jayboy

A good man that not prepared to sit idly by while and watch evil succeed.

Yo are having a laugh I hope.The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

 

 At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

 

 

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

 

 

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The most unreliable newspaper of Thailand finds obviously only "certain" amnesty laws questionable. They never asked any questions about all the military that walked free even after committing mass murder in the streets of Bangkok over the last 4 decades.

And when it comes down to corruption, you only had to look at the growing faces of Abhisit and his boss Suthep who looked more than a balloon than a head when they were in power. We had roads that had to be carved out in National Forests under mister Abhisit tenure as an unelected PM because his paymasters needed the expensive wood, we had billions in dollars paid as bonuses to military who finally brought the Democrat power, power they never seem to be able to gain through elections and his entire team of ministers encroached on public land. Not to speak of Abhisit's lack of judgement appointing a US blacklisted person running a child brothel as minister of commerce.

No we are better off without the Democrats.

Was Abhisit's tenure as unelected PM before or after his tenure as elected PM?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

One mans elected PM is another mans sham PM brought to power only by the combined powers of an Army Coup, loaded Constitutional Court decisions and finally military coercion.

But if you want to regard Abhisit as a legitimate ex PM thats fine by me, just so I know how low your standards go.

What about a PM that wasn't elected by the people but party listed by a criminal and fugitive from justice to be that criminals proxy. Do you consider her to be a legitimate PM or a sham?

You have a reasonable point.Abhisit wasn't elected by the people but notwithstanding the shady back room deals he was a legitimate PM under the parliamentary system.As to his criminality this has yet to be proven in court so it's a little unfair to accuse him of being a fugitive from justice.It would be more accurate to say he has delayed and frustrated the judicial enqiry into the murder charges against him.As to the proxy issue it would be more accurate to say he is a puppet for the unelected elites and their useful idiots,mainly elements of the Sino Thai middle class.So in short he was both a legitimate PM and a sham.

This would mean that in a place like Thailand, the reaction of people to political issues can be very odd, because issues are dealt with on a superficial level.

I can easily believe someone who supported Thaksin falling out of love with him, and choosing a coup over the dems. Poltics isn't a deeply ingrained idea her and it is more about the personality of the players than any deep ideology or policy.

Well if nothing makes any sense and people act irrationally it's difficult to respond.However hypothetically if a former red supporter is in favour of a coup it touches on my original questions still unanswered - namely how does Thailand progress from there

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Progression after a coup?

The previous coup resulted in the restoration of Democracy, didn't it? The fact that Thais don't appear to understand how their country is run is why it is in the mess it's in.

Apparently, trade in the area I live in, in CM, has deteriorated over the past couple of years. Try to get a Thai to even understand what the PM does, let alone what the government does appears to be a near impossible task.

Government is school, amphurs, people who dress up in fancy dress on certain days. Until Thais mature politically, a coup will merely be an interruption before it all happens again. A coup is just a 'now let's draw breath'.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I agree that this is a difficult subject.My point is that a coup makes the situation worse.For a time there was an argument that a coup could act as a politics "re-set", unblocking an intractable situation so that the country could move on.This argument was deployed by many to justify 2006.Although I didn't agree at the time I could understand the logic.However as events turned out it has become all too apparent that the 2006 was a disaster, not least because it completely failed to achieve its objectives (ie the ejection of Thaksin - the easy part - and more critically the imposition of a government with democratic credentials and yet acceptable to feudal and military interests.The biggest tragedy of all that the coupmakers did grave damage to the institution they professed to hold in highest esteem.In my view there is no alternative to a long hard slog to improve democratic awareness and civil society.

 

In Thailand, anything is possible. I can seriously believe these political beginners supporting a coup over the democrats anytime.

 

 

What does that mean please?

This would mean that in a place like Thailand, the reaction of people to political issues can be very odd, because issues are dealt with on a superficial level.

I can easily believe someone who supported Thaksin falling out of love with him, and choosing a coup over the dems. Poltics isn't a deeply ingrained idea her and it is more about the personality of the players than any deep ideology or policy.

Well if nothing makes any sense and people act irrationally it's difficult to respond.However hypothetically if a former red supporter is in favour of a coup it touches on my original questions still unanswered - namely how does Thailand progress from there

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

In Thailand, anything is possible. I can seriously believe these political beginners supporting a coup over the democrats anytime.

What does that mean please?

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better !   She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

 

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely.  The wheel always turns full circle.

 

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

 

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

It's not implausible to want a better deal for the poor and the rural, and to have been very disappointed with ptp and yinglucks attempts so far.

Agreed but those who hold that view tend to be radical red shirts. What's implausible is the suggestion by someone's formerly redshirt "wife" that the position would be remedied by a military coup.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

Absurd naivete compounded by the patronizing tone into sheer folly. The red movement characterized itself as a stand against double standards, an end to rural poverty, fairer justice system, and freedom of speech. All of these things have become far worse under this Thaksin govt. A more pertinent question would be why anybody that believed in the red cause originally still supports the Shinawatras after seeing their actions over the past 2 years. The only credible answer is that they have swallowed Thaksin's propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Okay let's think this through.Obviously there are former red supporters disillusioned by subsequent events.I think it's a small minority and the great majority of supporters are still to be counted on.But it doesn't really affect my question which I will recapitulate.How does a disillusioned former red supporter think the situation would be improved through a military coup.Certainly this government could be removed and perhaps PTP banned by a compliant justice sysyem.But what then? That was my question (as set out in more detail in my original post) and I have yet to receive a response.

Don't be absurd.My post was obviously not a flame.If you need further clarification on what is and what is not a flame read the forum rules or take it up with the mods.

In any event I strongly suspect the political position of the "wife" (coup lover who was formerly a "moderate red") was mostly made up to give the impression this is a widely held view.But I try to have an open mind and I await a coherent reply to the questions I posed.

Whats the topic of the OP? I dont thinks its trainmans wife.

In using Thai Visa I agree:

1) To respect fellow members.

4) Not to flame fellow members.Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

We will let the other members decide.

Clearly my post was not a flame (it wasn't even about a member's wife merely scepticism of a highly implausible proposition) but I am quite happy for the mods to decide.The subsequent personal attacks on me could possibly be construed as flames, but frankly I simply can't be bothered to water energy on them.

Meanwhile I await answers to the questions I posed.

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

This has to be a new low for you Jayboy, flaming a posters wife, unbelievable

Don't be absurd.My post was obviously not a flame.If you need further clarification on what is and what is not a flame read the forum rules or take it up with the mods.

In any event I strongly suspect the political position of the "wife" (coup lover who was formerly a "moderate red") was mostly made up to give the impression this is a widely held view.But I try to have an open mind and I await a coherent reply to the questions I posed.

Wife who has been moderately red all her life now says she wants a coup, and the sooner the better ! She, like many others who have been blinded by these Dictators for too long, is becoming a lot more savvy about what they are trying to do to the people of this country.

My own thoughts are that if this underlying dissent gathers pace in the coming decade this country is in line for a very big public uprising that is likely to reshape the future completely. The wheel always turns full circle.

So what exactly does your "moderately red" wife object to? It would be interesting to know given her original "red" sentiment though she now wants a military coup.Does she want a permanent military junta or a government appointed by the military or a caretaker government in advance of a democratically elected one? If there was a general election how does she think the Thai people would vote (if allowed a fair election) after a coup?Does she think a military coup would increase or decrease the chance of a healthy democracy? Why was she moderately red in the first place? Does she believe the original "red platform" has been subverted? What precise steps under the current government does she object to?

Frankly it all seems a bit implausible.Did you make it up?

Your definition leaves out the fact that the Thai passport is more useful:

1) if you're living in Thailand (about 1,000 times more useful);

2) if you're traveling around ASEAN, as well as some other countries such as Russia (no visa required) and Iran (visa on arrival)

If I am living in Thailand permanently, traveling maybe once a year to Europe or the US, and every month within ASEAN -- the Thai passport is better.

In any case, the hassle of having to get a visa for occasional Western countries is insignificant when compared to the daily hassles of living as a foreigner in Thailand: visas, work permits, 90-day reporting, difficult access to credit, etc., etc.

1.Do you need a Thai passport to travel in Thailand? What you mean I suppose is that Thai citizenship is advantageous for a foreigner (particularly the ability to buy land).Don't disagree but we were talking about passports (ie ease of international travel), not citizenship.

2.Visa on arrival - where required - is easy for US citizens within Asean.

3.I don't find any hassle at all in living in Thailand as a foreigner with PR.Actually I didn't find it a hassle in the 30 years or so before before I had PR (thanks to my profession and office back up).

So for the vast majority as regards ease of foreign travel a US passport wins hands down over a Thai passport.I appreciate with your further explanation this may not apply to you.One aspect you don't mention is consular support.If I had a problem in say France, I know which Embassy I would have more faith in.

Also I accept that the visa situation is improving for Thais.Country getting richer, much less third world and Thai travellers generally well behaved compared with others.Japan now offering visa free 15 day stays to Thais.

OK, I'll revise my statement.

For people like me and for my partner, ie people well into middle age, with established businesses, properties, significant cash, and a record of decades of lawful travel all over the world...there is absolutely no problem getting a visitor's visa on a Thai passport to any country in the world.

So, for ME, I do not expect that traveling on a Thai passport would present any difficulties whatsoever.

This is my personal experience. As stated, my partner has never been refused a visa or even questioned, and has been to 60 countries.

Your mileage may vary.

There's nothing wrong with a Thai passport but it necessitates acquiring visas for many countries that do not require visas from citizens of the US.Therefore in terms of simple convenience a US passport is by definition more useful.Your personal circumstances are neither here nor there.

I applied before the affidavit was required, in 2007.

So you got lucky because you have been approved just before the queue stalled on the wishes of Buddha knows which politician or bureocrat, and got away without a crucial current requirement. Good for you.

While the rest of you were complaining about border runs and work permits and the immigration merry-go-round, I was taking care if business.

Maybe these people they were happier living their lives without no pre-set business goals..

Anyway, what's fibbing about an "intention" that you never end up getting around to, versus lying about being a tourist for twenty years

A big difference in my book, for me to state that I'm renouncing who I am, would take a lot more than citizenship.in a corrupt developing country.

For sure your nickname says it all on what achievements you value in life.

Remember, you can be legally Thai, but you will be falang in facts, forever.

Enjoy the merry-go-round then.

My home country's passport (USA) offers me exactly nothing. I would have no problem dropping it if I had to.

Unless you are a dirt farmer or a prostitute, there is no country in the world one cannot travel on a Thai passport.

Not actually true.Thailand citizens need visas to most countries and securing them isn't always easy or convenient.I am regularly asked to provide sponsorship letters for foreign embassies on behalf of Thai friends and business contacts.Mostly their applications are succesful but the bureaucratic procedures can sometimes be a pain, and occasionally there is a puzzling rejection.In contrast a US passport is extremely useful - far far more than a Thai passport.Presumably that's why it is coveted by millions and millions of people all over the world.I have no issue with foreigners taking pride in their Thai residential/citizen status (I take pride in it myself) but the suggestion that a US passport is worthless leaves a sour ungrateful taste on top of the reality that the statement is nonsense.

 

 

1. Thaksin is a Convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, he is not a politician and isnt even a member of any political parties.  He does however have a cult following of sycophants, but they will fall away now the funding has ceased.

 

2.He hasnt run in any elections since 2006 when the election was invalidated due to electrol irregularities including vote buying.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

 

3. The dynamic growth of the NE is in decline now the native forests have been stripped and the rice industry has been desimated by the Thaksin inspired rice scam.  However, if your refering to the article stating, "Growth in Thailand, Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy, has begun to slow, but the economy of the northeast is in the grip of a boom."  Then you should do more research because.....

The potential may never be realized if a crucial 2.2 trillion baht ($71 billion) infrastructure program becomes a casualty of the feuding between Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party and its opponents. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-thailand-northeast-idUSBRE95F00H20130616

 

4. The Democrat Party, at the head of the opposition, agrees with the general thrust of the bill—but not with its financing. The Democrats have come up with their own 2 trillion baht plan, which would use the annual budget (rather than emergency legislation) for less-costly trains and then leave money in the pot for education, health and irrigation.

Rather that Yinglucks idea of putting Thai into a total of 5 trillion baht of debt over 50 years........The big idea is to spend 2 trillion baht ($64 billion) by 2020 towards upgrading the country’s creaking infrastructure. Another 3 trillion baht will come due as interest on the loans, accumulating over the next 50 years. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/10/infrastructure-spending-thailand

 

5.  The next election I believe will be a rude wake up call to Thaksin

 

6.Yes the present administrations cabinet is nervous, but not about the next election, but about whether Thaksin will take their party list positions at the trough and give it to another lackey.  As for the elections, Thaksin is a narcissist so he believes everyone loves him as much as he loves himself, if they dont then they are just jealous of him.  Therefore the only way his puppet party can loose government is through a coup.  A view obviously shared by his sycophants.

 

 

1.Thaksin is a politician.No entirely sane person would dispute that.The "cult following of sycophants" you refer to are in fact the people of Thailand who consistently vote his parties into power.

 

2.At every general election since the criminal coup of 2006 parties associated with Thaksin have secured victory.

 

3.You need to research the economic position of the North East more thoroughly.

 

4.As previously noted there's a legitimate discussion about the funding of the infrastructure programme.In practice the fiscal discipline characterising Thailand's economy since the crisis of the late 1990's will not be abandoned.

 

5.Yes, the next general election will be a critical test for all concerned.

 

6.I don't understand what point you are making.If you calmed down and were less obsessive about Thaksin you might make more sense.

 

Your bar girl is really pursuasive to condition you to think the lies and graft of the shinawatra dynasty are ok.

Delighted to note that this intelligent and sophisticated response is so representative of the grasp of the English language that the "educate people" are famous for.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

1. Thaksin is a Convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, he is not a politician and isnt even a member of any political parties. He does however have a cult following of sycophants, but they will fall away now the funding has ceased.

2.He hasnt run in any elections since 2006 when the election was invalidated due to electrol irregularities including vote buying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

3. The dynamic growth of the NE is in decline now the native forests have been stripped and the rice industry has been desimated by the Thaksin inspired rice scam. However, if your refering to the article stating, "Growth in Thailand, Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy, has begun to slow, but the economy of the northeast is in the grip of a boom." Then you should do more research because.....

The potential may never be realized if a crucial 2.2 trillion baht ($71 billion) infrastructure program becomes a casualty of the feuding between Yingluck's ruling Puea Thai Party and its opponents. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-thailand-northeast-idUSBRE95F00H20130616

4. The Democrat Party, at the head of the opposition, agrees with the general thrust of the bill—but not with its financing. The Democrats have come up with their own 2 trillion baht plan, which would use the annual budget (rather than emergency legislation) for less-costly trains and then leave money in the pot for education, health and irrigation.

Rather that Yinglucks idea of putting Thai into a total of 5 trillion baht of debt over 50 years........The big idea is to spend 2 trillion baht ($64 billion) by 2020 towards upgrading the country’s creaking infrastructure. Another 3 trillion baht will come due as interest on the loans, accumulating over the next 50 years. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/10/infrastructure-spending-thailand

5. The next election I believe will be a rude wake up call to Thaksin

6.Yes the present administrations cabinet is nervous, but not about the next election, but about whether Thaksin will take their party list positions at the trough and give it to another lackey. As for the elections, Thaksin is a narcissist so he believes everyone loves him as much as he loves himself, if they dont then they are just jealous of him. Therefore the only way his puppet party can loose government is through a coup. A view obviously shared by his sycophants.

1.Thaksin is a politician.No entirely sane person would dispute that.The "cult following of sycophants" you refer to are in fact the people of Thailand who consistently vote his parties into power.

2.At every general election since the criminal coup of 2006 parties associated with Thaksin have secured victory.

3.You need to research the economic position of the North East more thoroughly.

4.As previously noted there's a legitimate discussion about the funding of the infrastructure programme.In practice the fiscal discipline characterising Thailand's economy since the crisis of the late 1990's will not be abandoned.

5.Yes, the next general election will be a critical test for all concerned.

6.I don't understand what point you are making.If you calmed down and were less obsessive about Thaksin you might make more sense.

Don't know who the guy is but its a very elegant letter, leaving Yingluck a way out of the scheme without losing face. Actually she'd be gaining a lot a face if she'd follow his advice. The only thing is that big brother won't be agreeing on this.

He was formerly Governor of the Bank of Thailand and then Minister of Finance in the military controlled government after the 2006 coup.He resigned after the junta gave special treatment to his long standing rival, Sondhi Limthongkul.Despite working as a low paid civil servant all his life, he is reportedly worth Bt 800 million.His wife has a net worth of Bt 300 million.It is not clear how a relatively low paid senior bureaucrat has amassed this huge wealth.

The voters from Isaan will find out some time in the far future, that they have been used for the profit of some wealthy few...

Sadly that has always been the case over the years and with many different political hue governments.

Thaksin and his clan and their brown nosing acolytes have perfected the art of shafting the Isaan people at their ( the Isaan peoples) own expense.

Interestingly though slowly but surely a little light is creeping into the political landscape in Isaan and those red sunrises and sunsets are not so appealing as they once were.

The old adage ''Red sky in the morning shepherds warning'' it seems is at last being heeded slowly by the people of Isaan.

What a load of mindless nonsense.First of all the North East is now the most dynamic growth region in Thailand and although poverty exists there has been remarkable progress over the last twenty years.It's a question for discussion what are the causes of this new prosperity, but it's not really debatable that great progress has been made.As to politicians role it's first important to understand that in all democracies policies are formulated to attract electoral support, not the only consideration but still a very important one.In the North East for decades, despite the huge populatiuon, electors were essentially regarded as voting fodder and not taken seriously by the Bangkok establishment - poor ignorant peasants.Thaksin changed all that and that is why his support in the NE and North is so solid.He didn't adopt populist policies because he is a good man:he did it because he is (usually) an astute politician.The Democrats have followed in his footsteps in copying and in some cases enhancing policies designed to appeal to rural voters.

I agree it would be healthy if other political parties could strengthen their presence in the NE, but that means (in the case of the Democrats) detoxifying their brand.The next general election will make the position crystal clear.

Does a criminal conviction for fraud, becoming a fugitive to avoid punishment for said crime, and avoiding much more serious charges equate to " a (usually) astute politician" then in your opinion? Guess so - he's still running the country.

His support in the NE is based on bribery (vote buying), intimidation ( Red Shirt thugs), clever propaganda, and a belief by many that he's the best of a bad bunch. His adopted populist policies have delivered more to the select few clan members than to the masses. What have they really delivered to the people in the NE? Dynamic growth area - really? Can you provide details?

There is no doubt the current regime is nervous. Loosing the Bangkok governor elections, and the the Don Meuang bye election (after the astute Dr. T, predicted they could field a utility post and still win), Moody's and World Bank's adverse comments on the Thai economy and particularly the rice scheme losses, adverse reaction to the 350m and 2.2 trillion off budget loans the government want to pocket, and the 4 planes his sister wants to buy. Now they react by invoking ISA's and surrounding themselves with 1200 riot police to protect them from 250 "granny and school kids" protesters.

The next election will be interesting. Many Thai friends told me they voted for PTP last time. Amazingly, many thought YL would actually be the leader. And, they all don't want to vote for the Dems who they consider HiSo lackeys. But, none are happy with the scams, corruption, opening lies and arrogance when admitting lies, and the fact that Thaksin really calls the shots.

PTP avoid referendums like the plague - wonder why that is?

1.His reputation for astuteness is based in his still being easily the most popular Thai politician, and political parties associated with him winning election after election.In particular as previously noted he took the rural majority seriously and hence earned its loyalty and gratitude.Best of a bad bunch? Well yes I don't dissent from that evaluation.

2.He did not win by vote buying and no serious source supports that.

3.Are you denying the NE is a dynamic growth region in Thailand? If so do try and undertake some basic homework.

4.There is a genuine debate on off budget financing.The concept isn't new and the Democrats accept the infrastructure programme is necessary.You say they want to "pocket the funding", a babyish comment if I may say so.Evidence? Khun Korn, the most articulate of the critics doesn't say that.

5.Yes the true test will be the next general election.The best regarded polls now suggest the government's popularity has slipped but is still well ahead of the opposition.

6.Is the government nervous? Yes and it always has been.Not surprising given the history of military and judicial meddling of the last decade.Hence the great compromise and the pandering to the military.I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Bangkok governor or Don Muang election results.In fgact specifically on the former the results were profoundly unsettling for those Democrats who saw middle class Bangkok as an impregnable stronghold.

While pro-democracy student activists of the 1970s campaigned against the influence of the military in politics, General Boonlert Kaewprasit, chairman of the Pitak Siam group, said the military was currently idle, in a posture of waiting and seeing, and indecisive when it should have taken a stance.

The military is doing what it should be doing, preparing to defend Thailand and performing humanitarian programs. It should never be an agent of political change.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, but there is a naivety in your summary of what the military should be doing.The Thai military is not in the business of defending the country (or more precisely that function is very low on its list of priorities).Its main priority is to make money for the senior officers who run it.To date that objective has been secured by linking up with the old unelected elites.If the situation changes the military would have no problem in principle as long as its budget was kept high and there was minimum interference from the politicians.Yingluck and her brother know this perfectly well.The important thing to remember notwithstanding protestations of patriotism, flag waving and oaths of loyalty, there is in fact no honour - just another set of greedy businessmen (actually worse than most businessmen who do not disguise their objectives)

It wouldn't be fair not to acknowledge some decent exceptions in the opfficer corps, and my comments are no reflection on the enlisted men.

I think you will find the officer corps are the volentary members as the Thai military is mainly conscripts. But I agree like many organisation the Thai military is riddled with corupt personell and hamstrung by corrupt practices. I even believe this systemic corruption is only eclipsed by the massive corruption of the Yingluck/Thaksin administration. However, its interesting that you would use my post that advocated a non political function for the military to again misdirect the topic to one that perpetuates the division of Thai society into political allegencies.

You have given a reasonable response so I will reciprocate.My issue with your post is your assumption that my comment served to "misdirect the topic" you introduced, namely the objective of a politically neutral military.I think this a profound misunderstanding of the nature of this forum which is to discuss, elaborate and sometimes disagree.Nobody of any political view could demonstrate my comment was irrelevant, or designed to change the subject.It was in fact designed to cast light on the matter.Perhaps your disapproval simply reflects introduction of a realistic assesment of the Thai military, namely its prime interest in financial aggrandisement, rasther than humanitarian assistance or (excuse me while we snigger) defending the country.

While pro-democracy student activists of the 1970s campaigned against the influence of the military in politics, General Boonlert Kaewprasit, chairman of the Pitak Siam group, said the military was currently idle, in a posture of waiting and seeing, and indecisive when it should have taken a stance.

The military is doing what it should be doing, preparing to defend Thailand and performing humanitarian programs. It should never be an agent of political change.

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, but there is a naivety in your summary of what the military should be doing.The Thai military is not in the business of defending the country (or more precisely that function is very low on its list of priorities).Its main priority is to make money for the senior officers who run it.To date that objective has been secured by linking up with the old unelected elites.If the situation changes the military would have no problem in principle as long as its budget was kept high and there was minimum interference from the politicians.Yingluck and her brother know this perfectly well.The important thing to remember notwithstanding protestations of patriotism, flag waving and oaths of loyalty, there is in fact no honour - just another set of greedy businessmen (actually worse than most businessmen who do not disguise their objectives)

It wouldn't be fair not to acknowledge some decent exceptions in the opfficer corps, and my comments are no reflection on the enlisted men.

Terrorism was probably the wrong charge. Treason is more realistic. Inciting an uprising - wonder if that's a treasonable offence under Thai law?

It might well be a treasonable offence.But knowing Thaksin I suppose he would somehow manage to award himself a post facto pardon.But of course it's all hypothetical.If that is his intention the odds seem stacked against him.

Whatever you say about his opponents at least they are not cowardly enough to award themselves a pardon if for example they implemented a criminal offence like a coup.Oh wait, that's exactly what the scumbags did.

But with a crucial distinction that Abhisit became PM through corrupt back room deals.He was unlike Yingluck never given a mandate by the people of Thailand in a general election.

Does Yingluck have a mandate of the Thai people with only 48% of the vote?

Here we go again.The usual suspects question Yingluck's mandate, as though in every democracy the electoral vote isn't split.

You can be sure that if the Democrats had done as well as as PTP in the last general election, one would not hear this kind of hypocrisy and cant about questioning their mandate.

I am questioning your definition of a mandate.

Surely being elected PM by a majority of elected MPs gives you a mandate. The MPs are representatives of the people after all.

If that doesn't give you a mandate, is it just some arbitrary percentage of the peoples vote?

You are apparently very concerned to demonstate that Abhisit had as much a valid mandate as Yingluck.Unfortunately that will be a losing battle.

Nobody with knowledge of a parliamentary system is suggesting Abhisit's tenure as PM was illegitimate.Nevertheless he secured the position in a grubby and convoluted way.

When he finally presented himself to the Thai electorate, they kicked the bum out.

Yingluck in the same election was given a clear mandate.

The difference between a technical and moral mandate would be clear to most people.A similar situation in the UK occurred with Gordon Brown (without of course the coups and rigged constitutions) who became PM without presenting himself to the electorate.He was certainly legally PM but on the first available occasion the British turfed the bum out.Incidentally Cameron only got 36% of the vote, much less than Yingluck and nobody queries his mandate.