jayboy

interesting link below which shows that Thaksin as a sponsor of the Red Shirt movement is not exactly the paragon of virtue that his supporters like to think he is..Indeed there is more black than white when one reads through the passages and also links to other Red Shirt propaganda, misinformation sites too.

http://landdestroyer...-hide-army.html

Warning to the sane unless you are looking for some masochistic amusement .I didn't even open the landdestroyer link this time.For about a year or so I did monitor his blog from time to time.After the endless attempted justifications of dictatorial regimes (he is a great fan of Syria's murderous regime) I eventually lost patience.However the big problem is that he is quite mad, not Thai Visa madness which is rarely more than eccentricity, but real barking mad.

Korn does make valid points.

I sure hope they have solid evidence for these accusations.

Has the TRCT report been translated to English yet? I would like to read it.

I think it's very welcome there should be a full and open discussion about the MIB, not just politicians sounding off in Lumpini Park but a comprehensive, independent and forensic investigation.I'm completely open minded about the outcome.Let the cards fall where they may.

Personally though an admirer of Korn, I don't buy his "who benefits" argument in this case.It's as if for example in the recent Egyptian upheaval the supporters of Mubarak argued that the opposition was behind the brutal police suppression.The "who benefits" question is always worth asking but it's very far from being the only question to be asked.

Having said that I don't rule anything out.I find the Democrats line unconvincing and I find the Amsterdam line equally implausible.Can one realistically expect the truth to emerge?

Collected my Alien Book from Thong Lor Police Station. very good guy processed it in Three hours and very helpful.

In the red book rule 3 says temporary absence of more than 15 days a report has to be made to the police station within 3 days of arrival back in Thailand. Have I read this correctly.

I noticed that too a couple of weeks ago.But it's surely in reference to a change of address in Thailand, not leaving the country (the previous para makes that clear I think).Others more expert than me can advise but with regard to the part you commented on (absence more than 15 days) I would be amazed if that was currently observed or monitored.I'm guessing it is inherited from the days when PR was mainly the process for Chinese immigrants - the fascinating back story we are indebted to Arkady and others for relating.

Indeed, those army fellows just don't get democracy.

No they understand it. It's just that they can not collect billions and control the power if there is democracy. They always need to create the illusion that the country is under threat and in imminent danger. And when there's none, they can always fall back on the need-to-protect-the-highest-institution speech

A speciality of the reds.

Huh? Throwing back the comment (actually rather a pertinent one) to achieve a meaningless effect is a nursery tactic of a few of the usual suspects.Slightly surprised to see you playing that silly game.Odd.

Impressive wealth for Abhisit, a man who has never worked a single day in the private sector.

I didn't know that a part-time lecturer at Thammasat made so much money! I'd better apply...

There should really be two parallel forums, one for people who have bothered to do their homework and one for those who prefer to fire from the hip.There is nothing mysterious about Abhisit's (actually rather modest wealth) given his family background .There are many reasons to criticise him but it's sheer ignorance to suggest he is other than financially clean.

My one question is how property is valued for the purposes of this exercise.Anyone know ?

How about Abhisit as James Bond himself, he has the perfect Englishman's credentials?

But James Bond is not English.He's Scottish, though with a Swiss mother.Abhisit does qualify however in one way namely that he is upper middle class unlike any of the actors - all colonials or lower middle class/working class - who have played 007 in the movies (but like Bond's creator Ian Fleming).As with Bond , Abhisit was educated at Eton but the former was expelled and sent to the Scottish public school, Fettes.If one was looking for a contemporary actor with the right social background (or the very rare ability to copy it accurately) one might consider Ralph Fiennes, Rupert Everett,Damien Lewis, Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch.

BTW there is little evidence of graft except for the overall view, billions of baht being poured in and NOT going to the stated (which is quite likely a lie) destination. Perhaps the lack of actual incidences found is due to lack of diligence, looking the other way, deliberately not tracking the flow of money. After all, the vampires are running this blood-bank.

Whatever the reason there is as yet no evidence of corruption and I recognise your honesty in acknowledging this.Having said that there would seem to be plenty of opportunities for graft, but that's a different matter.Over time we will certainly get a better picture and as I suggested earlier one can hardly be other than cynical.I understand why the government adopted this policy (actually not much different from Japan) but I believe it to be shortsighted.

"It is difficult to scrutinise the graft-plagued pledging procedure." Exactly why Yingluck and the puppet master want it... after all she is only doing what she is told.

Except for the minor problem that there is as yet no evidence of graft .Doesn't mean there isn't nor that there won't be (this is Thailand after all) but I don't see why critics of the scheme, of which I am one, should invoke the corruption issue without any proof.Much of the criticism of the scheme is politically inspired and old hands familiar with past asset declarations will note the irony of Virabongsa criticising the "graft plagued pledging procedure".The reality is that all governments in Thailand, particularly this one dependent on the rural majority, have to address the issue of income distribution.I don't think this costly subsidy is the right way to go, too short term and also unsustainable.For a welcome breath of sanity on the problem Philip Bowring has written an excellent article in the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444138104578027960861182352.html

Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed.

You say you like the article yet come up with a statement that is contrary to its spirit.

It is absurd to say that Thaksin is not part of the reconciliation process.That doesn't mean he wasn't part of the problem along with the generals who launched the 2006 coup and the shadowy feudal interests that backed them.However he remains by far the most popular politician in the country (okay out of it for the time being) and the inspiration behind several general election victories.The government headed by his sister has reconciliation as its primary objective and the unelected elites by and large want to do a deal.That's why under the last government part of Thaksin's confiscated wealth was handed back..One can certainly question motivations here but Thaksin is centre stage in the reconciliation process: the main problem is that apart from a few diehards among the unelected elites, the urban middle class won't accept it at the momennt.Hence the stalemate.

But your commment -

"Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed."

-is precisely the attitude the article suggests is self defeating.In the settlement which hopefully lies ahead Thaksin will neither be eliminated nor whitewashed.He won't like it much but will accept it if his enemies also have to make sacrifices.Just like Burma.

Lets get this crystal clear. You believe the ruling party, figure headed by Yingluck but led by who-knows-who, is after a benefit to Thailand?

This 'reconciliation' is not going to lead to a settled Thailand. It will just be another reason to generate conflict. Your 'unelected elites' comment shows how you fail to realise the make-up of Thailand.

Isn't the figurehead guilty of 'not knowing the facts' of the reconciliation bill?

If so, why should the country take it any more seriously?

The future for Thailand lies in a parliamentary democracy, not a democratically elected dictatorship

Yes I do believe the ruling part looks to improve Thailand's position and that of its people, as do the Democrats.There are different ways of perceiving how this might be done but that's democracy for you.No different from the West.

You say I fail to understand "the make up of Thailand", whatever that means.Your point is very obscure and it would be helpful if you could elaborate.I also have no idea what you mean by the figurehead "not knowing the facts."If you believe there is no point in reconciliation, that is certainly a point of view albeit a somewhat self defeating one.Such an attitude (back to The Nation article again) would result in disaster in my view.Fortunately few Thais share it.

Your comment about a democratically elected dictatorship is just a refrain of the same theme heard in every country as democracy was introduced.It's not an easy process.

Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed.

You say you like the article yet come up with a statement that is contrary to its spirit.

It is absurd to say that Thaksin is not part of the reconciliation process.That doesn't mean he wasn't part of the problem along with the generals who launched the 2006 coup and the shadowy feudal interests that backed them.However he remains by far the most popular politician in the country (okay out of it for the time being) and the inspiration behind several general election victories.The government headed by his sister has reconciliation as its primary objective and the unelected elites by and large want to do a deal.That's why under the last government part of Thaksin's confiscated wealth was handed back..One can certainly question motivations here but Thaksin is centre stage in the reconciliation process: the main problem is that apart from a few diehards among the unelected elites, the urban middle class won't accept it at the momennt.Hence the stalemate.

But your commment -

"Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed."

-is precisely the attitude the article suggests is self defeating.In the settlement which hopefully lies ahead Thaksin will neither be eliminated nor whitewashed.He won't like it much but will accept it if his enemies also have to make sacrifices.Just like Burma.

When you have a mind-set that focuses on undefined 'elites', Thaksin an 'inspiration' & 'most popular', all you are doing is parroting the PTP & red-shirt propaganda. You say my acceptance of the TRCT report is 'contrary to its spirit'. Absolute rubbish.

My acceptance of the report is fully in line with what it says. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is the best we've had so far. I would also add that it says that it would be in the best interests of Thailand if Thaksin would butt out. Is this why you don't like it without actually saying so?

There are a number of elites in Thailand. The business elite is one of them & when they acquire power - via Thaksin mainly - the country goes to the dogs corruption-wise.

You say that Thaksin will accept sacrifices if his opponents do also - more rubbish. In case it has escaped your knowledge, the Dems have accepted the report - in the main - but Thaksin & some of his acolytes have not. Furthermore, he refuses to accept that he has done any wrong or been in any way corrupt. This is very much the attitude that prevents Thailand from making any progress, politically, ethically & economically. And I'll leave debt out of it for now.

I made no comments on the TCRT report nor did I have it mind when I discussed reconciliation.Therefore your comments on what you think I think of it (wrongly as it happens) are neither here nor there.

However you rigid mindset and unwillingness to consider compromise, albeit expressed in a rather ill informed and uninteresting way, is yet another example of the unhelpful attitude (in Thailand) the article discusses

Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed.

You say you like the article yet come up with a statement that is contrary to its spirit.

It is absurd to say that Thaksin is not part of the reconciliation process.That doesn't mean he wasn't part of the problem along with the generals who launched the 2006 coup and the shadowy feudal interests that backed them.However he remains by far the most popular politician in the country (okay out of it for the time being) and the inspiration behind several general election victories.The government headed by his sister has reconciliation as its primary objective and the unelected elites by and large want to do a deal.That's why under the last government part of Thaksin's confiscated wealth was handed back..One can certainly question motivations here but Thaksin is centre stage in the reconciliation process: the main problem is that apart from a few diehards among the unelected elites, the urban middle class won't accept it at the momennt.Hence the stalemate.

But your commment -

"Thaksin is not a part of any process of reconciliation but a major part of the problem. Both sides have failed - he has neither been eliminated nor has he been whitewashed."

-is precisely the attitude the article suggests is self defeating.In the settlement which hopefully lies ahead Thaksin will neither be eliminated nor whitewashed.He won't like it much but will accept it if his enemies also have to make sacrifices.Just like Burma.

The problem here is that TS thinks he is part of the process and is basically forcing his way into the arena, TS is not part of the process and the sooner TS and the people realise this only then will this debacle move forward, TS has only two goals - get his money back and save his disgraced face. Thaialnd routed out a bad apple and convicted him in court, Burma has never been anywhere near the level of democracy that existed here in Thailand but could certaintly learn from it's troubles, it is not beyond comprehention that it could indeed leave Thailand in it's wake politically economically and socially in the coming years

Whether you like it or not TS is part of the process.His enemies would very much like him not to be part of the process and have made efforts to arrange this.All have failed.

Amazing headline... amazing Thailand. Why would Thailand try to follow Burma, they are no example of anything like democracy. The generals are hugely corrupt, the poor are down trodden and monks are executed. What a stupid headlined insane article.

I think the editorial was simply making the point that currently Burma sets an example to Thailand with two sides that were bitterly hostile having decided to work together for the good of the country.This means that both sides will have to negotiate and compromise, accepting developments that seemed beyond the pale previously.This is hard both for the government and opposition, but there's an implicit recognition that neither side posseses a momopoly of truth or virtue.There is no devilish figure to blame all problems on, and the solution or at least way forward lies in committing to democracy with all its imperfections, arguing where necessary but jointly working for the country's future.

Incidentally you seem to have overlooked the indisputable fact that Thai army generals are awash with corruption.

Great, just what Thailand needs, what's next Thai Fascists?

Already got them in case you hadn't noticed.

Let me know when you return to normal service.You used to be someone with whom a reasonable discussion was possible.

Oh well.

For my part, i have always enjoyed discussion with you, especially since i learnt to simply smile at the condescending, patronising overtones that pervade most of your posts, and take that aspect of them as being an eccentricity rather than a sad lack of manners and respect.

Incidentally I don't hate anybody.

Hatred is all so irrational, uncouth and unsophisticated isn't it. You are quick to label those here (who you are fond of describing as being the usual suspects) as having a hatred for Thaksin, because this is a way of belittling their argument, but when it comes to your own feelings on people such as generals, feelings that you express week in, week out, with an equally strong passion as those who speak out against Thaksin, this is, we are told, not "hatred". No, of course not. You're much too high-brow for that.

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do)

most well educated foreigners do

This sounds like another one of those highly accurate and scientific jayboy polls, that already brought us classics such as, most Thai people want Thaksin back, and more recently, most of the army are red supporters.

By way of clarification

1.The victory time and time again of Thaksin oriented parties at general elections suggests that many millions of Thais would like Thaksin back.

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

3.Most well educated foreigners - and I mean those who have worked at a senior level in the Kingdom for many years - tend to recoil from Thaksin but have much sympathy for redshirt objectives.

You and others may wriggle and writhe at these conclusions but the first two cannot really be faulted.The third point is I agree rather subjective but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence for it.

...this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money...

Back to the nursery level again.Ah well - if only everything was so simple and cartoon like.

Sometimes things actually are fairly simple.

Your mentality on this reminds me of UFO spotters, or crop circle fanatics, who see some flattened grass, and take it is having some great deeper meaning; a message being sent from afar, a sign from a higher being. So desperate for confirmation and affirmation of their beliefs, they see what they want to see... when all it ever was, was a patch of grass a dog had scooted on after pooping.

Your disgust and hatred for certain established elements in Thailand, that you have prayed for so long would be risen up against by someone, anyone, has you, in your desperation, seeing the red shirts for something they most certainly are not.

Let me know when you return to normal service.You used to be someone with whom a reasonable discussion was possible.

Incidentally I don't hate anybody.It's true I have a dislike for power hungry and corrupt generals as well as quasi fascist groups - so should all reasonable people.I am well aware of the Thaksin's faults and the excesses of the redshirt movement.I do believe in a constututional monarchy, the rule of law through undirected courts, representative democracy etc..a traditional liberal if you like.

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do) and I reject the cartoonish explanations for its existence you referred to in a previous post.And by the way political and historical processes are never simple - except in the minds of the obsessed like the US tea party movement

...this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money...

Back to the nursery level again.Ah well - if only everything was so simple and cartoon like.

You really must try harder not to come up with prescriptive definitions.As I pointed out earlier I have nothing against the rich, nor have I criticised yellow shirts for being rich.In the kindest possible way if you can't keep up with a marginally sophisticated discussion there are plenty of hard liners on the for you can trade platitudes with.

I wasn't saying that you criticised the yellows for being rich, i was saying that you attack the rich elements within the yellow movement for the way in which they have capitalised at the expense of the poor (fine, i agree) but then imply that the rich elements within the red movement are somehow different. They are not.

They rich yellows may have the head start on the rich reds by a few generations, in terms of taking advantage of the poor, but the rich reds are certainly doing their darnedest to catch up.

Actually I haven't attacked the rich in the yellow movement for the reasons you give.In fact I haven't attacked them at all as far as I recall.The rich in any case tended to be behind the scenes and it was eventually just the useful idiots - Chinese grannies and a few thugs that were out on the streets spouting the usual race hate and accompanying nonsense.As for the rich in the red ranks well sorry to rub salt in the wound but yes I do believe they chose the more moral and decent side.Or to be more cynical they recognise which way history is going and chose the better side.

Ten out of ten for spinning around the usual negative sentiments applied to wealthy yellows along the lines of, rich and greedy elite hell-bent on keeping the masses down - to the starkly contrasting sentiments expressed here of: "far more educated and prosperous people".

Like an estate agents blurb, a run-down dingy cramped semi becomes a full of character cosy home in need of some TLC.

I am afraid I don't understand your first point or even if, ranting aside,whether you are making any kind of point at all.

Ranting? Where?

Even if, whether i am making any kind of point at all?

The point was a fairly obvious one i thought, picking up on how, when the conversation switched from rich yellow supporters to rich red supporters, your language changed. Suddenly we stopped talking about rich people as being evil and dastardly, and started talking about rich people as being, "well-educated and prosperous".

You really must try harder not to come up with prescriptive definitions.As I pointed out earlier I have nothing against the rich, nor have I criticised yellow shirts for being rich.In the kindest possible way if you can't keep up with a marginally sophisticated discussion there are plenty of hard liners on the for you can trade platitudes with.

If you are suggesting that within the redshirt leadership there are wealthy individuals, that would be correct.Within redshirt supporters as a whole there are far more educated and prosperous people than is often realised or admitted.

Ten out of ten for spinning around the usual negative sentiments applied to wealthy yellows along the lines of, rich and greedy elite hell-bent on keeping the masses down - to the starkly contrasting sentiments expressed here of: "far more educated and prosperous people".

Like an estate agents blurb, a run-down dingy cramped semi becomes a full of character cosy home in need of some TLC.

However in the context of the Thai political crisis it's quite clear that one side has contempt for democracy and progress towards equality and one side doesn't.

I'm sorry, i don't mean to be offensive, but this is just laughable. To suggest that there is any side in all of this that hasn't acted on numerous occasions with contempt for democracy and progress towards equality, beggars belief, it really does.

I am afraid I don't understand your first point or even if, ranting aside,whether you are making any kind of point at all.I have no issue with rich people or the capitalist system that made them (or their families) rich.I do have a problem with the abuse of power, military coups and entrenched feudal interests.Actually I have some sympathy with the PAD movement particularly in its early days when there was genuine outrage among the middle classes at Thaksin's meglomania.Of course it soon became apparent the yellowshirt leadership was a particularly revolting bunch of proto fascists (and sanctimonious at that), and mass support ebbed away.Still I would never besmirch the decent instincts of many yellowshirts in the early days.The current rump is not a very attractive group but is correspondingly less influential.(The old order now prefers judicial intervention to violent street protests).

As to your second comment, I am on surer ground.Not only do I understand the point you are making but I mostly agree with it.Politics is a rough and ready business where unlikely partners are forced together, and compromises forged.Clearly in Thailand there are some villains everywhere in the political spectrum.Actually I don't believe wickedness is the main problem though it certainly exists at the higher level of the old entrenched order:but the main factor is fear, particularly on the part of the mainly Sino Thai urban middle class - which has cast its lot in with the old order.In fact they have nothing much to fear from the new Thailand where all the people will be more fairly represented.As George Orwell said in a slightly different context, "they have nothing to lose but their aitches."There is no monopoly of virtue but taking the broad view I believe that morality and fairness lies with the redshirt movement than its violent opponents.We will see what the future brings but I would guess that the redshirts will evolve into something more middle class, less extreme and more pragmatic.

The point of the oriinal quote was simply to point out that there are elite Red Shirts to counter a claim the elites are all yellow shirts.

It's quite an easy point, really. Even 473geo got it.

On the contrary it's a fatuous point

Your typical derogatory and insulting language and Whig discussion aside, I'll defer and abstain from one of your patented bickering sessions.

There's been enough deleted posts in this thread already.

.

I would politely suggest that if you lose or are unable to sustain an argument it makes more sense to accept defeat gracefully rather than descend into personal abuse.On the other hand if you have any serious points to make let's hear them.

The point of the oriinal quote was simply to point out that there are elite Red Shirts to counter a claim the elites are all yellow shirts.

It's quite an easy point, really. Even 473geo got it.

On the contrary it's a fatuous point in which once again meaning is distorted by sloppy use of English and I'm afraid a rather crude understanding of the dynamics to the current political struggle.

If you are suggesting that within the redshirt leadership there are wealthy individuals, that would be correct.Within redshirt supporters as a whole there are far more educated and prosperous people than is often realised or admitted.As a matter of fact rather like the English and American Civil Wars there are often supporters of different causes within one family.It suits the interests of some to maintain otherwise.However in the context of the Thai political crisis it's quite clear that one side has contempt for democracy and progress towards equality and one side doesn't.Then there are the Whigs who stand for the old order but have the intelligence and sense of self interest who understand compromise and slow dilution of wealth/political power is necessary for their interests to survive the transition to a better Thailand more or less unscathed.Of course there are exceptions and overlapping areas as there always are.But the overall position is clear.

However there will always be an element that thinks only in childish terms."Ooh look the redshirts have rich people too, so they're just elite as well, innit" or similar dimbulb stuff.

Thanks to all for the advice on what to carry around.Though a very recent PR I have many friends with PR of long standing.Those I have asked all give advice in line with Camerata and if truth be told none carry more than DL.As I mentioned elsewhere one PR friend told me recently that the only time in 15 years he ever had to show the Red Book - apart from the annual immigration ritual - was when he applied for an international driving license.