jayboy

Meanwhile Kausikan was also allegedly critical in his assessment of Singapore's other neighbour' date=' Thailand reported the Australian press.

He had supposedly said that Thaksin Shinawatra was "corrupt" along with "everyone else, including the opposition".

[/quote']

Remember the law-bending and use of nominees in the case of Temasek acquiring Shin Corp?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_Shin_Corporation_to_Temasek_Holdings

The squeaky clean Singapore govt and its cronies seem to be willing to bed with those they called corrupted if the purpose serves their interests. Birds of a feather flock together?

Of course, the advice for such a structure was proposed by a rather respectable law firm in Thailand. And ironically, is used by hundreds if not thousands of companies in the country.

And supported by the then Siam Commercial Bank with its elite shareholders.

As a postscript to Arkady's excellent post, I suppose one consideration is that the kind of high value foreigner Thailand wants and needs (eg skilled MNC manager) is not necessarily interested in PR.From my experience these kind of people see a Thailand posting as a say 5 year interlude before returning to the mainstream in Tokyo, London, New York etc.For these people the Thai work permit/visa system is extremely efficient and trouble free.Indeed with a capable secretary/competent lawyer (which most would have) the annual renewal process would be no more hassle than signing the usual mountain of documents.So PR while of interest to some of these wouldn't really interest most of them.Therefore the kind of pressure that would make the government sit up and take notice isn't really there.

Very encouraging and thanks for the report.For no very good reason I had come to the conclusion that local renewal would be a pain, and had been thinking of a one day renewal when next in the UK.Your report suggests local renewal works very well.

Sorry, ... my post wasn't clear. By "who" I meant their character, who they are as people etc ... not who as in identity. Perhaps what I should have said is that the people I talked to throughout the evening had opinions about "why" some posters are "red".

I chose not to participate in that line of discussion but I did tend to agree with the people.

It still seems an extraordinarily dull way to spend an evening.let me guess..posters sympathetic to the Reds dont understand the network system and mostly have Isaan ex bargirls as companions etc? Surprise me that the discussion was on a more intelligent level.

A more interesting discussion would be why millions Thais are sympathetic to the Red movement despite the huge black propaganda effort.Truth is it's a very broad church with a corresponding political complexion - from left to right.To me the fascinating aspect is that it is much more socially representative than often suggested, though I agree with a base of working and lower middle class.

If recent judicial decisions are anything to go by, we already no the outcome.. farangs are entitled to an opinion but some on here have an unhealthy interest in certain threads. Is there 6-7 of you using the same ip address

Judicial decisions at this point are moot. The cases are under investigation.

I had an interesting conversation last night with several members of the forum (only one other ever posted on politics). Their opinions were quite fascinating on the topic of who the farang are that are red shirt supporters.

If you think that there are people using multiple screennames the mods do have the ability to check IP addresses. Mine is a static IP address unless I post from my BB (I never post from my BB). My mac address changes between about 7 computers but all on the same IP address. Can all of this be defeated? certainly it can by anyone that has some IT skills. However, over time the truth will out. (to steal a phrase from the English, i think)

Lighten up.It's just a chat forum for expatriates.Getting together to discuss who is Red and who is not is just sad (as Alan Partridge might say).Who gives a toss?

And anyone who posts with multiple identities, regardless of political views, really needs to find something more interesting to do with his life.It's not really possible to win an argument on Thai Visa nor should one want to.The best that one can hope for is to gain some insight (and I often get this from members with whom I profoundly disagree).

I am no stranger to violence involving Armed Forces and if I had been anywhere the disturbances I would have removed myself and my family from the vicinity at the sound of the first gunshot. It is a pity that the protesters were not of that mindset. Those that remained knew that they were in a place of extreme danger and must take some of the responsibility for the subsequent sad events. It cannot be denied that they formed a contributory factor and I wonder if a true peace can be attained unless they acknowledge this within themselves.

You could say the same about the Chinese students murdered in Tianmen Square by the Chinese army.Some people are courageous and have strong principles.

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

The official reports have begun to emerge and the events will become clearer though not perhaps with complete certainty.I would however expect the current consensus that many innocents were killed by the army to become widely accepted.This is not a criticism of the military effort which was generally professional, though clearly with some disgraceful lapses.However it will be instructive to compare positions taken including the barking mad "reds murdered themselves" to various other extremes.It will be clear that the back pedalling has already begun (see quoted post) and will certainly continue as the truth becomes generally accessible.It's becoming evident as most reasonable people would have anticipated is that it was a very mixed picture.Anyway all credit to Abhisit who slightly against my expectation is taking a very fair approach (so far).

Thanks Jayboy!

There is a major difference between us Jayboy. That is; I speak to the posts and you talk about the posters.

I suggest others be the judge of that.

Not so. It might well be if the message had been the application of the law is not impartial. Whether the law itself is impartial or not is down to the law makers - and nobody in their right mind would call them impartial.

The judge who, in the concealment of assets case, stated that he was not going to rule against somebody who received a lot of votes needed to read his job description.

From Thai Visa Forum rules:

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Time for jdinasia to start thinking of a new username, methinks. Or have I broken TV rules regarding the pre-empting of moderator actions? :jap:

An intelligent man always uses a caveat

Hence the use of the words "may not be as ..." , nor was I critical of a particular ruling or member of the judiciary.

In fact those of you that actually do break that rule fairly regularly might want to learn from my post

His hypocrisy is astonishing.Fortunately since his tactics (baiting and goading members) were exposed long ago, few take him seriously.

,As as for your comments about him, as well as his cabinet and ministers all being "squeaky clean", I challenge you to name me JUST ONE PM in the history of Thailand who has managed to do that. Believe it or not, I like Abhist, and believe he is a good man, but a good man at perhaps the wrong time. I believe that in his heart he truly does want to do what is right for Thailand, but as an old saying goes: It's hard to soar with eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys. Or in his case, vultures.

All of this is sensible and few reasonable people would disagree.The only key omission in the summary is that Abhisit himself is under pressure from the vested interests in the military (budget doubled since the 2006 coup) and other elite circles.Culturally, as an upper class Thai, it's hard for him to resist but I suspect he knows he must for the good of the country.He has the intellect and liberal education that gives him the necessary detachment.But time is rushing by and soon the political environment will be become very difficult to manage.As Harold Macmillan once said when asked what politicians needed to worry about, "Events, dear boy, events".Already ordinary Thais are discussing politics among themselves in ways that that would horrify the elite that so long has excluded the majority from meaningful power.To some extent and looking at the broad context the events in Bangkok earlier this year simply demonstrate a confirmation that everything has changed and for better or worse there is no going back to the deferential status quo ante.

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

Thaksin regarded it as a good occasion to provide the United States with the other side of the story of what had taken place in April and May, the Thai government having already given information to the US administration and Congress.

Pretty sure the "other" side of the story needs to be told by the other side. Does Thaksin think he'll do a better job than D. Rivers?

Asked whether Thaksin would be able to attend, Thani said it was up to the US authorities to decide whether to allow him into the country.

Asked whether Thailand would seek his extradition if the former prime minister entered the country, Thani said the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) would be responsible for making such a decision.

However, Sirisak Tiyapan, director of the OAG's International Affairs Department, said it would be for the Foreign Ministry and the Police Commission to request extradition. Unless the two agencies made such a request, the OAG has no authority to do anything, he said.

"The Foreign Ministry and the police have done nothing [in this regard] so far," he said.

This crap makes me nauseous.

Maybe just pull it together and arrest him and do your jobs.

Certainly Dan Rivers was in the pocket of Thaksin & his Red Shirt terrorists. Most one-side reporting I have ever seen. I always knew - by living in the U.S. until two years ago - that CNN was a very unreliable source of "news." But, I had believed the BBC to be a little more accurate with it reporting. But after the Red Shirts occupation of Bangkok, I now know the BBC is as bad as CNN and set out from the beginning taking the side of the violent revolutionists (Thaksinites). No reporting was more pro-Thaksin, more UDD, more PTP, more full of lies and anti-government than was the reporting of Dan Rivers. I saw the little scumbag somewhere in the Middle East on TV just the other day. As much money as Thaksin paid him I would think he could retire comfortably in his mansion in northern Thailand. CNN International and the BBC along with Dan Rivers are disgraceful!

An extreme example perhaps but does indicate the treatment meted out to foreign journalists by the obsessives if they dare to depart from the "approved line", particularly when they point out some home truths.It's odd that people like this who express themselves like this who lie (Rivers in the pay of Thaksin!) and bluster are surprised when the CNN,BBC etc ignore their absurd and paranoiac complaints.

I wonder how many emails [email protected] will get.

She's got one from me, anyway.

I have seen it below.It's not bad at all, mainly well balanced (apart from the sentence I discuss below) and free of hysteria.It is also accurate as far as I can see.

I think however it would have been even better if you had rephrased the part:

"and his organisation's demands show that the premise of "democracy" is of no significance as they are essentially calling for the return of Thaksin's ability to pillage the country without recourse to the Law."

because you here move from an impressive cool recitation of facts to a logically disjointed and slightly weird subjectivity which is out of synch with the rest of the letter, as well as being plain wrong.

Thaksin is many things, but he is not an idiot. He will not go the US. This is a non-story.

Possibly.

But if he does go to the US, says his piece and departs it will be hard for his enemies to claim he is permanently on the run from one third world dump to another.It will be hard for Thailand to pretend most countries don't consider any extradition request politically motivated and it will be hard for those forum members whose main interest is castigating Thaksin that the wider world shares their views.In fact quite a few people will have egg on their faces, especially little Kasit (not so much Abhisit who is not pushing the matter so much)

If - assuming Thaksin does travel to the US - the Thais say that for some technical reason an extradition request was not served (for Thailand and the US have a valid treaty) you can be sure they have been told in advance by the State Department they are wasting their time.If Thaksin doesn't travel then not only does he seem rather cowardly but in addition I think that this will be evidence that extradition proceedings represent a clear and present danger for him - somewhere, sometime.

Just speculation on my part and we will soon know the score.I do feel that Thailand (and Abhisit) has a lot of goodwill internationally so perhaps Thaksin will be shipped back to Bangkok.I honestly don't know - nor do I suspect do most other people.

No - not at all!! If he says his piece the world will question why a US Govt office would summon a wanted terrorist criminal to give evidence against the "friendly to the US Government". It will also question little Shinawatras own actions whilst in power. The fact is Khun t is a fugitive for the rest of his life. My final comment - you seem to think that ts has some sort of moral code when he has shown time and time again that he is a bare faced liar, and not embarrased by his own stupid anti human conduct. My own feeling is that all of this is just hot air from ts's publicity department and his two small minded lawyers. As one poster said he will withdraw stating he is doing it to save everyone trouble. No one will have egg on their faces except for him who already sports a whole omelette on his fizog!!

In a way this discussion is redundant because very shortly we will have the hard facts available.Then you can be sure forum members may wish to revisit the various predictions made.Although your post is a little confusing it seems you are saying he will withdraw.At that point I selflessly will be making various "egg on face" awards as appropriate.

It makes you wonder (just a little bit) if THIS might be the payoff for Victor B.

Extradition of Thaksin to Thailand from the US? It would make me proud

And what if not? Will you feel ashamed?

It would certainly prove that the US has lost any shred of moral or legal decency if they refuse to extradite him. I won't feel ashamed, I will just pity that my old homeland has completed the transition to a 3rd world banana republic.

His extradition from the US would make me proud because it would prove to me the US has not yet become a completely corrupt den of thieves with no sense of right and wrong, or of justice.

It wouldn't prove anything of the kind.

In this matter as in most other dealings between states, the driving force is what is perceived to be self interest.Law plays a part certainly, morality in my view very little.As Charles de Gaulle commented long ago "The state is a cold cold creature." All this is understood very well by the great powers the US, China, Russia etc.

Thaksin's human rights abuses will hardly be relevant in this (US extradition) matter.Why?

1.Thailand has never raised them as an extradition matter (and we know the reason why)

2.Brutal though Tak Bai and other southern atrocities were, Thaksin was not primarily responsible. (The military was).

3.Drugs war killings.Difficult case to make and sell internally since the ultimate objective seen as laudable (still probably the opinion of most Thais).Support at the time from elite interests still powerful can't be overlooked (and certainly won't be by Thaksin's lawyers)

On the subject of Robert Amsterdam generally, it won't be sufficient to hurl abuse at him as is common on this forum and elsewhere, sometimes accompanied by snide anti semitism (S.P Somtow).His arguments will have to be addressed and demolished in possible in a cool forensic way.They never are, certainly on this forum.If the Thais were clued up they would already be looking to recruit one of Washington's many very smart lawyers.

4.Bush/Blair plausibly guilty of much worse

I personally don't believe there was any invitation, and the whole story is a hoax by T's attorneys to try to add a bit of respect to his rightfully trashed image. However, if Thaksin were to go to the US for such a meeting, and if the panel members were to even mention Thaksin's past abuses of human rights (Tak Bai, extra-judicial murders, etc) you can bet Mr. Amsterdam will interject with a loud and quick, "Sir, my client is not the one on trial here!"

I am a working person with no criminal record, still USA refuse my tourist visa application. How can Thaksin get a visa? Thaksin has no job, plus has a criminal record.

money, honey.

Well you may be right but you're putting yourself firmly in the camp that shortly could look rather silly if the invitation is real.(Not a fault in my view:I make predictions all the time - often completely off beam!)

The FT of 2 December has some interesting background including the nugget that little Kasit didn't even raise the subject of extradition when he visited Montenegro

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4d9da1e-fd65-11df-a049-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=672232c6-1385-11de-9e32-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz17Oq0SNJC

Thaksin is many things, but he is not an idiot. He will not go the US. This is a non-story.

Possibly.

But if he does go to the US, says his piece and departs it will be hard for his enemies to claim he is permanently on the run from one third world dump to another.It will be hard for Thailand to pretend most countries don't consider any extradition request politically motivated and it will be hard for those forum members whose main interest is castigating Thaksin that the wider world shares their views.In fact quite a few people will have egg on their faces, especially little Kasit (not so much Abhisit who is not pushing the matter so much)

If - assuming Thaksin does travel to the US - the Thais say that for some technical reason an extradition request was not served (for Thailand and the US have a valid treaty) you can be sure they have been told in advance by the State Department they are wasting their time.If Thaksin doesn't travel then not only does he seem rather cowardly but in addition I think that this will be evidence that extradition proceedings represent a clear and present danger for him - somewhere, sometime.

Just speculation on my part and we will soon know the score.I do feel that Thailand (and Abhisit) has a lot of goodwill internationally so perhaps Thaksin will be shipped back to Bangkok.I honestly don't know - nor do I suspect do most other people.

Here is an eye witness report, with photos, of protestors and the reporter coming under sustained fire from the Army, by photojournalist and forum member Nick Nostitz. Be warned: some of the photos are graphic and gruesome.

http://www.thailandvoice.com/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/

Btw, Some of the forum apologists for Army brutality have already worked out a semi-excuse for this one: The protestors and Nick retreated to a nearby petrol station (huge explosive potential and all that) AFTER they were shot at.

Do you have anything posted from a non-Red?

Very revealing indeed.Bucholz just can't conceive of someone having political sympathies in one direction and still doing his best to report truthfully.

As far as courtesy goes ---- you have labeled me with various nice labels like "visa-runner', teacher, bar stool ..." etc. I won't be taking any courtesy lessons from you

Ah well, I tried.

You are twisting his words yet again.

How?

Further, you mention that you will engage in some discussion re thaksins significance, "but not in a bad tempered ranting".

When you are ready, I am happy to do so when so "tasked".

And again you isolate some of my words so9 that my 'cut down' comment seems to give a different meaning. In other words you are dishonest!

It's simply not worth the trouble to continue any form of discussion with people who do things like this.

Don't really understand your problem but if you don't want to engage, that's your right.

Pity really because I subsequently had a thought that might help with your MBA students who were so puzzled that uneducated people might be intelligent and capable of great things.You could have reminded them that a few generations ago many of their forefathers were illiterate unwashed peasants sweltering in the paddy fields of Swatow and Southern China, far more primitive conditions than the farmers of Thailand experience.Through emigration and hard work they produced descendants like your MBA students.

Point of order ---- the rank and file of the PAD wasn't of Thai Chinese descent. The leadership was (as is much of the leadership of the UDD)

Not all but the vast majority were.

Generalizations. Great stuff. Just like the vast majority of poor and uneducated are probably unable to make the most informed decision on which way to vote, especially when the temptation of baht is put their way...?

Exactly ----

The OPINION of Jayboy is simply that. An Opinion not based in fact, but instead based upon his world view of Thailand. I do enjoy the way he throws the word "fascist" around, and "criminal" around though! I mean those words certainly couldn't be applied to Thaksin's authoritarian rule or the leaders of the UDD along with many of the followers (nor about TRT/PPP/PTP).

Funny though, how he would associate the PAD with "Sino-Thai" to the extent that he labels the vast majority of the PAD supporters that way (with no proof at all) yet fails to look at the leadership of the UDD. (granted he threw a dog a bone on that one ... but he did leave out the "sino-Thai" rhetoric he adds to the PAD (not just the leadership!) of fascist and criminal.)

He also managed to avoid addressing the rural Thai political machines that do control entire regions and avoid addressing the fact that the same type of political machine does not exist in BKK.

(It is kind of like the economist article that mentions not ALL UDD supporters are rural and not ALL UDD supporters are pro-Thaksin, but doesn't mention that the majority of the urban UDD supporters are either tied financially to Thaksin OR are first generation urban dwellers that still have to vote back home!)

I love his final point about how long you must be here to have an informed opinion His ad hominem attacks are becoming more subtle. I guess my now almost 8 years of living in Thailand (in multiple locations) and 16 years of spending time here before that, and studying the language enough to read the newspapers and watch the TV, and my constant interaction with Thais at every level of society don't account for much.

How do you know a perceptive foreigner? He's one that doesn't make blanket statements like "that is invariably a sign he is..."

Probably a courtesy to address me with these points.

I agree "criminal" is a label that could be attached to Thaksin."Fascist" probably not:the characteristics match the PAD leadership more closely.

I don't regard "Sino_Thai" as an insult.Surely I have made that clear.

Most PAD followers were Sino-Thai.You don't believe me.I suggested you ask around.

How is the rural political machine set up relevant? Interesting but for a separate discussion surely.

Don't attach too much importance to my "20 year suggestion".The key thing is to talk to knowledgeable people.

Anybody can pretend what they want to be on a forum like this.Actually I believe you but it doesn't really adds weight to your stated opinions.It's very easy over a period of posts to see exactly the level of education, knowledge and social background.Your commitment and interest are commendable.I just wish you would give and take a bit more.We might even have a reasonable discussion.

Thanks Jayboy - those lowly educated frequenters of the Bangkok taverns with an opinion of the political situation you often slate in when attacking other posters will be very pleased to read this.

You think it's a clever point but really it isn't.The farang element so strangely often supporters of repression in Thailand ( while often complaining about posh Tories at home) had in UK's wonderful welfare state every chance to educate themselves well.The poor of Thailand generally don't have that chance, and that's a key distinction.

Strange, I consider myself very much against repression, and I believe my political views represent that adequately. But you're free to disagree...

From your posts, even while often disagreeing, I fully accept your decency and democratic principles.

The irony I was pointing out, perhaps too oddly parochially British, is the oddity of many UK expatriates not obviously ex members of the Bullingdon Club who swoon like schoolgirls over the posh Thai establishment yet at home would be profoundly sceptical of "posh <deleted>" like Cameron and Osborne.

Further, you mention that you will engage in some discussion re thaksins significance, "but not in a bad tempered ranting".

When you are ready, I am happy to do so when so "tasked".

Point of order ---- the rank and file of the PAD wasn't of Thai Chinese descent. The leadership was (as is much of the leadership of the UDD)

Not all but the vast majority were.

Again --- pure speculation on your part colored by your world view of Thailand. Certainly NOT my experience having been to several rallies. The rank and file were urban Thai with some mix of rural Thai. Not Thai Chinese. You make the claim that the PAD was "Sino Thai" in the "vast majority" of cases. Document it or it is just your colored opinion. If you are talking about leaders .. then I think we can agree that the leaders of both the PAD and UDD were mostly Thai Chinese.

I may as well ask you to document your version.I won't however because it would be crass to do so.

The Bangkok urban class is largely a Sino-Thai one.If the PAD rallies simply reflected demographics it would imply a mainly Sino-Thai membership.Take into account the "sons of China" banners and accompanying racist rhetoric against ordinary Thais at those rallies, the appropriate assumptions can be drawn.Needless to say I wouldn't suggest for a moment that ordinary PAD members were of that view.Indeed I have always recognised the original impulse behind PAD was a noble one, even if it later became tarnished by its criminal leadership and their quasi fascist ideology.

I recognise you have no faith in my conclusions and therefore further debate is not productive.I can only suggest you talk to perceptive foreign residents of long standing, say over 20 years.They will perhaps tell you that when a Thai says "I am a Thai, one hundred percent", that is invariably a sign he is Sino-Thai.