jayboy

I should bring the temperature down.We know that dishonesty cannot be extinguished and it's possibly unrealistic to argue with the kind of people who still maintain the PAD had no undemocratic or racist elements in its leadership and followers.I would argue the PAD movement was underpinned by these elements, compounded by the threat of violence.I would however be guilty of the same fault if I didn't recognise upfront the idealism and decency of many PAD followers who were revolted by Thaksin's corruption and meglomania.But the fact remains that the PAD leadership in paricular was profoundly undemocratic in its instincts.

The final paragraph of the Pasuk/Baker article "Fighting over Democracy" I think gives a fair and unbiased - though rather bleak - summary.

"At one level Thailand’s conflict seems a relatively straightforward matter of class and privilege. On one side is a minority urban middle class that is frightened by the “tyranny of the majority” and that clings onto the established power of monarchy and army. On the other is a provincial and largely rural mass that has recently learnt how to use electoral democracy to over­ come state neglect. But at another level, the conflict is more complex. Politicians repre­senting the provincial mass have reaped the gains that accrue to political influence in the absence of a strong judiciary and other checks and balances. Thaksin is an unlikely and unfortunate figure to become the heroic defender of democracy since he does not believe in it, he has manipulated it to make billions, and he overrode liberal democratic principles during his time in power. PAD argues that ethics are more important than the principle of one ­person/ one­vote, and many liberal democratic activists support PAD on those grounds.

The political crisis in Thailand has lulled but is far from over. Ultimately this conflict is about resolving the increased social and political complexities that arise with prosperity and globalisation. In the pessimistic view, PAD’s crude ideas and crude use of violence are an ominous sign for the future of democracy. In the opti­mistic view, the current conflict is explod­ing the old myth of a society unified under the monarchy, ushering in the possibility of a stronger democracy based on open debate and open competition."

Cute --- again full of lies and misrepresentations -- but Cute

Disenfranchise? Whom? Nobody under that ill conceived new democracy plan espoused by some of the PAD would have been 'disenfranchised'. Everyone would have gotten a vote AND then some power groups (including labor unions and farmers) would have gotten votes too.

Racist slurs? LOL .. Sino-Thai triumphalism (sic) -- you mean Thaksin right? He is after all .. Sino-Thai Unelected Elites? --- you mean Thaksin's main supporters in the areas he did well in? Those political bosses that don't run for office anymore but control massive voting blocks through vote-buying and intimidation?Those are the elite you are referring to aren't you? After all Thaksin's family had their name bestowed up[on them in 1911 I think ... doesn't that make him elite? Isn't he the leader of the Red movement and hasn't he decried Democracy often? Wasn't his model the CEO model in which all power in the government was derived from him? Didn't he state that he trusted the courts (a mainstay of a democracy) but then flee the country when it was clear they couldn't be bought? Didn't his lawyers get caught attempting to hand over 2million baht? Didn't Thaksin and the red movement's actions cost farmers their land by increasing their debt load to the point that they lost everything? Isn't it fair to say that many people laboring under this increasing debt load brought on by Thaksin's populist programs will lose all if they don't get him or his cronies back in office to offer them more loans or at least deferments (or forgive those debts totally?)

Hasn't the red movement had people like Giles U. up on stage calling for all sorts of things that can't be discussed on here? Didn't Giles then bugger off to England? Giles isn't for Democracy if you remember .. and by his own statements neither is Thaksin. Isn't this thread about a guy that has been openly associated with the Reds ... and didn't he threaten grenade attacks on the yellows .. and didn't those grenade attacks happen? Now he is claiming to be the leader of the reds (self-appointed leader of a democratic *cough* organization?) Haven't the Reds prevented Democrats from campaigning in red controlled areas? Haven't they perpetuated the majority of all the violence that has occurred in the years that this has been going on? Democracy my pale white posterior --- all they want is Thaksin controlling the purse strings and doling out the cash!

Yes Thaksin is Chinese.What is this meant to prove? Can't you transcend your Thai politics for the kindergarden?

Another series of lies.These are the facts

1.The PAD wanted to reduce the voting influence of rural voters (ie the Thai majority).You can back away from it now but that was the position and is easily checked

2.The PAD platforms in Bangkok consistently slurred Thais of non Chinese ethnicity in a disgusting racist way.Do you deny it?

3.Giles is virulently anti Thaksin.Why are you rabbiting on about off field Giles anyway?

The Reds have never been about Democracy at all and the yellows, while having a few spots on their record are far more democratic in nature.

So comically outrageous that one can put to one side the dishonesty or possibly wilful ignorance this statement represents.

Clearly the writer doesn't follow history very closely.

Actually ... it is based on history, particularly the history since the advent of the Red and yellow movements.

No it's a lie and easily proven too.The Reds have never threatened to disenfranchise anyone and espoused democratic values.It was part of the yellow platform however to effectively disenfranchise a large swathe of rural Thais, to proclaim a Sino-Thai triumphalism, to provide more power to unelected elites and the military.This was compounded by racist slurs on Thais of Lao,Khmer and "non-Thai" origin.

Don't mistake those you do speak to as speaking for the nation.

Message for you here as well Rixalex

The Reds have never been about Democracy at all and the yellows, while having a few spots on their record are far more democratic in nature.

So comically outrageous that one can put to one side the dishonesty or possibly wilful ignorance this statement represents.

Clearly the writer doesn't follow history very closely.

Some may simply want Thaksin back (and one has to ask why - what is their motivation?) but others are certainly fighting for what you call the greater good.

Whilst i accept that within the reds there may be varying degrees in terms of the passion of support for Thaksin - some truly blind in the belief that Thaksin is a completely innocent victim, others more open to questioning some of his actions - i don't believe that a single one of them would actively stand against Thaksin being cleared of all charges and returning to power, were that ever a possibility. That's what makes whatever good intentions they may have hollow.

To employ that overused expression in vogue a propos greedy bankers, you simply don't get it.

As far as the well educated foreign community (particularly high earners with work permits in contrast with the more intinerant nature of most members of this forum, retirees on a budget etc) is concerned it's quite amazing to me how many have sympathy for the red movement(not that their opinion matters that much of course).

Are we to take it that you are refering to yourself with this observation?

You find yourself amazing? Guess that fits.

As far as being privy to that background details "of most members of this forum", pray tell, how did you come by this information?

Actually not.I'm a bird of passage on a budget.

The background of most members of this forum is blindingly obvious from a whole variety of clues.Any individual poster after a time provides evidence of education, social class, literacy, political views.It's not difficult to read the signals.But I'm proud to be a member

it's frankly bizarre to expect the Reds to take up this cause.

Nobody expects it, that's true, because nobody (with the exception of some of their followers perhaps), seriously believes the red movement is there for any other reason other than to whitewash Thaksin and return him to power. But all the while they continue to pretend to be fighting for some greater good, it's only right that people continue to ask questions like "but what about the Alpine case?".

The day the reds come out and say "we're only interested in seeking punishment for crimes commited by those against our cause - those for it are free to break whatever laws they please", is the day those pesky questions stop being asked of them.

The truth is that the Reds now form a broad coalition with mixed motivations which can't be easily categorised (much like the yellow shirts in their prime).Some may simply want Thaksin back (and one has to ask why - what is their motivation?) but others are certainly fighting for what you call the greater good.

As far as the well educated foreign community (particularly high earners with work permits in contrast with the more intinerant nature of most members of this forum, retirees on a budget etc) is concerned it's quite amazing to me how many have sympathy for the red movement(not that their opinion matters that much of course).Almost before our eyes the prestige of the old elite is ebbing away and Abhisit is clearly scrambling to tap into the broader national feeling.As Bismarck once observed statesmanship is listening to the distant voice of history and grasping the stirrup as the horse gallops by.Does Abhisit have that genius and the courage to cut off his shadowy backers that led him to power?

Something is stirring in Thailand and the red movement represents, not so clearly perhaps at the moment, something of that future.To represent it just as a Thaksinite front is part of that truth but by no means the whole truth.However I have no doubt that those who seek to describe the world as a cartoon will continue to do so.It was ever thus.

Please learn history.

All western democracys came came from coups or similar uprisings. Else we would be all in absolute monarchies.

Hmm, a follower of Acharn Giles.Who would have thought it?

Actually the overthrow of the violent and corrupt dictator Thaksin was welcomed, judging by the immediate reaction of the population.

There is no treason in a non-violent coup which overthrows a corrupt dictatorship, unless of course the corrupt dictator wins.

Many would dispute your claim the coup was welcomed by most Thais, but in any case it's completely irrelevant whether it was welcomed or not.

Your second assertion is even more absurd.Again whether the coup was violent or not is irrelevant (although the threat of violence is always implicit).The question is whether the government overthrown by the junta was constitutionally legitimate or not, not whether it was led by a "corrupt dictator" in your usage or the nation's saviour as many others would have it.As a matter of fact in an assessment of Thaksin, I lean more towards your description but again that's completely irrelevant.

The fact that these criminals in a panicky and cowardly way procured post facto pardons for themselves demonstrates that they at least knew very clearly they had committed treason.

Yes: The example of a Socialist experiment that has worked:is the NHS in the UK,BEEN AROUND FOR 60 YEARS +,and is still helping the poor who cant afford private health care. Not a perfect system and yes there are waiting lists,they are the largest employers in the UK (over a million staff ) no doubt some on this site will be happy to run it down,but think before you do. If you had a serious illness would you go home to the NHS? or stay in Thailand and go bust being ripped of by the Hospitals here???? I for one know what choice I would make!

I would definitely stay in Thailand if I had a serious illness or needed major surgery.But though Thai doctors are generally first class, careful homework needs to be done.

As to the UK NHS I am a supporter and think the concept is a noble one.However huge reforms are needed not least a reasonable level of payment by people able to afford a financial contribution.There is often a level of sloppiness in NHS patient care that's wholly unacceptable.The Labour government has invested massive sums but the cost-benefit seems uncertain.I believe David Cameron should be given the chance to shake the whole NHS up and make it much more responsive to patients needs.But overall the positive aspects easily outweigh the negative and it represents a compassion for the weak and vulnerable that seems lacking among say the American right wing

The precedent here now needs to be extendded to such as ther Alpine case where the elite involved ion that have been well protected although dont expect the red shirts to say anything about it as this time it is their elite who are bang to rights and have been for sometime

By the way, can anyone actually rememeber who the first person to raise the Sarayud case was and what his role was at the time? That is interesting in itself

The Reds are not going to campaign on the Alpine case.Why is that so surprising given that as a political movement they were clearly out for Surayud's scalp and campaigners against encroachment only incidentally?

However nothing to stop the authorities going after blatant examples of illegality like the Alpine case.In fact I very much hope they do along with other examples of illegal encroachment committed by influential Thais used to non-accountability.Let the cards fall where they may - but it's frankly bizarre to expect the Reds to take up this cause.

And I'll say it again; I do not know one person who believes Surayad (or Prem for that matter) should be on the end of all this attention given to him by the red shirts.

Well you know one now.

I'm not obliged to follow your protocol just to make that clear

Thank you for making your position clear.It would have been better if the subjective element had been made clearer in your previous post.If however you genuinely think most Bangkokians still regard Surayud as an honest old gentleman who has quite unfairly been accused of encroachment, so be it.Others may hold a rather different opinion.

As to flaming I will leave it to others to decide whether "intellectual masturbation" is normally regarded as a polite term.I personally couldn't care less other than this kind of language distracts attention from the discussion.

They do now however; there's increased respect for his following of the court order and sympathy for - what they see - an old gentleman being evicted as a consequence of the doings of somebody who can't face the courts himself.

Might not be the view echoed around Thailand, but certainly is here in Bangkok.

Another one who knows what every Thai is thinking!

I have spoken to several well educated middle class Thais in Bangkok.All feel Surayud, given his purer than the driven snow image, has disgraced himself, albeit on a relatively minor matter.

Whether they reflect the view of everyone in Bangkok I don't know.

Another predictable putdown coupled with the usual brief intellectual masturbation from Jayboy.

Where in my post do I claim to know what every Thai is thinking? The last sentence specifically states where I think this view resonates.

Does flaming help your case or just underline you weak argument?

Anyway I note you have now decided to introduce a subjective element by stating "I think" in contrast to your previous post's purported omiscience.So that's progress of sorts.I just happen to think you are wrong.

Not to mention that this Adams has an Agenda too, if he doesn't blow the whistle and keeps blowing it as strong as possible, people might question his qualifications for the Job - remember: "it's ALL about money" or is this Adams a volunteer....it's his Job!

Here we go - the predictable unsubstantiated and dishonest slur compounded by a personal attack.Shame on you.

Those familiar with HRW will know it has been among the leaders in highlighting Thaksin's abuse of power and human rights abuses.

They do now however; there's increased respect for his following of the court order and sympathy for - what they see - an old gentleman being evicted as a consequence of the doings of somebody who can't face the courts himself.

Might not be the view echoed around Thailand, but certainly is here in Bangkok.

Another one who knows what every Thai is thinking!

I have spoken to several well educated middle class Thais in Bangkok.All feel Surayud, given his purer than the driven snow image, has disgraced himself, albeit on a relatively minor matter.

Whether they reflect the view of everyone in Bangkok I don't know.

I take your point completely, and I probably shouldn't have personalised Abhisit in the way I did.Nevertheless as far as his government is concerned I think my point still stands.There will be some like way2muchcoffee who keep on repeating the government has a legal mandate (how many times does one have to say that one agrees?).But as far as the need to obtain the approval of the Thai people, particularly given the subterfuge and murky goings on that brought this government to power, even high ranking Democrats agree on the necessity if not the timing.To deny there is a problem here is simply wilful.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I agree an election should be called as soon as possible. I simply believe that the timing of the election needs to be carefully thought through in order to help move the country forward. The wrong timing for an election could be disastrous. I have stated what I believe are the conditions that are necessary before elections are held. So maybe it's not that we disagree about the need for elections, but that we disagree on the timing and preconditions.

No I do actually agree with you here, and I'm on record that it's Abhisit's call.Frankly I'm less concerned about the timing than that the election when it comes should be fairly conducted (but that's for another discussion)

If Surayud gives up his land he will be forgiven by the public

Unfortunately I don't believe this to be the case and the Thais I have talked to ( of differing political views agree).There is almost universal contempt for the way Surayud prevaricated on this issue until his guilt was rubbed in his face by the Royal Forest Department.No more glad confident morning for Surayud.His reputation, perhaps a little unfairly, is sullied forever

Although I have sympathy for their general concern,the point that Hammered and Samuian are missing - when drawing attention to the Alpine Scandal, Banharn's transactions etc - is that we know these involved run of the mill Thai politicians with the low standard of ethics that implies.Yes there is some hypocrisy in the drive aginst Surayud and yes it was largely politically motivated.But - and it is a very big but indeed - the line peddled by the coup merchants and the junta which followed that these were people free of corruption,devoted to the monarchy, the flag and the best interests of the Thai people.All this has been shown symbolically in this one minor incident to have been false.We knew that these people were unpunished criminals for their involvement in the coup and we knew that they were shockingly incompetent but there was a sense they (symbolised above all by a gent like Surayud) retained some vestiges of personal honour.They don't.

The suggestion that the reds should now take on the Alpine affair is puzzling to me.Why should they? - they are partisan political activists.However there's nothing preventing the government taking action on the long running Alpine scandal, and indeed I would welcome that.

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

Jayboy, you know that no PM in Thailand has a personal mandate to be PM and that isn't a party line.

I take your point completely, and I probably shouldn't have personalised Abhisit in the way I did.Nevertheless as far as his government is concerned I think my point still stands.There will be some like way2muchcoffee who keep on repeating the government has a legal mandate (how many times does one have to say that one agrees?).But as far as the need to obtain the approval of the Thai people, particularly given the subterfuge and murky goings on that brought this government to power, even high ranking Democrats agree on the necessity if not the timing.To deny there is a problem here is simply wilful.

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

The military coup led directly to the PPP returning to power. The PPP engaged in electoral fraud, got caught and were disbanded. This led to the Democrats taking over. If the PPP had run an honest campaign they would still be in power today. It was the criminality and stupidity of the current opposition that led to the Democrats taking power.

That's the party line for some who hate the idea of the Thai people being given their say and frankly increasingly threadbare in the light of events.In any event no point in rehashing this discussion since it's been flogged to death.It doesn't alter the fact that Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to secure one very soon.

All true but what you have omitted is the reality that a Prime Minister with no personal mandate from the people needs to obtain that sooner rather than later.That is the case for Abhisit as it is for Gordon Brown in the UK and regardless of the parliamentary system authority begins to ebb away without a fresh election.In Abhisit's case given the events that led him to power - coup, rigged constitution, directed court verdicts etc - the matter needs real attention.As in Brown's case the ebb of credibility is palpable and elections are the only real answer.

Yes, what you say is true both of Brown and Abhisit, but the point is that elections are required as a matter of those leaders being able to effectively do their jobs i.e. if they call an election and manage to get reelected, they can push on with ruling and administering the country well (one optimistically hopes); if they don't call an election, they risk having their authority increasingly questioned and becoming under more pressure.

That is what is at stake for Abhisit and Brown and that is for them to decide, concerning how long they leave it before calling an election. They have no obligation to call an election - it is their decision. They both are legally and legitimately where they are. For people to demand Abhisit to call an election on the grounds that he is not legal or not legitimate, as we hear day after day, week after week, month after tedious month on this forum from certain misinformed members, is simply wrong... and it's very boring.

You're hearing but not apparently listening.Nobody who understands how parliamentary democracy works denies Abhisit holds his office legitimately.But there is a problem which grows greater as time goes by in that he has no personal mandate at all.Sooner rather than later he needs to try tp obtain this.From your posts it would appear there is no problem here.You are simply wrong about this particularly given the murky path, including the sheer criminality of a military coup, that led Abhisit to power.And as to being boring mote and beam, old boy, mote and beam.

Was the current government elected by the people for the people? Just Yes or No pls

For about the 600th time - politics 101: Thailand has a parliamentary system of government. Other countries do to - Japan, England, Israel to name 3, but it is a rather popular form - more popular than a presidential system. The people elect locals to the national parliament. Those folks belong to any of several approved political parties. those people - the ELECTED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT vote for PM, not the people. If one party has a majority, like TRT did way back when, its a simple procedure. But if one party does not win a majority of seats, they must form coalitions with other parties. And guess what - if the party with the most votes, but not a majority, cannot put together a majority, then the minority parties can do so, and thats what happened. Thaksins (PPP) coalition fell apart and his buddies jumped ship, for whatever reason ($), and a new PM was elected. So, YES it is a government elected by the people.

All true but what you have omitted is the reality that a Prime Minister with no personal mandate from the people needs to obtain that sooner rather than later.That is the case for Abhisit as it is for Gordon Brown in the UK and regardless of the parliamentary system authority begins to ebb away without a fresh election.In Abhisit's case given the events that led him to power - coup, rigged constitution, directed court verdicts etc - the matter needs real attention.As in Brown's case the ebb of credibility is palpable and elections are the only real answer.

If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

I think that will be the conclusion of most people.No substance and predictably silly to boot.

Better to stick to drawing your own conclusions jayboy, rather than speaking for "most people".

If you believe that not naming names is some sort of proof that there aren't members of this forum who consistently take a pro-red stance, up to you. It's about as daft though as me claiming that there aren't certain members of this forum who consistently take a pro-yellow stance on this forum, simply because you refuse to draw me up an accusatory list of the member's names.

But that's not what you said.You said many pro-red members tend to come from Chiangmai and possibly hold Thaksin in reverence for that reason. (I paraphrase)

As to taking a pro-Red stance that's generally my position and that of many others.I also happen to hold Thaksin in contempt though often argue the case for his significance as a catalyst.I haven't been to Chiang Mai for many years.I wouldn't bother normally responding to this kind of nonsense except that it's quite important to stress the red ranks are increasingly including believers in democracy but who have no truck with Thaksin.What we as foreigners think is of course neither here nor there.

If you wish to take that as proof of there being no substance to my claim, go right ahead.

I think that will be the conclusion of most people.No substance and predictably silly to boot.