.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
jayboy
-
Posts
8,994 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by jayboy
-
-
I think the headline is misleading, it's only in reference to the current struggle with Pheua Thai and its attempt to whitewash Thaksin's wrongdoing.The ultimate goal shouldn't be to "bring down the Thaksin regime." The ultimate goal should be to deliver benefits and service to the Thai people in a more fair and practical way.
The Democrat party are fully aware of the need for them to propose positive proposals for the future of Thailand. They're working on them at the moment, expect to see their vision before tooo long.
I'm pleased to hear it.But I simply can't believe that Khunying Kalaya (personally someone I have a lot of respect for) can play any part in that future unless she completely changes her tone
-
The Democrats have to decide what kind of party they are.The recent display of yobbery in parliament didn't serve their interests well, and probably reflects the divisions between those who wish to oppose the government by conventional means and those who want to take the battle on to the streets.Even Abhisit in public meetings now has abandoned his civilised Etonian demeanour and spews out a cruder line.All of which doesn't help their future prospects.I'm a foreigner, reasonably well off and well educated - all my natural sympathies are with the old style Democrats, a conservative by temperament.I introduce the personal note because I believe there are many Thais in my position who feel profoundly uncomfortable with the way the Democrats have tied themselves up with reactionary forces.
As to Siripon's post.In most countries, even the most developed, there's little interest in parliamentary debate.We need to be careful however in jumping to the conclusion that the mass of the people are not fit to decide.I think the key objective is to raise the standards of MPs and Senators.An aggressive stance in parliament is I think OK but it's a matter of judgement for the leadership when it goes too far.Last week it did.
The New York Times has an interesting and relevant take
-
'Thaksin thinks, Pheua Thai does' was the slogan of Pheua Thai in the last election- now that's what I call an obsession, they know full well that the northern and Issan grass roots still love Thaksin and that without him Pheau Thai are doomed.I could not add anything more. In my opinion, this article says everything about the state of the democrat party.
There are some very capable and good people within the democrats. It just seems that their obsession about Thaksin alienates their judgement. They do not make politics anymore. They just play dirty games and spread rumors. The behavior they show to the public is really immature. They are irrational. Their strategy is doomed.
There will be a day the Dems will have to come back to the real world.
So all their MPs continue to kowtow down to him, pushing through legislation to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp of Parliament, rolling back democratic checks and balances.
The Democrats had to do what they did in Parliament last week. They have to show the dormant Thai public the authoritarian, dictatorial beast that Thaksin and Pheau Thai are.
The Democrats have a decent case (particularly given the Speaker's curtailing of debate) to make but their shenanigans iin parliament weakened their position.Your post indicates the self defeating mindset that is gradually strangling them.They did not "do what thew had to do":they behaved like unruly children.The reference to the "dormant Thai public' is also revealing.When there is such a contempt for the Thai public (of which the North and North East are key constituents) there is very little hope the Democrats can make a come back under their present leadership.
-
Sounds like jayboy is the only one who swallowed this crock of shit.
And there are two things I am trying to understand - Whether or not he is a troll, and who he has a crush on, Yingluck or the pseudo "expert" Tepperman.
So no serious points to make then.
-
- Popular Post
The question of leadership is very pertinent. Both the 1992 and 2010 street protests had strong leadership (92 was essentially a Bkk middle class uprising, while 2010 was supposed to be for the rural poor - ha bloody ha). While it's correct to say that small groups are coming out in protest, most of these are single issue oriented and not overtly political. Once they have registered their protest, they tend to die away. The rice issue has the potential to cause serious problems, but history would suggest otherwise. Looking around at the whole scenario at the moment, it is almost surreal in that there is very clear and very widespread dissatisfaction towards the govt, but no sign of any united groundswell beginning to build up. It's kind of like hit-and-run tactics without a political guerrilla war.
Were you at the redshirt demonstrations?
I was. Before Abhisit claimed that any farang showing up would be arrested on site and deported.
They were the poor. Unlike the PAD.
By the way most civilised countries subsidise their farmers.
The governments policy was to cut out the middlemen.
In Europe we have the common agricultural policy.
Without it there would be serious trouble and quite possibly starvation.
Although I lived quite close to the areas of demonstrations & riots, I kept away because it was none of any Farang's business. The idiots who got up on the red shirt stage got what they deserved.
The paid masses were poor but their elite leaders were not & many were ensconced in a 5-star hotel. Your comment about the PAD is typical propaganda.
The PAD started as a protest group, first against the corrupt PTT IPO & second (& more heavily) against Thaksin's efforts to privatise EGAT without any regulator in place. The PAD now included SRT union members, Thai Airways union members & others horrified that a supposed 'man of the people' could attempt such self-serving & right-wing policies. The attempt to buy into Liverpool FC - with public money - followed.
So, the PAD has in the past included a broad spectrum of poor, union members & middle class among it's members. The is no evidence that they were paid to demonstrate unlike Thaksin's red shirts.
Yes, governments subsidise various farming activities but here the middlemen, landlords, and rich farming groups get most of the benefits. If the rice subsidy had been thought through (not just by one man) it could have worked but it was deliberately designed to benefit cronies.
I agree with the CAP but it's ridiculous to say that without it there could possibly be starvation.
If you really want to know why the redshirts supported Thaksin read what Lee Kwan Yew, hardly a gullible lefty, had to say recently.
"The arrival of Thaksin Shinawatra permanently changed Thai politics. Before he came onto the scene, the Bangkok establishment dominated all sides of the political competition and governed largely to the benefit of the nation’s capital. If there had been disagreements among the Bangkok elite, none were quite as ferocious as the ones to come. Nor were any of the quarrels as divisive as those that arose during and after Thaksin’s term. What Thaksin did was to upset the apple cart of the Thai political status quo by diverting to the poorer parts of the country resources that had previously been hogged by Bangkok and its middle and upper-class residents. Thaksin’s was a more inclusive brand of politics that allowed the peasants from the north and the northeast to share in the country’s economic growth. A gulf had already existed before his arrival, created by the Bangkok-centric policies of his predecessors. All he did was to awaken the people to the gulf — and the unfairness of it — and to offer policy solutions to bridge it. If he had not done so, I am convinced that somebody else would have come along to do the same.
When he took over the premiership in 2001, Thaksin was already a successful businessman and a billionaire. But if rich Thais were counting on him to show class solidarity, they would soon be sorely disappointed. He implemented policies that favoured the rural poor to an unprecedented extent. He extended loans to farmers, overseas scholarships to students from rural families and government —subsidised housing to the urban poor, many of whom had migrated to the cities in search of jobs and could only afford to live in slums. His healthcare plan targeted at those who could not pay for their own medical insurance provided coverage at just 30 baht (about US$1) per hospital visit.
To Thaksin’s opponents, he was turning the country upside down. They were not about to let him get away with it. They called him a populist and claimed his policies would bankrupt the state. (Remarkably, this did not stop them from continuing many of these policies and coming up with other similar ones when they held power from December 2008 to August 2011.) They accused him of corruption and favouring his family businesses, charges he denied. They were also unhappy with his firm — some say dictatorial — handling of the media and his controversial war on drugs in the south of the country, during which due process and human rights may sometimes have been overlooked. Nevertheless, the peasants, overwhelming in numbers, ignored the criticisms and re-elected him in 2005. The Bangkok elite ultimately could not tolerate the man. He was overthrown in a military coup in 2006.
Thailand’s capital has since experienced great upheaval. Scenes of chaos have broken out repeatedly on the streets of Bangkok since 2008, with mass protests involving either the Yellow Shirts, who oppose Thaksin and do so in the name of defending the monarchy, or the Red Shirts, made up of Thaksin’s ardent supporters. But the latest general election, held in 2011, which handed Thaksin’s sister Yingluck the premiership, was a clear vindication by the Thai electorate of the new path that Thaksin had chosen for Thailand. The peasants of the north and the northeast of the country, having tasted what it was like to have access to capital, were not going to give that up. Thaksin and his allies have now won five general elections in a row, in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2011. For Thaksin’s opponents to try to hold back the tide is futile."
-
3
-
Here are the author's biographical detailsGOD, what an awful pack of lies and halftruths! Even coming from a seasoned and probably highly paid beltway PR hack, this is hard to swallow! And that a paper like the NYT would print such unadulterated schlock is almost beyond comprehension.
Jonathan Tepperman was appointed Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs in January 2011. He previously worked at Foreign Affairs from 1998-2006 before moving to Newsweek International, where he was Deputy Editor in charge of Asia, Europe, Africa, and Middle East coverage, and then to Eurasia Group, where he was Managing Editor and a director. He has written for a range of publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The International Herald Tribune, The New Republic, The American Prospect, and others. He has law degrees from Oxford and New York University.
Perhaps the usual reactionary suspects have a similar glittering academic and professional record.That is a matter on which I could not possibly comment.
The main criticism of Mr Tepperman's article is that it does not sufficiently describe the hatred, gereed and selfishness of the unelected feudal and military elites with which Khun Yingluck has had to contend.
As one of the usual reactionary suspects, I am happy to report that I am not completely devoid of academic and professional credentials of my own.
While greed and selfishness run deep in her own family, Ms. Yingluck does a commendable job in arranging herself with some of the other constiuencies in that category, such as the military for example. She does this, by appointing herself to be their direct boss and allowing them to buy lots of expensive toys with excellent informal revenue opportunities. In this regard at least, she is no less skilled than some of her predecessors.
There are plenty of greedy and selfish families in the Sino Thai business world.As to Yingluck you seem to be saying she has entered into some form of pact with the Thai military.All Thai prime ministers have to do that but the current one, unlike the former one, does not owe her position to the military - nor does she have blood on her hands.
-
Try reading the article
I'm guessing Pimay1 wanted some actual facts. You're suggesting reading a fairy story to see if fairies exist. (Metaphor).
Your guess is correct. I simply wanted a list of things (facts) Yingluck has done to hold the country together. But it looks as if I'm not going to get them from jayboy.
It's actually, with respect, a particularly stupid question not only because the writer's view is clearly set out in the article but also because Yingluck's success is not due to a list of doing things but ratherr keeping competing factions more or less content.However the masterly inaction approach only goes so far and it's certainly paper thin ie could end at any moment.However if you are so convinced that she has failed perhaps you would like to suggest a few names who would have done better.Two or three will do nicely.
-
Quotes from the article-' The formula turns out to be deceptively simple: provide decent, clean governance' -surely this is a joke, the rice mortgage scheme, the 70,000 baht clocks in Parliament- Yingluck has done nothing about corruption.
'She has avoided challenging the Constitution' Pheau Thai are doing their best to change parts of it right now.
'she has kept corruption, a perennial problem in Thailand, to a minimum. And she has ensured that her brother, whom the aristocracy still fears and loathes, remains in exile'- complete nonsense regarding the former and for the latter Pheua Thai are doing everything to whitewash his crimes.
This author has no idea!
Some of the facts in the article are wrong and some of the judgements are askew but it captures a central truth that extremists can't bear hearing - that for a novice Yingluck has done very well, somehow keeping the copuntry in one piece despite the huge political pressures.But it's paper thin as the article concedes
Ask yourself a question and try to put political prejudices to one side.Who in the circumstances could have done a better job?
(P.S If your answer is Abhisit, Suthep or Korn that really suugests you are as adrift from reality as Mr Tepperman apparently is).
-
GOD, what a an awful pack of lies and halftruths! Even coming from a seasoned and probably highly paid beltway PR hack, this is hard to swallow! And that a paper like the NYT would print such unadulterated schlock is almost beyond comprehension.
Here are the author's biographical details
Jonathan Tepperman was appointed Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs in January 2011. He previously worked at Foreign Affairs from 1998-2006 before moving to Newsweek International, where he was Deputy Editor in charge of Asia, Europe, Africa, and Middle East coverage, and then to Eurasia Group, where he was Managing Editor and a director. He has written for a range of publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The International Herald Tribune, The New Republic, The American Prospect, and others. He has law degrees from Oxford and New York University.
Perhaps the usual reactionary suspects have a similar glittering academic and professional record.That is a matter on which I could not possibly comment.
The main criticism of Mr Tepperman's article is that it does not sufficiently describe the hatred, gereed and selfishness of the unelected feudal and military elites with which Khun Yingluck has had to contend.
-
How the usual suspects rant and splutter.The New York Times op-ed isn't penned by a retired sex tourist of limited education but by a first tier foreign policy expert.Actually he does portray too optimistic a picture but there's one basic truth in it, namely PM Yingluck has held the country together very well despite the hatred of the old elite and the unruliness of red mobs.
Can you please list the things Yingluck has done to hold the country together?
Try reading the article
-
How the usual suspects rant and splutter.The New York Times op-ed isn't penned by a retired sex tourist of limited education but by a first tier foreign policy expert.Actually he does portray too optimistic a picture but there's one basic truth in it, namely PM Yingluck has held the country together very well despite the hatred of the old elite and the unruliness of red mobs.
-
Even The Nation has contempt for the way the Democrats are behaving.
-
More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.
-
1
-
-
Here is a useful summary of the pros and cons of the argument from The Independent
Extract
"Case for: Bullying
David Miranda is not a journalist. What Glenn Greenwald is doing is not terrorism, and nothing he has published - or authorities at Heathrow have seized - could conceivably aid terrorism. So what do we have here? A pretext to detain a foreign national? Pah. The Home Office has been embarrassed by revelations that it shares data concerning UK citizens with the NSA in America - at a level previously beyond democratic oversight - and it is now cravenly trying to put the rabbit back in the hat. We have a right to know how far state snooping extends. This is a foul and worrying clampdown on necessary reporting.
Case against: Security
If the information held by the Guardian could not - in any way - be damaging to the UK, why do you think UK authorities demanded the destruction of hard drives on Guardian premises? They don't go around doing that kind of thing for fun. David Miranda, we can therefore assume, was carrying highly sensitive and potentially damaging information to Glenn Greenwald. The authorities have every right to intervene. And the excuse that Miranda isn't a journalist? That's just a perfect set-up. Send in a man who can feasibly claim to be a pawn - when in fact his ticket was paid for by the paper."
-
Does The UK have a constitution?
Do they have a Patriot Act?
1.Yes
2.No
We have an 'unwritten' constitution
It's true it's often said that Britain has an "unwritten constitution." This is a misleading platitude.Much of the British constitution is to be found in written documents or statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts.
It has evolved over the years, the product of historical development rather than deliberate design like for example the US Constitution (itself the remarkable creation of mainly British country gentlemen and businessmen - though I daresay this truth is not expressed quite this way in the US!)
-
Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.
Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.
Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.
The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.
Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.
That's one view.Here's another:
A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.
The linked article contains a lot of bullshit.
For example, this excerpt:
He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had aimed not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American – and British – spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world’s most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated "so what?" (I paraphrase) if US intel assets are killed from leaks.
I really don't see how exposing unlawful data access by NSA puts the lives of agents at risk.
Quite on the contrary, it could save some lives, for example if terrorists were suspecting some people to be moles, now they have serious doubts on whether the Us gained the information through human intelligence or if the info was acquired by signals intelligence.
The whole article is manipulative and was probably commissioned.
I doubt whether you have access to US or British intelligence so your frankly rather whimsical speculation isn't that credible.
I see you believe the article was commissioned.Hmm, that's one to remember next time I read an opinion that differs from mine.
-
1
-
-
Another view on the subject, this time from Dan Hodges (by way of interest the son of Glenda Jackson, the Oscar winning actress and Labour MP).
-
Does The UK have a constitution?
Do they have a Patriot Act?
1.Yes
2.No
-
What the heck is happening in the UK? First Miranda, and now they are destroying Guardians hard drives.
Shame you seem to have relied on a link that is factually incorrect.
The move to destroy the Guardian files containing this material has been under negotiation for some time.
(Guardian editor) Mr Rusbridger said that after two months of meetings and the threat of court action, two security experts from GCHQ, the UK's eavesdropping centre, came to the Guardian's offices to oversee the destruction of computer hard-drives.
(My emphasis)
This, and other information there for those who care to look, indicates that the authorities have suspected for some time that Greenwald has been receiving sensitive information from Snowden which if made public could put at risk both the UK's and the USA's intelligence operations and operatives against international terrorism at risk and that Miranda has been acting as a courier of this information.
Freedom of the press is important, but so is the responsibility of the press. Publishing information which not only obstructs anti terrorism operations but also puts the lives of those conducting those operations at risk is not responsible.
To take an example from history; had a newspaper discovered and published the details of the Normandy landings in 1944; would that of been responsible? Would those now placing the freedom of the press above all other considerations have felt the same then?
"But that was a war against a great evil," they may say. So is the war against terrorism!
Interestingly the Guardian was under no legal requirement to destroy the hard drives.There was no court order or any binding rquirement of that kind.It could have refused but decided to go along with the security agencies' (no doubt firmly expressed) request.No doubt The Guardian will provide an explanation in due course
P.S Just heard that the Editor Mr Rusbridger has done just that. Unless the newspaper destroyed the hard drives the matter would go to law and the British concept of prior restraint would apply.Rusbridger understandably wanted to avoid this.He pointed out there were copies of all the files in the US and Brazil.OK I understand now.
-
- Popular Post
Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.
Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.
Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.
The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.
Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.
That's one view.Here's another:
A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.
-
3
-
I don't suppose it matters that that encrypted files believed to originate from Snowden were reported to have been found on the Brazilian toyboy, does it?
He was long suspected of being a courier conduit. This is man is involved right up to his plucked eyebrows.
Involved in what? Terrorism or suspected terrorism? He was paid by, therefore employed by, the Guardian. In effect, a journalist.
Greenwald is employed by the Guardian. Miranda isn't. He's Greenwald's partner.
No this was a Guardian lie - Mirinda was being paid by the newspaper.Another lie was that he was not provided with a lawyer - he was, but refused one.
All my sympathies were initially with Greenwald/Snowden because press freedom is hugely important. The British Government/police have to explain the incident fully.And yet there is much on the other side that needs to be spelled out too.I don't believe all the Guardian has to say and Greenwald's reaction was strangely petulant and evasive.Watch this space - the story's not over by a long shot.
-
The concept is rather a sound one and was famously adopted by Abraham Lincoln.Read Doris Goodwin's 'Team of Rivals".
- not that I'm suggesting this book has ever been digested by anyone in the Thai political class - except Abhisit who is very well read - not that he shows much evidence of following in Lincoln's footsteps.
-
1
-
-
This story proves what a theatre this government is putting up, having to cast actresses for their platform, who's next, Justin Bieber???
If they would get Bono or Sting, they could better move to the moon, because they would tell them the truth.
So laughable.Do you think for a moment Sting or Bono's sympathies (Sunday Bloody Sunday) would not be on the side of the redshirts murdered by the army in 2010 ? Would they change their minds after that persuasive charmer Kasit "explained" the redshirt demonstrators murdered themselves?
Scondly luvvie though she is Emma Thompson has a greater intellect and perception than either of those two gents.
Sunday Bloody Sunday was a song critical of murders that took place during a peaceful demonstration. Bono has condemned all sides responsible for the violence commited during "the troubles". It is by no means pro IRA. He would be no fan of the red stormtroopers or the army. Would probably be critical of both. Probably why he hasn't been invited. Mind you so would Emma Thompson, not sure why PT invited her.
Rubbish and being pro or anti IRA is irrelevant.It is inconceivable that Bono (or Sting) would take the side of the army shooting civilians.No human rights organisation has to date - why should they particularly given their record?
And actually the Bloody Sunday demonstration wasn't completely peaceful in the sense that it took place at a time of escalating IRA violence.Martin McGuiness has confirmed he had snipers in the area ready to pick off British soldiers.However from all I've read there was no actual IRA violence on that day.So the soldiers concerned were panicky and undisciplined - just like Thailand in 2010.
-
Is there something odd about TG's pricing policy and has this contributed to its financial difficulties? Compared with the usual BKK-Lon carriers TG's first class (good service but dated seats/technology) seems significantly cheaper than BA/QF and business class more expensive.I don't understand why one would travel expensively on TG business class when cheaper and better business class travel available.I don't fly economy so no comparitive knowledge.
Our ultimate goal is to bring down the 'Thaksin regime'
in Thailand News Headlines
Posted
It's pointless for Nick Nostitz or indeed anyone who has any knowledge of Thai history (or indeed general culture - Clockwork Orange etc) to argue with this kind of astonishingly ignorant yet bigoted post.Some of us who were here in the 1970's know about the background of the red gaurs and village scouts (and who encouraged and financed them).