jayboy

Are the PAD not aware that it takes 2 to tango ? Just demand Thai troops be removed from the border and all will be well , are they not aware the locals lived in harmony for many a long year ? Once the conflict is dispersed . locals will most likely go back to the way things were before the glory seekers jumped in the preserve the borders of the kingdom .

Oh , excuse me , I forgot the most important factor FACE

As if Face isn't an issue for Cambodia in this?

I don't think face is the major issue here, often the intellectually vapid way foreigners account for situations in Asia they don't understand.

The important factors here are the reactionary position of the Thai army, the vested interests it is linked with including the appalling PAD together with its Thai and foreign camp followers.

Thailand has become something of a international example of dishonesty.Shame on the appalling Thai generals and shame on the weak kneed government, in thrall to reaction and

repression.

The Independent summarises the position well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-ancient-temples-under-fire-in-an-ageold-conflict-2274773.html

The low-interest loan to Myanmar comes to mind, only $121 million, but since we're in Thailand to be seen as THB 3.63 billion :

"Thaksin was behind the decision to grant the low-interest loan from the Export-Import Bank of Thailand to Myanmar's government in 2004 to buy services and equipment from Shin Satellite, now Thaicom THCOM.BK, a unit of Shin Corp SHIN.BK, a telecoms firm then owned by his family."

http://in.reuters.co...K00301120100226

Rubbish.The Thai Exim bank exists to provide low interest loans to Thai exporters including the Shin Group.That is the whole point of its existence.Did Thaksin exert influence to secure Eximbank support? Probably, though the details are obscure.Nobody protested or resigned.Are there questions to be asked? Yes.Is it theft? No, of course not.

The loan was granted in 2004. At that time no-one was going to quoestion PM Thaksin's wheeling and dealing too loudly. Some reporters got defamation lawsuit slapped on them by our esteemed leader, claiming billions in damages.

When a PM induces a low-interest state loan to be granted in order for his company to profit, this may not legally constitute 'theft', but for ordinary people that doesn't matter. The country lost income due to 'low-interest loan', due to 'loan', a private company which just happened to be owned by 'amply rich' PM Thaksin profitted. No theft, but larceny on a grand sale?

In the reading of the assets forfeiture case .. the judges detailed many instances of corruption that benefitted Thaksin and cost the Thai people billions ... theft, by any other name would smell....

Again you haven't done enough research.Please provide the details to justify your case.I suspect the example you have in mind is the illegal lottery case where judges accused Thaksin of cheating the Thai taxpayer of billions. This is now accepted as completely incorrect:the steps the Thaksin government took were to benefit the Thai treasury.Sheer political vendetta in that case but perhaps you have some real evidence not just hearsay?

Hes a convicted criminal on the run whos stolen billions may just have bought him the leadership of this country in 2 months time!!!!! THAT IS the danger

Can you support your claim that Thaksin "stole billions" ?If you can please provide details.

The low-interest loan to Myanmar comes to mind, only $121 million, but since we're in Thailand to be seen as THB 3.63 billion :

"Thaksin was behind the decision to grant the low-interest loan from the Export-Import Bank of Thailand to Myanmar's government in 2004 to buy services and equipment from Shin Satellite, now Thaicom THCOM.BK, a unit of Shin Corp SHIN.BK, a telecoms firm then owned by his family."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/26/thailand-politics-thaksin-myanmar-idINBAK00301120100226

Rubbish.The Thai Exim bank exists to provide low interest loans to Thai exporters including the Shin Group.That is the whole point of its existence.Did Thaksin exert influence to secure Eximbank support? Probably, though the details are obscure.Nobody protested or resigned.Are there questions to be asked? Yes.Is it theft? No, of course not.

Jayboy - the following link is from the New York Times - his maid had 33 million baht in her account - his driver 117 million added to the land deals he cheaply put through to his wife and the illegal sale of Shincorp are tantamount to theft - back to the old red drawing board i suppose for you then?? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22thai.html

I'm sorry but you are completely off target.You have referred to the concealment of assets which although a serious offence is not theft.The sale of Shincorp was not illegal, though there were some tax complications (jury still out on that).The Siam Commercial Bank (check out the shareholders) was the main bank supporting and advising the deal.In any event being "tantamount to theft" is not theft.You have completely failed to make your case and your apparent ignorance of Thailand's corporate history is very evident.Even Thaksin's most powerful enemies don't accuse him of "theft".Do your research and be a bit more honest.There are enough offences Thaksin committed without having to invent ones.

There is a "fact" in the guy's post. Many HAVE been charged with LM. What is missing is any correlation to the Dems. The elections may in fact be drawing out people that are committing LM offenses as seen on April 10th in larger numbers.

How hard is it to watch your mouth and not imply something that would be a violation of the LM laws?

What you are missing is the growing consensus that the abuse of LM is a national disgrace, harming rather than protecting the institution it is designed to correct.

You make one speculative and in my view wrong headed assumption why LM accusations have accelerated in the pre election period.There is a more plausible explanation based on political opportunism on the part of the ruling elite and the military that backs it.

You make one speculative and in my view wrong headed assumption why LM charges have accelerated in the pre-election period. The most plausible explanation based on political reality is that there have been more actual LM offenses.

You repeat my comment, along with your original speculative assertion.That's not dialogue.

Thaksin may also be the only ex-PM to have been convicted

Chuan Leekpai, Democrat Party leader and former PM has been convicted by the National Counter Corruption Commission.

His brother, Raluek, allegedly embezzled billions from the Thai banks and fled to Taiwan, only returning to Thailand once the statute of limitations on his crime expired.

Keep 'em coming.

at least he didnt steal 400 billion in tax payers money to feed into Shincorp then sell to Singapore whilst at the same time passing and trying to personally push through a bill to make this the LAST sale of a Thai company allowed - he is dispicable as is anyone who twists the truth to supporting him - "KEEP EM COMING RED SHIRT "

I asked you to justify your claim that Thaksin stole billions.You haven't replied but now quantify the theft at 400 billion (rather typically you don't specify the currency).In any event I challenge you again to substantiate your statement with some hard facts.

Hes a convicted criminal on the run whos stolen billions may just have bought him the leadership of this country in 2 months time!!!!! THAT IS the danger

Can you support your claim that Thaksin "stole billions" ?If you can please provide details.

There is a "fact" in the guy's post. Many HAVE been charged with LM. What is missing is any correlation to the Dems. The elections may in fact be drawing out people that are committing LM offenses as seen on April 10th in larger numbers.

How hard is it to watch your mouth and not imply something that would be a violation of the LM laws?

What you are missing is the growing consensus that the abuse of LM is a national disgrace, harming rather than protecting the institution it is designed to correct.

You make one speculative and in my view wrong headed assumption why LM accusations have accelerated in the pre election period.There is a more plausible explanation based on political opportunism on the part of the ruling elite and the military that backs it.

god bless the Army for being the only force strong enough to allay this meglomaniacs lust for power

17 coups and 19 constitutions in 70 years.

Thaksin, the only elected Thai PM to serve a full term and the only Thai PM to be re-elected.

Yet .... still a much better and less violent 70 year history than ... hmmm .... Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Burma , .... and a few more in the region.

You comparing apples with oranges.The true comparison should be South Korea with which economically and politically (both then fairly primitive) Thailand was approximately level pegging in the 1950's.Actually Thailand was somewhat ahead.

Both have done well economically but South Korea has powered ahead.Politically South Korea has reformed its army so that it concentrates on its function.In Thailand political development has been stunted and the army continues to interfere in politics.

One has to ask the questions: Why now? Who has what to gain from the conflict?

Actually nobody gains.

The reactionary element in the Thai army thinks it gains in terms of the domestic political scene and the (maybe) impending election.This has been discussed many times.

I used the words "appears" in my statement of what I think .. not an absolute such as "there is no" ... I debunk people making claims of absolutes, I mention that other people that actually ARE in the know that have made statements that counter a poster's claim (and have done so publicly in the press) and finally I give my opinion. I do like it when people add in "I talked to ..." to try and claim expert status in a discussion

People's opinions on court rulings in Thailand? ...... opinions. It is fairly easy to go back to 2001 and see where the idea of "double standards" comes from

I honestly have nothing to add to you "in the know" comments (since I don't understand them).Incidentally my lawyer friend didn't pretend to be an expert on LM, just gave his layman opinion.

I have been monitoring the Thai courts closely since the early 1980's.There is nothing new about the judicialisation of politics though it has intensified in recent years.I entirely accept your point about 2001 double standards, but it didn't begin then.The hardcore "direction" of the courts - given the wrong results at general elections - began after Thaksin's time however.

And as for the comment about me not being a "permanent resident", you're splitting hairs. While I may not have official Thai residency status, it does not change the fact that I live here PERMANENTLY with my wife and family

You are not here permanently on a non-immigrant visa even with extended permission to stay. Your file at Immigration says "a temporariy resident for purposes other than tourism." Until you obtain permanent residency there is nothing permanent about your status here, whether you acknowledge that or not.

To be honest I am sick of people defending the indefensible and blaming the victims of scams just because they feel some misplaced loyalty to the country they have decided to move to and the locals.

Oberkommando is right and is not splitting hairs.There is nothing "permanent" about timestamp's visa status.He is a bird of passage whose residence can be ended at any time at a stroke of a bureaucrat's pen.Actually the more likely outcome given current Thai policy is a massive increase in the wealth test.I say this with some sympathy as my efforts to obtain PR have been frustrated.The other positive factor, since the Thais are a compassionate people, is that existing temporary residents who are married will be allowed to remain as before.

Abhisit's assurances would be rather more believable on the latest Cambodian border problem if the army didn't have such a terrible record of lying through its teeth, refusing international monitoring and most recently having told the Thai Foreign Minister to get lost.

hmmmm

I love it when people "in the know" make absolute claims like "there was no LM", when other people far more in the know show the likelihood of not only there having been a real LM issue, but also the likelihood of a conviction on it.

I have watched the videos in question and it certainly appears to me that the charges are valid, but that they will also stick. The others charged, may imho, get a pass except for those out on bail conditions that state "no incitement" ....

The courts will do what they are supposed to do, hopefully, and serve the law. They usually appear to do just that, though the leeway allowed in Thai law can sometimes leave people with questions like "why"?

You debunk people who are "in the know" but in doing so simply come up with the position that you are "in the know".Forgive me if I'm not impressed.

Actually I have discussed with a Thai lawyer friend, a strong Democrat as it happens.He broadly supports my view that there was no LM but to be fair he does think Jatuporn exercised poor judgement.

As to the Thai courts, their record speaks for itself.Let's just say justice is not blind here.

Your point 1 ----- "yet none of them found anything offensive in the remarks" is simply not true. Why was it the army chief that ordered the complaint to be made? It is a central role in the army to protect the monarchy. The DSI is on board with the charges as well, as they are going after bail revocation. "A few weeks after" appears to be wrong as well.

I have seen what Jatuporn said and it was not LM - not even close, certainly irritating for the army.

Why did the army chief order the complaint to be made? There are some powerful arguments that he has a vested interest (to protect his sorry backside) in maintaining hysteria on all fronts prior to the election, whether lying about the Red threat to the monarchy or stirring up trouble on the Cambodian border.

If you seriously believe the army ludicrous rhetoric, it's quite possible we can never have a rational discussion.The top brass main concern is of course to feather their nests.

1) The head of the Army ordered that LM charges be brought against Jutaporn & Company. There were a few thousand people at that particular rally, including news media and police, yet none of them found anything offensive in the remarks, or offensive enough to file LM charges. But a few weeks or so AFTER the rally, the Head of the Army does. Why is it that the head of the Army is the one behind this, and not other government agencies, such as the police, DSI, etc. I find that a bit strange.

There are other entities besides the Army that are pressing for charges against the speeches made, eg. the DSI for one and the Network of Citizen Volunteers for another. It's not only the "head of the Army" that has found their comments offensive.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=460912&view=findpost&p=4365179

Additionally, even members of the Pheu Thai Party have voiced their displeasure and have sought to distance themselves from Jatuporn and the other Pheu Thai Party/Red Shirt offenders.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=460424&view=findpost&p=4365258

Lastly, the prosecutors that the DSI supplied evidence to in their case also seem to think the speeches were illegal.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=460912&view=findpost&p=4372216

.

There are various front organisations serving the feudal and military interest.They think they have found a winner in whipping up hysteria on LM as they did on the Cambodian border.As to the Jatuporn case if the accounts I have read are correct he simply posed a very relevant question.There was no LM but for the the gruesome right wing activists that's not the point.The point is to stir up nationalist sentiment by invoking Thais' most deeply felt concerns.Anything goes including the lies and hatred

The point of the comment was to make people think through the many possibilities.

Yeah sure.

Looks like it was too long out of the press for someones liking....

Who do you mean by someone? General Prayuth - that could make sense.

If you mean (Oh God, it's scarcely possible, is it?) Thaksin, I am nominating you as a contender for the Sriracha John memorial prize for the most irrelevant introduction of the great demon into an unrelated thread.

SanSai --- even though it is "off topic", since THIS thread is about Jatuporn and the damage he does to the Thaksin cause (BTW -- under current law Thaksin may NEVER come back as PM even with an amnesty)..... help me out with one of your statements.

Could we start with a discussion perhaps, on education reform? Let's compare and contrast the positions of the status quo and the reforms former Prime Minister Thaksin had put in place that have been rescinded and cancelled by the current government?

What reform that actually was started under Thaksin has the current government rescinded in the area of education?

I don't think there are any.The current government has copied and expanded Thaksin's policies.

Incidentally I have now actually read what Jatuporn is purported to have said.It's a sensitive subject and I won't be drawn on the content.Suffice it to say it seemed very far from being LM and in fact he was asking a very reasonable question.My hunch is is that the army is simply preparing for the election by trying to generate hysteria.

Maybe ther army should mount a coup and eradicate the red shirt leaders - the country would certainly be better for it.

What an assenine comment! Why is that when farangs from countries with strong and mature democratic traditions comment on politics in Thailand, they are amongst the first to call for this politician or that political group to be banned, jailed or exiled? Then they complain about double standards in Thailand!

So do you think that any democratic country would put up with criminal elements causing no end of ongoing problems including viloence in which lives have been lost. Further, I don't see any double standard in wanting people who create, preach and are themselves involved in violence being allowed to continue unchecked .

Your views on the Thai army are very strong but I think on the whole justified.The criminal elements you refer to should certainly be cashiered for their part in the illegal coup, and perhaps put on trial (even though they awarded themselves a pardon), along with incompetent junta that followed.Whether the army's massacre of innocent protesters in Bangkok last year should be described as "criminal" is debatable despite the lies and prevarication that the army has subsequently peddled to the commissions of inquiry.I think the real reason you are correct to label the Thai army (or at least many of the generals) as criminal is their long standing involvement in the sex and drugs industries, their crimes in the South including Tak Bai, their illegal interference in politics, their anachronistic involvement in business including the media.

Abhisit presided over the massacre of unarmed civilian protesters (and subsequent cover up), something Thaksin never did.

You seem unaware of the Tak Bai incident where 85 muslims mysteriously suffocated, or Thaksin's war on drugs which left about 3,000 bodies behind.

As for 'unarmed protesters', I must assume you spent last year living down a hole in Afghanistan.

If you don't mind I will not discuss all this further with you.I don't mind debating well argued and knowledgeable opponents who hold very different views from my own.But I do require a basic level of knowledge and sophistication from interlocutors.All I can say is that these matters have been discussed many times on the forum and I'm sure you will find members who enjoy the verbal equivalent of a pub brawl.But it is not going to be me.

The red shirt leaders know what the Army is doing. A majority of the enlisted are red shirts

Source beyond your own speculation please?

And back to the drawing board to explain, yet again, that because your anti-red doesn't therefore mean that you support yellow.

Analysis is not a warrant officer's strength.Best to post another funny picture of Thaksin.There's an audience out there for that kind of crap.

Oh just noted he's already done it.

So despite all the problems surrounding Abhisit and the current government, you do consider them as the better choice than Thaksin and Pheu Thai in the upcoming election. If Thaksin regains power I think your list of problems will remain and probably even grow. e.g. "the greedy and cruel elite dominance" is personified by Thaksin himself. He would want to gain as close to 100% control of the military as possible to prevent any coup against him and to ensure that they will attack without hesitation when he says so.

The question you ask about the choice in the next election is a fair one.To be honest I feel drawn both ways given my general support for Abhisit and the weakness of the Peua Thai leadership.If the Peua Thai was well led, I would vote for that party - all hypothetical of course because I don't have a vote.Generally I would support the choice of the Thai people, unlike the elite and their military backers who resort to criminal acts if the result goes the "wrong" way.

Your comment that Thaksin personifies the dominating elite is one I've heard before, but it's really not very intelligent.Yes he is a rich businessman of the political class.Is that your point?

I agree a re-elected Thaksin (doubtful but again in the realms of the hypothetical) would want to dominate the military, or at least neutralise it.Is it unreasonable to take steps to stop criminals within the military launching a coup against the wishes of the Thai people?

if you dig into the background you will see that many Thais happily sold their vote to Thaksin then and will do so again

hence they have only themselves to blame when they got the lying, thieving, corrupt Thaksin government they deserved

hopefully they have learned their lesson.........

And with this nonsense you disqualify yourself from a serious commentator.

and by side stepping the issues, you show yourself not to be capable of providing any evidential rebuttal to any of my assertions, hence you become what i accused you of :

just another red head spouting red biased rhetoric who cannot give it ''serious analysis''

I will try and contain my disappointment at the end of our dialogue.