jayboy

When a drug dealer's money is seized I believe the court takes the lot, they don't say,'We'll just take the money you've been making since you started being a naughty boy, you can keep the rest'.

The same with corruption.

This is also the point, perfectly fair I agree, made by Korn Chatikavanij in the Bangkok Post this morning.Nevertheless the fact remains that most of Thaksin's fortune was made legally albeit in the unfair monopolistic world that is Thai big business.It is what Thaksin did in power not only the corruption but changing the rules of the game to serve his personal interests that's so reprehensible.Korn's on a somewhat risky tack as many politicians in the alliance have corrupt incidents in their past.Is he saying they too should be deprived of their wealth? Is he prepared to have an audit of his own business activities I wonder? One is still left with the impression that what drives the assault on Thaksin is a political vendetta driven by fear of his influence and national popularity (as opposed to the relatively trivial charges against him brought into the courts).

Incidentally Korn in the same interview recognises Thaksin was a catalyst for change given the great differences in Thai society.This was a point I often made on this forum only to be roundly abused by the likes of Plus etc.

You have quite a way of putting things, such as "dishonest drivel" which cause your arguments to be self defeating. Pasuk and Baker are excellent so I read their books and give close attention to their statements as so many others do, however, I would not claim the two to be definitive or final authorities. They are simply the most prominent and accessable analysts and wordsmiths to we farang in particular. Your absolute worship of Pasuk and Baker causes you to think and believe more is final and settled than it is.

The questions I raise are not mine alone. The questions and issues I present are valid legal questions which need to be settled in a court of law, not in someone's book or seminar. The questions I present are but a tiny few of the legal issues which the suit raises, were the suit ever actually to see the light of day in a court of law.

Fundamentalist thump the bible, others thump Pasuk and Baker. It (erroneously) follows that fundamentalists are never wrong, nor could they be. Pasuk and Baker and their take on things Thai are must reading, but they are not voices that thunder from the biblical sky. Grow up. Learn to respect that, even if only sometimes, there can be some validity to the perspectives and arguments of others.

I think you are right that we are fortunate to have Pasuk and Baker as contemporary historians of Thailand, and accessibility is certain part of that attraction.There are many other foreign and Thai historians and political scientists commenting on recent developments.Those who follow Bangkok Pundit or New Mandala will know exactly who I mean.Frankly they don't lend themselves for attribution because in almost every case to do so would eventually result in me being breaching forum rules. Baker/Pasuk are generally middle of the road though strongly anti-Thaksin.Though it is puerile to say I worship them they remain the best available touchstone.

If you can provide details of respected Thai specialists, whether historians or social scientists, who support reactionary policies let's hear about them.

If your post was just a layman's random musings on some legal issues to be addressed if the case ever came to trial (which I agree it won't) so be it.However it came across in a different way altogether.

Jayboy,

I don't think Pasuk and Baker have much to contribute to discussion of the PAD and its alleged offences. They seem to have descended into cliche.

I suspect, given the emotions of the time and the unreliability of the reportage on damage etc, weapons found etc, whether at the airport or at Government House, that their claims under 7. and 8. in your post are quite spurious.

Having looked through the expanded version of the book, I decided not to buy it. Not having it in front of me, I am open to correction. However, my thoughts on browsing through it are here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Yellow-Pale-...l=yellow+orange

What you say about PAD may be correct. What Pasuk and Baker say may be correct, but they don't seem to back their assertions with evidence. They might be more convincing if their language were less emotive. (With respect, I suggest your use of phrases such as "dishonest drivel" does not help your cause either.)

They are serious historians and the book has been very recently revised so there's a certain weight to their narrative, as you might discover if you bothered to actually read it.The emotive language you refer to is probably mine rather than theirs.More generally you are simply wrong to think they don't have much to contribute to discussion of PAD.On the airport seizure I will grant you at least half a point.There's never a complete consensus on matters of this kind.And you are right I should have come up with a politer way of describing what I consider to be a disgraceful post.

Jayboy, several posts back I published my opinion on this, but to repeat, while I have never supported the PAD's actions, it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD. I included the post below to show that the AOT allowed cargo flights prior to the full opening of the airport for passenger flights. I think there is enough media support available that shows that the AOT closed the airport to passenger flights, not the PAD, who never blocked people from boarding flights nor blocked the runways (hence, the cargo flights).

From my perspective, I fully understood the AOT's position as I doubt their insurance carriers would have honored claims for accidents for any reason during the PAD's occupation. I don't think, from a business perspective, the AOT had a choice but to close the airport, but since it was the AOT that closed the airport, not the PAD, I think Thai Airways made a huge mistake in not including the AOT in its lawsuit.

Strictly, as it relates to the court case, I think it is going to be very difficult for Thai Airways to prove that the PAD actions were responsible for keeping flights from taking off and landing.

OMR, I entirely take your point (and agree the arguments supporting it).It's an issue for lawyers to debate but I have a strong feeling the case will fizzle to nothing.This matter can't be settled in Thailand given the cast of characters involved.I have made some comments in response to Publicus's disgraceful post by way of background.

Whether AOT abandoned the airport is a vital legal question in the suit, as it is the responsibility of the AOT to possess and operate the facility, to control and direct its operations to include personnel, passengers, airlines, their aircraft, to assure other governments their citizens are safe and secure etc.

If the certified officials abandoned their responsibility, they must be held accountable in accordance with their individual contracts and in respect to public safety, the conduct of commerce and a host of other matters central to the operation of an international airport.

It was precisely for the purpose of ensuring safety that the AOT shut the airport down.Frankly your dishonest drivel doesn't warrant a serious response but there may be some who would welcome a summary of events.For this would recommend the account given by Pasuk/Chris Baker (the second expanded edition of "Thaksin" pp340-342).Key points:

1.Airport closed on grounds of safety

2.Minimal effort of security forces to prevent invasion by the yellow mob.

3.Recognition however that counter stroke dangerous because of thousands of tourists held as hostages.350,000 travellers stranded

4.Border Patrol Police and military units sent by General Anupong to prevent police from dispersing mob.

5.After speeded up court ruling (defence statements truncated), parties dissolved and army "whipped its rogue bulldog into line".End of occupation followed.

6.Bank of Thailand estimated airport seizure cost country 290 billion baht equivalent to 3% of GDP.

7.Simple clean up costs were Baht 20 million.The building's Brahma imaged had been damaged.Offices looted of computers,TVs,amulets,cameras,Buddha images and other valuables.Cars and motorcycles stolen.Police cache of guns and ammunition gone missing.

8.Searches found krathom and other drugs and small bomb making factory.Dredging the adjacent canal brought up iron pipes,swords,home made guns and other weaponry (my assumption:presumably ditched by the PAD thugs)

Some people think that the AOT or its chief officers should be among the defendants for their compliance in the Suvarnabhumi takeover.

There's also a line of thought that Thaksin told his cronies on the AOT board to relinquish the airport, knowing it would backfire on the PAD leadership.

Which people are these? Any supporting details? I suppose the PAD leadership thinks that way.Is that what you mean?

As to the "line of thought" any details on who might hold it?

Two foreign correspondents I know who were eyewitnesses at the airport said the AOT handed the airport over 'on a silver platter.'

The source of the second line of thought is a former defense councilor for Thaksin.

And did the foreign correspondents publish details of this interpretation anywhere at the time or subsequently (or just confine their insights to you)?

I have no idea what a "defense councilor" is but if you say so, so be it.Sounds more like PAD paranoia to me but what do I know?

Wow. A former Khmer Rouge leader who actively participated in the slaughter of those dark times and the man who authorized his own "night of the long knives" under the cover of a "war on drugs"? I agree that there are many shady characters in the current government, but I don't think they hold a candle to these two jokers.

A lot of Cambodians ended up in the Khmer Rouge simply to stay alive, much as the present Pope was an unwilling member of the Hitler Youth.If you have any evidence that Hun Sen "actively participated in slaughter" in that period can you supply the proof? Otherwise your accusation is baseless.

The drugs war is different and has been much debated.What's clear is that it had massive support including some very prominent elite Thais.It was I agree deplorable but if you have Thaksin in your sights be careful who else you are taking potshots at.

Just another reminder. Let's use the appropriate decorum and respect in referencing the Cambodian Monarch.

Within limits, it's open season on Hun Sen and Thaksin, however, the Cambodian Monarch was gracious enough to grant this person a pardon and to do it very expeditiously.

And who do you think made the necessary recommendation to the Cambodian monarch ? All the evidence points to an understanding between Thaksin and Hun Sen, leading to a magnanimous outcome.It's rather puzzling why you have authorised "open season" on Hun Sen and Thaksin.I agree these are not very lovable characters but not sure whether they are any worse than many of the Thai politicians that this country's saddled with.There's a sensible piece over on Bangkok Pundit on all this.

Your description of mostly middleage women and kids with hand-clappers as para-military is indeed ridiculous.

I wouldn't say ridiculous but perhaps misleading because it omits mention of the large number of intimidating young thugs.

Some people think that the AOT or its chief officers should be among the defendants for their compliance in the Suvarnabhumi takeover.

There's also a line of thought that Thaksin told his cronies on the AOT board to relinquish the airport, knowing it would backfire on the PAD leadership.

Which people are these? Any supporting details? I suppose the PAD leadership thinks that way.Is that what you mean?

As to the "line of thought" any details on who might hold it?

Similarly for Songkran: meant to be a public celebration, yet millions of people's jobs are jeopardized, thousands are injured, hundreds are killed.

And with this demonstrable lie your credibility on the subject evaporates.

For those who live in the real world there is no doubt which act caused the greatest economic damage and harm to the country's reputation.

Didn't now-PM Abhisit, at the time the leader of the Opposition, not criticise the PAD's action at the time ?

Yes and no, basically keeping in with both sides.But remember PAD was a far more powerful organisation then with elite backing, much less influential now.My point is that Abhisit as a rising politician needed to tread very carefully.

Back to Thai Inter, it's been said before but Piyasvasti Amaranand is a fascinating and unusual figure.The first characteristic that's striking is his excellent analytical brain relatively undiminished by Thai cultural constraints.It's not everything but first class honours from Oxford in Mathematics is an incredibly good measure of intellectual rigour.The second notable characteristic is courage.In normal circumstances I wouldn't give him a chance against the bloated and greedy hogs who sponge off Thai Inter (let alone steering Thai Inter through the painful process of re-establishing a leadership position)..but something is different this time in that in Abhisit and Korn he has encouraging and supportive kindred spirits.But the vested interests he faces are formidable.Is this the moment for Thai Inter to be reborn Phoenix like? Watch out it's going to be a bumpy ride.

More important than the money, KASIT NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL. The only place suitable for him. Thus with someone else becoming FM, maybe the peace will come back in Thailand and neighbor countries.

Actually no he doesn't belong in jail by any stretch and I speak as someone who has consistently pointed out how inappropriate Kasit's role as FM is given his past actions.But get this in perspective.He is a decent professional with a distinguished record as a diplomat.I think it's also important not to forget that the motivation of many PAD members (as opposed to its disturbingly creepy leadership) was honourable if in my view misguided..The problem Kasit had was a deplorable lapse of judgement in actively participating in the airport seizure and speaking imprudently in support of that crime.Personally I would have thought satisfied an apology to the Thai people was all that was needed in the circumstances, but ministerial office should have been out of the question.I'm also afraid he seems to be deficient in personal honour since he really should have offered up his resignation when it became clear how damaging his presence was to the Abhisit government.His performance as FM has been mediocre as well.

Incidentally I noted as regards the suggestion that AOT closed down the airport as opposed to the PAD mob a delightful phrase quoted in Bangkok Pundit.It was only true in the Clintonian sense.

Civile disobedience - PAD didn't "close the airport or shutdown it's operations"!

It was the AOT Management of Suvannabhum!

I really didn't think that anyone could after all this time regurgitate this laughable defence when it has been thoroughly demolished.Even the PAD leadership don't fly this particular kite.Let's hope this genius is in ironic mode.

This move stinks of cynicism, desperation and puerility. An unelected government hiding behind... I won't go on.

Thank you for not going on.

On the point of an unelected government, this governement has been duly elected and is completely legitimate.

WRONG !

This government was NOT elected - the Democrats LOST the last election - check your facts.

This government has NO mandate from the people to govern.

It is, however, legitimate due to the changes made in the constitution after the Democrats lost the last election.

I think the point Mario was making is that under the practice of parliamentary government Abhisit's administration is completely legitimate.He is quite right.

However crucially there are some very disturbing aspects of the current administration's path to power which have been debated intensely on this forum.What is furthermore indisputable is that the government within a reasonable space of time needs a mandate from the Thai people in free and fair elections.

Great film but the average Thai lady or any lady enjoying it? nah don't think so personally......

And there you are completely wrong.I saw Schindlers List at the Scala Cinema in Siam Square when it came out, 1994 I think.The cinema at the matinee screening I attended was not only packed out but the staff had to provide fold up chairs for the spillover audience in the aisles.

If however you mean that uneducated bargirls or former bargirls wouldn't enjoy it you are probably right.

The last part of your post.... "Incidentally don't take anyone seriously who starts talking about Soophon keeping up the Nation's readership base.For anyone who's financially aware look at the paper's accounts.Without some form of external subsidy I doubt whether it has more than a year before the owners put it out of its misery.Not only is it completely unprofitable but is also despite recent cutbacks hemorrhaging cash. "

Since we seem to have a number of posters on this current thread talking about quality journalism, checking of facts etc., perhaps you could enlighten us about your paragraph above. Is it:

1. Factual and from what source.

2. Your opinion.

Take a wild guess what "look at the paper's accounts" means.These were published on New Mandala or possibly BP quite recently.The parent company is listed and thus some financial information is available on the SET site.The rag's probable longevity is of course my own opinion.

Although I am not a Thaksin fan (lol) I cancelled the Nation several years ago, in favor of the more bland Post. At least the Post tries to mask its hatred and contempt for Thaksin. In the Nation, it is dripping from the first page to the last.

Actually I think journalists who have hatred and contempt for Thaksin are perfectly legitimate.I have seem some excellent vitriolic pieces on Thaksin by Thai journalists over the last few years.Bias is okay in op-ed pieces rather of course than reporting of the news (although even in the latter it is very difficult to keep subjective opinion out).Sophon however falls into a class of his own.His opinions aren't really the problem, rather his slovenly journalism and intellectual dishonesty compounded by a nauseating self-satisfaction.But he will always will have an audience because there always a few gullible morons around..

Incidentally don't take anyone seriously who starts talking about Soophon keeping up the Nation's readership base.For anyone who's financially aware look at the paper's accounts.Without some form of external subsidy I doubt whether it has more than a year before the owners put it out of its misery.Not only is it completely unprofitable but is also despite recent cutbacks hemorrhaging cash.

Sopon Ongkara is a notoriously shoddy and deluded operator, and probably somewhat deranged judging by his output.The mystery is not his utter uselessness which is indisputable but why The Nation has tolerated him for so long.Having said that, he does have a certain sociological interest in that he typifies a certain kind of middle class Thai, not very well educated, blinkered but obstinately clinging to an archaic view of the world.Ignore him.

While we can debate to death whtehr somehting is LM or not, I think the more interesting issue is that even Abhiosit hasnt rushed into demanding an LM case although I think the comical Kasit may have. Right now it seems confrontation is being played down.

Right from the start it was obviosu the Times wouldnt release anything and even the government knew this. It was equally obvious that Thaksin wasnt going to sue the Times whatever he said.

The issues were more around appropriateness and timing than any slam dunk LM case and the poltics has been played and now we move on to no red rally and no CM visit. Later in the month there will no doubt be anohter issue or two.

I think this is a sensible summing up of the situation.What I personally find disgusting is the enthusiasm of a very few foreigners on this forum to use this anchronistic and divisive law to score political points against Thaksin.God knows there are enough genuine reasons to pursue him without having to resort to this pernicious and self defeating nonsense.As you suggest Abhisit is playing this very coolly and I suspect it will soon become a non-issue.

This thread gets more like the Bangkok Post Postbag every day. We have posts which use more and more convoluted language to say less and less. Here's a clue girls. - little words make big impressions - big words bore us to tears...

Perhaps you could identify some of the "long words" which have taxed your little head.Oddly enough it's a complaint my ten year old sometimes makes.I give you the same advice as I normally give her, .... go and look it up sweetheart.If you were in fact struggling, albeit in a somewhat halting and inarticulate way, to say that it's best that comments are made concisely and clearly with a minimum of words borrowed from other languages, I would fully agree with you.Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

None of your 'long words' have taxed my little head. On the contrary your post proves my point.

I'm not sure your post or for that matter mine proves anything at all other than we have too much time on our hands.But Orwell's advice on the clear and honest use of English remains compelling.

I fully agree your comments on Nick Clarke who died far too young - polite, analytical and completing free of the Paxman/Humphreys bluster.But I listened to him only on the radio.Did he do TV?

I do think Cambodia is playing with fire. Becoming an ally with an active fugitive revolutionary Thai leader associated with violence is indeed an act of aggression against Thailand. What did they expect? A sensible neighboring government would have remained entirely neutral in a soft civil war type conflict if they didn't wish to get involved. They have taken a side, it is their right; however, there are consequences. Welcome to the real world.

I agree.The worst case scenario is that Thailand could administer the Cambodians a military lesson they'll never forget.Last time (1987/8 border dispute) a smaller neigbour, Laos in that instance, faced the military might of Thailand's army...oh well perhaps on reflection that's not the best example since the Thailand army got a bloody nose.Oh well you get the general point.

This thread gets more like the Bangkok Post Postbag every day. We have posts which use more and more convoluted language to say less and less. Here's a clue girls. - little words make big impressions - big words bore us to tears...

Perhaps you could identify some of the "long words" which have taxed your little head.Oddly enough it's a complaint my ten year old sometimes makes.I give you the same advice as I normally give her, .... go and look it up sweetheart.If you were in fact struggling, albeit in a somewhat halting and inarticulate way, to say that it's best that comments are made concisely and clearly with a minimum of words borrowed from other languages, I would fully agree with you.Only the other day I was recommending to a similarly challenged member some invaluable advice in one of Orwell's last essays on this very subject.

The separation of Chiang Mai from Thailand can be seen as the fallback positon of the worst reds given their backdown from threatened actions in the capital that had been planned. I've discussed at another thread what should be the government's response to this week's developments in CM. Meantime, I'd like to believe someone in the government is proceding in an investigation with their clear eye on prosecution of Thaksin for his blatantly LM statements in the Times interview.

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous - this fellow's theory that the reds propose to detach Chiangmai from Thailand or his blissfully ignorant avowal of absurd LM proceedings that worry most educated Thais regardless of their political position..His previous posts confirmed on the subject of LM he doesn't really know what he thinks, as well as his contempt for the Thai legal system.On the plan to hive off Chiangmai he has yet to develop his preposterous theory.In any his ignorance and absurdity is evident.

I'm well aware there are farang in Thailand who have been here 20+ years or 30+ years so years present in Thailand are not an absolute qualification to speak of things Thai (five years might add some gravitas to one's observations in contrast to, say, two of fewer).

I totally agree but you were the one that raised the issue by announcing your 10 years residence as though that had some great significance.

I know one or two foreigners (well educated as well) who have been here over 20 years but still think in very simplistic and superficial terms about Thai politics, society and culture.I know others, quite young, who have only been here for a year or so who are astonishingly well informed and astute on these aspects.

Nothing much beats stating obvious realities of everyday life. Your statement is true and common knowledge so why presume you are being informative or particularly sage or wise?

Must I really belabour make the same point again? Obvious and trite though it may apparently be now, you were the one that started trumpeting your ten years residence as something of great significance.It isn't.