jayboy

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

Clearly we cannot discuss specifics stated by Thaksin in the interview, or even certain questions posed by the journalist, so there isn't much any one of us could present to critique the substance of the government's claim of LM. We're hidebound to simply make declarative statements of yes he did or no he didn't violate LM. All else is the blithering of nonsense so go right ahead and continue as I've made my declarative statement but don't plan to dwell on it.

At the risk of possibly going a little far afield, I'd say most of us share the view that the law has been too frequently applied of late and too often at whim or for less than legal purposes and intents. Most laws in LOS anyway exist to be abused, exploited and manipulated to benefit the elites in various ways and at various times depending on which of the elites is in authority.

Regardless of how many passports Thaksin has secured, he remains a national of Thailand and subject to its applicable laws while abroad. If someone here bought a newspaper ad tomorrow to advocate the overthrowing of his/her home government and/or that the leader of the home country be terminated with extreme prejudice, the person would be liable under the applicable laws at home (and probably in the host country as well), and thus subject to an extradition request. An issue we can discuss (!) is whether or not the government can charge Thaksin with LM, which of course it can (and should).

Your Para 1

Several other countries have ridiculous, barbaric or antiquated laws dealing with for example female circumcision, stoning adulterers to death or imprisoning dissidents etc.I expect they too have some creepy foreign support.You seem to be saying we should be taking LM law seriously, indeed seem positively enthusiastic for it to be implemented in this case.

Your Para 2

You are right to point out the abuse of LM in your first sentence.Your second sentence is however bewildering and seems completely over the top.You cannot dismiss the Thai legal system in such a throwaway manner, particularly since it on the whole works reasonably well.

Your Para 3

Here you seem to have completely lost it.To analyse the silliness further would be unkind.All I can say is that there are plenty of arguments to marginalise Thaksin in perpetuity without invoking an absurd and anachronistic law that actually often has the opposite effect of its perfectly honourable intent

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.

I know I read in the interview what after ten years in Thailand strike me as LM violations of the clearest and most indisputable sort.

As a matter of interest what gives you expertise by virtue of ten years residence?If you have any special insight into this very vexed subject which baffles and infuriates many educated Thais it would be interesting to know.I have been here more much longer than you, until recently in senior managerial positions, and am reasonably confident that LM, though with an honourable purpose which most Thais respect -as I do, has been consistently abused for political purposes.The Times Online interview is a case in point where no discernible offence is apparent even under this discredited law.Of course most well informed people, regardless of their politics, know precisely why LM is particularly sensitive now.

Anyway it may well be you have some specialised knowledge to justify your apparently absurd claim,perhaps as a lawyer or an academic.If so perhaps you would elaborate and I am very ready to reconsider my first reaction that you were blathering nonsense.

I understand and accept the 'problematic' aspects certain topics. No need to delve into those here. So then, who from 1976 is now active in the PAD today?

PM sent as inquiry.

But it's precisely the link between the backers (note rather than active participants on the streets) of fascist thuggery in 1976 and more recently the PAD movement (at least initially:the position is much ambiguous now) thats "problematic".

I'll provide reading suggestions tomorrow by PM but I fear it will be mainly book recommendations.Frankly I don't do much historical research on the web

There's plenty of reading material on all this available, but it's problematic to discuss in detail on this board.

i.e. - I can talk the talk, but I can't walk the walk

I would have thought even the densest would have realised I was referring to forum rules.Apparently not.

The discussion was about the similarities between the Thai political movements and the Chinese Red Guards.This requires some knowledge and background of the Red Guards purpose, motivation and backing.The only real candidates in Thailand are the Yellow and Red movements, not the blues or blacks who made very occasional and in the scheme of things insignificant appearences.The yellows pioneered intimidation and violence and had powerful though shadowy backers.The reds followed in the yellows footsteps with the backing of Thaksin.Both groupings were large and socially significant and both contained genuine idealists.I don't know how to make this any simpler.

Please document precisely why you believe the Yellows 'pioneered' violence and intimidation. You are evidently well-read, so it should be no problem to summarize your views, with suitable references. I am particularly interested in the 'pioneered' aspect. It is my understanding that political violence is common throughout Thailand's history.

You are absolutely right and I apologise if you felt it necessary for me to clarify I was talking about recent Thai history (though the context made it plain).

The obvious antecedent was represented by the fascist groups and up country thugs mobilised in 1976 to terrorise the progressive and democratic student movement.The backers of these murderous thugs bear some startling similarities to the PAD/yellow movements backers at least in the early days.

There's plenty of reading material on all this available, but it's problematic to discuss in detail on this board.

The are not protecting any source, the source is Thaksin!

It isn't a case of 'deep throat' spilling the beans.

You don't seem to grasp the point.It doesn't matter whether the source is anonymous or as in this case a specific person.A decent newspaper doesn't hand over this kind of material.It doesn't even matter whether as in this case no apparent offence has been committed and that the Thai Government's position seems comical and absurd to outsiders.

(Of course we farang experts know that the Thai people have been deeply hurt.I was in Chiang Mai today and one couldn't help noticing the rumbling voices all around complaining about Times Online.I'm sure this is replicated in every changwat .)

The discussion was about the similarities between the Thai political movements and the Chinese Red Guards.This requires some knowledge and background of the Red Guards purpose, motivation and backing.The only real candidates in Thailand are the Yellow and Red movements, not the blues or blacks who made very occasional and in the scheme of things insignificant appearences.The yellows pioneered intimidation and violence and had powerful though shadowy backers.The reds followed in the yellows footsteps with the backing of Thaksin.Both groupings were large and socially significant and both contained genuine idealists.I don't know how to make this any simpler.

The slightly frightening thing here is that the request came from the Prime Minister's Office.It is inconceivable that Abhisit himself, well aware from his long UK exposure how a free press operates, would have thought for a moment that The Times would hand over the transcript.One is left with the possibility that some half witted underling took the initiative though it would presumably have been relayed through the Thai Embassy in London.My theory however is that it was known by the PM's Office that The Times would politely tell the Thai diplomat fingered for this fun assignment to mind his own business or as it is put in technical language "go screw himself."Nevertheless the ritual move would have been completed, rather like the request for Thaksin's extradition from Cambodia, and no right wing nut job could accuse the Thai Government of not following up.

Do you have any reason to use comments like 'go screw yourself'? If you do then please share.

There's very likely another point. No newspaper would reveal such a tape because it would create a precedent which newspapers wuld not want going into the future.

Additionally, they very likely want to protoect themselves from any possible claim that the written words whih appeared are in fact different in meaning from the spoken words on the tape.

Additionally I suggest there's another point which seems to have been forgetten or missed. Surely the journalist would have done some research about the man before the interview, and I can't believe that the journalist didn't know that T is a pretty contraversial character, after all he's been banned from entry to the UK.

If you go back to the original interview as it appeared on the'timesonline' website, the journalist asks a number of questions which are answered by T with statements which are untruths or severe twists of the real truth, or even blatant lies. If the journalist is a professional then he should have challenged T, but he didn't.

I wonder why? Was it all a set-up which in the end went horribly wrong for T?

None of the points you make are foolish but they're not really germane to the central issue which is that a reputable newspaper always protects its sources.If there is a legal requirement to hand over evidence that's a different matter but in developed countries it's very difficult even with a court order.For example in the past honourable journalists have preferred to go to jail rather than reveal details of sources and their stories.If quite hypothetically a little pipsqueak from a South American embassy asked the Times for transcript details of an interview with a political exile (or criminal fugitive from justice as I expect they would call him) the newspaper concerned would politely tell him to piss off.Why the strong language? Because only a banana republic moron wouldn't understand about long fought for freedom of the press.

Certainly the Reds reacted to the PAD intimidation and violence and obviously Thaksin was their backer (just as the PAD had their rich paymasters).But the yellows pioneered the phenomomen.

To say that the yellows pioneered in violence and intimidation is absolute nonsense, please get your facts right!

Don't argue with me because I don't sense you welcome home truths.Consult current political historians of which Pasuk/Baker are the most accessible and reliable in English.It's beyond argument the yellow movement pioneered intimidation and violence on the streets, and as you suggest the reds followed suit.I'm not arguing one was worse than the other, simply noting the critical path which is incontrovertible.You can scream "nonsense" as much as you like but the facts are clear.

Might I suggest that, when the yellows first began to protest against corruption & murky goings-on in the TRT-government, there were incidents where black-shirted people were seen to attack them, under the apparent direction of the police on-the-scene ? Loyal civil-servants often use their power to support the latest government in-power, of whatever shade, seeking to gain favour or promotion or whatever.

It is therefore wrong to suggest that the PAD pioneered the intimidation, although the switch from black to red-shirts may have come later, government-directed violence has occurred on all sides, since at least Thaksin's days. The military have also done this many times in the past. So I simply cannot agree with your statement (not fact) that "it's beyond argument that the yellow movement pioneered intimidation and violence on the streets".

And I'm slightly saddened to see one TV-poster try to tell another that he has no right to express a different point-of-view, or interpret the facts differently, we farangs should set a better example and show tolerance. Descent into flaming neither wins arguments nor leads to a long life on TV, IME.

I'm afraid you will have to develop your black shirt theory a little more.The role of the PAD yellow shirts and the subsequent activation of the red shirts is very well documented.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me in your rather strange final admonition.Read my post more carefully please.I suggested KireB not to argue with me on that subject because he didn't give the impression of welcoming some home truths.I suggested he do some basic research referring him to the many excellent books that are available.There is also plenty of first class material on the web.I suggest you take the same advice.When you have some mastery of the basic facts including the mysterious black shirt theory, I'm more than happy to discuss.

Certainly the Reds reacted to the PAD intimidation and violence and obviously Thaksin was their backer (just as the PAD had their rich paymasters).But the yellows pioneered the phenomomen.

To say that the yellows pioneered in violence and intimidation is absolute nonsense, please get your facts right!

Don't argue with me because I don't sense you welcome home truths.Consult current political historians of which Pasuk/Baker are the most accessible and reliable in English.It's beyond argument the yellow movement pioneered intimidation and violence on the streets, and as you suggest the reds followed suit.I'm not arguing one was worse than the other, simply noting the critical path which is incontrovertible.You can scream "nonsense" as much as you like but the facts are clear.

seems like a lot of work, and a good bit of money...

my question is, giving it some fresh thought, is it really worth it?

if i am married and have money in the bank (currently properly employed) won't it nbe easier and cheaper enough to just live on non-imm O visas?

with permanent res you still need to go in every year and get travel visas etc...

A lot of work: Can be time consuming especially if you do it yourself as some of my friends have successfully done.Your HR department and/or lawyer can ease matters considerably.

Is it worth it?:Very subjective issue.I would say it is just about, particularly if you value security, and plan to stay on in Thailand after retirement or between jobs.

Travel visa:What we are talking about is obtaining the departure endorsement in the Residence Book and multiple re-entry visa.It's a complete formality.Typically the PR holder makes a 5 minute appearence in the morning and his secretary/lawyer picks up the docs in the afternoon.Could be a bore if you do it yourself I suppose but it's a complete formality done in double quick time.

Neither am I the only forumist who's sought to point out a certain paralled between Chairman Mao's Red Guards and Thaksin's red shirts.

True up to a point but as one would expect from such a partisan viewpoint misses the main issue.

If there was any parallel with the Red Guards (and I agree there was) it surely must be the PAD Yellow movement for a wide variety of reasons easily apparent to anybody with a grasp of history.Certainly the Reds reacted to the PAD intimidation and violence and obviously Thaksin was their backer (just as the PAD had their rich paymasters).But the yellows pioneered the phenomomen.The reds have grown and obviously represent a larger part of the country.At the same time the shadowy yellow backers grew nervous of the yellows democratic impulses (yes, there were some) and curbed their attack dog for time being anyway.

Really a case of attempting to sow a whirlwind but reaping a hurricane.

Lets hear Jayboy explain how this was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.

It wasn't justifiable at all but it's not the reason he is hated and feared by the elite.

Throw it in with Gen. Prem's commen tthat all sides must loiok to each other to solve problems and Thaksins thanking him for the statement and you have possibly a movement away from the edge. Possibly

I heard they might be going on holiday together (which is nice).

Don't patronise those who are as well informed or better informed on the Thai political structure as you are.You point is fatuous without the appropriate context.We know that Abhisit is constitutionally quite eligible to be Prime Minister of Thailand for the reasons you mention.However his path to to this post is certainly murky and "guided" and though it's unclear how much blame attaches to him personally, he has benefited from a criminal military coup, a rigged constitution, dubious court decisions and military patronage.The member who you unsuccessfully attempted to belittle has a perfectly valid point , namely that Abhisit needs to seek a popular mandate in fair elections as a matter of some priority.All the evidence suggests he will not obtain it.

Come on Jayboy. It is now the next day and I am still waiting for either you or your friend zzaa09 to back up his comment of stated fact that Abhisit wasn't elected as PM - but appointed by a judicial coup. Since you jumped in, can you back it up or do both you and zzaa09 have nothing?

I didn't say Abhisit was appointed by an official coup.Read my post quoted above which makes my position very clear.

Incidentally I try to respond to posts and failure to do so is simply having not spotted a question.

OK, we are back understanding each other (which is the way I prefer it). I responded to your support of someone else who said Abhisit: "wasn't elected - but appointed by a judicial coup." I don't want to get into a discussion as to what an official coup is, but if someone is going to say Abhisit was made PM by a judicial coup and state it as if it is a fact, I would expect them to back it up with fact. So far, there has been no fact presented to back it up.

Good.And while I'm here I would like to confirm my support of Siripon's remarks.There should be zero tolerance of this kind of violent language by the media or indeed in general political discourse.What was said - if reported correctly - about Abhisit is intolerable.Tempers are inflamed enough and it's all too easy for this kind of poisonous vitriol to spill over.(I've been reading Richard Evans' excellent book, first of a trilogy, dealing with the Nazis rise to power so the subject of political violence is fresh in my mind.)

Of course there's poisonous language used on the other side.See BP for analysis of what was said at a recent PAD rally although to be fair unlike the Chiangmai incident it generally seemed to be due to somewhat over excited rhetoric.

There of course would be the risk to the Thai government that it could lose its pleading in court, which certainly would weaken its claim to the Times. The government has to weigh this possibility. However, we have read the interview and we recognize that Thaksin trampled on Thai law so it's likely the government would win its case in a Thai court. The fact Thaksin already is a convicted criminal also would strengthen the position of the Thai government with the Times and in respect to the criminal laws of the UK, as would the fact the UK already had found itself legally obligated to the Thai government (judiciary) to respect its ruling in the Thaksin case.

Absolute rubbish.Thank God people like you don't have a say in defending liberty.The UK government was under no legal obligation to deny Thaksin a visa but (I speculate) wanted to avoid hosting extradition proceedings, Thailand being a friendly country and the unsavoury Thaksin clearly not highly regarded.The Times interview was however seen by most reasonable people as respectful and as a Times editorial pointed out it's impossible to understand what offence had been committed.Thaksin has not been convicted of Lese Majeste in a Thai court.Lese Majeste is not an offence under UK law anyway and indeed Lese Majeste is seen as a Ruritanian legal relic.Fortunately Abhisit understands all this, notwithstanding the internal pressure he's under, and the chances of the Times being taken to court are in practice zero.I'm slightly sorry about this because the comic possibilities would have been endless though I wouldn't have enjoyed seeing Thailand becoming an international laughing stock.

Large red rallies have been completely free of violence.

I guess the violence during Songkran 2009 was a figment of everyone's imagination. Wow, I could have sworn the Red Shirts hijacked a gasoline truck and threatened to blow it up along with the men, women and children in surrounding neighborhoods. I will call my friend immediately and tell him he was imagining it when he feared for his kid's lives because this never happened.

Dream on.

Yeah the LPG human bomb (that never happened) is the latest rallying call on this forum.It was a stupid and reckless act but it didn't actually happen, geddit? There is enough going on without summoning up pre-crimes.

I was actually talking about the recent rallies and should have made that clearer.

By that logic anyone bringing explosive or flammable materials that can also cause explosions and kill hundreds into residential or commercial areas isnt really doing more than acting wrecklessly. Mmmm think inmost countires the charges would be a lot worse than that for something similar to the Din Daeng case and I dont think it would be a little sideshow or something but a very very big thing especially as it was the porganised supporters of the political opposition in parliament. Imagine if the supporters of the Republican party drove an LPG tanker into a residential area of downtown Washington or the supporters of the Conservative party in the UK did it in downtown London. Yeah I can really see that being described as a pre-crime and a mere wreckless and stupid act.

Boy some people have got that LPG truck on the brain.Strange how so many had eye witness friends on the spot, though others tell a rather different story.

In a more general sense this sort of street protest wouldn't happen and more pertinently be necessary in the countries you mention because unpopular governments aren't ushered in through military coups, rigged constitutions, corrupt back door deals and dodgy court decisions.The majority of the people decide who's in power and if the elected government screws up the bums get thrown out.Not so here where a tiny minority think they know what's best for the great unwashed...and surprise surprise this just happens to mean the economic system is skewed in their favour.

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

That is emminently clear.

And so do you have a point at all or are you just out of your depth?

The slightly frightening thing here is that the request came from the Prime Minister's Office.It is inconceivable that Abhisit himself, well aware from his long UK exposure how a free press operates, would have thought for a moment that The Times would hand over the transcript.One is left with the possibility that some half witted underling took the initiative though it would presumably have been relayed through the Thai Embassy in London.My theory however is that it was known by the PM's Office that The Times would politely tell the Thai diplomat fingered for this fun assignment to mind his own business or as it is put in technical language "go screw himself."Nevertheless the ritual move would have been completed, rather like the request for Thaksin's extradition from Cambodia, and no right wing nut job could accuse the Thai Government of not following up.

Non sequitur I'm afraid on your part.

Anyway the proof is simple.Go to the US, Europe, Australia, Japan and talk without prompting to anyone without a particular connection to Thailand.Ask them a propos Thailand's political difficulties what particular incident they recall over the last year or so.It doesn't take a genius to work out it would be the closing down of the country through illegal seizure of the airport.

Either you travel a lot and interview a statistically significant number of people, or you are just fabricating nonsense!

Only a genius could tell!

All I can say is ask and see what the response is.To summarise, what particular incident in Thailand's recent political troubles sticks in the minds of non-partisan foreigners?

If you or I were the only ones here to have read this, I'd be surprised. We know Orwell's fiction and essays and that his works have great validity. No one I know however would call Orwell either a spelling or a sytle Nazi.

Sorry I have no idea what point you're making here.

Don't patronise those who are as well informed or better informed on the Thai political structure as you are.You point is fatuous without the appropriate context.We know that Abhisit is constitutionally quite eligible to be Prime Minister of Thailand for the reasons you mention.However his path to to this post is certainly murky and "guided" and though it's unclear how much blame attaches to him personally, he has benefited from a criminal military coup, a rigged constitution, dubious court decisions and military patronage.The member who you unsuccessfully attempted to belittle has a perfectly valid point , namely that Abhisit needs to seek a popular mandate in fair elections as a matter of some priority.All the evidence suggests he will not obtain it.

Come on Jayboy. It is now the next day and I am still waiting for either you or your friend zzaa09 to back up his comment of stated fact that Abhisit wasn't elected as PM - but appointed by a judicial coup. Since you jumped in, can you back it up or do both you and zzaa09 have nothing?

I didn't say Abhisit was appointed by an official coup.Read my post quoted above which makes my position very clear.

Incidentally I try to respond to posts and failure to do so is simply having not spotted a question.

Large red rallies have been completely free of violence.

I guess the violence during Songkran 2009 was a figment of everyone's imagination. Wow, I could have sworn the Red Shirts hijacked a gasoline truck and threatened to blow it up along with the men, women and children in surrounding neighborhoods. I will call my friend immediately and tell him he was imagining it when he feared for his kid's lives because this never happened.

Dream on.

Yeah the LPG human bomb (that never happened) is the latest rallying call on this forum.It was a stupid and reckless act but it didn't actually happen, geddit? There is enough going on without summoning up pre-crimes.

I was actually talking about the recent rallies and should have made that clearer.

You can't speak for others...

However you have no more right than I do do to speak for "most of us"

...but you can speak for the international community? I'm impressed.

As far as international perception is concerned the seizure of the airports and the spinelessness of the authorities is what lingers, not the Songkran riots.

Non sequitur I'm afraid on your part.

Anyway the proof is simple.Go to the US, Europe, Australia, Japan and talk without prompting to anyone without a particular connection to Thailand.Ask them a propos Thailand's political difficulties what particular incident they recall over the last year or so.It doesn't take a genius to work out it would be the closing down of the country through illegal seizure of the airport.