jayboy

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

Again the mandate is accepted as legal, but "moral" issues have to be considered; which of course are subjective. To you, the coup was criminally wrong; to me removing an aspiring dictator who refused to call elections after his mandate had expired, and was actively loading the police and army with his family and cronies, was a distasteful but necessary step, in line with removing cancerous tissue. After the coup there was an election, after which was a cleansing of those caught in political and electoral fraud, after which the current govt was formed by a majority of elected MPs, who each received a majority of votes in their electorate. How is that against the wishes of the Thai people?

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that is the way it is.

Foreign reactionaries? Which communist manifesto did you drag that from? Please point out the egregious errors.

Dream on Pollyanna.

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

Ban Ki-moon is Korean according to wiki.org. I am sure the South Koreans would not have tolerated a protest like the Red Shirts (or the Yellow shirts for that matter) and would have stamped down on the terrorist acts that occurred. It goes beyond belief that what happened was allowed to happen; no civilised society would have tolerated unrest like this.

You show a remarkable ignorance of South Korean history where popular movements and street demonstrations have played an important part in securing a vibrant democratic culture.A more relevant question is whether a country like South Korea would tolerate a greedy and corrupt ruling elite of the military, feudalists and monopolistic capitalists criminally obstructing the views of the majority through illegal coups, directed courts and hysterical uber nationalism.

As to Ban Ki-Moon's visit he merely pointed out that the current political difficulties were an internal Thai matter - which of course they are.

You should do a bit more research. After all New Mandala has featured Giles U .... an "academic" that even his university wouldn't tolerate and who is wanted on LM charges here in Thailand (and who appeared on stage with the Reds). Nick N. is so far left that he appear to be right-wing. NM is basically a blog and Nick N's drama-queen stuff from May did in fact make me laugh. I think he may have been the ONLY person on the scene that didn't hear gunfights ..

Most people wouldn't associate Giles and Nick.I know what Giles's politics are but I have no idea about Nick's.What on earth makes you think he is far left?

By the way New Mandala isn't a blog.It is produced with some intelligence and real in depth knowledge with many contributors.

Of course there will always be a place for hysterical low brow reactionaries on Thai Visa.

Am I a "low brow reactionary" if I can recognise what a "blog" is?

You're right NM is a blog.I normally think of a blog as a single source but on reflection that's not really a prerequisite.

As for low brow reactionaries all that's necessary is to read posts and come to a conclusion on an appropriate label.

You should do a bit more research. After all New Mandala has featured Giles U .... an "academic" that even his university wouldn't tolerate and who is wanted on LM charges here in Thailand (and who appeared on stage with the Reds). Nick N. is so far left that he appear to be right-wing. NM is basically a blog and Nick N's drama-queen stuff from May did in fact make me laugh. I think he may have been the ONLY person on the scene that didn't hear gunfights ..

Most people wouldn't associate Giles and Nick.I know what Giles's politics are but I have no idea about Nick's.What on earth makes you think he is far left?

By the way New Mandala isn't a blog.It is produced with some intelligence and real in depth knowledge with many contributors.

Of course there will always be a place for hysterical low brow reactionaries on Thai Visa.

This show the extend of the intelligent of the Red Shirt and their puppet leader.

Classic.Reminds me of those morons holding up the banner about the Reds not being "educate"

Army boys are not murderers.

History proves you wrong.

They dont sdeem to understand what the UN is or what its role is, or maybe they do and it is just to gain PR. The UN has condoned and provided cover for a huge amount of deaths and has regimes that make Thailand look a dream state as its members.

It is a pity that those who claim to be non-pertisan defenders of human rights have never done anything about the several thousand killed in Thailand's largest human rights infringement in decades. That in itself undermines any claim they have as human rights activisits which is very sad. It seems there is a huge double standard here mixed up with hypocricy.

The 91 deaths need to be talked about and investigated but so do the thousands they ignore

Agreed.The common denominator of course is an unaccountable military, prone to wrap itself in the flag when its crimes are invoked.

In the broader context I think Thailand will always get a passing grade from the UN,Europe,USA etc essentially because more is right than wrong ...and there are far worse regimes out there.It's to nobody's benefit to besmirch the Thais.None of this means that the brutalities,greed and selfishness of the elite won't for internal reasons be punished.

The common denominator is an 'elite group' based society which in part is still stuck in a patronage system which doesn't work well with democratic ideas. Thailand has some 'families' which have ruled by connections for decennia and maybe centuries. The new elite just copies the old one. The growing middle class wants to break out of this framework without disturbing the economy, the poor have nothing to loose.

Just make sure that all groups working towards a better future don't get ensnared in the webs of the elite. The old adage 'the enemies of my enemies are my friends' sounds nice, but in history has mostly ensured more bitter fighting and misery.

I was referring specifically about the repression aspect.But yours is an excellent and succinct post with which I fully agree.Oddly enough in today's Bangkok Post's business section Korn makes some surprisingly penetrating comments on the few "elite" business families.Why, he asks in summary, should Thailand have to kowtow to these people?

They dont sdeem to understand what the UN is or what its role is, or maybe they do and it is just to gain PR. The UN has condoned and provided cover for a huge amount of deaths and has regimes that make Thailand look a dream state as its members.

It is a pity that those who claim to be non-pertisan defenders of human rights have never done anything about the several thousand killed in Thailand's largest human rights infringement in decades. That in itself undermines any claim they have as human rights activisits which is very sad. It seems there is a huge double standard here mixed up with hypocricy.

The 91 deaths need to be talked about and investigated but so do the thousands they ignore

Agreed.The common denominator of course is an unaccountable military, prone to wrap itself in the flag when its crimes are invoked.

In the broader context I think Thailand will always get a passing grade from the UN,Europe,USA etc essentially because more is right than wrong ...and there are far worse regimes out there.It's to nobody's benefit to besmirch the Thais.None of this means that the brutalities,greed and selfishness of the elite won't for internal reasons be punished.

Some Thai friends of mine, in the age bracket of 18-24, seemed to be quite surprised to learn that New Zealand, Australian and British bars aren't also packed with bargirls, and that there aren't 'ladyboys' casually strolling the streets and going about their lives as they do in Thailand.

Many Thais think that life in Thailand is the norm, and not all that far removed from the way the rest of the world works.

Your comment says more about you and people like you, than you probably realise.

Most of Thailand is surprisingly normal, completely detached from the world of bargirls and ladyboys that so preoccupies the barfly/visa running foreigner.

I know several highly educated foreigners (Oxford,Cambridge,Ivy League graduates), formerly extremely sceptical of the Red movement and its antecedents, who slightly against their expectations became more sympathetic following the crude and disgusting outpourings on Facebook and elsewhere by many blinkered Bangkok Sino-Thai residents, in some cases ludicrously lamenting the loss of shopping facilities more than their murdered fellow citizens (whom they had lambasted as water buffalo and monitor lizards before the blood was scarcely dry).

This topic is insane. We were taught French as a second language in England, but don't believe we were ever 'colonised' by the French?

Ahem, someone seems to have overlooked the Battle of Hastings in 10666 and the subsequent hook,line and sinker colonisation by the Normans

locals want their peace not disturbed by agitation and political missioners

Red cheerleaders will say anything, anything to support their side. Some learn well from their master Thaksin.

Are you a little yellow brain?

This issue have nothing to do with RED vs. YELLOW. These villager live there in peace with their Cambodian neighbors, they don't need some lunatic nationalists from outside creating trouble.

going to a temple is "creating trouble"?

In the case of these quasi fascist and hyper nationalist PAD thugs, yes it is

No, his understanding of Thailand is extensively pitiful. It is no coincidence that his name came up time and time again as the least accurate foreign correspondent during the April-May crisis, and I imagine it is no coincidence that he was "transferred" to London shortly after being called in to Abhisit's office with a US Senator the day after his armed-MiB footage was "leaked" to the public!

It wasn't perfect( is it ever?) but it was not as poor as you make out.Anyway only the naive rely on one news source.Most of the rage against CNN, eg that crazy Thai gal's barely literate but much praised letter, was because it dared touch on some painful home truths.

Rightly or wrongly, I have no respect whatever for dan rivers, (dan the man - who appeared from nowhere and, in front of a Thai military tank, 5 minites after the bloodless coup of September 2006, said on CNN International (the mother of all instant and not verified TV channels) 'the king has authorized a coup', so why would anybody listen to /believe what this man / or what any CNN outlet says?

well, who cares?

Far fewer do now that he is back where he belongs and where he is more comfortable which helps him immensely to have a clue about what he is talking about.

Dan Rivers, an Australian, was based in Bangkok for many years and has only recently been working out of London.It therefore seems likely that his understanding of Thailand is more extensive unless one is of the view that this country is so complex, i.e so socially,historically, culturally as well as linguistically separate that only Thais can truly comprehend it (as well as the few semi educated saloon bar experts on this forum).It's a common position usually invoked by amart apologists for authoritarianism and repression.However it doesn't actually make any sense as would be attested by the many foreign Thai experts from Cornell University over many years - who collectively know and understand Thailand better than most Thais.

And that moment, somewhat embarrassingly for me, was in April of this year watching that filthy Dan Rivers lie to the world on CNN. Over and over. [/font]

Classic demonstration of how in a few posts the inner self is revealed, in this instance (in the way he describes a reporter with whom he didn't agree) clearly demented.What this fellow needs is not more relevant reading as I earlier prescribed but some kind of treatment.

Incidentally for the sane members of our community I noted Dan Rivers report earlier this evening from CNN London on the spending cuts, sane, relevant and interesting.

TheyCallmeScooter, if this is your first bit of communication with jayboy you'll soon realise he is quick to draw parallels to the bar scene with any argument which contrasts with his own. I presume the intent is to try and intimidate people by giving the perception of dealing with an intellectual superpower

I had the pleasure of interacting with him some time ago. I wish I could be bothered looking up his quote, but it was something along the lines of "not reading Amsterdam's White Paper is intellectual deprivation of the highest order" or some dribble like that.

I spent half an hour destroying a page of it.

He never responded.

He's a strange cat, that's for sure. I think he spends most of his time searching his e-thesaurus for phrases he believes gives him distinguished airs...or something. Of course he sounds like a <deleted> but I haven't the heart to tell him.

I also sound like a <deleted> but I can fire out this incessant nonsense at an extremely high rate of knots. I'm just saying...

I got ADD and not afraid to use it.

You would be surprised how little time I devote to this forum these days and certainly arguing with people who don't understand (or are insufficiently well educated to see the value of) give and take.In an anonymous internet forum anyone can pretend to be anyone they like.However over time the knowledge, intellectual calibre,education and even social background are brutally revealed.In your case , though I don't recall the Robert Amsterdam exchange, there is clearly an unwillingness to try and see the opposing point of view.Whether I "sound like a <deleted>" - to use your bar room vocabulary - is frankly neither here nor there.

I think, in a hypothetical world where I was retarded and supported idiocy, literally the hardest thing about being a Red Shirt supporter...would have to be the crawling shame, overwhelming embarrassment and endless cringing at the stupidity of my idiot Comrades.

"you have not read the basic literature" - no, I finished school quite some time ago. But make sure you do your recommended reading, you won't want to be short on workshop Flash Talk Points for your tutorial. ??

"difficult to know where to begin" - I've seen your efforts before. I suggest (and this is really supported by History) that you don't. Begin.

I didn't realise I was so one-dimensional. Then again, I didn't realise I was back in grade school either. Arguing with idiots who misattributed polarised positions like the challenged special kids they were. That's a rare kind of debate fail you don't see every day. Takes me back.

Oh no, you started? In the face of all the odds - and against your 'better' judgement as well? (your better judgement, the sinking feeling telling you to go post on New Mandala where you'll be cultivated for your unique and beautiful mind, giggle)

It's not fairy tales you're reading, princess! His Majesty the King is the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. I'm not sure why you'd get him mixed up with Peter Pan, but I'd be lying if I claimed I planned on spending much time on the 'mystery'.

Are you Thai? I ask because you seem like you're pretending to be. But then that would make your quoting your coursework reading list...weird, in an even more peculiar way (if such a thing is possible). If you are Thai, I assure you my Thai precludes our debating anything. And your English, whilst a great deal better than my Thai, unfortunately limits us in an converse yet identical manner.

If you're not Thai, probably best if you don't pretend you can speak for them. That would be...stupid, in ways distinguishable even from...you.

When you have some serious points to make I might return to the debate.In the mean time I suggest you start some relevant reading.

Care to provide some reference points justifying your position? I believe I have read most of the available material but perhaps you have some original sources.

Not so original, but then again, what is the requirement for original source/s?

We got a smoking gun right there yall.

(edit: Of course if willing to fight for 2000, willing to vote for less = is the argument I was making there. That, and I thought we were talking about something else.

As far as vote-buying goes, $28,000/village to vote for Mr T seemed like a solid way to spend taxpayer revenue.)

This and your subsequent comments suggest, along with your bar room style of discussion, that not only are you grossly ignorant of the facts but that you have not even read the basic literature (try Baker/Pasuk to begin with) on the subject.So it's difficult to know where to begin faced with such a one dimensional position - Thakin evil, army good, Thai voters corrupt etc etc.It's the Enid Blyton view of Thailand.

Taking just one point, the Thai generals constant emphasis on their loyalty to a higher power (as opposed to accountable civilian direction) is simply a cover for its notorious greed and corruption.It's amusing that poorly informed farang take these fairy tales seriously.Most Thais know the score very well, and that the loyalist rhetoric of the army just masks criminality and greed.

the fact is Thais who leave school at the age of 12 or 13 and dont work are many and their vote can be bought for a few beers - their support can be bought at Rachaprasong for 500 baht a daty and Thaksin knows it - FACTNOT GENERALISATION - whether it offends you or not

No it's a generalisation not a fact, and if I may say so an ignorant and offensive one too.

Maybe instead of crying about it you could provide some facts about the last election - the only ignorance i can see is YOUr ignorance of the facts!! Go and do some reading up!!

Care to provide some reference points justifying your position? I believe I have read most of the available material but perhaps you have some original sources.

Looks like the 'Coordinator of Pork Donations'

Eating far too well to represent the disenfranchised poor and down trodden.

Does this puerile abuse apply to every high ranking fatty in Thailand, or just those you don't like?

the fact is Thais who leave school at the age of 12 or 13 and dont work are many and their vote can be bought for a few beers - their support can be bought at Rachaprasong for 500 baht a daty and Thaksin knows it - FACTNOT GENERALISATION - whether it offends you or not

No it's a generalisation not a fact, and if I may say so an ignorant and offensive one too.

It seems to remain for the army to actually install a properly updated constitution, that actually WILL keep the corrupt politicians in check, but it seems they are either not capable of this either, or unwilling.

Whether willing or unwilling you ignore the reality that the senior generals are as corrupt as the politicians.Ghastly though they are I still prefer elected politicians to self appointed "guardians of the nation", tainted as they are by criminality and greed.

I don't claim to have the answers, but one thing i do know is that anyone who supports the reds but thinks they can do so without being a part of the movement's over-riding and single-minded fight on behalf of Thaksin's interests, is seriously fooling themselves.

I hope I don't embarrass you with praise from my quarter, but I thought your comments were intelligent and relevant and what is more with a reasonable tone.The part of your post I have highlighted is a question where there can be serious debate.There's no absolute truth here.I believe the red movement has transcended Thaksin but one would be naive to be wholly certain about this.

If you read what I have already written the answer to your question is there, albeit somewhat obliquely for the usual reasons.

Let's just say that a major event is likely to be exploited by the elite, whether through a state of emergency, another coup....who can tell? Anything but a fair choice by the Thai people.

After the last coup many were predicting that the military would find excuses to cling on to power way beyond the elections that they timetabled - that there would be convenient reasons cropping up for delays - these same people also predicted that if and when elections did finally come, should Thaksin's proxy party manage to get into power, that they would never make it into office because the "amart" would not allow it.

Elections were however delivered on schedule and Thaksin's PPP party did get into office. The fact that they didn't manage to stay in office very long doesn't change those two facts. You might say it undermines them, and you might be right, but of course that depends on which version of events you choose to believe in regards the respective downfalls of Samak and Somchai.

I don't think the military really care about the means particularly as the military junta after the coup was so incompetent, lethargic and finally detested.The end of course is the military budget which has increased hugely with all the corruption and venality that implies.In Abhisit they have found a patsy - whether willing or not isn't clear, so all things being equal it doesn't seem logical for these old crooks and their feudal hangers on to launch another coup.But of course things are never equal and events have a way of disturbing the best laid plans.In addition there is a brutish quality to their thinking which combined with a certain stupidity and lack of any sense of enlightened self interest makes their reactions very unpredictable.

Speculative blah.

What the red cheerleaders are very upset about is Abhisit's competence. They can't quite sort out what line to peddle. Is it the accusations of being Hitler or surrounded by corrupt homosexuals (this from that nasty piece of work Thaksin) or is it the petty bourgeois attacks on his educational record from the forum reds? The answer of course is that since the reds do not have a consistent ideology apart from ultimately being bag carriers for Thaksin is to use any and all accusations however contradictory. Its all the same to them.

The massive increase in the military budget since the coup is a matter of record not speculation.

If you think the driver of red disatisfaction is pique at Abisit's competence you really are living in lala land.Again you can't help swerving back to your Rainmain refrain that the reds are simply Thaksin's stooges.For more serious people read the Pasuk/Baker piece in today's Bangkok Post which comprehensively demolishes Yoshiwara's line of drivel.

And as for petty bourgeois attacks on Abhisit's educational record what on earth is this fellow talking about.I have never heard of Abhisit's distinguished education record being impugned by anyone regardless of political affiliation.Nobody thinks of Abhisit as other than highly intelligent even a good man:the puzzle is why he feels the need to be such a patsy.But one suspects, from his incoherent thought processes, Yoshiwara has never come closer to an elite educational institution than Hogwarts.The stuffier dons at Cambridge used to call this one of the signs of an untrained mind.