jayboy

Usual reactionary trick of pinning a particular flag up which in the Thai context tends to inhibit further discussion.That's the whole point I suppose.This kind of craven lick spittle for the military cannot comprehend that Thai patriots do not have to be proto fascists crawling on the floor in the face of feudalists and generals.Acharn Giles is more of a Thai patriot than many of the old order.(He can also be a slightly silly leftist but that is another story).

I read Point 1 which concluded that Thaksin had carried out the coup to know this was just more ahistorical claptrap, and so it proved to be.

Incidentally the basic reason why Abhisit and Suthep will never go to jail is that the Thai justice system will never be allowed to make such an order.They know that perfectly well which is why Abhisit's "bring it on" claim rings hollow.I agree there's a fair argument they should not be charged with this offence, but that's another issue.

"there's a fair argument they should not be charged with this offence", but we'll ignore that and say that if they get off it was because of the evil amart.

That's unfair.I am sceptical that Abhisit and Suthep should be charged with criminal offences in respect of 2010, not least because this has the fingerprints of partisan politics all over it.I do believe however they need to provide detailed explanations, ideally in a credible public enquiry (along with all others involved, yes including Thaksin).But, going back to the current investigation, the risk of jail is zero.That's why Abhisit's bravado on this issue is all wind.There's no bravery when there's no risk.You can laugh it off with "evil amart" cracks if you like but the reality is that jailtime for these two isn't going to happen.

Reports are saying Rudd has been returned to the PM job.

May call an election in August.

General election now confirmed for September.When in a parliamentary system the leadership changes without recourse to the people it's necessary to obtain a popular mandate quickly - something that some grappling with the parliamentary system in Thailand had difficulty grasping.

Amazing Thailand can call itself "modern" when things like this are still happening.

It's no wonder Thailand receives the second worse rating possible on the Press Freedom Index: "Difficult situation". Level 1 being the best, 6 being the worst, Thailand is ranks at level 5.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

- George Washington

This kind of incident, though in my view an illjudged reaction by the PM and her advisors, is not the reason why Thailand scores so shockingly badly on press freedom.

And what is . . . ?

Take a wild guess, Guy Fawkes (as if you didn't know)...or check an international press monitor such as Reporters Without Borders.Failing that just use your common sense and powers of observation.

Or even (not very likely I concede) quit playing agent provocateur.

Amazing Thailand can call itself "modern" when things like this are still happening.

It's no wonder Thailand receives the second worse rating possible on the Press Freedom Index: "Difficult situation". Level 1 being the best, 6 being the worst, Thailand is ranks at level 5.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

- George Washington

This kind of incident, though in my view an illjudged reaction by the PM and her advisors, is not the reason why Thailand scores so shockingly badly on press freedom.

And ofcourse all the upset and selfrightious posters here will stop buying and eating seafood??

Or not?

You ask the question and perhaps there is no particular issue within Thailand.But I assure you unless the Thai Government and seafood industry manage this problem intelligently there is a very real threat of an overseas boycott.It wouldn't kill the industry, not least because the supply chain is very complicated and it's very difficult to identify exactly what product is "Thai".But the public relations problem could be huge and there is every incentive for the Thais to clamp down hard on illegal and criminal behaviour within the industry.

I'm very disappointed that decorative vegetable carving has not been included, truly a unique Thai gift to world civilisation.

I don't see how you can be so sure.Anecdotally all the evidence points the other way.He seems incapable of winning a national election, so what other routes to power does he have? Now how exactly did he come to power last time round?

How do you judge that he is incapable of winning a national election; because he lost the last where expected supporters were urged to NO vote? Perhaps we allow him another without that scenario, without accusations of being a murderer, and where his opponent is an inarticulate incompetent trying to explain the loss of billions of baht and various other SNAFU.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making.If Abhisit is the right man for the job in the view of his party he should lead it at the next general election, and if what you believe is true, he and the Democrats will win.As to Yingluck if what you obviously believe is also believed by the Thai people then she and the PTP will lose.

The real debate in Thai politics is in my view about something rather different - ie whether the less well off mainly rural majority should be able to take the major political role.Hence the various street movements which test the waters from time to time.

I find it amusing that the only people calling for Abhisit's removal are his opponents. If he was such a liability, would they bother.

I think Abhisit is smart and articulate. I think that if he were a more skilled leader and had the power to implement his policies Thailand would be better for it. But I also think he is a liability for the Democrats now. Fair or not, he gets so much crap thrown at him that some of it has to stick, at least in the minds of many Thais who don't exactly have access to a free, thorough, impartial media environment. I believe that the Democrats would be much more able to control the debate, and would do better at the ballot box, if they had a new leadership team in place.

The Thaksin team are obsessed with Abhisit. Does Abhisit support the removal of Yingluck outside the parliamentary system? No. But if they can tar him with that brush they will do so.

I don't see how you can be so sure.Anecdotally all the evidence points the other way.He seems incapable of winning a national election, so what other routes to power does he have? Now how exactly did he come to power last time round?

Probably not too clever to accuse others of having" thick heads" when your own understanding is so rudimentary and prejudiced.PAD, the yellowshirts, Pitak Siam, Tui's multicoloureds may differ in detail but the driving force is the same and in many cases the same leaders are involved - the objective being to thwart representative democracy when it comes up with a government the feudal,reactionary and military interests are uncomfortable with.The Nation's argument is hardly controversial being that it makes more sense for those that are uncomfortable with the current government to follow the universally accepted remedy of voting another one in when the time is right.The Bangkok municipal election and the recent Democrat victory at Don Muang show the way it should be done.A general election has to be called in a couple of years, and the opposition have their chance.There is a small problem I agree since although some have convinced themselves the PM is a major liability and due for replacement, those not not blinded by partisan politics understand she remains the most popular Prime Minister in living memory - obviously not the most competent (but that's a different argument).

What the usual suspects hate about an article like this is the implicit recognition that the old guard has lost the argument.The Democrats may well win power again (though they will need to ditch Abhisit) but the old order has died a death - and some of the less perceptive defenders of reaction have somehow failed to notice it.

I find it amusing that the only people calling for Abhisit's removal are his opponents. If he was such a liability, would they bother.

OTOH, a PM who has instigated policies causing huge ("only accounting") losses should be above criticism. Well she might be, because there is no way her party can change leadership.

I don't care whether the Democrats replace him or not, except in the sense it would make the Democrats a stronger party and more likely to win a national election.For most middle class well educated people the Democrat Party is a natural home, and I would like to be able to support it.It may surprise some but my natural sympathies reside there.

However if you truly believe there are not powerful interests within the Democrat Party not seriously considering Abhisit's replacement you are profoundly mistaken.There will never be a public debate about it though in the Western sense.

As to the article which has little controversial content - simply that governments should be changed by elections, it's interesting that the fruitier type of reactionary apologist responds by labelling its author a "Thaksin lickspittle".

Good story, now let's see what the Yellow Skirts have to say about this story.

Why cant you reds get it through your thick heads that there is no yellow shirts any more.

They were dead and buried a couple of years ago.

Just because your heroes still choose to were red does not mean anyone else has to wear or identify with a color.

Probably not too clever to accuse others of having" thick heads" when your own understanding is so rudimentary and prejudiced.PAD, the yellowshirts, Pitak Siam, Tui's multicoloureds may differ in detail but the driving force is the same and in many cases the same leaders are involved - the objective being to thwart representative democracy when it comes up with a government the feudal,reactionary and military interests are uncomfortable with.The Nation's argument is hardly controversial being that it makes more sense for those that are uncomfortable with the current government to follow the universally accepted remedy of voting another one in when the time is right.The Bangkok municipal election and the recent Democrat victory at Don Muang show the way it should be done.A general election has to be called in a couple of years, and the opposition have their chance.There is a small problem I agree since although some have convinced themselves the PM is a major liability and due for replacement, those not not blinded by partisan politics understand she remains the most popular Prime Minister in living memory - obviously not the most competent (but that's a different argument).

What the usual suspects hate about an article like this is the implicit recognition that the old guard has lost the argument.The Democrats may well win power again (though they will need to ditch Abhisit) but the old order has died a death - and some of the less perceptive defenders of reaction have somehow failed to notice it.

Frankly, I'm very surprised that there hasn't been more indignation expressed here. It's an obvious and horrible injustice, but does the general silence by the TVF community mean that many or even most members condone the action of the English legal system in this case?

The TVF community, to use your slightly ludicrous expression, might perhaps more usefully take an interest in exploitation of minors closer to home.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22884783

- in which Pattaya is described , correctly in my view,, as a notoriously sleazy seaside town and magnet for paedophiles.Does the general silence of the "TVF community" - where many of its members reside - on the abuse of children in Pattaya mean it condones it?

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

Some of you people need to get out more. By the way, how did Obama get into Harvard? Just curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

"a childish website"? Bush really did misuse and incorrectly define the word disassemble in a nationally televised speech. I thought the website was both amusing and revealing, and it is an actual recording of a snippet of a Bush speech. And he really did go to Yale with mediocre grades and test scores at a time when the top universities in the U.S. were almost entirely white, Protestant, rich, and well-connected, and the well-connected were almost always coached to some kind of degree. Going to Yale at that time is not conclusive proof of intelligence.

It's possible that his lifetime of advancement through connections resulted in his appointment of like-minded loyalists over competent people in everything from the reconstruction of Iraq to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However incompetent subordinates were only part of the problem with the Bush administration, in every way he demonstrated he did not have the intelligence, vision, and leadership skills to effectively execute the job. The results speak for themselves, he took office with the nation at peace, the federal budget in suplus and the economy in a mild recession, and left office with two unresolved wars, the nation running it's largest budget deficit in history, and the economy in free-fall. I can't think of any other viable candidate in the 2000 election that would have screwed up the country as much as George W. Bush did.

Regarding flying a military jet, it's a skill to be learned. The basics are similar to flying a small plane, only things happen a little faster and the consequences for mistakes are more severe. As navigators used to say in the Air Force "You can teach any monkey to fly if you feed it enough bananas."

Noted Yale not Harvard.What you say about Bush's academic record could equally have been said (and with much greater plausibility) about Winston Spencer Churchill.

You make an essentially political case against Bush, though it's one of course that millions of American would endorse (and millions would equally reject).I share some of your views myself but you unaccountably (and fatally I think for your argument) fail to note what happened on September 11th 2001 - and the challenges that followed from that event.In some ways Bush performed admirably in that crisis which was a major test of the kind no President had to face since FDR..However as Samran points out this discussion is not really about policy issues but Bush's character and qualities.His intelligence and shrewdness have been vouched for by independent high powered men and women who have worked with him.Was he a good or bad President? My guess he would have a middling mark but who knows what historians will say. Truman left office with an indifferent reputation and is now regarded as a giant.

Good post, Samran.

He also served as governor of Texas for two terms, which has a higher GDP than all but the highest ranked 14 NATIONS in the world, just slightly smaller than Mexico.

< Off topic comments edited out >

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I'd have plenty of disagreements with him on policy issues. Plenty. But to do so on the basis that the guy is somehow the US version of the village idiot, is like Jayboy said, somewhat stupid....

Exactly the point.The real charges against him relate to policy, and I would also hesitantly say an unwillingness to always grapple with detail.It could of course be argued that it is not a virtue to become ensnared by detail like Jimmy Carter or to ride largely above it like Ronald Reagan.There is a happy medium.Clinton is something of an exception because he had complete command of the detail without ever being swamped :it helps to have a massively formidable brain of course as Clinton does.It's a complex formula for success.Reagan for example by his own admission was no great intellectual and as noted skimped on detail.But he had sure political instincts which he vigorously pursued - perhaps more important than intellect or wonky command of detail

Returning to Bush the argument that he was somehow a dimbulb just don't stack up.Heybruce tries to demonstrate this but can't make a convincing case and is reduced to invoking a childish website as his "proof".The fact that SAT didn't exist when Bush went to Harvard is neither here nor there as it deals only with entrance critewria.Bush achieved a Harvard degree, went on to complete an MBA there, and as has been pointed out learnt how to fly a military jet.

When jayboy speaks about 'undemocratic mob' in the context of the OP I assume he refers to the red-shirts who gave a boisterous reception to attacked a small group of protesters of a different mindset.

< Deleted post edited out >

Overthrow an elected government ? ..... Not sure if the Dems have ever said that. I certainly do not advocate 'overthrow' as it suggests something which any Thai I know wants to avoid at all costs. Where do you stand on this point Jayboy?

Now if we are talking about change, well quite simply the electorate of Dom Muang have spoken.

Even paying the slightest amount of attention would have informed you nobody was talking about the Democrat Party.

I don't understand your comment about "overthrow" or your waffling about what it might "suggest",

Thank you for accusing me of wearing red glasses but I am definitely not a red shirt supporter nor am I a yellow shirt supporter. Personally I think they are as bad as each other. I sit on the fence and watch and haven't taken sides. It appears that you have chosen you side. Maybe it is easier to make an observation if you do not have bias opinion.

If you have noticed some of my other posts I condemn both sides on certain issues.

Some people seem to think that by taking the stance that both sides are as bad as each other, that must automatically make their position neutral. It does not. In terms of violence, intimidation and destruction, the red shirt movement has been responsible for a lot more than any other group (this incident being a prime example of how they operate).

Failing to acknowledge the differences that separate the red shirt movement from others, and attempting as you are, to label them all as bad as each other, is just a backhanded attempt at playing down what the red shirts are guilty of. It is the sort of approach i have observed in quite a number of people who were once vocal in their support of the reds, and who still deep down have their sympathies in that direction, but who have realized that actually defending the red shirts has become too difficult a task with all that they have done in the last few years, and so instead they take a different approach, that of attempting to distribute the blame out equally on all sides.

Both sides are not as "bad as each other" to use your rather unsophisticated expression.It's actually quite important to look at the names and the backing for this anti democratic mob, a point which is entirely missing from this thread which unfotunately makes it rather brainless.The redshirts certainly gave a boisterous reception to a small bunch of proto fascists.Good for them.Very much the same as when the people of East London booted out Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts - though in Thailand without the violence that characterised the fight against fascism then.

The only people who I have ever heard of being hit up for money through this process are the ones who use lawyers. They are pocketing it 100%. Believe what you want.

There is no connection (with the caveat set out in my penultimate sentence).I have several friends who used lawyers in the PR process: none were tapped.

As previously noted it's vital to do proper research if selecting a lawyer. (Clue:if they need to advertise, probably not suitable)

I have to say that in over twenty years of monitoring the PR process quite closely I have never heard of anyone being tapped whether a lawyer was used or not.

I remain highly sceptical even now, retaining my view that the staff at Immigration are doing a first class job, a bit stodgy sometimes but not corrupt.

Whether some naive people are being ripped off by bottom feeding scumbag lawyers is another issue.Quite possible in my opinion.

So there is no misunderstanding I quite agree it's possible to process PR oneself.I know several who have done it.

I didn't mean to imply that using a lawyer would always result in demands for pay-offs.

What I meant was that every time I have heard if someone being solicited like this, it is always by a lawyer supposedly on behalf of some corrupt immigration official.

They're pocketing it themselves, as confirmed by a number of lawyer acquaintances.

Do it yourself if you're at all able to. That would be my advice. Or, at the minimum, go with a lawyer whose clients tell you they weren't hit up.

On the subject of lawyers I seem to be at cross purposes even with people like you and Samran who obviously know what they are talking about.

I am talking about a relatively small number of firms with an established reputation.In my case the firm had handled all my company's immigration affairs for over 30 years.

In this kind of case the question of sharp practice is inconceivable.

I did have an EA who did all the document collecting and liasion with the legal firm concerned.

I spent virtually no time at all on the process.For me and other friends in a similar position it made sense to hire a lawyer.

Obviously it's not for everybody but it worked for me.

Probably said too much on this topic but the post suggesting Immigration officials involved in PR were on the take irritated me.

The only people who I have ever heard of being hit up for money through this process are the ones who use lawyers. They are pocketing it 100%. Believe what you want.

There is no connection (with the caveat set out in my penultimate sentence).I have several friends who used lawyers in the PR process: none were tapped.

As previously noted it's vital to do proper research if selecting a lawyer. (Clue:if they need to advertise, probably not suitable)

I have to say that in over twenty years of monitoring the PR process quite closely I have never heard of anyone being tapped whether a lawyer was used or not.

I remain highly sceptical even now, retaining my view that the staff at Immigration are doing a first class job, a bit stodgy sometimes but not corrupt.

Whether some naive people are being ripped off by bottom feeding scumbag lawyers is another issue.Quite possible in my opinion.

So there is no misunderstanding I quite agree it's possible to process PR oneself.I know several who have done it.

Rather good opinion column in the other paper this morning from Voranai ( his sympathies very much with old order but too intelligent and self aware not to grasp that all evil/virtue does not repose with any one side) which touched on this case among other things.Wouldn't resonate with some of the fine participants on this thread - too sane !

I used a lawyer and never on any occasion was asked for a payment.It saved me a considerable amount of time,a commodity it's clear from this thread ( eg the discussion about a pointless id card) others have in abundance.PR can be processed without the aid of a lawyer but some who are busy and can afford it will find it useful to have one - but make sure you have a decent one.

As to the hiring of a lawyer it is vital that one knows the track record and calibre of the firm concerned.I agree a poor hire is worse than useless.I was fortunate since I understood exactly what kind of lawyer was needed.If you are sure you have the right lawyer then it can make sense if you don't have a lot of time on your hands and can afford the fee.

It must also be said that the distribution of lk in a hierarchical society like Thailand is also matter of social class.Thus the children of foreigners and lower class Thais tend not to prosper in the way children of middle and upper class relationships often do.However nothing is fixed and lk children of whatever background can succeed these days.As always good education,good looks and charm can generally transcend an unpromising social background.