jayboy

Is she prepared for the public scrutiny of public officials? She is not married, but is a mother of a child the public never sees and is not photographed.

A personal slur from the usual source.

You don't think other people will scrutinize those facts?

Probably but many have a distaste for the scumbag tabloid newspaper mentality.

The slight puzzle to me is who these muckrakers believe is their audience, indeed why they bother.

Is she prepared for the public scrutiny of public officials? She is not married, but is a mother of a child the public never sees and is not photographed.

A personal slur from the usual source.

What I was replying to was YOUR post about military being involved in politics "That a Thai general might be aligned to Democrat and elite interests", I find it strange that you don't see the relevance of Seh Daeng (a serving Thai general) ) being openly aligned with the REDS and Thaksin's interests. It might suggest a bias on your part to not see that you mentioned Thai Army generals aligning with one set of elites while failing to regard the open alignment of a Thai army general with another set of elites

So you are saying that no conclusions can be drawn because there are generals like Seh Daeng (before he was killed) aligned with the reds as well as those aligned with the ruling elite?

You really do need to start studying the background of the army in Thai politics.To attempt to equate one rogue general with the whole apparatus of the Thai army involved with repression over many years is just laughable.

Good to know that.For a moment I thought there was a suggestion that a Thai General might be politically aligned to Democrat and elite interests.Silly of me to have even considered it.

I'm sure you're not the only one thinking that. Every other red shirt supporter will have the same opinion.

Not even the the most brazen reactionary bothers to pretend the top brass is neutral in Thai politics.

That's not even an interesting observation.The interesting observation is whether when push comes to shove which way will the intelligent officers jump, particularly when (how to express it delicately ) the environment has changed.

Here's a clue.There are some very intelligent Egyptian generals.

A Thai Army general officer openly aligned with a particular group (other than the Army itself?), hasn't happened since May 13th 2010 when Sae Daeng was killed. At least that goes for active duty generals, all groups seem to have retired generals in their ranks many of whom still have people that show loyalty to them that are active duty!

elections offered before they started tossing petrol bombs last April!)

I'm not sure why the murder date of Sae Daeng is relevant.He was aligned with the redshirts.Is that your point?

The AFP article refers to Prayuth's Democrat links which is why the matter is being discussed.

If your key point that Thai generals are not political, thank you for providing the forum with a giggle.

Let's hope the comment that the General is a key ally of the Democrat party is not as straightforward as it sounds.His political views are a matter for himself but his confidence he will still be army chief if the Democrats'political opponents legally obtain power might be open to question.

In most countries he would be quickly sacked for aligning himself so openly, if indeed that is what he has done.

The reporter said he "is considered a key ally of the Democrat party", mostly by the red shirts.

That wasn't something that Prayut said ... at least not "so openly".

Good to know that.For a moment I thought there was a suggestion that a Thai General might be politically aligned to Democrat and elite interests.Silly of me to have even considered it.

Thai army chief vows to stay out of election

Thailand's powerful army chief on Tuesday vowed not to meddle in the kingdom's elections and stressed his neutrality following coup rumours and increased street protests this year.[/b]

General Prayut Chan-O-Cha, who is considered a key ally of the ruling Democrat party, said the army would help "steer our country back to democracy" and would abide by the results of a poll due in June or July.

"It is up to the people to decide which party will form a government. Whichever it is I am still the army chief," he told reporters.

The mili

Let's hope the comment that the General is a key ally of the Democrat party is not as straightforward as it sounds.His political views are a matter for himself but his confidence he will still be army chief if the Democrats'political opponents legally obtain power might be open to question.

In most countries he would be quickly sacked for aligning himself so openly, if indeed that is what he has done.

Alluding to alleged allusion?

The OP title should more aptly read

Stage set for devisive election

As long as party list system and non-runoff elections are used,

the playing field will always be jiggered to let ;

• The larger parties install their cronies and operatives with no reference to the public will,

• The little parties retain corrupting control over the larger viable parties,

causing rotating cabinets, so all players get a piece of the pie,

• Make controlling graft infinitely harder because political survival calculation must come into busting graft.

I think you haven't grasped my point.This seems to be a response to another set of problems.

Before the last election a military poll predicted almost the exact outcome that actually occurred. Other polls were way off. No doubt the army are looking at their own polls very carefully right now.

Both sides will also pile in the complaints and fraud cases to every body that can receive them in the hope of dissolutions, yellow and red cards. Lets hope the EC arent also threatened with death again. This will be a totally filthy election filled with lies, money, inuendo, threats and no doubt death as nobody can afford to lose and yet nobody is positioned to win ie no party will in all likelihood get an overall majority

I have to agree this will be a nasty one.

That this election will accurately reflect the freely offered views of the Thai electorate as to the direction for the country, remains a remote but unlikely possibility. It will reflect Thai political classes as they really are. And that is a sad prospect.

In case you're alluding to my comments, nobody seriously would argue that the election "will accurately reflect the freely offered views of the electorate".The point is that it will provide a reasonable guide that's better than the other alternatives.Yes the political classes will dominate but to one extent or the other that's true in every country.

The concern is that the less successful parties will complain the process wasn't fair and I think that must be squarely resisted.So if the PTP lose out as I expect them to they don't have this excuse.Their task therafter will be to be a loyal opposition to the presumably Abhisit headed government.

Increasingly I'm getting the feeling that some of those (a minority I agree) who bang on about "corrupt politicians" are in fact talking in code.They actually don't want democracy at all or a very constrained version of it in which the wishes of the elite or "the powers that be" are always paramount.Democracy is a rough and tumble business and always has had its share of charletans.

Before the last election a military poll predicted almost the exact outcome that actually occurred. Other polls were way off. No doubt the army are looking at their own polls very carefully right now.

Both sides will also pile in the complaints and fraud cases to every body that can receive them in the hope of dissolutions, yellow and red cards. Lets hope the EC arent also threatened with death again. This will be a totally filthy election filled with lies, money, inuendo, threats and no doubt death as nobody can afford to lose and yet nobody is positioned to win ie no party will in all likelihood get an overall majority

All true enough though whether it is any filthier than others remains to be seen.However in the distaste for the process of elections let's be quite clear that for all the associated nonsense surrounding them Thai elections in recent years have provided a reasonable , actually better then reasonable, assessment of the Thai peoples views.I say this in advance in a scenario where the PTP seems to have weakened and the Democrats correspondingly strengthened.Therefore although there is need for vigilance I won't buy it if the Thaksinites complain afterwards the process was not fair.Elections always provide the ruling party with some advantages and yes there has been some clever steps taken by the government.So what? That's politics.

Correspondingly if the PTP against the odds does better than expected the Democrats should accept it (as should the military)

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

Actually what you say doesn't make much sense.There's no real evidence that Thaksin would have sought to diminish the military's position.He would rather have sought to increase his control over it, and there's lots of evidence to support that including the promotion of his allies and relatives.The challenge in Thailand is to clip the wings of the military so that it cannot be exploited politically by powerful interests, whether Thaksin or the current oligarchy.This is separate of course from the need to cut away at the military's greed, corruption, lack of accountability and cruelty.The appalling generals who run the military claim they are motivated by love of country.This is patently a lie.They are motivated by business interests, greed and support for reaction.

Some of their disgusting behaviour would be bearable if they were at least competent, but this is hardly ever the case whether in the South or elsewhere.

The military is out of control in Thailand.

Actually the military is very well controlled in Thailand, it's just that it is not controlled by corrupt politicians. Perhaps the day when politicians actually start acting responsibly and on behalf of their fellow countrymen who voted them in, and not just for themselves, their mates and their family, the military might take a step back and allow democracy to freely function without interference.

Until then, their interference will be by many well informed people, not only accepted, but applauded, as the military is all that stands in Thailand between politicians and the totalitarian state so many of them hunger.

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Tombkk is right. If you are determined to put in a moderate amount of hard work and time, it can be easily done without a lawyer if you are familiar with written and spoken thai.

But what Tombkk actually said was:

"The lawyer can't take any time off your schedule, as all they can do is tell you which documents are needed, and it is you who has to provide them."

You are saying the opposite, that a lawyer can save you hard work and time.

Anyway we are all I think saying that it is perfectly possible to do it oneself.

Blaming the military is like blaming the judiciary. They are simply an unelected part of Thai government that must be viewed in context. You may agree with their agenda or disagree, but they aren't going anywhere, and they aren't trying to be all powerful. Stay out of their sandbox, and they stay out of yours.

The military influence is tolerable. There are checks and balances against them.

Many many well informed people would completely disagree with you.The military is out of control in Thailand.They don't take orders from anyone (not a criticism one could levy against the judiciary)

What are these checks and balances you speak of anyway?

Talking about PAD as a pre-cursor to the actions by the Red shirts is just silly.

I'm not sure "pre-cursor" is the right word.However it's not silly at all to see PAD as being the first grouping to openly defy the elected government, seizing and occupying public property and defying the law openly and brazenly.To that extent it blazed the trail which others followed.

Interesting to think some here actually make it seem like

corruption in army procurement would

go down if PTP came to power...HA!

It only means different politicians will try to take a cut, if they can.

If not the generals will go on as before.

No matter what party or clique is in power keeping the army calm is part of their brief and game plan.

It's not like there is a choice in the matter.

You're dreaming on this one.Nobody has suggested that army corruption would end whichever parties held power.

The army needs to be cut down to size - no more corruption, no more media or other external business interests, no more refuge in lies and fantasy about its main mission (point being to fob off any criticism of its widespread abuses), no more absurdly high number of generals, more accountability, no more cover up of its criminality, no more delays and stalling on investigations into its involvement in civilian deaths.Most importantly civilian oversight by the government of the day (okay I had to swallow hard at that last one but that's the long term aim, involving cleaning up politics as well I agree).

Where I agree with you is that none of this is going to happen any time soon.Can be done though - look at Indonesia.

There's a fatuous idea prevailing among some that the army in Thailand is somehow in less need of radical reform than the police.That's not the case.

The point, that you so often fail to understand, is that a blimp *does* have operational usage and isn't a silly idea just based on the idea of it being a blimp. Nor is it an airship that is 'easily shoot down by any AK wielding person' that some would like to assert.

What determines the success of the blimp in the south will be how it is used, not the fact that it is a blimp.

And no, the thread isn't about the military's 'known corruption' per se, the OP clearly mentions several paragraphs of criticism as to 'why' the airship would be a bad choice. As if the opposition knew this for a fact. Which I doubt they do.

I don't think I have ever commented before on the Thai army blimp so difficult to see how I have so often failed to understand.

The problem is not the usefulness of blimps, nor has anyone to my knowledge said the idea of the blimp is silly in itself.

In a competent and non-corrupt army with honest procurement procedures it could well make sense.

The Thai army purchased the blimp for use in the South, and its failure there is well documented.

US will use blimps.

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=194252

http://gizmodo.com/#!5366082/250+foot-long-hybrid-airship-will-spy-over-afghanistan-battlefields-in-2011

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rise-of-the-Blimps-The-US-Armys-LEMV-06438/

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af2996a4f-f738-4cb2-8157-afba2eb5ca28

What's your point with these irrelevant links?

We are talking about the Thai army with its known corruption in procurement.

Equally to the point the purchase of this airship was an example of extreme stupidity.It cannot do its job in the South.

Of course the army will never apologise = remember the GT 200,

As for Seh Daeng himself history is being rewritten -

http://asiancorrespondent.com/50501/the-assassination-of-seh-daeng-did-not-take-place/

You also have absolutely no knowledge of any of the Ambassador's motivations for any of the purported wikileak cables.

Do you have any inkling of how crazy this makes you sound?

An ambassador, particularly of a first tier country like the USA, reports the truth as he sees it.

thaksin did more for thailand than anyone past or present.

Thaksin did some good stuff, and he did some not so good stuff - and he also did some awful stuff - actually the awful stuff is ongoing... but as far as him doing more for Thailand than anyone else, past or present, i can only think that to make such a statement, you must be completely unaware that Thailand has a King, a King who has been on the throne over sixty years, a King who has done more for Thailand than all of the politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected.

Sadly this claim cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And I was taught not to believe anything unless I could first scrutinize the claim carefully, with freedom and access to the full facts.

If you were to reserve passing judgment as to good or bad, or refuse to be drawn on forming opinion, until privy to all the facts on a given topic, you would simply forever be in a state of "undecided", because all the facts are rarely ever available, no matter what the subject matter might be, and even if they were, how would you possibly know?

One would look carefully at the evidence available, (ignore any hysteria, propaganda and fairy tales) and draw what seemed to be rational conclusions.

The wikileaks issue is all based upon hearsay and without any specificity with an extra helping of conjecture and innuendo.

And then there's the who leaked it to wikileaks aspect?

Hardly the basis for any sort of conspiracy to be seriously based upon.

No the Wikileaks information on Thailand is far from being conjecture and innuendo.That's your province.

The whole point about Wikileaks is that the reporters involved (in this instance the US Ambassador) was making his comments to the State Department, and had no reason to lie or dissemble.

In other words unless there is powerful evidence to the contrary, and there has been none yet, one must assume that the Wikileaks reports on Thailand are true and accurate.

The article Dream of treasure turns to nightmare for Thaksin also mentions what Thaksin thought was another assassination plot:

The Nation said that Thaksin’s judgment looked increasingly suspect. It said falling victim to the cave hoax was his latest blunder, following the embarrassing saga of a blast that destroyed a plane he was about to board last month.

Thaksin, who initially said a bomb had destroyed the plane and even claimed he knew who planted it, was later forced to concede that the blast was the result of a malfunction.

That article was written 10 years ago. If his judgment was that bad then, I wonder how bad it would be now. How the hell did this fool get a masters and doctorate in Criminal Justice?

Thanks for the Andrew Marshall article.It is certainly a reminder of Thaksin's poor judgement (let's be blunt:it was pure craziness).I always felt there was something particularly Thai in the way perfectly sane people became gullible about the Japanese gold fiasco.Is there perhaps something of the gullible and uneducated peasant in many so called educated middle class Thais?

Of course this has nothing to do with Thaksin's election victories.

I am not really a Red Shirt supporter but I do believe that if Thailand is a democracy then there should an election and people must abide by the vote of the people. If the Pheu Thai party is victor and they bring Thaksin back here then so be it. That is what democracy is all about. The majority decides.

I really don't like the yellow shirts who are a group of wealthy thugs.

I would share your view - except for the fact that the last 2 elections won by Thaksin were won by bullying, threatening, vote rigging and bribery

Do you have any evidence for this, specifically that "irregular" practices made a difference to the result?

It would be interesting to see why you come to this conclusion because all the independent evidence does not support it.

Perhaps you would like to refer us (links where possible please) to the international electoral representatives, Thai and foreign academics or experienced social commentators that support your conclusion

Sorry mispost