jayboy

Simple and focussed and this is what drives the Thaksin apologists up the wall however much they attempt to re-write and re-manipulate the agenda.

For the uninitiated, this member always refers to "Thaksin apologists" whenever encountering opposition to his views.It would be instructive, taking him at face value,to hear exactly what he believes the Thaksinite agenda is.Then we could understand in his world view what the "apologists" actually want.Otherwise his Rainman type "Thaksin apologists" mantra belongs in the playground.

An emergency decree would not alter the flood situation because the real issue was about effective law enforcement, Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha said yesterday.

Translation:

He is saying that he does not trust Thaksin to support rather than undermine the work of the army if a SOE was declared.

No he's not saying that.In fact no possible interpretation could permit such a meaning.Read his statement again and think more carefully before you post please.

THis is bound to be a contentious argument, it's at the heart of Thailand's troubles, and the fact that flooding inundated Bangkok and the poorer suburbs (and fatefully, those voting Red) were sacrificed first makes it all look even more sinister. But there are sensible, non political reasons for this, which the poor may not understand.

To assume that this is an entirely lopsided country where the will of the rural electoral masses, and their aspirations, are defied by a Bangkok elite is wrong. For one, most of Bangkok's voters are emerging middle class, with rural poor roots, and their opinion at the polls is far more reliable since they are better informed and less inclined to 'financial' influence. They pay most of this country's taxes, and though they benefit from a cheap labour force and resulting affordable lifestyle, they generally put up with a more stressful environment and put in an honest day's work, being productive and making sound decisions.

On a macro scale, saving the centre of Bangkok (where even an inch of water disrupts everything commercial - and I'm not talking shopping malls here) is far less costly (in terms of damage and lost opportunity), than adding an extra half meter and few days of water submersion in selected suburbs). Furthermore, that was the course of action taken based on flooding estimates, and to suddenly change tack and let everything flow through the entire city, ultimately means a lose-lose scenario, rather than a win-lose.

There will no doubt be plenty of debate afterwards, with mixed opinion on which side won or lost the reputation war, but ultimately if there was an election next week I doubt Puea Thai would lose it, even if they had made a complete hash of the flooding. They have the privilege of being the govt therefore they must be prepared to take the heat when it comes to dissatisfaction in the handling of the relief plans.

Bizarre post rather confirming my earlier comments.

1.Why should the poor be any less able than anybody else to understand decisions made in connection with the flooding?

2.Yes many of Bangkok's residents have rural connections.That's part of the reason why nearly 50% voted for PTP.

3.The vital industrial estates are mainly in the flooded outskirts.You may not be talking shopping malls but I can assure you they come into the picture.

4.If an election was held tomorrow, I believe PTP would increase its majority.

5.With respect your comments on the more stressful environment of affluent city dwellers are comically absurd.Put the affluent urbanites in an Isaan dust bowl as a rice farmer and see how stressed they are.More seriously your naive assumption of a idyllic rural life is simply incorrect.

6.Your comments on urban voters not being susceptible to financial influence are doubly wrong, firstly because vote buying hasn't had a significant influence but secondly and more importantly Bangkok votes have already been influenced financially - given the skewed allocation of resources(health, education, infrastructure etc) towards the capital.

Whether contempt for Thailand's poor is something "cooked up" for political reasons is a matter of opinion.Many with long experience of certain Bangkok attitudes would take a different view.Contempt does not always reveal itself in hatred (though it sometimes does for example at PAD rallies and on the social media).More often it is a kind of half witted patronising on the lines rural people are uneducated, stupid, bribable etc etc.

The editorial writer here is I think in error in assuming that the resolution of the social equity problem will be resolved by the established order.History tells us that it rarely works like that.The rural and urban poor majority will eventually impose their own solution.The challenge for the established order is to retreat gracefully and preserve as much of their wealth and power as new circumstances permit.It's been done before in other countries.Although things are slowly changing the established order in Thailand has limited understanding of enlightened self interest.Let's hope that changes because I don't want to be at the mercy of mob rule any more than they do.

I was here when there was elections, I don't know what your independent observer saw, but I saw full scale vote buying almost everywhere. Which makes the elections not democratic. And even if they would have been democratic it would not give the government the right to exchange top positions of police, courts and they even tried at the army. I can't see any big corruption at the military in compare with the Shinawatra clan.

Back to the old PAD songbook I see.Let's hope this doesn't reflect a wider movement.

Some common sense from a surprising source ,General Prayuth, about declaring a State of Emergency.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Army-chief-cautious-on-emergency-law-30168868.html

From the blog it seems that the first time the Democrats were asked about it, they made no comment. After that, they didn't deny it.

What cover up?

You have answered your own question.

Get some perspective and give it a rest.There are so many more important things to discuss at the moment.

But his whereabouts on holiday is absolutely nothing to do with the press or the public. There is absolutely no need for him to hang around is there. He cannot do anything, he has no authority to demand or organize anything, and if he went up North to give out water he would likely be drowned by an over zealous red shirt. What is the problem? What his aides or party should have said to the journo's is "it's non of your dam_n business where he is". If they said he was in the Maldives, the island would have been tracked down and the place swamped with journo's. Most of the current Governmental Ministers seem very conspicuous by their absence and nobody has said a word. The leader of the opposition is out of this game.

You say if he stayed he cant do anything anyway? So why when he came back he stated if the PM askes for his help he will help.

With all the negative claims of the Nation being lost because k. Abhisit went on a short break at a time of disaster, it's no surprise k. Abhisit felt a need to say "well I'm back, what do you want me to do". Probably since the 23rd still sitting next to the phone waiting for 'the' call

But nobody is seriously claiming that.Abhisit was perfectly entitled to take a short break, though some cannier politicians would have changed their plans.The problem was the cover up, not so much lying but telling only half the truth when prompted in a weaselly kind of way.At our own level some forum members tied themselves up in knots on this frankly very unimportant matter

There are no current powers to force evacuations. And in some areas it is necessary. When it isn't done at the right time, it means more work to evacuate people when they decide that they should have evacuated earlier.

Who exactly do you think are the people who now need to be "forced" to evacuate?

George Orwell would have a field day with your comment that it would mean "more work" later on.

Frankly this is typical of the woolly thinking on the subject of an SOE (though some of course are simply army fetishists, not you I trust!)

One thing that the SOE would help with is forced evacuations. (which I have mentioned to you before)

Not necessary.The powers are already there.And in any case this is Thailand in 2011 not Russia in the 1930's.

A state of emergancy allows a single entity to take control of disaster control without having to pander to thr varying departments. At tje moment the differing departments still guard their turf and their ministercan ordain certain actions that suit him.

And which entity would that be.It couldn't be the army which has no expertise in disaster control.The government already has the necessary powers.

I highly suggest you take a look at "that other newspaper" and the comment of a certain K. Voranai. Given that his resaerch is correct, you might be in for a surprise, if you still believe that the Govenor did a good job.

Exactly.The Governor (who I agree hasn't put in a poor performance) has played politics, ignored the interests of the country at large and eventually had to be given instructions to co-operate.The article you mention, by a very intelligent and fair minded journalist, explains why.However just as some partisan voices squeak nonsense about the need for an SOE, so Sukhumbhand is overpraised.The reason is broadly speaking the same - politics.

For sure politics has hindered the relief efforts. The Governments refusal to call it a state of emergency has some what tied the hands of the army to do their utmost. Even with out her consent they have gone on to supply man power.

Can you explain to me what powers the authorities don't already have (and that they now need) that would be available under a state of emergency.In addition how does the absence of a state of emergency tie the hands of the army? What is the army prevented from doing now that it would be able to do if a SOE was declared.

I have now asked these questions several times of those who have argued for the declaration of a SOE.The response has been a long silence.A cynic might think that (a) they have no idea what a SOE involves and why it might be necessary but ( believe it seems on the face of it a good way of attacking the government.

In the meantime in the real world away from cranky foreigners of a right wing disposition with too much time on their hands, the army and the civil authorities are co-operating quite well.

When in England , at a fairly large conference, Gen. Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying, ' Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return. '

I simply don't believe this anecdote as you describe it.If you can provide evidence to substantiate I will donate Bt 10,000 to a Thailand flood relief charity of your choice.

I am actually sympathetic to the general point you are trying to make but the facts behind this anecdote have been repeatedly garbled and embroidered to become an urban legend.The basis of this is described in this link:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-colin-powell.htm

I saw it complete different. The Farangs like me stocking water and pumps and the Thais laughing. Now when the water comes the Thais went into panic mode as they don't have as much at home.

It seems the Chinese ethnic is a bit better prepared.

Yes that's the relatively polite version of the racist bilge we heard at the PAD rallies which you attended and reported on.

Personally I have been very impressed by the Thai peoples behaviour during this flooding crisis, showing good humour, resilience and neighbourliness on the whole.I'm also dubious about the extent of panic buying - obviously there has been some among foreigners as well as Thais - but suspect the empty shelves are as much the effect of retailers' distribution chains being impacted.

Thaksin's apologists trying to get their act together. When they are saying let's drop the politics it is because they are trying to push away the spotlight from the response of this hopeless government (directed by Thaksin) whose main contribution has been to refuse declaring a SOE (can't be seen reliant on the army),....

Perhaps you can tell me what a SOE provides in term of powers that the current authorities don't already have have.I'm open minded but don't have the information to decide.I hope you will not go all quiet as have the others to whom I have posed this question.

There was never any denying that he went.

You might want to refresh your memory with the relevant threads on this forum! Feel free to back pedal.

I do agree however that the Dems never denied the trip,though they didn't actually volunteer information on this PR disaster (though it wasn't one in my view).There is a "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth issue".As usual the Democrats public relations skills have been abysmal

I gather there is a shot of Abhisit in a thong and flip flops carrying a spear gun running after a somewhat puzzled Maldives president for a hastily arranged photo-op.(I made that last sentence up.)

In the scheme of things this is an incredibly trivial incident but it does throw some light on the automatic denial response of some partisan interests.I'm sure it applies equally to incidents potentially damaging to the other side although at the moment the torrent of hatred and lies seems to be coming mainly from the government's opponents.It could change with the weather.

It is the Democrat party handling of this that makes it appear so bad. Leaving the country during a time of crisis is obviously something that doesnt look good to some people and isnt recommended political procedure especially for the leader of the opposition, and nobody can complain when political opponents target it. After all the ludicrous claims of Yinglcuk being at a Yanni concert while people were suffering was pushed when it was obviously rubbish. I also cant imagine say Miliband doing such a thing in similar cicumstances. However, if Abhisit had just come back and made a statement along the lines of: stressful times for my family facing flooding and we took a short break that had been planned ages ago etc etc, it would have been less of a story than denying it happened, making sure sympathetic press didnt report it, and then try to rationalize it away in some fact finding or diplomatic mission way that sounds utterly unbelievable. The Democrat party even after getting uttelry humped at the last election, part cause of which was chronically awful PR, still havent learnt the lesson and seem to have a PR team that could make FROC and Sukhumband look efficient.

And on a related point (well not related at all really) it turns out that the PM's infamous Burberry wellies were in fact a Chinese knock off.Whereas the Chanel boots worn by the slightly scary (to my eyes) PAD supporting harpy wife of a leading very rich Democrat politician were the real thing.Go figure

It looks bad for the exact reason that it is currently being widely discussed.

I don't believe it made a difference for him to go away for 3 days on a weekend that was between the "high tide weekends".

It shouldn't really make any difference whether he was here or not, since he is only an opposition MP and doesn't have any power to do anything anyway.

I agree with you entirely here and frankly cannot see what the fuss is about (though I suppose inevitably some of the sillier PTP and redshirts tried to make political capital of the trip)

The Maldives visit was long prearranged, was only for 3 days and Abhisit had already showed his support for flood planning relief efforts, and I'm sure will do again.Furthermore Abhisit has no executive or government role so it's different to Chalerm's strange absence.I've been critical of Abhisit on some issues but for heaven's sake he's a decent man - give him a break.

I do however think it's worth noting that on this forum there were outright denials from some of the usual suspects that the trip ever took place.I'm not accusing anyone of lying but it would be helpful not to make assumptions simply based on political prejudices. namely that because it made Abhisit "look bad" (though I don't think it did) it just didn't happen.That's just Stalinist rewriting of history.The trip happened.

Incidentally I have just noticed the Democrat spin machine is pretending it was in fact an official flood relief fact finding mission.Sigh.

Any move to restrict, control and subvert the role of the press to serve as the people's watchdog and gate-keeper runs counter to the Constitution, of course.

Surely our Prime Minister and her (?) administration are not proposing to curtail the rights of the fourth estate contrary to their campaign comments are they ?

This must be that famed , "Equality for all policy," as espoused by the Red Shirt faction of the P.T.PT (Personal Thaksin Property) faction or possibly the puppet masters strings have become a little tangled in his manipulative exercises.

It seems like a retrograde step and I sincerely hope it won't happen.

Equally given the source and the long tradition of self censorship, shoddy and lazy journalism, non existent fact checking, metropolitan bias and habit of kowtowing to the prevailing power (yes, I mean the English language press in Thailand) the posture of outrage is rather hard to take seriously.

She has my sympathy. There is nothing that can be done to stop the deluge that is befalling the country. Whatever could have been done, would never be done by politicians. Politicians simply lack the expertise and will to handle a natural disaster.

The true test will be the aftermath of the current disaster.

She is a lot stronger than I thought she was. The fact that she has continued to hang in there during these extremely stressful times is amazing.

I agree.Pavin's arguments are persuasive and reflect very poorly on Abhisit and Sukhumbhand.Many of the critical reports (eg the US navy issue) have been confirmed as outright lies.Clearly there has been lack of co-ordination but it's stretching credulity to believe the last government would have done better.Any reference made to the institutional problems in the Thai bureaucracy, poor long term planning or the forces of nature itself evoke screams of outrage.For some the only factor is Yingluck and (of course) her elder brother.These people believe that it is a failure not to put the army in control of the emergency (and much else) through a SOE, but it's completely unclear how this would improve co-ordination.The army should of course be fully involved and the relationship developed between Prayuth and Yingluck is of course ignored by the haters.

All true, but this is how politics are going to be played from her on in. To be sure, I don't think the Dem's themselves have been overly overt in saying anything terribly critical and as we've seen, even Abhisit has made a show of trying to be helpful (and then quietly steps back).

In times like this - purely from the politics perspective - it makes much more sense to say nothing and let the inherent disorganisation that is sometimes the RTG (who ever is in charge) reflect badly on this administration. At the moment, pictures speak louder than words.

Having said that, there seems to be a fairly effective social media strategy happening out there almost spontaneously, and that in itself is doing political damage to this current government.

As for Khun Pavin's article, I've met him a couple of times. He's a bit of a contradiction at times. Independently minded but also appears to have somewhat of a soft spot for this current govt.

I hope I'm not embarrassing you when I say this was an excellent post - balanced and thoughtful.

He and Thaksin have some views they share which we can't talk about as I'm sure you're well aware.

Actually I'm not aware and have no idea what you are talking about.

If however this is a backdoor way of suggesting Thaksin is unpatriotic on a particular issue (using the same careful language ) you are barking up the wrong tree.A couple of years ago this suggestion was made quite frequently by his enemies, less so recently because it is so obviously a lie and a stupid one at that because so easily disproven.

[quote name='scorecard' timestamp='1319604537' post='4795881'

Have a look at Pavin being interviewed on Channel News Asia (Singapore based) numerous times during the serious problems last year. He is a serious thaksin supported, it comes through again and again in these interviews.

Oh, you have provided another reference your earlier one having demolished your stated position rather than supported it.

Do you have a link to the Channel News Asia interviews so we can judge for ourselves?

Now I remember why I don't post much; sense of humour in the govt apologist camp is sorely missing. Funny, given that many of the banned 111 have an excellent sense of humour.

I suppose I am what some might regard as a government apologist, though I don't think I am.

Anyway for the record I think your posts are great, with a wit and panache that is rare on this forum.You also don't seem to be a hater.

So please keep on posting though I reserve the right to dissent from time to time.