Cassandra

It is an interesting article but once again I have to take umbrage with this statistic

Mr. Thaksin enjoys wide support in the countryside, where two-thirds of all Thais live, and he says to resign would be to betray the poor he has sworn to help.

which somehow implies that all of rural Thailand supports Thaksin, thus giving him the support of 2/3rds of the country.

2/3rds of the country may live in the countryside but unless they only count the north and northeast as "rural Thailand" then he certainly does not get the support of all of rural Thailand. People of the upper, middle and lower South, in general, deeply dislike and mistrust the man as he has shown, not only through deeds but through words, that his interests lie only in helping those from his own region.

Are you implying a majority of Thai people would like to remove Thaksin from power?

The move to cheaper areas is found everywhere in the world, doesnt just apply to 3rd world countries.

Why do most people not live in central london? (too bloody expensive, so you move to where you can live reasonably well)

Last time I looked, Central London appeared to be very full up, ie Kensington, Chelsea, Notting Hill,Fulham,Pimlico,Covent Garden etc etc.I expect most of those owning houses or flats have done well in life as property values are of course sky high.What this has to do with low rent sex tourists and visa runners moving to Thailand, I don't know.No doubt these types rationalise their own shortcomings but this is the first time I have heard them suggest the centre of a major Western city has been depopulated

........Does that capture the sense more or les accurately?

Not really, but what do you think a self-riteous attitude like that will make many friends ?

Even if you knew how to spell it, you don't appear to understand what "self righteous" means.I wasn't taking a moral position, one way or the other.

A number of interesting contributions to this topic.Let me try and sum up the position.Came here as a sex tourist,became a visa runner,after a number of wallet lightening experiences "married" a bargirl, more or less overwhelmed by booze and now have difficulty getting it up.Now the redlight districts of no interest, and have instead developed a strong passion for Thai culture, though don't really understand it and Thai language capacity strictly bar room level.Pity the poor bozos in similar position to self.Does that capture the sense more or les accurately?

Just read some of the earlier posts. What do you think would happen if foreigners could buy property? Wouldnt this just hike the prices up, all the prime locations bought by non-thais - private and business. Would this be in the best interest of the country?

Thais have no common sense. ...mmmm! well this is just a cultural difference - some people can't understand a different attitude to the one they were brought up with so interpret it as less intelligent. It should really be interpreted as an inability to adapt.

Crackdown on corruption and dangerous driving would make Thailand a safer and more equitable country.

On property, you are just plain wrong (and ignorant).If foreigners were able to acquire property without restriction there would be no significant impact on prices.There would be in fact a great contribution to sorting out the condo and housing glut.The impact on foreign direct investment would be spectacular, and this would certainly benefit the Thai people.Foreign corporations and wealthy individuals buy property pretty much unrestricted anyway through companies or nominee arrangements.Don't prattle on like a sycophantic jackass about what you don't understand.

I'm not sure how my post is sycophantic? Maybe its just a big word you use to attempt to sound intelligent but don't really understand, alas it has had the opposite effect - please point out to me how any of my post can be interpreted as sycophantic!

I don't know if getting rid of restrictions on property ownership will be good for Thailand, that's why my post was written in question form. I'm obviously skeptical it would - but as i am not an economist I would listen and be interested in any reasoned and intelligent arguments to the contrary, as of yet (including your attempted rebuttal) I have yet to hear any!

It's sycophantic because you are toadying up to Thai vested interests, perhaps because it gives you a warm and cuddly feeling of "belonging".Foreigners who genuinely care for Thailand and its peoples interests should take every opportunity to point out the merits of a more open economy including lifting many of the restrictions on owning property, shares etc.

If you need such surgery, I highly recommend Aikachon Hospital in Kamphaeng Phet. Here the service is superb, the facility clean and the staff will baby you back to health in no time. You can expect to pay less than half of other large Bangkok facilities with the level of expertise being the same. No! I do not work for them, but recently had an abdominal surgery and spent a week there. Total price, surgery, the room, medication, Lab tests, X-Rays and all amount to 26,000 Baht. If you want more facts PM me!

I would be interested to know on what basis you claim that the level of expertise at Aikachon Hospital is the same as the large Bangkok facilities.At first sight such a claim would seem absurd but I am guessing you have a medical background and have done a careful analysis of qualifications and track record of Aikachon physicians in comparison with those of the famous Bangkok establishments.

The calls for the king

ColPyat... I like your educated and informed posts, but PLEASE REFRAIN from making posts about His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in the manner in which you did.

I know this is not the first time it's been brought to your attention as a moderater heavily deleted an earlier post in another thread along this same vein.

Thank you for cooperating...

and please continue to post your normally intelligent and well researched posts while keeping the above modifications in mind...

Thank you.

Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens

Under TRT there has been more support for the rural areas than under any other administration

Do you have any firm stats to back up this statement Cassandra?

Professor, no firm stats that I have the resources to provide but the evidence is more than subjective particularly in central plain, North and Isaan.It's basically to do with better access to cheap credit, upgrading of land title, initiatives such as rubber planting,cash and support for village initiatives and projects.I think also Thaksin has played his cards very astutely with the rural poor who now imagine they are taken seriously..Completely insincere perhaps but there is a reality to the support measures which it would be foolish to deny( unless you are the type that knows everything because he works, plays etc with rural folks - the type that doesn't consider for a moment that a highly experienced FT correspondent might have something of value to say)

Taksin cares about Thai rural folk - don't make me laugh.

True, many uneducated people upcountry like him, even admire him, but they are gradually changing to see the truth.

"Never before have we had such a political fissure as this, between the urban areas and the countryside," says Mr Somjaisaid. "There is a possibility of a violent showdown if there is no peaceful solution."

Nonsense!

You're almost certainly right that Thaksin's concern for rural folk is simply part of a politician's bag of tricks.But there is no evidence that upcountry voters "are gradually changing to see the truth", pure wish fulfilment I'm afraid.If anything the trend is moving the other way, even in Bangkok, with many beginning to feel very uncomfortable with the opposition's agenda and tactics.I'm not sure why you are so quick to dismiss the possible ramifications of the political fissure: there's no immediate threat of violence but the potential is there, hence Khun Somjaisid's sensible wish for a peaceful solution.

On Professor Fart's point, fair enough but the rural perception is that Thaksin has done far more than bung the odd Bt 1000 note.Under TRT there has been more support for the rural areas than under any other administration.Cynical, self serving and selective I know, but nevertheless in substance true and another awkward reality for the farang ant-Thaksin mob to grapple with.

Yet she only visits the rural areas where he is popular. Come down south, it is still quite rural and he is reviled down here. Upper South, Lower South. Its all the same. He has done nothing for the people down here and they know it. Even the poorest farmer down here wouldn't vote for him.

Yes obviously TRT is much less strong in the South where the Democrats are entrenched, although you are quite wrong to suggest there is no support for Thaksin.On the other hand, the FT report undoubtedly reflects the position of most Thais in the countryside although there are of course significant regional variations.It's an awkward fact of life and I don't personally like it.I don't think you are suggesting that the FT correspondent was deliberately rigging the evidence, but anyone who does would be misinformed.My point is that this forum has completely failed in its discussion of the current political crisis to reflect on the implications of Thaksin's support from most Thais.There have been one or two pertinent posts but the general standard has been quite dreadful.I stress this has nothing to do with the fact that different opinions are held:that goes with the territory of politics' rough and tumble.The problem is really the complete lack of an even a half way sophisticated analysis.

SOURCE: FINANCIAL TIMES - LONDON - 11 March 2006

Fissure between urban and rural attitudes towards Thailand's prime minister grows deeper

By Amy Kazmin in Bangkok

Published: March 11 2006 02:00

For a brief moment a political eternity ago, Thailand's dusty, impoverished north-eastern district of Art Samart was the backdrop for an unusual spectacle.

Thaksin Shinawatra, the tycoon-turned-prime minister, chose the remote area as the stage for a "reality show" intended to demonstrate his personal battle against rural poverty.

Under glaring camera lights, the charismatic premier spent five January days strolling through poor villages, talking to people about their woes and goading officials to take action to improve conditions.

For the poorest, he dug out Bt1,000 ($25) notes from his own pocket. Mr Thaksin also tasted traditional dishes, relaxed to the strains of local folk music and slept in a tent. "Backstage: Prime Minister" was broadcast nationally on a pliant cable channel.

Just three days after Mr Thaksin went home, his family sold its controlling stake in Shin Corp, the telecommunications empire he founded, to Singapore's Temasek Holdings for a tax-free Bt73bn profit, triggering an outcry in Bangkok that prompted the premier to call snap elections.

Now, as they watch TV reports of anti-government protests and listen to the speculation about Mr Thaksin's political survival, residents of Art Samart are seething over the storm that has engulfed their adored former guest.

"People here are very stressed and tense," says 71-year-old Jantra Muangketleu, one of a group of senior citizens who ate dinner with Mr Thaksin during his trip. "Thaksin has helped a lot of poor people very much, but people now want to steal his position." Her voice grows louder. "When we watch TV, we really hate those protesters," she says. Stabbing the air repeatedly with a chopping knife, she adds: "We want to harm them."

Her neighbour, Bualom Silaphasingha, 47, is equally agitated. "Why don't those people in Bangkok let him keep working on developing the rural areas?" she says angrily. "There has never been a prime minister before who tries to help people in remote rural areas."

The passions in Art Samart highlight the wide - and potentially dangerous - disconnect that has developed between Bangkok's middle and professional classes and Thailand's rural masses when it comes to perceptions of Mr Thaksin and his leadership.

Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a Thammasat University political scientist, warns this chasm holds the potential for conflict, especially if Mr Thaksin - who has so far shown restraint - opts to mobilise his rural supporters to counter Bangkok anti-government demonstrators.

"Never before have we had such a political fissure as this, between the urban areas and the countryside," says Mr Somjaisaid. "There is a possibility of a violent showdown if there is no peaceful solution."

In the Thai capital, many residents feel betrayed by a premier who has failed to live up to his promises to eradicate corruption and to run clean, efficient government without any thought of self-enrichment. Many are bitter over Mr Thaksin's subversion of Thailand's fledgling democratic institutions, including checks and balances intended to keep elected politicians in line.

But in the countryside - where nearly 70 per cent of Thais live - Mr Thaksin remains popular for his bloody 2003 "war on drugs", during which around 2,500 alleged drug pedlars were assassinated. He is also admired for suspending farmers' debts and bringing cheap healthcare, funds for community development and easy personal loans to rural villages across the country.

"I have no idea what those people in Bangkok think," says Kamporn Sindhu, a 44-year-old farmer who had her debts to an agricultural co-operative suspended for three years. "We know they accuse him of being corrupt but for us, the grassroots people, our life is better. He helped us a lot."

The gap in perceptions between town and country has been created partly by tight government controls over the electronic media, the primary source of news and information for most rural dwellers. Until very recently, Thai TV news programmes served as mouthpieces for the premier, while critics who raised questions about conflicts of interests, human rights abuses and other serious issues were denied airtime.

And while Bangkok taxpayers are now up in arms that the Shinawatra family paid no taxes at all on their windfall profits from the Shin Corp sale, many rural villagers are not sure what to believe about the deal, which few understand. Even if he did do wrong, it seems, most rural villagers really do not care.

"I keep hearing, 'shares, shares, shares,' but I don't know what it means," says Ms Kamporn. "People say 'Thaksin sold the country to others'. But from what we see, our country is still the same."

I happen to know the journalist concerned, Amy Kazmin, is no Thaksin fan either.Yet she manages to capture in her article an important element in Thai thinking that has virtually completely eluded most posters on this forum.The standard of debate on this forum has been disappointingly low and raises questions about its ability to consider serious issues.

Just read some of the earlier posts. What do you think would happen if foreigners could buy property? Wouldnt this just hike the prices up, all the prime locations bought by non-thais - private and business. Would this be in the best interest of the country?

Thais have no common sense. ...mmmm! well this is just a cultural difference - some people can't understand a different attitude to the one they were brought up with so interpret it as less intelligent. It should really be interpreted as an inability to adapt.

Crackdown on corruption and dangerous driving would make Thailand a safer and more equitable country.

On property, you are just plain wrong (and ignorant).If foreigners were able to acquire property without restriction there would be no significant impact on prices.There would be in fact a great contribution to sorting out the condo and housing glut.The impact on foreign direct investment would be spectacular, and this would certainly benefit the Thai people.Foreign corporations and wealthy individuals buy property pretty much unrestricted anyway through companies or nominee arrangements.Don't prattle on like a sycophantic jackass about what you don't understand.

OK! Let's get back to basics.

Improvements:

Land Ownership - Provide the same rights to 'foreigners' in Thailand that we in the USA provide to 'foreigners'. In the USA you do not have to get a US citizen to act as a 'nominee'. In fact, if a 'foreigner' has a non-immigrant visa, the day they step off the plane they can buy 'anything' they want - land, business, house, etc., etc., and do not have to have permission from some government agency to buy it.

Green Card: After spending an average of 2 years in the USA a non-immigrant can apply for a Green Card. Unless your a 'total screw-up' it is 100% certain you will be given a Green Card. The Green Card is renewed every 10 years. You do not have to travel to some immigration office yearly to obtain a one-year visa.

Citizenship: After 5 years (most cases) a non-immigrant 'Green Card' holder can apply to become a US citizen. In over 90% of the cases, citizenship is approved. (Check the web - several cities quote differences in the 90% figure).

House: You can build a house anywhere you want and do not have to get permission from some village head that has a 3 to 6th grade education. Yes, there are certain requirements that do apply. And you do not have to register the house at some district office and carry a house registration around everywhere you go.

Car/Truck/etc.: You do not need a 'House Registration' to purchase a vehicle.

Business: You can purchase a business, start a business, and do not have to satisfy some quota that states you have to have a certain number of US Citizen employed. As long as a 'foreigner' is legal you can hire them.

Traffic Laws: Apply to 'everyone'. If you break a law you are given a 'ticket'. No police officer will EVER ask for pocket money. You take the ticket to court, or you mail the ticket in with the amount of the fine. You must always drive in the proper direction and proper lane - motorcycle or other vehicles. If you do not you will get a ticket, and more than likely go to jail with a court date to follow. You drive drunk, you are given a test on the spot, if you do not pass you go to jail and a court date is provided. If you offer money in any of these circumstances - you go to jail.

Parking: If you park illegally you will be given a ticket (Same as above). You cannot park on sidewalks, block someones driveway, block a street entrance, block the follow of traffic, etc.

Now then. Are these common sense rules? Would this be an improvement over what is currently the rules (or lack of) in Thailand?

I am probably wrong (as I aways am) but it seems to me that the items I mentioned above apply in almost all Western/European countries?

In other words, the only way that Thailand would be acceptable to you would be if it was exactly the same as the U.S. No wonder so many people hate Americans.

Wow, this unexceptional little list has set Tippaporn off about hating America.What part of this list Tippaporn do you think is objectionable or did you just get out of bed the wrong side today? To me it is a very uncontroversial agenda to which any civilised country would subscribe.However I would make one point.It is much much much easier for a foreigner to visit Thailand than the U.S.

> The point is not whether someone uses "w***es" or not. It is why use

> them in the tourist areas?

Ok this is getting very esoteric.. I think I prefer to call a spade a spade no matter if the spade is in a tourist area or not. Nah, seriously, the original question was if people like to hang out or live in tourist areas or not, and why. As you point out yourself, bargirls/sex workers really shouldn't be an issue in this either way, because they're abundant everywhere, not just tourist areas.

But anyway, why associate with them in tourist areas: Because there's much less chance of running into Thai collegues or relatives or friends of the missus there? ("Oh.. Hi dad.. (in law)" ) Because tourist bars are more of a comfort zone where you can be yourself without having to entertain all the Thai uncles eyeing the interesting white diversion that you represent, and be forced to discuss Manchester United even though you're from Boston and wouldn't know who "Rooney" was even if your life depended on it? Because you can drink liquor by the glass instead of having to order by the barrel? Because you prefer Achy Breaky Hart over the latest Grammy-droid? Because you (someone) don't speak Thai that well? Because discos in tourist areas actually have a dance floor instead of having to wiggle about in between 6000 tables and chairs in arctic temperatures and complete darkness? Because you're more likely to meet other foreigners who you can complain about Thailand to? Because you'd much rather just pay bar rather than fart around with flower garlands with 100 baht notes stapled to them? Because you LIKE the type & attitude of the girls, who by and large don't bother to try to act like subservient angle faced fairies who magically turn starfish upon contact with a bed sheet?

Just guessing.

> I love a good night out in bars in mostly Northern bangkok

> when there with friends

Cool.. Whereabouts are those bars? You mean like Suthisan / Saphan Khwai or even more North?

Cheers,

Chanchao

Excellent and amusing post, marred only by Chanchao's liking of Achy Braky Heart which for me is a kind of torture!

Kaosan isn't bad for an occasional foray. Just that some never seem to venture far from it. It's not an expat place its a backpacker place and the two have different outlooks and goals in Thailand. There's no reason for animosity really.

cv

I don't think there is much of a distinction between packpackers and visa runners, except the former tend to be younger and better educated.An expat is not just someone who spends a lot of time in Thailand.An expat is someone who holds a work permit and/or has a residency certificate.

I think it is a fair bet that we can look for branches of 'Rotigirl' 'Rotiguy' 'Rotiladyboy' springing up all over Thailand.

OK a sucess story, but once again, someone selling an established idea in Thailand.

Few real Thai ideas about.

It's shocking to see how some farangs can take an innocuous subject like buns and twist it in order to insult the Thai race. Oh well, I guess jealousy will always exist. I personally like the buns and am glad those entrepreneurs are succeeding.

I ccouldn't give a flying wotsit about Rotiboy but on a point of information there's no such thing as "the Thai race".It may seem a bit pedantic to point this out but Thai kids are still being taught the fantasy that the "Thai race" originated in Southern China and marched south to claim their inheritance.It's just not true!

I am a peasant, and proud of it.

Since we are getting on in years, and can afford it, my wife and I now get some other (landless) peasants to do the work in our rice fields and pay them with half the crop.

(Being middle-class peasants, we have enough rice-growing land that half of its crop is sufficient for the needs of our household.)

And (having been able to put on various acts amongst the academic elite, the technocratic elite, the military elite and the bureaucratic elite) I have pension income that makes our life even more comfortable.

We peasants are the salt of the earth----and carry everybody else in the villages, towns and cities on our backs.

Some of them serve the peasantry well in return, and some just try to exploit us. But all depend on us peasants.

So 'peasant' is not a rude word in my vocabulary.

It is not possible to be a "middle class peasant" by any sensible definition.It is however possible to be a prosperous peasant and there are many of these in France, Spain and Italy.They lead a lifestyle that I think is to be envied, though their days are probably numbered.There was also the more prosperous type peasant in the USSR dring the 1930's, a different category altogether.These poor people or "kulaks" as they were known were judged by Stalin to be on the wrong side in the class war, and were mostly murdered or deported.In Thailand the continued vitality of the peasants is an irritant for the Sino-Thai ruling elite who don't think it is consistent with a modern country.I disagree and would look to France as an exemplar.But inevitably like France the peasantry will shrink in Thailand which is a shame.

Mahatma Gandhi. Peace, non-violent conflict resolution.

"...........Nobody would be more happy than ourselves if by any chance our countrymen at home should succeed in liberating themselves through their own efforts or by any chance, the British Government accepts your `Quit India' resolution and gives effect to it. We are, however proceeding on the assumption that neither of the above is possible and that a struggle is inevitable.

Father of our Nation in this holy war for India's liberation, we ask for your blessings and good wishes".

Ghandi was certainly a great man.However his non-violent conflict resolution worked well because he was dealing with the British who ultimately were shamed into leaving India.If he had been dealing with the Japanese, Nazi Germany or the Chinese, there would have been bloodshed on a massive scale (though probably not as extensive as when the Hindus and Muslims stated murdering each other).The British were no saints -sometimes with an unpleasant racist undercurrent- but there was an element of humanity quite lacking in other colonial powers.Unfashionable comment I know but I have Indian friends who though fiercely nationalistic recognise the British contribution.

Interesting interview on Stickman this week with a visa agent. Seems the guy's opinion of the nice chaps and chappesses (!) at old Blighty embassy is not so good

Now why can that be???

Simon

(currently not trying for a visitor visa, spouse visa or any other sort of visa, but always interested to read about our boys at Wireless Road....)

Never once had a problem at the British Embassy. Always been treated with the utmost courtesy by the staff there when getting wifey a visa and for passport renewals.

My experience also and frankly I don't envy their job.I think there were a few issues a number of years ago but these have largely been ironed out.As it happens I read the Stickman interview with the American visa agent tonight;the latter gave the impression of being a self satisfied scumbag but it's difficult to be sure since the interviewer (Stickman) has the sophistication and mental age of a 10 year old.

Having said that Stickman's site is curiously compelling for those of us fascinated by the sordid under life of farangs.

Well, dont take it very seriously, this is just one attempt to find out the general level of education of people here. So dont take it personally, no offence intended.

I would have thought the general level of education was painfully clear from the content of the posts without having to go to the bother of a poll.

Excellent article, especially by Western media/journalism standards.

I wonder what is meant by this.Does he mean that Western journalism is generally poor, or that it's weak on Thailand issues or on this specific "social order" issue? I tentatively assume he means the Western press is generally weak on Thailand as a whole.Actually though there is some misreporting, it's usually on fairly predictable lines.On the other hand I have seen some first class journalism on Thailand from the West, particularly on political issues.

I do think that farang observers who are getting excessively steamed up should chill, relax, take a stress pill and quietly reflect that this not really their battle.

I live here, not of my own free will due to marriage, and I'm affected by the laws and political changes in many ways, even is less than most Thais.

I sympathise with aliens in the US who can't vote and are buffetted by the political winds there.

Yes, it's true, why worry about what you can't control, but at the same time my situation entitles me to an opinion even if I can't express it as a voter or citizen.

Of course you can have an opinion.Not only that, you can express it as well although obviously you would need to use your discretion in terms of audience.No my point was really directed at those foreigners who seem almost possessed on the subject of Thasin.

Now that you are beginning to understand the length and breadth of these issues, tackle some reading on how they DO support democracy and that a 90 day snap election is the only truly democratic election.

I'm glad to see how SOME of them changed their minds about the boycott:

(from The Nation) The Democrat, Chat Thai and Mahachon parties failed to agree on a boycott on Saturday after Chat Thai delayed its decision amid rumours the party was lobbied heavily by TRT to break ranks with the other two opposition parties.

If 1) all your allegations are true, 2) the people believe that the protestors have noble intentions, and 3) MOST IMPORTANTLY Thai people feel that SOMEONE ELSE can do a better job than Thaksin, then the protestors should have nothing to fear from an election.

There will always be unfortunate crises; we live in a world where evil people exist.

I agree Thaksin could have handled certain situations better, but it's still UP TO THE PEOPLE to decide if someone else could have done a better job than Thaksin. In a democracy, "the people" are the majority (not the most vocal) and get to decide who they want in times of a crisis - that's why an election is the fairest process.

I very much agree.

A real election is indeed called for, however it needs proper timing to be a "real" one. One that allows any candidate of to be of any party they chose to represent. One that allows the Election Commission not to have it's capacities exceeded with a Senatorial election on the 19th. By jamming both of them so close together, the reliability of their efforts in either election is questionable. Lastly, in needs to be one that allows time for candidates to be selected and their platforms and philosophies explored. The results of that "real" election might be quite different than the one that occurs on the 2nd.

In Thailand as in the US or UK, the procedures for elections are governed by law.In most countries, the UK more than the US perhaps, the system gives a significant advantage to the incumbent.So it is with Thailand.I do not underestimate the significance of the points you raise but I am afraid the overall impression is you are casting around in advance -and correctly anticipating a TRT victory- for reasons why the election on 2nd April will not be representative of the Thai peoples' will.The "elephant in the room" that you are ignoring is the awkward fact that the majority of Thai voters are and are likely to remain supporters of Thaksin, although I would imagine in somewhat smaller numbers.I do think that farang observers who are getting excessively steamed up should chill, relax, take a stress pill and quietly reflect that this not really their battle.

...and if things aren't quite muddled enough, lets stir in the military aspect into the equation :

Military coup possible

A military coup may be unavoidable if Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra refuses to budge and political instability persists much longer, said Panlop Pinmanee, deputy chief of the Internal Security Operations Command (Isoc). Gen Panlop predicted political turmoil if Mr Thaksin clings to his seat. Uncontrollable tension could necessitate a military revolt to restore national calm, he said.

Gen Panlop was a key figure in Class 7 of the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy, whose young turks staged an abortive coup in 1981. A coup will be motivated not by the desire to overthrow Mr Thaksin or his opponents, said Gen Panlop.

He believed the soldiers would not want to see protracted turmoil threaten national security.

The coup may not happen any time soon. ''Certainly not today,'' the general said, commenting on the likelihood of the anti-Thaksin rally at Sanam Luang providing the pretext for a revolt.

Gen Panlop said, however, that a coup would not be easy to organise considering that Mr Thaksin's friends in the armed forces almost monopolise the power to authorise military deployment.

''When the country is in a shambles, I trust the soldiers will act professionally and not become the personal protector of the prime minister or the government,'' he said.

The Isoc deputy commander praised army chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin for serving the country well, although some are wondering where his loyalty lies.

A source, however, said Gen Sonthi has been perceived as taking Mr Thaksin's side. He is often seen at social gatherings organised in Mr Thaksin's honour and plays golf with the prime minister. He and other armed forces leaders reportedly made a pact to meet Mr Thaksin regularly. But a source in the armed forces said that even if Gen Sonthi agreed to a ''military intervention'' the success of a coup could not be guaranteed.

The army units backing him are special warfare soldiers, most of whom have now been redeployed as reinforcements fighting separatist insurgents in the deep South.

The power to mobilise personnel is primarily in the hands of Mr Thaksin's classmates at the Armed Forces Preparatory School, the source said.

''There's no way Gen Sonthi's strength alone will get the job done,'' he said.

None of the close aides of Privy Council chairman Prem Tinsulanonda are in key military positions able to call the rank and file to arms. Gen Panlop said Mr Thaksin should stand down because there have been too many questions raised about his suitability as leader.

- BP

Whether pro or anti Thaksin, we should remind ourselves that in many countries comments such as those of General Panlop -if correctly reported- would invite instant dismissal and possible charges.

Can't see any problem in a group of people getting together to do a 'visa run' many of us have to do it every 3 months. Remember there were a number of people on the bus who were allowed to carry on to their destination, the only ones "pulled" were on overstay. Visa runs are a fact of life for foreigners, if you keep within the rules you will not have any problems.

It's not illegal but visa runs for people who to all intents live in Thailand permanently are flagrantly against the spirit of immigration law.They should be grateful for the Thais' tolerance and forebearance, and be aware that a future government may well crack down.It would not be allowed in their countries of origin but the visarunners have grown so used to the system that they seem to think it's their right, even those who overstay.