jayboy

It's not so much well connected as for the reality that the army is never accountable for its crimes, in this case an appalling atrocity.The usual suspects on this forum and elsewhere were more interested in Tak Bai as a way of attacking Thaksin.Undoubtedly he had responsibility as PM at the time and a more honourable man would have reacted differently than the callous way that he did.But he was not personally involved.These crimes were committed by the Thai army with its history of cruelty and brutality.Its senior officers have escaped scot free once again.And the reaction of the usual suspects (unless they can somehow work Thaksin in) .....a long cool silence.

Does the same apply for Abhisit as well then? As The DL's rent a thugs seem to think that he was personally involved in the deaths of their terrorists in Bangkok.

It's a fair point.The issue really is whether Abhisit signed off the rules of engagement covering live fire on civilians.But I think it's significant that whatever their responsibility the practical position is neither Abhisit nor Thaksin will be made accountable for these crimes because that would implicate the military - and in Thailand army criminality is never punished.

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

1. He is the most unpopular politician in the country.

2. He has "won" elections because the people who don't want him don't all vote for the same party.

3. That would definitely imply that the original statement by DiNiro is not true.

4. <deleted>? Ofcourse Thaksin's success arose from regional power broking. Why else would regional parties have merged into TRT?

5. Like the politicised judges that let Thaksin off his assets charges?

I didn't say anything about the government having a majority. I was questioning the statement that the majority of Thais support Thaksin. The evidence doesn't point to that.

1.Yes, that's probably true.I said he was very divisive.Seems odd but he manages to be the most popular and the most unpopular.Not unusual - Obama fits that category too.

2.Er, yes.That's true with almost every election in every parliamentary democracy.

3.How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Can argue forever over what can't be proved.Anyway I speak only for myself.

4.I didn't say anything about the background to Thaksin's political success.All parties have regional networks and the Demoicrats a particularly murky one in the South.I was simply pointing out that when the Thai people had to choose they chose Thaksin or his representatives.

5.Silly response.The judicial system in Thailand has always been biased towards the government in power, though not noticeably now.However it's a completely different matter to the old establishment's systemised judicial intervention (as a less tainted alternative to military coups).

There is no evidence that the majority of Thais don't support Thaksin either.The evidence doesn't in fact point anywhere other than the country is deeply divided.

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

1. He is the most unpopular politician in the country.

2. He has "won" elections because the people who don't want him don't all vote for the same party.

3. That would definitely imply that the original statement by DiNiro is not true.

4. <deleted>? Ofcourse Thaksin's success arose from regional power broking. Why else would regional parties have merged into TRT?

5. Like the politicised judges that let Thaksin off his assets charges?

I didn't say anything about the government having a majority. I was questioning the statement that the majority of Thais support Thaksin. The evidence doesn't point to that.

1.Yes, that's probably true.I said he was very divisive.Seems odd but he manages to be the most popular and the most unpopular.Not unusual - Obama fits that category too.

2.Er, yes.That's true with almost every election in every parliamentary democracy.

3.How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Can argue forever over what can't be proved.Anyway I speak only for myself.

4.I didn't say anything about the background to Thaksin's political success.All parties have regional networks and the Demoicrats a particularly murky one in the South.I was simply pointing out that when the Thai people had to choose they chose Thaksin or his representatives.

5.Silly response.The judicial system in Thailand has always been biased towards the government in power, though not noticeably now.However it's a completely different matter to the old establishment's systemised judicial intervention (as a less tainted alternative to military coups).

There is no evidence that the majority of Thais don't support Thaksin either.The evidence doesn't in fact point anywhere other than the country is deeply divided.

The pin was not removed ? Police are looking for some clearly determined offenders

One doesn't have to be a genius to work out which political grouping was responsible for this laughable incident (put it in the same category as faked Al Quaeda movies, although to be fair that involved making a slight effort).

Mr. Jatupon Prompan, who also serves as an MP for the Pheu Thai Party, said violent confrontation is exactly what the anti-government forces want to see.

I doubt the anti-government forces want to see it...but I'm pretty sure they'll get it going on the past history of the reds and 'peaceful' protests

Why do you doubt it? I would have thought violent confrontation was exactly what the anti government forces wants to see - preferably bloody - although of course it would not be openly admitted.The rationale is obvious, namely it would provide the excuse for a military or judicial intervention to save the nation, protect the nation's key institutions, end corruption etc.We have been here before.The onlky difference is that whereas in the past such interventions have followed a fairly predictable course, the consequences now would be completely unpredictable

Good or bad, there is no denying Thaksin has the support of the majority of Thais.

Can you supply any evidence that a majority of Thais support Thaksin?

Maybe you suggesting that some Thaksin supporters didn't vote for PTP at the last election and that all of those that did vote PTP do support Thaksin.

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

There can be a reasonable debate whether a majority of Thais support Thaksin.There is never any "evidence" apart from opinion polls which are obviously not completely accurate.I have never actually seen an opinion poll pose that particular question anyway.

But some points cannot be denied

1.He is the most popular politician in the country albeit a very divisive one.

2.Parties very closely associated with him have consistently won national general elections in recent years.

3.The vast majority of PTP voters are supporters of Thaksin.

4.The success of Thaksin and the PTP did not arise from vote buying, regional power broking, an ignorant electorate but rather the failure of the existing political establishment to address the aspirations of the Thai majority.

5.The fall of governments associated with THaksin has not been because the THai people wished it but rather through army intervention and latterly a highly politicised network of judges.

As noted there can be a reasonable discussion of whether a majority support Thaksin.The reality is however that democracies tend to be pretty much divided down the middle (eg US, UK, France, Japan,Germany etc) and landslide results tend to be found in totalitarian regimes.

It's a question of playing by the electoral rules.But as in the US where embittered reactionaries even now question Obama's mandate, there are those on this forum who mutter about the Thai government not having a majority.It was ever thus.

Good or bad, there is no denying Thaksin has the support of the majority of Thais.

I would dispute that and would cite the losses of all by elections, bar 1, by the PTP, since the last general election, as proof.

In that case you would dispute every opinion poll for the last two years which show the PTP as the most popular party, though having a decline in margin in the last six months - but still several points ahead of the Democrats.

The acid test is of course another general election which significantly the Democtats are anxious isn't held any time soon.

Could also be that the half-Chinese "foreigner" living in Dubai was involved in the sprank.

That's a strange phrase.If one was going to stigmatise "half Chinese" people in Thailand that would include half the population of Bangok and urban centres, the court, the privy council, the senior officer corps of army, the navy, the airforce, most big business, the medical prefession, the legal profession etc etc

Is Thaksin half Thai/Chinese or isn´t he?

Meaningless question.Does he have Chinese ancestry? Yes along with many millions of other Thais including the Royal Family.

Could also be that the half-Chinese "foreigner" living in Dubai was involved in the sprank.

That's a strange phrase.If one was going to stigmatise "half Chinese" people in Thailand that would include half the population of Bangok and urban centres, the court, the privy council, the senior officer corps of army, the navy, the airforce, most big business, the medical prefession, the legal profession etc etc

Almost every senior army officer or senior civil servant has a net worth that is inexplicable in terms of salary received and/or inherited wealth.

Why not concentrate on a certain family whose wealth is easily explainable - by corrupt business deals, tax evasion, and conflict of interest deals carried out while in office?

Because it is as you say easily explainable (and also not relevant to this thread).I think you mean tax avoidance (legal) not evasion (illegal) if you are referring to the Temasek deal.

Another example of the usual suspects invoking Thaksin quite irrelevantly whenever discussion strays on to ground where they are uncomfortable (ie massive corruption in military and public sector)

As I didn't mention Thaksin, irrelevantly or otherwise, I now have to wonder who you usually suspect. My point was why look at inexplicable wealth, when there are obvious examples of corruption in political families, a group you left out, before descending to the second level. However massive the corruption in the military and public service, and there's nothing "uncomfortable' about it, it is minor compared to that currently being carried out by politicians.

Then again, that is your discomfort zone, when comparisons are made of the relative value to Thais of their lost opportunities compared to democratic principle.

Actually you did refer to Thaksin - dragged in as usual out of context.Or if his family was not a certain political family - explain which one you had in mind.

There is a kind of hypocrisy at work here.For some the corruption in political circles is used as a weapon by the reactionary right to beat the concept of democracy.It's not so much corruption they hate as democracy itself.And to cap it all among the most shrill supporters in this proto fascist group are senior military senior officers who live the life of millionaires, having never been paid more than very modest salaries.Go figure.

Corruption is a blight on Thailand at all levels.There is no level which is "better" than other levels.

Almost every senior army officer or senior civil servant has a net worth that is inexplicable in terms of salary received and/or inherited wealth.

Why not concentrate on a certain family whose wealth is easily explainable - by corrupt business deals, tax evasion, and conflict of interest deals carried out while in office?

Because it is as you say easily explainable (and also not relevant to this thread).I think you mean tax avoidance (legal) not evasion (illegal) if you are referring to the Temasek deal.

Another example of the usual suspects invoking Thaksin quite irrelevantly whenever discussion strays on to ground where they are uncomfortable (ie massive corruption in military and public sector)

I'm not sure what Surayud means here.Is he calling for unity among all Thais or unity among the proto fascists like Pitak Siam? I assume the former.

In any event who cares? Surayud is yesterday's man, a charming and decent old codger certainly.However his quisling administration after the criminal coup d'état was noted for its lethargy and sheer incompetence.

How can Thai army general be a decent old codger?

What was his salary and what is his net worth.

He had a weekend home in the National Preserve for gods sake.

How low can you go?

How about nicking 1000 rai from a temple land donation to make a country club for your elite mates?

Almost every senior army officer or senior civil servant has a net worth that is inexplicable in terms of salary received and/or inherited wealth.

Everyone is quite aware that he was corrupt before he entered politics.

According to the banned reading material, corruption was not the reason for the coup.

Have you read the facts?

Sad, but the ones that have written the story had to flee Thailand and their work is banned here.

In fact, the coup was run by the super corrupt in Thailand protecting their interests.

Scoundrels that can't win an election, pay off the army & would have you jailed for even mentioning the facts.

Why would anybody support this group?

I didn't say anything about the coup. I was just pointing out how he became a billionaire before he became PM.

He continued that corruption while he was PM.

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

As usual on this forum opinion expressed on Thaksin's pre- politician wealth completely ill informed and downright wrong.By Thai standards it was legitimate and certainly not illegally earned.Monopolistic certainly and tied to political links, certainly - but not corrupt.

I have summarised the explanation given by Pasuk/Baker in their "Thaksin".

His success arose from ability to synergise politics and business.He was persistent and had a flare for risk taking.He understood that political regulation of business is the source of abnormal rates of profit.His great fortune built up over 5 years from 1990 was the result of the booming economy and the state's abysmal failure to expand landline or mobile networks.The monopoloistic concession allowed new mobile suppliers to charge high prices with enormous profit margins.TOT constructed a built in market advantage for Thaksin because it suited them in their competition with CAT.Finally the stock market pumped up by financial liberalization and world wide entusiasm for emerging markets transl;ated high profits to higher net worth.

My own view was that Thaksin's corruption related more to changing the rules of the game to suit his interestrs.This was really more apparent after he made his first fortune.

On this point alone I have a query.Can you advise which academics agreed Giles's book on the coup was wildly inaccurate?

If you are unable to do so, one must simply conclude that you disagree with his conclusions and have invented the academic support you refer to.

I had some reservations too relating to Giles's somewhat predictable assumptions on a class based interpretation of political events in Thailand.He is a Marxist and I am not.Yet there was a great deal of excellent and perceptive material in his book.

But that's my opinion and I would not make up support from "most academics" as you appear to have done.Actually as I recall Giles book was very favourably reviewed by the academic community.

Disappointingly for the champions of reaction on this forum and elsewhere, there is in fact no discernible academic support for the amart in Thailand, slightly odd even taking into account that academics almost everywhere tend to be left of centre.

Er what is this thread about? I thought it was about Surayud but suddenly it's all about Thaksin, the standard response apparently when there is any criticism of the reactionary right (though in this case rather light and friendly given Surayud's basic decency).

But actually it does matter what Surayud means.I am almost certain he means unity among all classes of Thais not just the proto fascists like Pitak Siam and similar.THe problem I suspect in this report lies not with Surayud but the slovenly journalism of The Nation.

My dear jBoy, did you read what I wrote? I was just referring to the (may I call it) fact that whenever someone you may not like is quoted you tend to interpret negatively, cast doubt on honestly, etc., etc.

The very fact that you 'wonder' if k. Surayud meant 'pitak siam' when saying 'unity amongst Thai', even if you then dismis it as 'assume not' already implies a lot of your point of view. To describe my comment as 'standard reaction on critisism of the reactionary right' is just the 'no meaning' catchphrase which is so common in certain academic circles it would seem. 'amart' and 'unelected elites' is also so meaningless after all the discussions of the last few years. Unless you want to refer to our dear criminal fugitive billionair why is not elected but skypes-in to tell how his country should be run. Of course that's not reactionair, just totally morally wrong.

I'm sure k. Surayud meant 'unity amongst Thai' with Thai being the Thai people. That includes not only the 'proto fascists' but also the 'democracy loving ones' and even red, yellow shirts and white or red masked groups. IMHO

If you mean I point out ignorance, lack of logic and extremism.. then I must plead guilty.I may be acerbic but equally try to be accurate.

Did you read what I wrote? I was giving General Surayud, whom I rather like, the benefit of the doubt.I am almost completely sure his unity plea was to all Thais.

If you think "unlected elites" and "amart" have no meaning perhaps you should pay a little more attention to the realities of Thailand.In fact if you donr recognise oir understand these concepts, observations are likely to be meaningless.That's not a political point.Defending the amart is perfectly valid but simply absurd to maintain it doesn't exist.

Incidentally in the politest way possible may I suggest you slightly amend your posting style.I see what you are trying to aim at - a learned light and detached style but making one or two penetrating points.It works quite well for intelligent but waspish Oxbridge dons whose first language is English - not so well for those - to put it tactfully - less equipped.

I don't see the case for a new law when the existing laws are already sufficient.Really in the instance of a proposed anti coup law the same case as with the lese majeste laws.The objectives are reasonable enough but do not require separate legislation since there are already statutes on the book dealing with these offences..

Perhaps in the case of coups there should be a requirement that those involved should not be able to award themselves post facto pardons.The practical position in Thailand is that coups favoured by the amart are not punished while coup attempts unapproved are punished severely,with for example in the 1970's the unapproved coup leader General Chalard being executed.

I'm not sure what Surayud means here.Is he calling for unity among all Thais or unity among the proto fascists like Pitak Siam? I assume the former.

In any event who cares? Surayud is yesterday's man, a charming and decent old codger certainly.However his quisling administration after the criminal coup d'état was noted for its lethargy and sheer incompetence.

I take these calls to unity to be a siren cry of, please don't fight the army if they come out. We don't want to be on global television having a nationwide civil war. How the up country areas would react to a coup this time around, I don't want to say, but it won't be flowers and wais this time around.

I agree with you.Even taking into account the extreme stupidity of many of those calling for a coup, the sharper minds among the old unelected elites know it could be bloody and counter productive.Therefore their favoured method of dislodging the Yingluck Government is to mobilise the courts.But even then I'm not sure even the intelligent end of the amart has fully thought through what happens next - specifically the next general election.Meanwhile the clock is ticking and in the near future all bets will be off.Cool heads will be needed on both sides of the political divide.

... and while some wonder what was meant when the Privy Counsilar Surayud called for unity amongst Thais, it is obvious what k. Thaksin means when he says he wants Thai to reconcile

In any event who cares, just another 64 year old has-been criminal fugitive, Thaksin that is, not k. Surayud who as PM even apologized for some of the atrocities which happened under a former PM.

All this of course just to show that reconciliation when people have different memories and different ideas, is something which needs more than just a political party pushing for an amnesty bill others don't want. Reconciliation needs all sides to co-operate. IMHO

Er what is this thread about? I thought it was about Surayud but suddenly it's all about Thaksin, the standard response apparently when there is any criticism of the reactionary right (though in this case rather light and friendly given Surayud's basic decency).

But actually it does matter what Surayud means.I am almost certain he means unity among all classes of Thais not just the proto fascists like Pitak Siam and similar.THe problem I suspect in this report lies not with Surayud but the slovenly journalism of The Nation.

"So lets have another coup to get rid of this lot"

Why does "Mark" need the army to get him elected if he is so good for the country? There will be another election in the not so distant future, everyone who can vote will be able to vote for THEIR government, will they choose your beloved Mark? I doubt it.

The point of previous coups was to get governments, he'll bent on destroying Thailand OUT. Not to get the Opposition IN.

If PTP were to act like sensible boys and girls, even while flouting parliamentary democracy, then there'd be little argument other than a difference of policies.

But while PTP are acting like out of control school kids, they leave themselves open to requiring a steadying hand.

What was the result of the last coup? Democratic elections which got PTP elected.

You shouldn't have much complaint about that

Er so what is the point? Why have a coup if the Thai people simply re- elect the deposed government or one almost identical to it.A coup only makes sense if the coup makers can enforce policies to their liking.After the last coup an attempt was made with the rigged military backed constitution but with only mixed results.The only effective way to enforce policies would be to end parliamentary democracy altogether.

So what have these coup makers achieved?They have managed to damage and tarnish the institutions they profess to hold dear.Stupid muppets.

My point was simple. A government that goes off the rails is stopped. The people vote for a new government presumably in hope of a better future. Then the new government continues with the same policies.

2 choices - take up the general apathy which appears to characterize Thailand, or continue to try to give governments the chance to act like grown ups?

Are you in favour of out-of-control governments?

No idea what you are talking about with your half baked ideas about army interventions and bizarre references to "out of control" governments.Take it up with someone else please.

I'm not sure what Surayud means here.Is he calling for unity among all Thais or unity among the proto fascists like Pitak Siam? I assume the former.

In any event who cares? Surayud is yesterday's man, a charming and decent old codger certainly.However his quisling administration after the criminal coup d'état was noted for its lethargy and sheer incompetence.

I take these calls to unity to be a siren cry of, please don't fight the army if they come out. We don't want to be on global television having a nationwide civil war. How the up country areas would react to a coup this time around, I don't want to say, but it won't be flowers and wais this time around.

I agree with you.Even taking into account the extreme stupidity of many of those calling for a coup, the sharper minds among the old unelected elites know it could be bloody and counter productive.Therefore their favoured method of dislodging the Yingluck Government is to mobilise the courts.But even then I'm not sure even the intelligent end of the amart has fully thought through what happens next - specifically the next general election.Meanwhile the clock is ticking and in the near future all bets will be off.Cool heads will be needed on both sides of the political divide.

"So lets have another coup to get rid of this lot"

Why does "Mark" need the army to get him elected if he is so good for the country? There will be another election in the not so distant future, everyone who can vote will be able to vote for THEIR government, will they choose your beloved Mark? I doubt it.

The point of previous coups was to get governments, he'll bent on destroying Thailand OUT. Not to get the Opposition IN.

If PTP were to act like sensible boys and girls, even while flouting parliamentary democracy, then there'd be little argument other than a difference of policies.

But while PTP are acting like out of control school kids, they leave themselves open to requiring a steadying hand.

What was the result of the last coup? Democratic elections which got PTP elected.

You shouldn't have much complaint about that

Er so what is the point? Why have a coup if the Thai people simply re- elect the deposed government or one almost identical to it.A coup only makes sense if the coup makers can enforce policies to their liking.After the last coup an attempt was made with the rigged military backed constitution but with only mixed results.The only effective way to enforce policies would be to end parliamentary democracy altogether.

So what have these coup makers achieved?They have managed to damage and tarnish the institutions they profess to hold dear.Stupid muppets.

I'm not sure what Surayud means here.Is he calling for unity among all Thais or unity among the proto fascists like Pitak Siam? I assume the former.

In any event who cares? Surayud is yesterday's man, a charming and decent old codger certainly.However his quisling administration after the criminal coup d'état was noted for its lethargy and sheer incompetence.

Perhaps it is because he refuses to offer populist vote-buying policies that would prove ruinous to the country. Of course you have to be some sort of fascist to suggest that government should be responsible as well as popular, or that there is more to democracy than who gets the most votes.

That would be a somewhat more compelling argument if Abhisit and his government had not adopted Thaksin's so called populist programmes hook, line and sinker - indeed enhanced them.

As for the economic impact of these policies it is absurd to suggest they are ruinous to the country.The numbers simply don't support this.

Your 1st statement is a lie.

Your 2nd statement refers to a matter you have refused to discuss. But now, with rice scam losses approaching 1 trillion baht with little or no economic gain, you can explain why thailand needs to borrow B2.2 trillion for infrastructure development (says Yingluk).

You might also choose to comment on responsible government, and the other facets of democracy beyond populism.

Abhisit and the Democrats' populist programme on which they fought the last election was modelled on that pioneered by Thaksin and this is a matter of record.Please do not attempt to reinvent history and please do not call other forum members liars.If you disagree present your evidence and a discussion can be had.

The rice subsidy pledge is certainly flawed but it has a political objective which has to be taken into account.It is foolish to call it a scam though no doubt there are incidental elements of corruption which schemes of this sort are prone to.

The infrastructure development programme is both imaginative and necessary and has wide cross party support.I specifically recall Korn's endorsement.The controversy relates to how it should be financed and unfortunately this has been caught up in the attempts of extreme right wingers to mobilise the courts for political purposes.On the basis of the numbers I have seen the programme is doable through a mixture of self financing and additional borrowings.

Quote by Jayboy:

In other words Korn prefers to rely on the courts ( strongly influenced by the old elites) to challenge and possibly remove the government

He doesn't 'prefer' to do any such thing - pity you have to put words into his mouth.

Korn's party hasn't got the numbers to bring the government down, so how should they do it? Purple shirt militia? Another coup?

If the PTP mob try and exceed their power (and they've tried a number of times already) it is the opposition's job to try to curb that power and, given that PTP have no respect for parliamentary debates, use the checks & balances of the courts. That's what those courts are there for. In effect, the courts are a last resort not a preferred choice.

Oh I know that Thaksinistas believe that winning an election entitles them to do as they please. But not many others would view the (Thaksin idol) Lee Kwan Yu years in Singapore as being democratic.

It's dispiriting to have to respond to this kind of post but here goes.I don't know anybody with an ounce of sense that believes victory in a general election provides a government with the right to do anything it likes.

There must be all kinds of checks and balances.However in Thailand there is a history of judicial activism which is politically controlled or encouraged by unelected elites.The Democrats have benefited from this.

It is absolutely right that opposition politicians like Korn should take on the government.But the way to dislodge the ruling party is to defeat it in the next general election, not rely on tainted and politically motivated court decisions.Korn is a highly intelligent man who understands a military coup would be an appalling disaster.He should understand judicial activism couldne equally destructive and self defeating.

Finally and as an aside if Thailand could achieve Singapore's wealth and stability I doubt many Thais would quarrel having a Lee Kwan Yew at the helm.