jayboy

If it elicits a response from you, then it must be of great importance.

Well Mr Beauregard I do declare.. you make a girl blush with your compliments.

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.

Let me explain ...

You said "Possibly.. but as far as I can see he seems to have no difficulty travelling anywhere he likes."

And in response, Buchholz said "But of course, you're right. He obviously prefers to travel to wonderfully desirable places like affluent Uganda, which allows him to travel to <picture of Thaksin in Uganda> than to such undesirably desolate places like the run-down UK, which doesn't allow him to travel to any longer <picture of Thaksin in London>."

So, although Thaksin can "travel anywhere he likes", he seems to like going to Uganda for some reason. I'm sure the Ugandan passport helps.

Okay got it now.I was being thick.I suppose I was thrown by the fact that parts of the UK are very run down.

Fugitive and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra recently issued a statement, congratulating Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi on her freedom after spending 15 of the last 21 years in detention.

The statement also said that the Burmese junta made the right decision

and he sent a completely different signal earlier....

Thaksin Accepts Reasons for Detaining Suu Kyi

The Irrawaddy - December 13, 2004

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra says he understands why the Burmese government continues to hold opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.

Speaking in his weekly radio address, Thaksin said he found the reasons given by the Rangoon government for Suu Kyi’s continued detention “reasonable enough and convincing.”

Thaksin raised the issue of Suu Ky’s detention when he met the Burmese leader Sr-Gen Than Shwe during the Buddhist conference in Rangoon last week. He said Than Shwe had told him Suu Kyi remained under house arrest “because the last three times that (she) has been released it would always lead to difficulties.”

Thaksin, speaking on Thai radio following his return from Burma, noted that “there was always political violence and turmoil following (the) two or three previous releases of Aung San Suu Kyi.”

Thaksin also said he thought it “necessary for Myanmar’s government to have political stability

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).

But of course, you're right. He obviously prefers to travel to wonderfully desirable places like affluent Uganda, which allows him to travel to...

than to such undesirably desolate places like the run-down UK, which doesn't allow him to travel to any longer...

It's easy to see that most other billionaires make that same preference, too.

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.

If he could get a passport from a first world highly respected country he would. He hasn't.

And further, the list of first world countries where he is banned has some length. And he's not banned in these countries because of a request from Abhisit, Kaset, or the Thai Foreign Affairs ministry. All of these countries gather their own information using their own resources and then make a decision whether to ban a person.

Thaksin must think, Thank goodness there's always places like Uganda, Nicaragua, Fiji, etc. for people like me.

Possibly.. but as far as I can see he seems to have no difficulty travelling anywhere he likes.

Could it be that , notwithstanding diplomatically polite replies to Kasit, most governments know the score very well.They know Thaksin is a shady character:they also know that he is being pursued primarily on political grounds.

Anyway keep up monitoring the issue for us will you to the extent it's possible from Sri Racha

Fantastic news.I think this is a moment to pay tribute to the Thai leaders (from Thaksin to Abhisit) who have laboured so hard to secure her release and democratic rights for the oppressed people of Burma.Thailand politicians and the Thai army (instead of tying up business deals with the Burmese junta) should be congratulated for their persistent and unflagging efforts.It's also a moment to pay tribute to the moral courage of ASEAN who have never felt bound by the asinine policy of non interference in the internal matters of other members.How we remember with pride the interventions by Thailand when the Burmese generals stole the election and continued through murder and repression to cow the Burmese population.

If only...

nothing to do with thailand weirdo, have you just been born or something?

Busy, I think you missed the irony in jayboys post.

Beyond the irony, and the terribly depressing record of Thailand political leaders on the Burma question there is a particular blot of shame which cannot even be discussed (though it will be in a few years).

Anyway personally I find China's position on Burma not very admirable but entirely understandable for economic and strategic reasons.As de Gaulle once said the state is a cold monster and China acts rationally in its own interests.What it wants in Burma is political stability, access to resources and Indian Ocean ports.There's no personal animosity toward Suu Kyi and I expect China would work with her if suitable conditions were in place.

In Thailand it's a little different.Clearly there is a huge commercial relationship but beyond that among some of the elite there's a visceral distaste for any civilian politician that commands mass support.(I'm not trying to invoke some kind of Thaksin parallel.He like many of the elite had no time for Suu Kyi and was sickeningly chummy with SLORC).

Fantastic news.I think this is a moment to pay tribute to the Thai leaders (from Thaksin to Abhisit) who have laboured so hard to secure her release and democratic rights for the oppressed people of Burma.Thailand politicians and the Thai army (instead of tying up business deals with the Burmese junta) should be congratulated for their persistent and unflagging efforts.It's also a moment to pay tribute to the moral courage of ASEAN who have never felt bound by the asinine policy of non interference in the internal matters of other members.How we remember with pride the interventions by Thailand when the Burmese generals stole the election and continued through murder and repression to cow the Burmese population.

If only...

Your dead on with your skit Jayboy, but just watch and see how the leaders of the biggest contributing countries to Burmese misery and slavery put on their false smiles and spout little sentences like "We really were trying behind the scenes, we are so pleased the lady is free", Oh yes they will squirm and lie to try to attach their selves with self righteousness, the repugnent humans they have been over this. Thailand, India and China, you helped enslave a people and raped a country, you three were/are the worst offenders but you will sleep tonight as usual dreaming of your fat bank accounts while a people still suffer and it will be the same tomorrow. You attitude has been disgusting

To me India is the most disappointing. particularly with a PM of the highest moral; and intellectual calibre.China and Thailand are no surprise.

Fantastic news.I think this is a moment to pay tribute to the Thai leaders (from Thaksin to Abhisit) who have laboured so hard to secure her release and democratic rights for the oppressed people of Burma.Thailand politicians and the Thai army (instead of tying up business deals with the Burmese junta) should be congratulated for their persistent and unflagging efforts.It's also a moment to pay tribute to the moral courage of ASEAN who have never felt bound by the asinine policy of non interference in the internal matters of other members.How we remember with pride the interventions by Thailand when the Burmese generals stole the election and continued through murder and repression to cow the Burmese population.

If only...

I don't see JDN specifically working to get others banned,

but he does make arguments that seem to piss off some weaker egos and

that seems to make them lash out and get themselves banned.

No one can make another get banned.

They must type the indiscretion all on their own.

[/quote

You cannot be serious.

He has a very poor record particularly on goading members on matters like LM and the judiciary (where for obvious reasons not least forum rules all must be careful), and has been warned to desist.

To be fair I haven't noticed this kind of activity in the last few months.So perhaps he has reformed, though the mods will be more up to date on this.

Well in the USA presidents cabinet, NO cabinet members are Senators or Congressmen. The sole elected exception is the Vice President who sits in on cabinet meetings, gets a say and votes. But this is precisely so that the VP. is up to speed on all issues, just in case he must take over. He is also President of the Senate a rarely voting tie breaker 101st seat.

The pres. is entitled to hire whom he wishes for his cabinet, subject to senate confirmation for most posts above Deputy Assistant Cabinet Secretary. So this doesn't seem odd to me at all.

But Thailand doesn't have a presidential system but a parliamentary one.

I bet he went to private school.

A very minor and obscure place called Bromsgrove.

I am told the new ambassador has already arrived and is called Asif Ahmad, nothing to be announced until credentials are presented.A friend in the British Embassy tells me he is excellent with solid private sector experience.

Nothing to be announced... hm.., well Asif Ahmad is currently identified as Chargé d'Affaires on the embassy website. So not exactly a secret then.

Regards

My understanding not a secret at all but official announcement needs formal clearance on the Thai side, just a formality but needed none the less.

More interestingly I understand little Quinton has left the FCO and will now be working for Khun Charoen, the slightly dodgy distillery squillionaire.Not a move that say Sir Anthony Rumbold, one of Quayle's distinguished and more patrician predecessors, would have contemplated.But still it's the sort of highly dubious and morally suspect transition what the wonderful New Britain finds acceptable, innit.

please Thaïland don't mimick EU's ludicrous ways .

Let the army do their job and don't indulge in pussyfooting .

Exactly.The army (and the elite interests that use it for cover) decide every matter of importance in Thailand.Why should this be an exception?

these 1976 Red Gaurs where nothing else but a movement with the strongest loyalty to the King.

Sometimes one just doesn't know where to begin, except to say perhaps "against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain"

I bet he went to private school.

A very minor and obscure place called Bromsgrove.

I am told the new ambassador has already arrived and is called Asif Ahmad, nothing to be announced until credentials are presented.A friend in the British Embassy tells me he is excellent with solid private sector experience.

Interesting aside but several ex-red gaur we know from the North are now red gaurds and it isnt because of any polticial awakening.

That's really intersting and is just another example of teaching one (me in this instance)not to underestimate the complexity and ironies which abound.

The PAD are nothing these days, they were even criticized by Kasit recently over their border stance.

They served a vital role in the overthrow of Thaksin, but after that they lost many with their increasingly out of touch views.

The New Politics party is a joke as seen in the recent council elections.

The PAD was always just an organization that while having some initial worthwhile even noble aims ultimately had its main significance in the elite interests that supported it and financed it.While it had some useful attack dog purpose (particularly the thuggish element in the yellow shirts) it flourished.When that need was less evident it was marginalised, sometimes in the case of its leadership (Sondhi) rather brutally.As you say the movement is quiescent now but I think it could be resuscitated again if the elite feels frightened or threatened by the inevitable - hopefully peaceful - shift in power balance.In other words a middle class movement with decent was aims subverted first by its disgusting quasi - fascist leadership and then by amart interests.I think the latter, given the appropriation of the proles by Thaksin, hoped the armed wing of the yellow shirts could mutate into some latter day version of the 1976 Red Gaurs.It didn't work out but its important to understand the amart will resort to violence without hesitation if their interests demand it, firstly through the army of course but simultaneously through civilian thugs.

Jayboy, shouldn't you be over in the Visa section claiming that foreign lawyers are here practicing law in Thai courts?

Are members only allowed one area of interest?

And as a postscript I never said foreign lawyers can practise in Thai courts.They can't.

I was very careful to make sure there was NO personal attack in what I wrote Jayboy and I called you on your style again and asked direct questions about what YOU state is fact but apparently is only your opinion. You failed to answer.

You have implied I was a visa runner, a drunk, a teacher, etc etc etc in various threads in an attempt to discredit my posts while never addressing the FACTS in my posts I have refrained from returning the favor, as I assume your behaviour will be duly noted in time

Honestly you should try and transcend all your personal issues.If you focus on the matter at hand I'll be happy to discuss.

I see yet more of jayboy's ad hominem attacks.

Jayboy --- you are making unsubstantiated claims about the constitution court and how most Thais feel about the court at the present time. Please feel free to prove your point. Do realize if you use an editorial or opinion piece that it will be taken as just that. The opinion of a person or an editorial position of a newspaper. Do also realize that if you have previously denigrated the person writing the opinion piece that and are now holding him up as someone to be believed that you will have left yourself exposed.

I do note that you never answered my questions earlier in the thread.

I also stand by my point that in this thread and others you almost never remark on the content of a post and usually attempt to discredit the poster instead. By nature that is the very example of an ad hominem attack.

Style before substance?

Distraction before veracity?

More personal attacks.Nothing predictably on the serious substance.

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

Agreed.

So have you retracted your comments about the vote being won "barely"?

Think of it this way, if you do, perhaps you might have a stronger case with your as yet unsubstantiated remarks about the vote not having been a free one.

It's a perfectly fair point you make about my description of the vote being won "barely.It was more than that and I'm happy to concede on that.

AS for my "unsubstantiated comments" there's an awful lot of material out there supporting my position.Forgive me if I don't regurgitate it now partly because it's way off topic now and partly because I can't be bothered and partly because I don't sense you are open to different views or perspectives.Could be wrong on the latter though.

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

A 16% win isnt bad in a vote actually and certainly isnt barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or agaisnt a party are interesting to debate but irrelvent in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X becuase their votes were bought which is a similar arguement;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad. As an aside it compares very well with the 40.3% turnout for the recent US elections.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isnt surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

All fair points made in an intelligent and temperate way, and I note you aren't defending this discredited constitution.Others could learn from you.

Whether hammered feels the constitution is discredited or not is a matter for him, and one he doesn't address in the above; but as to your praising that he didn't defend it... well, you said the vote for it was won barely. He disagreed. You said that the people voted for it for the wrong reasons. He said that that was neither here nor there (to paraphrase). You said the turnout was low, he said all things considered it wasn't that bad (paraphrasing again).

Seems like a defence of sorts to me.

I said the military imposed constitution was discredited (I didn't attribute this to anyone else), an opinion shared by some leading Democrats by the way.My praise for Hammered was essentially because he knows the background and has a reasonable tone.I don't share his opinions always but that's what makes a forum interesting.

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

Let's get specific here. What were these unethical pressures?

The state simply telling citizens that voting "yes" is in the best interest of the nation for moving fowards is not. It's no different from what the "no" lobby group were doing. Both sides were selling their argument (not literally one hopes). It's what happens when referendums are called.

It went far beyond that.The following article from the Singapore Institute of International Affairs is reasonably even handed

http://www.siiaonline.org/?q=programmes/insights/thailand%E2%80%99s-referendum-junta-and-government-eat-humble-pie

Not really news, because nothing is new except that they talked.

And considering the Nopadum has been trumpeting the meeting for a week it

was hardly 'met by chance in Norway'.

Thaksin's position isn't news;

he wants the whole shooting match in his hands or he keeps fighting.

Reconciliation with him still in the picture is a red herring.

Not going to happen.

We are so past the 4 year old coup that it is irrelevent to the actual reconciliation. It's not the coup but Thaksin wanting 'power' back that is the current issue at hand. Wailing on about the long past coup is just a political talking point.

Legal or not AT THAT TIME, it is legal now, since the country voted on a post coup constitution. To say that Thaksin's actions in the last 2 years have been legal is just so much smoke and mirrors. Many have not been and his illegal wrongs do not balance out the actions of the coup makers, and suddenly become legal, because they may have not acted legally.

Let's also not forget Thakin resigned as PM before the coup. and was no more than acting PM prior to that, and has returned and left again while his own crew was in power.

This is Thaksin wanting power again and nothing more,

no matter the talking points.

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

A 16% win isnt bad in a vote actually and certainly isnt barely. Assumptions of why people voted for or against something or for or agaisnt a party are interesting to debate but irrelvent in practice. I take it you wont be arguing that people voted for X becuase their votes were bought which is a similar arguement;) The 58% turnout was on the low side compared to a national election but as there has never been a constitutional vote In Thailand before and one in which elements of a political party campaigned for people not to vote at one point it is difficult to state whether it was good or bad. As an aside it compares very well with the 40.3% turnout for the recent US elections.

Maybe in the critical thing is that we have just heard that the vast majority of people have never read or know nothing about the Thai constitution or have read a fraction of it or have minimal knowledge which isnt surprising to those who have discussed such things across the social spectrum

All fair points made in an intelligent and temperate way, and I note you aren't defending this discredited constitution.Others could learn from you.

Nevertheless I think one has to acknowledge the informal (and actually somewhat unfair) pressures brought by the state to get the constitution through.

The same tired discredited points wheeled out again.Some people have no sense of shame.

To take but one example the constitution was imposed on the Thai public by the junta.It passed only barely because most people just wanted an end to the incompetent quisling government.The junta made it clear that if the constitution didn't pass it would be promulgated anyway.Even then with the full weight of the army and state apparatus pushing it, the constitution only scraped through - a massive slap in the face to the criminal regime.

I suppose the fact that the PPP couldn't even get a majority of thai people to support them in the 2007 election is a huge slap in face for them too.

It was a defeat of course, but you're comparing apples and oranges.The PTP didn't have the organs of state pressing for its victory.(to say nothing of the Democrats scummy deal with Newin)