jayboy

In effect, Thaksin has become the new "Napoleon" from the book "Animal Farm".

How can Thaksin be Napoleon? He was driven from the farm in disgrace like Farmer Jones and like Farmer Jones has every problem blamed on him.Napoleon is surely more apposite to an old general who lives the good life but tells the poor animals that they should be satisfied with their lot, and subscribe to a state ordained philosophy that a tiny amount is more than enough to satisfy the soul (if not bodily requirements).Of course he has a gang of porkers (khaki and yellow in colour) to enforce and intimidate.

My analogy was that in trying to get rid of the old system Thaksin himself created a new one which was same as the old. He changed the laws to suit himself just like in the book (from two legs bad, four legs good to four legs good two legs better). The horse who did the heavy lifting for him worked himself to death while some of the smarter animals who questioned him quickly became viewed as his enemies. Finally just like at the end of the book when Napoleon looked himself in the mirror and saw that he was becoming human, Thaksin himself becomes the very "elite" he so called despises- look how many of his cronies benefited immensely from his administration.

I see what you're saying but it doesn't really stand because Napoleon (Thaksin) is disgraced and no longer on the farm. The old two legged elites are firmly back in control.

As I recall, the book doesn't end the way you suggest but far more poignantly with the common animals looking from pig to man, and from man to pig but no longer able to tell the difference.I leave it to others to suggest who in the Thai context are the "men" and who are the "pigs".

They're basically a shrinking group of antagonizers who are paid/cajoled/pressured to campaign for one man and his family. Their ineffective campaign has very little to do with democracy or the rights of the downtrodden, and a whole lot to do with money. ....oh, and the seizure of power through threats and intimidation.

And so in a few ill chosen words you join the ranks of those - extremists all - that nobody serious pays any attention to.Even Thaksin's most powerful political enemies don't talk in such an ill informed way, not least because they know that the red movement represents a powerful social force that can't be ignored.

Certainly the Bangkok neighbourhood attacked by Red goons armed with baseball bats last year would no doubt tip their hats to the reds as a 'social force'. For the red apologists to paint the corrupt Thaksin as an enemy of 'elites' is disengenuous at best. What Thaksin wants (and wanted) was to put in his own elite. Since he has little support in the industrial centre the class forces supporting him remain subsidiary and condemn him to a continuing marginal presence. He came in on the wave of an economic crisis. The current crisis is abating. That is why he is screwed. Schoolboy reds prattling on about 'new politics' doesn't change reality one iota.

Whistling in the dark I'm afraid.Talk of schoolboy reds prattling really underlines the intellectual impoverishment of your position..It's fortunate that the current political leadership is wiser than those who think (a) it's a zero sum game ( it's all about one man.They know that the reds represent a potent social force and are struggling to win at least a part of it over.

As to Thaksin you may well be right about his motivation, but that's not really the point.The critical factor is that the majority can no longer be patronised and ignored.In essence the new politics that upsets you so much flows from this undeniable reality.Incidentally I suspect you are wrong in assuming little support for Thaksin (or at the parties associated with him) in the industrial areas.You talk about class forces without explanation. so I won't comment on that aspect.

In effect, Thaksin has become the new "Napoleon" from the book "Animal Farm".

How can Thaksin be Napoleon? He was driven from the farm in disgrace like Farmer Jones and like Farmer Jones has every problem blamed on him.Napoleon is surely more apposite to an old general who lives the good life but tells the poor animals that they should be satisfied with their lot, and subscribe to a state ordained philosophy that a tiny amount is more than enough to satisfy the soul (if not bodily requirements).Of course he has a gang of porkers (khaki and yellow in colour) to enforce and intimidate.

They're basically a shrinking group of antagonizers who are paid/cajoled/pressured to campaign for one man and his family. Their ineffective campaign has very little to do with democracy or the rights of the downtrodden, and a whole lot to do with money. ....oh, and the seizure of power through threats and intimidation.

And so in a few ill chosen words you join the ranks of those - extremists all - that nobody serious pays any attention to.Even Thaksin's most powerful political enemies don't talk in such an ill informed way, not least because they know that the red movement represents a powerful social force that can't be ignored.

Ah -- so you are in fact commiting contempt of court by suggesting that courts have been suborned? or am I missing something?

I'm not committing anything of the sort, simply suggesting you research the topic mentioned.

Incidentally the mods are well aware of those who try to lure members into breaking forum rules.At least one member has been banned for it.

You, not me. made the statement about Thai courts. I know you know the rules and gave you an out. If you don't want to be asked specifics I would suggest that you NOT imply that the courts have been suborned.

Sorry I'm not prepared to continue this discussion openly.I have registered a polite warning and that as far as I'm concerned is the end of the subject.

Some like the poster prefer Chang fuelled "discussions" in the visa running community, not exactly famous for its sophistication and intellectual coherence.Chaque a son gout, but a polite suggestion would be to consider exactly who is 'fatuous and predictable".

Jayboy, surely you're not suggesting that, as a poster on Thaivisa.com, you're a Chang-fuelled member of the visa running community. That's the other guys, isn't it? The ones that don't always see things the way you do. Actually, I've always thought your posts are quite well-informed, however fuelled. Your biases just differ from mine (and those of quite a few others - all Chang-fuelled visa runners?)

Anyway, enough of this ad hominem stuff. Journos have a job to do and some of them are quite good, I suppose. The main concern I have is when overseas journalists are cited by people on this forum as though, apparently by virtue of being Western journalists, their write-ups are seen as the most credible. However, I haven't found them so - rather the opposite, but that's just my view FWIW.

PS I seldom drink, and never Chang.

The Chang jibe was out of order and I apologise.However let's be honest enough to admit the general tenor of debate is generally not that elevated and that reflects the nature of the expatriate community in Thailand (somewhat low rent as Peter Mandelson might say):obviously I'm generalising.

As you say leaving ad hominem stuff aside, which correspondents do you find thought provoking and knowledgeable? Of the locally based ones I enjoy Shawn Crispin though not always agreeing with him.Isn't that the point though? One reads not to find journalists who reinforce one's existing prejudices but for insights that make one think, My God maybe I've got this aspect all wrong.Same goes for forum members.I enjoy having my existing views challenged and tested.

I think a number of us can agree Thailand has begun to change in fundamental ways. The modern world in encroaching on the decrepit ancient ways at a pace some find alarming, others find not fast enuff. The court's judgement suggests there is a middle ground, which however is not in the purview of the courts to find -the court has done its job. At this point the people themselves must stake out the moderate and temperate middle ground along the same lines as the court has done in its role in society.

Abhisit has acquired quite the education as he's learned to walk the proverbial tightrope during his tenure. I'd rather have him at the helm than any of the Red leaders who know so much about the people that they will do anything in the name of the people....anything.

It would probably surprise you that I agree completely, and thought you expressed your points very well.

Ah -- so you are in fact commiting contempt of court by suggesting that courts have been suborned? or am I missing something?

I'm not committing anything of the sort, simply suggesting you research the topic mentioned.

Incidentally the mods are well aware of those who try to lure members into breaking forum rules.At least one member has been banned for it.

Thai elites must now turn to the future to consider how to heal the society and to bring socioeconomic fairness and justice to the peasant population which themselves now need to put Thaksin at arm's distance from them permanently if they are to have any hope of having their legitimate issues addressed by this or any future government.

As it is often famously said of bankers and their monster bonuses, they simply don't get it.The whole landscape has changed.The days when grateful peasants patiently waited for elites to bring benefits are long gone, and the reds played a leading part in this.The question now is whether greedy and corrupt elites can avoid the fate that their equivalents have achieved in other times and other cultures.The question is whether sensible Whigs like Abhisit can see things through or whether the working and lower middle class in Thailand will take matters into their own hands.For those who say the traditional Thai culture of deference will always see the elite holding an unfair share of political and economic power, dream on.

Pardon me? Who has been "suborning the courts" and which courts have been suborned?

If we are now talking about the urban middle-class (the tax payers of the country) and not the "elite", when did this switch happen?

Subject not really for discussion here but you can google "judicialisation of Thai politics" if you are really that ignorant.

Don't understand your second point.It's not an "either or" matter.

Terms like 'new reality' is 100% vacuous blather. Try again. Mind you some reds are not bothering with the spin and are rather getting to it with a few lobbed grenades.

Vacuous blather.Grandstanding blather.Whatever next.Rather than wasting time thinking up insults why don't you address the substance and tell us why politicians like Abhisit and Korn are openly admitting that the rural majority had been badly neglected opening the way to opportunists like Thaksin, and that it's necessary to treat all Thais fairly not just the urban middle class.All governments in future have to deal with this new reality unless of course reactionary forces seek to thwart the Thai people again at elections.(through military interference, suborning the courts etc etc).

It is time for those controlling events on all sides to come together and agree a new set of rules so the country can move on and address bigger problems

As long as the country has one note partisans with the the blinkers on (typified by the post immediately before yours) that will be quite difficult.Needless to say such crass lack of empathy exists on both sides of the political divide.

Another fatuous and completely predictable contribution from a foreign journalist, in this case one based in Hong Kong whose experience seems largely restricted to Hong Kong and Jakarta. Looking through a glass darkly while applying the filters of western cultural canons is not the most reliable way to inform one's readership. I'd give more credence to the views of Thaivisa.com posters who actually live here, talk to the people and see what's going on around them, but that makes it all too complicated, doesn't it - not suited to an editor's demand for a quick and compact response.

Once again we have an unsubstantiated and vitriolic attack on a foreign journalist.I suppose we should at least give thanks there is no puerile suggestion the BBC commentator concerned is in Thaksin's pay which is the usual stance from this kind of poster.What I suppose has prompted this attack is the following extract, stating no more than what is obvious, from the analysis

"What this verdict will not do is heal the divisions in this country, polarised by Mr Thaksin's hugely popular appeal and the threat this poses to the military-bureaucratic elite. The 2006 coup that deposed him continues to damage the legitimacy of the current military-backed government of Abhisit Vejajjiva - this basic issue also goes well beyond one man and his money."

Personally I would give a great deal of credence to this kind of calm and coherent summary.The BBC is diversifying its sources now with a recent piece by the excellent Shawn Crispin, who if anything is sympathetic to the current controlling power groups.

Some like the poster prefer Chang fuelled "discussions" in the visa running community, not exactly famous for its sophistication and intellectual coherence.Chaque a son gout, but a polite suggestion would be to consider exactly who is 'fatuous and predictable".

Fact remains, the Reds haven't accomplished anything positive in their entire existence. They've made numerous threats of big rallies, but haven't had any in 11 months. They're extrememely jealous of the Yellows because, even though they try to copy the Yellow's tactics of large effective demonstrations, they can't manifest anything remotely as effective. Threats, threats, threats ....that's what the Big Bad Wolf did in fairytale land, and the Reds are about as effective as that wolf - who was all bluff.

Really?

How about changing the complete landscape and agenda of Thai politics, ensuring that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored and patronised, prompting the current government to replicate and even enhance TRT "populist" policies.

Well that's just grandstanding blather. On the other hand I think we got a rather clear picture from the judgment Friday of Thaksin's 'landscape and agenda'. Thaksin's apologists, however, will continue to 'spin' one side of their face. Last Songkran we had the pleasure of seeing the other side of the Red face. Not very pretty.

Grandstanding blather? Intelligent politicians like Abhisit and Korn have said much the same thing as I.It's not spin but some refuse to recognise the new reality.

Fact remains, the Reds haven't accomplished anything positive in their entire existence. They've made numerous threats of big rallies, but haven't had any in 11 months. They're extrememely jealous of the Yellows because, even though they try to copy the Yellow's tactics of large effective demonstrations, they can't manifest anything remotely as effective. Threats, threats, threats ....that's what the Big Bad Wolf did in fairytale land, and the Reds are about as effective as that wolf - who was all bluff.

Really?

How about changing the complete landscape and agenda of Thai politics, ensuring that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored and patronised, prompting the current government to replicate and even enhance TRT "populist" policies.

I am surprised that so many patronise the judiciary by stating that they 'accept' the verdict. As if they have any option. Puffed up self important Wilfs.

It's not patronising at all.The country received a wise and fair verdict, and it's perfectly in order for anyone to note their approval.What's surprising is there are still apparently those of a mind cast to start grovelling the instant an authority figure or institution voices an opinion.It's that feudal mindset the country is in the process of abandoning, despite the reactionary attempts of those that seek to preserve it for political advantage.

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

Why not tell us yours? You spent enough time setting the scene before magically coming up with the answer to your own question.

My conclusion is that Thaksin's abuse of power was not reflected in financial terms as far as his listed companies were concerned during his period in office.However his chicanery and dishonesty was manifest in several other ways, notably by changing the rules of business in a way that benefited his own position.As the more seasoned of us know, Thai tycoons tend not to show their wealth through listed vehicles, but I have no doubt that there were many other ways that Thaksin operated unfairly and rigged the system.I tend to have some sympathy with the argument made by ballpoint, specifically that in the more or less transparent situation of listed companies Thaksin wasn't anything special.

What Thaksin does have - and this is quite separate from the current discussion, is a talent for networking and deal making.He has made some very high risk investments in Africa and PNG, but with that goes the prospect of a very high return.His Man City adventure was far from being a financial disaster.With the capital available to him and his Middle East financial supporters I shouldn't be surprised if he recoups a large proportion of the confiscated assets in a relatively short time frame.

You're missing my point. The analogy I was saying was that Thaksin abused his power to give Shin Corp an unfair advantage but Shin Corp still couldn't outperform the market by much. Market performance has nothing to do with abuse of power as the court rightly pointed out.

If that's what you're saying I agree!

Did the court make the point you mention in your final sentence? I must have missed it.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

That only goes to prove he's nowhere near the business genius his supporters would have us believe. After all, his fair and "unaided" business attempts left him 50 million baht in debt before he started his corrupt and nepotic (if there's such a word), cheating path to being a billionaire. Here's a man who tilts the playing field in his company's favour, gets the tax payers to foot many of its bills, cheats the competition and government agencies, and still can't do any better than average. The legend has certainly come crashing down over the past few days.

And there although I might quibble about some of the detail you have made an excellent point.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You are saying that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

Do you not see that this is a ridiculous position to hold?

The analogy would be to say if I stole money to give it to you but you still couldn't make a decent profit from it, does that exonerate me?

Er, not really.The court judgement yesterday clearly implied that the wealth Thaksin made before assuming power was made legally.We are talking here about the period after he assumed power so your analogy is nonsense.

It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.

Did you miss the 8 hours of supporting detail yesterday JB?

Please try and keep up.I asked a very particular question which had remained unanswered and wasn't dealt with yesterday.

As it happens a member has now kindly alerted me to a message on the Economist site

"To tell you the truth, the announcement of returning the Bt 30,000 million to the ex-PM is entirely distorted as this value is mostly based on share certificates. Furthermore, part of this Bt 30,000 will be subject to taxed claimed by the RIS. As a result, the residual money will be less than 20% of this amount.

The court simply announced that the ex-PM would get Bt 30,000mil or around 40% of Bt 76,000mil just to avoid public panic - both locally and internationally.

The court claimed that the ex-PM abused his power in favour of Shin Corp share prices. In fact, according to Bloomberg data, since Thaksin had become the PM until he was ousted, the SET index increased by 161%. Shin Corp share price gained 166% - only 5% above the SET index. However, some other shares such as Siam Cement plc (SCC) gained almost 680% over the same period. I don't really know how Thaksin abused the power in the way that his shares only outperformed the market by 5%!"

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You appear to be suggesting that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

The rulings on abuse of power and concealment of assets were clearly laid out yesterday. What are you on about?

It doesn't exonerate him at all, as I thought I had already made clear.However if the performance of the Shin listed entities only had an average increase in value (jury still out on this as far as I'm concecerned) it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions.I detect some annoyance in your tone.Don't you think this is worthy of discussion?I've made it clear I totally respect the court's verdict.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.

More important questions were answered yesterday by more important people.

As I mentioned earlier the question, actually rather a significant one, remains unanswered.What is the nature an abuse of power if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle just matches or even underperforms the market during his time as PM? If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is) one must look for other criteria and that's I'm sure what the judges did in arriving at their conclusion.It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.Nobody with a care for this country finds the Court verdict other than fair and wise (I'm quoting by the way from the Finance Minister's Twitter account).This doesn't mean that questions such as the one I posed can't be asked in a respectful way.To suggest otherwise is to assume the mentality of some dumb hick at a red or yellow rally, unquestioning and unwilling to debate hard questions.

So having disposed of that minor foolishness, does anyone know the answer to my original question?

If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.

Everyone knows that it was politically motivated. That's not the question. The question is, were the charges valid? The judges gave us that answer yesterday.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

That was a helpful contribution!One could equally say that about the yellowshirts!

On the abuse of power issue I was wondering how this could be demonstrated by comparing the performance of another benchmark stock,say Siam Cement, during the time Thaksin held office as PM.If the Shin performance notably exceeded that of Siam Cement that would be a very practical demonstration the charge was justified.If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.I have no idea and wonder if anyone knows.