jayboy

Talks of assasination, yellow shirt protests, coups, now you know how far his enemies will go to keep this popular hero to the majority of Thai people from returning to this country.

Oh please, change the damned record mate. Less than 75% of Thais voted in the last election and of those just over half voted PT. There is no way on earth anyone with half a brain can claim 100% of those, voted purely for Thaksin. Even if they all did as you claim then you still have considerably less than half the (voting) population. It's simply a matter of numbers, although clearly you don't like to let the facts get in the way of good old fashioned rhetoric.

Throughout the democratic world there have always been those who invoke numbers if an election result is in conflict with their own wishes.Leaving these bores to one side, most reasonable people accept that elections are played by certain rules.If these rules are fairly applied then the result is accepted as an election victory (even if for example the opposition votes in total or the electorate numbers as a whole exceed those of the largest party).It's happened in both the US and the UK and in coalition oriented continental Europe happens constantly without feeble minded whining.The last election in Thailand was not even border line since it gave a very commanding victoiry to the PTP and its allies (which in their case of course didn't have to be brought with dirty money)

So 20th century! Try Google, and removing the red lenses.

Forgive me but I would prefer to hear from Scorecard who though we have different politics seems to be firmly rooted in Thai society and culture.Your posts in contrast indicate very clearly your level of understanding and analysis.I'm sure Google and Wikipedia have been your indispensable standbys - it's rather obvious though if I may say so an undisciplined thought process is hard to disguise.I don't wish to be patronising and I'm sure you have an audience out there.

For the more serious this isn't a political point.I have been reading recently a collection of essays on May 2010 (published by Silkwood this month) in which a supercontribution by Michael Connors demolishes some of Thaksin's pretensions.But I haven't yet found a general account that is fully satisfactory:I am an admirer of Baker/Pasuk's work but would like to find a different but reliable standard account.

Perhaps pouting because his personal six point reconciliation plan is not (at least at the moment) getting airplay.

Possibly.

A brief reminder.You were suggesting to another member he read up on Thai history (good advice), and I asked for the details of a contemporary volume that you would particularly recommend.I'm sure other members would also be grateful since it's sometimes difficult to keep track of the narrative let alone the context and interpretation.Look forward to hearing from you.

Dear visionchaser, suggest you carefully reread some Thai history, especially the last 10 to 12 years.

Always interested to hear of recommendations for recent Thai history.Could you kindly refer me to the most authoritative volume that one can place reliance on.

For the literate among us the reference to Thaksin inching closer summons up Yeats' great poem the Second Coming;

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I have often thought of the following lines when considering the Thai political crisis

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

As for the comments on this thread many betray a staggering naivety.Thaksin's return will be in the context of a deal hammered out with the unelected elites parts of which are already in place.The only mysterious element is the extent to which Thaksin's arrogance will upset or delay the deal.Odd really as he is by a huge margin the most popular and charismatic Thai politician so time really is on his side.Perhaps like so many Thais he lacks that vital instinct of enlightened self interest - which sometimes requires a tactical if temporary retreat.

Pretty silly response. There are some not insubstantial Thai energy and agricultural interests that the Thai government would be silly not to try to protect.

Exactly, and some other sectors too.It's hard to think of any country that has made the leap to developed status that hasn't had some measure of protection for its own industries.In Thailand's case the record of success in attracting inward investment has been remarkably good, so by definition the current legislative regime can't be too offputting to foreigners.This doesn't need there isn't a need for some improvements at the margin, perhaps simplification of the Alien Business Law.

Pretty silly response. There are some not insubstantial Thai energy and agricultural interests that the Thai government would be silly not to try to protect.

Exactly, and some other sectors too.It's hard to think of any country that has made the leap to developed status that hasn't had some measure of protection for its own industries.In Thailand's case the record of success in attracting inward investment has been remarkably good, so by definition the current legislative regime can't be too offputting to foreigners.This doesn't need there isn't a need for some improvements at the margin, perhaps simplification of the Alien Business Law.

What were her previous Royal honors?

None as far as I know, hardly surprising surely since she has only recently entered public life.

For your information the award in question was the Knight Grand Cordon (Special Class) of the Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant decoration. The Order was established in 1861 by King Mongkut, Rama IV.

The Order consists of eight classes with the Knight Grand Cordon (Special Class) being the highest.

You can stop chewing the carpet now.

Reds respect the polls when it suits them.

Care to explain what you mean? Are you referring to opinion polls (the subject of the thread), in which case "respect" is not really the right word.One notes the findings of opinion polls, and gives them credence to the extent one gives value to their methodology.

If you however mean general election polls your post is just bizarre.The parties associated with the redshirts have won election after election.If you are suggesting the reds would not respect an election fairly won by other parties, then say so - though such an opinion would be completely hypothetical and in the view of many misfounded.

The offer is inherently unfair even at 2-for-1 because only the one needs a whitewash.

The offer is a political gimmick because Abhisit and Suthep have not been charged for their alleged crimes.Should there be a proper investigation - no sign of this yet - and they are found guilty, that would be a different matter.However since they know the army in Thailand is never held accountable it's an empty gesture.

The embassies are not for helping stranded tourists, for sure. I always imagined they were for supporting business and helping make contacts to export from the UK. Some years ago, when I was working in China I discovered that they were reducing the commercial attachés rank and staff. Unless they reversed that, I really don’t know what they do!

Is it something to do with the internet causing a Global Village?

Interesting point about the commercial role.Generally it's hard to believe that any enterprising corporation could learn much from a commercial attache at the Embassy.Some years ago I expressed a similar sentiment and it was pointed out to me the Commercial Counsellor in Bangkok had actually played a leading role in the match in Thailand between CP and TESCO.Point taken but doubt whether it happens that often.

The obsessive defense of Yingluck's abilities with misrepresentations of the points raised by others is noteworthy.

At the end of the day, her abilities are what they are, and the only reason the discussion gets drawn out to is simply because her defenders refuse to face that simple truth.

We could all move on to her more substantial shortcomings if they did.

I simply pointed out you are not in a position to criticise Yingluck's English given your own poor grasp of it.It is you that repeatedly returns to the subject.

If you wanted to have a sensible discussion of the government's policy shortcomings that is a different matter altogether

....might actually be expected to understand and use the language at a level higher than what she utilizes.

I am not particularly fastidious when it comes to spelling, grammar and syntax particularly on a forum where many have a mother tongue that isn't English.However when an English native speaker, not once but again and again, harps on pointlessly and obsessively about the PM's alleged English language shortcomings, it seems to me perfectly appropriate to highight his own clumsy and inaccurate use of the English language.

If she fell flat on her face she would say it was a successful trip. If nothing else, she managed to avoid parliamentary appearance and those annoying questions.

If you had any self awareness you would not trail round the forum looking for opportunities to make inane and childish remarks about the PM.It simply undermines your credibility.

My neighbor manages a very large factory here. He said the top 3 layers use to be all expats. It's now down to 2 layers and they are trying to get it to just the top boss. Big changes over the past 10 years according to him.

Exactly.However my experience this has been a developing process for nearly twenty years, with a possible exception being the Japanese investment community where several layers of expatriate management can still be found.The old style expatriate package I enjoyed thirty years ago has all but disappeared save for a few very highly placed individuals.

You were suggesting that poll results and successes for Thaksin in 2011 can be used as some sort of barometer as to the general mood and feeling of the public in 2010 as to how they wished to see the protesters dealt with - or not dealt with as the case may be. I disagreed.

I wasn't speaking of how any group should be "dealt with", simply whether it enjoyed a broad measure of support in the country.You appear to think Yingluck's resounding general election victory has nothing to say on that subject.Difficult lesson to digest for some but perhaps won't surprise who saw in Bangkok the friendly welcome the redshirts received from ordinary people.

I don't think supposed freedom fighters like Amsterdam or CalgaryII would be supportive of Human Rights Watch's stance:

Probably not but no side has the monopoly of truth or moral rectitude.Trouble is that in Thailand some key players don't recognise this -Thaksin and Abhisit imediately come to mind

As for using Thaksin's success at the polls as an indication of what people were thinking in the midst of all the red protest chaos in 2010, with regards how authorities dealt with it, i think it is you who is being naive here about what motivated people to vote the way they did.

W will just have to agree to differ.If you seriously choose to believe the people of Thailand made a clear decision in favour of a party controlled by Thaksin because of a revulsion against the red shirts it's probably a discussion best held within the tin foil hat community.

Should the public in some way share the blame with those who implemented the policy? This is what you seem to suggest. If you are not suggesting the blame be shared, you are surely at the very least suggesting the blame be lessened for those at the top. To me, this is a complete nonsense.

Incidentally, I think you would have found, were people polled at the time, that there was the same widespread support for the government using whatever means necessary to clear the streets of Bangkok of red protesters in 2010, as there was widespread support for the "war on drugs". For me, in both cases, a complete irrelevance.

I am not suggesting that at all as I would have thought was clear from my earlier post.The drugs war was the worst by a considerable distance of Thaksin's abuses of power.My point in emphasizing popular support doesn't diminish Thaksin's responsibility or the seriousness of the matter.Critical however was the support of all sections of the ruling class, the same elements that moved heaven and earth in the attempt (unsuccessful as it turned out) to destroy Thaksin.You shoiuld perhaps ponder the significance of why one never hears of serious efforts by the amart to pursue Thaksin for these crimes.It's only the very naive - we have a history of this on this forum - who think Thaksin will ever be called to account for this.The other issue is that there is little patience in Thailand for those who underestimate the misery caused by drugs - mainly speed - at all levels of society.

As to the clearance of redshirt protestors I think your estimation of popular support is just wrong.Among the Bangkok middle classes, probably but they are not representative.I don't think if there was the popular revulsion you suggest political parties representing redshirts and Thaksin would win general elections again and again.

But Pheua Thai and Nattawut love the coup leader General Sonthi now. It might encourage him to have another one.

Be that as it may.Many people are beginning to believe that Sonthi's approach has support at a much higher level.Bit of a quandry for the Dems.Of course they could seize the initiative by winning a general election which would instantly neutralise Thaksin's cunning plots for ever.Only one slight problem - their leading politicians (with one or two exceptions like Korn) are rubbish and the country won't elect them.

The state murdered far more people in Thaksin's tenure..

You are presumably referring to the drugs war with its needless killings, certainly the blackest mark against Thaksin given his personal direction of it.However there has never been a suggestion that he faces charges for reasons everybody is familiar with notably the almost universal support of the Thai people including the ruling class.Doesn't excuse it but is certainly relevant.

There were also murderous abuses by the military in the Deep South.These have continured under successive governments though nothing quite so appalling as Tak Bai.Thaksin didn't acquit himself well but no sane person attaches personal responsibility to him for the Military's crimes.No senior officer has ever been brought to trial for these murders.

As to murder of civilian protestors Thaksin has a good record.Despite street protests by the PAD during his time nobody as far as I know was killed.The horrific murder of redshirt civilians took place under Abhisit's administration and there is certainly room for debate on his personal responsibility.Certainly nothing he has said since reflects remorse or even regret.

As to national reconciliation it seems to me that the amart is being much smarter than the Democrats.I have often remarked on the lack of enlightened self interest in THai politics.Sometimes bitter compromises are needed to ensure survival.The evidence suggests the people who really matter in Thailand understand this.

However it doesn't mean DP25 is not making an observation without any truth whatsoever.

I agree but when all reference to perhaps the most salient issue is omitted the narrative becomes suspect or even useless.

Chris Baker is one authority but let's be quite clear.The outlandish view of Thai politics and history set out by DP25 and I quote:

" Thaksin's entire political strategy was based on exploiting the traditional feudal structures already in place, especially in Isaan. He was the first person rich enough to unite all them in to one party. Thaksin's party was never some kind of spontaneous grass roots movement, it was a coalition of existing political dynasties that had ruled their medieval fiefs for decades and continue to do so to this day. There was never any change, anywhere. And there certainly wasn't much ideological reason for them to unite, as they have no ideology other then stuffing their own fat faces at the expense of the people."

- has no support in any quarter other than the tinfoil hat community.The key error is to suppose that there were no issues in Thai society that Thaksin was able to exploit.The argument can certainly be made that Thaksin acted cynically and through self interest.However if there had not been a groundswell throught the country against the elite's greed, patronising contempt and lack of fairness Thaksion would never have gained traction.That's why his parties win election after election despite the coup and the "directed" judicial system.

Who can argue against this?

Every serious political analyst and historian.