jayboy

Actually it appears that many attendees at the previous Pitak Siam rally , particularly from the provinces were paid a modest per dime.Unlike the usual suspects I wouldn't for a moment suggest they were attending for mercenary reasons,

Ten whole cents! that 's nearly 3 baht.

Have no idea how much they received.None of their political opponents have raised objections as far as I know anway.However you can bet your bottom dollar that if redshirt rally members received any contribution at all the usual suspects would be arguing their motives were purely mercenary (indeed that's precisely what they do argue)

I wonder if there are any major injuries or (hopefully not) deaths, will the Govt call for DSI to investigate? But you can bet there will be Govt supporters interspersed within the crowd to cause problems. The Govt will do anything it can to turn this protest into something other than a non violent demonstration and painting these people as trouble makers or violent will well be on its agenda. The Red Shirts proved they were capable of anything and 'dirty tricks' during their demonstration so things here could escalate easily into problems if a catalyst is added (by the Govt).

Really? Government provocateurs to make Pitak Siam look bad, as though PS isn't alkready doing that itself very effectively.No real mileage in hypothetical comments since the event hasn't yed happened.However at this stage it is the government and redshirts that appear restrained and mature.Monitor the comments of General Boonlert for the PS position but based on his pronouncements so far his worst enemies couldn't do a better job in making him look like a doddering old fool.

If a doddering old fool can inspire many times the attendance of the mercenary Red Shirts then that speaks volumes

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Actually it appears that many attendees at the previous Pitak Siam rally , particularly from the provinces were paid a modest per diem.Unlike the usual suspects I wouldn't for a moment suggest they were attending for mercenary reasons.

I have no idea which faction can get the more people out.Nor do I think it particularly important.We already know both factions represent significant opinion in the Kingdom.

Having said that there's no doubt the Pitak Siam leadership is seriously disreputable, with a grotesque lie at the centre of its platform.I have no problem with those who campaign against a Thaksin whitewash but the Pitak Siam platform goes well beyond that into extreme reactionary politics.

Red Shirt supporters who contemplate any movement must consult three core leaders, she said. In addition to Mrs Thida, Jatuporn Prompan and Nattawut Saikua are two other top leaders.

uh oh.. the last time someone attempted to dictate which of of the many Red Shirt Leaders were the real top Red Shirt Leaders, that someone was shot in the head a week later.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5266171

Hopefully, the Red Shirts have calmed down since then.

Another harbinger back to the above situation of disagreements within the Red Shirt leadership is Red Shirt Leader and Pheu Thai Party MP Worachai has said Red Shirts will amass in three different areas surrounding Bangkok in reaction to the Pitak Siam rally and will enter the city if there are any incidents at the rally..

He also stated a fourth group of Red Shirts will rally inside Bangkok in the Wong Wian Yai district.

.

The usual suspects are in a bind here.The impending fascist rally - which they of course enthusiastically support though are "shy" about admitting it - is a public relations disaster in the making.The government and redshirts in contrast seem to be acting responsibly.The truth is the usual suspects are enraged by the international recognition andpraise the PM is receiving and desperately look to belittle the redshirts which they see as a weak link.How the usual suspects twist and turn.

I completely disagree with this article. America's reaction during the dark years of 2006-2011 has probably been one of the main reason why democracy is back in Thailand.

The USA first sent a clear message after the coup when they downgraded their relation with Thailand and the junta, informing the top generals that the cozy relation they enjoy with the american army will suffer greatly if they didn't go back to their barrack. Then when democracy was eventually restored after the election of July 2011, by welcoming Yingluck government with open arms and welcoming back Thailand in the international community.

On the contrary this is an excellent article which very clearly sets out the mistakes of the American position in the early aftermath of the coup, largely based on the bizarre advice of a former US Ambassador.The background is clearly set out in Wikileaks for those who are interested.It seems however now that American policy is firmly back on track with a commitment to those in Thailand who value democracy.Having said that diplomacy isn't just based on morality and US/China rivalry in the region may be a factor in a future American policy to Thailand.

Apisit did not dodge military service. He applied and taught for 6 months at the military college in Nakhon Nayok which is a legal option for Thais graduating abroad with a Bachelor or Masters degree.

The idea is to use them to teach military cadets something from their degrees.

This whole farce by Sukampon is clearly an attempt to derail the censure debate, but it won't work and hopefully will legally backfire on Pheua Thai.

What was it Yingluk promised? Reconciliation, not revenge!!!

If the matter is as open and shut as you suggest and Abhisit has acted entirely legally then all this will be resolved soon.The motives ( and I don't dispute what you suggest ) of those who have set the case in motion are not really relevant.No doubt you have already been able to clarify the question of forged documents.

"not that you were ever elected by the people" - He was elected an MP by the people. He was elected PM by the parliament. That's they way Yingluck became PM too.

But not before he was picked by Anupong and the other powers to be.

I am afraid it is flogging a dead horse with these people.Whether through ignorance or sheer obtuseness they will apparently never understand the simple truth that while Abhisit certainly became PM legitimately through a parliamentary system he was "guided" to power by the old order and never obtained moral legitimacy.This could have been obtained by victory at a general election.However he failed this test and the Thai people threw the bum out.Back to the drawing board for the unelected elites and their deluded middle class followers.

Interesting picture attached. How does a draft-dodger get photographed in a nice new uniform, complete with steel chapeau?

I thought draft-dodgers sent postcards from Canada.

You really haven't been following the details of this case,have you?

Fortunately opinion polls do not trump criminal convictions for money laundering.

Though Thaksin and his apologists might wish it were not so.

So when was Thaksin convicted of "money laundering"? To call a conviction over, in my view, a dubious case of "conflict of interest", money laundering is a prime example of the attempt to demonise Mr T, as mentioned by previous posters, which only tarnish the detracters and not the man himself.

I assume you and I are are referring to the assets which Thaksin hid in the accounts of his family members and the family chauffeur. The point is, however as far as this thread is concerned, is that legal convictions are neither passed nor revoked in the court of public opinion. This is why we have at the moment an elected PTP government which is unable to clean up Thaksin's convictions and which has been forced to retreat from constitutional changes which stank of focussing on the interests of one man. Yingluck said in her recent speech that 'the rule of law is a fundamental of democracy'. What Thaksin understands by that is that the judiciary needs to be bought and broken but of course that cannot be done openly, publicly. Similarly those government ministers who visit Thaksin have to deny, to lie that they are discussing government business. Now why is that? public opinion? opinion polls? No. It is because government ministers are beholden to certain rules. Those rules are not set by opinion polls. And opinion polls are not a 'get out of jail card'.

In other words there was no money laundering.I would have thought there were enough genuine charges against Thaksin without resorting to lies (again).

Did I suggest you were trying to confuse? The question I posed was a simple one - why are these old communists attending the Siam Pitak rally?I could undrstand it if they had renounced communism (which is opposed to all Siam Pitak stands for) but that is apparently not the case - they seem positively proud of it.Can you (vain hope of a sensible reply) or anybody else explain the thinking involved?

As for the communists in the redshirt camp one may like it or not like it but very misguided though they may be, there isn't an ideological inconsistency (furthering the cause of the great unwashed etc)

The Siam Pitak commies are just a puzzle.

I could venture an explanation but it's just a guess.It would go something like this.Given the history of Thailand in the last half century all sorts and conditions of men became involved on one side or another of the CPT struggle.Some quite surprising, General Surayud's father for example.After the total CPT defeat in the 1980's some hardliners sought a home in another anti democratic controlling ideology.

So, having Ms. Thida and her husband Dr. weng as UDD leaders is OK because that isn't an ideological inconsistency with hardliners seeking a new home in another anti-democratic controlling ideology.

I must admit to a certain level of confusion

You miss my point.It's neither OK nor the opposite, simply understandable.The presence of communists at Siam Pitak rally is simply inexplicable.That's why I sought a reasonable explanation not an argument

No it's not inexplicable. As already pointed out, the shirts & uniforms are simply a dress-code for certain groups at protest rallies.

So far, we've had the Nazis, fascists, commies, & marxist-leninists mentioned with reference to one or both sets of protesters. Like the BBC & other media, posters here seem to try and apply western-style political movements to Thailand. It doesn't work.

On one side is Thaksin - an arch (corrupt) capitalist -, the red shirt leaders - nothing but mercenaries -, the red shirt grass-roots - too many brainwashed & paid -, & PTP - full of the main family & it's supporters whose main aim is to line their pockets.

On the other side is Boonlert's supporters - mainly ex-military -, the yellow shirts - mainly middle-class taxpayers & trade unionists -, & the DP - less corrupt & not able to fund the same level of vote buying.

The red-shirt schools just look like a further brainwashing effort. The red villages are worse - a suppresion of free speech.

Thai 'democracy' is so shallow that it hardly merits the term. Thaksin directed PTP have two aims in mind. First control all the major institutions of the country & second make him leader. The result: a money-making machine like nothing seen yet.

What means are available to prevent this? The media helps, & there are many Thais who can see this happening but not enough, so far, to make a real difference. Then there is the army who do have the power to prevent a Thaksin presidency & will probably use it if serious violence breaks out over the amnesty. The police are not just useless but have lost what little respect they had because of their partiality.

I hope that people like Boonlert continue their protests because, if nothing else, it sends out a message that total control of the country should never be in the hands of a single individual, let alone a dangerous & corrupt one.

You say it's explicable but then fail to explain it.You talk about epithets flung here and there, and then proceed to a set of generalisations, and an irrelevant rant about yellows and reds.However that is not the point.We were specifically discussing the band of communists at the Siam Pitak rally (all the reports confirm these were genuine ex CPT types) proudly wearing uniforms from their past.I and others wanted to understand the mental gymnastics involved - and how they are happy to be associated with everything they once fought against.The behaviour is completely different from their erstwhile comrades in the Southern Provinces who retained their ideology to the end.If they have simply changed their minds that would be a satisfactory explanation - but there is no evidence of that.

So the matter remains a mystery and I am wondering if there is anyone with the knowledge (and intellectual focus) to clear it up.

...it could even be that they are communists who have the moral fortitude and political insight to object to a pack of thieves plundering their country under the guise of communist-style ideals.

Possibly.But anyway thanks for the suggestion.I'm not really convinced but at least its a rational possibility.I was, and actually remain, genuinely puzzled.

I don't think there was any confusion which rally those grizzled old communists were attending.A genuinely useful response would have been to explain to the unenlightened what on earth did they think they were doing at a fascist assembly because the mental gymnastics involved are astonishing.But no we are instead treated to a repeat viewing of the tired old redshirts are communists propaganda.Yawn.

As you are the one calling PAD fascist, while at the same time pointing out a sizable chunk of the membership is far from that, it is understandable even the weird convolutions of your thought processes is having trouble justifying the original claim. Of course it must be the people attending that are confused, and not some distant observer.

I don't think there was any confusion which rally those grizzled old communists were attending.A genuinely useful response would have been to explain to the unenlightened what on earth did they think they were doing at a fascist assembly because the mental gymnastics involved are astonishing.But no we are instead treated to a repeat viewing of the tired old redshirts are communists propaganda.Yawn.

As you are the one calling PAD fascist, while at the same time pointing out a sizable chunk of the membership is far from that, it is understandable even the weird convolutions of your thought processes is having trouble justifying the original claim. Of course it must be the people attending that are confused, and not some distant observer.

The PAD leadership is broadly fascist but that is irrelevant to my question (why communists attended the Siam Pitak rally) which you have ignored, presumably out of ignorance.I don't condemn because I am ignorant too on the matter, hence the question

Did I suggest you were trying to confuse? The question I posed was a simple one - why are these old communists attending the Siam Pitak rally?I could undrstand it if they had renounced communism (which is opposed to all Siam Pitak stands for) but that is apparently not the case - they seem positively proud of it.Can you (vain hope of a sensible reply) or anybody else explain the thinking involved?

As for the communists in the redshirt camp one may like it or not like it but very misguided though they may be, there isn't an ideological inconsistency (furthering the cause of the great unwashed etc)

The Siam Pitak commies are just a puzzle.

I could venture an explanation but it's just a guess.It would go something like this.Given the history of Thailand in the last half century all sorts and conditions of men became involved on one side or another of the CPT struggle.Some quite surprising, General Surayud's father for example.After the total CPT defeat in the 1980's some hardliners sought a home in another anti democratic controlling ideology.

So, having Ms. Thida and her husband Dr. weng as UDD leaders is OK because that isn't an ideological inconsistency with hardliners seeking a new home in another anti-democratic controlling ideology.

I must admit to a certain level of confusion

I think the confusion is someone else's - a phenomenon that occurs when rather obvious facts are inconvenient to the argument and mindset.

Let's make it very simple then.I have an open mind on the subject.The question is this - why did a bunch of old communists pitch up at the Siam Pitak rally.If it is obvious to you please share the insight.

Did I suggest you were trying to confuse? The question I posed was a simple one - why are these old communists attending the Siam Pitak rally?I could undrstand it if they had renounced communism (which is opposed to all Siam Pitak stands for) but that is apparently not the case - they seem positively proud of it.Can you (vain hope of a sensible reply) or anybody else explain the thinking involved?

As for the communists in the redshirt camp one may like it or not like it but very misguided though they may be, there isn't an ideological inconsistency (furthering the cause of the great unwashed etc)

The Siam Pitak commies are just a puzzle.

I could venture an explanation but it's just a guess.It would go something like this.Given the history of Thailand in the last half century all sorts and conditions of men became involved on one side or another of the CPT struggle.Some quite surprising, General Surayud's father for example.After the total CPT defeat in the 1980's some hardliners sought a home in another anti democratic controlling ideology.

So, having Ms. Thida and her husband Dr. weng as UDD leaders is OK because that isn't an ideological inconsistency with hardliners seeking a new home in another anti-democratic controlling ideology.

I must admit to a certain level of confusion

You miss my point.It's neither OK nor the opposite, simply understandable.The presence of communists at Siam Pitak rally is simply inexplicable.That's why I sought a reasonable explanation not an argument

I wasn't attempting to create any confusion over which cause the grizzled old communists were supporting.

I was just showing the communists back both, your so-called fascist movement AND the so-called democracy movement.

Instead, we are treated to your usual tired old misrepresentations of other peoples' posts. Big yawn.

Did I suggest you were trying to confuse? The question I posed was a simple one - why are these old communists attending the Siam Pitak rally?I could undrstand it if they had renounced communism (which is opposed to all Siam Pitak stands for) but that is apparently not the case - they seem positively proud of it.Can you (vain hope of a sensible reply) or anybody else explain the thinking involved?

As for the communists in the redshirt camp one may like it or not like it but very misguided though they may be, there isn't an ideological inconsistency (furthering the cause of the great unwashed etc)

The Siam Pitak commies are just a puzzle.

I could venture an explanation but it's just a guess.It would go something like this.Given the history of Thailand in the last half century all sorts and conditions of men became involved on one side or another of the CPT struggle.Some quite surprising, General Surayud's father for example.After the total CPT defeat in the 1980's some hardliners sought a home in another anti democratic controlling ideology.

So, let's get this straight: a party gets voted into office with a majority of votes. Another party doesn't like that and stages rallies, calling for a coup, which is not only criminal, but also stupid!

In an effort to help you to get it straight, the Pitak Siam is not a political party.

Thanks for that useful clarification.Here is a photo of some Pitak Siam supporters, complete with communist beret badges, which will give a flavour of the group's quality.

Although your post has nothing to do with correcting DocN's misstatement erroneously attributing a political party to the protest group, the communists depicted above should not to be confused with communist Red Shirt supporters and leaders, complete with automatic weapons and communist beret badges, as well as Red Shirt publications which will give a flavor of the group's quality.

.

I don't think there was any confusion which rally those grizzled old communists were attending.A genuinely useful response would have been to explain to the unenlightened what on earth did they think they were doing at a fascist assembly because the mental gymnastics involved are astonishing.But no we are instead treated to a repeat viewing of the tired old redshirts are communists propaganda.Yawn.

So, let's get this straight: a party gets voted into office with a majority of votes. Another party doesn't like that and stages rallies, calling for a coup, which is not only criminal, but also stupid!

In an effort to help you to get it straight, the Pitak Siam is not a political party.

Thanks for that useful clarification.Here is a photo of some Pitak Siam supporters, complete with communist beret badges, which will give a flavour of the group's quality.

I guess the more people showing dissent may get the army to go ahead with a coup. Thailand can't cope much more with the red govt and its scams and corruption and out of control spending to line the pockets of the politicians and their clans. It may not be ideal but it has to be better that the present situation as I doubt Thailand can handle a full term of these arrogant imbeciles. I wonder what happened to governance by the people for the people.

I note that you are in favour of a coup.I was wondering whether you have had time to consult with your top brass contacts on timing.By way of reminder this is what you said recently in another thread.

"According to some of the brass I associate with - it's all but on. As to it being a ridiculous statement, think about it. Votes won't get them out, Dems can't organise anything, the latest protests shows there may be a party with some goolies prepared to have a go and the only solution is military intervention and with an average of one coup every 2-3 years, it is a very sensible statement - unless you have only just arrived"

While I acknowledge your expertise in this matter I wonder whether your top brass contacts have reflected on the consequences of a failed coup.As you know where the generals involved feel they have a green signal the price of failure may not be that high - at worst a period of exile.But where there is no green signal the consequences may be rather severe as General Chalard was to find in April 1977 when he was executed by a single burst of a machine gun.Many will say that a critical factor in respect of Chalard's perforated exit was that his botched coup involved some bloodshed.I think that is true but equally important was that the coup attempt had no support from those that really matter, the unelected elites if you like.Looking at current circumstances I strongly suspect that the same considerations apply.I am sure you have considered these implications as you discuss the impending coup with your top brass contacts at the Royal Turf Club, but anyway I look forward to hearing from you particularly on timing.

I appreciate the time and knowledge you have on this matter.Anticipating your early reply.

Oh Dear...........are you saying she can't speak proper Thai ??

She is by your account inarticulate but she is the PM and seems to be being taken seriously by the major nations.

Bit of a contradiction there, I think.

Pity AV for all his Britishness, never made it to PM of Britain, never mind the Queen or POTUS.

A certain baseball boy you should know implications of that.

Please try to contain your sycophancy. The persons you mention are not gods or even demi-gods, bestowing favours on us mere mortals by their presence. They are people who put on their knickers one leg at a time and sit down to take a crap. Not being in their presence does not make for a lesser person.

BTW as a member of an Oz army honour guard, front row, inspected by the queen, let me assure you that I have been closer to her than you (AFAIK). If that has some significance, you only belittle yourself.

Although a spectacularly foolish (and unintentionally very revealing) post on the subject of meeting VIPs, it does remind me that not so long ago some of the usual suspects were arguing that on Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to Bangkok we were expected to attribute some kind of significance to the fact her schedule saw her meeting Abhist before the PM.The fact that Yingluck is meeting Elizabeth 2 and the POTUS drives the usual suspects into a rage, even to the extent here of belittling the President of the US (who has congratulated Yingluck on her leadership abilities) and the British Queen.Okay one shouldn't pay too much attention to the views of some disgruntled and in some instances not very bright set of retiree expatriates but it does underline the fact that the civilised world gives respect to a legitimate and democratically mandated leader.For various reasons both Thaksin and Abhisit failed this test.Yingluch, phenonomen that she is, doesn't.

Obama congratulating Yingluk on her leadership skill only demonstrates political correctness or abysmal ignorance. Pity we can't get some new wikileaks and get the real story.

Do you still tug the forelock in the presence of your betters?

BTW a phenomenon is not necessarily beneficial, or a term of praise.

Yup that sounds a good idea.Invent some lies to counter the unintentionally revealed truths (or to be accurate, true accounts of Embassy despatches) from Wikileaks.

Yes of course Obama's comments are rather odd.I only mentioned them because they make the usual suspects choke on their morning kippers.

What's with this tugging of forelocks and how is it relevant? Don't you people live in a world of tugged forelocks anyway (or rather expect ordinary working Thais to)?

Don't wish to be patronising but it's not really necessary for someone like you to advise me what is the meaning of "phenonomen".

Oh Dear...........are you saying she can't speak proper Thai ??

She is by your account inarticulate but she is the PM and seems to be being taken seriously by the major nations.

Bit of a contradiction there, I think.

Pity AV for all his Britishness, never made it to PM of Britain, never mind the Queen or POTUS.

A certain baseball boy you should know implications of that.

Please try to contain your sycophancy. The persons you mention are not gods or even demi-gods, bestowing favours on us mere mortals by their presence. They are people who put on their knickers one leg at a time and sit down to take a crap. Not being in their presence does not make for a lesser person.

BTW as a member of an Oz army honour guard, front row, inspected by the queen, let me assure you that I have been closer to her than you (AFAIK). If that has some significance, you only belittle yourself.

Although a spectacularly foolish (and unintentionally very revealing) post on the subject of meeting VIPs, it does remind me that not so long ago some of the usual suspects were arguing that on Aung San Suu Kyi's visit to Bangkok we were expected to attribute some kind of significance to the fact her schedule saw her meeting Abhist before the PM.The fact that Yingluck is meeting Elizabeth 2 and the POTUS drives the usual suspects into a rage, even to the extent here of belittling the President of the US (who has congratulated Yingluck on her leadership abilities) and the British Queen.Okay one shouldn't pay too much attention to the views of some disgruntled and in some instances not very bright set of retiree expatriates but it does underline the fact that the civilised world gives respect to a legitimate and democratically mandated leader.For various reasons both Thaksin and Abhisit failed this test.Yingluch, phenonomen that she is, doesn't.

Since world leaders are used to dealing with counterparts who often speak no English at all (France,China,Russia,Japan etc) I doubt whether they will worry much about Yingluck's communication skills.

In answer to an earlier question, I believe the PM has read out one speech (from a prepared text) in parliament, smiled nicely and disappeared like a Cheshire cat before anyone present had worked out what she was rabbiting about, let alone thought of a question (which would not have been accepted or answered anyway.) This is definitely a show pony, not a work horse.

Excellent post.The Prime Minister is definitely harming Thailand's image and it is noticeable, particularly after the huge acclaim given to Abhisit by the international community when he was PM, that the most renowned world figures like Obama and Queen Elizabeth 2 are giving Yingluck the cold shoulder.

http://www.straitsti...lizabeth-201211

I never claimed the PM was damaging the country's image. In fact, image is the PM's strongest (Armani) suit.

And I really couldn't give an infected rodents anus what Obama, QE2 or you think of her.

My point is that she was elected as PM of the country, a position whose normal expectations she ignores while gadding about the world attending inconsequential affairs. Most of those could be attended by the FM (most hardly warrant the airfare) were he not just another nepotistic puppet and criminal's dogsbody.

After 15 months in office, the only question she has managed to answer in parliament was "When's lunch?"

Twisting and turning like so many of the usual suspects when confronted with uncomfortable truths.Almost comical how those infused with hatred end up skewering themselves.A sense of balance and proportion went out the window long ago.And on one critical point, the honour that the international community accords to Yingluck is not of course personsal but a tribute to Thailand which has slowly hauled itself back from the coup to democratic norms.

In answer to an earlier question, I believe the PM has read out one speech (from a prepared text) in parliament, smiled nicely and disappeared like a Cheshire cat before anyone present had worked out what she was rabbiting about, let alone thought of a question (which would not have been accepted or answered anyway.) This is definitely a show pony, not a work horse.

Excellent post.The Prime Minister is definitely harming Thailand's image and it is noticeable, particularly after the huge acclaim given to Abhisit by the international community when he was PM, that the most renowned world figures like Obama and Queen Elizabeth 2 are giving Yingluck the cold shoulder.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/asia-news-network/story/yingluck-first-thai-leader-decades-meet-queen-elizabeth-201211