jayboy

Yea let the private sector have a free hand then they can make bigger profit.

After all being in business is all about making profit. seems to me there needs to be a restraining hand in there somewhere.

Why? The article makes it clear there should be sensible regulation, but it needs to be a very light hand.

It is the private sector and the drive for profit that has lifted Thailand out of poverty.

This isn't a class struggle, except for the fact that the person the red shirts are fighting for is struggling to find some class.

I'm sure that passes for wit in the less demanding Pattaya salons.

It's great that opinionated farang have a place (TV) where they can rant about the "inconveniences" that are part of a textbook class struggle. The Reds can be denigrated for fighting for their fair of share, and making it difficult to shop.

You'll have to show me which textbook has class struggles led by a billionaire.

Don't know about billionaire, don't know Thaksin will turn out to be a leader (rather than a catalyst) and don't actually accept the old fashioned class struggle concept (though interestingly among non-communist intellectuals Marx and his dialectical materialism tools are receiving renewed interest.May be connected with capitalism's recent crisis).

What I do know and there are countless examples, revolutionary leaders have often had aristocratic or upper class backgrounds.Chou Enlai is one recent example but there are many others through history.

Once again you lie. The whole argument was based on that there was not a large slew of licensed lawyers in the function of lawyers in BKK, that most foreign 'lawyers' here are merely advisers.

But of course in your warped mind you backtracked until you adopted this position to be your point. O-well. But it shows how you rationalize to yourself to 'always be right'. I wasn't really involved in the argument, but it was funny to follow. Classical.

And from it we learn how you will argue here.

Gosh.Epithets like "you lie" and "warped mind" on the rather dull subject of foreign lawyers.What happens when you're really annoyed?

A friend of mine who works for a certain Thai bank was sent to Cambodia some years ago to open a branch. The project failed when the agents who were lent the money to further lend to borrowers in various provinces, defaulted or disappeared. My friend concluded Cambodians could not be trusted. This was in contrast to Laos where a branch was opened with no serious problems.

On another note, a neighbour in Ban Pai is married to a Thai from Buriram. One day I noticed two dogs locked in a fierce fight on their property. I recommended throwing water on the dogs but the husband refused.The neighbour said,'He's Khmer,they're bloodthirsty and cruel'.

In my experience that is quite a common perception of Khmers in Thailand,and of course it was only 35 years ago that the Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of their own population.

I think what you describe would be confirmed by most knowledgeable people.The trouble with the Cambodians is that they are heirs to a genuinely great civilisation, a country which lost its way and became instead a small marginal player.I think one can observe in Cambodia a characteristic also seen in human beings, namely the lack of achievement manifesting itself in bitterness and aggression.None of this given Cambodia's history is particularly surprising.What does stick in the gullet however is Thailand, with all its comparative advantages descending to the same puerile level, even when headed by a sophisticate like Abhisit.Of course we know the PAD leadership and the wacky reactionary end of the military are vomit inducing but even so it's sad that wiser heads have not intervened to dissuade these cretins from demeaning the country they profess to love.

If you lack ability to understand a post then I doubt you can make the assumption it confirms any of your nonsense conjectures. But then again, that is your MO.

Do tell, how many foreign lawyers are working as solicitors in Bangkok now? Even when you are completely wrong you manage to bring a thread to some 10(?) pages of defense of your incorrect statement. It is your MO.

So excuse me if I don't really assign your opinion or ideas much weight.

And the objection (and personal attack) was about Robert Amsterdam, not Andrew Marshall. If you are able to keep people apart.

I have been criticised for many things but not yet my ability to comprehend.

On the question of foreign lawyerts practising in Bangkok, I actually won the argument and the irrelevant introduction of this issue suggests you are aware you are losing this one.There are hordes of foreign lawyers as anybody who has had dealings with Freshfields, Allen and Overy, White and Case knows.They may be licensed appropriately as advisors but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware that Amsterdam and Marshall are separate.Who suggested otherwise? Since there is a well documented tendency to slander and abuse Amsterdam (to the point of nasty anti-semitism in some cases) I accept on this forum much of a debate on the issues he raises is unlikely.Marshall sums up the evidence in a sober and non-emotional way.Any fair person knows the Thai Government has many unanswered questions to address on the killings last year.Some like you prefer to treat those who raise these questions with abuse, anything to avoid difficult questions and hard thinking.Others, in a category I include myself, are broadly supportive of the Abhisit Government but are keen to see a much greater urgency and transparency in investigating both civilian and military deaths.Andrew Marshall covers much of this important ground, including the lack of co-operation from the armed forces.

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

Are you saying that you lack the analytical ability to understand my post and therefor decide to push some personal abuse instead? I would agree.

Because what you don't acknowledge or realize - please advice which one it is - is that often the points have been countered (often many times) either here or at other places. And even after a lengthy post of rebuttal, what is the sum? Apart from some flames from the red shirt apologist or hardcore supporters (especially over Twitter, using anon user-handles) nothing of value is gained. RA doesn't respond to emails, posts or Twitter-messages because he isn't personally vested and only following his payed agenda. And those too deep in their beliefs will rationalize away every counterpoint and refuse to really read them.

So now, tell us, what is it you want us to do? Write the same posts over and over again? Like whenever a poster here says 'this government isn't elected' or 'this government was installed after the coup', assertions which are both wrong but posted on multiple occasions. Now when even easy facts like this doesn't really get across, how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled?

Confirms what I already said about the default position, then becomes incoherent.

Andrew Marshall is incidentally very far from being an apologist for any side.

And people were saying that Abhisit was doing this just to get votes. Just goes to show, doesn't it.

Were they saying that? I doubt whether this issue will have much impact electorally one way or the other.The Thai people are not as stupid as some of the PAD fascists and army reactionaries apparently believe. Most people I speak to think Abhisit's ambivalence on this issue is the result of his dependence (one can argue about the degree) on the forces that led him by hand to power, ie military coup,rigged constitition,army interference, judicialisation of politics, buying off minority parties, hysterical state financed propaganda etc etc.

And there are still people burbling on about watersheds, as though that was relevant in anything other than a minor technical sense.All adds to the gaiety of nations.

Be a man, General! Give us the long overdue answer why the Army lets the Khmer advances on the land around the Pra Viharn Shrine while barring the Thai from the area.

Could this -- from The International Court of Justice decision 1962 -- be the answer??

]"In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory[/b]."

Ahhh ... but ... the ICJ only ruled on the temple, not the land around it.

That is why there is still a dispute.

You seem unable to distinguish between a pretext and a cause.The cause of the current dispute is very clear and lies with the quasi fascist PAD and their military supporters.

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

It would seem the PAD has learned from master Taksin. Rule number 1 - If anyone says anything I don't like, I'll sue them on the grounds of defamation. Taksins favourite weapon.

Beyond belief! An article wholly about the PAD and its illegal seizure of the airport and the very first reply mentions Thaksin. Not in a way that would normally link the two subjects, e.g the PAD occupied the airport in part to express their dissatisfaction with the Thaksin Government, oh no, any excuse to mention Thaksin will do. In the words of many a girlfriend to their affronted partner;

"Just leave it, He's not worth it"

I fully expect someone to pop up with a Jpeg any minute.

There's a lot of contention for the Sriracha John Memorial Prize where the honour goes to the person who introduces the subject of Thaksin into an entirely unrelated subject.I agree you have identified a promising candidate.

It's a shame that you gave up after reading the bs part - to be expected but worth while trying again from where he get's down to some to some suggestions for reforms i.e Paragraphs 16 -31. From there on he wanders off again in rhetoric but the paragraphs I have mentioned provide food for thought, at least to those with an open mind (and I'm not excluding you from this Rubl - see I got your "name" right at last )

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward.To do so of course would mean abandoning an intellectually slovenly position and start tackling some hard questions.I'm the first to admit that Amsterdam is hardly an attractive personality and that the Thaksin connection weakens his credibility.But that's not enough to dismiss all aspects of his case.There are still some really important outstanding questions on the deaths which took place in Bangkok last year.The military has rejected accountability as it always does.None of the inquiries have lead anywhere.The Government's attitude has been disgraceful,assuming that there is no price to pay.They may have miscalculated.

A respected journalist summarises the position in this Reuters blog

http://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2011/02/13/reclaiming-the-truth-in-thailand/

It's just the way it has been historically (see my point above). Just from their name ("The Royal Thai Army") you get an idea of who they are protecting foremost.

There is a huge difference between what is professed and the reality.The true purpose of the Thai army, other than to protect the country against foreign invasion, is to make money for its senior officer corps.

Disagree.

That is their sideline,

because they have the power to use, they make money with it. Simple as that, they can so they do. Same for ANY Thai, it is the national midset in a kow tow beset or besotted society. To say 'the purpose of the army' is to make profits for the leaders of the moment, ignores that rest of the army as a whole.

I don't necessarily disagree with this.It depends on the way one looks at it and your concise view is perfectly valid though I am more generous than you in my perception of Thais as a whole.The kowtow factor you mention is vanishing fast, and that is a central theme in the current political instability.Fact remains however that the senior officer corps (Thailand's army is grotesquely over generalled) is consumed by making money on the side.The rhetoric about serving the monarchy, the flag and the country is in many cases a fig leaf to cover greed and corruption.There are of course some first class officers but they tend to have a Serpico experience.

It's just the way it has been historically (see my point above). Just from their name ("The Royal Thai Army") you get an idea of who they are protecting foremost.

There is a huge difference between what is professed and the reality.The true purpose of the Thai army, other than to protect the country against foreign invasion, is to make money for its senior officer corps.

It is not about a better fairer Thailand, it is about a 'GIVE ME, GIVE ME'-attitude. It is the same all over the world, perhaps even more so in leftist Europe, where people feel entitled to get money from others that work hard.

Many will have a sharply different view from yourself as to where the GIVE ME GIVE ME attitude can be found in Thailand.

Not really, unless someone is dimwitted.

Perhaps you are talking about people trying to do everything to keep what they make and/or not pay people what might be a fair market-price, in part due to market-collisions or monopoly/oligopoly positions? Yes, there are many examples.

Well that's what I believe as do many of my friends, and whatever else may be said about us we are not dimwitted.Your second sentence frankly doesn't make much sense and I'm a Cambridge economics graduate.

It is not about a better fairer Thailand, it is about a 'GIVE ME, GIVE ME'-attitude. It is the same all over the world, perhaps even more so in leftist Europe, where people feel entitled to get money from others that work hard.

Many will have a sharply different view from yourself as to where the GIVE ME GIVE ME attitude can be found in Thailand.

Sorry but not convinced. The "stipend" offered was already apparently cause for celebration from one account here, which gives some idea of its significance.

Notice that the Arab revolutions are happening within quick succession of each other - Tunisia, Egypt, apparently now Yemen is on the edge. If anti-govt feeling is naturally so strong why can't it happen here today or tomorrow? Why wait? Simple - because the momentum for one to happen naturally isn't there and can only be stimulated.

I'm not sure what you're not convinced of.Are you saying without the stipend the Red movement would be insignificant?

The Arab situation is rather different.In Egypt for example there seems to be a virtual unanimity of purpose.In Thailand the country is much more bitterly divided.

Some of the Redshirts were having a party, down the street and round the corner, after the rally last night. My wife stopped to chat with them & they told her that they were celebrating because they had been paid 500b each to attend. In the past they had just earned 300b each, but no-one was interested in going out for that price anymore.

There was some debate on Twitter last night with some of the more prominent, Thai-savy "farang" users insisting that the red shirts they had spoken to had gone completely on their own free will - going as far to say that this year things were "different".

But I also recognise yourself as a long-term TV user telling us what other Thai people have told me about every other red shirt rally - that people have indeed been salaried for their attendance.

Frankly I had my doubts the trend would be bucked this year, and it looks as if that's the case.

Many Bangkok based middle class Thais maintain the Reds only attend rallies because they are paid to do so.The same people often tend to say rural voters vote (except of course in the South since there they tend to vote the "right way) as they are instructed and paid.I have no doubt that payments are made.This is Thailand after all.

However to deny that among the millions of Red Shirt supporters there isn't genuine passion and desire for a better fairer Thailand is an absurd position to take.

Big question is however how many would turn up if no payment was made...? Personally feel some of Sombat's "death aerobics" activities several months back gave us a clue; not many.

I'm not sure that's the big question at all.Looking at the broader context Thailand's resources have been ridiculously slewed to the urban middle class for decades - in education, health, infrastructure etc etc.The middle class has already been "bribed" on a scale that makes a few hundred Baht payment to an Isaan Red quite insignificant.The middle class openly cheat on their taxes and resent expenditure on the less fortunate.That's partly what the Red struggle is all about and explains the Democrat led Government's (I think) honourable and sensible efforts to deal with this injustice (and of course to use Thaksin's own weaponry against him).

I should think the Red core consists of quite a few tens of thousand particularly when one remembers from last year the surprising support from Bangkok based working class and lower middle class communities.On the other hand the numbers game can be very misleading.For example the recent yellow demonstrations have struggled to make up a crowd.It would be naive to extrapolate from this that the middle class support for PAD ideology has been seriously dented.

Some of the Redshirts were having a party, down the street and round the corner, after the rally last night. My wife stopped to chat with them & they told her that they were celebrating because they had been paid 500b each to attend. In the past they had just earned 300b each, but no-one was interested in going out for that price anymore.

There was some debate on Twitter last night with some of the more prominent, Thai-savy "farang" users insisting that the red shirts they had spoken to had gone completely on their own free will - going as far to say that this year things were "different".

But I also recognise yourself as a long-term TV user telling us what other Thai people have told me about every other red shirt rally - that people have indeed been salaried for their attendance.

Frankly I had my doubts the trend would be bucked this year, and it looks as if that's the case.

Many Bangkok based middle class Thais maintain the Reds only attend rallies because they are paid to do so.The same people often tend to say rural voters vote (except of course in the South since there they tend to vote the "right way) as they are instructed and paid.I have no doubt that payments are made.This is Thailand after all.

However to deny that among the millions of Red Shirt supporters there isn't genuine passion and desire for a better fairer Thailand is an absurd position to take.

Exactly what you would expect from Thailand. It seems they just don't need anyone's help or advice. Lets hope they don't have to come cap in hand later and lose face over it.

jb1

I am afraid that the wrong headedness and arrogance of the Thai Government will mean paying a price - though I don't think it will get to the UNSC, even granting that the silly Cambodians have risen to the bait predictably.

A quote from another forum:

"It is the Thai Government’s contempt for international law that is bringing it into disrepute amongst civilised countries. It doesn’t matter that the attacks on Cambodia are unlikely to have been ordered by any Thai Government, but are the work of an out-of-control army faction. That the Thai Government has gone along with this criminal behaviour is what will count against it in the forum of the UN Security Council."

Just more evidence of the puerile and immature nature of the Thai establishment, trying and failing to manipulate nationalist fervour to serve its internal political purpose.

Sorry but that article doen not answer the question what Cambodia has to gain by refusing to talk.

In fact Cambodia hardly gets a mention.

It only makes assumptions that thailand is ruled by the military which is certainly debatable.

If you can't grasp the essentials from Crispin's article I doubt whether anyone else can explain it to you.Your final sentence seems very confused and suggests much of what Crispin has written has gone over your head.

I think Cambodia's unwillingness to discuss bilaterally - given the Thai context issues spelled out in Crispin's article - is very understandable.Equally Thailand's unwillingness to have any kind of independent third party investigation is par for the course, indeed is just the flipside of the Cambodian position.

If you prefer to live in a Pollyanna land where all Thais have the purest of motives, by all means do so.But don't expect a grown up dialogue.

What I cant understand is what Hun Sen and Cambodia think they can gain at this point by not talking.

They have got their international attention, he has shown he is a defender of the country and deserves to be re elected in the coming elections with a minimum of cheating, the boy has got his reason for promotion and will get his new ribbons on his chest.

From here on in it must be all downhill for him as the truth comes out, like shelling Thai villages, school, Wat, having troops in the temple, all the things that have been shown by photo video and indipendant report.

He can now avoid all this coming out by sitting down and talking.

Sitting down and talking it through like a good neighbour for the good of both countries would seem the thing to do.

The only thing he may think he can do now is as much damage to Thailand as possible.

But why should he want to do that? unless there is another hand (black hand, like a coal mine owner) behind it all that has an agenda and history of trying to damage Thailand.

Your interpretation is askew because you fail to appreciate the extent to which the Thais have manafactured this crisis.See the Shawn Crispin article I have posted on another thread this morning.

Then possibly you would like to answer the question of what Cambodia has to gain by refusing to talk.

And add to that what Thailand has to gain wanting to talk things through.

Suggest you read Crispin's article.

What I cant understand is what Hun Sen and Cambodia think they can gain at this point by not talking.

They have got their international attention, he has shown he is a defender of the country and deserves to be re elected in the coming elections with a minimum of cheating, the boy has got his reason for promotion and will get his new ribbons on his chest.

From here on in it must be all downhill for him as the truth comes out, like shelling Thai villages, school, Wat, having troops in the temple, all the things that have been shown by photo video and indipendant report.

He can now avoid all this coming out by sitting down and talking.

Sitting down and talking it through like a good neighbour for the good of both countries would seem the thing to do.

The only thing he may think he can do now is as much damage to Thailand as possible.

But why should he want to do that? unless there is another hand (black hand, like a coal mine owner) behind it all that has an agenda and history of trying to damage Thailand.

Your interpretation is askew because you fail to appreciate the extent to which the Thais have manafactured this crisis.See the Shawn Crispin article I have posted on another thread this morning.

I believe the emotive idea of linking PM-Abhisit with Hitler may previously have been used, by associates of another person who formerly used to advise the Cambodian government, hopefully he won't now be suing them for the customary Billion Baht for copyright-infringement on this idea ?

Congratulations on winning the Sriracha John memorial prize on bringing Thaksin into a thread where he has not the slightest relevance.

This article is so far the best analysis of the situation.

It is a good article but the best I have seen is Shawn Crispin's from the Asia Times which analyses the links between the PAD and the military, and their reasons for stirring up trouble.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MB08Ae01.html