jayboy

He He........Fantastic............something tells me a few people who paid for his time will not like this at all..............

Brilliant!!

Both Blair and the Thai government have confirmed he was not paid.I believe them.In any event his involvement was never a propaganda stunt for one side and his natural sympathy surely lie with the Democrats, especially the likes of Abhisit and Korn.

So these silly posts about paymasters being displeased about the British Embassy meeting with fellow Oxonians are complete stupidity.

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).

Fawn, fawn, fawn...........

Her policies are deliberately tearing the country in 2 - not keeping the country in 1 piece

If you read anything from this pack of lies it should be that the clown who wrote it was either paid to lie or is immensely stupid

This kind of simpleminded ( accusing the author of being paid to lie etc) post simply proves my point.It's not the authors mistakes that bother the usual suspects:it's the conclusions.

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

Forum members have the right to say anything subject to forum rules and moderators' discretion.

However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's.The reference to the NYT piece as "disgusting journalism" isn't forbidden but it instantly identifies the poster as someone of limited comprehension and insight.Such a person is unable to provide coolly analytical responses to views with which they disagree - hence the use of terms like "disgusting journalism" or "load of bullshit."

It wasn't a particularly great piece in the NYT and it contained some errors of fact but its conclusions were very reasonable and few fair minded intelligent people would dispute them.The problem for the usual suspects that it's virtually impossible for them to find reports in the international media that support their reactionary views.Even canny right wing regional figures like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore makes many of the same points as the NYT piece.

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

Don't be a dope.The New York Times stands by the article after having made some corrections of fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/tepperman-can-egypt-learn-from-thailand.html?_r=0

What the slightly inane comments so far on this thread reflect is that the objectors don't so much have a problem with the incorrect facts but rather with the article's conclusions (which weren't really affected by the original errors).

UK has decided by consulting it representatives -- now let's see if France and the USA are equally prepared to act democratically......

Democratically is electing leaders not following public opinion on every decision once in office.

You can not pick which bits of democracy you like and which you don't

UK government didn't slavishly follow public opinion - they allowed the previously elected representatives of the people to vote freely. Something that is too often missing in the democracy of whips and lobbyists.

Exactly.And also while Jingthing's general principle is correct, what happened in London yesterday was in constitutional terms an example of the legislature checking the executive.I'm not sure I personally agree with the decision but felt quite proud that the British parliament served the people.

On a side note, I wonder how damaging for Cameron was Blair's endorsement for bombing.I rather like Blair but the reality is his brand is toxic.He should, fairly or unfairly, abandon all politics and devote his life to charity etc ( a message for Thaksin and Abhisit too?)

I have to admit that I wasn't here in Thailand in the 70s. Vocational students from the 70s would now be well into their 60s and it is a false argument - as usual - to imply that modern day vocational students are 'Red Guars' or any other historical label.

AS usual, Nick Nostitz & his arrogant think-alike try to make anything the anti-Thaksin people do seem undemocratic with the ''they are as violent as the reds' BS thrown in.

I doubt that either of the above really know what percentage of current vocational students are violent and what percentage are not. But, no matter, the oracles have spoken and their opinions outweigh hard evidence.

Personally, just about anything is justified in bringing down the Shin clan - as distinct from the PTP which was a real political party - under a different name - before it became a cult. Old Chavalit was a doddery fool but, under him, there was a semblance of consensus & collective decision making.

It's a sort of a 'man bites dog' tale to hear of red shirts being attacked - if they really were.

Nobody is suggesting that a geriatric version is active of the vocational students who formed a significant part of the 1970's fascist Red Gaurs - though some of the people who supported them and financed them still are.

The point is that the more aware, of whatever persuasion, have natural concerns at the politicisation of vocational students given their murderous record in the past.

Your statement that "just about anything is justified in bringing down the Shin clan" is a disgusting amoral position to take.Does this include murdering people whose opinions you disagree with like the Red Gaurs? I would also remind you that the current PM elected by the Thai people is a member of the Shin Clan.

The way to deal with Thaksin is through the ballot box not thuggish intimidation.That means in practice the Democrats following the programme that Siripon has posted about.I wish it well because one party democracy is unhealthy.

The current Democrat leadership including Abhisit and Korn is tainted.I genuinely feel sad about this.Suthep is...well Suthep.

One decent imaginative Democrat in play - Alongkorn Polabutr, the Deputy leader.He could win back the country but people like Khunying Kalaya would never allow him the opportunity.

Very briefly, there isn't much if any ideological content among vocational students - and thus they can be manipulated by any group of unscrupulous politicians ready to exploit or threaten the "old ultra violence."

I assume you are referring to PT and their red 'helpers' fair enough, a good description.

Still don't believe that all vocational students are out to commit violence.

More bigoted nonsense.Of course not all vocational students are right wing thugs.But some of them are including those who yesterday injured two old redshirt women yesterday.Of course you don't remember the Red Guars let alone understand their significance - but those who do will be concerned.

Back to your usual insults I see jayboy, cant help yourself can you?

You might like to explain A What's so ignorant about saying that all vocational students are not out to create violence and B what's bigoted about it

And you quote Clockwork Orange, I presume as some sort of reference to what Thai vocational students are like.

"Clockwork Orange" describes their culture of violence quite well.

For vocational school students it is almost impossible to escape this culture, as the peer pressure and force to join is enormous, including the need for a protection network as simply carrying the sign of a school makes one a target of a rival school. Many of the incidents do not make it into the news as they are just too regulary taking place. That ranges from large scale violence of big groups of students up to shoot outs on bussed between students from rival schools (and yes - i am talking *on* buses, some years ago my wife had to escape such a shoot out while riding a public bus).

Anyhow, just trying to give some brief context here, not trying to sway from the topic.

Very briefly, there isn't much if any ideological content among vocational students - and thus they can be manipulated by any group of unscrupulous politicians ready to exploit or threaten the "old ultra violence."

If the Democrat Party indeed is not aiming at "creating violence", and therefore "not responsible for it", i wonder then what they are doing in alliance with the group at Lumpini Park. Yesterday several hundred vocational students, representatives from many colleges, joined the Lumpini Park rally - the exact same gangs which are regularly getting into the news for their fights with rival schools. Given the propensity for extreme violence under these groups reaching back decades, no political group that purposely reaches out to them to attract them to their political cause can absolve itself of responsibility in case violence will break out.

Not so keen on your theory that all vocational students are violent, perhaps there are a vast majority who are keen to study and get somewhere in the world.

Could be that they even keep up with the news and can see where PT is taking this country they will be spending their lives in and don't like what they see?

And possibly they believe they have a stake in what will happen in this country and would like to see it free of the present corruption, lies, threats and intimidation.

But hay, its obvious none of them were lucky enough to go to a red school or they would know the real truth.

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).

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.

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 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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/world/asia/a-staid-thai-party-takes-to-protesting-the-government.html?hp&_r=0

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.

'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.

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.

GOD, 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.

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.

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.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Negative-tactics-by-Democrat-Party-not-winning-it--30213290.html

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

Here is a useful summary of the pros and cons of the argument from The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/debate/debate-were-border-officials-right-to-detain-david-miranda-under-the-terrorism-act-8778220.html

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!)