jayboy

The thread title "bring down the government" implies some form of legitimacy of the "government".

Abisits geremandered, contrived at gunpoint junta government is quite illegitimate and illegal.

This will remain the case untill the vested interests pointing the guns are shackled and the place returned to democracy via elections.

Don't worry, the latest date for the next election is only December 2011, it's not far away, and if the government continues with its reforms, the land tax bill is next on the agenda, the Thai people can only continue to be more and more grateful for Apisit and his clean professional ministers such as Korn and Jurin rather than the likes of Chalerm.

The government is certainly not illegitimate nor illegal but it does need a fresh mandate.December 2011 is in my judgement a little too distant but it's Abhisit's call.I can certainly see the argument that the country should have settled down before elections.Looking ahead the question is whether fair elections can be held - and on that there's a lot of doubt given the elite and the military's appaling record in seeking to stamp their agenda over the will of the Thai people.

At least Thaksin earned at least the majority of his money more or less honest.

Eh, with the usage of monopoly and incorrectly allocated concessions I don't count his wealth as being appropriated honestly, but then again I believe in the free market system, not nepotism and corruption.

It's a perfectly logical position.However if you regarded all corporates/institutions in Thailand who had secured hyper profitable monoplies as dishonest, you would be running up some of the most powerful interests in the land.In my view there's no doubt that Thaksin made his initial fortune more or less honestly.Far fewer questions to be asked than in the case of poorly paid generals who have acquired great wealth.

As I stated, I rarely allow myself to mix it up with you. The reason is that it's not worth the time or effort. I just don't deal with brash, condescending and rhetorical people.

My impression is that you were mixing it up all the time.However now you are reduced to flaming, you can sit in the corner by yourself.If you decide to discuss issues like a grown up you might, depending on the comment being comprehensible, be favoured with my pearls of wisdom.

Comprende?

I don't think anyone does frankly.

I have no problem at all in debating issues with someone of different political views, indeed welcome it.When however, as in your case all too often, there is an inability or unwillingness to communicate clearly I sometimes ask for those views to be clarified so a considered response can be given.You can affect weariness with my line if you like although to do so is itself a rather tired debating strategy.Frankly I suggest you cut out personal attacks and try and focus on the issues.You should also cut out the flaming when for example a member who disagrees with you is labelled "pointlessly trollish".

For everyone to consider issues as they really are Thaksin plus a few others need to be taken aout of the equation. Nobody on any side is considering anything rationally right now. The current cotnradictions that line up obscene reactionaries with open minded liberal people on every side will only start to resolve themselves when the elite personalities are gone or devalued and all sides (there are more than two) are led by bigger than life characters with their own agendas that overshadow any real poltical discussion or at least any real and meaningful one based on ideals, fairness and equal consideration in a safe and open environement

I think that is a very sensible and level headed comment.Thanks Hammered.

Well jayboy you and others claim that some opponents, who aren't howling with you and the pack, are happy with "saying nasty things about Thaksin" it's only that you haven't or better are reluctant, if not absolutely allergic against anything but praise about your hero.

A simple fact is that nobody has to claim anything, it has all been delivered by this hero on a silver platter, piece, by piece, evidence by evidential circumstances, like "honest mistakes" - because he was caught up in his apparent greatness and assumed impeccability!

Do you really think his opponents are simply envying him, or are simply caught up in a simple power game, do you really believe the "elite" he excuses, is so simple, stupid and blind, could it all just be so simple?

....well imho - it's WAY too simple!

But it is in fact you that are reducing a complex situation to asinine simplicities like those bovine matrons who used to attend PAD rallies.You either haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying or just prefer the simplistic way of looking at the problem.I have repeatedly made my very poor opinion of Thaksin known. Yet you and those with a similar mentality describe him as my "hero" because you can't or won't grasp the broader context.Any attempt to describe or discuss a complex situation is howled down.Yes I do believe there is a power struggle and broadly speaking, with many caveats, support those who are struggling against a greedy and selfish elite comprised of motley military, feudal and business reactionaries (many of whom are now seriously frightened thus more likely to be brutal and dangerous).

But that's just all too complex for us, isn't it.Let's just concentrate on reminding everybody that Thaksin's a rogue - as though the world and his dog didn't already know that.Thinking hard about the issues is just too difficult for these people.

Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself

- another in the mothers of all of ironies -

represents the new interconnected world where Greedy and Efficient monopolists TRY TO RULE THE FUTURE.

Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history

just becomes a cartoon like bashing at a brick wall.

Is this meant to be a coherent response to my post, simply copying the language I used almost word for word? It's difficult furthermore to understand beyond this puerile approach what your point is at all.If you are able to put your thoughts together more logically I will attempt a considered response.But frankly you seem to be in over your head.Probably best just sticking to saying nasty things about Thaksin which doesn't demand contextual understanding and isn't too taxing on the intellect.

It is elite vs elite here. Make no mistake;

Rapacious modern nouveau riche elite vs classic chinese reinvesting and saving elite.

Wall street in parody vs centuries old Asian clan building and protecting.

One is going along creating jobs and raising the standard of living,

and no doubt making profits at the same time. But not at the expense of growth.

Yes, Thaksin thought the rule of law could be avoided because he was powerful in the old world sense,

but he came to power and stepped on a multitude of influential toes, big time, in a new world sense

and that has cost him greatly, in a world in transition. He moved too fast too far and above all too HARD.

He is paying the price for his precipitousness.

I don't have a quarrel with the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph.

Nor do I disagree that this battle is elite versus elite.But your thumbnail analysis of the two elites is wholly inaccurate.The elite that fears and hates Thaksin has in its corporate manifestation very few positive features.Monopolist, anti-globalization, inefficient and essentially lazy old comprador style.Thaksin in contrast though made rich by a monopoly himself - another in the series of ironies - represents the new interconnected world where greedy and inefficient monopolists have no future.Unless you grasp this -and clearly you don't -your interpretation of contemporary Thai history just becomes a cartoon like Thaksin bashing.Entertaining and satisfying (because Thaksin positively cries out to have his bottom kicked by any reasonable man) but ultimately meaningless.

This is what the whole crisis is about really isn't it. You have large group of people in this country who are contemptuous about law and order. They really believe that court verdicts are things that can and should be influenced by large scale protest.

But they just don't get it, the whole stand against Thaksin is related to the general public's insistence on justice being upheld for a change. Sure there's double standards all across Thailand but it should not be used as an excuse to let these people off the hook. Courts shouldn't influenced by a large mob coming to aid of one man's guilt, if the protests were a large group demonstrating their dissatisfaction about, say, a verdict on environmental issue in their neighbourhood then it would be appropriate for the judges to taken into consideration the impact on their lives.

I'm not quite sure how on one hand you can inveigh against justice being influenced by large scale protest and on the other speak approvingly of the general public insisting on justice being upheld for a change.

I agree with the view that in this case the courts should not be influenced by red protests.Justice should be blind or at least even handed.I'm quite sceptical about the view expressed in other posts that justice should somehow reflect the mood in the country at large, whether supporting Thasin or those that oppose him.Indeed sometimes justice is served in standing up to the prevailing national sentiment.What is important is respect for the law itself.It would be naive to pretend that the courts in any country are immune from external influences in interpreting the law.Nevertheless with a panel of men with independence and integrity justice can be served, albeit imperfectly.

The concern in Thailand is frankly not justice being influenced by popuar sentiment let alone street mobs, but its control by other more powerful interests given the elite's failure to thwart the popular will in other ways including a coup and a rigged constitution.

Exactly..I don't understand why ANYBODY who incites insurrection and social disorder/chaos to bring down a government should not be arrested and jailed deported or..if they tried that elsewhere in Asia suspect that there would be swift retribution.

Does that include those who actually go beyond incitement and actually take over the government in a criminal and illegal military coup?

Donchya know

History and laws are written by winners.

Losers are just that.

And lets also state that:

Those who incite insurrection and social disorder/chaos as excuses to

TAKE OVER a government should be arrested and jailed, deported or..

Such as the methods being used by Thaksin and his clique after the failed election of 2006.

So an equal argument is that the army prevented his taking complete control via force

and a ginned up martial law aimed at removing the last vestiges of dissent about his misrule.

Two sides of the same coin; Thaksin flipped it and lost the bet.

So if I understand you correctly if those inciting insurrection actually succeeded then their actions would have been justified (like the criminals who succeeded in their military coup) because winners write history and laws.In other words might is right.

Some would argue this nothing more than the law of the jungle.So be it but for those that hold on to this disgusting morality do at least spare us hypocritical sermons on your outrage on Thaksin's misdeeds.

P.S Of course if an unrepresentative elite denies or seeks to thwart the peoples right to chose a government (as in Burma) the people have every right to rise up.

Exactly..I don't understand why ANYBODY who incites insurrection and social disorder/chaos to bring down a government should not be arrested and jailed deported or..if they tried that elsewhere in Asia suspect that there would be swift retribution.

Does that include those who actually go beyond incitement and actually take over the government in a criminal and illegal military coup?

It sounds to me as though they are being overcharged.

Excess baggage fees are normally calculated at 1% of the First Class fare

A quick check of the THAI site shows that the first class fare from Tokyo to Bangkok is 113,860 Yen

which is equivalent to $1244 at todays rate.

By my calculation they should be paying $4836 in excess fees, not $6000

Exactly and well calculated.I suggest you send a message to Khun Piyavasti suggesting a lesser fine.After all it's not as though Wallop has been ripping the company off in the greedy Thai puyai style for many years.That is a most unlikely scenario.

If the Financial Times in London or Washington didn't actually care to search this Thaksin stuff out,

then it will languish except in those journals with any interest in Thaksin's state of affairs.

Seems The Nation thought to dig on it, but no one else cares, and Thaksin doesn't refute the story.

It's simply a lie, and a particularly stupid one, which was exposed some time ago.Those so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that they have lost any kind of comprehension of context will try and keep the balloon floating.One wonders precisely who these people are actually posting for.

I am sure there were many securities filings from the collapse of Lehman Brothers company.

A good financial reporter looking for something specific would know where to look.

Good point especially as we know The Nation has several high calibre financial reporters famous for their immense knowledge, analytical ability and moral courage in standing up to pressure.

As their sworn oath and duty is to a higher power then a corrupt petty dictator like Thaksin, I think they won't lose any sleep over their actions. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but they probably feel they were doing exact what they were supposed to do. This is the main problem, but its a problem born out of the reality that most politicians in this country are not worthy of either respect or loyalty. They steal until they get caught and then disappear. Thaksin forgot the disappear part, otherwise his assets case might be looking slightly rosier.

All thuggish generals who grab power think they are doing what they are supposed to do.Of course there should not be motivated by personal loyalty to anybody, certainly not to Thaksin.Their duty is to respect Thailand's constitutional democracy and this they failed to do.They deserve harsh punishment but of course they organised a pardon for their crimes.Politicians are an easy and often deserved target in Thailand but the reality is that only they have any kind of mandate.The current Prime Minister has often made this point.By all means peacefully reform and improve the system but this does not mean carte blanche for criminal military thugs to grab the country pleading allegiance to a higher power.Get real.Their main allegiance is to their bank accounts.And as for not losing sleep, I dare say Hiltler,Stalin and Mao slept like babies.

In my view the OAG was absolutely wrong to say Surayud had committed no wrongdoing in buying the land, an 'honest mistake'.

Khun Surayud should have checked the legal status of the land, as every potential land buyer should.

The AOG's ruling gives every encroacher in Thailand, and the numbers are huge, the legal defence that 'they didn't know' the land was only for agricultural use.

Siripon, whose general political views are a matter of record has in the above post set an excellent example to all (including myself) by putting honesty above any ideological agenda.There used to be a word for this ....ah yes, integrity.

The person here who said: " There are no Red Soldiers. " was quite clearly off the mark.

As in; couldn't hit the broad sign of a large barn.

About time they reigned in this loose cannon.

He would be better put into 'protective custody',

tell him he is in danger through till spring.

Sae Daeng is a loose cannon as you suggest.The Nation in an editorial suggests this individual has forgotten his duty.A lot of firepower for a single eccentric gadfly.

Of course the Nation editorial is silent on the very large number of military officers in an illegal junta which overthrew a government by force, dishonoured their uniform and sponsored a notoriously incompetent administration.When these louts have been openly disgraced I think one might start worrying about a one off like Sae Daeng.

'Most observers'? Pish-posh. More imaginary rigging from the 'the military hates Thaksin and freedom'-group. I suppose you forgot all the generals that got bought over to PT recently...

The military has form on this.Read up the history and quietly reflect before talking foolishly about "imaginary rigging".It happened and it largely failed but it won't stop them trying again.

No doubt Prem and Abhisit needed to talk as the end game comes into play.

An end-game which will finally show up the minority opinion you represent Animatic.

Electorally, your perspective and that of your "colleagues" is inconsequential.

Your persistent demonization of Mr. Thaksin will come to naught and will be shown as having had no effect the way you have hoped it would.

Sad isn't it!

You could be in for a long wait for the next election, nearly 2 years.

I tend to agree.It will be left to the last possible moment.Whether this is politically smart is another question but there is a fear and dread in some quarters of the Thai people speaking on a choice of government.

Most observers feel that even when an election is called there will be heavy handed efforts, spearheaded by the military, to influece and if necessary fix the outcome.The trouble is there are few untested weapons left in their armoury.

Now that this is episode over, regardless of whether Surayud agrees to comply with the law or not, it's clear this has been a stunning propaganda coup for the Reds.Several friends, none of them by any stretch red supporters, have pointed out this incident demonstrates the culture of impunity among the elite and the implicit contempt for the law when it affects their interests.What is more the Red demonstration was peacefully conducted and ended at just the right time.What we are seeing is an example, admittedly a small one, of the disintegration of unthinking deference among ordinary Thais which has been very apparent the last few years.

What may seem blather to one man, may well be fact to many millions of citizens.

You are rather out numbered.

Another one who speaks for millions!

Did you actually read the Chang Noi article? If so do you have a view on it?

I'm well aware of how the parliamentary system works.I'm well aware that Abhisit leads a legitimate government (though he has no personal mandate).There's a need however, which becomes stronger as time goes by, for the government to submit itself to the verdict of the Thai people.This is particularly important given the circumstances of the Democrats path to power (coups, "directed "court decisions, army pressures etc).I have stressed elsewhere the timing is for Abhisit to decide and his argument the country should be somewhat more settled is very reasonable.But the clock is ticking.

In the UK (the home of parliamentary democracy) where the path to power for a PM with no personal mandate was far less contentious than that of Abhisit, the lack of a personal mandate has become a major political issue.

What's sinister is the refusal of some to admit elections are important at all, and seek every excuse to defer the Thai peoples verdict.

The mandate of the people was towards each individual MP, of which

all segments of Thailand have elected representation at the moment.

The mandate essentially states that the MP's make the best decision

about who is the government based on facts at the time of voting.

And secondarily about voting on or modifying legislation passed to them for approval

by which ever government those same MP's voted to install.

Behind this defensive and actually rather sinister blather is a view belittling or even rejecting the need for a popular mandate through fresh elections.Chang Noi has some pertinent views on this subject and shares my view that the military will seek to thwart the Thai peoples' wishes in the future as it have done in the past.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/01/11...on_30120052.php

I was tongue in cheek but I do believe Thaksin,' Democracy is not my goal' Shinawat is one of the most undemocratic Thais to hold recent public office.

I totally agree and it is one of the many many ironies in the recent Thai political saga that a man like Thaksin, wholly undemocratic in his instincts as you rightly point out, should be presented as a standard bearer for democracy.

Oddly enough much the same can be said about Napoleon (though he was man of real genius)

"amartya"

What the heck is this word supposed to mean?

This is more along the lines of desperation talk.

As the clock ticks down on his money his mind devolves

back to days when he actually HAD power.

I wonder how badly he will crack when he loses the decision?

It's the Thai word for bureaucratic power\ polity, rule by technocrats, bureaucratic elite- rather than true Thaksin (authoritarian) democracy.

Not quite.The first part of your definition of amartya is correct but the opposite is not specifically Thakin authoritarian democracy but, in the eyes of those who uphold it, any kind of genuine representative democracy.

That will be a test of whether the reds are a poltical clique solely out for the interests of one man or really do care about iniquities.

Sarayud should give up the land etc etc and then we should call on the red movement to move to Alpine. Lets see if they really care or are utter hypocrites.

Get real Hammered.These are political activists not Guardian readers from Hampstead.

Political activists for a party it seems rather than political activists for any ideal as they happily ignore the excesses of the party they side with while only highlighting excesses of those they dont like.

Agree with Steve that at the end of the day if all were treated the same by all including the hypocrites of yellow and red things would be better. Interesting that the government are now going to investigate all dodgy land holdings. That is going to open many a can of worms. I wonder if one of Thailand's outspoken singers ever gave back the forrestry land his holiday home was on when caught a good few years back.

Im neither from Hampstead nor a reader of any particualr newspaper or other media source as I regard them as all bias and my roots are a lot more humble than Hampstead although I would aspire to a vacation home there.

I just didn't think it very realistic to expect Reds to turn their attention to Alpine (certainly a scandal though now of some vintage).The Surayud land scandal is very current and highlights the "one rule for the elite one rule for everybody else" that enfuriates the reds and what is more most Thais.