jayboy

A language that is not used soon becomes lost.

I will write with what I feel is the 'Right Word' in the place I choose.

But your use of English is appalling so what you feel is the "right word" is neither here nor there.

Orwell in his essay on Politics and the English language said:

"Bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict,extraneous,deracinated,clandestine,subaqueous and hundreds of others gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.

He gives an example of the horrible style you employ, a translation if you like of a verse from Ecclesiastes.Here is the superlative original:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,neither bread to the wise,nor yet riches to men of understanding,nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

And here is Orwell's translation which is your style I'm afraid Animatic.

"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account".

And yes, compared to what could have happened, and has happened in Thailand's past, the Songkran riots were "low key".

Funny isn't it? The same people who argued tooth and nail than people sitting at an airport was an act of terrorism, now describe people running amock on the streets of Bangkok, hijacking buses, threatening to blow up tankers, attacking the Prime Minister's car, etc, etc, as being low key, purely on the basis that it could have been worse.

It's a fair point.I think however the distinction is that the yellow acts of violence culminating in the airport seizure were openly supported by the ruling elite, the army and their political stooges.The events of Songkran were disruptive to city life and in my view misguided but in the measure of these things not particularly violent.A mythology of crazed red revolutionaries crashing LPG tankers into city buildings is insisted on by some - but the reality is that throughout the last few years of political division the level of violence has been tiny.I would have thought that was something Thais could be proud of.

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.

Some here seem to equate formal and stern dislike, distrust and opprobrium for all things Thaksin,

with some elitist disregard for the common people, so long ignored by Thaksin and his hi-so brethren,

until he saw it serve his purposes as power broker and putative grand-standing ruler or Thailand.

Further this spurious connectivity is extended to implying that

having a dislike for red Shirt leadership and their disingenuous manipulation

of different portions of the northern populace, is somehow

directly analogous to disliking those same portions of the norther populace.

Fortunately those two misconceptions

are totally in the minds of those attempting that connection.

Actually I don't make any easy assumptions.It's fair to point out however that many PAD supporters were openly contemptuous of what you strangely call "the northern populace".

Equally it would be refreshing if supporters of the red movement (in my view the voice of grass roots democracy) weren't so easily branded by some as dupes of Thaksin.

Incidentally in the politest possible way why do you post in such a long winded and contorted way? Short Anglo-Saxon words and simple constructs are best as Orwell observed long ago in preference to French and Latin borrowings.Frankly the meaning behind your posts is clouded by your wish to appear proficient in the language.I can assure you that at places like Oxford or Yale your ridiculous use of English wouldn't be tolerated.If English is not your first language I apologise and won't raise the matter again.But my advice on simplicity holds good.

The world saw a bloodless coup with soldiers holding riffles and getting flowers from girls, the world saw a airport seizure with ' Kum-Ba-Yah my Lord singing' grandmothers and children. The world also saw the Songkran Riots with red shirted idiots taking over armoured military vehicles, placing LPG tankers in residential areas and creating absolute mayhem in the streets of Bangkok. Low key? Yeah right, headlines everywhere in the world!

Priceless and beyond comment.Kum-Ba-Yah to you and all the rest who believe in fairies.

Well I guess most of us must be blind and idiots in believing the typical reactionary and dishonest rubbish

If the cap fits....However you have no more right than I do do to speak for "most of us"

The PAD movement's bullying and violence is a matter of record, and set the tone for street politics.For a time there was an active effort on the yellows to court martyrdom through provocative acts.I have never incidentally excused the red acts of violence.

Overall - and both sides tend to be uncomfortable with this - the striking aspect given the bitterness of the division is actually how little violence there has been.I say striking because its relative absence doesn't fit in with the myth building (of which the rather low key Songkran riot is a prime example).

low key Songkran riots?

By the standards of political street violence, yes..very.All credit to the law enforcement agencies involved.

Well I guess most of us must be blind and idiots in believing the typical reactionary and dishonest rubbish

If the cap fits....However you have no more right than I do do to speak for "most of us"

The PAD movement's bullying and violence is a matter of record, and set the tone for street politics.For a time there was an active effort on the yellows to court martyrdom through provocative acts.I have never incidentally excused the red acts of violence.

Overall - and both sides tend to be uncomfortable with this - the striking aspect given the bitterness of the division is actually how little violence there has been.I say striking because its relative absence doesn't fit in with the myth building (of which the rather low key Songkran riot is a prime example).

So it is a joke to say the PM will be killed. And PTP tell him to cancel the visit for his safety and yet never onjce call for calm and ask his opponents to stick to lawful dfemos and respect the right to visit.

The drumbeat of hatred goes on. LCM51's history is well knownb and they are a proven violent grouping with a belief based crede and claim they represent the people of the North. There is no debate on that.

Indeed - same as it's always been on the Thaksin-loving Redskirts side. It goes back to his philosophy of maximum state-sanctioned violence (War on Drugs, Southern suppression, anti-"bad" NGOs, disappearances, etc) and minimum human rights concerns during his stay in office. Hence, as I always maintained, you were incorrect in earlier trying to portray "each side as bad as the other". The Yellows have a lot of catching up to do to reach the Red's excesses, you'd have to admit, and apart from failing to control some unruly elements during the period of street protests, they have managed to keep a fairly clean sheet in comparison.

No, Hammered is broadly correct and you are wrong.The yellows set the violent tone in recent Thai politics and this is confirmed by respected observers such as Baker/Pasuk.There can be no excuses for violence on either side.The current situation is rather different with infighting on both red and yellow sides.Large red rallies have been completely free of violence.The smaller yellow rallies have not but even the most bone headed don't blame Thaksin for this.The attempted assasination of Sondhi by agents of his former protectors says it all.

Look at the collection of morons fronting the red shirt brigade - Jatuporn, Charlerm, Noppadon, Thaksin, etc. These are the people that some want back in charge of Thailand. My god, my testicles shrink up faster than plunging into icey water, at that thought.

PM's Office Minister in charge of bullshit Jatuporn, FM in charge of bribing judges and whinging Noppadon, Secretary of Crappy Fathers Charlerm, Prime Minister of Changing country policy to enrich himself Thaksin, Secretary of <deleted> Samak, Deputy Secretary in Charge of Carrying Thaksin's jock strap Somchai. Secretary of Killing woman and shooting up their refrigerators Yongyut.

Give me Abhisit and Suthep- any day. (Although you can keep Kasit, he's another loudmouth lout).

As a matter of interest I wonder whether you are aware of Suthep's background and reputation?

[quote name='hammered' date='2009-11-22 02:46:15' post='3156171'

Sounds a realistic appraisal. It isnt often that people spell it out so openly.

Not really clear which part you are referring to.Pummarat Thaksadipong's comments are the typical reactionary and dishonest rubbish - "the aim is to cause violence and death" - echoing the most bone headed elite elements.Paiboon Nititiwan is more of the same although somewhat more measured in tone.On the other hand the unnamed source at the end is quite sensible and using your expression a "realistic appraisal" and of course completely contradicting the earlier comments.

Is this visit news worth posting in the forum?

Anyway, I wish he could leave the local people (and officers) to spend their weekend with families instead of waiting on him. Even better to find a way to secure Thai Engineer release from Cambodian jail.

He is PM and as such should be able to go anywhere in the country. In fact any person whatever status they have shoudl be able to do so likewise. There should be no no-go areas for anyone. The PM should be able to visit people of the country he is PM of. Quite simple really. That goes for a new PM if roles are reversed in parliament too.

A popular PM? We really wouldn't know, as he wasn't elected - but appointed by a judicial coup. Fair to proceed with sound and just elections. And then we'll see.

Not again. This should be simple enough. In Thailand, the PM is selected by all the elected MP's. Hence, Abhisit is an elected MP who has been selected by the rest of the elected MP's to be PM, just like the PM's before him. If this is still hard for you to understand, google Thailand and read.

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.

My university enjoys a nice benefit from Abhisit being in charge, as Abhisit's father used to be the president, so we get good budget consideration. I appiciate that, and try to produce the best graduates I can, as do my collegues.

LawnGnome. What would your stance be if Thaksin was still in power and decided to give a university "good budget consideration" because maybe he was pally with the dean or something? Genuine question.

Exactly but I suspect he inhabits an irony free zone.

I wonder what that corruption index would be this year if he was incarcerated and serving a 30 year prison sentence (obviously based on convictions of his other pending corruption charges).

When people see someone openly skirting the law, they are more prone to skirt the same law themselves. It's not until that person is held responsible will be people sit up and take notice that corruption is bad. It'd be terrific to see him come back and face that sort of time in jail. You'd see that corruption index drop like a rock.

How spectacularly naive.It wouldn't make any difference of course.Corruption is pervasive in a very high degree in all aspects of Thai life including the corporate world politics, the military and the bureaucracy.A notoriously corrupt politician serves in a high position in the current government.It doesn't need Thaksin's presence to make an example of corruption.There are more than enough enough targets right here in Bangkok.The fallacy of course in the poster's comment is that corrupt though Thaksin was, this is the excuse not the real motive for the elite's hatred of him.

Kasit wasn't FM when he spoke that.

It doesn't matter when he said it.To have said it at all should have disqualified him for high office.

Why the heck shouldn't he or anyone else have said what he said,

despite it was pretty innocent stuff, only when taken out of context it seems as if he is glorifying this event.

many consider him "a good man for the job" he didn't really do any damage to the country, did he?

And many consider his appointment to be a national disgrace, a terrible blot on Abhisit's government.He's not a wicked man, far from it but someone with lamentably bad judgement.The occupation of the international airport was hugely damaging to Thailand, and the leaders were lucky to avoid jail time.Kasit was part of this disgrace.

Spin all you like about Stansted Airport.I doubt whether anyone takes that kind of line seriously.

a vague attachment to free markets except when it interferes with his business.

Hammered, wouldn't this apply to almost every Thai politician? Not much ideology or even political ideas in the Thai arena.

Interesting point you pose as to where most ex-CPT activists repose these days.I have no idea but a 50-50 red-yellow split doesn't seem too untoward.

I know about the anti-communist history here and the overreaction during the Vietnam war. However, just asking, is part of this PAD rhetoric a dig at Thaksin's Chinese ethnicity and by implication friendliness with the communist party of China model? If Thaksin is attracted to that model, that is pretty much the opposite of being pro democracy. His color is RED. Of course, Thaksin is on record while he was in power as saying democracy is not important (unless he can use the rhetoric of "stolen" power to gain sympathy in the west).

Not at all.The PAD leadership (along with most Thai politicians) and most of its supporters are of Chinese ethnicity.At PAD rallies the Chinese angle was positively trumpeted with appropriate boastful tee shirts.The current Chinese political model and its absence of democracy is very attractive to many PAD members.PAD was interested in limiting democracy in the guise of "improving" it so that the great unwashed went under represented.It's true that Thaksin had a strong relationship with China but then the entire Thai ruling class is to one degree or another in permanent kowtow mode to Beijing.If Thaksin had a problem with the elite it would have been that he was not "establishment" even though his family had been a prominent Chinese commercial one in Chiangmai for several generations.He was seen a pushy parvenu, all the more intolerable because he represented a threat to their long entrenched interests.

I think you need to be careful about equating the urban middle class with the PAD. The PAD have become a homogenous and now small group existing around an extreme ideology. The urban middle class consists of quite a diverse group of people and covers all of the political spectrum.

I take your point completely.Having said that I was really talking about that section of the Bangkok middle class which actively supported PAD in its active rallying days.I should also have made it clear that many PAD supporters particularly in the early days were and are thoroughly decent people who were genuinely and rightly appalled at Thaksin's corruption and meglomania.Trouble is on this forum that one often against time struggles to make a point and nuance (often critical) is a victim.Mea culpa.

PAD have never hated the red shirts, they hate and despise Thaksin.

Sounds good and "inclusive" but unfortunately it's not true.There was and is a great deal of hatred on the part of the mainly urban middle class for the rural majority who comprised the groundswell of support for the red movement.The disgusting and racist language used by many PAD supporters for ordinary Thais is a matter of record.As long as they "knew their place" there was no particular problem but Thais these days increasingly couldn't give a rat's wotsit about some pre-ordained place at the bottom of the heap.I would go so far to say that the hatred for Thaksin was to a significant degree generated by his politicisation of the majority to the point it presaged the end of the privileged status quo (and of course that of their shadowy supporters and paymasters).

Agree with whomever you like.

We know who he is devoted to, by his own words.

We know who he hates with out exception, by his own words.

We know he says one thing and that thing happens on cue.

Clear patterns of behavior exist in the public domain.

Where there's smoke there's usually fire.

That's no way to talk about Khun Prem.Have a little respect.

The seizure of the airport was not a life threatening experience. It was an economy and image damaging event. To my mind to threaten or terrorize hundreds of relatively poor people do nothing but sitting in their own apartments is worse than disrupting the economy and damaging the image of ience and face.

I do not condone either act.

I wonder how many people would rather have a drunk parking an LPG tanker outside their house and repeatedly threaten to blow it up than read about or see on TV that their airport was shut down by demonstrators? I wonder how many people would be more terrorized by the latter than the former?

I'm not sure your version of that Songkran incident is the only one held by well informed people, but that's not really the point.

Furthermore saying one does not condone either act is a cop out.

If you can't distinguish between holding the country to ransome and one piece of dangerous stupidity, you have a lot to learn about political context.

The LPG tanker thing was definitley on a different plane of terror than seizing an airport or even the fights between the two groups. It directly terrorised and threatened the lives of people not involved. If you talk to anyone who was there you will find it was not a pleasant experience.

I would respectfully completely disagree.Do I think the Songkran riots were an "unpleasant experience" for some? Of course but that's not really the point.And to equate (actually you seem to be saying it's worse) the incident of the LPG tanker with the seizure of the international airport...well, unusually perhaps words fail me especially given your normally admirable common sense.

Thaksin is only strong in North and Nordeast with vote buying.

Sorry I switch off when I see this kind of lie.Come back when you've read up on the history.

While some people like the status quo, it is completely a fallacy to talk about the state organs being "directed' to counter the peoples will to alter anything. That is at part with the faked moon-landing-conspiracy. Fun to talk about at parties for those 'in the know' (aka fans of the theory) but silly outside with people that know more.

You say it's a complete fallacy but the facts prove otherwise.There are so many documented examples of army interference in elections (see HRW reports) and the "approval" of the constitution, courts being given "directions", judicial activism etc from those who are terrified by the unfettered workings of democracy.To be fair there's another perspective focusing on the rule of law which has also to be taken seriously.However to dismiss the manipulation of the state apparatus as just cocktail party talk is frankly rather foolish.Personally I don't believe in an organised conspiracy but there's a great deal of evidence that entrenched vested interests are alarmed at the implications of one man one vote democracy and look for alternative ways of thwarting the popular will.I would go so far to say that also means crushing the yellow shirts if they exceed their allotted attack dog role.It might even mean seeking to murder its leadership (Oops, I forgot that's already been tried).

Crispin touches on the possibility of a red "rising" of some sort soon. With this story and the Cambodia one if that were to happen now it would be potentially very very deadly. The anti-Thaksin sentiments of many that had started to subside with him away and out of mind are back with a massive vengeance and new injection of life.

Crispin's open statement that Jakrapob informed him weapons had been brought into Thailand form Cambodia is also a worrying issue.

Do you buy Crispin's line on this latest story which I read this morning.He's someone I respect but I just wonder about his judgement sometimes.He has an odd way of presenting a narrative which he implicitly seems to endorse (without actually saying so) but leaving wriggle room to back away from.If I could be bothered I would go back over his Asia Times pieces in the last 2-3 years and see how credible they seem now.Anyway he's a zillion times better informed than I am and obviously compulsory reading.

Yes, I think the news-section Should enforce some form of censorship - if you want to call outright lieing some form of right - as the news-sections only credibility is in the accuracy of the news (yes, yes, I know) and the factual and high spirited debates around them. When it goes south into a flame-fest, too many one-liners etc it detracts from the brand-value of TV. And the value for any reader goes down. (With exception perhaps for some of us posters that like to argue anyway.)

But the trouble is the kind of post you identified and wish to censor does zero in on some basic truths.I have already gone out of my way to stress it was too simplistic and in honesty needs rewriting.I take your point that facts are sacred.But reallyok does make or imply the key points namely (1) there was an illegal and criminal coup from which the country's present dire crisis originates (2) Thaksin and his parties have huge support, probably a majority if fair elections were to be held (3) the organs of state have been "directed" to thwart the Thai people's will.If all this clearly emerged from your posts -which it doesn't - you could speak with some moral authority.