jayboy

Doesn't anyone know what happened to the police investigation into the assassination attempt on Sondhi. During the Abhisit administration the national police chief had to be removed because he was impeding the investigation and the man in charge of the investigation said he was only two weeks away from announcing some high level arrests. Then stony silence.

I think the background is relatively well known to the assasination attempt though as far as I know it has not been discussed much if at all in the print media.Unfortunately there's not much that can be covered in this forum.One reason the trail went quiet I suspect was because of who was clearly not involved (ie Thaksin - even Sondhi doesn't suggest this).

In the current political situation in Thailand, you would be much better referring to 1984.

Yes 1984 is another novel (often invoked but rarely understood or even read) by George Orwell but your point is obscure.

Do you mean the Big Brother aspect? If so how does this relate to Thailand now? I can only think of prosecutions for LM ramped up under Abhisit and further under Yingluck.

Ramped up further by Yingluck?

Just how many LM prosecutions have occured under Yinglucks time in government that originated during that time?

Not sure and it is possible that most of these originated from before this government's time.However the important point is that under this government irresponsible,cynical and cruel LM investigations and prosecutions have continued at a rapid pace (quite unknown say 20 years ago) and it is indeed policy that there should be no changes to the law.No doubt this all part of the behind the scenes bargaining over various other non related issues.

In the current political situation in Thailand, you would be much better referring to 1984.

Yes 1984 is another novel (often invoked but rarely understood or even read) by George Orwell but your point is obscure.

Do you mean the Big Brother aspect? If so how does this relate to Thailand now? I can only think of prosecutions for LM ramped up under Abhisit and further under Yingluck.

Actually looking ahead to posterity and the judgement of history I believe it will be seen that Prem's influence was profoundly damaging to the causes he held most dear.A terrible irony.

In the meantime, as far as the people of Thailand are concerned, the closing passage from Orwell's Animal Farm is hard to avoid remembering.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

As I said previously, you pompous "Armchair Quarterbacks" are clueless. I don't care what your "statistics" say me and 90% of fellow business people of many different forms are being choked to death as a direct result of this ongoing debacle. I can only assume that backpackers make up the bulk of your tourism "data". You throw around meaningless statistics, garnered from god knows where and try to tell me I'm wrong when it is a matter of fact that business sales

Simple test...

Go to the Chiang Mai Night Bazaar and start asking shop owners how things have been going this year & if they're "doing just fine". Then try going up and down Loi Kroh and Thapae Roads & interview the shop owners and ask them if they're "doing just fine". Then, if you dare, venture into the old city and go down any street you like and ask the tour operators, massage parlors and restauranteurs how things are going. Stop into any hotel and ask them how their occupancies have been this year. Then do the same thing in Hua Hin, Sukhothai, Gawh Chang, etc... and come back and post your results. Until then, everything else you and the majority of other clowns who've been posting in response to my personal experiences is just second or third hand hearsay, speculation and meaningless gossip which I request you just keep to yourself.

You have simply ignored the official figures of tourist number arrivals and the impact of the increased numbers on the economy.You have not described the business you are in so it's not possible to comment on why it might be underperforming.However businesses fail in even the most dynamic economic environment, perhaps even a majority in the case of SME start ups.There are countless reasons why a business might underperform and other members have rightly pointed out the challenge from regional competition though I suspect the global recession is the more significant factor.However even these factors are more applicable to assembly operations and manafacturing.Tourism in Thailand is a genuine bright spot and as I have already pointed out very robust in the face of political disturbances such as coups, airport occupations and street protests.Indeed the Thai Hotels Association, with which I have had close contact for over 20 years, believes that Thailand's bumpy political landscape is effectively discounted by the world's travel industry.

I have no idea whether Chiangmai stall holders and massage parlours are feeling the pinch, nor frankly is it very relevant.THere are multiple potential issues to consider.You have absurdly seized on the Shinawatra factor as the only contributory cause of your own lack of success.Yet the ranting, angry and incoherent tone of your posts suggest you may lack the analytical ability to distinguish what the problem is let alone prioritise the contributory factors.If you were to describe your business, the problems it faces etc you would probably receive a more sympathetic and useful response.Instead you come over as slightly crazed and lacking in self awareness.

The reality is that political points can't be made effectively on substantive impact of recent events - whether coup,junta or yellow and red excesses.Simply because apart from brief and temporary dips the Thai tourist industry including visitor arrivals has gone from strength to strength.

[quote name='yeeowww' timestamp='1337934854' post='5331043'

As I said previously, you pompous "Armchair Quarterbacks" are clueless. I don't care what your "statistics" say me and 90% of fellow business people of many different forms are being choked to death as a direct result of this ongoing debacle. I can only assume that backpackers make up the bulk of your tourism "data". You throw around meaningless statistics, garnered from god knows where and try to tell me I'm wrong when it is a matter of fact that business sales consistently take a deep plunge in complete sync with malicious Red activity and acts of stupidity from the government. Following the horrifying taking hostage and subsequent burning of Bangkok in 2010, there has been a continual downward spiral of Middle to High income people making holidays in Thailand. Reds, PTP equal bad news for business... period. Mishandling of the floods, ineptness in taking care of the field burnings causing extreme and sickening air pollution, perpetual Red rallys to inconvenience and intimidate... it just goes on and on. Nobody wants to put down thousands of dollars to come on holiday to a place literally rampant and riddled with bad news & bad scenarios. I have friends who run touring businesses out of many different countries and they all say the same thing, Thailand has a bad name and people are now booking holidays to Vietnam, Angkor Wat, Laos and Bali. Thailand has shot itself in the foot and as I mentioned previously, I can no longer tolerate it and too will be leaving this stupidity shortly.

Your comments do not reflect the reality namely that the hospitality sector in Thailand is doing extremely well, and after the setbacks of the airport occupation and redshirt protests is achieving excellent results.Naturally the global economic difficulties are a challenge but overall Thailand and its tourist oriented businesses are doing extremely well.

Your suggestion that your unnamed business is suffering from the current government's policies is rather strange - and apparently deeply felt.This is not the common experience and perhaps you should consider whether your problems are caused by other factors.The fact that you dismiss all statistics and rational evidence suggests that the problems you face are related to poor management or other micro factors rather than the wider environment.

(for a wonderful example of English posh look up Jacob Rees-Mogg on Youtube)

Glad to see he hasn't lost is Zummerset accent

Yer tiz ! the buggers bin and zacked oi !

Bryanstone taint be in Zummerst, Eee do be in Darset where Oi be cummin' vrum.

But I'm guessing that Old Bryanstonians don't talk like Worzel Gummidge

Thank you for your suggestion on reading up about Europe to understand what is happening in thailand, perhaps you can list a few that you think has helped you understand the situation here.

Interesting area.It is beyond doubt that political developments in Thailand echo, repeat or otherwise reflect the course of history elsewhere - not only in Europe but also in Asia.There is some resistance to this comparitive approach by those who believe in Thai exceptionalism.In other words those who believe that Thailand is so unusual and socially/culturally esoteric that it has its own quite distinct destiny (which naturally foreigners cannot understand).Given the nature of this forum I doubt whether this type of discussion can be held productively.It would be considered off topic.

Germany, China, N Korea and Cambodia perhaps?

Actually I wasn't thinking so much of direct historic parallels, more the social forces and the emergence of class consciousness that every society experiences sooner or later..In this context the United Kingsom, the United States (another bastion of the flawed unique status argument) and France would be just as relevant to Thailand.

On Ballpoint's comment (nice quote by the way), yes and no.One can learn from history but history never repeats itself in precisely the same way - and what is more only the very wise draw the correct conclusions.

As far as this forum is concerned one shouldn't be too ambitious and realistically the really well informed and intelligent debate isn't going to take place here (look at the way the usual suspects harrass anyone out of their class like Nick Nostitz).What the forum has however going for itself is its liveliness.

Thank you for your suggestion on reading up about Europe to understand what is happening in thailand, perhaps you can list a few that you think has helped you understand the situation here.

Interesting area.It is beyond doubt that political developments in Thailand echo, repeat or otherwise reflect the course of history elsewhere - not only in Europe but also in Asia.There is some resistance to this comparitive approach by those who believe in Thai exceptionalism.In other words those who believe that Thailand is so unusual and socially/culturally esoteric that it has its own quite distinct destiny (which naturally foreigners cannot understand).Given the nature of this forum I doubt whether this type of discussion can be held productively.It would be considered off topic.

Prime Minister Yingluck on Thursday cited a conflicting engagement in Chiang Mai as reason not to chair this afternoon's ceremony to hand out compensation for red-shirt victims of the 2010 political violence.

Well, the lady really works for it, giving taxpayers value for their money.

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra will officially visit Australia May 26-29 to strengthen bilateral relations in the fields of trade, investment and educational development.

I would have thought this was excellent use of the PM's time.Why the sarcasm?

Never heard of the guy before, but according to Wikipedia, Piyasvasti Amranand spent 4 years of his secondary education at Bryanston Public School in Dorset, the school being a member of the 12 so-called 'Eton Group' of schools in the UK.

It's just clicked with me that his mother must be M.R Pimsai who was tragically murdered by her gardeners in Bangkok.She was both an aristocrat and an intellectual (Oxford degree) and an outstanding person.Bryanston is interesting, not that well known to foreigners but a fashionable well regarded school much used by the cultured and even bohemian upper and upper middle class.Not a conventional choice for a Thai but I'm guessing the highly anglicised M.R Pimsai would have known its good reputation.

Mom Tao's son was at Harrow, as was Mom Tao

@mca - I believe his British accent is as posh as one can get. Eton boy if I recall correctly.

I don't think he is an Old Etonian Samran and his accent isn't really particularly posh (for a wonderful example of English posh look up Jacob Rees-Mogg on Youtube).But he (Khun Piyasvasti) did go to Oxford and achieved first class honours and in a hard intellectually demanding subject too,mathematics - not a soft option easy peasy course like Philosophy Politics and Economics (PPE) that weeds like David Cameron, Abhisit and Korn studied!

He is a star performer. Sharp as a tack. Would wipe the floor with most people intellectually. Including you by the sounds of it. He's more than capable.

His only crime is being married to a Democrat strategist.

Once again you demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.I know Khun Piyasvasti slightly and have huge admiration for him, though somwhat jealous of his planet sized brain.

As to the reason for his dismissal you could be right though I don't think he is particularly political himself, though I'm guessing has Democrat sympathies.

Last night,the fiery speeches of the red shirts calling for justice and investigation of the deaths at Rachaprasong contrasted sharply with Thaksin's call for reconciliation and to accept what happened.

In other words Thaksin's feels the red shirts have served their purpose, some died, well that was necessary to swing Thai\ world opinion, and besides their families are getting a massive 7.4 million baht in compensation. Plus further probes could find all sorts of nasty things: possibilities such as stolen army rifles being used by black shirts, renegade soldiers working for the UDD, so PLEASE STOP ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION,

Let's just forget what happened so long as Thaksin can come home- that's all that matters for one of the world's greatest liars.

I don't quarrel with your comment that Thaksin and at least an element of the red shirts want different things.If I may say so it is a rather commonplace observation with the homecoming/reconciliation/justice dynamic having been the subject of public and private discussion for months.

However I doubt whether Thaksin is as concerned as you suggest or would like to think about further probes.He wants a settlement, or rather a final settlement since some of the key ingredients are already in place including the return under the Abhisit government of part of the Thaksin fortune.It is generally assumed that there were renegade soldiers (some would describe them more generously) working with the UDD - so that is hardly a surprise.As for the black shirts they remain mysterious despite all efforts to track them down and discover their origin.If there was ever a "smoking gun", surely the black shirts were it - and yet the enemies of Thaksin have come up with zilch.You assume I suppose Thaksin was the funding source along with many bar flies, but the fact remains that you actually haven't the faintest idea - along with the rest of us though we may have our suspicions.I'm afraid I find your attitude slightly hysterical but it may be you simply wish to distract attention from those army and political figures who would genuinely kee taek if there was a thorough inquiry: they nearly vaporised when the decent but provisional HRW report was published.

As it happens they are unlikely to have to face up to this nightmare because Thaksin's interest is shutting down the investigation is aligned with theirs.So I don't deny Thaksin's deep cynicism or the betrayal of the redshirts reasonable demand for a just accounting.But your suggestion that Thaksin's motivation is fear of any investigation outcome doesn't really convince.

I suggest the court's seizure of 1.4 billion dollars of Thaksin's money in February 2010 gave Thaksin ample incentive to support the red shirt riots to retrieve his money just 2 months later

Do you think the renegade soldiers, which you say are generally assumed to have been working with Thaksin, could have shot the red shirts to discredit the army?

What is a bar fly and why would they be a funding source along with Thaksin?

Apisit and Suthep have stated several times they are willing to go to court regarding Rachaprasong, so why is Thaksin so unwilling to let the truth come out?

You seem a little confused if I may say so.

1.In the context of the deal with Thaksin the partial return of funds was unrelated to the events in early 2010.If anything they surely hurt his case.But who knows exactly why the elite decided to return the money?

2.Please re-read the reference to bar flies.It doesn't refer to funding sources but is simply shorthand for those who indulge in fairly insubstantive Daily Mail/National Enquirer chatter which takes place at bars sometimes (and elsewhere).

3.No I don't think renegade soldiers could have shot redshirts to discredit the army (See note above about mindless chatter).

4.I'm sure have all have skeletons in their cupboards.But I don't see that Thaksin is any less keen to bury the truth than the two you mention.None have a good record for honesty.

Last night,the fiery speeches of the red shirts calling for justice and investigation of the deaths at Rachaprasong contrasted sharply with Thaksin's call for reconciliation and to accept what happened.

In other words Thaksin's feels the red shirts have served their purpose, some died, well that was necessary to swing Thai\ world opinion, and besides their families are getting a massive 7.4 million baht in compensation. Plus further probes could find all sorts of nasty things: possibilities such as stolen army rifles being used by black shirts, renegade soldiers working for the UDD, so PLEASE STOP ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION,

Let's just forget what happened so long as Thaksin can come home- that's all that matters for one of the world's greatest liars.

I don't quarrel with your comment that Thaksin and at least an element of the red shirts want different things.If I may say so it is a rather commonplace observation with the homecoming/reconciliation/justice dynamic having been the subject of public and private discussion for months.

However I doubt whether Thaksin is as concerned as you suggest or would like to think about further probes.He wants a settlement, or rather a final settlement since some of the key ingredients are already in place including the return under the Abhisit government of part of the Thaksin fortune.It is generally assumed that there were renegade soldiers (some would describe them more generously) working with the UDD - so that is hardly a surprise.As for the black shirts they remain mysterious despite all efforts to track them down and discover their origin.If there was ever a "smoking gun", surely the black shirts were it - and yet the enemies of Thaksin have come up with zilch.You assume I suppose Thaksin was the funding source along with many bar flies, but the fact remains that you actually haven't the faintest idea - along with the rest of us though we may have our suspicions.I'm afraid I find your attitude slightly hysterical but it may be you simply wish to distract attention from those army and political figures who would genuinely kee taek if there was a thorough inquiry: they nearly vaporised when the decent but provisional HRW report was published.

As it happens they are unlikely to have to face up to this nightmare because Thaksin's interest is shutting down the investigation is aligned with theirs.So I don't deny Thaksin's deep cynicism or the betrayal of the redshirts reasonable demand for a just accounting.But your suggestion that Thaksin's motivation is fear of any investigation outcome doesn't really convince.

Nobody suggests he was involved? You must have a short memory, the last time you tried to sell this lie you were helpfully corrected by Ballpoint. It might be worth taking 5 minutes to re-read his post 195 in this thread.

http://www.thaivisa....i/page__st__175

I have reviewed the reference to Ballpoint as you suggested.However it only served to confirm my impression at the time that his post simply doesn't make the point you suggest.There is no evidence and the accounts of the Tak Bai tragedy I have read, none by admirers of Thaksin, do not suggest that Thaksin was involved.Of course there are always conspiracy theorists.However consider this.If Thaksin was genuinely believed to have played a central role in organising the Tak Bai massacre do you think for a moment that his enemies would have not pursued him on those grounds?

If you had suggested that Thaksin should have taken responsibility as PM at the time or that his hardline policy for Southern Provinces created an environment permitting such military abuse to take place, it would be am interesting argument which I would support.Certainly he was guilty of refusing to condemn the army commanders involved and making stupid and cruel remarks that the victims had been weakened by Ramadan fasting

Instead you accuse me of "selling a lie" without evidence or apparently much knowledge of the details of the incident.You will no doubt be supported by the tiny few on the forum for whom Thaksion is guilty of every crime and the army guilty of none.Perhaps you find that kind of support satisfying.

Finally Whybother made the very relevant observation that the deaths occurred after the victims had been captured and subdued.If you can focus on the detail sufficiently to be coherent, are you suggesting that Thaksin was responsible for what followed? In the politest possible way it probably makes sense for you to think harder, read more, and be more self critical before accusing others of "selling lies".

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any sense.You seem not to have understood (or pretended not to understand) there is no line to draw as was rather patiently explained in my last post.Anyway to humour you the practical impact of a political party which had polled low numbers - say 10% - heading a government would be that its tenure would be fragile.When this happens it usually means a new election has to be called in a reasonable space of time.But the fundamental point is that all democracies have clear rules for elections/formation of governments.A government which emerges, after following these rules )ie not a junta or other illegal entity, is described as having a mandate.

But, in Thailand, a party could get a strong majority of seats with as little as 20% of the vote. Would you consider that a "mandate"?

Yes

And as easily call it "Gerrymandering" a control of the legislature.

And to be clear do you believe the current government has a mandate?

This really shows how narrow the vision of the UDD really is. Everyday people are killed, maimed or injured in Southern Thailand in a wave of unrest triggered primarily (but not exclusively) by the massacre at Tak Bai mosque (which incidentally no one from the then ruling government has been held accountable for - uncannily similar the 2010 unrest in Bangkok) and the UDD moans about a crappy building being burnt down. What a way to show your solidarity with the suffering people of the South.

Perhaps if the UDD started to pressure and demand those in charge [both at a governmental and military level] at the time of the Tak Bai slaughter to be brought to justice and face criminal charges at the ICC (like they demand of abhisit and suthep) they would get more votes in the South and then they wouldn't have to build pointless pavilions.

Tak Bai was a human rights crime of the worst kind.Thaksin was PM at the time but nobody suggests he was involved in or directed the operation.His comments afterwards were however crass and an honourable man would not only have taken responsibility for the army's crimes, but perhaps resigned as well.The comparison with the army's human rights crimes in 2010 is however misplaced.The ruling politicians, Abhisit specifically, were very closely involved with the army's suppression of the redshirts.

Incidentally the army senior officers involved in the Tak Bai killings have been brought to trial.They were tried by the Songhkla Provincial Court and found not guilty since they were just doing their duty, and in any case could not be held liable because they were operating under an emergency law at the time.

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any sense.You seem not to have understood (or pretended not to understand) there is no line to draw as was rather patiently explained in my last post.Anyway to humour you the practical impact of a political party which had polled low numbers - say 10% - heading a government would be that its tenure would be fragile.When this happens it usually means a new election has to be called in a reasonable space of time.But the fundamental point is that all democracies have clear rules for elections/formation of governments.A government which emerges, after following these rules )ie not a junta or other illegal entity, is described as having a mandate.

But, in Thailand, a party could get a strong majority of seats with as little as 20% of the vote. Would you consider that a "mandate"?

Yes

Democracy is a messy system.Many coalition governments, for example in western Europe, don't have an absolute majority.Actually in the technical sense many US and UK governments haven't had an "absolute majority".The key question is can a government command a majority in parliament.Your question about where to draw the line doesn't really make much sense in this context, and in the case of the current Thai government is irrelevant.

I agree in a practical sense a government which hasn't faced the electorate needs to freshen its mandate.Otherwise in a political or non-constititional way a mandate tends to ebb away - as in the case of Abhisit or Gordon Brown.However in the case of the Yingluck government this isn't a factor.

If you don't understand any of this and still feel that for various reasons, this government doesn't have a mandate I can really add no more.There are a few tin foil hatted chums on the forum you can debate your somewhat bizarre reservations until kingdom come.

You could have just said "I don't want to draw a line".

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any sense.You seem not to have understood (or pretended not to understand) there is no line to draw as was rather patiently explained in my last post.Anyway to humour you the practical impact of a political party which had polled low numbers - say 10% - heading a government would be that its tenure would be fragile.When this happens it usually means a new election has to be called in a reasonable space of time.But the fundamental point is that all democracies have clear rules for elections/formation of governments.A government which emerges, after following these rules )ie not a junta or other illegal entity, is described as having a mandate.

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

But where do you draw the line? All of you are saying it's a mandate. But none of you can say where you would draw the line. Is 20% of the vote a mandate? It's not that hard a question.

Democracy is a messy system.Many coalition governments, for example in western Europe, don't have an absolute majority.Actually in the technical sense many US and UK governments haven't had an "absolute majority".The key question is can a government command a majority in parliament.Your question about where to draw the line doesn't really make much sense in this context, and in the case of the current Thai government is irrelevant.

I agree in a practical sense a government which hasn't faced the electorate needs to freshen its mandate.Otherwise in a political or non-constititional way a mandate tends to ebb away - as in the case of Abhisit or Gordon Brown.However in the case of the Yingluck government this isn't a factor.

If you don't understand any of this and still feel that for various reasons, this government doesn't have a mandate I can really add no more.There are a few tin foil hatted chums on the forum you can debate your somewhat bizarre reservations until kingdom come.

This government had a strong mandate from the Thai people.

Now it's a "strong mandate from the Thai people"?

Where do you draw the line for a "strong mandate"? Is simply scraping into government a "strong mandate"? Is a minority government a "strong mandate"? Is getting into government with 20% of the vote a "strong mandate".

I know you will say "but they're in government", but I'm just wondering, where would you draw the line?

Also, does being in government give them a "strong mandate" to do things that they didn't campaign on?

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

Tiansford said, "The election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events."

OZ you lost the argument. Get over it. Name calling does not help.

Firstly I wasn't involved in an argument, with you or anybody else

Secondly i was making an accurate statement about a government which AKAIK containsan unprecedented number of members facing and/or avoiding criminal charges, up to and including a PM who perjures herself and avoids the charge because a police officer changes the definition of perjury.

Thirdly no names were mentioned or alluded to

Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented, and then declares a line of discussion off topic despite that subject being self-raised.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? This government had a strong mandate from the Thai people.Get over it , as Khun Abhisit and the opposition have, and look to the future.

If you have criticisms (not mindless abuse) of the present government by all means air them - that's what the forum is for.But to quibble about whether this government has a mandate simply prevents anyone from taking you seriously.