jayboy

One problem for the reds is that their demonstrators run away after their paid time or even before. So they want to pay the money AFTER.

But no one want to agree with payment after. All want the money BEFORE.

If you are under the impression that every Red is motivated by a payment (and post after post suggests this is indeed your view) then I suppose you are entitled to deceive yourself.But please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

Of course they flaming well are, what on earth makes you think otherwise ?

There have been several responses to my comment on the above lines.I suppose with the Thaksin assets verdict in prospect there isn't much possibility of clear thinking from some in their over excited state.But one wonders do any of the usual suspects actually meet a broad cross section of Thai people.I know it's a minority but I know several well educated Bangkok Thais who are broadly red supporters - lawyers, doctors,businessmen.It's also true that most of these were Thaksin supporters, albeit disappointed ones.It's a reasonable area for discussion - can the Reds represent democratic and progressive values without Thaksin's support? Perhaps one day this can be discussed rationally but not I suspect in this febrile atmosphere and certainly not with those who ludicrously maintain the reds are just bribed peasants and a handful of commies.

One problem for the reds is that their demonstrators run away after their paid time or even before. So they want to pay the money AFTER.

But no one want to agree with payment after. All want the money BEFORE.

If you are under the impression that every Red is motivated by a payment (and post after post suggests this is indeed your view) then I suppose you are entitled to deceive yourself.But please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

This is dishonest and ignorant nonsense I'm afraid.There's no doubt that there were many positive aspects in Thaksin's efforts to improve rural Thailand's position.It is for that reason that the present Government has retained and in some cases even enhanced benefits provided under the Thaksin Government.Note for the naive: politicians all over the world implement policies to induce voters to lend support.Having said that some of Thaksin's supporters have overstated their case, and the actual results were sometimes surprisingly marginal.But to talk of a dependency cycle manafactured to buy votes is so childish it's not even worth discussing.

For the more serious there's actually quite a lot of evidence now on the impact of Thaksin's populist policies, none of it particularly supporting either side of the political divide.The subject is complex but when demonstrable error surfaces I think it's important to identify it promptly.

Yes there are probably one ore two people a year who fall for a bar girl and want to take them on the first available flight home, they are few and far between and are pretty soon weeded out by the authorities. There are people who are in genuine relationships for a number of years but who are only able to visit their loved one a couple of times a year, that's because they probably work for a living - how much leave do you get?

I would have thought it was far far more than one or two a year.My question is why should they be weeded out by the authorities.If the girl complies with the rules, has the funds and has no intention to overstay why on earth should she not be granted a visa? I accept that in many cases this might be difficult to prove.It's not however a morality test (if it was many Thai businessmen would be denied visas) nor should there be a "genuine relationship" requirement.

I would also add that many of these so called genuine "long distance" relationships are only so in the mind of the gullible foreigner.In most cases the background of the girl concerned...well no need to spell it out.

They are looking for reasons to reject and they have obviously wised up to the fact that applicants are prone to score own goals by acting as non-exec directors or doing voluntary work without WPs because they don't understand this falls within the law's very broad definition of work. Personally I find the attitude of the Labour Ministry and Immigration on this issue reprehensible. Without a detailed knowledge of Thai labour law, it is not intuitive that a WP is needed for these cases. The Labour Ministry could prevent expats from unintentionally violating the law by ensuring that notices are printed on WP application forms warning that these types of "work" also need to be recorded on WPs. Sadly I think they enjoy this situation and the result is criminalization of many expats, especially senior expats with decision making power about investments in Thailand who are more likely to be in this position. Immigration could also post similar warnings, including on the guidelines for applications for PR, but they choose not to. I wonder how many others have been caught like this.

I disagree and furthermore there is no basis on which you can argue they are looking for reasons to reject.What I find reprehensible is not the Labour Ministry and Immigration (who are actually simply doing their job by enforcing the very clear rules ) but the apparent sense of entitlement that some foreigners think they have in Thailand.Application for permanent residence is a serious undertaking and is not to be undertaken on an intuitive basis.Most savvy residents know perfectly well that non-exec directorships have to be approved by the Labour Department.If someone, rather implausibly to my mind, has reached the stage of being able to apply for PR without knowledge of this fact, then he or she should probably hire an experienced immigration lawyer to handle the paper work.If there was a deliberate attempt to deceive for whatever reason, he deserves all the frustration and disappointment coming his way.

Democratically elected? The people you are referring to were party list executives of a party that were caught cheating. To say "democratically elected" about people responsible for voting fraud is a laugh.

When individuals are caught for buying votes the penalty is that they are banned ... when party executives are caught then the penalty is banning the party and all party-list MP's.

How can someone claim any moral highground for winning when they were cheating to get there?

The voting fraud is undeniable but the post above gives the impression the writer believes that as a result there was no mandate.In fact all election monitors confirmed that the overall result reflected what the Thai people wanted.To suggest that the TRT/PPP achieved success with vote buying/electoral fraud as a decisive factor is only believed by the dimmer bulbs around or those operating at the Enid Blyton end of Thai politics.The much more interesting aspect in the 2007 election was the disgraceful attempt at manipulation by the usual suspects but how the Thai people delivered the military and its elite supporters a sharp slap in the face.Basically the electorate destroyed the generals' plans.

The situation is well summarised by Pasuk/Baker:

"The junta had imagined the army returning to a supervisory role in Thailand's democracy.They had prepared the way with a constitition that weakened the parliament, and a slew of legislation passed in the dying days of the junta's appointed legislature including the Internal Security Act, a bill on computer crimes, a law reducing the PM's role in military promotions, a new Broadcasting Act, and a bill restoring appointment of village heads.Like his counterparts two decades earlier, General Sonthi had contemplated a "promotion" from army chief to premier.

But the generals had failed.Despite reviving the old anti-communist tactics of intimidation of Thaksin's electoral base, destroying his party by court judgements,luring away his former politician supporters with cash and promises, mobilising public money and resources to manipulate the election, and launching a campaign of disinformation,the generals could not prevent the return of a Thaksinite government througfh the ballot box."

This is the background which most Thais readily now understand.When some uninformed or dishonest person suggests vote buying and electoral fraud deny legitimacy, it's clear that they have absolutely no idea of the overall context which Pasuk/Baker neatly encapsulate.So retirning to the thread don't forget that if the red movement is at war with the military, it is a war that the military started.

It's a shame Jayboy can NOT understand why appeasment is a bad thing versus aggressive groups with agendas.

It is pretty clear and I used a good historical example. The conclusion, in the current context,

doesn't support giving in the Thaksin and the reds intimidations, so maybe that's why it can't be agreed with.

If a general point about appeasement is made clearly as above I understand very well, and indeed agree.The problem was that the reference you gave was just muddled and poorly written gobblededook.As for the specifics I was actually never a participator in the debate.If however you are saying that Thaksin is a bad man and his red followers shouldn't threaten violence, nobody - stifling a yawn - is going to disagree with you.

If you want to be taken seriously why don't you stop repeating stale mantras and aim for some nuance, sensitivity and insight (even walking on the wild side and trying to imagine the other fellow's point of view).It's not as though you don't have the time - but do you have the knowledge, wit or imagination? On a forum like this there needs to be some give and take.

"The Central Forensic Science Institute also used the GT 200."

I can take it that the Thai police and army are stupid. But the Central Forensic Science Institute too? I mean Khunying?

No.

Meanwhile, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of the Forensic Science Institute and who always uses the GT200, said the UK had only banned the ADE651.

She said the detector was effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water.

I hope that now people can understand why I do not have much respect her. She seems to have never met a microphone that she didn't like. Unfortunately, this position will undercut her credibility. I wonder if she watched too many Quincy, ME shows,

I couldn't agree more. She is in the limelight far far too much. The fact that she thinks this machine works says it all. Why would you want to find nails under water anyway?

This machine is quite odd, in the fact that wouldn't sniffer dogs achieve largely the same result and 1/10th of the price?

Couldn't really care one way another about the overhyped Dr Pornthip, the sort of Thai that a particular type of farang latches on to.What's more interesting is the pack of lies relating to the GT200 that's making a sortable problem into a huge one for the government and the military.

It was not aggressive unless it strikes a nerve with you.

And where was the agression? It was a simple declarative sentence,

but you find it aggressive. You're getting a bit touchy lately.

Seems you still want to avoid the question and question the phrasing.

So an accurate assessment in a short few words.

People can see through your act too you know.

Your own words make your attitude clear.

However in passing it seems you still miss the point, not that it was an earth shattering one.

I checked the reference you gave and couldn't really understand it I'm afraid.

Ignore the question and question the phrasing.

Same same.

Strange.Rixalex gave me a polite reply, not disputing the proposition but pointing out reasonably that someone else defined the terms.That ended the matter.You jump in aggressively and rudely missing the point completely.And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by many.

To repeat for the third time of asking: do you really think that elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence is the right solution?

If yes, would you not be concerned about the precedent it would set?

With respect, to be convincing, you should avoid resorting to a prescriptive definition.It is you that has set up the proposition about elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence.If this is your view you are welcome to state it on a forum like this.However what you aren't entitled to do is to suggest it is a universally accepted understanding and then go on to ask somebody to react to it.

Let's say I don't give a rats @ss who wins an election, but I want to know who is going to lead the group in power- for example I look at the Dems and I see Abhisit and Korn. So....?

But take away the two quite untypical ex English public schoolboys with their Oxford degrees , and who do you have on the Dems side? The usual uninspiring dross.

But of course you are right on the dearth of compelling Red leadership.Lucky for the old elite really because a dynamic and honest Red leader would turn the country upside down, perhaps even winning urban middle class support and making inroads in the South.Interesting to speculate.

Many people get their 15 minutes of fame for being butt stupid.

Jade Goody or any Big Brother candidate, or other reality program wingnuts.

People who go on Jerry Springer or Rikki Lake, one shot guests on Thai talk shows,

yakking with a fake Katoey, or the 5 legged dog owner from upper nowhere.

This guy courts fame and notoriety, but not in a rational manner.

See his website, guns and stuffed animals, a truly warped view on the world.

He is a celebrity in a land where getting interviewed 3 times on TV makes you a celebrity.

In a land of mai bpen rai and sloth a man of action stands out too.

Gotta say he IS a man of action; ill considered actions in too many case,

but at least he makes a move rather than waits for death to come someday.

Still 'Declaring War On The Army' is asking for death to come sooner in most cultures.

I think most would agree he is a strange and unlikeable piece of work.Oddly enough I think he is typical of many Thais with power, albeit in an extreme form.By this I mean a crazy self confidence sometimes edging into odious arrogance, sometimes with a cheesy charm but usually unaccompanied by the ability to think rationally which would give the undoubted charisma some real substance.That's why I place so much faith in people like the current Finance Minister who is the polar opposite.But there's part of me which sadly feels there's usually something irremediably second rate about Thais when they have power and influence, and that applies right across the political spectrum.

I am finished with him anyways, he never answer the questions put to him so it is always just one-sided. He is off in the land of the ignored .... (strangely all but one that I have placed there over the years got moved into the very special group called 'banned')

Just for the record I have twice offered to answer any questions you might have if you set them out clearly.

This you are unwilling or unable to to do although quite ready to flame as you have done again in your last post.

You forgot Argument Ad Hominum too. One of his hit parade favorites.

Please note, after ignoring the error for a long time, it should be "ad hominem".Best not use Latin phrases if you don't really understand them.

1.So, what you are in fact saying is that those people ARE known Red leaders and you are not disputing the rather harsh labels attributed to them?

2.We are still waiting on your direct responses to things on the other threads not to mention the fact that the article you quoted in this thread states that Thaksin and the reds are not interested in Democracy and that laid violence at the feet of the yellows but failed to mention the reds and the fact that most of the violence in the last 4 years has come from that side.

3.BTW --- I resent the implication that I am 'flaming' in any sense of the word :-)

Point 1. Do you understand why I quoted the paragraph? I've explained twice already.I agree the joke is getting thin.

Point 2. Do me a favour old bean and summarise these outstanding points (clearly and concisely please) and I'll respond.Can't really be arsed to spend more time on back posts for this purpose and for such an obvious troll.

Point3. Resent it or not a flame is a flame.But don't worry I don't really mind.

Animatic is many things, but simple-minded he is not. There is no poster who backs up their comments and assertions with facts, figures, not to mention reason and logic, more than he. The simple minded comment must have been made into the mirror perhaps.

Is this the kind of sophisticated, reasonable and logical benchmark you have in mind?

"You know, if the red shirts weren't so full of idiots, morons and psychopaths, more poeple would probably be agreeing with them. But you have folks like Jatuporn, who lies so much even his mother has given up on him, Noppadon, the man Cambodians love, Thaksin, the "leader" in exile, Seh Daeng - a mouthbreather of the first rank, and dont' forget Jakrabop, whos still out there, being dumb somewhere. I am no yellow lover - but the red shirts are easy to despise, because they look and sound like crazies. They have already lost, but now seem determined to burn the boat down, before if finishes sinking. Thailand doesn't need these people. They are not saviors of democracy. They are incompetents. The government just has to sit and watch them blow themselves up, unfortunately."

LOL

You still evade answering questions and do it through misrepresentation and lies. Please tell us about the names listed above and how they are GOOD examples of the Red movement

I say steady on old boy.That's a bit strong and anyway you seem to have missed the point of the quotation above which was to try and establish (albeit with facetious intent) the benchmark for a sophisticated contribution.Suffice it to say the bar has been set very low.

As it happens, I don't hold a banner for any of the chaps mentioned, and what on earth prompted you to think I might have?

My earlier offer still stands.If you can manage to express yourself clearly and if possible concisely and without flaming, I would be happy to try and answer any questions you might have.

Animatic is many things, but simple-minded he is not. There is no poster who backs up their comments and assertions with facts, figures, not to mention reason and logic, more than he. The simple minded comment must have been made into the mirror perhaps.

Is this the kind of sophisticated, reasonable and logical benchmark you have in mind?

"You know, if the red shirts weren't so full of idiots, morons and psychopaths, more poeple would probably be agreeing with them. But you have folks like Jatuporn, who lies so much even his mother has given up on him, Noppadon, the man Cambodians love, Thaksin, the "leader" in exile, Seh Daeng - a mouthbreather of the first rank, and dont' forget Jakrabop, whos still out there, being dumb somewhere. I am no yellow lover - but the red shirts are easy to despise, because they look and sound like crazies. They have already lost, but now seem determined to burn the boat down, before if finishes sinking. Thailand doesn't need these people. They are not saviors of democracy. They are incompetents. The government just has to sit and watch them blow themselves up, unfortunately."

The op/ed piece you quoted was certainly funny in that it laid violence at the feet of the PAD and not the reds ...

See my brief response to Animatic.To be honest I didn't really understand what your post was all about.If you concisely summarise your points I'll do my best to address them (if they make sense).

On a point of information I have no animosity towards Sino-Thais at all, simply observing they as mainly urban middle class were the predominant element in the PAD mobs.There are plenty of Sino-Thais favouring democratic progress.

But even as I state above that there were fringe elements in PAD with those negative qualities,

you STILL inisist I have not ever acknowledged that. You can slag, but you don't read posts clearly

except to back up your points, and that causes errors on your part.

I don't find PnB particularly admiring of him over all.

I don't hate all Thaksin fans, not in the way you hate anti-Thaksin fans for speaking out,

I just dislike those that can't see his negatives at all. And think that gives him a free pass to destroy the country.

Sorry this is too simple minded for me to respond to, specifically the fatuous way you talk about Thaksin-fans and anti-Thaksin fans.

There's much more to Thai politics than this.There's even a sophisticated and convincing case to be made from the wing I take it you represent.

may i remind you that Hitler was "democratically" elected too

Godwin's Law. Pro Thaksin posters win.

According to the law, invoking the law is also a forfeit loss.

The hoary myth that Hitler was democratically elected is often propounded by those with a cartoon understanding of twentieth century history, and also here in Thailand by those who fear democracy's consequences.The truth about Hitler's rise to power is rather more complex.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

If there is a coup it will be Abhisit who is ousted and not Thaksin. Thaksin missed the government in exile boat when he was couped. It will be Abhisit's turn to consider it if he is couped.

Kind of bizarre.

Agreed if there was a coup it's Abhisit who should set up a government in exile ..and my guess he would get widespread sympathy and hospitality overseas if not outright recognition.

But the military and those who use them can't be so stupid...or can they?

Most democracies in the world have been through very rough patches (control by the ruthless and uncaring aristocracy etc etc) until eventually the middle classes got the courage to stand up and demand that the picture change.

Same thing is going to eventually happen in Thailand. In fact I suggest that a large percentage of the core of the PAD people were in fact 'the middle classes' who wanted to be heard and were demanding change towards quality democracy.

I see what you're getting at but let me make some points based on a study of history.

Brutal and uncaring aristocracies is to describe with the benefit of hindsight.All societies were at one time or another dominated by monarchs and an aristocracy.Change comes violently or non violently.Where it came non violently (more or less) as in nineteenth century England the aristocracy had an enlightened sense of self interest which allolwed them to survive and prosper.Where they didn't as in early twentieth Russia they were cast adrift to wander the world while the Romanovs met their end brutally in a dark cellar.

Your analysis of PAD is partly right particularly its middle class background.The fatal flaw however was that it is was fundamentally a self centred movement and the "quality democracy" you mention but don't define was based on minimising the role of the Thai rural majority.I don't doubt that whatever eventually emerges as a properly representative government Thailand will end up being dominated by the educated middle class.But PAD's weakness was and is the lack of compassion towards their fellow countryman.Middle class selfishness can be as cruel and as politically misguided as aristocratic selfishness.

Well finally you state they only had undemocratic and racist elements in PAD.

As with ANY group there are alway fringe elements off the main stream.

.

No I was referring to people like you who incredibly still find it hard to admit PAD contained no racist or undemocratic elements in it.

The reality is these elements underpinned the whole organization.

Are you about to add Baker/Pasuk, those well known admirers of Thaksin, to your hate list by the way?

"Living in the past"?

PAD, PAD, PAD, PAD.... almost obsolete, forming a political party, haven't heard or seen much oft hem lately - it's the red shirts, the UDD who are rattling the swords, who are shaking the foundations of this country,

I wouldn't write off PAD quite yet but you are quite right.They have apparently been deserted by most of their powerful backers and by forming a political party they seem doomed for a marginal existence.I would have thought they would have been better off as a influential pressure group.

Actually I don't care that much for Red mobs either, though I sympathise with the broader democratic aims of the movement.Once Thailand is a fairer and less deferential society more reasonable leaders will emerge, and they won't include the likes of Thaksin or the PAD leadership.Personally I still have some faith in Abhisit/Korn etc but recognise disappointment is possible.