jayboy

Buchholz also knows that, according to the Washington Post, "heavily armed troops crouch in fortified bunkers on the grounds of an ancient temple"...

that Cambodia probably shouldn't use the temple as a shield and a place from which to fire their various weapons from if it is concerned about it being damaged.

Oh so now you are admitting the Thais have been shelling the Cambodian temple.When you have finally decided what you think feel free to let those interested know.

Perhaps there is a PAD "line to take" which would be helpful to you.

Turning to a more serious analysis of the problem watch FM Korn being demolished in a devastating interview by the ABC's Zoe Gillard

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/10/3135739.htm

That helps to clear up the earlier erroneous reports by Cambodia's Hun Sen in Post # 1 and Thaivisa's jayboy in Post # 36.

It doesn't clear anything up since we have seen no neutral report yet.However if the temple isn't damaged that's obviously good news.What your position is seems obscure since only a few posts ago you were chattering about damage done by small arms fire.Even the third party reference (the laughable Thai Asean News Network) to Reuters refers to slight damage.Let's all hope this interesting temple remains intact and the local villagers can return to their peaceful livelihoods, without more trouble stirring by the PAD fascists.

I can see why you're looking for some silver lining here.The PAD loving contingent have been exposed as dupes and no amount of bluster can change this.It's all rather complicated for some I agree.

Hmm, yes, I'm afraid it remains fact that the temple isn't "missing a wing" as Hun Sen said and it remains a fact that Cambodian troops are stationed within the temple with arms pointing at Thailand.

And it remains a fact that the report we have seen is not from a Cambodian nor a Thai - I think that's about as neutral as anyone can ask for! Would still like a few more accounts though, just as I'm sure you would.

It also remains a fact that the civilian death count at this stage is a couple on each side (still as yet hazy exactly how many).

So, the post that everyone is waiting for your clarification - this one:

I suppose the Thai military has played a helpful role in solving the "problem" by shelling the temple and severely damaging it.Give them enough time and they could destroy it completely as well as killing local villagers.

We're all allowed our slip-ups, jayboy, but please show some humility and admit that you couldn't have got it more wrong :jap:

Laughable.I've already said I"ll be pleased if the temple isn't damaged.You and your kind accept it seems anything from the Thai propaganda machine.There are many reports giving different accounts.The Washington Post says for example the temple has been damaged by Thai shrapnel, fortunately it seems nothing that serious.Bucholz doesn't seem to know what he thinks.The general theme seems to be to lash out wildly at anything that prevents a focus on the crass stupidity and incompetence of PAD and their totalitarian military supporters.

Thailand seems to be intent on undermining its own case.

Does it have one outside the deranged nationalists and their cynical military allies?

So far the Thais have refused any kind of independent scrutiny.Clearly the Thaksinite precept "The UN is not my father" lives on in the minds of these PAD creeps (I suppose I should be more forgiving to the army of Sino-Thai grannies that follow Sondhi around).Actually if I was Sondhi I would be buckling on my armour proof underware again: the elite don't like yellows out of control any more than the reds.And poor little Abhisit, on whom I have a slight crush, has made himself look rather a fool playing to different audiences.A word of advice Mark when you're dealing with useless tossers you have to call them out.And as for fatty Kasit I suppose his antics on this issue have at least provided a modicum of amusement

News Footage Shows Preah Vihear Safe from Clashes

Reuters has released footage that confirms Preah Vihear Temple has not been damaged by the recent shelling by Thailand as claimed by Cambodia.

A Cambodian military officer stationed at the temple previously claimed Thai troops' shelling damaged some parts of the 900-year-old Hindu temple.

However, recent footage released by Reuters has indicated that there has been only slight damage to the temple and the overall ruins are still in good condition.

According to the footage, there is a sign, written in both Khmer and English at the Preah Vihear temple saying "Preah Vihear belongs to us."

The Reuters reporter noted all residents have evacuated from the disputed area, adding armed Cambodian soldiers and monks are residing in the temple.

He went on to say the Thai military has mobilized a total of 20 tanks to the border in Si Sa Ket province although Thai authorities earlier claimed there has been no reinforcement of troops to the area.

That helps to clear up the earlier erroneous reports by Cambodia's Hun Sen in Post # 1 and Thaivisa's jayboy in Post # 36.

It doesn't clear anything up since we have seen no neutral report yet.However if the temple isn't damaged that's obviously good news.What your position is seems obscure since only a few posts ago you were chattering about damage done by small arms fire.Even the third party reference (the laughable Thai Asean News Network) to Reuters refers to slight damage.Let's all hope this interesting temple remains intact and the local villagers can return to their peaceful livelihoods, without more trouble stirring by the PAD fascists.

I can see why you're looking for some silver lining here.The PAD loving contingent have been exposed as dupes and no amount of bluster can change this.It's all rather complicated for some I agree.

Glad to read that cooler heads have prevailed, with a cease fire now in place.

This URL is to the CNN website where they have a good areal video of the Prasat Phra Viharn escarpment - seen at the mid-point of the video. Not sure how long CNN will have this video on their website, so see it while you can.

http://edition.cnn.c...eosearch&hpt=T1

It may be difficult for people who have not actually been to the temple site to tell from the video, but the high point of the escarpment, mesa or hill, is between the temple and Cambodia. In most places in the world, where a hill, mountain, or high is incorporated in a border between two countries, the border passes through the highest point of the geographical feature in question. However, in the 'Prasat Phra Viharn case', the border was placed below the top of the escarpment, or hill top, towards the Thailand side of the temple. I don't want to be guilty of pouring petrol on a fire, but I can certainly understand why the Thais are upset over the placement of the border at this location. I believe that if the border were logically placed in this location, the currently disputed territory and in addition the temple itself would all be in Thailand. To my way of thinking, the top of the escarpment, mesa or hill, is a more important and imposing geographic feature than any stream or other landmark in the area and should be the 'controlling feature' in regards to the border placement.

The 1904 agreement DOES put the temple and surrounding land in Thailand, based on the watershed ... ie, the top of the escarpment. The 1907 maps that were later attached to the 1904 agreement, for some unknown reason, moved off the watershed around the temple.

Hence the disputed territory and the ongoing problems.

What Thais are upset? A smallish group of quasi fascist idiots and frankly who gives a stuff what they think? Ongoing problem only for deranged right wing nationalists and their supporters.I suppose the Thai military has played a helpful role in solving the "problem" by shelling the temple and severely damaging it.Give them enough time and they could destroy it completely as well as killing local villagers.Of course there is also silliness on the Cambodian side but all in all it reminds one of Borges's comment on the Falklands disputants, two bald men fighting over a comb.

This is a time for Thais to unquestioningly unite behind their leaders in a calm inquiry, and firm denunciation of war. These are not alternatives.

But from all the evidence a calm enquiry would result in the appalling record of the Thai leadership on this issue being exposed, notably disgraceful behaviour by the PAD/military axis and Abhisit pandering to it.

Still always a silver lining...the PAD apologists, reactionaries, military wannabes from the Eastern Seaboard have been apparently silenced for the time being.

It has become a 'catch all' type of visa for people to facilitate their stay here and learn something, especially for people who 'fall thru the cracks' in the qualifications for other visa types.

I would have thought you have described the downside very concisely, namely the Ed Visa is appallingly abused by many foreigners who are not bona fide students, just seeing it as a means of staying in the country on a visa which clearly is designed for a different purpose.Those who make use of it - apart from the serious students (say 10%) - I would have thought are just asking for trouble.Another example of the way many foreigners abuse Thailand's generous and liberal entry system.

It shows some of the absurdity of thinking when maritime borders can be written so cock-eyed.

The absurdity of thinking is not about some paranoid concern about Cambodia's territorial or maritime ambitions at the expense of Thailand, but rather the deranged quasi fascist nationalism of PAD extremists and their bizarre foreign acolytes.

Chamlong is for sure the last one who can be said to advocate violence.

If he doesn't advocate violence his attitude towards bloodshed is very ambivalent when it suits his purposes.Check out the Young Turks role in the violence in 1976 at Thammasat (when he was present).Check out his in some ways admirable role in 1991 where he was very careless about the lives of his supporters.Check out his inflammatory language in the present day.

Yet another Thai Visa member who doesn't know his history.

Where are all those people who were claiming that the Government and the Yellows were one and the same?

I thought the article already addressed that???

"They used to be closely linked to Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva but relations have since soured."

The people doing the linking were wrong to begin with, its only the logical deduction that has soured.

Other than a rather limited overlapping between a few individual PAD members and Dem party members, there was never more than a parallelism caused be a common foe; Thaksin. Beyond that there was little in common except for certain individuals, but certainly not either groups in a majority sense. A bully pulpit for making speeches at most.

The Dems benefited from the PAD being a stalking horse and not much else, and more aptly have had a continuous hassle about them the majority of the time. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, but I must at least treat them even handedly lest they become my enemy also. Now the PAD not getting their way has increased their list of enemies 10 fold, and ultimately to their own loss.

No there was much more in common, which was essentially to preserve the stranglehold of the elite and their mainly Sino-Thai middle class hangers on by seeking to permanently neutralise the rural Thai majority or at least strictly limit its influence.You are right that the elite was always ready to abandon PAD once it had served its original attack dog purpose.Remember the high level backers of PAD were the same groupings that backed violence and murder back in 1976, and for the same reasons.PAD can always be resurrected if the elite feels it necessary, but there's the same instinctive dislike of PAD independence as there is of Red influence .In any event ties continue:Finance Minister Korn and his rather disturbing wife are both PAD afficionados ( the fascist leader Oswald Moseley was a Wykehamist as well), and there are many more sympathisers in the Dem leadership.I am prepared to believe Abhisit's ambivalence merely represents a political calculation, but the Dems are the party of the elite and frankly anything goes to prevent the Thai people achieving or retaining their preferred government.

"The group can argue that Thailand's judicial system is corrupt until its blue in the face, but it will not silence the many that still believe and respect Thai courts.

The movement's leaders can state that their trials are not fair, but until they actually submit to the trials with sincerity, they cannot fully state that they have been mistreated.

The world can and will know the truth sooner or later, but there is no guarantee it will be the “truth” the red shirts subscribe to, which begs the question, is the red shirt group truly ready for the outcomes it is seeking?"

So by any reasonable standard what would a knowledgeable, disinterested outsider say about the proposition in the first sentence?

Why should anybody have faith in a judicial system clearly mobilised to achieve political objectives?

By definition if the Reds have submitted a case to the ICC they are ready to accept the outcome.It's not the Reds that have been prevaricating, and obfuscating about the civilian deaths in Bangkok earlier this year.Of course the ICC will never consider the case but let's be clear, it's the Thai elite, particularly the army, that doesn't tolerate transparency or scrutiny.

Broadly speaking I think .... <snipped to save page space and avoid repetition>

An intelligent post that made interesting reading. Thank you.

(Just as a side note, your posts would be much easier to digest for the reader if you could throw in a space between sentences. They are free I believe.)

Noted.I'm rubbish at typing.

Interesting article in the other newspaper today by Abhisit's ex-TRT relative (estranged I imagine).He talks about the current gossip of a coup as a massive "reset", the coup to end coups - involving mass pardons etc.He was dubious and so am I.Still he referred to what was possible at the 10% margin which I suppose is sensible particularly as we are dealing with bears of very little brain.

Broadly speaking I think the logic of Tulsathit's opinion piece makes sense.There is no discernible logic for a coup to take place now.Even the Thai army senior brass, notable for their short sightedness as much as their corruption, understand that a coup is like a nuclear threat.It can be used as a way to intimidate and threaten the Thai people, but once used the effects can be very unpredictable - particularly in the present circumstances where an inevitable transition is in the air.Again I broadly agree that Abhisit has done well aided by the resurgent economy and capable technical management by Korn etc.At the same time, and again I agree with Tusathit, he has been careful to be an uber loyalist even to the point of cynicism, eg ramping up (or perhaps taking no effective action) the lese majeste prosecution climate internally (see the editorial in the current Economist) while taking a moderate position on the matter to outsiders.Anyway that's part of the Thai game of politics and not in my view as important as often maintained.

More particularly Abhisit presents a fresh civilised face to the Thai elite and the outside world.I think it's fair to say that electorally the Democrats will probably improve their position and the fragmented Thaksinite parties will lose out, probably not a dramatic change but a discernible shift - all subjective of course and only proven at the polls.One key aspect here is the failure of the opposition forces, including the Reds, to produce a credible leadership.Reverting to the coup possibility therefore I think it's seen by the elite as a last resort.Before it's even contemplated there is a marked preference for the continuing judicialisation of politics (co-opting the courts and commissions, hysterical government propaganda, intimidation of the opposition (yellows and reds) to thwart the Thai people's wishes and retain the elite's consolidation of wealth and and more importantly power.Before the forum's defenders of repression and authoritarianism rush in, I should say I think it's quite possible that the Democrats and their unsavoury allies will prevail electorally without resorting to theses usual practices we have become familiar with.In sum therefore the outlook is sunny for Abhisit and the parties that support him, and a coup highly unlikely (because even by the boneheaded myopic standards of the Thai generals, it simply doesn't make sense.)

And yet and yet....

Despite all this the forces of reaction, cruelty and greed should not sleep too easily.Something has changed in Thailand (yes, Thaksin was a key catalyst) and further dramatic changes are in prospect.From my point of view I hope that Abhisit, in whom I continue to have faith, will be astute enough to usher in a fairer and more meritocratic country.I suspect there will be alliances and understandings formed in an attempt to bridge the gap between forces now violently opposed to each other.Though Thailand is changing, the spirit of pragmatism will live on.Internationally Thailand tends to get a passing grade because few countries wish to offend the elite (or particularly care one way or the other what the elite does to retain power).But events in Egypt suggest that a popular movement may not be crushed so easily in the future.Neither Asian or Western powers want to be seen defending an unpopular status quo.The scandalous prevarication on the murdered civilians earlier this year will be trick that's hard to repeat.

So in summary no coup in prospect.Abhisit could win the election without the usual hanky panky.Deference and feudal kowtowing ebbing away in Thai culture.Thailand will be subject to more international scrutiny in future.The country is shaking off its past as a snake discards its redundant skin.Finally although the trends are clear what should not overlook the possibility that a desperate elite won't resort to more repression and violence.That of course will be its death knell.

<snip>

Hopefully Amsterdams actions will bring evidence one way or the other, either for or against then we can move on from this sorry tale.

Amsterdam has no evidence. He has conjecture, half truths and lies. He has basically published everything that he has, and it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Absolutely.What a perceptive post.I think the main objective is that we should all concentrate on rubbishing Amsterdam as much as ossible ,throwing in the odd anti semitic slur if necessary (as in the case of that great novelist S.P Somtow.)Obviously no attention should be paid to the underlying charges as everbody knows the Reds murdered themselves when they weren't murdering the security forces.Amsterdam is in the pay of Thaksin who in turn paid those Red peasants to go ape.What's more they made life very inconvenient for those of us that adore swanning with our partners around Gaysorn Plaza and the ilk.Furthermore as for the dead, who gives a dam. We should get on with our lives in the knowledge that there is an official enquiry proceeding with great speed and diligence.I'm getting tired of those who criticise the Thai army which has a long and noble history of embracing accountability and avoiding coverups: if they made any mistakes - which they almost certainly didn't - they would fess up in the spirit of transparency for which they are known.

Field Marshall General SaRid ThaNaRutt and numerous other old time soldiers would have turned over in their graves in shame and despite....

Since that old reprobate is burning in hell, I doubt whether he is preoccupied by a few PAD quasi fascists stirring up shit and looking pretty stupid now as well.

Grandad? Nope --- just 46 and no children --- so not a grandad I am a greybeard though! (and have been since my beard started growing in when I was a teen!)

Jayboy --- yet again you obfuscated as to why you make those remarks in almost every thread you stalk me in. Nothing dodgy about MY visa, nor my WP, nor am I a visa runner My annual permission to stay is in good standing and I haven't left Thailand since 2009. Maybe this is some kind of projection on your part.

Your description of "sad old losers" from the business world falling for some Thai Minx neatly followed by the confession that the much younger crowd that you seem to think is preferable ALSO falls into that trap quietly dispels most of your own argument.

For the OP --- the point is you are correct you don't have to become bitter and jaded living in Thailand. It happens to many, but if you stick to the plan you outlined you should be fine.

Delighted that you have the appropriate work permit and visa.Actually never thought you didn't nor frankly very interested one way or the other.

You misunderstand my point about the younger crowd.I was suggesting that while some of these also go the way of the typical sexpat, not all of them do - i.e the group I was describing.

Since you bring this up in almost EVERY thread you post in reply to something I have posted in ---- please don't be shy. Say what you mean! (Yet again I expect obfuscation). Who are these visa-runners and "businessmen on dodgy visas" that you so frequently refer to? (I am guessing yet again you will avoid the direct question since all you are doing is stalking me with ad-hominem attacks. )

The age difference between me and my partner is 14 years. The age difference between him and previous BF's was about 14 years as well. (I, prior to moving to Thailand i dated people usually within 2 years of my own age )

I assume that some people have not read some of the dramatic and tragic stories posted online from wives of men who got posted to Thailand. I am sure that nobody on staff at any embassy has ever fallen into the bar girl scene, and that nobody from any business has ever done so either.

Visa runners are probably the majority of the foreign "community".I was making a distinction between this lot and properly authorised young professionals with the right visas.In answer to your question there are many many foreigners illegally doing business.Everybody knows a few (don't you as a regular on the visa running threads?), particularly in the EFL "community" - not exactly the best face of expatriates in Thailand.

Yes there are many sad old losers from the legitimate business world who fall for some saucy Thai minx.I was however referring to a much younger crowd, in their late 20's to early 30's - some of whom also live the sexpat life.The point I was making that good looking well educated professionals sometimes find similar Thai partners without the peculiar two year interval you seem to think necessary.

I'm not interested in the large age difference you apparently feel comfortable with, and will comment no further on that issue.Chaque a son gout, Grandad.

My Thai friends (both male and female) will not date a farang that has lived here less than 2 years. Their impression of us in the early years in Thailand is that of a kid in a candy store. Fortunately, my partner that I met just 4 months after moving here broke his own rule on that. He said he had his reasons amongst them being that I wasn't retired nor here to work and that I had spent quite a while here in the past.

Don't know anything about your Thai friends and their curious rules.Probably says something about the circles you move in.

However I can assure you that well educated upper middle class and upper class Thais wouldn't dream of entertaining such "candy store" ideas about foreigners.In the first instance they mostly wouldn't think of dating foreigners at all.A few do but they would be drawn to young diplomats and businessmen with suitable charm, society position and education.None of these foreigners would come here to fornicate:they would be sent by their companies or embassies.In the cases I'm thinking of the foreigner-Thai relationship was formed in months, not the weird two years prescription you mention.Most would be approximately the same age as their partner and would share mutual interests - i.e much the same motivation as young well connected couples anywhere else in the world

None of these foreigners would be visa runners or "businessmen" on dodgy visas.All would be intelligent and relatively well paid.They would mostly be quickly made members of the RSBC and other elite clubs (not the naff British Club!!).They probably never would have heard of Thai Visa.Always good to remind oneself there's a different world out there.

Well at least that's a coherent response, even though I think you are completely wrong in various aspects.

Which ones?

I don't think the concept of a dominant elite is simply an emotive tool invented by the Reds.This really requires some knowledge and understanding (many hours with the books), and I am only now beginning to understand how rare this is on this forum.

I think the Red movement is transcending its Thaksinite origins, a slow process to be sure but definitely discernible

I think the Abhisit/Korn populist platform is in direct response to the challenges posed by earlier measures taken by the TRT administration.Nothing wrong with that by the way.It's called politics.

Yes there is an argument that the current struggle is between competing elites, but your attempts to muddy the water doesn't help understanding.If one refers to the ruling elite I think all but the most obtuse will understand what is meant.

I'm not sure the Sino-Thai dimension is particularly relevant, except that the PAD oriented Bangkok middle class, who have been the ruling elite's useful idiots, are mostly Sino-Thai.I don't by the way regard Sino-Thai as a term of abuse.

Of course there's a rich/poor dimension to this but it's only part of the explanation.Driving all is a greedy ruling elite's greed and fear, abetted by an equally fearful middle class.Of course there are businessmen, intellectuals, military people and students on the Red side.Since it's quite possible the Reds command a majority of the Thai people it's hardly surprising.And yes of course there are some cynical opportunist from Thaksin downward who also support the Reds.

I note you simply ignore Professor McCargo's point.The trouble is that too many people seize on peripheral detail to provide a general explanation of events in Thailand.It requires knowledge, wide reading and an analytical capability.Otherwise it's just tribal stuff or in the case of some foreigner "businessmen" a horror they can't always prance around Siam Paragon or Central World at their pleasure.

The water IS muddy. I am not doing anything extra to muddy it.

One referring to the ruling elite, particularly "greedy ruling elite" is just a emotive tool used by the red shirts. The fact is the reds are made up of rich elite businessmen and military people as well as poorer Thais. It's quite possible (actually very likely) that a majority of Thai people do NOT support the reds. There are also a lot of poorer Thais that don't support the red shirts.

The reality is that most reds support the cynical opportunists that you mention. That's how these cynical opportunists get into power. And then they do nothing to improve the lives of the poor people.

I didn't comment on McCargo's points, because no party has won an election since 1986 except for 2005 when TRT won after buying in all the smaller parties that were previously in their coalition. The Democrats have usually only been just behind the leading party, with no one getting a majority. Then it's just the standard wheeling and dealing to cobble together a coalition government.

Well at least that's a coherent response, even though I think you are completely wrong in various aspects.

How that bizarre conclusion follows is inexplicable.

It's tiresome question you raised because this area has been discussed so many times.

Of course there are many elites but in the context the controlling elite in Thailand has a very distinct identity - feudal, military, corporate monopolists who won't hand over or share power even when the Thai people express themselves in a popular vote.

Professor McCargo summarises the position.

"Asking the question as to whether the Democrats could win in the forthcoming general election, which is widely anticipated to take place in 2011, Professor McCargo reviewed the party's performance at the ballot box going back to the mid 1980s. What he noted, is that one needs to go back to 1986 to find the last time they won a decisive election victory. And, as McCargo continued through the nineties and into the noughties, a clear pattern emerged. Yes, the Democrats can win power but rarely via an election and, moreover, they struggle to hold onto it. The key point, as McCargo delicately put it, is that time and time again "extra-electoral forces" intervene to seal their fate either way."

On the forum the question can either be discussed as intelligent adults or as hare brained bar talk.Your choice.

Yes ... "yawn" sounds more like hare brained bar talk to me.

Feudal ... are you suggesting that this doesn't exist in the North/North East?

Military ... are you suggesting that there is no military support for Thaksin's parties?

Corporate ... are you suggesting that no rich business people support the red shirts?

Your constant references to the "elite" and "sino-thai" keep pushing your premise of this being a rich vs poor fight.

IMO, it is no such thing. The fight is actually between two groups of "elite", neither of which, historically, have done anything to improve the lives of the poor.

Yes there is an argument that the current struggle is between competing elites, but your attempts to muddy the water doesn't help understanding.If one refers to the ruling elite I think all but the most obtuse will understand what is meant.

I'm not sure the Sino-Thai dimension is particularly relevant, except that the PAD oriented Bangkok middle class, who have been the ruling elite's useful idiots, are mostly Sino-Thai.I don't by the way regard Sino-Thai as a term of abuse.

Of course there's a rich/poor dimension to this but it's only part of the explanation.Driving all is a greedy ruling elite's greed and fear, abetted by an equally fearful middle class.Of course there are businessmen, intellectuals, military people and students on the Red side.Since it's quite possible the Reds command a majority of the Thai people it's hardly surprising.And yes of course there are some cynical opportunist from Thaksin downward who also support the Reds.

I note you simply ignore Professor McCargo's point.The trouble is that too many people seize on peripheral detail to provide a general explanation of events in Thailand.It requires knowledge, wide reading and an analytical capability.Otherwise it's just tribal stuff or in the case of some foreigner "businessmen" a horror they can't always prance around Siam Paragon or Central World at their pleasure.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Yawn

Oh. So the Democrats aren't the elite's chosen party then ...

How that bizarre conclusion follows is inexplicable.

It's tiresome question you raised because this area has been discussed so many times.

Of course there are many elites but in the context the controlling elite in Thailand has a very distinct identity - feudal, military, corporate monopolists who won't hand over or share power even when the Thai people express themselves in a popular vote.

Professor McCargo summarises the position.

"Asking the question as to whether the Democrats could win in the forthcoming general election, which is widely anticipated to take place in 2011, Professor McCargo reviewed the party’s performance at the ballot box going back to the mid 1980s. What he noted, is that one needs to go back to 1986 to find the last time they won a decisive election victory. And, as McCargo continued through the nineties and into the noughties, a clear pattern emerged. Yes, the Democrats can win power but rarely via an election and, moreover, they struggle to hold onto it. The key point, as McCargo delicately put it, is that time and time again “extra-electoral forces” intervene to seal their fate either way."

On the forum the question can either be discussed as intelligent adults or as hare brained bar talk.Your choice.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

Do all the red elites choose the Democrats too?

Yawn

I think i read a few days ago about one of abhisits aides being found guilty in Thailand of defamation and was given a suspended sentence. If memory serves me right this guy has kept his position as an aide and MP ( the case was brought by the police agaisnt him after he claimed irregularities in buying bullet proof vests).

I seem to recall reading that his position as an MP is not affected despite being found guilty, did I also hear that being guilty of defamation does not mean removal from post?

It seems the constitution allows for MPs to keep their positions based on what they are convicted of, so it is not guarantee that this oaf will lose his position, although here's hoping he does.

It was a case from 2003 (so not an Abhisit aide) and yes, it was decided 8 years later, 2 days ago.

He was given a suspended sentence on his jail sentence (six months).

AFAIK, defamation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to the loss of being an MP in Article 106(11) of the Constitution.

I think the guiding principle is that those erring politicians who are Democrats (the elite's chosen party) can get away with anything.For the rest the courts throw everything at them except the kitchen sink (and that too sometimes).

A voice of reason. He won't be very popular next week.

Agreed.Khun Charnvit is far too intelligent, well informed and well educated to have any traction with the PAD crazies, and their quasi fascist ideology.Odd thing is I would guess Abhisit in his heart of hearts would be pretty much in agreement with the historian's views.