jayboy

It is the opinion of many that it is possible to criticise Prem and not criticise anyone else. However, if you are criticising Prem when he is acting in an official capacity that becomes highly questionable. Look at the duties of the members of the P.C. and it becomes much clearer.

Yes the position of Privy Council member is above criticism.

Was he acting in his official or unofficial capacity when involved or at least complicit in an overthrow of the elected government by army officers.Please advise so we know whether one is able to criticise or not.

Facetiousness apart, your response simply underlines your cheerleader for reaction credentials.What is more the substance of your reply shows startling ignorance.Nobody is above criticism and we have that on the highest authority.

No, they didn't. Most voters in the North East favoured the same candidates, and their proxies, as always. Thaksin merely bought many in 2001, and did deals with the rest to form a coalition, and then bought out most of the rest in 2005. He linked up with the vote winning (and vote buying) cabals of Newin, Chavalit, Banharn and others to win the elections. And still felt the need to have to cheat. If people were so enamoured of Thaksin, and the policies of the TRT, in 2001 then why did he need to do this? If that were true then he could have run new, "clean" candidates under the TRT banner and still won the election.

I'm going to ignore your embarrassing apologetics for the military junta that grabbed power if you don't mind.In normal circumstances I would pull you up on your very misleading comment about what "normally happens in parliamentary democracies", but not on this occasion.

The part of your reply quoted is more interesting, and raises a very fair point, namely why did Thaksin participate the same old Thai electoral chicanery when in most peoples view he had the support anyway.I suspect the answer is the obvious one - meglomania and a kind of anal retentive determination.I know you doubt whether he had that basic support, but election after election proves you wrong.

Sorry, nobody is saying ALL rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

Note ---- to think that popularity overrides democracy when the popular guy is corrupt --- is stupid and ignorant and corrupt

Since most voters in the North And North East favoured TRT and its successors, the majority get caught in your definitions of ignorant and/or corrupt.Actually in terms of moral corruption, I'm not sure that the urban middle classes who enjoy a grotesquely unfair share of state resources - health, education, infrastructure etc have much to complain about.

I have no real idea what your final sentence means.Are you suggesting that a corrupt but popular leader should not be protected by democracy? I agree that's a hard one which the Italians for example are grappling with.But the supposed cure of military intervention is worse than the disease (as we have seen all too clearly in Thailand).Actually I think a PAD type movement (but with proper leadership as opposed to the actual grisly cabal and their repulsive value systems) has a role to play in this kind of difficult situation.It's hard work of course.

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

So you are saying that any bunch of miltary thugs can take over a country, and to point out that the previous elected government had a popular mandate is "boring".What I find "boring" are the tired excuses for an unelected and unaccountable elite and the absurd assumption that rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

The ELECTED parliament was dissolved by Thaksin. Parliament elects the government. No Parliament = no elected government.

Doesn't take a mental giant to see the truth here now does it?

As I noted, some will look for any excuses to support military coups for the reasons detailed above.In this foolish example it's not worth bothering to demolish.There are some more compelling arguments but they're not articulated by this poster.

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

What's your point?

My point is i am disputing the claims by various people that the September 2006 Coup removed a democratically Elected Government/PM - they didn't, they removed a Caretaker PM - subtle but important difference

Are you suggesting the caretaker government was not elected, specifically that it did not have a popular mandate?

The 2006 Coup removed a Caretaker PM, who for some reason was dragging his feet in calling a new election...

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary

What's your point?

So Abhisit/Korn have a mammoth task ahead of them - if they last.

But first they have to get over the "old politics" of Thailand and that is where my "genuine" Super Hero, who wants to do it for the country first, comes in to play.

There have of course in the twentieth century been a number of political leaders in the super hero format who came to power with a self determined mandate to crush "old politics."In almost every instance these heroes rule resulted in economic disaster and in some cases mass murder.My point is that we shouldn't be too enthusiastic about any leader.Scepticism is sometimes a great virtue.

The only difference I have with your comment now is to question how large that "wide spread emotional attachment is and if it is "real" or just "playing for the money". That's why I said if a less "demanding" provider is present and can sell to them with equal "charisma", then I believe their "loyalty" will move quickly.

Of course finding the tipping point for that is the hard part.

I think it's real and widespread.The playing for money aspect exists but is ridiculously overstated by many members of this forum as motivation for the red movement.I can assure you senior members of the current government don't make this mistake,notwithstanding rhetoric about Thaksin's gold.They know very well they are up against a solid movement brought into being by the elite's neglect of the rural majority.Your point about someone with equal charisma is interesting.The lack of it is my main worry about the Abhisit/Korn approach.Equally it raises the possibility of a newcomer with the necessary qualities making a dramatic impact.

I read that Financial Times article yesterday, Jayboy. I think you used the correct word, "flavour" it is.

Balanced, it is not.

It's just an article, not an attempt at a full "balanced" account.Actually the FT over a period of months has produced quality reporting.If there's a bias it's towards the Abhisit/Korn approach, and that's a position I share.The article I posted does make the key point that many millions of Thais believe unelected and unaccountable elites have suborned the courts and the democratic approach generally.From my experience that's also the view of most well educated foreigners, most of whom also detest Thaksin.

Okay, perhaps I didn't read it properly - my 1 free item a month subscription was used on this, so I'll take your word for it.

But, I know the FT has tended to focus a lot of the other articles as you say. If the paper is "balanced", I guess that means more.

As for your comment about many millions of Thais believing they've been subjected to the will of the "elites", I think that starts a lot lower down the food chain with the local headmen. It's been Thaksin/TRT which has woken many up, to those in the lofty towers - he/they didn't touch the "local" elites - he knew (back then) not to touch those guys. Even then the average people, such as my relations up country, always knew about how they were treated anyway. But up until they were thrown some trinkets by the snake oil salesmen, it never worried them. The practical facets of life mattered more and the "snake oil men" (Thaksin/TRT) helped ease that burden - even if like with much "quack" medicines the relief was temporary.

Will they do what he asks now ?

I doubt it.

And if they are provided with real reforms and other benefits from someone else who is less troublesome why not ?

Thai people - such as that guy mentioned in the article are not stupid.

"Show Me The Money"...

I think your comments are sensible and clearly not everyone reacts the same way.Where I might differ is to point out the widespread emotional attachment of so many to Thaksin/TRT, not necessarily logical but a factor that has to be recognised.

Last time Thaksin told if the army comes he'll come and march down from Isaan to lead his ........ (hmm how to call them......) followers to Bangkok and .........

If you're struggling to come up with appropriate crude racist language (hmm how to call them) cast your mind back to the PAD rallies in Bangkok.I'm sure you will recall a wide range of suitable epithets.

I read that Financial Times article yesterday, Jayboy. I think you used the correct word, "flavour" it is.

Balanced, it is not.

It's just an article, not an attempt at a full "balanced" account.Actually the FT over a period of months has produced quality reporting.If there's a bias it's towards the Abhisit/Korn approach, and that's a position I share.The article I posted does make the key point that many millions of Thais believe unelected and unaccountable elites have suborned the courts and the democratic approach generally.From my experience that's also the view of most well educated foreigners, most of whom also detest Thaksin.

JD happens to be one of the better informed posters herein. When other posters ask questions or seek qualification about something (usually to do with T and the Reds), JD has been known to respond with historical facts. Supporters of the Reds, on the other hand, wax loquacious about future dire scenarios, but shy away from citing actual facts relating to the topic at hand - or descend to name calling when stumped for a thoughtful response.

Er yes quite.JD did produce an excellent reference recently with an interview from the late lamented FEER.Unfortunately it proved a point diametrically opposite to the one intended, namely Prem's illiberal and often bizarre dotage.The trouble with this kind of facile discussion is that it is over personalised and crudely black and white.Thus Thaksin is demonised and Prem for example is sanctified.The reality of course is that both men have their strengths and weaknesses.The following piece from the FT gives some flavour of the complexity.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/701c4202-201a-11...144feab49a.html

You might like to remember just one part of this puzzle; General Prem has been seen as a very very wise and genuine and humble guide for many years by a very very large percentage of the Thai population who love him and adore him.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this ludicrous comment.For that at least one should be grateful.

The slightly sad aspect is that before assuming the role of a Thai Petain, Prem once showed elements of statesmanship.

Oh and as for the "very very large percentage" of the Thai population who "love and adore" him,try taking a poll.

Yes the P.C. is NOT the Government ... They serve at the will of the Head of State. they can be removed at the will of the head of State. They are advisors.

Exactly right, hence the importance of not meddling in politics.The FEER interview is fascinating and it I'm afraid provides all the evidence needed that old soldiers should quietly fade away

Sorry GK .....

But everything you have documented seems like it would fall into 'advisory' in nature. The FOX tactic you are using is clear.

Feel free to document anything you wish but in your posts above you do not document anything at all. Where do I have his detailed interview? Where did you document anything? You express a blatant opinion about partisanship but don't document it. In fact "I leave it to others to decide" when giving no evidence is a VERY FOX news tactic

The rest ... well was it your opinion? Was it part of an article published somewhere? What was it? Hmmmm Prem is old? ummm duh. Does his age make him more or less capable of doing things?

again all you gave was opinion ... no evidence at all

The slightly hysterical response here is interesting given that GK's post was polite, measured,accurate and perceptive.I personally do believe that Prem should be resting quietly at home like other very old soldiers with a distinguished past, writing memoirs perhaps.There is prima facie evidence that he committed some gross errors of judgement, specifically his role in at very least tolerating the illegal coup, which in other countries might have got him into very deep trouble.Some of his recent public statements have also verged on the unconstitutional.I don't think that anyone other than some of the extreme reds wants charges pressed aginst someone who has done the state some considerable service.However as British PM Attlee once said of one of his ministers a long period of silence from Prem would be very desirable.

"He gave them attention and hope". Can never agree with this, he bought their votes and their emotions, nothing more than that.

You are wrong.Even his political enemies accept Thaksin gave rural Thais attention and hope.If you are in error on what is undisputable your other points won't be taken seriously I'm afraid

OK, so:

1. Quote some examples of his political opponents saying that he gave rural Thais attention and hope. And perhaps you would like to give some rational arguments, facts, etc., to support your claims about attention and hope.

2. Please list the things that he did for the rural Thais that would fall in the category of deep, wide, solid structural reforms aimed specifically at building a fairer Thailand and which gave the rural Thais a real opportunity to actually really have a better quality of life.

And please don't list handouts, that's not the answer.

Over to you.

As to your points:

1.Why on earth do you think that the current Government is preserving and in some cases enhancing Thaksin's policies towards the rural majority? Thaksin changed the game plan forever.

2.You miss the point completely.I made no claims for the benefits of the "populist" policies.As it happens I think they made less of a contribution than some supporters maintain.What is utterly indisputable however is that Thaksin took the majority of Thais seriously, and in doing so challenged the feudalists, their military goons, the lazy corporate monopolists and assorted middle class dupes.Was he corrupt and greedy himself? Yes of course.

"He gave them attention and hope". Can never agree with this, he bought their votes and their emotions, nothing more than that.

You are wrong.Even his political enemies accept Thaksin gave rural Thais attention and hope.If you are in error on what is undisputable your other points won't be taken seriously I'm afraid

Prem is with many others an honorable statesman, which the fugitive has completely failed to prove for himself and in attacking these "elites" as he and his lackeys claim, they are attacking the very core of Thai Society and with this will lose the plot completely, besides showing their real intentions ever more and ever clearer, mudslinging, blackmailing of honorable people is not a very honorable thing, especially if it is to defend a fugitives very own shortcoming, which is so obvious, despite all apologies and promised honesty!

I disagree.Prem has a great deal to answer for and I suspect it will be future historians that write the verdict, not contemporary observers.More disturbingly is your facile assumption that what you describe as "Thai elites" should not be criticised whatever errors they have committed on the grounds that this somehow would be an attack on the core of the Thai nation.This servile attitude which is probably not shared by most Thai people( though enthusiastically propagated by corrupt and greedy elites themselves) is partly what gives rogues like Thaksin their opportunity.

I tend to agree that the likes of Abhisit and Korn can if given support and a modicum of luck be instrumental in moving the country forward. However, that window for them is starting to close and if they or those backing them dont move soon it will be lost.

Quote: "However, that window for them is starting to close and if they or those backing them dont move soon it will be lost."

It's obviously true that, in politics, things can change quickly, and unexpected 'things' can appear with no warning.

On the other hand, Abhisit is becoming bolder and demaning more accountability. And he's standing up more to Suthep (which he couldn't really do at first because it was Suthep (and Chuan) who paved the way for Abhisit to get into the driving seat).

Korn has strong support from a large percentage of the business community (those who see the big picture, rather than pure greed and selfishness), and Korn has recently won two prestigious international awards for his policies. And Korn has already (with Abhisit) laid a long term path for a more civil society where there is more equal opportunity and more sharing of the wealth.

Good post and its refreshing to see at least some discussion of the bigger picture as opposed to the one dimensional view that everything's explained by votebuying and Thaksin's wickedness..The Abhisit/Korn route is surely the way forward to redress the imbalances in Thai society.Even at one's most cynical it represents a smart attempt of the ruling class to preserve its interests, as opposed to the crazed greed of the generals, monopolist businessmen and feudalists.

The road to true democracy is voting for Thaksin Shinawatra because he is the only one supporting democracy.

Nonsense of course.However with the PAD movement with open elite support campaigning to restrict the franchise (I know they backtracked on this), it's easy to see how Thaksin seized the true democracy banner.The answer is surprisingly simple:treat all Thai people with respect and don't unfairly discriminate.I believe Abhisit/Korn understand this and gradually if they are are given a chance the baleful influence of Thaksin will wane.Trouble is the greed, stupidity and innate violence in the Thai elite is unpredictable.

But to suggest that the movement is simply one of paid peasants is simply silly,

I think the suggestion might have been refering to those attending the rallies / riots, rather than the entire movement and all of its sympathisers. In that sense, i don't think it's far from the truth.

and ignores the huge divisions in Thai society that gave the Red movement its impetus in the first place.

Let's not kid ourselves; Thaksin was (and still is) the impetus - divisions in society just one of his devices.

I take a different view on the rally participants' motivation.Even those who were paid are unlikely to have this as primary motivation to attend.I know the opposite view is a common mantra in some middle class circles, precisely echoing ninetenth century British middle class comments in the early days of the Labour Party.It was ever thus.

As to Thaksin, of course he exploited divisions in Thai society but he wasn't responsible for them, and without the profound unfairness and corrupt self serving elites he would never have achieved traction.But I agree it's a very messy situation which doesn't yield itself to quick and facile explanations.

Lawyers, doctors and businessmen? Truly a broad cross section of Thailand. How many of these people actually attend the red rallies? The point being made was that, in a large rally - I'm not talking about the miserable little efforts they've managed recently, the majority of the protestors, there to make the numbers large, are indeed paid. It may be in cash, food or a mixture of both. This was also true of the PAD rallies, and I personally know of a number of people who attended both for the money. There is no fixed rate, the level of pay varies depending on whether the attender is a front line banner waver or a back of the crowd foot clapping clown.

None of the professional people I mention have attended red rallies which are largely lower middle class /working class.Nevertheless I don't really buy your thesis that the motivation for those who did attend Red or PAD rallies was a free lunch or a few hundred baht.

How the red movement evolves will be interesting indeed. Right now it encompasses the whole spectrum form extreme right to extreme left with regional and self interest groups thrown in as well plus a lot who are just Thaksin admirers devoid of ideology beyond that.

I think that comment and the rest of your post is very fair.The Red movement is certainly a broad coalition and it would take a very astute mind to predict exactly how it will evolve (or whether it will collapse and be replaced ( as PeaceBlondie alludes) by a more effective movement largely free of Thaksin's shadow (though his catalytic influence is a matter of record now).But to suggest that the movement is simply one of paid peasants is simply silly, and ignores the huge divisions in Thai society that gave the Red movement its impetus in the first place.A chancer like Thaksin could never have ignited such a movement unless there was a massive resentment of Thailand's greedy and corrupt elite.Note for some:spare me the litany of Thaksin's greed and corruption:I'm well aware of the ironies in this situation.