jayboy

Based on what I have glanced at on the net, he is another doom and gloom expat when it comes to most things Thai and a self-proclaimed expert in all matters Thai..

Proving what I previously indicated that most Thai Visa members would have no idea, and would have to resort to googling.The chippy comment above is typical.

I guarantee you that the likes of Abhisit, Korn, Anand P,even Thaksin know exactly who Graham Catterwell is.There's an expatriate world with no connection to Thai Visa at all and that surprises some.

So who's Graham Caterwell then? According to the 'net he's a British former banker. He doesn't appear to be an 'expert' on anything to do with floods, tides or rain.

A resident for nearly 40 years, very well connected, highly intelligent, Oxford graduate.Probably one of the most knowledgeable (about Thailand) foreigners in the Kingdom.Not an engineer or expert on flood management but I can't think of anyone as capable of assembling evidence, analysing it and drawing credible conclusions.

Not perhaps someone the typical Thai Visa member would come across however.

I, too, have objections to the elitist attitude toward Bangkok, but this guy is the governor. If he did any less, I would be disappointed in him.

Unfortunately, they haven't really saved Bangkok--they have just decided which portions would be sacrificed--so far.

More or less my position.I admit also I have changed my mind.Earlier in the crisis I was quite critical of Sukhumbhand for his partisan approach, or taking decisions without taking the nation's interests as a whole into account.On reflection I accepted that his job is to take decisions in the interests of Bangkok alone, and it is for the government to overrule him if appropriate and if within its legal right.I think most Thais want to see co-operation not political bickering at this time.These decisions are incredibly difficult and sensitive, and inevitably some parties will not be happy with them.

Incidentally Pavin, whom I generally respect though he is a bit of a stirrer, makes a silly observation about Sukhumbhand's aristocratic background, introducing a class war element where it's completely inappropriate.

You initiated the discussion on this thread without any one addressing you, for which there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just that your saying that you try to respond to posts addressed to you is inconsistent with your involvement on this thread as well as your posting history. You initiate and then respond.

Classic.If you didn't so predictably and pointlessly insist on the last word people wouldn't speculate on your identity so much.

Other than to slag every one with the exception of one is there a point to your rambling.

Are you trying to say he is right on the money.

So if we all check out his back ground will Thailand be flood free for 5 years?

Not really.What I'm saying is that one doesn't expect too much insight into corporate Thailand, its key movers and their significance from a bunch of visa runners.

Unlike this one, then.

.

Huh? Thought I had said more than was needed!

[

Good to see you man up and admit to changing your tone from your original comment which reflected your political prejudices and I look forward to the next poll thread, on which, you will no doubt comment on.

I may not comment on the next poll thread because believe it or not there's a lot on the forum I miss though I try to respond to posts addressed to me.

I'm sure the government has taken a political hit as a result of the flooding crisis, and its poor performance particularly in coordination and communication

which is what I have said all along.

Glad we can agree (although your comments avoid the points raised in the thread) and perhaps the next poll will be more in conformity with your political prejudices.One thing is sure.We will all hear about it.

So now you admit that the poll does reflect a drop in the public opinion and you agree with my initial post which surmised the same.

Glad we got that cleared up.

I didn't say anything about the poll except that it conflicted with your political prejudices.Hence your agitated and rather silly response.

I did say that the government has probably taken a political hit, as governments usually do at times of crisis.Nothing to do with some ephemeral poll.

Over and above all this I don't take polls that seriously in Thailand given the dubious methodology involved.I don't doubt however that sooner or later a poll will be produced that conforms with your political view point and prejudices and then to be sure the forum will hear all about it.

So this poll that has a landslide winner from just 12 weeks ago dropping to less than her opponent doesn't reflect a plummet?

oh ok, if you say so...

I'm sure the government has taken a political hit as a result of the flooding crisis, and its poor performance particularly in coordination and communication.But you are reading too much into the poll or rather drawing conclusions the poll doesn't really support.

Interesting that apart from one member who has checked out Wiki with dubious results not one post suggests anyone has the faintest idea about Virabongsa Ramangkura and his background.This shows as I have always suspected that the collective memory here is quite short term, and very few are clued up on the big business background that's so important to understand Thailand.

A few like Steveromagnino obviously do understand all this, and he would know perfectly well about Virabongsa's background and comnnections.But for most there is no comprehension at all simply because he hasn't been in the news lately.It's simply not good enough to do a mindless google and come up with stale stuff about the long forgotten Suan Kitti affair.

In other words: both are pretty much alike, when it comes to public acceptance!

Who would have guessed?!

I would have guessed that the person who "won in a landslide" but a few short months ago would have had at least double the acceptance.... not less.

Tricky isn't when polls don't support one's prejudices and one is reduced to weak platitudes.Conventional wisdom is that support for the government has plummeted but this poll doesn't show that.Never mind I'm sure there will be polls aplenty over time to support every position.

The comments he made regarding the way the protest was initially dealt with (before he had news of the suffocations, but following the deaths of protestors by gunshot wounds), lead me to that conclusion.

“I cannot allow the separatists to exist on our land.”

"we have no choice but to use force to suppress them"

Sorry it simply doesn't follow.

The comments of Thaksin you quote could equally have been made by many within the Thai establishment from all political parties for whom the South has been a blind spot.

Even now separatism would be met by suppression.

The floods have been unfortunate for the Thaksin agenda as well as for the Thai people. Yingluck was intended as a stepping stone and the cabinet appointments only supposed to have one item on their job manifest. The labelling of Yingluck as Thaksin's 'clone' has turned back and bitten him like one of those escaped snakes in the spreading flood waters. If he had any ideas they would be broadcast now and through his sister. He has none. So Yingluck forced to soldier on with a useless cabinet and blocked from using international assistance or the resources of a State of Emergency. No wonder Thaksin for the first time ever is staying well back in the shadows. Forum Thaksin apologists now reduced to efforts to cleaning his old suits with a dirty sponge. Nothing else to do for now.

If you are right no doubt we will see a massive rejection of the PTP at the next general election, and an overwhelming endorsement of the Dems under Abhisit.Dream on comrade.

I doubt whether the absence of an SOE makes the slightest bit of difference, though I appreciate for some it is a kind of fetish.Not even clear what it would achieve:even Prayuth doesn't want one.You are wrong about international assistance: it's being activated and very intensely so.Talk to any EU,US or Japanese Embassy official.Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your prejudices.

As to your forum apologists shtick, do bear in mind the law of diminishing returns.

It was Thaksins responsibility as PM of the day to see the military held accountable and processes put in train to deal with them. Abhisit was not running the show at the time. Thaksin was in power for another 2 years after the massacre and nobody was brought to justice in that time. These are facts, look them up.

One coup, two governments and four Prime Ministers later, you think it is appropriate to blame the Abhisit administration? Thats just stupid. I think you need to review your own revisionist version of history you rude bonehead.

The military inquiry reported during Abhisit's administration.There was no civil case and in any case Thaksin had no more jurisdiction over the military than the puppet Abhisit did.

Read what you will into it, but I'd say it seems clear that he gave the go ahead to use force.

Why does it seem clear? It seems very far from clear to me.

Incidentally thanks for your interesting post with a lot of useful information, some of it new to me.

Why retract? I was stating what I heard/saw on television at the start of the demonstration, and remembered this event clearly. As for the source it was most likely TAN news as I was watching on UBC and the story was in English language on a Thai station. It was just after Thaksin had acquired his Airbus319, was mentioned that he would be travelling to the south in this plane so I can't be mistaking this event for Krue Se which occured before he got his plane.

I also remember looking for Thaksin's personal involvement in the following days from other media. There was nothing at all. As if it had never happened. Much like the runway cracks. Forced apology from the papers and then not reported on ,so never happened. Or did they?

If you are not going to retract then provide proof, not some meandering and confused X files type anecdote which bears no relationship to any version of the Tak Bai incident.

Actually he did. I was watching news on television on the fateful day and Thaksin gave an interview/press conf when the demonstrations started. He said words to the very effect that he was personally going to the southern province to personally supervise the management of this demo. I stayed home waiting for the update that would happen when his excellency arrived in the south and had successfully calmed the situation.

After several hours the news reported on a massacre with huge number of deaths, no news of Thaksin going there to personally deal with the situation. Conveniently left out of all subsequent reports. Not the 1st time he muzzled the press.

When forced to give info, then we had the classic Thaksin quote about them being weak from not having eaten that morning cos it was Ramadan.

It is foolish in the extreme to think the military dealt with Tak Bai/ Krue Se alone without explicit go-ahead from the country's CEO, get things done guy. Perhaps he was a bit surprised by the eventual death toll, but its doubtful seeing as he then went on to have 1000's of innocents slayed in the war on drugs.

We know that Thaksin's record in the South was deplorable.That's not being debated

But can you clarify, because it isn't fully clear from your post, that you are saying that Thaksin went to the South and was directly involved in the Tak Bai massacre.

Can you also provide a reference to the press conference/interview where he said he was going to the South to manage the situation.None of the many accounts of the background make reference to this, even those with strong hostility to Thaksin.

It's quite important to be clear about this because on the face of it what you say is untrue.You are now being given an opportunity to clarify or retract.

K. Thaksin's well-know, and advocated management style 'go, do it', 'solve it', suggests an utter contempt for how it's done. Don't bother me with details, it's up to you. Or in the words of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Nattawut 'let them come to me, I take responsibility' and sue any who dares to say a single word

(scene: VIP says 'I have a problem', servants go 'does your problem have a name?' Canterbury, 1170 AD)

The Henry 2 parallel doesn't really work.The Thai army is a law to itself and has committed crimes against civilians in the South before, during and after Thaksin's time in government.It is never accountable and the criminals concerned are never brought to justice.

Your reasoning implies that unlike the red-shirt / UDD community you would put most of the deaths in April/May 2010 at the doorsteps of the army rather than k. Abhisit / Suthep ?

Not really, in fact not at all because Abhisit/Suthep were directly involved in the decision to use live fire on protestors.

In the case of Tak Bai, Thaksin knew nothing about it until after the event.

The failure to pursue adequate charges against those involved in this atrocity lays at the feet of the Thaksin administration, get your facts straight. He should have hung them out to dry but chose to try and cover for the "deaths" instead. And his remarks were more than foolish, they were base and disgusting:

"They died because their bodies were weak from fasting". That's what Thaksin said in English on a televised doorstop interview. That's the point at which I began to despise the man, and maybe you'll understand why I also despise those who apologise for and support him.

Spare us the selective indignation, and at least try to be honest about this and get your facts straight.

I don't disagree with what you say about Thaksin's remarks.But the criminality rests squarely with the army.Its internal enquiry which issued its conclusions under the Abhisit administration was a whitewash, with the officers concerned found not guilty on all charges.No senior officers took responsibility in line with the long tradition of the Thai army generals never accounting for their crimes.If you get some obscure satisfaction in laying all the nation's problems at the feet of man, so be it but it is a puerile position to take in my view.If Thaksin shuffled off his coil today, do you seriously think an unreformed Thai army could never commit such an outrageous crime again?

or if he commanded a force which killed nearly a hundred young men in gov't detention

Actually he didn't.He was PM at the time and after the Tak Bai massacre made some foolish and ill advised remarks.But he did not command the force responsible which was of course the Thai army.No generals took responsibility and the officers concerned were absolved of all charges under a military court under the Abhisit administration.

TheNation must be scared to death that they won't be able to post bullsh** anymore...

Correct. I think it is why other newspapers aren't overly concerned.

Prachatai is concerned. You might recognize that name as a site labeled by some as pro-Red Shirts. So this is clearly not a The Nation-only issue. Even if that destroys your attempt to defend this.

Everybody who values a free press in Thailand must be concerned.There can be no compromise on this even if one express aim of the law is to crack down further on alleged cases of LM.The slight irony is that on this forum those who now denounce the government are the same who would have supported the measure if implemented during the last administration.We have learned not to expect intellectual honesty from that quarter.But let's be quite clear.Press freedom has been eroded in Thailand in recent years with the Abhisit regime particularly criticised by independent bodies, but actually not much worse than Thaksin and his proxy regimes.Let's also be clear.There is still freedom and vigour in the Thai press, much better than any other country in the region.So let's keep this in perspective.

Waving the flag of being a Cambridge Man (dying to get that out weren't you, but so vulgar), no guarantee of class position or having an analysis of Thai politics, so what was the point apart from trying to claim status based on where you did your degree? Last refuge of a scoundrel. Which brings us full circle to the return of Thaksin. Now there's a scoundrel. Maybe that's the attraction.

Perhaps I need to point out that on an anonymous forum like this, with a few brave exceptions like Nick Nostitz, anyone can pretend to be anything they want.Therefore whatever claims are made about status gain no credit at all whether those claims are true or not.The real test is the intelligence, relevance and panache of members postings.Cognoscenti would have immediately known the "I'm a Cambridge man myself" phrase is straight out of the Monty Python stable with its ludicrous pomposity.I only mentioned it because of your misconception that bright students from a deprived background can't get into decent universities.Clearly I have hit a nerve of some sort, so apologies for that.

I won't comment on the rather forced linkage that you connect up my little conceit and the return of Thaksin.

One of my pet theories is that forum petty-bourgeois red cheerleaders while treating Thailand as a safe political playground for their proud T-shirt wearing antics are as elitist as they come when it comes to protecting their own backyard. Those who sneer at the labelled 'third-rate' universities forget that it is these institutions which provide the opportunity for working class and students from poorer backgrounds to progress to higher education. Now the pet goes yap yap yap. Such are the welcoming party for Thaksin's vaunted return.

What's with this "petty-bourgeois" stuff ? Leave that sort of jargon to Acharn Giles and his kind.

On third rate universities I probably should defer to your better acquaintance (I'm a Cambridge man myself).I do know however that elite universities, contrary to the received wisdom, move heaven and earth to encourage bright working class candidates to apply.The American elite universities with their vast endowments have a much better record with every opportunity for bright applicants from deprived backgrounds to succeed.I think your concept of a third rate university as a stepping stone is rather old fashioned.I don't have the intention of sneering at anyone incidentally

I have no idea what your "yap yap yap" comment means (something to do with Thaksin I suppose)