jayboy

The only mystery is in your head. A group of terrorists tried to take over the government unwilling to negotiate. Put thousands of honest citizens out of work. Indiscriminate bombing invasion of hospitals. Illegally seized a portion of down town Bangkok and when they like little babies couldn't get there way they tried to burn it down. How do you see a mystery in the death of some of them in the freeing up of down town Bangkok.

It's a common point of view I agree, particularly among the elite and significant elements in the urban middle class.

History will however have its own verdict on these events.

which from press reports this morning seem to be part of the reason David Cameron has cancelled his Christmas visit.

I don't believe that for a moment. They never would have booked it in the first place if that was the case. That's just the excuse to make the part about being totally insensitive to the domestic situation less of an issue.

I tend to agree that the domestic situation must be the main reason, and by a considerable factor.The human rights aspect was however mentioned in the press reports, but again I agree this is hardly likely to have been a major consideration.

Still there are some odd aspects to the local perception of the deaths earlier this year.Almost no discussion, investigations going nowhere and within seconds of me mentioning it, posts made about red propaganda.In many countries governments would stand or fall following an investigation of civilian deaths on this scale.In Thailand zip, nothing, zero.

And before someone mentions the drug war killings, doesn't the complete absence of follow up and accountability prove my point?

Abhisit scores another very good point. And all governments will have noted the glaring "Since I am not in CRES, I do not know details about the ban". This guy is clever, he keeps going further up in my estimation.

Perhaps more than clever (which with his Oxford first class honours degree he obviously is).Perhaps given this news item, while making a perfectly reasonable exception for LM offences, reflecting a deeper attachment to freedom of expression and diversity in society.I'm two minded about Abhisit.I do admire him yet feel he is to some extent under the influence of some very illiberal elite (feudal/army) pressures, the most unattractive elements in Thai society.On the other hand when I see a news piece like this I feel a sense of hope.Abhisit is I think a real democrat (with a small "d") and does believe in popular democracy, albeit with sensible safeguards.He still however has to face up to the still unexplained deaths in Bangkok earlier this year, which from press reports this morning seem to be part of the reason David Cameron has cancelled his Christmas visit.

Having read all posts again on this topic, I can say no one pretended there hasn't been a coup.

That's obviously not the pretence since the coup happened.The "pretence", to use your expression, is that the 2006 coup did not illegally overthrow a properly authorised government under a democratic constitution.The logic which is stretched very thin behind this conceit is that because the administration was a caretaker one, it was somehow more justifiable to launch a coup d'etat.It is actually a rather poor basis to construct an argument in favour of the coup:there are many more convincing justifications.

As I have several times implied, this particular interpretation seems to be confined to a few members of this forum.I am still waiting evidence that any respected external authority thinks this way.Even the coup leader Sondhi didn't claim a legitimate government wasn't overthrown.If you think about it that's the whole point of a coup - to get rid of a legitimate government that you can't manage to replace by constitutional means.

I suggest that Jayboy must have neither read the 1997 constitution nor much on the topic if he has not come across any other references to the government that was in place at the time of the 2006 coup was extra-constitutional. The "popular mandate" statement is simply obfuscation as well. Thaksin is "popular" now with some people that does not give him any LEGAL rights other than that of any other citizen (including coming back and serving his prison sentence)

edit to add --- by its very definition a "caretaker" government cannot be considered to have a mandate.

A caretaker government was a constitutional entity, and had a democratic mandate.If you wanted to argue the nuances of what "democratic mandate" means, that would be a reasonable route.To deny it altogether isn't really very reasonable.The 2006 military coup which overthrew it was an extra constitutional action.(I hope that at least is accepted here, but I never cease to be surprised).

Your final sentence isn't pertinent.Of course Thaksin has no status at all now and whether he is "popular" or not has no constitutional relevance.

Actually I have read the 1997 constitution quite carefully, and thought Khun Anand's work on it was excellent, one of the greatest contributions by any Thai statesman in recent years.I confess not having read the Junta sponsored constitution though am aware of its main terms.Also I have also read the 2006 coup leader's statements in the last few days.They are unequivocal and completely back my reading (and that of all reputable commentators).It's ironic that to prove my point I have to invoke General Sondhi, the coup leader.

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

True --- you have ignored the facts while taking the point that the government in place in Sept 2006 was an elected government. You have used other people's posts to try and back this up. So yes, it is true you have not addressed the facts in evidence that the government in Sept 2006 that was replaced by the coup was not legitimate and while nominally more "democratic" than the post coup government --- it still wasn't elected. The final ruling on TRT and the elections showed that it wasn't ever really a democratic government to many people

As to your statement that the final ramifications of the 2006 coup may have not been fully realized is something I agree with, I would go further though and suggest that Thaksin's continuous erosion of the checks and balances required to have a functional democracy had been fully considered by some people and it is a reason that some people feel that the coup was the lesser of 2 evils.

Nothing new here but I'm puzzled by your comment about using other peoples posts.I'm aware I mentioned Hammered briefly the other day since he is respected across political differences.Is that what you meant?

As a matter of principle I don't invoke other members views as away of verifying my own anymore than I would invoke Wikipedia.I rely much more on reading (not just New Mandela!).To date I have come across no external source that argues as you do that the government overthrown by 2006 coup didn't have a constitutional and popular mandate.

Jayboy is entitled to his own opinions, but is not entitled to his own FACTS lol

I don't think I have actually questioned the facts presented by those who deny an elected government was overturned in 2006.I have rather raised doubts relating their significance to the question at hand, and for the need for them to be interpreted as well as taking into account certain other "facts".Above all, I have stressed the need for common sense and context.The 2006 was an extra constitutional event and a blow against democracy, with long term consequences that I suspect have not been fully worked out yet.Now if someone argued that all that is broadly accepted but in the circumstances of the time, it was the least bad option (Jdinasia's line I recall), that's a perfectly reasonable point of view and one in my heart of hearts I have some sympathy for.But to predicate a case on the technical details advanced so far doesn't carry the case very far.

It's unclear from his CV whether he is actually a naturalised Pakistani (EDIT I don't actually see anywhere that he's of Pakistani descent) immigrant or British through and through, not that it really matters at least not to me (I know many Brits to whom it would matter).

I think Mr T is highlighting the irony of our visa process being handled by an Indian company, our passports being handled by a Hong Kong office, now our ambassador (yes I know he's not really but it's easier to type) is 'outsourced' too.

I wish him well in what could be a difficult position.

Crossy

Thanks your civilised words.Asif is British born, has had a distinguished career and is to be our new ambassador after his credentials have been formalised.He is also a stand up guy and I think we can be proud of a man of this class, and also a real demonstration of multicultural Britain.I echo your sentiments about wishing him well.

<snip>

Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.

<snip>

What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Jayboy, can you please provide a time line of the events in the year before the coup that explains to a "blinkered propagandist" how an elected government was in place when the coup happened?

Just saying "an elected government was overthrown by the coup" does not make it true. It needs explaining.

No, because to deny it is simply absurd.I doubt whether the fanatics - we know who they are - who purport to deny it realise how ridiculous they seem.

As Hammered points out:

"Of course that coup was against an elected government but one that had been undermined itself with its hideous human rights record and there were no deaths."

There are all sorts of reasonable points to be made e.g the coup was the least bad option,Thaksin brought it on himself etc (as well as the counter -arguments ).

What's not debatable is whether an elected government was overturned.Even the military officers who planned and launched the coup don't make that childish claim.To do so is simply silly and not an area I'm prepared to discuss (at least with the fanatics: I'm prepared to discuss almost anything with intelligent reasonable people who understand give and take)

Yet again Jayboy ---

Parliament had been dissolved --- Fact

Thaksin had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position ---- Fact

Thaksin stepped back in and picked up his caretaker position when there was no constitutional allowance for him to do so ---- Fact

The time allowed in the previous constitution for a caretaker government to be in charge had expired --- fact

An election was held that could not seat a government. --- Fact

Note --- I did not claim it was a "good coup" in my post above. I merely corrected another poster's statements (something you didn't do with my post.) My personal opinion is that the 2006 coup was, in fact, the least damaging of all the option that were on the table at the time. NOW I have stated my opinion ---

The statements you designate FACT don't really address my concerns outlined earlier.Facts have to be interpreted and their significance considered.

However your personal opinion "least damaging option" on the 2006 coup puts your FACTS in their appropriate subjective context.

Please feel free to counter anything I suggest is a fact that you can prove is not a fact. Otherwise you are simply obfuscating.

I tried to explain that facts need interpretation and assessment of context.It's not obfuscation.Nobody looking at your FACTS would really have any idea why the coup took place at all.Only the most blinkered propagandist would deny the coup overthrew an elected government.You can argue as Hammered does that Thaksin had made the situation untenable which I would elaborate as through corruption and alienating the Bangkok middle class.The army had its own reasons for the coup including its dissatisfaction with its budget.Lots of issues which don't need or can't be discussed here.What can't be denied however is that an elected government was overthrown.

Yet again Jayboy ---

Parliament had been dissolved --- Fact

Thaksin had publicly resigned his caretaker PM position ---- Fact

Thaksin stepped back in and picked up his caretaker position when there was no constitutional allowance for him to do so ---- Fact

The time allowed in the previous constitution for a caretaker government to be in charge had expired --- fact

An election was held that could not seat a government. --- Fact

Note --- I did not claim it was a "good coup" in my post above. I merely corrected another poster's statements (something you didn't do with my post.) My personal opinion is that the 2006 coup was, in fact, the least damaging of all the option that were on the table at the time. NOW I have stated my opinion ---

The statements you designate FACT don't really address my concerns outlined earlier.Facts have to be interpreted and their significance considered.

However your personal opinion "least damaging option" on the 2006 coup puts your FACTS in their appropriate subjective context.

"Then, without prompting, the Army chief went on to justify the previous coup: "I don't really want to talk about the past, but the last time that [a coup] happened, it was to prevent a calamity".........hmmm

I think you will find, the Millionaire Generals had simply had enough of a PM who was limiting their access to power and money. Once they decided to break their oaths of service, break the law, oust a democratically elected PM and Parliament and force their will onto the Thai people, they simply made sure the cash and the power were in their and their Elites friends pocket once more.

And using "lese majeste" to listen in on people phone calls, read texts and e mails whilst spending BILLIONS on checking peoples Facebook sites and web pages is simply a ruse to crush all forms of free speech and debate so as to maintain and strengthen their grip upon the Thai Nation.

Sorry but your claims about the government that was replaced by the coup in 2006 are simply .... wrong.

There was no democratically elected PM or parliament at the time. Parliament had been dissolved and the PM extra-constitutional. (His failed elections left him in a caretaker position that he resigned publicly and then reclaimed ... the time allowed for a caretaker government to rule had expired.)

The question is how does one interpret facts.Few serious commentators eg Chang noi accept your position that a democratically elected government was not overturned.If you want to justify the coup - and clearly you do - then by all means make that case.But don't rely on logic chopping and half truths.Turning to the Army chief's claim that the last coup was to prevent a calamity - this too has been disproven.The original case to this effect was made by Thanong in The Nation.Chang Noi (ie Pasuk/Baker) demolished his arguments one by one.

For what it is worth, as you are married to a Thai it is no longer a prerequisite to have Permanent Residency. Some of the posters on TV set me straight on this and have kindly answered my questions from time to time. There are some very good threads which touch on this subject.

Can you verify this please.I understood that it was certainly possible for a foreign woman married to a Thai man, but not a foreign man married to a Thai woman.Thanks

The 2008 Nationality Act waived the need to have 5 years' residency in the Kingdom for foreign males with Thai wives, along with the requirement to have knowledge of the Thai language, in order to redress the balance compared to the requirements for foreign females with Thai husbands. The Interior Ministry's interpretation of the waivers is that PR is no longer required, nor are these applicants required to sing the Royal and National anthems, although they still need to be able to communicate reasonably well in spoken Thai and be able to write their names in Thai. In order to qualify for the waiver, you need to have been legally married to a Thai citizen for 3 years (only 1 year, if you have a child together). You also need to be legally working in Thailand on a salary of at least B40,000 a month and have 3 full calendar years' of salary tax receipts. You need to show receipts of contributions to registered Thai charities demonstrating regular donations over time. You also need to be on a tabien baan.

I would advise going along to the very nice people at Special Branch with all your relevant documents and asking their advice. Their advice is free and they know what they are talking about, unlike the lawyers and brokers who advertise Thai citizenship services.

Thanks Arkady.A very helpful and clear response to my question.

Interesting to note the formalised requirement for charitable activity.As you know on the PR side this is a desirable rather than essential matter.

And yet again you resort to ad hominem attacks .....

Not really I just pointed out that you tend to go off like a rocket with an irrelevant tirade whenever Thaksin is being discussed.

If all you can come up with is the Monson case, that's just sad as Alan Partridge would say.

I can see you and Animatic aren't really familiar with the Thai business sector.If you do come across a Thai businessman of substance, of whatever political stripe, I'm fairly positive he will confirm what I have said about Thaksin's initial accession to wealth.It's not even controversial.Shall we let this rest.If you look carefully you will see I have conceded a number of your points.You however simply rant on, never conceding an issue anbd without even considering I might be trying in my own, okay sometimes annoying way, to make some serious points.There's no fun in debating with someone who never puts himself on occasion in the other fellow's position.Sayonara.

Actually, I can and DO maintain that as PM (the highest nominally elected position in the land) that he should be held to higher standards than any other investors. Your claims as to him having become rich in "mainly legitimate ways" is arguable even by Thai standards. It wouldn't have been unrealistic for him to divested himself of control of his shares in AIS/Shin etc and to suggest otherwise is to put a blind eye to one of his several major failings as PM. (Others being direct corruption, gross human rights violations set about in HIS handling of HIS war on drugs, Cronyism, nepotism, etc)

I was thinking of adding a rider suggesting we didn't get into discussing the legitimacy of his wealth,fearing it would send you on a weirdly obsessive free association ride.It did.I mistakenly thought my deliberately reasonable tone would calm you down and let you focus on the Burma issue.Didn't work.

And on a point of detail you are completely wrong that Thaksin didn't become rich by legitimate means.The abuses and manipulation of the system started later.Any business oriented Thai - even his enemies - will confirm this.That's partly why there was so much bitterness among the middle class when Thaksin's premiership soured - because the early hopes in a competent modern politician had been dashed.I challenge you to prove any evidence that when Thaksin first came to power there was any concern at all about his "criminality".

I don't disagree with you that a PM should set standards, but many - can't go into detail here - rather eminent Thai individuals and entities have invested in Burma and cosied up to the Junta.All but the myopic will understand.If you feel let down because Thaksin didn't live up to your high moral standards fair enough.But it's absurd to single him out for opprobrium for investing in Burma.Heaven knows there are enough reasons to dislike Thaksin without having to obscure the truth.

As PM he is held to a higher standard of behaviour than an average investor etc ...

I'm afraid we aren't talking about average investors as my post made clear.I would rather not elaborate further on this.

But you're right Abhisit is not a businessman.But he has strongly promoted Thai investment in Burma, notably in the appalling and outdated infrastructure.I'm not saying he's not right to do so, and from early indications Suu Kyi seems to be modifying her line on inward investment.In terms of moral support to the unpleasant regime however Abhisit stands in the direct line of successive Thai administrations, essentially couldn't care less about the junta's repression.

The trouble is in your eagerness to put Thaksin centre stage of every Thai moral weakness, crime and brutality you end up tying yourself in knots.It just doesn't make sense.

Thaksin's PERSONAL business dealings ---- (at Thai expense) versus Abhisit's need to deal with the de facto government of an ASEAN nation just aren't on the same playing field.

You remind me of those mediaeval theologians arguing how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.We can agree a propos Burma and many other areas that it was wrong for Thaksin to benefit from personal interests through his PM role.He was of course a major businessman who became rich through the telecoms sector in mainly legitimate ways by Thai standards.It would be unrealistic for him to have disposed of his shareholdings when he came to power, though in an ideal world that's what he should have done (and not to maids, chauffeurs etc).There should have been some Chinese Wall or "blind trust" so that his corporate interests whether in Thailand or overseas didn't benefit from political intervention.Difficult to implement I agree but anyway nobody disputes that Thaksin abused the system and deserved to be punished.

My main point however is that you cannot logically maintain it was wrong for Thaksin to invest alongside the Burmese junta but somehow okay for other Thai interests to do so.That is really all I'm saying.

As PM he is held to a higher standard of behaviour than an average investor etc ...

I'm afraid we aren't talking about average investors as my post made clear.I would rather not elaborate further on this.

But you're right Abhisit is not a businessman.But he has strongly promoted Thai investment in Burma, notably in the appalling and outdated infrastructure.I'm not saying he's not right to do so, and from early indications Suu Kyi seems to be modifying her line on inward investment.In terms of moral support to the unpleasant regime however Abhisit stands in the direct line of successive Thai administrations, essentially couldn't care less about the junta's repression.

The trouble is in your eagerness to put Thaksin centre stage of every Thai moral weakness, crime and brutality you end up tying yourself in knots.It just doesn't make sense.

Kasit already said he has already explain to the Russian, and they understand. Case close please. Move on your life.

Yes Kasit has really impressed on this matter.And to think some people thought the Foreign Minister was an excitable little tit quite unsuited to ministerial office not least because of his near criminal irresponsibility at the time the PAD seized the country's airports.

This episode has proved them wrong and he is being hailed in the capitals of the world as a latter day Talleyrand.In this difficult situation where Thailand had to act without alienating two friendly powers, he has diplomatically explained the situation to the Russians.I understand Putin and Medevyev are very very relaxed about it all and have complete confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Thai judicial system.They quite understand Thailand's dilemma and are not going to allow this to interrupt friendly relations.

All this is due to Kasit's careful explanations which as always have been well received.So let's hear it for the FM,chaiyo chaiyo.

And Thaksin, during his 5 year reign of terror, took Thailand nearly into that vision - thuggish (War on Drugs and Southern War on Terror), Buddhist (what's that got to do with it?), army (Chaisit's clique only, mind you) and police dominated totalitarian state (sustained by one megalomaniac's dream), where the people knew their place (in TRT or forget any budget coming your way) and those who objected were cut down violently (from Tak Bai to Mae Sai). Congratulations JayBoy for spotting the similarities.

I pointed out rather clearly in my post that Thaksin certainly was representative of a certain way of very negative thinking about Burma among the ruling elite in Thailand.Your rather strained "reign of terror" spiel is I suppose a fair debating tactic but that's all it is.It doesn't really ring completely true and will not convince any sophisticated or knowledgeable member..Fortunately Thailand is not a totalitarian state (we shouldn't overlook the admirable sheer cussedness on both red and yellow sides for example), or anything like it, whether under Thaksin or Abhisit.

On the question of how the Burma issue among the Thailand feudal class all that is necessary to know is who said what and when.

Or we can all argue like silly schoolgirls and say that all that poison was wrapped up in one person, now an exile.Useful perhaps but actually deeply stupid and unhelpful when trying to understand how to deal with Thailand's problems

From an interview in the Guardian with Christopher Hitchens.Relevant to the present thread I think.

"Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, anywhere that the concept of human rights doesn't exist, it's always the Chinese at backstop. And always for reasons that you could write down in three words: blood for oil."

I have commented elsewhere on this.The comments made by Thaksin in 2004, sickening though they are, (his latest comments are just sanctimonious) are not untypical views of key elements in the Thai establishment - ruling politicians, feudalists,aristocrats, senior military and corporate.A key strand is that Aung San Suu Kyi is not really Burmese at all (i.e doesn't understand Burmese culture) and that democracy is in any case a chimera.Politicians are corrupt and only the army can provide integrity and security.Essentially for these delightful people Burma provided a vision of Thailand as they would dream of - a thuggish, Buddhist, army dominated totalitarian state (sustained by a fairytale), where the people knew their place (and those who objected were cut down violently).

What you do here (maybe unwittingly) is (trying to) diminish the magnitude of k. Thaksin's 'sickening comments' by relating them to 'not untypical views of key elements in the Thai establishment'. That may be true, but should not be used as an excuse for Thaksin's behaviour. It's like a thief who upon being apprehended says 'well, others are doing it also'.

See my earlier post about the ignore function.

jayboy

why do you waste our time with your posts. If you have some thing to say say it don't continually refer to other unknown threads. You make as much sense as you would if you were to put a kick me sign on in both English and Thai.

My post was simply to advise someone who is irritated by my posts to use the ignore function.Feel free to do the same.

I have commented elsewhere on this.The comments made by Thaksin in 2004, sickening though they are, (his latest comments are just sanctimonious) are not untypical views of key elements in the Thai establishment - ruling politicians, feudalists,aristocrats, senior military and corporate.A key strand is that Aung San Suu Kyi is not really Burmese at all (i.e doesn't understand Burmese culture) and that democracy is in any case a chimera.Politicians are corrupt and only the army can provide integrity and security.Essentially for these delightful people Burma provided a vision of Thailand as they would dream of - a thuggish, Buddhist, army dominated totalitarian state (sustained by a fairytale), where the people knew their place (and those who objected were cut down violently).

What you do here (maybe unwittingly) is (trying to) diminish the magnitude of k. Thaksin's 'sickening comments' by relating them to 'not untypical views of key elements in the Thai establishment'. That may be true, but should not be used as an excuse for Thaksin's behaviour. It's like a thief who upon being apprehended says 'well, others are doing it also'.

See my earlier post about the ignore function.

If the government really wanted to pursue him they could pursue the drug deaths and if warrants were issued Im sure many governments would take that a lot more seriously. That though isnt going to happen for poltical reasons.

Do you really think so? I agree it's the worst of Thaksin's crimes.Leaving the domestic political issues to one side and the question of who provided actual or moral support for the drugs war (and the huge elephant in that particular room), I wonder how regional governments - China, ASEAN, even Australia would react to a formal request given the circumstances of killings.I suspect it might be construed as rough justice, crudely applied but broadly speaking in a good cause.

Your style seems to condense to 'agree, but' followed by some reasoning why you do not agree at all, or why it's a minor, uninteresting point anyway.

Some regional countries, especially within ASIAN have a strict 'non-interference' policy. A 'formal request' is not done. Doesn't make Thailand worse, nor them better. Australia would react on a formal request, but not sure how.

Your sentence 'I suspect it might be construed ...' can't refer to a formal request, would not make sense. So more likely it refers to the part you say 'leaving to one side'. So let's leave that to one side. Sorry, rough justice to you I'm afraid.

To build a logical comment ain't easy for some I guess

There is so much nonsense and error here that I am experiencing what fighter pilots call "target confusion."Forgive me if I don't tabulate each point where you are wrong, because I don't sense any constructive discussion will emerge.I have noticed however you are following me around the forum and with respect to no great advantage.If I am an irritant, which I regret I suggest you use the "ignore" function.I have no idea how it works but perhaps Buchholz could advise as a little bird tells me he is well acquainted with the forum's technical matters.

If the government really wanted to pursue him they could pursue the drug deaths and if warrants were issued Im sure many governments would take that a lot more seriously. That though isnt going to happen for poltical reasons.

Do you really think so? I agree it's the worst of Thaksin's crimes.Leaving the domestic political issues to one side and the question of who provided actual or moral support for the drugs war (and the huge elephant in that particular room), I wonder how regional governments - China, ASEAN, even Australia would react to a formal request given the circumstances of killings.I suspect it might be construed as rough justice, crudely applied but broadly speaking in a good cause.

Not entirely sure what you're driving at but do keep us posted.I'm sure you will.It's a matter of great importance.

No need to keep you posted as it seems you too easily forget it was you who provoked / asked for an answer. Maybe you should go for a holiday to one of the countries which still allow k. Thaksin entrance and welcome him with open wallet arms.

Thanks for the response but it's not really you I was addressing.Glad to know you have plenty of time on your hands.Anyway....

Actually, since you seem so interested, I have been for a holiday in Europe recently (Germany and France) where Khun Thaksin seems to have easy access, although I'm not sure he's a particularly welcome visitor.