Steve2UK

This is the old politics as Surakiart was a TRT Thaksin FM. Cambodia, as with the UAE and other corrupt ratholes are in the bottom rankings of governments globally. The Thai government is acting within its perogatives and in this instance is pursuing sound and rational policy. Stay the course.

Others see the present Thai government behaving like a spoilt schoolboy deprived of his favorite toy! If Cambodia, the UAE are indeed at the bottom ranking of governments globally, where do you see this present bunch of clowns that represent Thailand standing?

Problems are not solved by slouching in the corner sulking, nor by ripping up International agreements in a fit of pique, but by engaging in honest, frank discussion.

Honestly and frankly, not to mention rational to say, Thaksin, Hun Sen and the crown of Cambodia are off the wall in their behaviours. The threesome are engaging in actions that are undiplomatic and anti diplomatic, behaviours and actions that are menacing to Thailand. Cambodia's recent actions are irresponsible and destablizing.

The Abhisit government has made responses which are smooth, appropriate and in the interests of national security and stability.

Maybe not... this hits Hun Sen where he hurts MONEY.

He desperately wants that oil in the sea and not having an aggressive neighbor

preventing him from getting a oil extraction deal in place.

Maybe he foolishly bet Thaksin could do this BIG oil deal faster if he were back in power,

but the up shot is the oil fields are now a mine field for him of the Killing Fields.

In a Bangkok Post article* on 13 November 2009, Suranand Vejjajiva mentions a conversation he had with former foreign minister Surakiart Sathirathai. Paraphrasing (as one must), the substance is that the 2001 MOU contained several advantages [the context suggests he's referring to advantages for Thailand] - which include a provision that both parties were obliged to reach agreement before any activity was allowed in the disputed marine areas. Further, with Thailand abrogating the MOU, hands were no longer tied and Cambodia could act on its own - i.e. without Thai agreement.

Granted that most oil/gas-field developing companies would want assurance before investing many millions of dollars that they wouldn't be left with a legal "dry hole"...... it does IMO suggest that Thailand also has significant national interests to lose - even if it's not clear yet if they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Food for thought.........

*An Op-Ed piece - as with most of his writing this article is well-balanced and contains useful points/insights that most of The Nation's coverage still seems incapable of providing.

Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

And deep down in your heart you knew you were flogging a dead horse jayboy. Or as that particular poster would have it

" flagellate a member of the equidae family of mammalia."

Ahem. You omitted any mention of an advanced state of necrobiosis. Maybe the less erudite would prefer a more commonly used term to express morbidity in which case I direct them to viewing the famous parrot sketch from a Monty Python episode.

All good stuff - I also recommend the much-missed Sir Humphrey's way with language (but he gets it right ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSkWkAXdSyI

Lets face some fact here, as far as Takki is concerned it's not about the money in terms of value, probably not even about absolute power again - it's about saving his square "FACE" after it has been dragged thru the mud on a couple of occasions.

I think you do well to draw attention to the three factors of face, money and power - IMO the first is too often overlooked in comments here. Difficult for most non-Thai (I'm also going to say - maybe not-very-PC - "non-oriental" so as to include Chinese, Koreans, Japanese etc) to gauge the significance of face in this case and probably even most Thai couldn't say for sure how big a factor it is for Thaksin.

My own take (i.e. just my opinion/instinct) is that the first two are uppermost and inter-connected in Thaksin's mind. Dislike him as I do, I still see him as savvy and calculating enough to recognise that he is not going to come back to office. Whether he could resist manipulating behind the scenes (always par for the course in the nexus between Thai politics and "business" phu yai) is another matter........

Watch this name:

Phongphat Chayaphan

If he is involved in the police crackdown it is serious. I have known this man for over 8 years now. One of the few serious police officers in Thailand. When he was a Captain he went and arrested a corrupt general even though everyone told him not to. This man has huge balls and hates corruption.

This was a serious raid.

Not mentioned yet - a sentence towards the end of the article that caught my eye: "Caretaker national police chief Pol General Patheep Tanprasert said the raids and investigation into the motorcycle contract were either politically motivated or had something to do with former police chief Patcharawat Wongsuwan."

Any thoughts?

<snip>

After using all those big words, your brain must be tired - go have a beer!

Usually Sangsom/soda/coke for me - and not usually this early . BTW, if you think mine are big words, you must have missed some of the other "swallowed-a-dictionary" stuff recently (not from me).........

<snip>

On the subject of popularity, I think it's worth looking at a chart of ABAC poll results (and comments about them) at http://www.tumblerblog.com/2009/11/snapsho...its-popularity/ which compares Abhisit v. Thaksin numbers in six polls March-November this year. Health warnings for this: it's a blog quoting/translating results reported in The Manager's article about ABAC polls - and maybe that's enough for many to ignore it for their choice of reason (my main problem, discussed elsewhere, is having much confidence in what ABAC do - but we have to work with what we've got).

As the accompanying text notes, when Abhisit looks strong (Songkran and Cambodia) he gets a rating boost - and Thaksin the reverse. Too early now to know what happens as and when the Cambodia fuss subsides - but post-Songkran Abhisit's figures slumped again while Thaksin's at least recovered and actually went significantly higher than pre-Songkran. An echo, maybe, of the anonymous "Thais forget easily. They will forget this soon." comment cited in the article. The text also quotes Democrat Korbsak Sabhavasu admitting on Twitter that "emotional popularity is short lived".

With that in mind, it seems reasonable to suppose that a] Thaksin takes a stoical long view of his popularity and may well regard the dips as short-lived "blips" (if only through wishful thinking) and b] Abhisit doesn't have that much reason to feel reliably secure. Abhisit can maintain the strong man/alpha male stance for a while (probably playing all the nationalist cards he can find), but there comes a point when those expected to "do" (i.e. govern) must actually get on with doing (i.e. sort out and solve problems). Easy for those on the sidelines - PAD and Pheu Thai - to just make noise; governments are expected to achieve more than that.

<snip>

Follow-up to the above and with the same health warning about polls - although this one is from Bangkok University not ABAC:

"The poll interviewed 1,121 people in Bangkok and the 3 surrounding provinces during November 21-22" and asked the question "If there was an election held in 2010, who do you support between Abhisit and Thaksin?"

1. Abhisit: 30.1%

2. Thaksin: 24.6%

3. Support neither or undecided: 45.3%"

Italics in quotes are from http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pund...short-lived.htm - thus the translation from Thai is also his. More details on the polling profile etc at that link; Thai-readers can see the full details at Bangkok University's own site http://www.ryt9.com/s/bkp/755992

Bangkok Pundit provides his own commentary about the result given where the poll was taken etc. I won't add to it other than to say that it strikes me as remarkable how Thaksin's rating has stayed so high (considering where the poll was taken) and given the Cambodia, Times Online article etc events.

"Sits back and waits" for the increasing familiar tsunami of slurry from those who see a pro-Thaksin motive in what I post...........

We are allowed to have an opinion, but are we allowed to voice it? Not according to Mr. Suthep; he basically said that freedom of expression applies only to Thais, and that any foreigners engaging in political activity will be found and arrested.

That's pretty scary language, from a guy I already thought to be as bad/scary as any of the old political dinosaurs.

Your source?

Whinnie appears to be very 'loosely' quoting from another member whom had in turn paraphrased (with similar spin;) from the paper which is not in TV's alliance. The disinformation campaign grows in the re-telling.

Anyone with common sense knows that Suthep (a minor piece of work himself imho) was referring to migrant workers being herded up as an abundant source of potential 'rent a crowd' protesters. Nice try guys.

As I am that "another member", feel free to explain what "similar spin", "disinformation campaign" and "nice try" (to do what exactly?) you found in my post ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3161037 ). In that post, I explained at length why I was obliged to paraphrase the Bangkok Post report and later ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3161786 ), in response to WTK and others, explained why I used the Bangkok Post source rather than Matichon, acknowledged TAWP's point about Suthep's target (to which I had already referred in the original post) - and went on to look at issues arising. Disappointing if you're now joining in the McCarthy-style reds-under-beds drivel about "False-Flag Friend syndrome" and "Your agenda, masked in conciliation, harmony and magnaminity [sic], is the return of Thaksin" etc etc . From other posts of yours - not to mention your own site, I've always thought rather better of you than to do that.

I did not say what WTK went on to say ("foreigners engaging in political activity will be found and arrested") - a] it's more than I saw Suthep reported as saying (however ambiguously and arguably incorrectly) and b] it's not clear to me whether WTK means only migrant workers or your typical expat or both in that. Feel free to ask him to clarify and to cite a viable source/translation - as I do for what I say on this forum for anything that isn't clearly identified as just my opinion or speculation.

VERY good comments Steve2UK, and another sign that bit by bit Thailand is becoming less free, and freedom of expression is being limited. (And not just for foreigners either).

( BTW, no need to jump through all those hoops in relating to the BK Post; Suthep's inane comments were all over the Thai media as well. I read it in Matichon. )

He basically said that 'freedom of expression applies to Thais only'. Makes you wonder what other rights apply to Thais only. (In Suthep's mind, that must be said). Fortunately some Red groups seem more open, and have a much more enlightened view of Democracy. (Note: "some" does not mean "all".)

Yes, I was aware of the Matichon report - but (not being a Thai-reader) only second-hand and in part. If I had been able to find any mention of that part of what Suthep said in The Nation (just checked again and there still seems to be none - what a fine newspaper of record it is.... not), I would have taken the easier course of quoting verbatim. Anyhow, I thought the readers' comments on the Bangkok Post report were also worth seeing - hence the cumbersome jumping through hoops.....as absurd as it seems. (Hi George - any word yet on at least being able to post a link if not quote?).

Medegen (post #119) already referred to Bangkok Pundit's item - I recommend reading the comments from "poc" and "Ty" there.

As TAWP (post #122) IMO astutely observes, Suthep's remarks seem aimed pretty much at the Burmese (and other) labour force - though I think it's fair to say that no-one can do more than speculate as to whether (if they were to turn up at all) they would have been paid to attend and thus "swell the crowds" as he goes on to suggest.

Regarding the release from the government's news bureau (post #116), I was struck by the quote attributed to Pol Maj-Gen Sumet that "Factory owners must be responsible for the immigrant laborers who take leave and join the rally.....". That's seems reminiscent of laws relating to indentured/tied labour that have generally not been seen outside of feudal systems elsewhere. Incidentally, I note that even the government's release refers only to "hearing that they have been urged to join the UDD movement on 28 November" - rather than TAWP's somewhat more - shall we say? - suggestive "'convinced' to join the protests at basically discount rates and swell the crowds, making the assemblies look bigger on tv than the level of support might be"........ [my italic emphasis]

PARAPHRASE

Deputy PM Suthep said to reporters on 23 November that officials have been told to inform employers that non-Thai workers may not participate in the protests scheduled to start on 29 November. He said that the government will instigate legal proceedings against such people if they don't comply - because only Thai's are entitled to express their views about politics.

As noted, this is necessarily a paraphrase (of what Bangkok Post reported Suthep as saying - presumably on the same occasion as The Nation's report above?) - in order to comply with current restrictions on quoting from them here and which presumably also applies to their translation of anything said in Thai. I have done my level best to retain the meaning and context of their original wording - easy to check that by seeking out the original article in the Post's online Breaking News section (the link to which I am also not allowed to provide). While you're there, I recommend reading the comments on the article.

Now, I don't suggest (and I think it would be foolish to if only based on this) that Suthep is already saying that any and all farang who are not Thai citizens may not take part in (these) protests - and I do think it's clear that he's referring to protests and not to posting on a blog or forum - but I do start to wonder where this might go next. As it stands, IMO what he said does appear to bar farang employees from taking part; if that's the case, one also wonders why he wouldn't similarly bar all non-Thai people (e.g. your typical non-working expats) from taking part?

It's not straightforward to equate what he does say with the Thai Constitution (2007) which specifies "person" and not "Thai national" or "Thai citizen" in the following:

- Section 45: "A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his or her opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means."

- Section 30: "All persons are equal before the law and shall enjoy equal protection under the law."

- Section 30: "Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of the difference in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic or social standing, religious belief, education or constitutionally political view, shall not be permitted."

Then again, as we know from other country's examples (notably US Supreme Court), constitutional provisions are subject to interpretation and therefore dispute. Would your typical non-Thai worker or farang expat in Thailand really want to sit in a detention centre while his/her case works its famously slow way through the Thai legal system? Section 3 states "The sovereign power belongs to the Thai people." and Section 5 states "The Thai people, irrespective of their origins, sexes or religions, shall enjoy equal protection under this Constitution." - i.e. nothing about non-"Thai people" - so arguably a "person" in Sections 30 and 45 is only a Thai. Probably enough ambiguity there to finance a replacement Mercedes for a few lawyers......

Then again also, as we know from other country's examples (notably US), just citing "national security" seems to have a way of at least putting such protections into question if not outright bypassing them. Note that Section 45 continues: "The restriction on liberty under paragraph one [the first line quoted earlier] shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of maintaining the security of State, protecting the rights, liberties, dignity, reputation, family or privacy rights of other person, maintaining public order or good morals or preventing or halting the deterioration of the mind or health of the public." Assuming "law specifically enacted" refers to the ISA and defamation laws for example........ it seems to provide plenty of scope for interpretation. Seems a correction to my earlier observation is in order - not just a replacement Mercedes but extra ones for the lawyers' spouses and/or kids too............

[all constitution quotes taken from http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html ]

Suthep to ask Cabinet to enforce ISA from Nov 28 to Dec 14

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said Monday that the security agencies resolved to have the Cabinet enforce the Internal Security Act in parts of Bangkok from November 28 to December 14 to cope with the red-shirt rally.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with security agencies, Suthep said he will ask the Cabinet to approve the enforcement of the ISA for Dusit district, Rajdamnoen Road and Bang Khun Prom area during the period.

-- The Nation 24 November 2009

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Do I have to bellow "No return of Thaksin!" for the meaning to be clear in that post - or will somebody then say that even doing that is just a "cunning plan" part of my "strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin"?

Half an hour later and what do I see?

<snip>

We seem to be suffering some variation of the False-Flag Friend syndrome here.

Wherein one person pretends to be on a side of a question

or even simply a fence sitter, but on total viewing you can see

their arguments, in an semi-apologetic way, actually consitstantly

lead to the OPPOSITE side of the argument, via twists and turns. etc.

ie.

I don't support Thakin's return, but for X,Y,Z of external reasons,

I support all the mechanisms to bring him back,

but I don't want that to happen...

But if it does, it's for all the right reasons....

A good foil vs the totally disputing techniques of net-aganda.

Except the road to hel_l is paved with good intentions,

such that 3 good things that together bring about a MUCH MUCH worse bad thing,

should be reason enough to break the chain of good things at some point.

Thinks: I wonder if I could get work as a fortune teller..........

For those discussing deals, I d be genuinely interested if they think:

1. A deal is possible now or later

2. A deal cannot be done until after a bunch of violence

3. A deal can be struck to satisfy all

4. Why the sdies wont just go for a total win

My boss Khun Thaksin doesn't pay me enough to work Sundays, so I'm afraid you'll have to either wait until tomorrow or refer back to my earlier propaganda comments. Meanwhile, I'll leave it to one or more of the weekend duty guys to answer. Must dash - got a call from Dubai on hold..........

Thanks for confirming what I already started to suspect from your "input". At least Samuian comes out with the same guff early enough that I don't waste time framing sensible replies. The only real surprise here is that you don't also accuse me of being paid. Enough - I'm more than happy to leave others to judge the rational merit of what you say and what that says about you.

Interesting; you forgot to laden me into that grouping.

I know both of these fine people first hand and personally,

and they are both very experienced in Thailand and very informed.

For Samuian english is not his first language, so occasionally his comments are grammatically odd,

but what he says is based on cogent observation.

Publicus has the grammar, construction and observational abilities of an old school professional journalist,

and so states his case better than most, and doesn't shy from the Sisyphusian labors of stating them here.

I just call em as I see'm.

But it is not lost on me which thoughtful individuals you choose to dispute.

Which begs the question; why?

I take "grouping" to mean those blatantly or by innuendo trying to label me as pro-Thaksin, "red" etc. As best I recall, you haven't done that - though your last line could IMO be taken as you now making a start - so why would I "laden" you into that grouping?

Samuian made a post aimed at me which I said I didn't understand and asked him to clarify ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3148253 ). He still hasn't. He made another ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3150324 ) which IMO put the first in a different light - hence my observation. Grammar doesn't come into it.

Regarding your last three lines and closing question - I thought McCarthy-style tactics were long gone . Returning to your first line, you know very well that I have "disputed" your postings often - but always for clearly stated or self-evident reasons. If you choose to spend (IMO waste) your time looking for others rather than respond on the issues........ up to you.

<snip>

You are of course free to construe as you are apt to. I must say you set the bar of the standards of an amnesty/pardon so low that only snakes could pass under it, so thanks for your closing sentiment.

It's not my bar to set, nor do I try to set it or even express approval of where it's set - I just describe accurately what happens out there in the real world.

I don't understand Steve why you simply dismiss the conditions of amnesties / pardons as being out of our control and therefore somehow irrelevant to our thoughts and opinions as to the merits of such action. They are central to mine.

For clarity, I need to split your comment in two and respond to each half separately.

1) "simply dismiss the conditions of amnesties / pardons as being out of our control" - a] my wording was actually responding to the implication that I was trying to set the bar anywhere - i.e. I was saying that I was not proposing/"urging" anything but merely gauging what seems to me likely as ending up workable for both sides (plainly, open to anyone to agree/disagree with my gauge); b] as with just about everything else here in Thailand, we have no vote on such matters in any legal sense.

2) "therefore somehow irrelevant to our thoughts and opinions as to the merits of such action." - IMO not having that vote in no way disqualifies us from saying what we think here (for all the usual reasons we post on such matters) or even from trying to influence Thai partners/friends etc who might get a vote in the legal sense (e.g. referendum). Sorry, but I really didn't say what you seem to infer from it; bluntly, I think we should all go on mouthing off the way we do on any subject we please and for whatever reason we choose..... that's a forum, folks; some of us will respond accurately and some inaccurately. At the risk of inflating our own importance/relevance, I do think there are signs that the government does track views/suggestions/analyses here on TVF and may even (if only very occasionally) take them on board. If they do, them admitting as much is, of course, another matter..........

I have to say that when i read Publicus your comments about "sitting back" i was confused about how they related to what Steve had just said, so i scrolled back to reread Steve's comments and still could find no connection to the "sitting back" comment.

Rixalex, I'm puzzled that you pick IMO the least consequential part (my "We'll see.") to query in Publicus' posts; if what it related to was somehow unclear to anyone in the original, surely I made it abundantly clear afterwards? Did you miss the rest? For example:

"Trying to give a pseudo morality to your statements.... <snip>.... revealing of your strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin to power and the purse.... <snip> .... Your agenda, masked in conciliation, harmony and magnaminity, is the return of Thaksin".

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3153759

"<snip>.... I don't know you or your purposes here or your intents,.... <snip>

Very sensible, if rather obvious, point - and then totally discarded a few off-tack lines later when he reverts to

" <snip> .... So, given this reality, Thaksin is your guy, eh!.... <snip>"

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3154008

More of the same after your post#147....

Thanks for the assist rixalex as I wouldn't want conditions to exist by which a fellow forumist would be wont to think or believe I'd attempt consciously to misconstrue or misrepresent a post. Concomitantly, nor would I be likely to genuinely and comprehensively misunderstand the post of a forumist. While the "we'll see" statement is used regularly in discourse, it can on occasion be open-ended enuff or aloof enuff to lend itself to differing inferences, which I think may have occurred here.

In short, are you saying that you may have got the wrong end of the stick on that particular point?

In short, I said what I said irrespective of trying to place words in my mouth.

The forumist being referenced is disappointed and frustrated, tho I wouldn't say heartbroken, that he learned in rather abrupt terms that he didn't have a ready sucker convert he could manipulate to his side, the side which favors amnesty and pardons for Thaksin and the entire class of Thaksin's criminal associates who have been prohibited by the courts from standing for office again for five years from the ruling.

The forumist had thought I was a potential convert to the general cause, to which he thoroughly subscribes.... <snip> .... A few other forumists of the same hue as the forumist at this thread, have similarly tried without success to expolit for their own purposes my sentiments towards the rural agrarian dispossed....<snip>

[* Seems to me you were just asking a question about what Publicus meant? Or am I now also putting words in your mouth? ]

I could "sit back and wait" for someone to produce a quote from me which shows I want (or even predict) a return of Thaksin to power/office - or even a phrase that anyone might reasonably take to imply that I want/predict it - but that would be a very long wait. On the contrary, I'm on record here ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3111436 ) referring to "The thought must occur that it will be difficult to ensure that Thaksin stays bought off. Difficult to guarantee that, of course, but I think the calculation is that there will be such a tide of changed circumstances as to sweep away or at least neutralise most of the existing support for him......". Do I have to bellow "No return of Thaksin!" for the meaning to be clear in that post - or will somebody then say that even doing that is just a "cunning plan" part of my "strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin"?

There's plenty more non-sequitur stuff from Publicus that grossly misrepresents what I actually say including that I'm one of those "urging" an amnesty; to state the blindingly obvious, predicting is not urging and neither is looking at what an overall "slate cleaning" amnesty might include or exclude. But it's as tedious to list it all as it would be for others to plough through that list. Moreover, the mods would likely, IMO rightly, bring the exchange to a close (as I have already tried to do - only to see Publicus since then introducing yet more of the same guff). As said before but this time finally, I leave it to others to gauge the rational merits of all this from Publicus. As I think you already know from our exchanges here, I'll engage keenly in debate on the issues with someone who disagrees with my observations however strongly - but I really can't be bothered to waste time and effort framing sensible and detailed responses to people who evidently either can't or won't read them except through a red mist (pun intended) and who then go on ad nauseam to misrepresent them so comprehensively.

You certainly get indignant about my pointing out that your referencing of the S Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not applicable to Thai society and civilisation so would therefore be a bogus reference on your part.

Yeh, so, I don't know you or your purposes here or your intents, so I rationally wouldn't attempt to assign to you the (vile) status of being a money mercernay of the Thaksin gang. I can not presume you'd need cash in hand that desperately or desirably

The clear point at this time is that you cannot respond to my statement that you ingenously seek legitimacy to support your purposes here by citing the S Africa TRCC. It's inconceviable that such a body, its purposes and goals could in a million years be established or become accomplished in the former LOS and present day Thailand due to the reality that every Thai in (and out of) power is absolutely incapable of truth. The truth condems them all, which in reality condems all of Thai society and civilization.

That is, Thai culture society and civilization are as incapable of producing a transformative leader in the 21st century as it was during the whole of the 20th century.

So, given this reality, Thaksin is your guy, eh! Thaksin is the absolute worst of the lot. Again, Thaksin is naturally divisive and polarizing. Witness you, I and so many others at this forum and in so many places elsewhere.

<snip>

Yes, all very familiar dogmatic stuff. Your last paragraph at least makes a start on responding to some of what I said - but is actually inaccurate about remorse being a prerequisite for amnesties; even when Catholics are involved, it's not necessarily like in the confessional. The South African TRC* did at least implicitly call for it - but is almost unique in that; other amnesties have required no such thing - at most undertakings to cease previous activities that would otherwise attract legal sanction.

BTW if your first sentence is intended to refer to my last, you either genuinely and comprehensively misunderstand what I said or you're consciously setting out to misconstrue and now misrepresent it; "We'll see" clearly refers specifically to the observation in my closing paragraph - and is patently not an expression of any generalised "philosophical attitude of let's sit back to wait and see" - certainly not mine. Frankly, if your responses continue to be so hair-splitting and/or disingenuous then don't expect me to bother responding further.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Rec...South_Africa%29

You are of course free to construe as you are apt to. I must say you set the bar of the standards of an amnesty/pardon so low that only snakes could pass under it, so thanks for your closing sentiment.

It's not my bar to set, nor do I try to set it or even express approval of where it's set - I just describe accurately what happens out there in the real world. More of the same from you, I see........ Bye.

Trying to give a pseudo morality to your statements by citing the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its unique sincerety of purpose and outcome is revealing of your strategy and tactics in seeking the return of Thaksin to power and the purse. As with Diogenes in his time and place, one can search endlessly to find an honest member of the Thai elite. Indeed, Thai culture and civilization is incapable of producing at the least one single leader who could rise to any times and conditions that would be half as serious, challenging and demanding of these we experience contemporarily.

Your agenda, masked in conciliation, harmony and magnaminity, is the return of Thaksin. The little light colonel hasn't any notion of any of the foregoing.

Thanks for confirming what I already started to suspect from your "input". At least Samuian comes out with the same guff early enough that I don't waste time framing sensible replies. The only real surprise here is that you don't also accuse me of being paid. Enough - I'm more than happy to leave others to judge the rational merit of what you say and what that says about you.

<snip>

Yes, all very familiar dogmatic stuff. Your last paragraph at least makes a start on responding to some of what I said - but is actually inaccurate about remorse being a prerequisite for amnesties; even when Catholics are involved, it's not necessarily like in the confessional. The South African TRC* did at least implicitly call for it - but is almost unique in that; other amnesties have required no such thing - at most undertakings to cease previous activities that would otherwise attract legal sanction.

BTW if your first sentence is intended to refer to my last, you either genuinely and comprehensively misunderstand what I said or you're consciously setting out to misconstrue and now misrepresent it; "We'll see" clearly refers specifically to the observation in my closing paragraph - and is patently not an expression of any generalised "philosophical attitude of let's sit back to wait and see" - certainly not mine. Frankly, if your responses continue to be so hair-splitting and/or disingenuous then don't expect me to bother responding further.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Rec...South_Africa%29

You are of course free to construe as you are apt to. I must say you set the bar of the standards of an amnesty/pardon so low that only snakes could pass under it, so thanks for your closing sentiment.

It's not my bar to set, nor do I try to set it or even express approval of where it's set - I just describe accurately what happens out there in the real world. More of the same from you, I see........ Bye.

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.

An update (with apologies for my earlier inaccuracy). Seeing today's Bangkok Post article (similar in The Nation, I think) about government action on private lending (i.e. the loan shark style of business) referring to an accepted maximum of 15% per annum, I quizzed the Thai friend again and he now explains that the 3% figure he gave me previously was per month. How that can work out to 15% p.a. is beyond my understanding - but I'm only the son of an accountant and not one myself.......

While I'm here, I'll take the opportunity to respond to TAWP's later post. While I agree in principle with the general sentiment of "People taking short-term loans are in most regards not the kind that should be borrowing money from anyone", in practice there are many for whom "must" trumps "shouldn't" when they absolutely need the money but simply haven't got it. While I'm sure there are many wrinkles yet to be ironed out, the new scheme announced by the government is at least a good start and should help to deal with some of the excesses - usually from long-term loans at rates that compound ruinously. That said, as I know from more than just my present neighbourhood, there are moderate and accepted versions of the private lending business (usually very short-term loans) that have nothing whatever to do with baseball bats and the like. Yes, it's "A nice niche to sell in" (and highly profitable for the lender) - but that niche is people with short-term but urgent financial needs to be met. Is the recommended alternative to just say "tough"?

The philosophical attitude of let's sit back to wait and see is a tenuous one at best. There are less tenuous matters before us.

Thaksin wants the loot back and he wants the balance of his planned but aborted 20+ years of rule back. The guy's done nothing since being deposed that would or could indicate he is capable of governing Thailand in any reasonably competent and wise ways.

His awful behaviour while in office has been eclipsed only by his abomnible and ever scheming behaviours since being booted out of his appointed position of acting interim PM.

The guy shows no self reflection, no introspection, no shame, no indication that he might do well to reconsider his mindset or his attitudes. He's still spewing the glib and facile SOS about himself being of and from the people, a democrat, a victim, a patriot, a good man etc etc. Indeed his newest pal Hun Sen is one of his oldest cronies.

Thaksin remains the unbalanced, intemperate scheming person he always has been. There isn't any indication he can or would change or improve himself to make himself more acceptable to those he has driven away from him.

Amnesties or pardons have certain prerequisites to them, remorse being one, which are absent in the absolute in the case of Thaksin. Thaksin gives no reason to hope he could or would imrove the many faults so many others find in him, thus making it impossible to even consider his continuous whining and whinging.

Yes, all very familiar dogmatic stuff. Your last paragraph at least makes a start on responding to some of what I said - but is actually inaccurate about remorse being a prerequisite for amnesties; even when Catholics are involved, it's not necessarily like in the confessional. The South African TRC* did at least implicitly call for it - but is almost unique in that; other amnesties have required no such thing - at most undertakings to cease previous activities that would otherwise attract legal sanction.

BTW if your first sentence is intended to refer to my last, you either genuinely and comprehensively misunderstand what I said or you're consciously setting out to misconstrue and now misrepresent it; "We'll see" clearly refers specifically to the observation in my closing paragraph - and is patently not an expression of any generalised "philosophical attitude of let's sit back to wait and see" - certainly not mine. Frankly, if your responses continue to be so hair-splitting and/or disingenuous then don't expect me to bother responding further.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Rec...South_Africa%29

The content of the forum is the product of all 87,000+ members.

What was clarified was that if you wish to post political cartoons yourself, there's an avenue to do so. If you elect not to do, then that's your perogative, but at the same time, it's unfair to call the forum one-sided because the members decided to opt out on something that they can do if they want to.

If you want to see to another side of political cartoons, that it's incumbent upon you, as a member, to post them.

But be aware that posting cartoons critical of the current PM might attract the attention of Democrat party executive and occasional spokesman Satit Pitutacha.................

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/29...cs_30101577.php

Likewise congratulations to George and all the ThaiVisa team.

A question........ In the full interview, I read: "The forum has to be a place for all members to feel comfortable posting in, without fear of flaming or cliquish behavior." OK, flaming we all know about (and don't do it) - but could George please define what he means by "cliquish behavior"?

Stephf sometimes send his cartoons directly to me, and we normally publish them. If you guys have other cartoons and want them published on Thaivisa, we will consider it if we get the authors permission. Just email support.

Thank you for the clarification. That should put aside the false claim that the forum is one-sided.

It also reinforces Bagwan's very good observation:

The material in the forum is the product of the members

..have we seen other cartoons on TV other than the ones about Hun Sen and Thaksin published in the OP ?

Q: if the material in the forum is the product of the members...which members are those ?

As far as I know, I've never seen any cartoons, posted by regular members.

LaoPo

Oh, Lao Po....... I think the newly-minted "cornerback" knows whereof he speaks. As I recall, (the now banned) Sriracha John used to post cartoons, too - in addition to many pictures from diverse sources........... not unlike the one featured earlier here by (the also newly-minted - and now banned) AoUdomAl. Fair to say, though, I can't recall him (Sriracha John, I mean) posting any that weren't in some way to Thaksin's discredit either by content or comment.

I would email her if I had an address ?????????????

http://www.empressdentalclinic.com/

(e-mail addresses, 'phone etc bottom right of the first page

----------------------------

Interesting to see the wonderful Dr Kassara also featured there - another face (well, face behind a mask) that I know very well from root-canal work at Grace. I knew that many specialists work at hospitals as well as Grace - but seems to be rival clinics, too.

Given that Thaksin has shown us repeatedly that his evil brain needs a post mortem examination for the good of humanity, the prospect of his returning to power would need to be prevented as the highest priority.

Careful now - you'll have some folk thinking that you'd really prefer the brain dissection to be ante mortem.

Ante or post the key word is mortem

Politically of course