jayboy

Seeing as how his conviction was brought about by an illegally coup formed military government and that his party has since been re-elected but denied government. I should think that any sane foreign government would rightfully be just a little cautious to become involved in the requests from any Thai organisation along these lines.

You clearly have no respect for facts.

Please, moderators, could we have these nonsense-posts removed? They serve absolutely no purpose but run the risk of confusing idle readers.

Or, wait, that might be the purpose. And knowingly posting false facts...well...and let's not forget, critic of the court IS illegal here in Thailand and that is in effect what this post is. A long slander on the court-system, based on misunderstanding/misinformation/fan-dome.

I'm just so tired of this.

reallyok>> The government doesn't judge in court-cases. Thaksin's own proxy-government ruled after the coup's first election. Get things right or GTFO.

Reallyok abbreviates and simplifies rather too much.I certainly wouldn't express the position in quite that way at all - at least without a host of caveats, but in all essentials he is bang on the money.What is more his view is backed by a great many Thai and Foreign historians and political scientists.Naturally there's a different analysis which can be articulated, and of course you are completely at liberty to make an alternative argument.Some on this forum have made a rather good stab at doing so though I don't usually agree with them.However it's quite unacceptable for you to call for censorship of views you do not agree with, let alone attempt to marginalise as "nonsense posts" a view of Thai politics which is actually among the intelligent and well educated liberal leaning pretty much mainstream.And frankly if one is to take the patronising position of advising "confused idle readers", I would politely suggest to them that they take with a pinch of salt any post ending with "Get things rights or GTFO" since this rather strikingly reveals the knowledge and sophistication of the writer.

I would say, without doubt, that his remarks as communicated in the transcript were over the line. We don't agree on this and perhaps I am wrong and you are right, but that is not up to us to decide.

So whose role is it to decide?

Doesn't change the fact that Thaksin is arguably the most dangerous man in Thai history.

What exactly do you mean by "dangerous" in this context?

I'm not drawing a parallel but just an example to clarify why I ask. Lech Walesa was the most "dangerous" man in post war Polish history.Why? Because he set in motion a series of events which unseated a corrupt and brutal communist dictatorship.

So how exactly is Thaksin "dangerous"?

Still there are many Reds, who still believe The Times of London ganged up with the Dems and twisted Thaksins interview.

Well that's a change.The usual charge is that the international press (Economist, WSJ, Straits Times, FT etc) have been conned by Thaksin, and in some cases are in his pay or heavily influenced by his PR advisors.Ludicrous of course but peddled by many on the anti-Thaksin side.

As it happens the charge stated by Rideau is also absurd.

Thaksin's UK visa was cancelled when he was out of the country.It seemed a slightly mysterious decision at the time since the charge he had been found guilty of in the Thai courts was a trivial one (don't bother commenting on this please!).However over time the rationale of the UK has become clear.Thailand is an important country for the UK partly because of the huge tourist flows, but there also other longstanding interests including trade.Basically the UK and Thailand are good friends.

It appeared that Thailand was about to launch extradition proceedings and at a political level this was something the UK wanted to avoid.The problem would have been a court battle in the UK which would have seen Thaksin's expensive and super efficient lawyers demolish the Thai case which for all but the incurably naive was primarily politically motivated.This is something the Foreign Office wanted to avoid and since there is nobody more ruthless and unsentimental than the British in defending their national interests a fast one was sprung on Thaksin when he was outside the UK.It didn't help Thaksin's cause that as a type he didn't impress the Brit ruling class at all (actually for the same reasons he doesn't impress the Bangkok elite that much, namely because he is a pushy and vulgar Jek not to say illiberal outsider.) He could never ring the bells Abhisit can or for that matter another saintly Oxonian, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Anyway the point here is that the same problem with extradition remains.There ain't much of a case especially if it can be demonstrated -which it can-the proceedings are politically motivated.In the case of Thailand and Cambodia, it doesn't help that the FM leading the charge is seen by the international community as someone supporting terrorism.And of course in the instance of Kasit he has a record of racist abuse towards the Cambodians.Sure doesn"t help but for those who have visions of Interpol bringing Thaksin back to Bangkok in chains, dream on guys.

The words elite / elites, are currently bandied around quite a lot, and I doubt that anybody has a really clear understanding of what the words specifically mean.

I also wonder whether the words are just a manifestation of a PR ploy cleverly developed by Thaksin's PR machine. He and his minions have admitted that they use a high profile US based PR/lobbyist firm. I've seen the work of this 'industry' before. They can be very very clever at creating smoke screens. They can turn black into white.

If you read my post rather more carefully you will see that nothing of what I say is inconsistent with your remarks, except for the part I have quoted where you descend into silliness I'm afraid.

By that I mean you seem to be questioning the existence of a ruling elite, to the point you suggest it's dreamed up by Thaksin's PR machine.Yeah, sure !!

the awakened Thai people

Were they genuinely awakened or were they simply duped into believing that a politician cared about them?

I think that the two positions you define are consistent with each other, in other words that Thaksin formulated policies for electoral advantage (but isn't what all politicians do?) and at the same time the Thai majority was politicised.The question whether the Thai people was duped by Thaksin is an interesting one.In a recent collection of essays the distinguished Australian economist,Peter Warr, convincingly makes the case that the impact Thaksin's populist policies was at best neutral.I suppose in some ways the perception is more important than some cost benefit analysis of populist measures.He seemed to offer the rural majority self-respect .

In a sense Thaksin doesn't matter now (sounds strange I know in light of current events !) but before long he will be gone.Enoch Powell once said all political careers end in failure and he was right.Personally Thaksin is not admirable and in my view the verdict of history will be that he was not a great man (like Pridi for example) but an important catalyst.There is in Thailand a particularly reactionary and self serving elite - now terrified and perhaps dangerous at the prospect of change - and it was a strange irony that someone like Thaksin was given the role of fighting for democracy.But history is full of such ironies.

The one permanent result is that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored, patronised and overlooked.

he's in total denial that the coup and hatred against him resulted from him overstepping the mark with his ethical judgement

The trouble is that this was only a part, and in my view a rather small part, of what prompted the coup against Thaksin.If it was that simple he would be a completely marginalised figure rather than the most popular politician in the country.May I suggest you contemplate all the aspects of what exactly prompted the anger especially from an elite which is itself notoriously greedy, self serving and corrupt.Thaksin was certainly all these things but what enraged the elite and their middle class dupes was something far more frightening for them - the awakened Thai people and that Thaksin, irony of ironies, was the catalyst.

I think it already has judging by the comments on the article (I mean the ones which are obviously from Thais rather than foreigners).As usual judging by the venom and intellectual incoherence, these look mainly to have been orchestrated by the ASTV machine.(I doubt whether The Times is regular reading material for lower middle class Bangkok Sino-Thais).The thought did occur to me since Thaksin has really misjudged this situation (he's a lousy politician), a penetrating series of comments from a Thai readership could be devastating.However it never happens and as usual in this type of situation in the international press, one just sees a suspiciously large number of moronic comments characterised by fanaticism and hatred.All this is actually counter productive.One need some silky assassin type skills to skewer Thaksin.

He was in charge of this country for many years until removed by a coup.

Had he been running the country properly the coup would never have happened. He caused it. He is to blame for the coup.

One has got to laugh at the weird logic of some people.

I find it funnier that someone would fail to see the connection between Thaksin's actions whilst in power and the coup.

Coups are not usually peacefully accepted by the public when the ousted leader is doing a good job. This coup wasn't just peacefully accepted, it was broadly welcomed.

I'm sorry but your logic is all over the place.

Clearly there were many connections between Thaksin's actions and the coup.This does not however mean as you suggested in your previous post that he caused it and that he is to blame for it.To make matters as simple as possible for you it does not follow that because one action takes place after another that the first action is responsible for the second, a delusion which classically educated members of the forum will recognise as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Whatever Thaksin's failings, and they were many, the coup was monstrously disproportionate. Tig 28 has patiently explained some of the salient facts for you.For further information I would recommend you study carefully one of Acharn Pask/Chris Baker's excellent books.

You are incidentally simply wrong to assume the coup was broadly welcomed.As far as the majority of the people of Thailand were concerned this was certainly not the case (as opposed to the motley band of feudalists, generals, monopolist businessmen - and the mainly urban middle class).If the coup was as popular as you suggest why didn't the interests who implemented take the easier course of letting the Thai people vote Thaksin out of office?

He was in charge of this country for many years until removed by a coup.

Had he been running the country properly the coup would never have happened. He caused it. He is to blame for the coup.

One has got to laugh at the weird logic of some people.This one is priceless.

what do you mean? He's up in opinion polls...No points lost as far as I can see.

Oh dear, is this you you measure things - ABAC polls asking a few urban Sino-Thai housewives how they feel?

really don't get you. Post 45 you thought my position was reasonable.

Or, didn't you realise that you were responding to me in post 45? But you are now so feel the need to be dismissive?

Strange. Can't explain it otherwise....I thought your postings were always well though out....a sign of your superior intelligence, intellectual grounding and your ability to out-debate the rest of us. Guess not.

I must admit I was being facetious about the ABAC poll.I agree however Abhisit's actions on this matter have done him no harm domestically.Having said that my earlier "petulant child" remark doesn't look too far from the truth with the growing diplomatic response both in ASEAN and elsewhere that Abhisit ramped up the conflict too quickly and too unthinkingly.

what do you mean? He's up in opinion polls...No points lost as far as I can see.

Oh dear, is this you you measure things - ABAC polls asking a few urban Sino-Thai housewives how they feel?

what do you mean? He's up in opinion polls...No points lost as far as I can see.

Siding with Cambodia, foreign ownership of what are seen as national assets....all the third rail of Thai politics.

Mark seems to be playing his hand quite well me thinks. Thaksin's hubris (or is it lack of friends?) doing him in. He's had to make some sort of noise about it...get the people remembering some of Dear Leaders weak spots.

Reasonable position though I don't fully share it.My main concern is that Thailand has been pulled down to Hun Sen's level.I had expected a more nuanced response from Abhisit but haven't yet seen it.

I think he's making the point that a much more sophisticated leader of a much larger and richer country has reacted like a petulant child.

For a certain group of people, whatever move Abhisit makes they will pour scorn on. If he does nothing they call him a powerless puppet with no authority, and if he does act they call him a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

But the two behaviours you posit are actually consistent and reinforcing.Think about it.

I think he's making the point that a much more sophisticated leader of a much larger and richer country has reacted like a petulant child.

For a certain group of people, whatever move Abhisit makes they will pour scorn on. If he does nothing they call him a powerless puppet with no authority, and if he does act they call him a petulant child throwing a tantrum.

You miss the point.Actually as my posts indicate I am generally a supporter of Abhisit.In this instance he has over reacted, but I accept that he might have quite coolly calculated a little tantrum would be politically helpful (cut the ground away from those pesky yellows etc).On the subject of Thaksin many in the Thai elite take leave of their senses, and evidently there is a real fear of his power and popularity, unnecessarily so in my opinion.The clever reaction would to have virtually ignored this development, or dismissed it with a disapproving shrug.Now the Singaporeans and others are telling the Thais and the Cambodians to calm down and make up, and thus Abhisit has been pulled down to Hun Sen's level:he could have scored points but he's ended up losing them.

Cambodia -1

Thailand -0

I don't think you know the economic score, lol. And certainly not the political score. Must be the Thaksin population index.

No Rinrada is right.I don't think he's implying that in this case Cambodia, Hun Sen (a nasty piece of work) or Thaksin have demonstrated any great wisdom.Clearly this was a rather foolish and provocative appointment.I think he's making the point that a much more sophisticated leader of a much larger and richer country has reacted like a petulant child.In terms of political face therefore the score is as Rinrada suggests - but nobody believes Thailand is other than Premier League and Cambodia other than struggling amateurs.

The people of Isaan may love him, but unfortunately for Thaksin, the people of Isaan don't matter. Guns and money are against him, he's got nothing but popularity which rarely counts for much in military-dominated politics in SE Asia.

Are you saying he does not have rather powerful friends in Thailand? Don't think you are right. He also has some powerful friends in Asean countries and Brunei

The initial premise is incorrect.The people of Isaan do matter now to the point that in a fair election they will largely determine the outcome.

Doubtless there are forces at work that most farang would not understand. The currents of politics run deep in Asia, and at every level the intricacies are multiplied by interpersonal relations and appearances. Family relations usually also have some kind of impact.

Where many a western government would plow ahead with a unilateral, straightforward political move, Asian countries are much more refined. It is both by choice and by societal burden that this happens.

One of the delights of Thai Visa is that we have access to experts who can enlighten us with their knowledge and sophisticated analysis such as the genius quoted above.He highlights a truth which many foreigners overlook in trying to comprehend Thailand, namely that there are "forces at work that most farang would not understand".It should be obvious to all that Thailand is a special case that alone of all the countries in the world cannot be adequately analysed and interpreted by outsiders.

Both were removed in ENTIRELY democratic measures. Samak broke a law, and was removed. Somchai's party was dissolved for election fraud, by the Constitution Court. Smaller parties grew tired of the TRT/PPP/PTP nonsense, and joined together to form a legal ruling government.

You lash out and talk about "debating with the big boys", yet your own position (see extract above) is frankly rather naive.In fact if you really believe administrations were removed "in ENTIRELY democratic measures", you really have a great deal more understanding left to achieve.

Democratic as deals with the rule of law which is the 2007 Constitution. Your "third hand/hidden motives/elite conspiracy" garbage sells a lot of fishwrap, but doesn't change the facts of the incidents.

My extract above is entirely factual and accurate - a point that I am sure galls you to no end - lol.

It doesn't gall me at all.I just note the naivety and ignorance, and in your case the lack of willingness to discuss rationally.

Incidentally the first sentence of your post is very strangely expressed.Please clarify if you wish to be understood.

Both were removed in ENTIRELY democratic measures. Samak broke a law, and was removed. Somchai's party was dissolved for election fraud, by the Constitution Court. Smaller parties grew tired of the TRT/PPP/PTP nonsense, and joined together to form a legal ruling government.

You lash out and talk about "debating with the big boys", yet your own position (see extract above) is frankly rather naive.In fact if you really believe administrations were removed "in ENTIRELY democratic measures", you really have a great deal more understanding left to achieve.

If the government were smart they'd resort to the old "Thaksin is trying to sell the country" line. Create speculation etc that he wants to help Hun Sen get the the 'rest' of Phea Viharn and any oil concessions in the Gulf of Thailand.

People tend to foreget that the public got really PO'ed with Dear Leader when he sold Sh!tcorp to the Singaporeans. They could easily portray Thaksin lining up against Thailands 'old enemy'.

Reality is Hun Sen is sh!tstiring in internal Thai politics...which is funny as I didn't think ASEAN countries were into getting involved into their fellow members political process....

ahh, well. Hypocracy all around. Again.

Interesting that you believe that the Thai Government should resort to lies about Thaksin.Seems a bit odd since the truth would equally do the trick.

Hun Sen is an unattractive figure on several counts.However if one was in his shoes - heaven forbid - the appointment by the Thai government of a Foreign Minister who has form in using the most inappropriate language about Cambodians does seem a foolish provocation.As I mentioned in another post Hun Sen is actually correct that the pursuit of Thaksin is politically motivated, and in private nobody with background knowledge denies this.

You are deluded incidentally if you think the Thai public as a whole was particularly concerned about the sale of Shin to Temasek, but perhaps the use of the term "Sh!tcorp" is a clue that you may not have a balanced view.Certainly (and leaving aside those who just hated Thaksin) there was a view among those who were threatened by globalisation (ie preferring cosy and inefficient local monopolies - yes, I know that includes Thaksin ) that this was unacceptable, and in some quarters a concern about tax avoidance -although this latter is quite complicated and not at all an open and shut case. It was not a politically smart move in the context of the times, but then ironically enough given his record of enlisting popular support Thaksin has never been very good as a politician.I suppose digressing slightly that the fact someone so clumsy was able to win over the majority of the Thai people demonstrates just how greedy,self serving and neglectful has been the elite's record.

Would there be enough legal reason to revoke Thaksin's Thai citizenship because of this? I'm sure they've worked it out so it wouldn't be illegal, but still, that just seems like a really slimy thing to do. Then again, it is Tahksin, what can we expect from the little Hitler.

There would be no legal justification.What is more, if withdrawn, it would presumably deny Thailand's jurisdiction over Thaksin.

I don't see how anyone comes out well out of this - the ridiculous Thai Foreign Minister who has a record of insulting Cambodians and Hun Sen, the thuggish and corrupt Hun Sen who in a fit of pique undermines the genuine work done in recent years to secure ASEAN unity, the self -centred Thaksin who should have shown his concern by kicking the advisor concept out of court in the first place.

But on one point Hun Sen is right , namely that the campaign against Thaksin is politically motivated.In fact everybody knows this although the charade plays on.(This doesn't mean there isn't substance to some of the charges - all relatively trivial or in some cases baseless - but the reality is that the process is driven by the wish of Thaksin's political enemies to destroy him though not at the risk of damaging themselves which is why the really serious charges aren't being brought).

Well, this will be my last contribution to this thread. I received the letter offering PR three weeks ago (2006 applicant - still not sure why I got it before anyone else). However, I am out of the country and it will not be possible for me to return until mid-December.

When told of my plight, the staff at Immigration suggested I write to the Director of Immigration, asking for a deferment of the date until then. This I did, and got a response just today through the office of my former employer in Thailand. To sum it up "if you cannot report in person to Immigration by Friday, the offer will be withdrawn".

To say I am pissed off would be an understatement. I wait almost three years for their decision, and then they won't allow me six extra weeks to deal with it! In all honesty though, I can't say I'm surprised.

All I can console myself with is the fact that the 194,000 baht is still in my pocket and not theirs!!!

Best wishes to all, and I hope you have better luck than I did . . . . . .

Graham

I'm sorry to hear of your predicament.However I'm not surprised at the official response to your deferment request.If I understand the situation correctly you are now working overseas and have no valid Thai work permit and appropriate visa.Regardless of the approval letter the fact you have cut the continuous Thai work connection (plus payment of taxes etc etc) and are now working overseas makes your application null and void.

Now in practice this needn't have been a problem because the authorities tend not to take notice of events post dating approval.However unless you have briefed your former employers office very carefully indeed in terms of what to say, your request to defer is actually drawing attention to the breach of the rules and in Thailand that's just not going to work.The letter to Abhisit is a waste of time.Why should he overrule conscientous officials for sticking to the rules? I'm assuming you're not an Old Etonian?

If it was me I would jump on a plane and do what's expected.It's not too late and your employer would probably understand if the importance was explained.Go for it!

Additionally, the ex-PM mentioned in the previous post who was removed from office for forgery and perjury is also banned from politics from his involvement as a Party Executive with Thaksin's proxy People Power Party. He awaits the final appeal on his previous conviction and prison sentence on another case as well as still facing a littany of other criminal cases in the process of adjudication.

Get real with the "forgery and perjury", as though they wouldn't have been brushed off if Samak's case hadn't been scripted from the beginning.We're not half witted children.In any case I didn't say Samak wasn't a typical Thai politician:his dreadful record is well known.My point was that the judicial system can move very rapidly when directed to do so.

I only put in the additional comment simply to set the record straight with the factual convictions involved, instead of the inaccurate "brushing it off" as an honorarium that you gave it.

I'll avoid the rest of your comments as they seem to contravene the forum rule that bar criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

But accepting the honararium was the offence in this case, and a judgement was made extraordinarily rapidly.I'm sure Samak and his defence team screwed up but the outcome was always pre-ordained.All this was widely discussed at the time in the Thai and English language press and on this forum.As I implied save your weasle words for the incurably naive.