jayboy

How much blame should rest with thaksin?

How about all of it?

Yep, that works for me.

To each their own.

How about the last bit, what works for you there?

Some say that the Drug War actually saved lives and therefore was a good thing for the country - what should we good people think of individuals who hold those particular views?

The drugs war was nothing but extra judicial butchery. Many of those executed were not involved or just poor sods whose lives were ruined by drug addiction.

Anyone who thinks this was a good thing is an idiot.

Clear enough.

I agree with your post, but I'm not sure you realise who you're calling an idiot.

Excellent point.Well meaning but ignorant foreigners who have been primed to loathe Thaksin and his influence often invoke crimes like Tak Bai and the drugs "war" in the hope of blackening further their bete noir's reputation (as if there were not enough personal missteps by Thaksin in other areas to make a critical case).

Thaksin's policy for the South was hopeless but didn't differ from that of the Thai establishment in important essentials.The army was given a free hand with the results at Tak Bai and elsewhere that are familiar to all.

The drugs war in particular is often mentioned presumably because of the high body count, in their eyes a key and necessary point in their indictment of Thaksin because unlike one of his successors he did not preside over the deaths of civilians on the Bangkok streets.As you delicately point out those who want to tie Thaksin alone into this "war" may not realise the wide support for it within the Thai establishment, including some current players.If these foreigners had the wit to observe and understand, they might notice that even the most fervent high level Thai enemies of Thaksin do not talk much about the drugs war or (to a lesser extent) Tak Bai.This isn't an accident.There is a reason for it - their own support or even complicity

Who was the PM at that time? Maybe the red cheerleaders or Mr. Amsterdam's forum bashers care to answer that question.

Seriously? You use this rather decent editorial from the Nation (that in itself is enough reason to celebrate - they are rare) to pursue your blinkered agenda? Some people want to put the country back together, whereas you seem want to be part of the problem.

Try telling this 'blinkered agaenda' to the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, To solve Thailand's recent political problems and to move on we need to go back in time and start prosecuting those that were and still are responsible for the mess we've landed in. And the main culprit is that pathetic little billionaire residing in a desert country that start with 'Du' and ends with 'ai'.

The relatives of those who died in this appalling tragedy know full well who were the murdererers at Tak Bai.the responsibility fell squarely on the shoulders of the Thai army - always unaccountable for its crimes.

For all of Thaksin's heartless comments at the time he was not the culprit - though a more honourable man might have resigned given he was PM.

Indonesia, a country with a worse human rights record than Thailand (remember East Timor?), won over Thailand. What a loss of face that was!!

Indonesia certainly had a dreadful record under Suharto, and it is hardly Sweden like even now.However unlike Thailand the position is improving.More particularly there is much more respect given to the democratic process and elections on a one person one vote basis are successfully held and respected.In Indonesia the ordinary people are not patronised and often held in contempt by the middle classes and the elite.Indonesia has every right to be on the UN HR committee and Thailand was deservedly rejected.

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

<deleted> does it have to do with what I think of the junta (besides the fact that you're wrong). You just can't help yourself, can you?

And, I'm not wrong. Show me any report on asset declarations that discuss where any assets came from.

Your craven attitude to the regime is a matter of record.

As to asset declarations please don't be so childishly naive.Of course asset declarations do not include an analysis of the source of wealth.However once the submission is made implausible statements of wealth (ie where the person involved has never earned more than a government salary) can then be considered, and action taken as necessary.For example the NACC recently took action against the Transport Secretary.At very least the crooks and thieves you are so anxious to defend become the subject of public interest and scrutiny.

It's called transparency it was the Generals buzzword when he came to power, all it is doing is showing the country that the rich and elite are still running the country irrespective of their shirt colour

Transparency of what? How could it make a difference whether you know their assets at the start of their tenure and their assets at the end, especially when they are not in a position to change those assets due to their NRC jobs?

Because normal and simple academics don't normally amass huge fortunes mate they're not in high paid positions in society that makes their wealth leap out at you

For example If a professor of literature has 60million baht in his account wouldn't you be curious as to HOW he got that?

That's the transparency I'm on about

Declaration of assets is to determine the change of fortune during tenure, it's not to analyse how they got their fortune before they started.

Wrong again.Part of the purpose is also to show that those appointed do not have "unusual wealth" that cannot be justified.This criterion has very long antecedents in Thailand and elsewhere.

Inconvenient for those who have a slave like relationship with the current regime but nevertheless true.

Mr. Adams clearly doesn't know that when the PM was in Milan the main Asian neighbours were happy with the military government and more recently the PM expressed satisfaction with the level of public support and reiterated how other countries were satisfied with how LoS was being run.

Now who would you believe, the PM or a foreigner who doesn't understand Thailand and is trying to scupper the attempt to get a place at one of the UN's main bodies ?

You are misinformed.The Japanese after the Milan meeting issued a statement confirming Mr Abe had told the Thai dictator there was a need for early elections and a return to democracy.The Thai Foreign Ministry excised this reference in its version of the meeting.

The Chinese are friendly towards any Thai Government,as we have seen from its excellent relations with Thaksin"s and Yingluck"administrations.

Thailand failed to gain a place on the HR committee.Your sad attempts to belittle HRW are pathetic.However you are right to imply that membership of the UN HR Committee is meaningless.How could it be otherwise when Qatar is a member?

The first problem he should be solving is a date for the next democratic election.

That's what the rest of the world is asking him to do.

Including the Japanese.Not entirely clear to the nation at large since PM Abe's sharply worded demand for a return to democracy and early elections was deleted from the Thai report on the Milan meeting claiming all was sweetness and light. The criticism is however clearly there in the Japanese statement.

Evidently the only possible explanation is that the excision was an entirely understandable administrative error on the Thai side.This is the explanation that I prefer since otherwise it could only be the handiwork of retards peddling lies that a ten year old could see through.

An overheard conversation somewhere in Japan:

" Pi Maeow, I've found a way for us to hold meeting and rallies whilst Uncle Tu is premier".

" And what do you propose , my sweet little clone sister?"

" It's quite simple really, my loveable squarehead brother".

" That's what I expected, my geographically challenged sibling, well, what is it?"

" Well you know we had a jolly get together at PiPia's cremation on Sunday and everything was fine with Uncle Tu because it was a cremation"

"Yes?"

"Well that's it! All we have to do from now on to have a meeting is ensure one of our esteemed members has passed on and we can all get together and cheer me after I light the pyre!."

" What an excellent idea my dear, thank you 3 times,......, now who can we persuade first to volunteer?"

P.G Wodehouse eat your heart out!

It's amazing how the zealots can spend so much time obsessing about Thaksin ie this rather puerile dialogue.Still the usual crowd will lap up this crap.

Excellent post.

Your logic is hard to argue with. Although it is debatable how long the Red Shirt movement would last without Thaksin. The same hypothetical question could be asked about what effect Hitler's removal in the early 1930s would have had on the Nazi Party. How much influence do charismatic personalities have, as opposed to the ideologies they espouse.

Unrelated to the content of your post; allow me to suggest that you use the space bar after your full stops.

I don't really believe in the great man theory of history. We now know from the most reputable historians that apart from the early blitzkrieg years of WW2 Hitler was an unmitigated disaster for the German war effort. He was however the product of social forces and the depression,and it's entirely possible the same forces would have produced another fuhrer but with more grip and resilience - resulting in an Axis victory or a negotiated settlement.

Thaksin simply exploited a political opportunity that others neglected. If the Democrats had been less hopeless they could have achieved power by reducing dependence on the tired old elites and appealing more directly to the Thai people.In short if Thaksin had never existed someone else would have exploited the same "populist" approach.

So your saying that it's a given lots of folks have the same morals (lack of) as the paymaster.

In the politest possible way it might be more productive for you to engage in discussion with someone else or even on another forum - where you can rant simplistically against your "enemies".

Excellent post.

Your logic is hard to argue with. Although it is debatable how long the Red Shirt movement would last without Thaksin. The same hypothetical question could be asked about what effect Hitler's removal in the early 1930s would have had on the Nazi Party. How much influence do charismatic personalities have, as opposed to the ideologies they espouse.

Unrelated to the content of your post; allow me to suggest that you use the space bar after your full stops.

I don't really believe in the great man theory of history. We now know from the most reputable historians that apart from the early blitzkrieg years of WW2 Hitler was an unmitigated disaster for the German war effort. He was however the product of social forces and the depression,and it's entirely possible the same forces would have produced another fuhrer but with more grip and resilience - resulting in an Axis victory or a negotiated settlement.

Thaksin simply exploited a political opportunity that others neglected. If the Democrats had been less hopeless they could have achieved power by reducing dependence on the tired old elites and appealing more directly to the Thai people.In short if Thaksin had never existed someone else would have exploited the same "populist" approach.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Chalerm had a case to make but his comments don't support it.Most of us will have recognised his errors and illogicalities.Interestingly he attaches much more reliance on Thaksin personally than reality justifies (perhaps reflecting his godfather mentality).In my view Thaksin has no further personal role in Thai politics other than his current indirect one.So in short one can dismiss Chalerm's meanderings.

But there is a case that Thaksin has "won" or rather that the old order has lost - even against the background of current events which might seem to demonstrate the opposite.What's happening in Thailand is hardly unique - a shift of power from established elites to a wider grouping.In UK this happened in the mid nineteenth century and thereafter.There was a historic compromise in which the old order was allowed to retain wealth and influence.The British upper classes showed intelligence and enlightened self interest in the way that their Thai equivalents generally have not.In fact the latter have generally shown extreme stupidity.The real objective of the Junta and its backers is to root out "Thaksinism".I don't really understand how this will be done.One can exile the man in established Thai tradition and ban his family/friends/associates from office - but to repress the forces he stood for is impossible, like King Canute commanding the sea to retreat.For many including me it's irritating that such a man as Thaksin - vain, overbearing and corrupt - holds this role.But hold it he does and he has changed the course of Thai politics forever.But ultimately his role is just that of a catalyst.

So you call thaksin the new order? Heaven forbid. General please stay 10 years at a minimum.

You have either failed to read or badly misunderstood what I wrote.

It's probably only fair to point out that there were in Milan a number of Thais with banners welcoming military dictatorship.This isn't surprising since the urban middle class (the type of Thais who would be able to travel to/work in Milan) were strongly behind Suthep's street protests which had much of its focus on destabilising politics and thus prompting a military coup.It's not really logical to maintain that one supported PDRC but deplored a military coup:the two are inextricably linked.J have seen photos of both groups - pro and anti.The latter will have a lot of support from Italian democrats.The former won't have any - freaks that they are.In Italy fascism doesn't have much of a following these days, not since Mussolini was shot and his body hung upside on meathooks outside a gas station.

Wait 'till he travels to London one day!

There will be at least two guys who are on Thaksin's payroll barking in the streets.

I'm not a particular admirer of Giles Ungpakorn but to desribe him as being on Thaksin's payroll is a comment of profound ignorance and stupidity.

Don't worry.

Neither of the trouble maker will have their Italian visa approved.

Italian government also wanted a successful event.

Not sure you're right about that.Prayuth has already arrived in Milan so he must have obtained a visa and Thanasak had no plans to travel so far as I know.You are right the Italians would like to keep out these trouble makers but there are diplomatic niceties to follow and Prayuth is of course head of a government.

More seriously your comment suggests you don't understand how free countries operate.It is beyond possibility that a country like Italy would deny visas to anyone like Acharn Giles or Robert Amsterdam.

He needs to avoid the international press as it will be a pr disaster. They will know exactly how to phrase the questions.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I understand he will face a hostile reception though one suspects the number of protesters will be modest.The problem is they will be given protection by Italian law.He should aim to avoid the press altogether if possible.

My helpful suggestion is that he should before departure seek the advice of Khun Yingluck who knows how to win friends and influence people, and is widely acknowledged to have improved Thailand's overseas reputation after the disastrous Abhisit/Kasit fiasco.

Although the Junta overthrew Khum Yingluck's democratically elected government she wouldn't beat a grudge if the interests of the country were involved.Obviously he is lacking in polish and sophistication but I think Khun Yingluck could educate him in the basics so that he does not embarrass himself and the country.

I hope he will avail himself of my thoughtful advice which is given caringly.

Understand he will face a hostile reception - from who do you understand this?

Yingluck tried to make friends with President Obama for sure. Not sure she was able to influence him. Or anyone else for that matter. Can you give examples of her great successes?

Widely acknowledged - by you and who else. She was an embarrassment, thank you three times.

She wasn't the PM when the caretaker government was ousted. She had already been removed for an illegal act. Hard to call it her government anyway when her convicted criminal fugitive brother picked the cabinet and regularly met them to give his instructions.

Yingluck demonstrated her intellect, diplomatic skills and sophistication for all to see. Her remark that she didn't like all that foreign food and took instant Thai noodles was a master stroke of diplomacy. Must have gone down better than those noodles. I doubt she has the ability to educate anybody about anything.

I'm sure, should he read TV, he will treat your comments with the appropriate degree of interest.

As to the hostile reception this has been widely publicised.Since you seem to be a little slow on the uptake I am referring to expatriate Thais, not ASEM delegates.The latter's response will be a polite indifference from some and pointed comments from others.

The subject of this thread is Prayuth's attendance of the ASEM meeting in Milan, not Yingluck,However it is not really up for debate whether Thailand's image overseas improved during her government after the disastrous influence of little Kasit.Nobody is sugesting she is a Palmerston or Metternich.Prayuth (taking the UK as an example) has as much chance of a friendly reception from Queen Elizabeth or David Cameron as I have being decapitated by a frisbee.

It must have seemed all your dreams were coming true when the Junta seized power.Other initial enthusiasts more perceptive than you clearly have buyers remorse now.Just wait a few months:it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Now he is pretending that he doesn't understand diplomacy or maybe he really doesn't. Did he expect the British ambassador to say exactly what was in his mind and rant and rave about corrupt police and military working hand and glove with Mafia to scapegoat innocent people?

Diplomats and Thais have one thing in common: they never speak directly. But if you know how to read between the lines in their own language you know exactly what they are saying. The statement of the British foreign minister was clear to anyone who understands how diplomats communicate. The Thai PM responded in a Thai manner, not a diplomatic manner . . . and for anyone who has spent much time in Thailand, it is equally clear what his response was intended to communicate. And it was no gaffe, he knew exactly what he was saying, the Thai way.

And what was he saying? Please advise because many of my Thai friends are puzzled and embarrassed so clarification would be welcome.

Incidentally my experience of those who waffle on about the "Thai way" invariably came down in the last shower.

I believe the PMs statement was meant to be an insult and a total brush off, in response to a diplomatically direct challenge (most likely based on knowledge from an internal British investigation) and perceived insult and loss of face. I believe most Thai people do understand what he was really saying, just as they would understand if this same type of exchange had taken place between two Thai politicians, between two neighbors or business persons having a disagreement, etc. They are embarrassed because they realize how it will be perceived, both inside Thailand by people that do understand what he is really saying, and by foreigners that do not. And they are embarrassed and worried because they understand the diplomatic, practical (i.e. tourism/economy related), perceptive, and other impacts this may have on the country, as well as the implications it has for real reform within the country. He knew full well what he was saying, but may not have known, or on balance with other concerns doesn't care, what the implications would be.

By the way my discussion of the "Thai way" was not intended to pass judgment one way or the other. It was simply a statement of reality as to how most Thai people communicate in circumstances involving conflict (I admit it's a generalization that doesn't apply to everyone or every situation, but from my long experience it applies to most). Again based on a lot of experience, the "Thai way" of being indirect is a double-edged sword: sometimes it makes a situation worse, sometimes better . . . just as being too direct in a farang matter can be a double-edged sword as well.

I don't understand what you mean by "came down in the last shower". If you mean I just recently arrived and do not have long-term experience in Thailand, then you are very wrong.

Thanks for this intelligent response.It all rings very true.Perhaps also it illustrates the PM is not really a very sophisticated global operator given his context is almost entirely that of the Thai world and a largely military one to boot.One could argue that this lack of worldliness also applied to other leaders such as Chuan but he had a gentler temperament which softened the impact.Above all he and other home grown leaders had a filter which seems absent in the current PM.

Apologies for the dig at the "Thai way" comment.Usually when foreigners invoke it I reach for my revolver.But your clear explanation is excellent.

Now he is pretending that he doesn't understand diplomacy or maybe he really doesn't. Did he expect the British ambassador to say exactly what was in his mind and rant and rave about corrupt police and military working hand and glove with Mafia to scapegoat innocent people?

Diplomats and Thais have one thing in common: they never speak directly. But if you know how to read between the lines in their own language you know exactly what they are saying. The statement of the British foreign minister was clear to anyone who understands how diplomats communicate. The Thai PM responded in a Thai manner, not a diplomatic manner . . . and for anyone who has spent much time in Thailand, it is equally clear what his response was intended to communicate. And it was no gaffe, he knew exactly what he was saying, the Thai way.

And what was he saying? Please advise because many of my Thai friends are puzzled and embarrassed so clarification would be welcome.

Incidentally my experience of those who waffle on about the "Thai way" invariably came down in the last shower.

The stirring of concern and uncertainty about the roadmap.

I think the Nation piece touches on an excellent point regarding the tension in the Thai elite between those who favour bureaucratic polity (reliance on public servants rather than politicians, the Yes Minister approach if you like) and those who prefer a more open democratic system, nothing new in this which has persisted for decades.Personally I think the Thai tradition of excellence in the upper civil service (particularly in the agencies and ministries with financial responsibility) has served Thailand well - preserving an independence in fiscal and monetary policy.But equally it's not perfect as we saw in the late 1990's, and I also believe bureaucratic polity requires elected oversight.

As to the reform programme now and choosing words carefully it's really necessary to have a long perspective.All coups mean well and promise reform.All are initially popular.Day by day however the task of unelected governments tends to become more difficult as popular enthusiam fades.The military mindset isn't good at herding cats and that's an entirely appropriate metaphor for Thailand.