht? Even 4.2 billion is 140,000 baht per student teacher, and 30,000 teachers is a lot. Where are the classrooms?

Well, don't blame George (as if! ) - it's the way The Nation* tells 'em. Still, what's a decimal point between headline and text when they're talking billions? Maybe some will be maths teachers? 100% of my money is on 4.2 billion.

* http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...e-30000-new-tea

Police asked to give hand in informal debt-refinancing program

BANGKOK, 8 December 2009 (NNT) – Deputy Secretary-General to the Prime Minister, Police General Thanee Somboonsup, urges the police to help promote the informal debt refinancing scheme.

Police General Thanee, said on Tuesday, that the police should cooperate with the government in encouraging people suffering from high-interest unconventional loans to register for the scheme during the registration period throughout December 2009. He assigned the police to collect information of both informal debtors and lenders.

In addition, the deputy secretary-general said the police needed to assure informal creditors who did not threaten the debtors that they would not be taxed retroactively. As for the creditors with rogue behavior, Police General Thanee said the police would take action against them immediately.

Police General Thanee also stressed that any government officials involved in illegal debt lending would receive serious disciplinary and criminal punishments.

News ID: 255212080034

Reporter : Sarun Saelee

-- NNT 8 December 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255212080034

<snip>

Dont disagree with that. At least now the missing part of the analysis is there. International arbitration is something that may have worked in the consensus based past. Now with a new role model -China- on the horizon such things may become menaingless. Will China allow an arbitration process set up and dominated by old powers to decide on their claim to the Spratly's for example or will they just say we need a new way? That will affect all. China's powerful emergence is going to change groundrules. China will have the influence to get world bodies to recreate and ammend rules to suit it as the US has in the past. We are likely moving into unchartered territories and ones in which gambles made by lesser pwoers may or may not pay off.

Ditto in the Arctic and Antarctic carve ups that need to be made too. The rules by which decisions will be made will change and likely give an upper hand to the powerful over the less powerful.

Conceited chap that I am, I'll take the first part as an overly generous compliment - I think a reading of Paul Kennedy, Niall Ferguson and Shakespeare would lead almost anyone to similar conclusions. I recommend all three to those that wonder if there's more to history than kings and battles - and who consider that the black hat/white hat approach to who's bad and who's good is best left to vintage Hollywood westerns.

Institutions being what they are, I think what's notionally "consensus" is due to be around for quite a while yet - though I agree that those shaping the consensus will inevitably change as you describe. On that basis, if China is friendly with Cambodia (and they very much are) then I see arbitration looking a better bet for Cambodia than trying to tough it out with Thailand bilaterally. A bet, therefore a gamble - but the odds would seem to favour the "multilateral" route.

As to China's need for resources, those imported from Australia are largely metal ores and coal - and those from Africa largely metal ores again, timber etc and about a third of its imported oil (from Angola, particularly). Personally, I think it's unlikely they'd ignore the prospect of potentially significant oil and gas resources becoming available/accessible in what's relatively their backyard - all the more so if they continue to be frustrated by Vietnam's (and others') ongoing stance in the seemingly never-ending multi-faceted* Spratlys dispute.

But I digress too far from the topic. In any case, chess games have a habit of changing drastically during the play and in political chess new pieces appear on the board that change the situation (and sometimes the rules) even more drastically. So perhaps on this occasion, at least, I can be forgiven for saying "We'll see".

* I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands - it's a fun read and that situation looks set to keep a lot of lawyers in new Benzes for a long time to come. It makes the Thailand/Cambodia maritime border dispute look like a cakewalk.........

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

I think the EU/outside world opinion factor mentioned about this article (opinion piece as it is, it still provides a useful take and analysis based on facts) is minor compared to what I take as its main thrust - i.e that Hun Sen has significant political issues facing him at home. A key passage: "Last year, Mr. Hun Sen's CPP won 73% of the total seats in a ballot marked by irregularities and administrative faults. CPP rule rests on genuine popularity at rice roots level through its economic development policies and nationalism in defense of Cambodia's territorial sovereignty vis-à-vis Thailand. Mr. Hun Sen's aggressive handling of the dispute with Thailand over land surrounding Preah Vihear temple in 2008 was a vote getter." [my bold emphasis]. One could argue the same about the (possibly CPP-instigated) 2003 street protests that led to attacks on the Thai embassy, Thai Airways and Shin Corp offices etc - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Phnom_Penh_riots . For a wider (Vietnam-related) context, see also http://www.samrainsyparty.org/archives/ach...an%20people.htm - allowing that it's Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy's partial view.

Much has been made on TVF of Hun Sen's (and, of course, Thaksin's) pocket-lining character and there are many comments referring to Hun Sen being used by wily Thaksin or vice versa (IMO the two notions are certainly not mutually exclusive - but each "duping" the other does seem a bit of a stretch). Given that there's little love lost between Thai and Khmer nations - and that each plays its version of the "old Thai enemy/old Khmer enemy" game, it should come as no surprise that each would also adopt the very familiar "my enemy's enemy is my friend" approach. On that basis, each sees the other government as the enemy - and anyone opposed to it as a potentially useful "friend"; by that logic, Thaksin being opposed to the present Thai government of course qualifies him as a (for now) useful friend for Hun Sen. Personally, I doubt that Hun Sen sees Thaksin ever regaining office, but that doesn't diminish Thaksin's current value to him as a chess piece..... just as Hun Sen is in Thaksin's game against the present Thai government. Accordingly, in the IMO highly unlikely event that Thaksin were to ever regain office, it should come as no surprise that Hun Sen would then switch from warm and public embrace of Thaksin to castigating him in much the same way as he now does Abhisit.

I also don't see this part of Hun Sen's chess game as being contradictory to another part mentioned previously (which does relate to world opinion in a way) - i.e. trying to make reasonable bi-lateral talks on border disputes (particularly maritime boundaries) with much bigger neighbour Thailand look impossible and thus increasing the likelihood of international arbitration of them that has tended to favour Cambodia before now. In that respect, Thailand's abrogation of the 2001 marine boundaries MOU can be seen as suiting Hun Sen/Cambodia - in that it effectively winds the bilateral clock back to zero and thus cleans the slate ready for arbitration by a third party. Money talks - and so do strategic interests for vital resources; I doubt that gas/oil companies and interested powers will be slow in putting on pressure to get the disputes settled so that exploitation of them can start.

[OPINION]

Malaysian PM's visit to show up lack of deep South action

By DON PATHAN

THE NATION

Published on December 7, 2009

MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER Najib Razak's visit to Thailand this week, specifically to the Malay-speaking South, is significant in more ways than one.

In some ways, the timing is awfully bad for Thailand, not so much because of the internal political bickering between the red and yellow shirts. It's because the administration is at a loss as to what to do about the conflict in the deep South, a topic that is certain to be high on the agenda when the two leaders meet in Bangkok prior to making a joint visit to the restive region.

While publicly acknowledging that the insurgency is Thailand's internal problem, Najib will be taking note as to what direction Thailand will take to change the course of the conflict and bring it under control. Judging from Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's recent repeated rhetoric - how development and more political participation at the local level could solve the problem - the Malaysian leader is likely to be disappointed because of the lack of progress. The confidence-building measure with the southern Muslims has also taken its toll on the government's secret peace process with separatist groups.

The idea of talking to the enemy, at least in a more systematic and strategic fashion, was floated by then prime minister Surayud Chulanont. Just before leaving office, Surayud met personally with representatives from the Patani United Liberation Organisation during a brief stopover in Bahrain in 2007. Malaysian authorities helped with the arrangements.

Kuala Lumpur wanted to "mediate" the process but Bangkok did not see the Malaysian government as an honest broker and the best they could do was to "facilitate" the process.

The following administrations of the late Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat were too bogged down with the street protests and did not give the peace process due attention.

Abhisit, meanwhile, is trying to pick up the pieces from where Surayud left off. A new National Security Council chief who supports the idea of establishing a peace process was appointed and a team of trusted associates was set up to meet with members of the longstanding separatist groups, commonly referred to as the old guard.

The idea was to get the old guard to broker a peace deal with the new generation of insurgents on the ground.

This might be a long shot, but it was the only channel they had to the militants who don't seem to be that enthusiastic about the idea of talking in the first place.

"The way they see it, they are winning," said one exiled leader in reference to the younger generation of militants on the ground, locally known as the juwae, or fighters in the local Malay dialect.

According to sources inside the government and the exiled community of separatists, Abhisit's initiative was gaining some traction. The old guard, namely Pulo and Barisan Revolusi Nasional, succeeded in getting the new generation to give the process the time of day.

But before the process could gain serious momentum, a massacre in Narathiwat's district of Joh I Rong jolted the whole process.

A former Buddhist ranger identified by police as Suthirak Kongsuwan led a five-man team with assault rifles and a shotgun to mow down a mosque full of Muslims who were right in the middle of evening prayers. They killed 11 people and wounded 12.

Photographs of the five suspects have surfaced and circulated around the region, putting the top brass and government in an extremely awkward position.

Officials in the region said this information was leaked to pressure the government into arresting these men, who many believe were the product of "security outsourcing", a fancy name for a death squad working for local military units.

Immediately after the June 8 massacre, the juwae, as well as some of the hard-liners in the exiled community, said they would not endorse the peace process until the massacre is resolved.

Political insiders said Abhisit has not been able to move on the promise of bringing justice to the Ai Bayae mosque massacre because of stiff resistance from security forces.

"People with half a brain understand that this is holding up the peace process," said Human Rights Watch's Sunai Phasuk.

"Failure to prosecute those murderers reaffirms longstanding grievances in the Muslim community that Bangkok isn't committed to give them justice or treat them as equals."

Among the supporters of the peace process, there is an acknowledgement that the Malaysians have done their part and the ball is now in Thailand's court. Kuala Lumpur authorities suggested to the Patani Malay exiled community to formulate a common position and then work with the Thais on this peace process.

Thailand is going to have to respond because the mandate for the peace process came from Bangkok in the first place.

But judging from the activities of the military on the ground, meeting the Malaysians halfway will not be easy.

For one thing, they just don't like the idea of talking to the enemy; they think their military might, coupled with development money, can solve the problem, a number of Thai security officials have said.

Furthermore, spin doctors from the Fourth Army Area overseeing the deep South has been distorting facts by shifting the blame for the massacre on the juwae.

The names of known suspected insurgents allegedly linked to other high-profile incidents, such as the guns, grenade and car-bomb attacks in Sungai Kolok on October 6, were made to appear that they were involved in the Ai Bayae massacre.

"Apparently, the military does not want to see this peace process get off the ground, thus the foot-dragging in the investigation, not to mention the effort to distort the facts," Sunai said.

According to Sunai, no one seems to understand the significance of Najib's visit to the Malay-speaking South.

If anything, his presence amounts to telling the ethnic Malays in the deep South that they need to come to terms with their Thai citizenship and reconcile their differences with the Thais.

Abhisit, on the other hand, can reciprocate by telling the Malays in Patani that their Thai citizenship will not come at the expense of their identity or their place in the Malay world.

Acknowledging that the people in the deep South embrace a different set of historical narratives may be welcomed by the Malays in Thailand's deep South.

But for the juwae on the ground, it may be a case of too little and too late. The stakes appear to be higher now, especially after the mosque massacre.

-- The Nation December 7, 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/12/07/opi...on_30118096.php

I can't imagine how the hippo got out on its own but either way, its prospects are sadly, apparently, very poor.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Thai equivalent of "bush meat" (as it's called in Africa) is not unknown hereabouts.

Pity you didn't quote all of my post tho, Steve. It said the hippo was very young and in poor health. I suspect that will contribute more to its demise if it isn't, as misterman suspects, already being made into an aphrodisiac.

Agreed.

I can't imagine how the hippo got out on its own but either way, its prospects are sadly, apparently, very poor.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Thai equivalent of "bush meat" (as it's called in Africa) is not unknown hereabouts.

Well, this is just the kind of thing that happens given that

Chiang Mai is now separated from Bangkok and Thailand, in the hands of goons, thugs and other assorted insurrectionists

and now baby hippo stealers........

it's probably time to declare martial law in CM. Tourists aren't comfortable about going there any more.

Let's hope the zoo looks after the baby panda better - otherwise the last two remaining tourists here will probably decide to get on those evacuation flights after all.........

"At the end of the day, however, 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? "

Don't get up to Chiang Mai much, eh?

As if any tourist not reading your alarmist post would have a clue about Thai political intrigue and gossip.

I'll be going out for a walk to have some Gang Kaew Wan Gai soon, will walk alone down dark streets, and I can guarantee I won't see and "goons, thugs or other assorted insurrectionists" while doing so. In, around or away from the tourists spots, no "goons" to be found.

We not "separated from Bangkok and Thailand" at all: flights come and go hourly.

Oh, 74C now, got to go see the smiling, friendly faces I always see on every walk, have a nice evening.

"74F", I think you mean, nonghoidave? Still, right enough in all other respects. I struggle to work out how (and why) that member comes up with this irrational guff (and a LOT more besides). Triumph of wishful thinking over reality, I guess.

Prachatai English have an entertaining take on the court decision at http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1523 (the third "Phone a Friend" conversation - but the first two also made me smile).

I read your post in the other topic you are refering to since i posted in that topic myself.If I understand all this correctly,may I ask you how long it takes before your member name will show up in red colour at the bottom of the page?

I'm not sure if I understand the question correctly, but a member name shown in red signifies a moderator; blue = admin; there's also green occasionally - "honorary members" - not sure what that means.

Am I the only one trying to figure out how this paranoid &lt;deleted&gt; with an obvious personal agenda has managed to tie in Taksin into Map Ta Put without any evidence whatsoever, just things he has overheard at the pub, claiming there has been talk? This is journalism?

How does this guy keep his job, and why is this tripe reprinted here as "Breaking News"? Oh, that's right we hadn't had our daily anti-Taksin rant had we? And the best for last that astrologers predict he will go broke, which astrologers?

As there was similar confusion about an opinion piece just recently, I made a point of inserting "[OPINION]" at the top of the article - to make it doubly clear it's from The Nation's "Opinion" section. Your "Breaking News" reference is presumably to the new animated banner with changing topic titles that appears under TVF's masthead (and which, I think, are also sent out to subscribers as an SMS alert?); I have to agree - opinion pieces like this don't seem to fit into the category of any type of news..... but perhaps the system just takes the titles of whatever topics get opened in News Clippings here. Maybe Admin could clarify?

For myself, as I already commented at Bangkok Pundit, it does seem like Thanong must really have it in for "NotTheNation" ( http://www.notthenation.com/ ) - this looks like the most determined attempt to knock them off their perch I've seen yet.....

As to how Thanong keeps his job..... I suspect that being Managing Editor probably helps.

There is what some may find to be a useful commentary on Thanong's article from Bangkok Pundit at http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...g-loser-fro.htm

[OPINION]

OVERDRIVE

Map Ta Phut court decision will hurt certain pockets

By Thanong Khanthong

The Nation

Published on December 4, 2009

Guess who will get hurt the most from the Supreme Administrative Court's decision that upheld the injunction halting 65 of the 76 petrochemical and industrial projects at the Map Ta Phut complex in Rayong. You should be able to come up with the answer in a second. Somewhere on this planet, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra must be feeling that free-wheeling capitalism is not going his way.

Earlier, Thaksin lambasted a local press report that suggested he had lost a huge amount of money as a result of the financial meltdown in Dubai. This followed his failure to mobilise red-shirt protesters to create a nasty scene in Bangkok, in spite of collaboration from Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

Thaksin denied that he had made any investments in Dubai. In fact, Thaksin has lost badly in Dubai. The Arab emirate is now seeking to restructure some US$59 billion (Bt1.95 trillion) in debt owed by its investment arm, Dubai World. Thaksin has had exposure in the real estate and financial markets in Dubai, otherwise he would not have received a red-carpet welcome in the emirate. He likes to invest during a financial boom. But a boom can also turn into a bust.

Thaksin is also about to lose his Bt76 billion currently frozen by the Thai authorities. The Supreme Court for Political Office Holders is holding a hearing into a charge that Thaksin is unusually rich. If Thaksin fails to counter the charges that he concealed his stocks overseas and that his government amended laws to benefit Shin Corp, he will never get his Bt76 billion back. The ruling is expected to be handed down sometime in January or February next year.

The Supreme Administrative Court's ruling on the 76 projects at Map Ta Phut is also very interesting. There has been talk in the financial markets that Thaksin still owns a chunk of shares in Thai energy companies, particularly PTT and its subsidiaries. During his premiership, Thaksin privatised PTT, the crown jewel of the Thai state enterprises. The Finance Ministry's holding in PTT has shrunk in a hurry to less than 50 per cent, although it was supposed to control at least 75 per cent so that the assets of PTT remained in the public domain.

PTT has more than Bt100 billion in investment commitment at Map Ta Phut. It plans to invest in a natural-gas separation plant, but this has now been put on hold due to the court's ruling.

PTT Chemical, a subsidiary of PTT, will also be affected by its planned investment in an ethane cracker, which will take natural gas feedstock from PTT's natural-gas separation plant.

According to an SCB Securities' forecast, PTT's earnings are likely to fall by 8 per cent if its Map Ta Phut investments are delayed by one year. The downward revision earnings for PTT Chemical is 17 per cent, or Bt8 a share.

If PTT makes money, Thaksin will make money too. If it doesn't, he will not.

It should be noted that the Democrats have not stepped in to take control of the key state agencies or state enterprises since they came to power a year ago. This sounds very fishy. Most of the executives associated with the old Thaksin regime are still running the show at most of these state agencies or state enterprises, which control the country's banking, finance, regulatory regimes and energy.

My guess is that there must be a sort of secret agreement between the Democrats and Thaksin so that the Democrats will not touch Thaksin's goose that lays the golden eggs.

And as we know, we can't trust the politicians. They all are playing out a high drama for us to watch.

In addition, some local astrologers are now predicting that Thaksin will lose all of his money.

-- The Nation December 4, 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/12/04...on_30117922.php

This just in:

Winston Churchill is the most difficult British PM says Adolf Hitler. Mr Hitler went on to say that the German people would never be happy and united as long as Churchill remained in charge. "Bring back that nice Mr Chamberlain" he was quoted as saying, "we never had any problem with him".