jayboy

to me, the MIB remain a mystery, and i hope and pray that we will find out who they really were no matter who's thai visa agenda it furthers.

It seems pretty obvious that we will never have names, addresses and phone numbers of these people, so i'm sure that will be sufficient for people to continue feigning confusion forever about what they were up to and whose side they were on. Seems strange as the names, addresses and phone numbers of many people from all sides of the protest, are also not known, but we are happy enough to conclude by looking at their actions what they were up to and whose side they were on. Seems in the future, if you want your role to become a matter of feigned confusion, just pop on a different coloured shirt from your other friends in your mob, and suddenly your actions will become a matter of great mystery.

I'm not sure anybody (outside a relatively small group) doubts which side they were on.However I do regard it as incredible that their "names, addresses and telephone numbers" - to use your expression - are not known (none of them, noit one!) and that the Abhisit government neither detained any or was able to determine any relevant background information.This is in spite of the fact the Abhisit government had all the security agencies of the state available for follow up, and that it had everthing to gain if a link between Thaksin could be established.In fact proving a link could have been (actually still could be) a decisive game changer.The main redshirt contingent was very well investigated - but on the MIB nothing, zilch, nada.

Honestly and with due respect your post is beside the point.There is a genuine mystery here.

If Thaksin dropped dead many here would feel jilted in that they would then need to find another obsession........LOL

I appreciate the above comment was made facetiously but it does raise a serious point.It should at first be said the majority of Thaksin's critics have genuine and legitimate reasons for their views, and the psychotic element is a very small minority.In any event one does wonder how the obsessive element, should Thaksin be removed permanently, would explain the ongoing deep divisions in Thai society or do they think these would magically vanish.The truth of course is that Thaksin or no Thaksin the old order is doomed - that is the Thailand dominated by throwback feudalists, power hungry generals and old style businessmen, a country of unelected elites and smiling peasants who knew their place.Personally I'm not much enamoured of what is likely to replace the old Thailand and I have much affection for some aspects of it, not least its courtesy and charm.But the elites who had the possibility of gradual reform almost certainly (though courage and imagination from the likes of Abhisit might still win the day) ruined their chances with their greed, stupidity and criminality - no sense of enlightened self interest.In the meantime we must put up with the obsessives' endless nonsense about Thaksin's passport, not exactly the most important, significant or even interesting question by a long shot.

Thanks for that. Enjoyable read. A lot of good well made points in there.

At the end of the day though, as i say, i think the charisma business is a red herring. We can argue all day whether or not we think Abhisit has it (might be a boring day but there you go), but either way, i don't think charisma (or lack of) has been his downfall, in the same way i don't think charisma has been Thaksin's key to success.

Perhaps we should though, as Rubl suggests, move the discussion on to Kanoknuch's charisma score chart.

I am glad you enjoyed it (genuinely).Here is the link to the full article

http://poppyfieldjournal.blogspot.com/p/thoughts-on-thailands-turmoil-by-james.html

Like you I am not sold on the idea of the need for overwhelming charisma in a politician, though as for any leader it cannot be too low.Besides Abhisit's issue is slightly different:

"unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side."

In the case of Abhisit and Brown there is a further similarity:both are highly intelligent men but almost completely devoid of political charisma.

Whilst you won't get any argument from me on Brown, I think the lack of political charisma thing concerning Abhisit is a misnomer and a falsehood that the red side like to repeat, because his character, his ability to express himself - to be articulate in both Thai and English - his calm demeanour, his professionalism in front of the camera - all things that are part of what makes up political charisma - are where his greatest strengths lie.

In politics strengths in your opponents are what you most want to attack, what you most wish to undermine. Nobody within PTP ranks can compete on personality with Abhisit, so they continually throw out there the "talks well but no charisma" retort. Pretty laughable when you look at all of the most recent leaders and their complete lack of charisma, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and Yingluck. No charm or charisma whatsoever with the first three. Yingluck rates a bit higher by the way she presents herself and her feminine attributes such as appearing gentle and caring, but of course the image somewhat falls apart the moment she opens her mouth and speaks and you realise how terribly unstatesmanly (should that be unstateswomanly?) she is.

Thaksin is i think living proof that you need not have charisma to win the hearts of voters. It's simply about getting them to believe that you can change their lives, make things better. Thaksin managed to sell this belief successfully, not because of things he said or how he presented, but because people judged him by what he had done. In the first instance in 2001, that concerned his business savvy. People saw his business empire and thought how could he not be good at running the country, along with that other prevailing thought of the time, someone as rich and successful as him will have no need for corruption. That was his initial platform for electoral success, and then after that, he helped further cement the belief, again, not by charisma, but by 1) having the good fortune to come to power at the time of world economic boom 2) being smart in introducing populist policies.

So before you jump on my back and ask why hasn't Abhisit been more successful if he is so charismatic, remember that there are many factors involved in getting people to vote for you, and it is quite possible to be unlike-able as a person and completely lacking in charisma, but still be the person people think would do a good job of running the country, and the person that could make their lives better.

Thaksin has been successful not because of, but in spite of his charisma - what there is of it - in spite of his character and in spite of the way he comes across in public. I guess for that he gets a lot of credit. He is indeed a phenomenon (hope addressing him as such cuts me some slack from the usual suspects who would otherwise be rushing along right now with their "how dare you say Thaksin has no charisma" comments).

My message to Abhisit for the next election would be, ignore those like jayboy who say you have no charisma, charisma is not your problem. What you need to do is take a look at those posters PTP put up before the last election, the things they promised. This is where you lost so much ground. Your goodies list was frankly pretty crap. Think of yourself a bit like a new car. People buy new cars from dealers who offer most extras. Wait until PTP announce what they will offer the electorate, and then double it. Don't go around the country giving talks, go around the country having glitzy road shows. Oh, and ditch all the Dem deadwood idiots like Suthep.

Forget about Thaksin for a moment:we are talking about Abhisit.I suspect you do not know much about Abhisit personally because you portray only the attractive aspects of his character (which I am on record as agreeing).The problem like Brown is that he lacks charisma and is a hopeless politician.

Jim Stent is a longstanding and extremely well connected expatriate who a couple of years ago penned a memorable portrait of Abhisit in "Thoughts on Thailand's Turmoil"

"Why has a well-educated, well spoken, honest and hard-working man like Abhisit failed to understand what the times demanded? Why has he been so intransigent in dealing with the red shirts, and why has he now turned up the heat rather than lowering it, failing to show tolerance and reach out to the other side? Why has he been unable to communicate effectively with the mass of Thai voters? A few possibilities suggest themselves.

1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense. A foreign journalist who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the man.

2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has been his wife.

3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own “Sukhumvit-Oxford” background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.

4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him inflexible.

He is an enigma—so smart and attractive, so effective in parliamentary debate, so cool in the midst of crisis, yet seeming unable to show emotion about the tragedy he has dealt with, unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions. To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side. One has the feeling that the Abhisit government has in fact attempted to put forward some useful, progressive policies, such as the property tax that Korn is advocating, but they have been poorly packaged and presented. Whether for or against Thaksin, one could always immediately name the initiatives that Thaksin was undertaking when he was Prime Minister, conveying a sense of energy being applied to resolve national problems.

It has been apparent that Abhisit has always been more comfortable rubbing shoulders with international political and business leaders than he has been chatting with his fellow-countrymen in the provinces, and he certainly undertook a large number of trips abroad to wave the Thai flag in his first eighteen months in office. A small but revealing news item appeared in the 4 June Bangkok Post. The paper reported that Prime Minister Abhisit would fly to Vietnam on 6 June “to attend a two-day World Economic Forum on East Asia” and went on to say that the Prime Minister “said the priority for government was to restore confidence among the international community since political problems impede economic development.” The blood is barely dry on the streets of Rachaprasong, but Abhisit’s priority is speaking with international investors? The priority should be 100% on reconciling domestic divisions and restoring harmony to the country. If progress on this is made, the international business community and tourists will regain faith in Thailand without Abhisit attending international conferences.

Unfortunately for Thailand, Abhisit lacks the skills and personality to lead a genuine reconciliation, or to project a bold vision for the future development of the country that would have a chance of uniting most of the country behind him. He, almost as much as Thaksin, has made himself a divisive rather than harmonizing leader. "

Blindingly obvious to you but not to many.That your view is held strongly does not make it true, and you fail to provide any evidence.You also attempt to suggest the entire redshirt was complicit in acts of violence, so silly a comment that it's hardly worth responding to.One can rationally assume I suppose that the MIB were supportive of the redshirt's aims but beyond that it's not yet clear who they were or how they were financed.The previous government unaccountably managed to track down any of the MIB or cast any light on their involvement.

We know that there were divisions in the army with "reliable" units being ordered in and "unreliable" units ordered out, and it's not known whether this is relevant because one assumes the MIB had some military training.If a redshirt sympathiser was to argue that the MIB were only there to deter violence on the part of the security forces you would presumably reject that suggestion as absurd.And yet that is precisely the charge that can be levied against you, flinging around assertions just" known to be true" but without an iota of evidence.

So often in this crisis acts of violence are attributed to the Great Beelzebub from Dubai - planning, financing, executing but in reality the charges have been found out to be untrue (the assasination attempt on Sondhi, the murder of Seh Daeng etc).A sensible person might not want to rush to judgement.

Amazing to observe how certain aspects and incidents in what has occurred here in recent years and are known as "facts", even if technically speaking may be based more on hearsay and may lack hard evidence and have certainly never been proven in a court of law, are generally accepted as being true (take for example the military's role in the forming of the Democrat led coalition), but other aspects and incidents, despite also being backed up by a thousand big neon pointy signs and flashcards that spell it all out pretty clearly even to an illiterate man, are suddenly met with heeding words of great caution about "not rushing to judgement".

The only people i have ever met who have not judged the MIB as being part of the red movement that they so obviously were, are supporters of that movement like you.

No need to be so defensive.I thought I made it clear in my earlier post that the MIB were likely to be associated with the redshirt movement.But why do we hae so little facts available, particularly since the last government had everything to gain from uncovering the truth? I am afraid for rational people rather more is needed than a thousand big neon pointy signs.

I am not one of your mystery posters suggesting that the MIB were part of the government's dirty tactics. I do acknowledge that it is not known (at least publicly) who they were..

The old, not known who they were <dot dot dot, leave the sentence hanging> chestnut.

It's true we don't know the names and addresses of those members of the MIB, but the same goes for many of those people involved in the protest, on all sides, but their role, whether it be an army sniper, or whether it be a molotov-cocktail-lobbing red shirt, is never questioned. We don't need their names and addresses to know what they were up to or what their motives were.

Whilst you might not go as far as flat out suggesting that the MIB were part of the government, you do, by the constant repeating of, who these people were, we don't really know (a question you know full well will probably never now be answered), attempt to throw a question mark over their role. Their role was blindly obvious. They were part of the red shirt movement, and were led and funded by an element of that movement. Attempting to somehow distinguish/separate them from other red shirts who they were freely mingling amongst, simply on the basis that they were wearing different clothes, were more heavily armed and the fact that we don't know what their phone numbers are or what street they live on, is nothing but a lame attempt to shift blame for their actions away from the red movement.

Blindingly obvious to you but not to many.That your view is held strongly does not make it true, and you fail to provide any evidence.You also attempt to suggest the entire redshirt was complicit in acts of violence, so silly a comment that it's hardly worth responding to.One can rationally assume I suppose that the MIB were supportive of the redshirt's aims but beyond that it's not yet clear who they were or how they were financed.The previous government unaccountably managed to track down any of the MIB or cast any light on their involvement.

We know that there were divisions in the army with "reliable" units being ordered in and "unreliable" units ordered out, and it's not known whether this is relevant because one assumes the MIB had some military training.If a redshirt sympathiser was to argue that the MIB were only there to deter violence on the part of the security forces you would presumably reject that suggestion as absurd.And yet that is precisely the charge that can be levied against you, flinging around assertions just" known to be true" but without an iota of evidence.

So often in this crisis acts of violence are attributed to the Great Beelzebub from Dubai - planning, financing, executing but in reality the charges have been found out to be untrue (the assasination attempt on Sondhi, the murder of Seh Daeng etc).A sensible person might not want to rush to judgement.

Isn't there a contradiction here?

"Abhisit said he had accepted the invitation and that his fellow party members were ready to cooperate with the government. "The deep South is a major issue in the country, so it's important to have the prime minister in command, at least to prevent confusion among operational agencies," he said.

Government agencies and officials should speak the same language, he said, suggesting that if the military began negotiating with insurgents, then Chalerm should not oppose it."

If Abhisit is correct ,and I believe he is, that the PM should be in overall control and that there should be co-ordination between the government agencies, then the military should clear its approach with the government in advance.Thus the question of Chalerm opposing the army holding negotiations should not arise.There is surely some central security committee which covers this ground.I would want to know why the military should be leading the negotiations anyway, though could be convinced this is appropriate.Any takers?

Actually not for the first time I feel I may be taking newspaper reports too literally.In practice I'm sure there is quite close cooperation among government agencies.In other comparable situations such as N.Ireland the military did not participate in negotiations except at the margin.

The pedantry is amazing. ( and childish )

AV and the Dems have not won a recent election.

YS and her party have.

That is the point being made by binjalin.

Simple really.

Trying to move the goalposts.

What binjalin said was 'he has never, ever been voted in by the Thai people'

I think 'never, ever' has a different meaning to the word 'recent'

So all you have done is to make things worse.

The accusation of pedantry has backfired.

Better luck next time.

I assume someone knows what this catfight is all about.I haven't the foggiest.

Without proper implementation, the concept is a meaningless waste.

In case it's helpful here is the UNESCO address to which you can write alerting them of your reservations about the government's tablet programme, and why they have got it all wrong.I am sure they will give your representations the attention they deserve.I apologise for misleading the forum earlier when I incorrectly suggested the HQ was in Geneva.

UNESCO

7, place de Fontenoy

75352 PARIS 07 SP

France

Phone national: O1 45 68 10 00

international: 33 1 45 68 10 00

Fax national: 01 45 67 16 90

international: 33 1 45 67 16 90

Telex: 204461 Paris; 270602 Paris

Always glad to be of assistance.

To date .... how many tablets have they distributed?

On 2012-08-10 about 190,000 units in total were received. Then they get checked, repacked, distributed. No idea of current numbers, it seems to have been a wee bit quiet on this

So about 20 per cent have so far been delivered which would make the target of every Pathom 1 student getting a tablet before he becomes a Pathom 2 student doubtful, even if you 'Kittiratt' the prediction.

And is this project ongoing with another million ordered for next year's intake or do the kids hand them down?

Additionally, the Yingluck government also announced earlier that they would have the tablets in place at schools at the start of the school year.... which began four months ago.

Of course, with the same announcement, they also announced that not only Prathom 1 students would have them. They said all primary and secondary students would have a new tablet computer in May 2012. That would include some 11 million students.

In the context of that number, the percentage of tablets thus far delivered dwindles to less than 2 per cent.

p.s. something I note that UNESCO didn't mention that in their praise, but hey, no real surprise.

The OP is just normal meaningless sound bite. Clearly, they aren't looking at the flop in depth.

.

.

For the usual suspects the praise given by UNESCO doesn't and can't compute.How can an initiative by the current goverment make sense, let alone be praised by the UN's leading educational organisation.

"They aren't looking at the flop in depth" etc.Perhaps they had better write to the UN experts and explain their views.I'm sure Geneva would like to hear from a few foreign oldsters.

If they had any self awareness they would know how unhinged they sound.It's same incoherent ranting we heard when Thnaksin travelled to the US when the usual suspects had been assuring us he was limited to visiting third world hell holes.Laughable.

That doesn't mean the tablet programme has proceeded smoothly:it hasn't but the basic idea is a good one.Let's see how the government handles it over the next year or so.

Tiresome for you no doubt, often repeated certainly and completely true.See my post above.

If you would like a tutorial on parliamentary democracy - a system used by both Thailand and the UK please let me know.I am sympathetic to our American cousins being hazy about the details.

Maybe you can explain to an Australian how PMs are elected, and how PMs that are elected through a coalition are elected "by the people".

I assume you know the mechanics of parliamentary democracy already.In any case that point has already been explained along with a key consideration that a PM who has not faced the electorate needs to refresh his mandate.Nobody is suggesting that Abhisit wasn't the rightful PM simply that he needed to obtain the endorsement of the Thai people to shore up his political credibility.It's a political rather than a constitutional consideration.Having said that I think the need for Abhisit to obtain a proper mandate (in addition to that of the urban middle class) was critical given the unusual way he came to power, essentially a puppet of reactionary interests and reinforced by inappropriate judicial activism.

There's almost a Shakespearean tragedy here.Abhisit - a perceptive, intelligent civilised man undone by character weakness.Superior in so many ways to the current PM, yet he is the one with a shadow over him and his future compromised.Yingluck, a charming lightweight, has greater respect and credibility in the world's eyes - not least because she has the endorsement of the Thai people and has no blood on her hands.

Not a good comparison at all, the labour party had not been dissolved, they were still in power and chose a new leader because the one they had was about as popular as a horny dog at a Miss Lovely Legs competition, who then went on to lose a popularity contest representing the entire party.

Thinking about it, it isn't even vaguely similar.

Of course you are correct Thaddeus not even vaguely similar, Abhisit carried nowhere near the popularity of Gordon Brown when leaving office

thank goodness some in the Democrat party can please the Public, even if she did learn her trade elsewhere

Why mention Gordon Brown and when questioned just say 'not even vaguely similar'. Trolling for trolling sake? Next sentence seems to indicate you're annoyed, aren't you ? Trolling plan failed?

So a Democrat candidate who learned her trade in TRT/PPP/Phue Thai type of parties is bound to have learned the trade? With all the info provided in this topic, it seems the lady learned what not to do

all starting from the tiresome misstatement by binjalin, the often-repeated and and wholly erroneous:

Abhisit was never elected by the Thai PEOPLE

Tiresome for you no doubt, often repeated certainly and completely true.See my post above.

If you would like a tutorial on parliamentary democracy - a system used by both Thailand and the UK please let me know.I am sympathetic to our American cousins being hazy about the details.

As for Mr. Brown, he's British, the British electorate in it's behaviour and voting rituals has no relation with how things are done in Thailand

Ah the hoary old face of Thai exceptionalism raises its silly head.Nothing overseas can be compared to Thailand where every nuance of political and social behaviour is unique.Always the refuge of the usual suspects when their arguments are demolished.

It's all complete nonsense of course.In fact the case of Gordon Brown is analagous almost precisely to that of Abhisit, a long serving party man who came to the leadership without having to face the electorate.Entirely legal in accordance with the rules of parliamentary democracy (Thailand's system being very closely modeled on that of Britain).It remains the case however that to shore up his position a leader coming to power this way needs to face the electorate sooner rather than later or political strength and credibility slips away.When both Abhisit and Brown eventually got round to facing the electorate, they were rejected.(Brown foolishly chickened out early in his administration when he almost certainly would have won).In the case of Abhisit and Brown there is a further similarity:both are highly intelligent men but almost completely devoid of political charisma.Brown's reputation is however being treated quite kindly in view of subsequent events.Whether Abhisit can ever recover from his involvement in the killings of 2010 remains to be seen.

Would appointing Muslim Governors of the southern provinces help? How about following the US pattern where individul states have a degree of autonomy? Just thinking, but not too deeply maybe.

Yes it would in a way but the key problem is the principle of appointment from Bangkok.Muslims who are seen as being stooges of the conservative Bangkok establishment are unlikely to be acceptable.But even better would be Chalerm's idea of elected governors in the southern provinces.I'm no more of a fan of Chalerm's than anyone else but for a change this seems very sensible.There is a remarkable editorial in the other paper today giving its approval and criticising the Democrats for taking a negative approach to it (though I don't think the party leadership has taken a view yet - let's see).Of course there is the risk that locally elected governors might end up with the "wrong" result but this is a risk worth taking.The way ahead is to take the responsibility for solving the southern problem away from the bone headed generals whose efforts under various administrations have failed badly and edge towards a more political solution which inter alia would give a more prominent official role to Phaasa Jawi.I don't believe there is a need to think in terms of secession from Thailand now but eventually (I'm talking 10 years +) a referendum should be held on this if there is an end of violence on all sides.As to discussions between Abhisit and Mahathir on the subject I fail to see how any sane person with a modicum of good will could consider this is other than helpful and constructive.

Seems that whilst the majority of Thais are behind her,

Yes because you can really glean that from a poll of a couple of thousand people asking them in affect if they would like Yingluck to be deposed before the end of her term.

You have to remember that whilst the red shirts might think that it is ok to depose a PM by holding the city hostage and using violence, and whilst the military might think it is ok to depose a PM (albeit a caretaker PM) by rolling in the tanks and having a coup, not all Thai people think this way. Love her, or hate her, she is the PM, let her see out her term. That is the message i get from this poll.

It's a welcome piece of comic relief to see the usual suspects twist and turn.Basically any indication that Yingluck's government is broadly popular simply doesn't compute for them so the reality must be processed for a result that suits them.Possible suggestions.

1.The last election was rigged.

2.Thaksin has bribed the ignorant peasants of the North and North East

3.All PTP votes were arranged by feudal barons,

4.The redshirts would not exist without Thaklsin's malevolent influence

5.There are no unelected elites and Thaksin is just another of them anyway.

6.The military serves the interests of the nation better than "dirty" politicians so who cares about polls anyway

7.Polls are not reliable because they are fixed by politicians

Anyway there are a few suggestions to be getting on with.

Don't confuse Yingluk with the government . The rank and file like her perceived personal qualities, attractive,sweet, demure, compromising, working hard for the country, but apart from that?

Pheua Thai's policies are starting to look increasingly ugly, massive losses and corruption in the rice mortgage scheme, large corruption in flood compensation payments, the farce of the 3 hour battery life of the computer tablets with the teachers having to find 30 or 40 sockets in the classroom to recharge for 5 hours, etc.

How long can a pretty face hide the facts- let's wait another year.

OK that's a rational line of criticism, very rare on this forum.It would be great incidentally if there could be a measured discussion on the flood compensation corruption, an area where I am short on firm detail

The political party associated with the redshirts trounced the opposition in a general election.

Many peons sold their votes, plain and simple. I personally know Thais and hill tribers (with ID cards) up here in northern Thailand who told me they got paid to vote for PT and the Reds. They sold their votes for between 200 and 500 baht. Probably millions did that. I asked them why they didn't just take the money and vote for whomever they really wanted. They said, 'the pu yai ban (village headman) knows who votes for whom. ' If you take the money and don't vote as told, you get in trouble. Simple.

In another thread this morning I made a facetious reference to usual suspects who" explained" the PTP victory at the last election through vote buying and other outlandish theories.However sometimes there is no need to be sarcastic because the reality is more bizarre.

Seems that whilst the majority of Thais are behind her,

Yes because you can really glean that from a poll of a couple of thousand people asking them in affect if they would like Yingluck to be deposed before the end of her term.

You have to remember that whilst the red shirts might think that it is ok to depose a PM by holding the city hostage and using violence, and whilst the military might think it is ok to depose a PM (albeit a caretaker PM) by rolling in the tanks and having a coup, not all Thai people think this way. Love her, or hate her, she is the PM, let her see out her term. That is the message i get from this poll.

It's a welcome piece of comic relief to see the usual suspects twist and turn.Basically any indication that Yingluck's government is broadly popular simply doesn't compute for them so the reality must be processed for a result that suits them.Possible suggestions.

1.The last election was rigged.

2.Thaksin has bribed the ignorant peasants of the North and North East

3.All PTP votes were arranged by feudal barons,

4.The redshirts would not exist without Thaklsin's malevolent influence

5.There are no unelected elites and Thaksin is just another of them anyway.

6.The military serves the interests of the nation better than "dirty" politicians so who cares about polls anyway

7.Polls are not reliable because they are fixed by politicians

Anyway there are a few suggestions to be getting on with.

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

I supported them. Should I be in jail? The political party associated with the redshirts trounced the opposition in a general election.Should the many millions of Thais who voted PTP be in jail? On the whole probably not.

Should the generals and politicians who connived at a criminal coup and later authorised the murder of protesting civilians be in jail? Probably.

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

"unsatisfactory, but at least" followed by all the party political expressions which are used to indicate one's worthiness and learnedness. 'unelected feudalist' might be something like all those 'puyai' upcountry who still control 'their electorate' as if they are serfs. 'party associated with Thaksin' the mandated non-elite billionair.

Carry on people, nothing to see here

Frankly rather incoherent.However picking through the dross he seems to be suggesting that the Yingluck/PTP election victory is associated with regional powerbrokers rather than a genuine reflection of opinion (just serfs one must understand).One can only sigh and suggest a litle more time spent on reading.Nobody is suggesting this government is brilliant or that there aren't plenty of better alternatives.But please give us a rest from these tired old cliches.

I said Thaksin was a catalyst for democracy.I agree he represented no kind of model for democracy in practice.However since his involvement in Thai politics there can be no going back and to use that rather hackneyed phrase the genie is out of the bottle.The Thai majority can no longer be browbeaten or told their inferior position is the natural order of things.Whether Thaksin was responsible for this change or whether he exploited a social current that was already underway could be the subject for an interesting discussion - but of course that is too much like thinking hard and reading widely for the usual suspects.

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.The unelected elites loathe him not for his lack of ethics (their own are often disgusting) but because they feel theatened (rightly so) by his immense popularity and influence.The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

There is no moral equivalence between a democratic government and a discredited band of military and feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.

He changed the way political parties think and switched them on to how populist policies and slick campaigning really can pay off, but as for doing something for democracy, too many abuses of power, too many human rights issues, too much nepotism, too much corruption, too much interference with the media, the courts, erosion of checks and balances... and the list goes on... to really i think say it was anything more than one step forward, two steps back. The current ineptitude and gross incompetence of the current administration rather confirms this i would say.

That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.

Deary me. If Thaksin was in such high demand and so many were keen for his return, he wouldn't be dithering over a year after he effectively took power, to simply get on his private jet and fly back. The overwhelming outpouring of public joy upon his arrival would surely embolden him... give him the courage... seems not.

Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

Yingluck did win a commanding mandate... which would be great if she was actually the one with the power to use that mandate.

When did i make a case "for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists"? The opinion i expressed was that either having the country ran by militarists and feudalists or having the country ran by an overseas on the run, banned from politics, criminal, didn't really make an awful lot of difference.

I said Thaksin was a catalyst for democracy.I agree he represented no kind of model for democracy in practice.However since his involvement in Thai politics there can be no going back and to use that rather hackneyed phrase the genie is out of the bottle.The Thai majority can no longer be browbeaten or told their inferior position is the natural order of things.Whether Thaksin was responsible for this change or whether he exploited a social current that was already underway could be the subject for an interesting discussion - but of course that is too much like thinking hard and reading widely for the usual suspects.

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.The unelected elites loathe him not for his lack of ethics but because they feel theatened (rightly so) by his immense popularity and influence.The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

I'm sorry but your post did indicate a moral equivalence between a democratic government and a disccredited band of military anf feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

You don't seem to be a knucklehead.Don't you ever do any serious reading about Thai politics?

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

If we are weighing up the merits of who we prefer lurking the shadows, pulling the strings, i'm not sure how much better off we are with a criminal fugitive who has been banned from politics and who is on the run and living overseas, albeit a criminal fugitive who does have some popularity, than with a member of the military or aristocracy, who lives legally within the country, also with a following albeit a smaller and less vocal one.

At the end of the day, neither have been elected, and neither from a democratic stand-point - or any other stand-point for that matter - appeal. Can it really be argued that one is better than the other?

Seems like a poke in the eye over a kick between the legs type of argument to me.

Yes it can be argued and I do argue it.Thaksin will eventually be gone.He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

And with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra admitting she had talked to her brother from time to time

Why does she feel the need to deceptively obfuscate?

Thaksin has already admitted that he speaks to her in phone-calls daily.

Why does she try to conceal or spin that into something less?

Is that her way of trying to get people to actually buy in to the silly notion that she's the one actually running the show? yeah, right...

Sorry, but that rings up a "no sale".

.

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

In the meantime there are credible reports of the army threatening witnesses of the massacre at Wat Pathum.

Human Right Watch has a more general statement on the army's despicable behaviour.One wonders if there is any army outrage the usual suspects will not justify or ignore.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

" it's an absurdity that power is handed to another party (unelected)"

The MPs of a banned party are free to form a new party (as in TRT to PPP) and retain power, if necessary by forming a coalition. Your "handover" was in fact caused by BJT withdrawing from their coalition with PPP/PTP and forming a governing coalition with the Democrats.

This has been misrepresented by Thaksin's propagandists as a judicial coup - it just ain't true.

You are right.That episode was not a judicial coup (never seen anyone argue that point actually).It was however another example of the unelected elites thwarting the views of the Thai people as expressed in a general election.In this instance it involved old fashioned political bribery and skulduggery to lure one of the least appetising factions over to the Democrats side.Strictly speaking this isn't illegal - just so some genius doesn't feel the need to give a lecture on parliamentary democracy (This is how its done in Belgium etc).The reality is that the amart was desperate and prepared to strike a deal with any available low life.Didn't do them much good as the Thai people made clear in the last general election and of course lost Abhisit the moral high ground.