jayboy

Yes, very much unlike his immediate successor who was a competent, young, and righteous man who is highly thought of by all.

Especially highly thought of by the families of those still missing after he roused the Army to start shooting at those death-seeking, mutinous communist students back on the 6th of October 1976.

Samak's role in 1976 was deplorable but he was on the sidelines.The atrocities were committed by mainly upcountry right wing thugs not the army.Who financed and encouraged the Red Gaurs and others to murder? Who indeed?

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.

Just a minor point here, but i happen to think that in the circumstances, Surayud did an ok job. It was only ever going to be a stop-gap measure and therefore i don't think anyone would have been able to come in for that length of time and in that situation and do much better. Do you?

As for the detested bit, that wasn't something i can really say i picked up on. Most people seemed pretty unmoved one way or the other. Where did you get that impression from?

Surayud was an incompetent, indolent old codger, though personally decent enough, and his record speaks for itself.This isn't really very controversial.If you think he did an "OK job" so be it.

On your second point you have a case and on reflection "detested" is probably too strong a description.But most people regardless of political affiliation were glad to see the back of this incompetent government.

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.

However the delay I was alluding to was more in the ballpark of 2013 or even 2014.

Hypothesize for me, if you will, exactly how the Abhisit government - or regime as you prefer - will manage to delay their term in office beyond the length of what the constitution allows.

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.

Amart? .... WOW! Somebody believes this is about Amart and Phrai? That somebody fails to see that it is a very privileged few that are leading the Red cause and that those few are certainly amongst Thailand's elite. I am amazed to see people actually using the red propaganda buzz-words so shamelessly

"amart" is a useful shorthand term.Most people, regardless of their political views, know exactly what it means.Why are you so excited by its use?

"phrai" is normally used ironically, and actually rather less than a few months ago.

In any event we shall see how the land lies whenever the next general election takes place.Oops quite forgot, it's not going to take place any time soon - mainly of course because

it's not scheduled to be held until next year.

I suppose you mean it doesn't have to be held under the rules until November/December 2011 (i.e ignoring the powerful moral case for an earlier legitimisation of the Abhisit regime).

However the delay I was alluding to was more in the ballpark of 2013 or even 2014.I think we can assume there will be endless delays and prevarication (no prizes for guessing the most likely excuse) because of the likely outcome of any popular vote (assuming, and that's a very big "if", the election is held fairly without attempts to cheat by the military, politicised courts, or feudalists).Anyway it may all take a fairly long time but the eventual outcome is assured.Let's hope there's a modicum of enlightened self interest on the part of the amart as it inevitably loses power and resources.The alternative could be appalling.

More than one poster has referred to the Reds now being a democracy movement, with Thaksin no longer being an issue. As they seem to vote for PTP, please explain the following quote from today's news:

"Chalerm to seek Thaksin's approval on campaign platforms

Pheu Thai MP Chalerm Yoobamrung on Tuesday said he would soon meet with ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra to seek his approval for five campaign platforms at the next poll.

"Should Thaksin travel to the region, I will take a trip to meet and get his blessing for the Pheu Thai policies," he said.

There is a set routine from the forum Thaksin apologists.

The first is to be careful not to mention him when propagating the red line.

The second is to say that the red movement has gone beyond Thaksin

and the third when backs are against the wall to defend Thakin and here is the joke, 'against the elites'.

Some of them really have deluded themselves that Thaksin is merely the fairy godmother and not...

the Godfather.

Let me try and get this straight.You are saying that all the red propaganda from - yawn - "Thaksin apologists" is off target, and that it's really only about Thaksin.I think you have made this point in one form or another several hundred times, so enough already.It's permissible on this forum to hold your reactionary and ignorant views but really it's unforgivable to be such a relentless bore.

The reactionary and ignorant views come consistently from the red cheerleaders who even when argued with relentlessly parrot the same old stuff.

If corrections have to be re-stated then so be it.

The core reactionary position is Thaksin's.

Nothing will be allowed to upset the regional class alliance under the firm grip of the northern landowners in Thakin's pocket.

All the wittering from the pale pink reds about class war cannot disguise this fact.

At least the rules of the game have changed now that Thaksin has lost the initiative and his armed rabble have been kicked off the streets.

You may not recognise this but the gremlin of Montenegro at least does.

Glad you have at last shown a sense of humour with this over the top parody of your last (several hundred) posts.

In any event we shall see how the land lies whenever the next general election takes place.Oops quite forgot, it's not going to take place any time soon - mainly of course because the elite are shitting in their pants terrified of the outcome.Never mind I'm sure there are (and will be, cough cough) lots of opportunities to delay in the national interest for a few years.That will give time to install the Burmese model.

I don't mean to sound awful, but I think this question resonates best with two groups, group (1) - retirees that have the finances / pensions etc from a career in the West and are looking for the quiet life, not very materialistic in their needs etc, and group (2) - Less wealthy young males, who don't have the best of things in the UK anyway, limited job prospects here or there and living here is genuinely better at that level.

For sucessfull and wealthy expats it is not all that here anymore. There are limted education choices for kids - assuming that you wish your kids to receive the same quality of (private) education that you benefited from. Home ownership and the rule of law is better in the UK. A super car here costs upwards of 10 million baht vs 1 - 2 mil in the UK. But groups 1 & 2 above aren't in to the cars anyway as group 1 has grown out of them and group 2 could never have had one anyway, so this point has no relevance for most. Neither group 1 or 2 is likley to have child dependants - again, a big factor in the OP's question in terms of releveance.

Property, we can't own a big house here (freehold) and a condo that a 30 - 40 year high flyer woudl live in in the West is expensive here, circa 25 - 30 ++ mil cash. No mortgages, so cash only. Again, groups 1 & 2 above, can in group 1 buy a good condo (with a lifetimes savings) or rent, and group 2 can rent from THB 20 to 50k and even at the lower end it beats a council flat in Peckham..

So what's missing? the wealthy younger set with a caree in th eprofessions is almost non exsitent here - unlike Hong Kong or SIngapore where wealthy younger expats flourish, and groups 1 & 2 are almost non existent.

Now you may have your answer.

Very perceptive post.I'm afraid that 99% of the time those who describe the UK as a hel_l hole or similar are second tier types - financially, socially, educationally (council house in Peckham types is a rather unkind way to describe them, but where the cap fits....).I suppose we are stuck here in Thailand with these slack jawed resentful proles - whose needs are satisfied by beer, soccer on UBC and similarly down market Thai "wives".How do we get rid of these parasites? I'm hoping for a further deterioration in the Sterling/baht exchange rate so they are forced to move off somewhere else.Think of it - Pattaya for example free of these tattoo ugly drunks.Bliss!

Based on retirement is indeed almost impossible. In case married to a Thai one could try it on that ground.

The limit is 100 persons a year per nationality.

Cost is 195,000 baht or 97,500 if based on marriage to a Thai. If I'm not mistaken you pay when approved, applying costs only about 7,500 baht.

Even if married to a Thai, a PR application based on retirement won't work.The rules are very clear and frankly it's misleading to suggest otherwise.

(...)

Read my post again.

Read it again. I'm afraid it's still not the case that even applying under the Thai marriage category a retiree would be even theoretically eligible.

Based on retirement is indeed almost impossible. In case married to a Thai one could try it on that ground.

The limit is 100 persons a year per nationality.

Cost is 195,000 baht or 97,500 if based on marriage to a Thai. If I'm not mistaken you pay when approved, applying costs only about 7,500 baht.

Even if married to a Thai, a PR application based on retirement won't work.The rules are very clear and frankly it's misleading to suggest otherwise.

Another point is that the 100 persons figure is just what it suggests, an upper limit.Even in years when PR was relatively expeditious this figure or anything like it was never reached for Brits or Australians to my certain knowledge.It may have been for Chinese/Indians - I'm not sure.

I am wondering if the idea that it is virtually impossible for a retiree to gain PR is actual fact. Have you heard this from a reliable source? If it is actually true, what do you suppose is the reason?

Yes it is actual fact.

Formal reason is that there is a requirement to have held appropriate visas, work permits with appropriate income tax payments for at least three years.Camerata's excellent confirmation is your guide.

I'm guessing an informal reason is a disinclination to extend PR to low grade retired blue collar or lower middle class types in harness to their Thai "wives" of dubious provenance.Let's face it these are not necessarily the Thai establishment's most favoured foreigners.A genuine retiree (that is someone who didn't have the necessary employment record in Thailand) with the right social background, education,financial resources and professional background wouldn't really need PR anyway.Only the most desperate foreign oldsters would want to spend the whole year in Thailand and those of the higher rank tend to come and go quite frequently.

A Buddhist monk conducts prayers for the Navy Seal team before they depart to the Gulf of Aden in Somalia from the Royal Thai Navy base, in Sattahip, Chonburi province, east of Bangkok September 10, 2010. About 386 Thai navy personnel, two vessels and two helicopters are sent to join a 93-day international anti-pirate exercise against Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden.

REUTERS

Navy seamen wave to relatives as they depart to the Gulf of Aden in Somalia from the Royal Thai Navy base, in Sattahip, Chonburi province, east of Bangkok September 10, 2010.

REUTERS

Fair Winds and Following Seas to all of you. Going into harm's way is never easy.

I have not been uncritical of Thailand's armed forces but here at last is an opportunity to be rather proud I think.Good luck to all setting out for the Indian Ocean, and a safe return.

He rates 5 minutes only at UN? That's an outrage!

I agree.The whole world is panting to hear Abhisit at very great length.Sadly he may have to cancel due to lack of preparation.But on the bright side that hugely attractive and even tempered Foreign Minister, Khun Kasit, will be available to enchant the assembly with his balanced views and interesting perspectives.In fact I imagine Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy are peeing in their pants at the sheer excitement of the prospect.

The UDD incited the violence and destruction beforehand in their speeches. You guys are whining about 90 dead people, yet what these terrorists planned to do (and possibly still plan to do) are far worse. I'd consider the 90 deaths as a preventatitve sacrifice.

If all the posts supporting army violence were as vicious, unfeeling and unthinking as this, there would be no need to undertake the often thankless task of pointing out uncomfortable home truths about the nature of this struggle.The primitive mentality which talks in terms of "whining about the dead" is obviously beyond much help.Though to be fair there are many urban Thais who think like this, who for reasons which are interesting but obviously beyond the understanding of this genius, have hitched their wagon to the that of the elite.

Posted this before but didn't get a response from you, so here it goes again:

Given the numerous amounts of proven propaganda distributed by the red shirts over this period attempting to paint the army negatively - the images taken from a video of the soldiers shot in the south and placed onto a poster stating this is what happens when soldiers refuse to deal with red shirts, the photoshopped photos of the slain protesters, and not to mention the many images of the so called MiB and Chavalit's men armed and wearing army fatigues on a skytrain station - it's the red shirts with a real credibility crisis and the reason many people are taking their claims about the army shooting journalists and nurses with a very large dose of salt.

I did see your rather commonplace response and with respect it just seemed a reworking of the simple minded bar room talk we've heard from you previously.Anyway since you insist:

It's not a matter of Red propaganda (nor for that matter Government propaganda).It's a matter of having a proper transparent and rigorous investigation.However for those like yourself who have mysteriously (and to be frank impossibly) already access to all relevant information and closed already made up minds, I can see why there might be some resistance.A cynic however who understands the record of the Thai military might say the reluctance of some to see a proper investigation simply anticipates an inquiry uncovering repetition of past behaviour. I am genuinely open minded and as previously noted have the impression the security forces acted reasonably and professionally in the circumstances.My wish is to to seek the truth so far as that's possible, and let the cards fall where they may.

Do I have any confidence this will happen? Not really.

The UDD incited the violence and destruction beforehand in their speeches. You guys are whining about 90 dead people, yet what these terrorists planned to do (and possibly still plan to do) are far worse. I'd consider the 90 deaths as a preventatitve sacrifice.

If all the posts supporting army violence were as vicious, unfeeling and unthinking as this, there would be no need to undertake the often thankless task of pointing out uncomfortable home truths about the nature of this struggle.The primitive mentality which talks in terms of "whining about the dead" is obviously beyond much help.Though to be fair there are many urban Thais who think like this, who for reasons which are interesting but obviously beyond the understanding of this genius, have hitched their wagon to the that of the elite.

Where did you read 'supporting army violence' in the quotes post ? It is indeed an ungrateful task to point out uncomfortable home truths which do not fit in a prejudiced mindset.

Oh wow, what intellectual power and devastating repartee.

When you have some decent points to make - instead of parroting my posts in a mindless schoolyard manner - let's hear them.In the mean time as Mr Attlee once said to one of his irritatingly voluble colleagues, "a period of silence on your part would be most welcome"

The UDD incited the violence and destruction beforehand in their speeches. You guys are whining about 90 dead people, yet what these terrorists planned to do (and possibly still plan to do) are far worse. I'd consider the 90 deaths as a preventatitve sacrifice.

If all the posts supporting army violence were as vicious, unfeeling and unthinking as this, there would be no need to undertake the often thankless task of pointing out uncomfortable home truths about the nature of this struggle.The primitive mentality which talks in terms of "whining about the dead" is obviously beyond much help.Though to be fair there are many urban Thais who think like this, who for reasons which are interesting but obviously beyond the understanding of this genius, have hitched their wagon to the that of the elite.

Or am I reading you wrong and what you want is a rigorous investigation of the people who financed this act of terrorism. If so my apologies but I think that is a investigation you would rather not have.

What an odd comment.I thought we were discussing an inquiry into the civilian and military deaths in the recent clearing of the Reds from the city centre.

If you want to discuss sources of financing that's fine but surely another thread.And in any case you get me completely wrong - I welcome scrutiny of events and the search for truth even if it is uncomfortable and undermining of my beliefs.It's the sickening certainty of some foreigners that turns the stomach.

I agree a proper inquiry is needed. I read they are making progress on it, especially the ones killed in the wat. It will be interesting to see how that comes out.

I think all deaths need to be investigated properly, both military and civilian.

Anyway it's comforting that you "read" that "they" are making progress on it.

That's a tired and discredited point that apologists for the crimes of the military often trot out.Absurdly,if taken literally, it means that the many civilians murdered by the military somehow got caught in the crossfire as snipers aimed at the militants.What laughable rubbish.

What's more laughable are your feeble attempts as a red propagandist. Any objective observer of the events during the Tai Rouge occupation of Bangkok know that that is exactly what happened.

At any rate, whether you recognise that the unarmed deaths were collateral rather than intentional, the poster has a point about the choices the UDD members made. The occupation was illegal and its leaders promoted violence daily on the stage. That is a matter of abundant public record, so you're calling that appraisal 'rubbsih' won't fly. The physical, social and economic damage the UDD caused amounts to terrorism under their cheerless leader's own definitions as approved by an elected parliament. The government showed admirable restraint in enforcing the law.

One wonders whether someone like this has any limit on the amount of bloodshed he is happy to endorse.Clearly this fellow, to the extent he expresses himself coherently, is at the reactionary end of the spectrum.Even government spokesmen pay lip service to the concept of a rigorous inquiry - not that they are really prepared to commit to one.Historically the Thai army has always covered up its crimes and avoided accountability.Actually in this case I think the army acted reasonably professionally but there's still a need for a proper inquiry

That's a tired and discredited point that apologists for the crimes of the military often trot out.Absurdly,if taken literally, it means that the many civilians murdered by the military somehow got caught in the crossfire as snipers aimed at the militants.What laughable rubbish.

It counteracts the tired and discredited points that none of the red shirts were armed.

No one is saying that NO unarmed civilians were killed. But to suggest that all of those killed were unarmed, or were not supporting and congregating with those that were armed, is the "laughable rubbish".

Notice Jayboy is also referring to "snipers" killing civilians. What chances does any inquiry have of actually revealing the identity of these snipers?

Because the reds were obviously supported by an armed force themselves means the calls for an inquiry are gaining very little attention or sympathy outside the red movement, both in Thailand and overseas.

So in your opinion an inquiry can be dispensed with.That's a fairly clear statement of your attachment to the truth.On my part I simply want a credible and transparent investigation

The army murdered over 90 of them - many millions are left and will never give up.

Another bullshitting pro-red propagandist. That 90-odd figure you are quick to throw around INCLUDES murdered army personnel.

Easy boy.It is a matter of record that many unarmed civilians were shot by the army.The question is how many.However in the tradition of the Thai military covering up their crimes unfortunately it seems unlikely there will ever be a credible or thorough investigation.

You can call it bullshitting red propaganda if you like but most reasonable people would just like a proper enquiry.

If people shoot at the army, you can expect the army to shoot back. If you congregate with people shooting at the army you're in the line of fire. It's not rocket science.

Or is it?

That's a tired and discredited point that apologists for the crimes of the military often trot out.Absurdly,if taken literally, it means that the many civilians murdered by the military somehow got caught in the crossfire as snipers aimed at the militants.What laughable rubbish.

As I said earlier the reactionaries can't really process this development without becoming incoherent.The question remains which grouping in Thailand is it likely that a man like Mandela would be drawn to?

A man under whose premiership Muslims were piled up on top of each other on the back of a truck and left to suffocate, I would presume.

Though I doubt he'd be drawn to anyone on the Thai political scene.

This doesn't address the issue.There are lots of reasons that people here don't like Thaksin (and the one you have chosen remains uninvestigated by the Thai army)

But the original point holds good.Which grouping in Thailand would a man like Mandela be drawn to?It's no good saying he wouldn't be drawn to any because this is a hypothetical discussion.

I'm sure Mr. Mandela will meet with most wealthy, 'philanthropic appearing' individuals,

especially if they indicate they will make a nice donation to the Mandela Foundation.

I guy with and island, private jets and a billion Dollars US is a prefect target for a 'foundation'.

There seems little likely connection between two the men further than that.

Mandela is raising funds for his projects, he meets people with money for that end goal.

Which raises the questions:

Did Thaksin's advance team indicate a donation would be forthcoming?

And if so how much actually was donated to get Thaksin his "meet 'n' greet".

What is the going rate for a international living legend to meet with

a wanna be world player, and purchaser of likely "blood diamonds"?

As I said earlier the reactionaries can't really process this development without becoming incoherent.The question remains which grouping in Thailand is it likely that a man like Mandela would be drawn to?