jayboy

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to obtain one in the circumstances of hisunsavoury and guided path to power, particularly now he has blood on his hands

Have you not considered that the reason elections cannot be held at the moment is exactly that free and fair elections are impossible under the conditions the redshirt leaders themselves created. Until the northern and northeastern redshirt supporters, and their leaders, realize that democracy must include the freedom to campaign no early election should be held.

I agree the country is too unsettled at the present to hold elections, but the point is they need to be held as soon as reasonably possible.Early 2011 would seem sensible, and that is of course after the date suggested by Abhisit in the negotiations with the Reds.

Fair point about the freedom to campaign.Equally the state/army must be kept out of the process since there was undue influence in previous campaigns - strongly criticised by international observers.Bear in mind also there is huge cynicism, justified by experience, that efforts will made again to frustrate the will of the people at the next election - whether by bizarre court decisions or other sleight of hand by the ruling elite which seemingly cannot bear a result which doesn't suit it.

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters. It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it. It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.

The above bolded items are either pure speculation or completely inaccurate.

By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Abhisit has avoided nothing. He is serving the term as PM that he was elected to by the MPs. Each of those MPs was elected by the people. He is both the legal and legitimate PM. Any mandate for the position of PM comes from the MPs. The people elect the MPs not the PM.

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to obtain one in the circumstances of hisunsavoury and guided path to power, particularly now he has blood on his hands

AS to your point about speculation of course much of this is subjective or capable of different interpretations.Those who attended elite universities (or anywhere else which encourages hard rigorous analysis) will know that even facts can be subjective, dependent on the view point.The point is whether the view point is well informed.

The facts are all there...say what you like...Thai government same as the Iran government...using Armed Army to kill their own citizens.....

The government of Iran changed the results of an election. The current government of Thailand is legit even if there is a lot of controversy about how they ended up in power. Whatever you want to say about about them, they had good reason to stop a bunch of thugs who ruined much of the Thai economy for months and burned down much of the country.

So they did NOT changed the result of the election to use a coup to install this "Legitimed" goverment ???? :lol:

That is correct. The coup leaders did not install the present government. Check your history. There was a coup to remove a highly corrupt, extra-constitutional prime minister who tried to retake his caretaker role after having abdicated. Then there was a constitutional rewrite to ensure stronger punishments for electoral fraud, increase the rights to the citizens, and weaken the ability for a PM to become a demagogue. The constitution was ratified by the voting population through a referendum. After this an election was called. The party who won a plurality vote violated election law and was disbanded. A parliamentary vote was called to select a new PM by the elected MPs, and Abhisit assumed the role of PM.

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters.It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it.It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Dont you think a statement like that is pre-empting any investigation?

If that is used as a starting point what hope is there of ever getting truth?

No, I was making a different point altogether.Few would question the government was entitled to clear Central Bangkok, indeed had a duty to do so.However there are limits on what the government can do: for example it couldn't machine gun the entire red assembly.(Take my word for it there are very powerful people who would have like to have done just that).The question is what represents a reasonable level of force.My feeling is that despite my admiration for the military's performance, the deaths were excessive with many aspects still unexplained.That's why a fair and independent enquiry is needed.

The Red Shirt protesters should consider that the numbers killed were low for such an outrageous act of civil disobedience. Most other countries of the world would not have tolerated such actions for as long as the current administration did. The sitting administration could easily have opened fire on the masses and piled the bodies in the streets. They did not. They withheld counter-measures until they deemed it getting out of control. They should applaud the administration of Khun Abhisit for holding themselves in check for so long. Next time, there may not be such a high level of tolerance. Why not wait until scheduled elections to change governments? Most democratic countries or republics do just that. They do not burn down buildings and assault residents to get their grievances in the media. They vote in a new administration. It was offered, but some of the Red Shirt upper-echelon feared such an action. Why?

You deceive yourself.In non-totalitarian countries no government could survive its army murdering unarmed civilians on this scale.

I disagree completely. The government did not murder unarmed civilians. The government used force to suppress an armed and violent rebellion. It is you who is engaging in self-deception.

Well we must agree to differ.But it's an odd rebellion that mostly consisted of unarmed men,women and children.

I am disappointed that the proof for this statement has not been forthcoming

If you can clarify the question you would like me to answer I will do my best to respond.

The Red Shirt protesters should consider that the numbers killed were low for such an outrageous act of civil disobedience. Most other countries of the world would not have tolerated such actions for as long as the current administration did. The sitting administration could easily have opened fire on the masses and piled the bodies in the streets. They did not. They withheld counter-measures until they deemed it getting out of control. They should applaud the administration of Khun Abhisit for holding themselves in check for so long. Next time, there may not be such a high level of tolerance. Why not wait until scheduled elections to change governments? Most democratic countries or republics do just that. They do not burn down buildings and assault residents to get their grievances in the media. They vote in a new administration. It was offered, but some of the Red Shirt upper-echelon feared such an action. Why?

You deceive yourself.In non-totalitarian countries no government could survive its army murdering unarmed civilians on this scale.

And to say the Govt murdered anyone is plain B... S... they were forced into an armed response by the actions of the reds.

would like to answer the above question? seems L H cant or wont.

Sorry missed out the fact that His majasty has also generously contributed to those killed and injured.

So you would give free license for the Government to mow down unarmed civilians? Few would deny the Government didn't have the right to clear the area.The issue is whether the force applied was reasonable.My personal view is that the army did its duty in as efficient way as possible in difficult circumstances, but this needs to be scrutinised carefully.There are some hard questions to be addressed in terms of the numbers and circumstances of those killed, and to deny that is sheer irresponsibility.Abhisit's credibility rests on a full and fair investigation.Again my personal view is that this won't happen.

I wish a "more serious and thoughtful" opponent of Thaksin. Guess I'm happy just being a regular opponent of Thaksin for now.

In the meantime the same question that has been around for the past two years stands - why doesn't the non-Thaksin-admiring element of the red shirts thoroughly distance themselves from him owing to the amount of baggage he carries?

Looking forward to your next insult-sprinkled response.

Actually you are looking for insults where none were intended. I was referring to serious critics of Thaksin like Baker/Pasuk: there was no intention to belittle anyone else.

In fact the issue you raise - which is a different one to your original - is a pertinent one.The reality is that Thaksin not only originated the red movement but poisoned it as well.Very few Reds disown Thaksin.

Given it's now very clear that Thaksin is a major contributor to these rallies, what do the apologists who say the red shirts are not about Thaksin stand on this issue? Without this major source of funding would the red shirt movement even exist?

There's no logic here.Certainly Thaksin played a part in funding the rallies.It doesn't follow that the red shirt movement wouldn't exist without such funding.I know that many of the urban middle class believe this but it's not intellectually sustainable.The more serious and thoughtful opponents of Thaksin don't believe it.

On a sidenote Jayboy ... I see you wish to call everyone who doesnt agree with you uneducated .. (most in the west have gone to school until at least 16, does this not count? must one have a degree in some social science which most universities specialise in these days )

Now just so i know how intelligent you really are can you tell me to what outstanding level you are educated too, and also what exceptionally profitable company you run or which unreachable by the masses level of employment you are currently working in?

Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not.However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception.

Corruption is a natural outgrowth of a lack of accountability. Abhisit, as the proxy for the current government, is doing everything to eliminate his opposition. His "reconciliation plan" is nothing more than a chance for his cronies to capitalize on the financial benefits of being politicians in Thailand.

You should try reading up on Abhisit's history, from the BBC no less.

Ah so the BBC is invoked when it serves your point of view, and trashed when it doesn't.

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.

Yes some soldiers were injured and killed and that's a tragedy.They did their duty and prevented bloodshed on a greater scale.But the vast majority of the dead were unarmed civilians.

From speaking to people who have no Thai connections and relied on the BBC coverage to gain their impressions of what went on, the impression they conveyed was of pro-democracy campaigners rising up against a dictatorial oppressive government.

As I explained to them, the reality was more akin to a bunch of football hooligans. Most of them were egged-on by inflammatory speeches to support "their side" when they had little understanding of exactly what they were reporting.

Also the BBC completely failed to report the fact that the reds were completely split, between a small number of genuine campaigners, led by long-time democracy campaigner Veera Musikapong, and a group of total thugs, who in the end destroyed the whole red movement, including the moderates.

So, even hypothetically accepting the BBC coverage was misleading (in my view it wasn't particularly) why did you present such a moronic, half baked and unperceptive alternative interpretation.Frankly given the choice between the BBC and this kind of half educated bar talk, I know who I would give more credence to.

This should give some of the more rabid critics of the foreign media pause for thought - but it probably won't.

http://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2010/06/12/thaksin_and_me/

What i dont get is how with these people have the nerve to criticise CNN when the lack of free speech in Thailand created by their beloved present govt.

Posts like this drive me up the wall, trying to defend the red shirt action, declare that

the lies and deceptions strewn by an array of PR and Media crews of the red clowns army

and their puppet master are the truth, and nothing but the truth today even it is so obvious!

twisted brains = twisted thruth's = deceptive lies and mind boggling constructions which only have one aim = bring back the master and let the game begin!

Censored are the lies, deceptions and constructions which aim to destroy this Nation, it's legal and rightful government and anyone who is not in favor of the Master...!

This is the "TRUTH TODAY"!

I can access

any media I wish to.... the last stand off in Bangkok, with the Grenade Attacks, random shootings, the looting and setting numerous places in the very center of Bangkok ablaze, carries it's very own signature.....

It is nothing but a load of BS and aimed to deceit the people, make them believe that there is "something wrong".... and in turn white wash the Master's grand coups and those committed by his his followers - it's simply evil!

This person is clearly in hysterical mode so perhaps one shouldn't take his barely literate ranting seriously.One telling phrase is at the end when he appears appalled that anyone should think there's "something wrong", presumably with the status quo and is clearly angry that any news outlet should give the impression there's "something wrong" with the Good Ship Siam.Perhaps we can just ignore his ignorant tripe and move on to a more considered assessment of the press coverage.But here's a parting word for this genius.Yes, there is something "very wrong" indeed with Thailand, chum.

Clearly however there has been bias in both CNN and BBC coverage, as well as the rest of the foreign and local press.Khun Somtow has some interesting thoughts particularly on the foreign press briefly that some may be seeing the events here through a Western prism, perceiving the Reds simplistically as the poor downtrodden struggling against the privileged elite.He has a point.This is a very complex set of events and it's important not to draw simple minded conclusions.But overall I think it has been possible to be informed, while accepting there has been some crass and stupid reporting from both foreign and local press.I'm not sure this is really that different from any other international crisis.I certainly don't buy the argument that the mysteries of Thai language and culture make rational analysis by a foreign reporter almost impossible.I think what gives the amart and some sections of the Bangkok middle class such annoyance is the fact that the unquestioning social deference of the past is crumbling, and is all open to international scrutiny.But all journalism is biased and one's reaction to a particular piece of journalism reflects one own biases.

Good article IMHO.

Good article but preaching to the converted. Far too sophisticated to reach the everyday punter who revile Abhisit and worship the demagogue Thaksin.

It's not sophisticated at all, simply common sense.Of course the reds have a leadership problem.Thaksin is tainted and too divisive, and the alternatives are second rate or frightening.It's a problem and that's an open recognition from someone whose sympathies are mainly red.My instincts say keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse, but Abhisit has been a terrible disapointment too (given his personal qualities and honesty)

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Sounds like you've never read or watched the real Thai media, just the English-language Thai media. There is plenty of good reporting- not great, and yes to some degree self-censored, yet still more accurate and complete than what we get from BBC and CNN - in Thai language print (Matichon, to some degree even Thai Rath) and TV (TVThai) news reporting.

But the issue is whether BBC or CNN is doing a good job. Just like on the FCCT night that Somtow, Kraisak and Sumet tried to get their points across about Western media bias, the discussion quickly disintegrated into a them vs us, Thai vs farang issue, the same is happening here.

It's not that the Thai press is intrinsically better than the Western press(with less training and far less funding, not likely), just that in reporting live news in Thailand they are usually a more reliable source, for the obvious reason that they understand what is being said on all sides, and they have more interview access.

Some very dubious propositions here.Of course there are some advantages in being local but the Thai press - which I monitor - has not acquitted itself well at all in the crisis.You pass quickly over press self censorship but that is the nub of the issue.Actually I attended the FCCT discussion.Somtow I thought made some very fair points but didn't really convince me.Sumet is just an amiable jokester who lives in a Siamese fantasia, not to be taken seriously (nor are his awful architectural monstrosities).Picking up Rixalex's point it's not linguistic ability or length of stay that's so important as the ability to absorb information, process it and draw sensible conclusions.Same applies to journalists as it does to forum members.I say that as someone who has been here for a long time and speaks Thai relatively well.

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

I'm not sure which reports you were studying.To be fair I have never a great CNN fan and didn't monitor its coverage closely.However the BBC reports I saw went out of their way to stress the role of Thaksin in the red attempt to bring down the government.Your comment to the extent I understand it makes the common error of stressing Thai particularism with the implication that its mysteries can only be penetrated after years of linguistic and cultural study.In a rather more sophisticated form it is the same excuse that many Bangkok amart provide when foreigners ask awkward questions.Needless to say it's nonsense.

Good luck with your responsibilities as head of that really big Northeastern family, and it's impressive you are so familiar with all their thoughts, concerns and aspirations.

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

Yawn. I really don't understand why you bother posting here. You could be down the Bangkok Club, sipping on a long drink with a tall girl, or vice versa, rather than telling us you are tired of the whole thing, you don't care about what others post here, and you think every other member is a weirdo. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run just what the foreign press write or say, but, as I wrote in my previous post, we rely on them to give us the facts of any international incident. When we see that they are being so biased in reporting an event we are familiar with then it raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of other events they report on globally. Either they care about that, and will take steps to rectify the situation, or they don't, and will lose viewers. The choice is theirs.

If one used a reasonable selection of media sources it was perfectly possible to get a fair picture.If you look at a single press report in any country on a subject one knows well one will always find errors: that's in the nature of journalism.Many middle class Thais however just didn't like the home truths that some foreign reporters were relating.There was a similar campaign a little while ago against the BBC's excellent Jonathan Head.These people don't seem to understand how crazy they seem when stating opinions such as "Rachel Harvey is a liar".I daresay WW2 reporters commenting on D Day landings made a few mistakes.So what?

Your comment, though misguided and without much substance, is quite reasonably toned.However on every subject and in every country there are thousands of nutjobs ranting about the BBC, CNN or what ever organisation displeases them.That's life and somehow I suspect the BBC,CNN will survive.One needs to exercise a little common sense and look at matters in the round.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

In Thailand, toppling a legal-ish "elected" government is a lot of things but it is not high treason.

Actually it is and at least one General in the 1970's was executed by firing squad for it.However in practical terms coups are judged as to whether the elite approves of them or not (or as in the last instance participated in them).If the coup is approved then there is no problem in back dated pardons etc.

Feel free to look up who the leaders of the PAD were. He wasn't one. Nor did he act as their spokesperson.

The question is not what precise role Kasit had with the PAD movement.The question is - was his appointment as FM a sensible decision which enhanced Thailand's reputation given that he participated in and spoke approvingly of an illegal occupation?It can be plausibly argued that this terrorist action by PAD and its quasi fascist leadership set the precedent for more recent events.As it happens this absurd and splenetic little fellow has proved to be an incompetent, so Abhisit can dismiss him on performance grounds alone

No- You are quite incorrect. Here is the original 'question' as it was posed by Clausewitz, leading to JD's rebuttal:

After all Kasit promiya - the pad yellowshirts spokesman

Do try and keep up old man

You seem not to have understood my reply.Try again and see whether you can understand this time.

Hint: I was suggesting what is the real question - or at least one of them - we should be asking about Kasit.

Red cheerleader trying to keep up.

I suppose you are referring to me.Has it occurred to you that endlessly calling anyone who takes a different view a "red cheerleader" is a boring and intellectually slovenly thing to do.

A little while ago I lamented the departure of Plus, who in broad terms came from the same direction as you.What a pity you seem unable to argue a case as he did.

There is a Thai saying.

Just ignore the sound of the birds and crows.

There's another Thai saying.

Don't borrow someone's nose to breathe with.