jayboy

What's the point of having a "State of Emergency" law if it doesn't give the government more powers?

"Maybe it's not needed", but using it or suggesting it's use is not politicizing it.

In all seriousness what precise relevant powers would a SOE provide that the authorities don't have already ? If you don't know the answer that's fine.(I don't either which is why I ask the question)

A state of emergency isn't politicizing it. It gives the authorities more power to get things done. Maybe it's not needed, but using an excuse of "we don't want to scare foreign investors" is just the usual "Thai Face" problem. "Just ignore the problem if it makes you look bad."

Can you be much more precise please.What exact powers does a SOE provide that the government doesn't already have?

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.

Desperate attempts by forum Thaksin apologists to shovel blame further down the chronological line just don't cut it when the current government has refused to declare a SOE with all that implies. Effectively Thaksin has left his sister swinging in the wind. No wonder she has been crying.

Here we ago again with the Thaksin apologists shtick.It is almost comic.

Regardless of whatever agenda people believe The Bangkok Post and The Nation to have, it's most likely they never went near this story with a large pole owing to common sense.

Huh?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Hotel-wet-rates-plus-blow-dryers-30168420.html

In some ways it is a shame that there isnt an English langauge news media saying what the most read Thai news sources say as that would give a more nuanced context for foreigners interested in Thai politics.

Perhaps there is an opportunity here for Thai Visa where I'm sure there is a demand for intelligent and nuanced political commentary? But on reflection....

To be fair I have been pleasantly surprised in recent months to see commentary in both the Nation and BP which - how to put it - takes a Guardian/Independent position rather than the usual brain dead Daily Mail position.

TAN in my view is a lost cause.

Hammered is referring to a baseless rumour, the English-language version of which has been spurned on by a highly discredited "journalist"

Once upon I considered his posts above this nonsense. Clearly no longer the case.

Slight sense of humour failure apparent.

Who is the journalist by the way and why is he "discredited"?

And what does "spurned on" mean?

There are more pressing issues and Thaksin is almost as quiet as Abhisit seems to have gone in the last couple of days. Maybe they are sharing cocktails on a nice Maldives beach or something

And your neutral opinion used to carry so much respect around here.

Maybe Thaksin was advising him how to distribute the donations given generously by others under his own name?

Amazing.Hammered refers to better understanding and co-operation between the government and military, and cracks a joke at the expense of Thaksin and Abhisit.

Your response is to lament his lack of neutrality, whatever that means.What's bugging you?

Strutting around in burberry boots and taking pics answering the phone or crying - and waiting for the private sector to solve it with stubborn refusal to bring in the only massive source of manpower with the equipment to solve...can only do so much.

Good post except for the puzzling extract I have highlighted.Personally I doubt whether we would have seen any better coordination under the last administration.The Democrat MR Sukhumbhand for example hasn't distinguished himself for example with his transparently political games.

As for the important subject of footwear what exactly do you think wives of leading Democrat politicians are wearing? They are exactly the same class of rich Sino Thai not very well educated brand conscious type as Yingluck.(Abhisit's wife is a notable exception.)The difference between Yingluck and them is that they lack any real connection with the majority of Thais.If you (admittedly intelligent and well informed) seriously think that Yingluck is losing out politically I suspect you might be quite surprised if a snap election was held.Like it or not Yingluck is seen as a sweet natured person and people feel protective of her.Tough for the haters - among which I do not include you - to understand and separate from the competence issue, but true all the same.

No, it's not signs of the public's doubt, it's just one more sign of how biased and mean-spirited The Nation newspaper is.

Shame on you, The Nation, for being so blatantly biased against the current administration.

So you don't think the public has doubts about, for example, the OP photo of the banned politician with an non-engineering MBA acting as the Flood Control Adviser or even more dubious, the Criminal Justice major acting as Flood Control Adviser?

No I don't think there's any evidence of what you suggest.There's plenty of evidence however of hatred and bile from those who are more concerned about making political points than sensible comments on the flooding crisis which has brought misery to so many.Generally on this forum I think the tone has been measured and constructive though of course there are always a few exceptions.Fortunately their hateful (and usually ignorant) comments can just be ignored.

The UN has responded to the Thai ASEAN Report

"Press Release No: G/54/2011 21 October 2011

United Nations Demands Retraction from Thai ASEAN News Network

Bangkok (Strategic Communications and Advocacy Section) – The United Nations has demanded an immediate retraction from the Thai ASEAN News Network for the serious misquotes of Dr. Noeleen Heyzer, United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in a story that ran this week.

The story, which revolved around the flood situation in Thailand, falsely attributed quotes to Dr. Heyzer that criticized the government.

The reality: the United Nations has issued no statement criticizing the government, and has only offered support and assistance as Thailand faces the worse floods in more than six decades.

“These quotes are completely contrary to the solidarity and support that the United Nations is giving in Thailand,” said Dr. Heyzer. “The quotes are totally wrong and a poor reflection of journalist standards that are meant to reflect the truth.”

So the story in fact turns out to be Thai ASEAN's gross incompetence and slovenly dishonest journalism.

Interesting. Please read this post from my friend tlansford

"That quote wasn't from Heyzer, but from Velasquez, and is below and he was referring to the need for a long-term strategy change when he said :"

Of course a UN official would never ever be so undiplomatic as to suggest that the country which donated most for the "Escap MultiDonor Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian Countries" might not know what it is doing at this moment. United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Dr. Noeleen Heyzer is sure to have been very tactful in her statement. See also this from earlier this year.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/03/11/national/UN-Thailand-expand-scope-of-disaster-fund-30150606.html

Thanks for this.The background you give is useful.What can't be explained away of course is the pathetic standard of journalism at Thai Asean.I have noticed this over a long period (no complaints on my side of political bias by the way) just of the third rate standards this network is prepared to live with.

The UN has responded to the Thai ASEAN Report

"Press Release No: G/54/2011 21 October 2011

United Nations Demands Retraction from Thai ASEAN News Network

Bangkok (Strategic Communications and Advocacy Section) – The United Nations has demanded an immediate retraction from the Thai ASEAN News Network for the serious misquotes of Dr. Noeleen Heyzer, United Nations Under-Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific in a story that ran this week.

The story, which revolved around the flood situation in Thailand, falsely attributed quotes to Dr. Heyzer that criticized the government.

The reality: the United Nations has issued no statement criticizing the government, and has only offered support and assistance as Thailand faces the worse floods in more than six decades.

“These quotes are completely contrary to the solidarity and support that the United Nations is giving in Thailand,” said Dr. Heyzer. “The quotes are totally wrong and a poor reflection of journalist standards that are meant to reflect the truth.”

So the story in fact turns out to be Thai ASEAN's gross incompetence and slovenly dishonest journalism.

But you don't mention that the pupeteer will have no doubt told his clone that allowing the military to win some brownie points doesn't help his overall long-term objectives.

- Could make the military look very humanitarian and therefore water down suggestions that they are just killers as suggested (a million times) by the pupeteer, the red thugs,amsterdam, etc etc.

- The military are actually nice guys who always have the best interests of Thailand and Thai people at the forefront of their actions whatever they do.

Again, the selfish pupeteeer, who surrounded his very inexperienced very unprepared little sister with a gang of totally incapable, totally insincere ministers (read leeches), who have contributed nothing of value in trying to manage the enormous problems brought with this years floods and none of them have contributed (not ever, not only since they have become ministers) to the pupeteers' claims of full quality democracy, equal justice for all all, no double standards.

Ignoring the childish language, there is in fact a bit of a puzzle about the relatively few numbers of army personnel involved in the flood relief exercise.As a comment on the NM site puts it

"Another very odd circumstance ... is that out of an Army of 300,000 plus, only 20 to 40,000 soldiers were mobilized to do flood work. What are all the other soldiers doing? There’s no imminent danger from Burma, Laos or Cambodia. Are they all providing security for BKK condos and shopping centers and military owned niteclubs? Where are all the motorized watercraft the military has? Why aren’t they out in the flooded areas? Where are the helicopters? Why aren’t there 200,000 soldiers helping? Where is the Thai Navy and their small boats?"

e]

Cromwell was mai sanuk mak mak. The Thais simply would not understand him.

He wasn't much appreciated by the Irish either.

You seem very unhappy with any of the focus turning from how this happened (surely a discussion that can wait until after it is all over), to how it is being managed. As i said to one of your kindred spirits, i can of course appreciate why you are so keen to divert attention.

Actually you are wrong on this.I welcome discussion of how this crisis has been managed.I do dislike bile and hatred for political point scoring purposes when the country is facing a major crisis.

To be fair, re-reading my last post, I could be interpreted as including you in that grisly little band.That would be incorrect and I apologise for that.

On a different tack I see the Bangkok mayor is receiving a lot of praise from some members.I think the jury is still out on whether that is deserved.On this and on much else, as you suggest, there needs to be a discussion later on.

If it is not refuting accusations that aren't being made (ie arguing that Yingluck isn't responsible for the floods occurring, which nobody is saying), it is arguing that others would have done an equally poor job. What a pitiful defence.

You seem very unhappy with any suggestion that the crisis has any cause beyond Yingluck's incompetence.If that what gets you (and one or two kindred spirits on the forum) off, so be it.

For a more grown up intelligent analysis of the politics involved see the article in yesterday's Guardian (UK)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/thailand-floods-bangkok?INTCMP=SRCH

Perhaps not, but there has been a seeming reluctance to call it bad, which surely you can not deny, it has been at times. Man up. Call a spade a spade. Stop dithering around trying to look to spread the blame to others. Yes, in terms of preventing this happening, or lessening its severity, the blame lies with many, but in terms of managing the crisis, in terms of making the day to day decisions, in terms of getting help to the people who need it, in terms of keeping people informed... all that responsibility, lies squarely with the current government and with them alone.

Of course since the current crisis the responsibility lies with the government and the relevant agencies.As I previously implied the quality of leadership has been poor.

However some seem to have a problem - "Stop dithering around trying to look to spread the blame to others" etc in understanding the context of this failure.

I have previously on this forum pointed out the hatred and bile which seemed inappropriate at a time of crisis.A certain mindset appears to prefer a cataclysmic disaster if somehow the present government can be damaged.

Condemning outright is something some people seem to struggle with.

Nobody is suggesting leadership has been good.However it's just part of the problem notably far too many agencies involved - as the UN report pointed out - and shockingly bad water management over decades.I hope I'm allowed to point out that HM has been warning of the problems for Bangkok for many years.His excellent advice has not apparently been taken.If you want to get off on abusing the the present administration, that's your call.I would have thought the responsibility lies with several leaders including both Thaksin and Abhisit for neglecting the core problems, and of course the current one for dithering.

And the current government appointed the head of each and every one of those agencies and departments.

Actually they didn't.Thailand does not have the US tradition of public officials being appointed by a new incoming administration.

That will be the Thatcher who left Downing Street in tears?

Or Churchill who was frequently in tears.

Frankly there is a disturbed element on this forum who despite the national crisis is consumed by hatred and bile.They demean themselves and I don't think for a moment it reflects the mood of the country at large, even among the government's opponents.Obviously sensible and constructive critical comments on how the authorities are dealing (or not dealing) with the crisis are welcome, but this psychotic stream of hate is repelling.I think the best thing is to ignore them.

.......the problem for British pensioners in Thailand is that there is no annual increase (unlike British pensioners in Australia or Canada for example).

Most people will be aware that British pensioners get no increase in their State Pensions in either Australia or Canada, though they do in The USA and The Philippines.

Not me I'm afraid - see earlier post - but thanks for the correction.Anyway the point is it's frozen in Thailand.

You believe that the conscription method can be tampered with - I bet that was news to Lt Chalerm! If you have any proof I would be glad to see it, or of the over-representation of Isaaners, but without it your statement is unreliable hearsay.

No comment on the anti-army red propaganda?

I didn't use the words "tampered with".You did.

I did say army recruits are overwhelmingly working class and lower middle class, and that the middle class is underrepresented.That's fact not hearsay.

Why should I comment on red anti-army propaganda?It's a completely different subject.I have already pointed out there is no animosity in Thailand towards ordinary soldiers.Indeed we are rather proud of them.

Your comments are sensible but don't explain why PTP won Dusit.The presumption is that most rank and file soldiers voted this way, and I don't think is seriously disputed.Equally it implies there is much red shirt sympathy in the ranks.

That does explain why PTP won Dusit. PTP beat the Dems in Dusit by 700 votes out of 80,000 cast. It is a large heavily populated area, it's not the soldiers that made that outcome, it's the people permanently living and registered there and soldiers are a small percent of that population. It's not an unusual result either, the district to the north the Dems won by only 1500 votes.

Fair enough.Thanks for the explanation which is convincing.Wonder why army top brass was so upset about the Dusit result though - perhaps just the loss of face !

Still think most soldiers are PTP or redshirt supporters though!

They were seriously pissed off when it transpired districts dominated by the army voted PTP.

Soldiers votes are counted in districts where they are registered, not where they are stationed. Same with civilians, you don't vote where you live but where you were registered (usually district you were born), that's why half the population of Bangkok disappears on election weekend. Areas around bases voted the way the area in general did. Dem in south, PTP in the NE and N, and a mix of parties in the center and lower Isaan.

Your comments are sensible but don't explain why PTP won Dusit.The presumption is that most rank and file soldiers voted this way, and I don't think is seriously disputed.Equally it implies there is much red shirt sympathy in the ranks.

48% of the vote is not a majority, and they are PTP voters, not necessarily red-shirts. The conscription method is supposedly tamper proof, so why would a majority of conscripts be red-shirt supporters?

Thaksin promoted the crisis in BKK as to demonise the Democrat government, and the army of course got to share the blame - though both were reacting legitimately to an armed insurrection. Study the red-shirt propaganda still being issued; they're still the bad guys, even though a lot of damp people might be realising that that is another lie.

I'm not sure why you have repeated your earlier post.I think I have already addressed the points you raised.

However for the record:

1.The conscription record in practice takes in a higher proportion than would be expected of lower socio economic groups.Nothing so unusual here:the same was true of the US during the Vietnam War.

2.The bad reputation of the Thai army rests on its senior generals (given their record of corruption, political interference and incompetence), not with the rank and file for whom there is widespread admiration.