jayboy

nice to see all you guys liking thailand being held back, this loan was to improve infrastructure within the country and just like any other country, they would have to borrow to enable the development...i guess bar stool judgement wins approval here

Personally I feel sorry for all those poor commuters in ChiangMai who really needed this high-speed link to Bangkok, according to a Pheu Thai minister that was.

Furthermore I wonder what we'll do with all those Thai traditional lunch boxes which were selected for use in the high-speed trains. Maybe a special TAT organised event to sell them to foreigners departing Suvannabhum? I'm afraid Ms. Yingluck may be in tears again, she was so happy with those lunch boxes.

You and many others on this thread seem to have overlooked the fact that the infrastructure package including the high speed train link is fully supported by the Democrat leadership.It is the method of financing they object to (so say they say) though their administration also used off budget funding methods.

Of course the Constitutional Court decision is actually very little to do with high speed trains, and much more about political goals of the old orded.Long predicted and part of the campaign of sedition against the government.Judicial activism is now the main tool of the unelected elites with the likely eclipse of Suthep's mobsters and the unwillingness of the army to play ball (so far anyway).

you seem to overlook that the Democrat party led coalition government under Abhisit was already working on high-speed train ideas, only to see all scrapped by the new government.

Furthermore you seem to overlook that part of the infrastructure budget seemed to include activities and therefor money normally found in the yearly National Budget. Like the rice scam, just trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

As for the rest, the usual denigrating remarks. BTW although you had the 'unelected elites' you missed out mentioning 'fascists'

Truth hurts.My comments are accurate as I suspect you well know.Having said that there is nothing amiss with the opposition taking the government on with regard to the best method of funding,and to be fair Khun Korn has done some excellent work here.The Constitutional Court ruling is not interested in this and is mainly designed to frustrate democracy; the infrastructure programme is beyond its comprehension.

I'm not sure why you introduce the subject of fascists.Why are they relevant to this subject? But the overall attack on democracy by the CC is beyond dispute.

However the damage has been done and this ruling is a major set back for the very necessary improvement of infrastructure

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

nice to see all you guys liking thailand being held back, this loan was to improve infrastructure within the country and just like any other country, they would have to borrow to enable the development...i guess bar stool judgement wins approval here

Personally I feel sorry for all those poor commuters in ChiangMai who really needed this high-speed link to Bangkok, according to a Pheu Thai minister that was.

Furthermore I wonder what we'll do with all those Thai traditional lunch boxes which were selected for use in the high-speed trains. Maybe a special TAT organised event to sell them to foreigners departing Suvannabhum? I'm afraid Ms. Yingluck may be in tears again, she was so happy with those lunch boxes.

You and many others on this thread seem to have overlooked the fact that the infrastructure package including the high speed train link is fully supported by the Democrat leadership.It is the method of financing they object to (so say they say) though their administration also used off budget funding methods.

Of course the Constitutional Court decision is actually very little to do with high speed trains, and much more about political goals of the old orded.Long predicted and part of the campaign of sedition against the government.Judicial activism is now the main tool of the unelected elites with the likely eclipse of Suthep's mobsters and the unwillingness of the army to play ball (so far anyway).

Simon Jenkins of The Guardian gets it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/12/ukraine-crisis-west-do-nothing-russia

What laws are these exactly? If there are indeed such laws, there are equally no doubt laws on sedition prohibiting the unlawful overthrow of an elected government.As always in Thailand some brief consideration of mote and beam is always advisable before spraying insults around.

If this elected government had behaved itself and not deemed serving one individual as being more important than serving the nation then none of this would have happened.

Do you seriously think that they have done a good job??? it is has been a total disaster from beginning to end (not too far off now, thank god)!!!!!!!!

It's not a question about your view of the current government.In any event millions of Thais take a different view.The government is ready to seek a further mandate from the Thai people but this is not what its opponents want

The real question is whether it is only the supporters of the government, as suggested in your earlier post, that take a cavalier attitude towards the law.I pointed out that this is not the case and would comment further that actual sedition is a graver offence than some loose talk about secession.

The Dem's are all for elections. The difference being that they want to fix the electoral system first as it is clearly flawed (as this government has shown). Populist policies are in nobody's interest, especially when they fail so spectacularly as they ALL have (not just the rice scam). Without these, PTP wouldn't be in government and the country wouldn't be in such a mess, surely you agree with this.

Can you advise how exactly the Democrats wish to reform the electoral system bearing in mind all observers comfirmed the last election was fair and properly conducted.As far as I am aware there have been no specific proposals on the electoral process.Clearly there are measures to be taken which would reduce vote buying and similar abuses.However all the evidence demonstrates these are marginal.

Populist policies are a different subject altogether and in any event are pursued to some extent in all democracies.If the Thai people do not want governments to pursue populist policies that benefit the majority, they are at liberty to vote them out of office.

Corruption in the implementation of populist policies is another separate matter, and obviously needs to be investigated and offenders punished.

By conflating several factors the reform process becomes unintelligible.In all honesty I suspect for some that is the purpose.Even though this means gibberish, it is easier to advocate than saying "we don't like elections because we can't win them."

you can discuss, in private, anything you like. But there are laws prohibiting advocating secession in public, as in putting up banners. Of course, this is another law the PTP supporters have decided doesn't apply to them. Surprise!

What laws are these exactly? If there are indeed such laws, there are equally no doubt laws on sedition prohibiting the unlawful overthrow of an elected government.As always in Thailand some brief consideration of mote and beam is always advisable before spraying insults around.

If this elected government had behaved itself and not deemed serving one individual as being more important than serving the nation then none of this would have happened.

Do you seriously think that they have done a good job??? it is has been a total disaster from beginning to end (not too far off now, thank god)!!!!!!!!

It's not a question about your view of the current government.In any event millions of Thais take a different view.The government is ready to seek a further mandate from the Thai people but this is not what its opponents want

The real question is whether it is only the supporters of the government, as suggested in your earlier post, that take a cavalier attitude towards the law.I pointed out that this is not the case and would comment further that actual sedition is a graver offence than some loose talk about secession.

I think that this article is far more pretentious than the actions of the Army and is typical of the myopic red ideology.

If no one in authority takes a hard stance against suggestions of secession then we will end up with similar problems that we already have in the South.

Yinglucks caretaker government should have been the first to condemn such rhetoric, however ,she was more worried about sensitizing her loyal lemmings and losing their support.

Keep up son! she already condemned it, not that there's anything wrong with discussing secession.

you can discuss, in private, anything you like. But there are laws prohibiting advocating secession in public, as in putting up banners. Of course, this is another law the PTP supporters have decided doesn't apply to them. Surprise!

What laws are these exactly? If there are indeed such laws, there are equally no doubt laws on sedition prohibiting the unlawful overthrow of an elected government.As always in Thailand some brief consideration of mote and beam is always advisable before spraying insults around.

Who is the writer of this article trying to kid ? This is an outrageous opinion article, and it flies very squarely in the face of the facts. Chalerm will be laminating this article and framing it. The writer of this article should look at the tape of the UDD rally on February 23. On that stage stands Thida, Jutuporn, Nattawut, former minister of agriculture, and Charupong, former interior minister. All endorsed the UDD platform that called for armed readiness, denigrated the independent agencies, and promoted secession. Everyone has seen it. Not only that, but we're had rallies, banners, the calls of red shirt radio, interviews with the press, addresses from Chiang Mai, and every one of these people stands by what they say. Not only that, but Ko Tee has now openly defied Prayuth and the banners are going up. Why does this writer publish this anonymously ? The Nation has some excellent writers, and most articles are under the banner of a writer or even two. This is so outside the mainstream of editorials it ought to have been signed. This article is a disgrace and a disservice to the informed.

It is the established form for editorial pieces - representing the newspaper's views rather than a particular contributor - to be unsigned.The Nation follows the same practice as the New York Times, The (London) Times, the FT etc.

As to its content your objections are of little substance.Most observers of whatever political view would regard the main points to be perfectly sensible.The PM has already made it clear secessionist objectives cannot and never will be on the agrenda.If there are some in the redshirt camp who wish to talk about this, that is no crime and indeed discussion cannot be banned in a free society.None of this has anything to do with the army which should keep its nose out of political debate.

The important point however is the one made also in the Nation I think - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.Without the sedition of Suthep and his Southern rentacrowd thugs compounded by the complicity of the Democrats and the myopic Sino Thai middle class, the current secessionist chatter would not have arisen in the first place.These fools (and in some cases criminals) sowed the wind and may well reap the whirlwind, but so far the Lanna Republic concept is just idle chatter,

What was happening over at the RBSC during the Thai alliance with Japan and occupation by Japan during WWII?

A fascinating subject.See William Warren's "Celebrating 100 Years" I'm sure the Club would show a copy to anyone with an interest.There's a photo in it of SS with fellow committee members!

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The RBSC as you mention TAH is a bizarre place, with a lot of people living in a cocoon. Nice spot though.

The irony of it is, of course that Thailand wasn't colonised apparenlty, but the Thai's went off on their own and copied an old colonial sytled sports club. And the type of discussion hasn't apparently moved on much from that era either.

The Thais didn't go off on their own to set up RBSC a Russian expat petitioned the King with the support of some nobles for a grant of land for the purpose of training horses and this was granted. The club was run as a colonial club largely by the British until about 1960 when the British lost their dominance, as the colonial trading companies declined in Asia, and it was taken over by Thais. The bylaw limiting one nationality to not more than half of the general committee was put in place to reduce British dominance. Now it applies to Thais but was reduced to not more than one third a few years ago. The only difference between RBSC and other colonial style clubs in the region was that natives were allowed in as members but this was originally restricted to the royal family and nobility. They fitted right in because they had been to Eton, Harrow, Oxford, Cambridge and Sandhurst and were generally better British educated than the expats who were often sent out to the Far East by trading companies straight from public school. They happily joined the rugger, soccer and cricket teams, as you may see from the old photographs at the club. Naturally, the Chinese were only welcome as club servants and expats regarded employing them as a necessary evil because it was virtually impossible to find Thai butlers, cooks etc that could speak any English.

An interesting digression on a lost world.I became a member of the RBSC about 15 years ago and until today I believed, that Sehgal was on the new members interviewing committee - but I think it may perhaps have been a relative.Whichever Sehgal he was I recall he was very slightly aggressive but a nice enough guy.Arkady touches on the delightfully English class distinction between the Thai aristocracy and the (mostly) minor public school boys at Borneo,Anglo-Thai etc.There were of course a few exceptions like the late Dacre Raikes, a genuine though untypical toff.The more blokey Brits tended to gravitate to the British Club, not as depressingly plebeian as it is now.The top rank Brits tended to belong to both clubs, although RBSC was the one with cachet.Anyway the action towards Sehgal seems petty and spiteful and I hope he is in the event able to stay - though he exercised extremely poor judgement (not that someone like that would ever understand why).

"THE CALL for secession by pro-government groups and red shirts in the north has become a new subject of a dispute, with legal action being sought for the seditious act by the military and the anti-government movement using it to strengthen its attacks against the caretaker government"

Permit me to say this about that.

This thing reeks of double standards and coup-monger support by the military. Are they saying all that stuff that has been spewed from the Coup-monger stage by you know who, is all sacrosanct? There was NOTHING there with which to pillorize these people about attacks on the current form of Govt. and Democracy?...But somehow that is OK?

And why this mis-characterization about "pro-Govt. groups" when talking about "Pro-Democracy" entities?

And what about this mis-characterization of the coup-mongers as being "anti-Govt.".....They would be on the streets even if the PTP and Ms. Y. were the most effective Govt. and Prime Minister in the history of the world..... Simply because they are not in power.

This is clearly demonstrated in the final words of this quote, using fabricated issues as cover for "it to strengthen its attacks against the caretaker government", or more aptly characterized, as attacks against an elected Govt..

I have asked many times how you and your red mates think a coup could possibly benefit Suthep and have not go an answer just the usual coup-monger BS,

The only ones who could possibly benefit from a coup are Thaksin, Yingluck and PT.

They could then scream to the world that a legitimate elected democratic government was overthrown by the military.......again.

As we see the reds are prepared to raise an army to fight any coup a move which would probably degenerate into a civil war, as per the south.

Thaksin cares northing how much death and destruction he causes, as we saw in 2010, if he can not be in power he will do anything to harm those who are.

Don't be absurd.It was part of Suthep's strategy that the military intervened so that his proposed council of "good people" could take the place of an elected government.Even his supporters don't deny that.

No mate you are the absurd one, Do you really think that that if the army took over they would give Suthep any place in any administration, no way the military would do it themselves.

I can show you several of his so called supporters who would deny, but of course you never have any proof although you ask others for links.

I have explained how a coup would benefit PT you have just come out with the usual anti Suthep crap.[/

quote]

Sorry you should continue your discussion with someone else.Even supporters of the PDRC protest will understand why.It's not an equal match.

But just a comment which even you might grasp.There has never been a possibility that Suthep would have a central role when this phase has been played out.This would be endorsed by his supporters,his opponents and by Suthep himself.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

"THE CALL for secession by pro-government groups and red shirts in the north has become a new subject of a dispute, with legal action being sought for the seditious act by the military and the anti-government movement using it to strengthen its attacks against the caretaker government"

Permit me to say this about that.

This thing reeks of double standards and coup-monger support by the military. Are they saying all that stuff that has been spewed from the Coup-monger stage by you know who, is all sacrosanct? There was NOTHING there with which to pillorize these people about attacks on the current form of Govt. and Democracy?...But somehow that is OK?

And why this mis-characterization about "pro-Govt. groups" when talking about "Pro-Democracy" entities?

And what about this mis-characterization of the coup-mongers as being "anti-Govt.".....They would be on the streets even if the PTP and Ms. Y. were the most effective Govt. and Prime Minister in the history of the world..... Simply because they are not in power.

This is clearly demonstrated in the final words of this quote, using fabricated issues as cover for "it to strengthen its attacks against the caretaker government", or more aptly characterized, as attacks against an elected Govt..

I have asked many times how you and your red mates think a coup could possibly benefit Suthep and have not go an answer just the usual coup-monger BS,

The only ones who could possibly benefit from a coup are Thaksin, Yingluck and PT.

They could then scream to the world that a legitimate elected democratic government was overthrown by the military.......again.

As we see the reds are prepared to raise an army to fight any coup a move which would probably degenerate into a civil war, as per the south.

Thaksin cares northing how much death and destruction he causes, as we saw in 2010, if he can not be in power he will do anything to harm those who are.

Don't be absurd.It was part of Suthep's strategy that the military intervened so that his proposed council of "good people" could take the place of an elected government.Even his supporters don't deny that.

Just who is this mysterious group of people you consider the ammarat. Lets face it you are clueless and pick a mysterious unknown group to be behind it all. Do you see conspiracies in every thing backed up by mysterious unnamed people. The people who are in power were the PTP red shirts backed up by Thaksin Shinawatra. No secret there. No mysterious bunch of unnamed people.

The people who are behind Suthep are the grass roots people who after years of watching the destruction of a decent government have risen up no secret there. Yes there names are unknown but you might know a few of them your self. They could be your neighbor or work mate. Your grocery clerk the man behind the desk at the information counter in the Mall The factory worker. Just plain ordinary Thais who have had enough of Thaksin and his clan which includes many bought and paid for politicians.

From a very competitive entry the above post wins the dunce's hat for meeting all three main criteria of (1) fatheaded ignorance, (2) lack of perspective and (3) sheer thickness.Special merit was acquired in the last category.

Turning to the real world and the thread subject matter I have changed my mind somewhat on the likelihood of a judicial coup which I had thought inevitable.I believe the odds are about even now, the main factor being a growing awareness by the unelected elites behind Suthep that the consequences could be catastrophic.As the article rightly points out for every action there is an equal and opposite reactionStill one should never underestimate the shortsightedness of some influential figures so the odds have only been reduced.

The Asian Sentinel covers some of this ground rather well.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thai-opposition-losing-gamble/

I feel a little background briefing is required and I am indebted to Freddie Gray of THe Spectator for supplying it.

Here are ten handy phrases for bluffing your way through a conversation about the situation in Ukraine:

1. ‘It’s simplistic to think in terms of east versus west in today’s global, multi-polar world.’ A classic this: the phrase can be adapted and used in just about any serious conversation about anything. Say it early in the discussion, before anyone else can.
2. ‘Sevastopol is of great strategic importance for Putin, especially given the ongoing situation in Syria.’ A useful ploy, this remark establishes you as a bigger-picture guy, who grasps the geopolitics of both eastern Europe and the Middle East — and that global, multi-polar world you were just talking about.
3. ‘What we are seeing here is the return of geography.’Similar to the last, this one neatly lifts you away from the intricacies of Eastern European diplomacy and has the advantage of being almost completely meaningless.
4. ‘The similarities with Hitler and the Sudetenland/Anschluss/Peter the Great/ Stalin and the Tartars/Genghis Khan are striking.’ Historical analogies are invaluable to the experienced bluffer, but the amateur must tread carefully. It is terribly easy to become unstuck in the past. When in doubt, hedge: ‘I am not saying that Putin is Hitler, but …’ or ‘it’s easy to get away with these comparisons, but …’ Try to look pained, as if contemplating both the complexity and the imminent possibility of human suffering.
5. ‘Ukraine literally means “borderland”, of course’ — easy one to remember, but a sentence that hints at real wisdom. It has the added benefit of not requiring any follow-up knowledge. Use in the context of ‘statelets’, ‘the great game’ and ‘annexation’.
6. ‘Yes, but Putin is in danger of over-playing his hand.’ Especially effective as a foil: if the clever bloke at the other end of the table is discussing an article he’s read in Foreign Affairs, just wait for him to say anything about ‘the limits of western power’ and pounce. Replace the word ‘Putin’ with ‘Nato’ if he is going the other way.
7. ‘One must always be wary about unleashing ethno-nationalist forces.’ This one sets you up to make quite racist generalisations without seeming explicitly racist. ‘The Slavs are at their most dangerous when national borders are in flux,’ you can add, having already dropped your ethnic sensitivity card.
8. ‘The Orthodox have a different way of looking at these things.’ Religion never fails when you need to generalise; refer noddingly to the ‘Moscow Patriarchate’ as if you expected all your companions to know the various traditions within Eastern Christianity.
9. ‘It all comes down to the energy markets.’ No one will dare contradict you here. Link the crisis to the ‘shale gas revolution’. Refer obliquely to deals between the oligarchs, the Kremlin and Gazprom, and throw in the words ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’, ideally in an ironically proficient Russian accent, for good measure.
10. ‘I am not sure we should be making light of the situation — we are talking about a potential World War III here.’ The Puritan’s gambit; this establishes you as a serious dude who cares and silences those who might have been enjoying themselves too much. Send it as a reply to anyone who shares this post with you online.

If you have any evidence that Khunying Pojaman had anything to do with that please provide it - and not just the usual unsupported innuendo.

I would also suggest you consult forum rules about your post.

Starting to feel the new PDRC laws.

You cant go shopping at Emporium or Paragon anymore if you dont support the views of the PDRC because they are now "yellow zones" only.

Apartheid is coming to Thailand soon.

Actually one would get the wrong impression from the comments on this thread of the reality.Many upper class Thais in Bangkok while disliking Thaksin intensely have no particular problem with Khunying Potjaman.Indeed she is friends with many of them.I am reliably informed that Khunying Sasima Sirvikorn telephoned to apologise for her daughter (Thaya) and son in law's poor behaviour.Thaya's brother also called to apologise.A storm in a teacup no doubt but it's always worth remembering on Thai Visa few foreigners appreciate the interconnected upper class Thai world - mainly because they have no connection with it or knowlefdge how it works.However the current crisis plays out the monied upper class whether leaning towards red or yellow (obviously the bigger majority) will not be casting any member into outer darkness (Thaksin excepted of course).

Diluting the votes of the rural northerners is the only reform that will prevent PTP from continuing to win elections. It is the only reform the PDRC could bring in that would allow the Democrats to "win" an election. All the "corruption" and "Thaksin is evil" stuff is just a smoke screen. They thought that taking away half the senate from the electors in the last constitution would allow them to maintain control of the permanent institutions and thus be able to still exert pressure on the government of the day to do their bidding, no matter who was in power. They clearly thought wrong and now they want to illegally seize power again and enact reforms that further disenfranchise voters. The principle of 1 man 1 vote is the only thing that the PDRC is truly opposed to - the rest is negotiable.

Can you link to anything that indicates that the PDRC is against "One man, One vote" in any of their proposed reforms?

You might wish to reread the post you commented on.He was not saying that PDRC had any such official view (I don't think it has official views on anything), simply that it was implicit in everything it stands for.We know that PDRC includes many PAD leaders and followers, and a restricted franchise was certainly part of their programme - however much back pedalling went on later.The PDRC certainly has much to say about the evils of majoritarianism.The reality is the Democrats/PDRC are never going to win power in an electoral democracy without huge changes in policy and leadership, or a franchise system which gives greater weighting to "good" people.

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

I saw macargo's quote and i think it is fundamentally wrong.

Affluent bangkokians feel they are permanently gree the tragedy isould aoutnumbered (hence this prolonged Suthep led hissy fit).

They have yet to grasp though the logic of electoral democracy however, that when the numbers are against you, you gotta go out and convince them to vote for you.

But that requires hard work and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the democrats are up for a challenge. Which is a shame really, as any political stategist worth his salt could figure out a strategy to beat this Puea Thai 'B' team.

You are entirely correct.However I don't think your position is inconsistent with what McCargo says.As I understand it he is saying affluent Bangkokians do understand the electoral implications of their minority position, hence - the implication being - have unwisely thrown their lot in with anti democratic forces personified by Suthep.As I think you would agree the tragedy is that the Democrats haven't risen to the challenge.Indeed all the signals from Abhisit (less so Korn) are that he doesn't really feel much needs to be done by way of internal party reform.It's very frustrating as in a country like Thailand it's hard to believe the rural majority (at least in the N and NE) is a monoloithic Thaksinite lump.

The need to reform a political party allied to the establishment in the face of electoral pressures is hardly unique to Thailand.Look at the UK's Tories (even crustier than Thailand's Democrat Party at one time).It reformed itself so that it attracted millions of newly enfranchised working class voters.Result - the aristocratic and wealthy classes sacrificed a little but kept most of what they had.The risk in Thailand given the present no compromise craziness is that the elites may lose everything, in extremis even their lives.

This thread confirms Thailand has changed - for the worse. At one time we all boasted that we were all ex-special forces with hi-so connections.

Now the latest dick-swing is pretending you had a public school education followed by Oxbridge and then bragging about it endlessly as a way of giving yourself extra credence.

Welcome back.

Obviously it's wrong to pretend what you are not.However this is an anonymous forum so one can pretend to be anyone or anything.You are for example pretending this is your first post.

By definition ex special forces types in Bangkok do no have hiso connections.

If one pretends to be well educated and isn't, that's inevitably reflected in posts - however hard one tries to sound intelligent and well informed.If one is actually well educated, that's a good thing isn't it?

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

What you cannot do however is lie.I have never posted anything remotely akin to the specific charge you have made about Yingluck/PTP and the amnesty.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I haven't lied. I have a distinct memory of having had a discussion with you around the time that PTP were elected, in which i argued, along with a good number of others, that all this talk of the need for reconciliation and these claims of the PTP being the ones who could possibly achieve it (if not acheive it, certainly do a better job than the Dems) was a load of baloney, and that the only reason they were constantly talking about reconciliation was because of opportunity it potentially presented to them to get Thaksin back and off the hook. And my distinct memory is of your response to that being, along the lines of, "don't be silly, stop trying to preempt what they will do... wait and see... the chances of them doing that are very remote, because of the political and social turmoil it would create... the PTP / Yingluck aren't that stupid... stop obsessing about Thaksin...".

Come on, you have to admit, that does sound like you, doesn't it? No?

Sadly, Thaivisa records only go back a year so i can't quote you directly. I will make you a deal therefore. If you can put your hand on your heart and tell me you said nothing of the sort, that you in no way misjudged this debacle in the way i am describing, then i will take you at your word, retract my claim, and apologise for my bad memory. I'm happy to do that because although I know you to be many things, i don't take you as a liar. So, over to you...

Well thank you for the reasonable tone which I appreciate.What prompted all this in the first place was your very unreasonable response when I pointed out the Democtat/Suthep links.Anyway in the same spirit if I have personalised any of our discussions excessively, I apologise.

Turning to your specific question, the honest answer is I can't remember in detail.I certainly may have said the new government should be given a chance since it had a clear mandate.As to Thaksin I am quite sure however my position was (and is) that the charges against him were politically motivated and in any event relatively trivial,his shocking human rights offences being off the agenda because those in pursuit of him were also implicated.I am also sure I have posted that Thaksin must remain in exile for the forseeable future.I have never been a fan of the amnesty.Though a different point I may well have said stop obsessing about Thaksin because I believe this struggle is fundamentally about other causes.Thaksin is the mere catalyst though I'm aware you disagree.The question you might want to ask yourself is a hypothetical one.If Thaksin and his family were today magically spirited away to Nirvana would the country revert to the status quo ante? or would - as a result of Thailand's profound social changes - a political movement emerge very quickly (hopefully led by a less divisive person) to win power at the expense of the Democrats (and those non elected power groupings that have been backing them?)

Incidentally I had always hoped the Democrats under Abhisit would get their act together.I feel much more comfortable personally with people like Abhisit and Korn - and they are closer to me in social and educational background.Still I firmly believe that when historians consider events in Thailand fifty years from now Abhisit will be seen to have been a greater disaster than Thaksin, someone who had all the talents but failed because of character defects.

The voting system in Thailand is completely ridiculous. You can't vote where you are currently living. Is it like that anywhere else in the world?

in thailand is the same.

you must vote in your home.

for this people the home is not in bangkok.

Hi Ponchi

Congratulations on a great joke account.It must be difficult to combine such stupid and ignorant opinions with horrible English - but I think you get the comic effect just right.I don't know how you do it but I look forward to lots more rib tickling posts.

Look, she is not a joke. She is honestly telling the way she thinks and that, agree with it or not, is shared by many other Thai people.

For example, home is where you are born not where you live. That is the same as China law.

Beside that I suspect her English is better than your Thai.

No, it's a joke.Nobody could be that stupid,unpleasant and sheer ignorant.But it's a very good parody and every post is hilarious.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Oh dear this has become embarrassing for you now.I noted your shift from suggesting I denied links between Thaksin and the redshirts to your later revised criticism that I "downplayed" links.

The words I used from the outset were downplayed / denied. You ignored downplayed for obvious reasons. Matters not, as you have been guilty of both.

The odd aspect is that I am on record as criticising Thaksin many times for exploiting his followers, and for attempting to force through the ill advised umbrella amnesty.

Indeed as you are also on record as having said that PTP and Yingluck were not purely driven by trying to help Thaksin with the amnesty plan and that people who predicted they were, were simply usual suspects with Thaksin obsessions. Another Thaksin link you badly misjudged.

But you make the classic error of placing Thaksin centre stage when in fact he is just a catalyst.The old order is dying in Thailand and the redshirts to some extent reflect this as increasing wealth and modernity have destroyed old fashioned social deference.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

About time you came up with some new material. Been repeating this nonsense years.

You can disagree with me on Thaksin's significance though reasoned arguments would be more effective than petulant charges of " nonsense".But that is not a matter of major concern: I do not expect intelligent or interesting insights from you.

What you cannot do however is lie.I have never posted anything remotely akin to the specific charge you have made about Yingluck/PTP and the amnesty.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You just repeat yourself and compound your folly.Which links have I denied?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What i actually said, and have since repeated a couple of times, was that you downplayed or flat out denied certain links. Yet every time you come back to refute my statement, you only ever refute having denied certain links. No mention made or any denial from you of having downplayed certain links. I'm assuming you are ignoring the downplayed bit of the statement because you accept that part of the charge.

As to which links you have either downplayed or denied, there is a good three years worth of your posting littered with examples, for anyone with the time and inclination, but to give one such example, you have continually downplayed / denied the specific link that bonds the red shirts and Thaksin, and specific link is one in which the red shirts are there primarily to serve the interests of Thaksin with whatever "heavy-handed" methods are required at the time. You have downplayed / denied this link, arguing that the red shirt movement is in fact a grass-roots movement that thinks for itself and that is gradually shifting away from Thaksin. Well, there was no bigger or better a test to prove one way or the other where they stood, than the suddenly revised amnesty bill put forward by PTP, in which the proposal was to give a free pass to all those involved and possibly guilty in the deaths of over 80 red shirt people in 2010, as well as thousands of other potential criminals.

What bigger issue could there possibly be for the red shirt movement than getting justice for those 80 odd people? None surely. And what did they do? What was their response to this repugnant and insulting idea? Protest vigorously against it surely? Of course. And, at the very very least, have their MPs vote against it. Goes without saying, right?

Well, it should...

Oh dear this has become embarrassing for you now.I noted your shift from suggesting I denied links between Thaksin and the redshirts to your later revised criticism that I "downplayed" links.

Even after shifting your ground you are unable to come up with any examples.Actually there is in your comments a great deal of ignorance and you appear not to be aware of the many strands of opinion in the redshirt movement.The odd aspect is that I am on record as criticising Thaksin many times for exploiting his followers, and for attempting to force through the ill advised umbrella amnesty.But you make the classic error of placing Thaksin centre stage when in fact he is just a catalyst.The old order is dying in Thailand and the redshirts to some extent reflect this as increasing wealth and modernity have destroyed old fashioned social deference.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand