Steve2UK

A pardon or amnesty of politicians is one thing, doing it to coup makers is quite another completely unacceptable matter. Should all coups everywhere be pardoned, or only some - and which ones, when, where and why?

Voters have approved a constitution that immunizes the coup makers. That's not enuff, you want a pardon/amnesty of the generals by the head of state?

To answer the last question first (and also remembering about whom you're talking), my take is that it would likely be seen as pragmatic/convenient for the amnesty to deem the matter of 2006 coup participants as already dealt with - they already got their immunity in the manner you described. The Thai head of state signs constitutions to bring them (and thus all their provisions including such immunities) into effect. The 2007 constitution is no exception and was duly signed - thus IMO they're already pardoned in practice if not in name.

For your first much broader question(s) I have no answer to give you - any more than I'm equipped to give you a detailed line-by-line proposal for how the "slate-cleaning" would/should operate here. Governments can call on panels of many heads wiser than mine to get to that stage - but first they have to want to.

Given your first response, I don't see why you specifically stated in the earlier post the boys (in the green) uniforms should be included in a pardon/amnesty as you agree with my point that the generals who led the 2006 coup already had been granted immunity by the voters when they approved the constitution referendum. Seems redundant and out of your way for you to have said, that's all.

To your second point concerning the prerequisite of having to want to grant a pardon/amnesty - no one I know wants to return the treasury or the levers of power to Thaksin and his gang. Handing Thaksin his 76 bn loot back would be official state suicide too.

I think you know I'm all for being as exact as possible with wording, not confusing speculation with fact etc - but I do think you're getting down to splitting hairs here. I'm just suggesting the coup-leaders would stay immunified/amnestied/pardoned (whatever their technical legal status currently is) - as opposed to confronting the possibility of their immunity being revoked that one assumes arises if the 2007 constitution were itself to be revoked (as some call for). If there were to be any kind of return to an amended 1997 constitution, I'm fairly sure that the relevant powers-that-be would insist that the existing immunities are absolutely guaranteed to be transferred into it before they even think of giving the required nod to any of the rest. Likewise if the 2007 version were to be amended - keep their immunity intact.

On your second point, you may recall that I previously suggested* that the "reconciliation pitch" would include "Thaksin's assets largely unfrozen - '(i.e "we've sorted out his main gripe - he's OK with that, so drop it")'. Note "largely" not completely - with amnesties it's usual that everyone takes a share of the pain; how much pain i.e. what proportion of the assets is forfeited remains to be gauged - I assume that you and those you know would want it to be 100%. I think you won't be surprised that my logic and assessment tells me (and now you) that you and they are being unrealistic. The reverse of what you previously referred to as a "deal breaker" for those absolutely opposed to any such deal is almost certainly a parallel deal breaker for Thaksin. I have also commented elsewhere that there would in any case remain the question of, having bought him off (as in "he's OK with that"), how to ensure that he stays "bought". I nowhere refer to handing "the levers of power to Thaksin" - though perhaps you regard having the larger part of his funds available as being the same thing. We differ on that - I see the money being the object of his game and the return to power as not much more than an occasional pipedream that he'll have less and less often if/when the money issue is resolved for him...... whereas I suspect you see the return to power as the primary object.

Overall, it comes as no surprise whatever to me that there is still considerable resistance to amnesty even in principle (I said before "Always controversial and objected to by some" - and I'm happy to amend that to "many"); it always takes time and plenty of punishing stalemate for the message to sink in and become acceptable. We'll see.........

* http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3112283

A pardon or amnesty of politicians is one thing, doing it to coup makers is quite another completely unacceptable matter. Should all coups everywhere be pardoned, or only some - and which ones, when, where and why?

Voters have approved a constitution that immunizes the coup makers. That's not enuff, you want a pardon/amnesty of the generals by the head of state?

To answer the last question first (and also remembering about whom you're talking), my take is that it would likely be seen as pragmatic/convenient for the amnesty to deem the matter of 2006 coup participants as already dealt with - they already got their immunity in the manner you described. The Thai head of state signs constitutions to bring them (and thus all their provisions including such immunities) into effect. The 2007 constitution is no exception and was duly signed - thus IMO they're already pardoned in practice if not in name.

For your first much broader question(s) I have no answer to give you - any more than I'm equipped to give you a detailed line-by-line proposal for how the "slate-cleaning" would/should operate here. Governments can call on panels of many heads wiser than mine to get to that stage - but first they have to want to.

<snipped>

The point is, whenever Hun Sen opens his mouth sh*it comes out, mostly very rude things, beside that he is an ugly dictator. So he can tell something complete inappropriate, but if he hears similar things about himself he gets upset? I don't know Kasits speech but most probably there isn't anything wrong in it. Hun Sen is an uneducated corrupt mass murder who is in power due to faked elections. Now he finds his super sensitive broken heart because Kasit used bad words and starts crying?

I doubt that Hun Sen has a "super sensitive broken heart" or, come to that, that he's much given to crying - and, unsurprisingly, I've never suggested either of those things. On the same basis as animatic, you now have the opportunity to get to "know Kasits speech" so you'll be able to decide based on what you hear rather than guessing that "most probably there isn't anything wrong in it". I only provided evidence that was implicitly asked for - up to you if you choose to ignore it.

(I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is).

Wasn't trying to paint you as "Red" Steve, i simply got the impression from your history of posts that you would favour the government making a greater effort to find common ground with the "Reds", and that you would find it more acceptable than i would if concessions were made, (i'm talking slates being cleaned), in the interests of the country moving on (apologise if i'm putting too many words into your mouth or drawing wrong conclusions - just the impression i got).

Anyway, what i'm getting to, albeit cumbersomely and slowly, is that Suthep is in my opinion just a little more inclined to this softer approach than Abhisit is. Marginally anyway.

Actually, I think you sum up (some of) my views pretty well. To me "favour" carries potential connotations of sympathies, so it's not the word I would use to refer to what I think is probably an inevitability - i.e. that there has to be reconciliation at some point on entirely practical/pragmatic grounds and an all-sides slate cleaning would provide the opportunity*. The more I mull it, the more I'm coming round to your view of Suthep being more attuned to that prospect than is Abhisit - as and when it becomes politically feasible. Bluntly, I think that this has more to do with old-hand Suthep having a better grasp of the "game" and practical factors (keeping up with and squaring the circle of the different interests involved) than learning-on-the-job (as I see him) Abhisit. Kind of like the old soldier puffing nonchalantly on his cigarette during a bombardment while the newbies react every which way - he has seen it all before and they haven't. Put another way, I see him as a much better poker-player than Abhisit - and relatively unencumbered by anything approaching ideology. Abhisit started by putting reconciliation high on his list of priorities and since then IMO has simply lost his way/grip - and is now either too vulnerable or just too nervy (or both) to get it back on track.

* I've posted about this (basically some form of amnesty) before - and immediately got jumped on by the usual suspects saying stuff like "Oh and what about so-and-so who did such-and-such" ? They really do need to look at why/how amnesties happen and what they entail - limitations and problems as well as benefits. You can go on fighting each other to a log-jam standstill while everything around you continues to suffer - or you can IMO get real and find the means/mechanism/testicular fortitude to "move on" (definitely a phrase I embrace). Incidentally, I was careful on that occasion to specify "offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)" - a shade of grey seemingly lost on specialists in black-and-white one-size-fits-all thinking.

sorry spoke on the phone will writting that....

I mean it is much cheaper to develop a city state than a large one, as infrastructure costs less. I wanted to write if they "wouldn't be on the seaside, like Chiang Mai" so no harbor, less trading.

Your link does not tell much. I tried to find something more clear, but didn't find much. Even Wikipedia doesn't has much. Seems from 1932 all few years everything changed.

Better understood now and mai pen rai ...... The combination of you introducing new aspects and the way you referred to them didn't (for me) connect with the discussion - now I do see what you were getting at.

Going back to civil rights under "coup-enforced rule"....... if it really wasn't clear let me expand just a bit. The phrase is intended to describe what happens under just about any coup-installed government - i.e. almost always where the previous (usually legitimately elected) government is removed by military coup and the generals (junta) run the government they create. So, yes, Suchinda is one example for his 1991 overthrowing of the government led by (Chatichai - also a general but elected PM) and for his actions leading to Black May 1992 (though he was by then appointed PM after an election) - but there are many more. Generals do go into politics/government other than by coup (witness Sonthi now as opposed to 2006), but I was talking about generals seizing power by coup - and about what they do with that power - hence "coup-enforced rule". Thinking about it, "coup-imposed rule" is more precise.

While I think it's unlikely we'll ever agree on the PAD political views you express, kudos to you for expressing them - particularly when and because you give thought-through reasons for your views instead of just parroting others' views as so many do. I hope it also goes without saying that I don't go after people for their less than perfect use of English as their second language; I'm a Brit but also half-German and bilingual so I know better than to do that - anyway IMO it's always a cheap and shameful tactic.

Interesting..... Personally, I don't go along with including Suthep on that list - with all his old-hand experience and political savvy I think he has generally been far more sensible and pragmatic than his "boss" (I put that in quotes for reasons I've discussed elsewhere).

I'm guessing you are refering here to Suthep's somewhat (only somewhat) more conciliatory approach to dealing with Thaksin? It's an approach i personally don't favour, although not the reason for my dislike of the man. For that you have to look back at his history.

Actually no, apart from Suthep's closeness to the current crop of key generals, I was thinking much more generally than anything he has said (however tenuous - and come to that I don't recall seeing anything much at all) about conciliating Thaksin. (I'm starting to think Samuian may be trying to paint me as "Red", "pro-Thaksin" etc - and I hope you're not following him in that forlorn quest if he is). Like hammered, I have views about the likelihood of a traditional Thai-style "compromise/pragmatic accommodation" being reached with a view to try and neutralise a major issue - but I don't think that colours my view of Suthep.

As to dislike of Suthep based on his history, I haven't seen much to separate him from the familiar traits of just about all the "old hands" in Thai politics - though maybe not on Newin's scale. Looks like I should do more research on him - beyond the nineties (BBC etc) stuff that's being reported and commented on currently .

The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM;

Agreed. And it's a sad fact.

The present government would be much more appealing if they came minus Kasit, Suthep and Newin, to name a few. But alas, without them the coalition would not have been able to form.

On the bright side, we do now have a PM who i believe has good intentions, and in my opinion is doing a good job of both working with some rather unsavoury characters, as well as dealing with the continual nuisance that Thaksin is proving himself to be.

I don't think there have been much trickier times in Thailand in which to come to power.

Interesting..... Personally, I don't go along with including Suthep on that list - with all his old-hand experience and political savvy I think he has generally been far more sensible and pragmatic than his "boss" (I put that in quotes for reasons I've discussed elsewhere). That said, I've always been very uneasy about Suthep's cosy relationship with the generals - see today's Bangkok Post for more on that but the article (about him and them) there only reinforces the view that I've had for a long while. Then again, IMO at least - no support from the generals = "bye-bye government".

It may be surprising to some, but I also agree about Abhisit's "good intentions" - even if some of what he has done/not done has really strained my belief compared to when he took office. Very tricky times, awkward cards dealt to him - and difficult to imagine anyone playing them significantly better than Abhisit has.

...................edite to shorten..........

--------snip>

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

"It didn't exactly glow with credibility then"

.....is this because you say so?

It's the same twisted logic applied to Mr.Thaksin's cases...

Why the heck shouldn't he or anyone else have said what he said,

despite it was pretty innocent stuff, only when taken out of context it seems as if he is glorifying this event.

many consider him "a good man for the job" he didn't really do any damage to the country, did he?

Was the occupation of Stansted's runway an act of terrorism, are strikes, occupations of buildings,

closing down of factories, considered "acts of terrorism in the EU?

Or is it simply the fact that the Abhisit Government is going quite strong?

As best as I can make out, you seem to think that the link I provided earlier relates to Kasit's "fun, excellent food/music etc" comments to an audience of journalists and diplomats in late December 2008 (when he had already been named FM but days before being sworn in) about the airport occupation - and by inference also the GH occupation. It doesn't. As I already made clear (except to you, it seems) about the venue and the date (i.e. close to two months before the airport occupation), it's Kasit's speech to PAD supporters at GH. As it happens, I long ago took the trouble to listen to a recording of Kasit's impromptu remarks at that December event and formed the view that he was just alarmingly careless in his choice of words - given his appointment as FM and the nature of the audience. My take was/is that he was attempting to compare PAD protests favourably with the frequent violence of the then current Greek street riots (which he mentions several times). And, yes, his remarks were (IMO entirely predictably) taken out of context - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-minister.html for just one of many worldwide examples....... and the Daily Telegraph is well-known as a very conservative (some say right-wing) newspaper. Clear now?

I use "IMO" quite often to indicate when I'm expressing an opinion, but not usually when I think it's so obviously an opinion and phrased in such a way that it isn't likely to be confused (well, except by you apparently) with stating something as a known "fact". Happy to insert a retrospective "IMO" into "It didn't exactly glow with credibility then" if you need it. How that constitutes "twisted logic" is beyond me to understand - just as I still have no idea what you were trying to say/get at in an earlier post that you still haven't clarified despite being asked ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3148253 ). Re-reading that one in the light of this later salvo leads me to think that maybe you were just trying to sling mud at me rather than deal with all of the points I raised.

For reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I actually disagree with the view (I take it you are actually expressing it as a view rather than a "fact"?) contained in your closing line "Or is it simply the fact that the Abhisit Government is going quite strong?" - at least for the long term. You seem to be suggesting (though who knows?) that it somehow motivates what I have written. The logic (twisted or otherwise) of that totally escapes me.

Interesting all the push for change of government now and the talk of before February being crucial and of course specualion that Abhisit will go for an election in June. the unmentionable one has an article today explaining why an election before September next year is unlikely if the government (minus maybe Abhisit) and their backers have their way, barring a red success in bringing them down of course. Many analysts and news reports are missing a potential huge handover. Have a look at the unmentionable media mouthpiece if you get a chance.

Well, I think we're at least allowed to mention the Bangkok Post (but I share what I think are your views about not being able to do much more than that). That being the case, it's presumably permitted to also mention the name of the article's author - Wassana Nanuam (who writes regularly with an insider's insight into army matters) to help others find it. I won't push my luck further and say anything more than that her articles always illuminate and this one is no exception.

Does anyone doubt that the army plays an ongoing pivotal role in Thai politics?

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

I am also sure that your mother wouldn't want to hear what Hun Sen speaks all the day. And what has it to do with appointing criminal + mass murder Thaksin as adviser???

Kasit did not do anything wrong as FM. And why put that Thai in jail for being a spy?

Yes, I've heard that opening line from Abhisit before. It didn't exactly glow with credibility then - what makes you think that you repeating it now adds any? The fact remains that the man speaking those words is now FM; are reports of what he said still "nothing more than propaganda talk"? To state the obvious in answer to your bizarre questions, "it" has precisely nothing to do with the other stuff you wheel out.

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.

how many percent of farmers has Singapore? What is the percentage of foreigner in Sing? How many miles of road, copper, glass fiber do you need in average to connect everyone to electric, street internet in Thailand in compare to Thailand? Or how would have Sing done it if they are not on the seaside like Chang Mai?

Speak with Singaporeans about politics! Most will change the topic immediately. Maybe no punishment but everyone know "Don't touch it" In Thailand everyone never was afraid to tell their opinion. "coup-enforced rule" what do you mean with that? Suchinda?

h90, regarding your first couple of lines (the bit between "how" and "Chang Mai") I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about; farmers - who mentioned them?; foreigners - who mentioned them?; let me know the road/copper/glass fiber figures when you find out - but who mentioned them?; "on the seaside like Chang Mai"? - I guess it's late and you didn't check the map?

By "coup-enforced rule" - I mean "coup-enforced rule". What's not clear about that? You want a list of generals? Here's a few since 1971:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...19/20060919/%5D

Further back than that, you can do your own research.

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

Singapore is a city state, so I don't see why it can't be compared with the others - smaller area and population but the same principle applies. That said, I have friends there who'd be surprised to hear that their civil liberties are not tightly controlled and curtailed. Not "crushed"..... but then that also seems a rather extreme and emotive term for anything that has happened in Thailand except during multiple periods of coup-enforced rule.

I have yet to see a full accurate quote of what Kasit said in that PAD Airport speech.

I have seen several people cut an paste and NON-quote repeatedly implying this is fact.

Till I see a exact, complete quote in a paper of record, it is nothing more than propaganda talk.

Though I have no doubt nothing much nice was said about Hun Sen in any case.

Rather than trust to the vagaries of "a exact, complete quote in a paper of record" (translated into English I assume), here is a link to a video of the speech from the horse's mouth. It streams from the ASTV/Manager website and was evidently recorded off-air from the ASTV live broadcast, so I think you'll be able to accept its authenticity. It's in Thai so, if you're not fluent in the language, you'll need to find a Thai-speaker of your choice to translate for you. May I suggest that you choose someone not easily shocked. A Thai friend of mine translated Kasit's remarks about Hun Sen for me and he tells me that the language in the original is not something he would want his mother to hear - somewhat coarse, to put it mildly. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my or his subjective word for that.

mms://tv.manager.co.th/videoclip/11News1/Footage/Kasit_151008_H.wmv

(cut and paste the link into your browser and it will stream the video to run in most players - e.g. GOM, VLC, Media Player etc)

[incidentally, Cougar52 got the location wrong - the speech was made at Government House on 15 October 2008]

snip------>.........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)...............<-----snip

Interesting act you've written..."Alpha Male" always thought these were the one's who carry the shield around where Thaksin is standing on...Samak, Chalerm, Nattawut, the "Northeastern Rambo", Noppadon the "Chief Denier", I mean there are many, many people around the Thaksin Circus which fit the "alpha male" role way more perfect then Abhisit and his team and now the sabre rattling eEx-Khmer Rouge Hun Sen with is incredible record for being one of the "best and most honest world leaders" ...I found your 'cris-cross-design" a quite interesting concept tries to sell the adverse for real.... it's a well known red shirt tactic and therefor far from honest, objective or unbiased!

Sorry Samuian, try as I might I can't fathom what you're talking about or getting at. Happy to respond if you choose to clarify.

The reds aren't going to go away because, apart from the concern for Thaksin that so many have, people from the North and Northeast in general do have more than enuff historically legitimate concerns to press against the elites of Thai society the PAD represents. The long established Thai elites not only haven't any concern for the peasantry north and east of Bangkok, they haven't any concern for the poor and uneducated of Thailand in general.

However, the poor and neglected of Thailand will get nowhere unless and until they decidedly and clearly separate themselves from Thaksin. Thaksin is eternally divisive. He's a dangerous strongman who is the antithesis to the more ligitimate democracy the peasants claim they seek. Thaksin has served their purposes. The fact has been true for some time already. Thaksin back in power would resemble the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution.

Excellent summary. If I differ at all, it's only* that I do see the poor and neglected getting there - but more slowly until/unless they make the split rather than never. That said, past precedent e.g. Assembly of the Poor etc doesn't reassure - pretty much all of the previous rural/poor movements eventually got stitched up by those with the power (including Thaksin). I could add that I think they're less interested in democracy than at long last getting a fair shake (share, if you like).

*Oh - and Thaksin back in power more like the early Napoleonic (no - not as emperor) phase than Robespierre & Co.

Dont want to comment on polls as they bore me However, whether or not Abhisit can maintain ther strong man/alpha male image is also dependent on what his opponents do. I think we can fairly assume there is some opinion within the PTP hierarchy that Thaksin has tossed a few too many bones the last few days. However, why would anyone assume the same will continue. You need your opponent to at least do soemthing provocatuve before you can run in and play the hard man. To do so with no provocation justs leads to you being seen a bully.

Sits back and awaits to be proven utterly wrong with a repeat of the Songkhran incident this coming weekend;)

Largely agree and logic suggests that PTP would do better to just maintain steady pressure (but basically behave themselves i.e. nothing too provocative or disruptive) - and just sit back while the present coalition weakens further by itself. But logic and Thai politicians? They seem to be very distant cousins.

Regarding strong man acts without provocation, I think Abhisit could still do that for a while and the "bully" aspect wouldn't be a bother to him in the short term - little chance of the boys in green objecting nor PAD if the acts are wrapped in the flag and have three-core-pillars branding. But my point earlier is that it's a] not enough because b] by itself it solves nothing long-term - and more people will eventually start asking "So, where's the reconciliation and an end to all this turmoil so I can get on with making a few baht?". It also distracts from the "what we have achieved for you" message that's surely essential to ("re-")election for a Democrat-led coalition.

To WinnieTheKwai and Insight...... Plainly Abhisit & Co have done much more than take a well-guarded helicopter ride to hand a long-overdue cheque to a granny and largely copy/augment much of Thaksin's earlier project (particularly as part of the stimulus packages), but I think the message about those worthy actions is getting drowned out far too often by their reactions to anything and everything that Thaksin does. Fine, of course Thaksin does all he can to stay in the news - but does the government really have to do quite so much to amplify his importance and thereby do so much of Thaksin's work for him?

Thaksin was never bothered by the courts being under political pressure

when it was HIS side applying that pressure and it was working.

When he wins all is fair and sunny lightness, when he loses it;s biased and unfair.

When someone shoves back, he cries foul.

Tough luck Doc. Can't have it both ways.

"Can't have it both ways"? As I recall, just about every incoming Thai administration has initiated investigations (usually leading to charges) into members of the preceding administration (now opposition) becoming "unusually wealthy" - and thus "had it both ways". It's Thai political S.O.P.

Much as I dislike cliches....... TiT. As Hammered says, the losing side will always say it's "political interference".

Well, The Nation does what The Nation does........ FWIW, with the exception of Chang Noi's pieces, I think just about all their coverage should come with a health warning - and certainly anything properly regarded as political "news" reporting. From what I see, just one "source" is actually named - so I read the rest with that in mind. Did they say in as many words what The Nation says they did? Then again, as we're reminded so often on TVF, there's no shortage of brain-not-engaged-before-mouth-opens characters in Pheu Thai - so it doesn't seem difficult to garner the "quotes" in this piece.

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.

Note to animatic: I'm no Thai linguist any more than much of The Nation's writing shows them to be English linguists - but the original Thai word used very possibly connotes "invoke" rather than "provoke". Frankly, I don't think it makes much sense to pounce gleefully on one word when what was said in Thai has gone through The Nation's conversion mill. You're not in Kansas anymore.......

I'm a Grace regular, was due for cleaning back last June sometime and was considering going to Dr Jarunee at her new clinic. In the end I decided to have it done at Grace by whomever has taken over from her - mainly because I have a couple of other ongoing matters that Grace are already treating.

The "new" (well, new to me anyhow) younger cleaning specialist seemed every bit as good i.e. thorough etc as the excellent Dr Jarunee (BTW I'm a smoker with a serious tea/coffee habit to boot) - and no pain during the procedure. I'm very fond of Dr J and I miss our fun chats but, regarding skill/expertise/procedure etc, no complaints about her successor at Grace.

I was going to agree with elektrified that if you really liked what Dr J does (and, unlike me, have no other ongoing treatments at Grace) then you might as well go to her new place. Then I remembered reading some mention that she now avoids doing the cleaning herself - I'm hazy about this so please don't take it as confirmed fact and do call her new practice to check. Otherwise, my take is that you won't be disappointed by her successor at Grace for your cleaning/check-up; come to that I've never had less than first-class experiences from any of the Grace team in about five years of going there for everything from cleaning through root canal work to crowns etc.

Does anybody else get a sense of deja vu?

Their "Showdown Rally" sounds an awful lot like their "D-Day Rally" that flopped last April. It's almost word for word.

BANGKOK: -- The red shirts plan their "showdown rally" against the government from November 29, which they expect one million people to join

BANGKOK, April 4 (Xinhua) -- According to local media, the UDD leaders are confident that the scheduled mass rally on April 8 would "attract over one million people"

Back, Jack? Yes, reading this - I definitely get deja vu all over again..........

The long shadow of Thaksin Shinawatra

BANGKOK, Nov 17 —

The house with the high walls in an upscale enclave in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh is less than 100m from the Thai embassy.

The man in the house is a fugitive from his native country, evading a two-year sentence for graft and thwarting attempts to extradite him to Thailand.

Thaksin Shinawatra looked a little tired and drawn. He had flown in the previous morning and had already had meetings with family and friends, including dinner and lunch with his hosts, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and his wife Bun Rany. He was getting ready for a TV interview.

His presence in Cambodia had sparked a rift between Bangkok and Phnom Penh that is deepening by the day. He appears to have established an alliance of sorts with Hun Sen, who has his own annoyances with Thailand.

The arrangement gives Thaksin a foothold physically close to Thailand.

Somchai Wongsawat, who served briefly as Thailand's premier last year, and Yongyuth Tiyapairat, former House Speaker, called on him during his four-day stay.

About 50 MPs from the opposition Puea Thai party also travelled to Siem Reap to meet him. Thaksin, however, left Cambodia last Saturday and it is unclear how often he will visit the country.

When we met the second evening he was there, he was loquacious, slamming the current Thai government's anti-poverty programmes that are similar to his but have yet to inspire the loyalty of the masses the way his did.

One needed to understand how society worked instead of simply copying programmes, he said. On the table were copies of his latest book on eradicating poverty. He has become something of a 'scholar', he said, giving lectures around the world. His latest assignment: adviser to Hun Sen on a token salary of US$1 (RM3.36) a day.

"Hun Sen sympathises with me," he said. "I am being set up for investigation by all my political opponents, and they use double standards all the time, disband my parties one after another.

"As a friend, he offered me a place to stay here."

He admitted that, while he wanted to return to Thailand, the timing was not right. Were elections a factor, I asked. He would only say: "There might be a situation where I can go back. But...well, it's not the time yet."

He said he feared for the future of Thailand. When I pointed out that he was the one regarded as a national security threat by the Thai establishment, he scoffed: "It is they who are the threat that has brought the whole country into chaos like this.

"During my administration, change could be done by democratic means, but why didn't they wait, why did they boycott the election in April 2006, why did they try to disband Thai Rak Thai? All the mess is created by the Democrats."

Thai Rak Thai was Thaksin's political vehicle before he was ousted in a coup in September 2006.

As for Thailand's continuing political turmoil, he said: "I want this war ended on the negotiation table. I want to see Thailand as one nation."

Would he compromise? "I avail myself for compromise all the time," he replied without hesitation.

Asked what he would bring to the table, he became animated, saying: "Whatever, they are in power, why don't they offer? We are ready to talk."

He also said it might take someone "outside the system" to bring about a compromise.

Thaksin still enjoys very wide support in Thailand, but has polarised Thai society like no one else in recent memory. When he became prime minister in 2001, corruption rumours swirled around him. It was only a split decision by the Constitutional Court exonerating him of charges of concealing assets that enabled him to continue in office as premier.

But over the years, the other side of him has seized the imagination of many poor Thais. Across the north-eastern Isan region, local people have told journalists they did not care if Thaksin was corrupt, as long as he delivered results for them.

His critics, seeing him tour the rural heartland ordering projects and sometimes handing out cash from his own pocket to adoring children, called it Latin American-style populism. Economists said household debt went up. But rural people were in debt to government agencies at normal rates, not to moneylenders who charged 20 per cent and could maim defaulters.

But just as he is a hero to millions, to many others, especially the old-money elite, he is a ruthless manipulator who trampled on human rights and boasted about staying in power for 20 years.

Analysts have said he was too strong an alternative power centre, threatening the royalist-military- bureaucracy set-up that traditionally called the shots in Thailand as governments come and go.

That Thaksin still spooks Thailand's conservative old-money elite three years after he left the country says much about the 2006 coup d'etat.

Events since early 2006 have exposed deep fissures in Thai society, between those in Thaksin's camp and the older elite jostling for pre-eminence in the twilight of the rein of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Powerful forces are against him, but Thaksin has been telling his followers over voice and video links that he will return "if the people want me".

At the end of our meeting in Phnom Penh, he said: "See you in Bangkok." It did not sound like just a polite goodbye. He meant it.

— The Straits Times

[presumably Nirmal Ghosh]

http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/w...ksin-shinawatra

<snip>

there has to my knowledge been no analysis of what was said at the PAD rally or at the way it was slanted. Both were very interesting as were comments that attendees were not all natural PAD supporters. The date of the next PAD rally is also of interest.

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

Not the missing analysis, but some interesting comments just added by Nick Nostitz to his pics and description at

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

"An interesting observation i have made, and this has not been the first time, is that while Thaksin still seems to be their main enemy, the Red Shirts though seemed to have found some acceptance under many of the hardcore PAD members. Not that they like the Red Shirts in any way, or would not go to battle with them again, but compared to last year, many have accepted the fact that Red Shirts do have a political ideology, and are not just a rent-a-mob. When talking with some of the Nac Lop Srivichai, i have had some very reasonable discussions about the Red Shirts and the political situation in general.

This somewhat changed attitude makes my life covering these events a lot easier as well. I hate to hide my views when i talk with people, and it was accepted without any animosity when i said that i do like the fact that simple people increasingly care about [how] their country is governed, and that there are logical reasons why they choose to join the Red Shirts. Last year, such comments gave me a lot of grief."

Just one person's view but it seems to echo something that I think you said yourself? If he's even partly right, it might suggest that some of the PAD thinking has moved on further than much of what one reads here on TVF.

On the content/atmosphere of the Sanam Luang rally, also worth looking at Somsak Jeamteerasakul's brief comment earlier on that page.

Ok, "landslide" was a bit hyperbolic a choice of word.

But it certainly was not Hun Sen getting the good hand.

Clearly these are well considered physical gestures on Obama's part.

A show of reaching out to certain ASEAN members. In terms they understand.

Of course having been raised for several years in Indonesia,

he would have a special feeling for the place.

Let's see what other ASEAN leaders get such friendly treatment

I notice that President Yudhoyono said NOTHING about the Thaksin issue.

OK, my last word on this subject before more eyes glaze over and more people slump into a coma - and now only because the points I made originally have been ignored. It's not "landslide" that's hyperbolic (= unjustified) so much as the fundamental premise of animatic's imaginative insistence that Obama was "clearly" signaling support of Abhisit (read Thailand) versus Hun Sen (read Cambodia). Thai national newspaper features "BIG" picture of Thai PM receiving friendly gesture from superstar US president - hardly a surprise. US president (known for his informal style) makes friendly gesture to ASEAN Chair - i.e. current "leader" of all ten ASEAN members at a time when US announces renewed engagement in the region. Does anyone else seriously think that if any of the other nine were currently Chair (OK, any of the other eight excluding Burma..... there is obvious subtext to that*) Obama's actions would be guaranteed to be any different?

Leaders' gestures (handshakes, hugs, smiles, hands on shoulders etc) plainly are significant between erstwhile/ongoing adversaries** - UK foreign minister Jack Straw even had to explain that his much-commented-on handshake with Mugabe was an unintended "mistake". Long-awaited public handshakes between Northern Ireland faction leaders, Brit PM with former IRA members, Egypt/Israel, PLO/Israel, almost anyone with Ghadafi, Abhisit hugging Newin (and bringing flowers to boot) etc etc..... yes, those are indisputably deliberate signals. Since WW2, when has Thailand in any way been a US adversary? To claim that this one of Obama's equates to any of the above - let alone for the reasons claimed - is IMO patently absurd.

* See also http://www.voanews.com/Khmer/archive/2009-...-09-14-voa2.cfm for a possible US domestic politics reason why Obama might also choose/be advised to be careful about how he's seen to interact with Hun Sen. Note that I say "possible" and "might" - to claim more I'd do better reading tea-leaves.

** And, yes, the very public and effusive warmth of Hun Sen's embrace meeting Thaksin was also no surprise and justifiably viewable as a conscious visual expression to reinforce his equally public statements (motives discussed elsewhere).

Agree with whomever you like.

We know who he is devoted to, by his own words.

We know who he hates with out exception, by his own words.

We know he says one thing and that thing happens on cue.

Clear patterns of behavior exist in the public domain.

Where there's smoke there's usually fire.

That's no way to talk about Khun Prem.Have a little respect.

Oh....... so, animatic isn't talking about me?