jayboy

I think Korn would turn out to be a Labour man if he went the UK and ran for parliament there...just personal opinion.

Care to explain why? I would have thought he is a natural Tory.

Or the people of the country, should the power given to him goes to his head and he decides to abuse the trust of the people to line his own pockets who will eventually revolt and stand on the streets of Bangkok for months on end...

I don't think we should loose sight of this responsibility of power either.

Somebody else who clearly doesn't know the man.Korn is already very well off but that's not the only reason I find these "power going to head" and "lining his pockets" argument unconvincing.Part of it is his elite British background which marks him, Abhisit etc off from the general run of Thai politicians - as it did Kukrit and Anand before him.Doesn't make them impervious to Thai vices but just rather more unlikely to succumb.

Facing facts very few if any Brit Thai Visa members will have any first hand experience of elite public schools and Oxbridge.Korn and Abhisit are the equivalent of types like David cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson.It's always amusing to me since the Brits are still tortured by class considerations how some here will fawn over Abhisit,Korn etc but dismiss their UK equivalents as Tory tossers.But actually from a whole variety of view points the two groups are very similar.

It may just be that in the UK the options are greater and to be honets all parties have their share of etonians, grammarians and even comprehensive educated operatives these days. In Thailand Korn is almost a rarity. That he is succesful without a base and that he has probably the most radical, genuine and pro-poor ideas of any poltician in Thailand do both show there are occasional opportunities. I will guarantee that he wouldnt be elected in a rural constituency where patronage, local power and sheer muscle determine who even stands let alone wins, and there is another difference between the UK and Thailand as a Korn like MP could win a rural English constituency or at least have a very good chance of doing so.

By the way, Cameroon is a tosser but Im not sure he is actually a "real" Tory tosser Just as Blair was a tosser but not a "real" Labour tosser.

All good points and I'm sure you will have picked up my post was a slight tease ! Is Cameron a tosser? I can see why Osborne might be thought so.

Actually if it all went pear shaped for Korn in Thailand (exile after a Red Thaksin uprising) and he pursued his right for British citizenship, I'm quite sure - if so inclined - he could secure the nomination and win a Tory rural constituency.They would be lucky to have him.

One can understand how and why the middle class, predicated on their middle class values of democracy, education, economic opportunity, rewards for sincere efforts to self improve, felt separated and alienated from Thaksin's focus on the agrarian poor to the utter dismissal of the concerns, values and priorities of the rising and increasing middle class.

Had Thaksin not demolished democracy, had Thaksin not redistributed the middle class's hard earned wealth willy nilly without any consideration or compensatory offerings to the middle class, perhaps the middle class would not have responded so well to a clown such as Sondhi, or to the coup.

That's the standard PAD tag line although it's ironic that the middle class values you encapsulate were wrapped up in a quasi-fascist, racist, intolerant, undemocratic package.I'm afraid your proposition is unsustainable and in fact the middle class would have prospered under a Thaksin banner - do you really believe an uber capitalist espoused a redistributive socialism? Many decent middle class people were genuinely shocked by facets of Thaksin's rule but the underlying fear was that of greater political and economic influence of the Thai people as a whole.Over and above this a fearful and greedy elite fed the middle class indignation.But when the PAD attack dog had served its purpose or perhaps showed signs of independence, it was swiftly marginalised.

Thaksin was right that the middle classes would have to pay more attention to the majority, a policy continued by the present government.And why on earth should there be compensatory offerings to the middle class.They have had a very good run and will continue in their largely Chinese tradition to prosper, but they hold no veto power any more and ultimately the majority (with suitable checks an balances) will call the shots.Get used to it.

There was and remains a case for giving the majority a fairer deal, a process that took place in Europe decades ago.Are you one of those that feel Thais shouldn't have such a deal?

Or the people of the country, should the power given to him goes to his head and he decides to abuse the trust of the people to line his own pockets who will eventually revolt and stand on the streets of Bangkok for months on end...

I don't think we should loose sight of this responsibility of power either.

Somebody else who clearly doesn't know the man.Korn is already very well off but that's not the only reason I find these "power going to head" and "lining his pockets" argument unconvincing.Part of it is his elite British background which marks him, Abhisit etc off from the general run of Thai politicians - as it did Kukrit and Anand before him.Doesn't make them impervious to Thai vices but just rather more unlikely to succumb.

Facing facts very few if any Brit Thai Visa members will have any first hand experience of elite public schools and Oxbridge.Korn and Abhisit are the equivalent of types like David cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson.It's always amusing to me since the Brits are still tortured by class considerations how some here will fawn over Abhisit,Korn etc but dismiss their UK equivalents as Tory tossers.But actually from a whole variety of view points the two groups are very similar.

I really doubt Korn is much interested in the politics,

it is just a disagreeable part of the much bigger picture that interests him.

Does he even want to be a successful politician in Thailand? Doubtful.

You clearly don't know the man.

In any case the political struggle is the means to an end, not an end in itself.

A sophisticated operator like Korn knows he must become totally involved in politics to achieve a fairer and more prosperous country.

Your last line makes my point.

His goal is not to become a successful politician.

If that was his goal he would have built a solid base by now,

but he leaves that bilge water for others.

Just a part of the bigger picture.

It's hard work with you.He has to become a successful politician with a base (all that bilge water) to achieve his ends.

Politics is a rough business everywhere.I very much doubt Korn is happy simply as a technocrat.

I really doubt Korn is much interested in the politics,

it is just a disagreeable part of the much bigger picture that interests him.

Does he even want to be a successful politician in Thailand? Doubtful.

You clearly don't know the man.

In any case the political struggle is the means to an end, not an end in itself.A sophisticated operator like Korn knows he must become totally involved in politics to achieve a fairer and more prosperous country.

Thaksin was the CEO of the downfall of that trend, just because he took it all way, way too far.

He was the fool that opened Pandora's box, and then can't get the lid back down.

Doesn't make him a great profit, savior or a leader, just means he went over the edge

before anyone else did, and paid the price for his precipitousness.

The trouble with the kind of fairly mindless vitriol above is that it doesn't give the context that makes Thaksin's failure so bitter and in some ways a tragedy through an opportunity lost

A friend sent me the following extract from a Q and A provided by a well connected Thai investment manager.If I identified who it was I would be betraying a confidence.Suffice it to say the manager is very well connected.

Q: What is your view on the current political situation?

A: Thailand remains a country in transition as we struggle for a political and peaceful solution to a rift between the rural population in the North and North East and the bourgeoisies in Bangkok and central area. Fortunately, this is not a racial or ideological battle, therefore it is not entirely unfixable, in my view. It's a rift that was caused by decades of neglect and exploitation by the former at the hands of the latter. There are no short- term solutions and in fact we must not look for one. It will take years of prudent and caring governing by whichever party that comes to power.

Q: You must be fed up with being asked about Thaksin. But there is no denying of his popularity and refusal to disappear quietly.

A: He is exceptionally clever and charismatic personality and could have been, or should have been a great leader. He received blessing from a majority of people, including a large section of Bangkok voters. He quickly saw the ripen situation mentioned above as an opportunity to win the hearts of the previously neglected by launching national health care and village micro finance, while such schemes were dismissed by previous people in power. They had a spectacular impact in changing people's lives for the better and he got his unshakable political base. His popularity did not come from merely vote buying as often suggest. Tragically for Thailand, he was undone by extraordinary personal greed and ego."

I think Thaksin has burnt his boats completely with people of this class.However for anyone who is genuinely interested rather than just hurling abuse the extract provides an indication of what Thaksin promised, a man of great talent - but ultimately undone by his own weaknesses and meglomania.

I always thought ignorance of the law was no defence

A rather Western point of view actually.

TIT.

I've always found it a useful rule of thumb that those who use the expression TIT need not be depended on for much in depth knowledge about the country.And of course Hammered is absolutely right and the maxim (ignorance of the law being no defence) would be held as valid by a Thai judge as much as a British one.The OAG's action was one assumes mainly politically driven and frankly I don't have a problem with that.We should keep all this in perspective: it's not a particularly big deal and Surayud is an honourable and decent man (if when PM of dubious competence and legitimacy).

Those who blithely excuse ignorance of the law in this case should consider whether they would be so relaxed when their political enemies were involved, say - taking an example purely at random - if a serving politician accepted a modest honararium for appearing on a TV cooking programme.

I think he has made no efforts at building a base,

because he sees the types who do that and wants no part of it.

Then he will never be a successful politician, all of whom as Disraeli once said "must climb the greasy pole."

Korn is a bright technocrat with strong financial and commercial acumen.Whatever the opposition blusters on about (Thai Inter upgrades etc) he is personally clean and holds strong views on the need for greater fairness in Thai society.To that extent he is strongly influenced by Thaksin though there is longstanding bad blood between them predating the latter's rise to power.

I agree on the first part; absolutely a very clever smart guy and the right type of bloke to help run the country.

........... I personally believe Korn to be interested in unlocking the potential of rural Thailand and in assisting in developing the entire country with few left behind, as is the general concept of good governance and decent management.

Are we seeing the rise of a new PM in the future?

Interesting chap and definitely charismatic; the kind of charisma Abhisit lacks.

A few dozen of these men and Thailand would rocket into the future, thanks to a good "old" British education

LaoPo

Laopao

My heart is entirely with you but there's a niggling concern in my head.Korn doesn't have a real political base and somehow he needs to develop one.

the photos revealed a very modest abode, that respected the local environment. He wanted to retire there, and offered to return the property to the government after his death as his kids did not want it, being too remote and wild for them.

Obviously it was a very modest abode, a shack probably, as Surayud has been a serving soldier all his life with the very small salary that entails in Thailand.In fact he should be commended for scrimping and saving to obtain a retirement villa at all.What is more he graciously plans to give it to the government when he transfers to the hereafter.My earlier misgivings were misplaced.In fact give that man a coconut.

In this situation "Ignorance is bliss".

Isn't it nice to know that the esteemed unelected PM was so ignorant of the law. But don't they realise how stupid it sounds to say he isn't guilty because he "didn't intend to break the law". I would love to see Thaksin's bunch try that defence.....................

To be fair Thaksin's lawyers applied exactly the same argument in the 2001 assets case and got the court acquittal he was looking for.

Could it be that it has been dug up by the red shirts, solely to derail the government and take revenge on Surayud?

Why their claim to step down as the privy council - who accused the privy council to be behind the coup - who was outed by the coup?

How about a serious crackdown on those who try to divide the nation, stirring up trouble whenever, where ever possible, trying to defame a many people, just for the sake of getting a criminal fugitive, who feels that he has been unjustly treated, pardoned and back in the saddle to continue the looting of the country for his very own and his cronies sake?

Ask yourself what is the REAL motive behind the redshirts movement, is there any genuine move which is entirely aimed for the welfare of this countries citizens and the country in general?

So if I understand you correctly it is all Thaksin's fault or and that of his supporters for dragging this affair into the public eye.Surayud as a very high status general has every right to break the law if he wants to construct a massive villa on public land.He is also fully credible in saying that he had no idea he was breaking the law anyway, and the OAG was quite right to accept this excuse.It is also outrageous that the hoi-polloi should question the actions of a well connected ex soldier catapulted into power by a military coup.Instead the emphasis should be on cracking down hard on the reds and any other Thai that questions the right of the elite to do exactly what they like.

Does that more or less sum up your position?

Korn is a bright technocrat with strong financial and commercial acumen.Whatever the opposition blusters on about (Thai Inter upgrades etc) he is personally clean and holds strong views on the need for greater fairness in Thai society.To that extent he is strongly influenced by Thaksin though there is longstanding bad blood between them predating the latter's rise to power.

I agree on the first part; absolutely a very clever smart guy and the right type of bloke to help run the country. The last thing we need are twits like Chavalit, Samak, Chalerm, Banharn, Sanoh - they are the problem, not the solution.

Good on ya Korn to be recognised worldwide for this.

No doubt he's tall;-)

With regards to the second; I personally believe Korn to be interested in unlocking the potential of rural Thailand and in assisting in developing the entire country with few left behind, as is the general concept of good governance and decent management. This is partly the reason why the popularist measures undertaken seem to be mostly sensible and sustainable.

Steve

You can't quite bring yourself to admit Thaksin was an important catalyst in the political thinking of Korn and similar first tier politicians, and by that I mean adopting and of course adapting his policies.I beleve this very strongly.Actually many will concede this in private while holding the man himself in contempt.It's one of the many ironies in this saga.Incidentally the distinction you draw between the reprehensible populist measures of Thaksin and the sensible and sustainable populist measures of the present government is a little tenuous.As to the Thatcher comparison she was by far the greater figure but I think the comparison I drew fits very well from the point of view of changing the national political landscape.For a genuinely unbalanced view we shall have to await the verdict of Thai historians thirty years from now...but of course to some extent even in academia the victors write history.

Anyway I always appreciate your posts.

Anyway congratulations to Khun Korn.

I am not sure that you understand by "hugely influenced". It certainly does not mean to follow or try to copy. Some MPs will probably dislike him and his policies believing they are wrong and as a reult try to reverse them or work against them. Thus, their choices are influenced by him but they are far from following. I would have to say that if any MP said he is not influenced one way or another by Mr. T then they are telling pork pies or fooling themselves.

BTW congratulations to Korn.

Okay, so he was "influenced by" but "far from following" Thaksin. So he did everything Thaksin didn't...?

Righto. Glad we managed to squeeze in some merit to Thaksin on this one.

You seem to have some difficulty in grasping a simple point despite it having been explained several times.Nobody suggested Korn is "following" Thaksin (or doing the opposite as you absurdly suggest) merely that he was influenced like all other Thai politicians by the need to broaden political society (directly the result of Thaksin's involvement).It's also not a question of Thaksin making merit or gathering kudos.I also don't see the need to pay tribute to him (a thoroughly disreputable fellow) just a need for some honesty and a willingness to face facts.

I've made posts numerous times that Thaksin is significant in that he stirred the the rural poor out of the moribund despair the standard elites have always placed them in. Even if tomorrow Thaksin disappeared on a plane flight Thailand is a different place because of him and his party and isn't going to revert to the past.

Well you seem to be slowly getting there.The French historian and political philosopher de Tocqueville pointed out that revolutions take place when things are getting better.The concept of the rural poor in moribund despair is a hopelessly out of date one, possibly more applicable in the 1960's and before but even then I'm doubtful.Thaksin didn't lead a rising of the poor and brutalised peasantry, and in any case I don't think traditional elites had any interest other than in a contented countryside - feudal perhaps but in no sense malevolent.Thaksin's contribution was the politicisation of millions of Thais who had been becoming better off and better educated.But you are right in noting Thaksin has changed the political landscape forever.

I'd love to know how many other people believe that Korn is influenced by Thaksin. I doubt Korn does...

All Thai politicians are hugely influenced by Thaksin just as all UK politicians are influenced by Margaret Thatcher.It's not a question of liking or not liking, or even admitting to be influenced.It's simply a fact.Some politicians completely change the landscape.Thaksin was one of these.

Did Jayboy just say that Thaksin was interested in fairness in Thai society? That's the funniest thing I have ever heard on this board, lol. But the sentiments about Korn's good work, I do share.

You are either easily amused or not paying sufficient attention.

Actually I didn't say Thaksin was interested in fairness (although that's implicit in his political programme).I said Korn was interested in a fairer Thai society.The influence of Thaksin is relevant because the latter politicised the Thai rural majority and began the series of populist measures continued largely by the current government.I am assuming Korn's view is that it's necessary to continue with Thaksin's programmes and reduce the grossly skewed allocation of resources to urban populations not only because that's the right thing to do but to minimise the baleful influence of Thaksin - by which I mean his overreach and undemocratic instincts.But both Thaksin and Korn are politicians and they do what they do, while not ignoring the moral impulse, to win popular support.

This kind of recognition from outside Thailand.

Surely it has to have some sort of approval..but then again I will not hold my breath for those constantly in denial ???

marshbags

I'm not sure who's in denial here.Care to explain?

Korn is a bright technocrat with strong financial and commercial acumen.Whatever the opposition blusters on about (Thai Inter upgrades etc) he is personally clean and holds strong views on the need for greater fairness in Thai society.To that extent he is strongly influenced by Thaksin though there is longstanding bad blood between them predating the latter's rise to power.He is very well off through his former banking career.By background he's Chinese though of the longstanding upper class and patrician tradition rather than relatively recent arrival.He's highly educated in the elite UK manner - Winchester and Oxford but very far from snooty.Devoted to his family and patron of the Special Olympics.Internationally his perfect English and charm ensure he has unrivalled contacts by Thai standards.Can hold his own anywhere and at any level.No Banharnisms here.

All this could make him a potential object of suspicion in elite circles.Let's call them the puppet masters.Korn's no puppet nor is Abhisit in my view (a position not shared by all).Not easy for military goons to trash if this public school educated duo stray from the prescribed agenda - not that there's much evidence of that yet.

The sarcastic, low comedy, use of "Einstein" was a just sub-flame,

meant in a negative light. Meant as a dig to enflame feelings.

Far from it.It was a light hearted comment on the hypocrisy of generals who have achieved influence through a military coup taking a moral posiition about any such future events.If the soubriquet offends I am happy to withdraw it.

I fear you are right.I suspect also with the rise of China and its successful non-democratic political model the attachment to democracy among those that matter in Thailand is often very fragile.

China has a successful economic model that is allowing the non-democratic political model to survive. That said, the political system in China is constantly undergoing more and more reform bit by bit.

It has no common traits to the situation historically or currently in Thailand. In fact, those that "matter" in Thailand probably wouldn't be allowed the positions they have under the Chinese system.

While I agree there are few common traits the enemies of democracy in Thailand take comfort from China's success (and the weaknesses of the West).It means that democracy can be regarded as an imported value that needs to be "reshaped" for local needs or even as an irrelevant shibboleth.

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted.

I'm afraid your response was to me at least completely incoherent.If it's an attempt at sarcasm I'm afraid it passed me by together with your reference to vampires and spirits.On an important point of detail Thaksin's support covered far more social groups than poor peasants.Baker/Pasuk have plenty of background on this.It also bears repetition that Thaksin's significance lies in his role as a catalyst, not so much in his populist measures.This is why the grisly elite you are apparently so attached to fear and hate him so much.

Too bad free elections have never been held in Thailand in it's history.

You say that but it is with respect a rather ignorant remark. Of course there have always been abuses, but there have been several occasions when independent observers have confirmed the election outcome was a fair one and reflected the popular will.

If so, when, it's not commonly known. Would Phongpaichit and Baker agree?

Not known by you perhaps.Read the history yourself:it might answer other questions that apparently baffle you.

Why would Thai gestures leave you confused, since you say you know Thailand so well?

Well they apparently leave you confused.Alright a quick lesson for the newbie.An elder statesman like Prem with extremely high status doesn't have to wai any commoner in other than a perfunctory manner.I've seen the photo of Prem and Thaksin and it's clear formalities were observed.Doesn't mean they like each other but in the world of upper class Thais there's little open rudeness or overt disrespect among themselves.What is said in private is another matter.

Basically a non story fanned up by someone who doesn't understand upper class protocol.