jayboy

Terms like 'new reality' is 100% vacuous blather. Try again. Mind you some reds are not bothering with the spin and are rather getting to it with a few lobbed grenades.

Vacuous blather.Grandstanding blather.Whatever next.Rather than wasting time thinking up insults why don't you address the substance and tell us why politicians like Abhisit and Korn are openly admitting that the rural majority had been badly neglected opening the way to opportunists like Thaksin, and that it's necessary to treat all Thais fairly not just the urban middle class.All governments in future have to deal with this new reality unless of course reactionary forces seek to thwart the Thai people again at elections.(through military interference, suborning the courts etc etc).

It is time for those controlling events on all sides to come together and agree a new set of rules so the country can move on and address bigger problems

As long as the country has one note partisans with the the blinkers on (typified by the post immediately before yours) that will be quite difficult.Needless to say such crass lack of empathy exists on both sides of the political divide.

Another fatuous and completely predictable contribution from a foreign journalist, in this case one based in Hong Kong whose experience seems largely restricted to Hong Kong and Jakarta. Looking through a glass darkly while applying the filters of western cultural canons is not the most reliable way to inform one's readership. I'd give more credence to the views of Thaivisa.com posters who actually live here, talk to the people and see what's going on around them, but that makes it all too complicated, doesn't it - not suited to an editor's demand for a quick and compact response.

Once again we have an unsubstantiated and vitriolic attack on a foreign journalist.I suppose we should at least give thanks there is no puerile suggestion the BBC commentator concerned is in Thaksin's pay which is the usual stance from this kind of poster.What I suppose has prompted this attack is the following extract, stating no more than what is obvious, from the analysis

"What this verdict will not do is heal the divisions in this country, polarised by Mr Thaksin's hugely popular appeal and the threat this poses to the military-bureaucratic elite. The 2006 coup that deposed him continues to damage the legitimacy of the current military-backed government of Abhisit Vejajjiva - this basic issue also goes well beyond one man and his money."

Personally I would give a great deal of credence to this kind of calm and coherent summary.The BBC is diversifying its sources now with a recent piece by the excellent Shawn Crispin, who if anything is sympathetic to the current controlling power groups.

Some like the poster prefer Chang fuelled "discussions" in the visa running community, not exactly famous for its sophistication and intellectual coherence.Chaque a son gout, but a polite suggestion would be to consider exactly who is 'fatuous and predictable".

Fact remains, the Reds haven't accomplished anything positive in their entire existence. They've made numerous threats of big rallies, but haven't had any in 11 months. They're extrememely jealous of the Yellows because, even though they try to copy the Yellow's tactics of large effective demonstrations, they can't manifest anything remotely as effective. Threats, threats, threats ....that's what the Big Bad Wolf did in fairytale land, and the Reds are about as effective as that wolf - who was all bluff.

Really?

How about changing the complete landscape and agenda of Thai politics, ensuring that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored and patronised, prompting the current government to replicate and even enhance TRT "populist" policies.

Well that's just grandstanding blather. On the other hand I think we got a rather clear picture from the judgment Friday of Thaksin's 'landscape and agenda'. Thaksin's apologists, however, will continue to 'spin' one side of their face. Last Songkran we had the pleasure of seeing the other side of the Red face. Not very pretty.

Grandstanding blather? Intelligent politicians like Abhisit and Korn have said much the same thing as I.It's not spin but some refuse to recognise the new reality.

Fact remains, the Reds haven't accomplished anything positive in their entire existence. They've made numerous threats of big rallies, but haven't had any in 11 months. They're extrememely jealous of the Yellows because, even though they try to copy the Yellow's tactics of large effective demonstrations, they can't manifest anything remotely as effective. Threats, threats, threats ....that's what the Big Bad Wolf did in fairytale land, and the Reds are about as effective as that wolf - who was all bluff.

Really?

How about changing the complete landscape and agenda of Thai politics, ensuring that the Thai majority can no longer be ignored and patronised, prompting the current government to replicate and even enhance TRT "populist" policies.

I am surprised that so many patronise the judiciary by stating that they 'accept' the verdict. As if they have any option. Puffed up self important Wilfs.

It's not patronising at all.The country received a wise and fair verdict, and it's perfectly in order for anyone to note their approval.What's surprising is there are still apparently those of a mind cast to start grovelling the instant an authority figure or institution voices an opinion.It's that feudal mindset the country is in the process of abandoning, despite the reactionary attempts of those that seek to preserve it for political advantage.

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

Why not tell us yours? You spent enough time setting the scene before magically coming up with the answer to your own question.

My conclusion is that Thaksin's abuse of power was not reflected in financial terms as far as his listed companies were concerned during his period in office.However his chicanery and dishonesty was manifest in several other ways, notably by changing the rules of business in a way that benefited his own position.As the more seasoned of us know, Thai tycoons tend not to show their wealth through listed vehicles, but I have no doubt that there were many other ways that Thaksin operated unfairly and rigged the system.I tend to have some sympathy with the argument made by ballpoint, specifically that in the more or less transparent situation of listed companies Thaksin wasn't anything special.

What Thaksin does have - and this is quite separate from the current discussion, is a talent for networking and deal making.He has made some very high risk investments in Africa and PNG, but with that goes the prospect of a very high return.His Man City adventure was far from being a financial disaster.With the capital available to him and his Middle East financial supporters I shouldn't be surprised if he recoups a large proportion of the confiscated assets in a relatively short time frame.

You're missing my point. The analogy I was saying was that Thaksin abused his power to give Shin Corp an unfair advantage but Shin Corp still couldn't outperform the market by much. Market performance has nothing to do with abuse of power as the court rightly pointed out.

If that's what you're saying I agree!

Did the court make the point you mention in your final sentence? I must have missed it.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

That only goes to prove he's nowhere near the business genius his supporters would have us believe. After all, his fair and "unaided" business attempts left him 50 million baht in debt before he started his corrupt and nepotic (if there's such a word), cheating path to being a billionaire. Here's a man who tilts the playing field in his company's favour, gets the tax payers to foot many of its bills, cheats the competition and government agencies, and still can't do any better than average. The legend has certainly come crashing down over the past few days.

And there although I might quibble about some of the detail you have made an excellent point.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You are saying that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

Do you not see that this is a ridiculous position to hold?

The analogy would be to say if I stole money to give it to you but you still couldn't make a decent profit from it, does that exonerate me?

Er, not really.The court judgement yesterday clearly implied that the wealth Thaksin made before assuming power was made legally.We are talking here about the period after he assumed power so your analogy is nonsense.

It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.

Did you miss the 8 hours of supporting detail yesterday JB?

Please try and keep up.I asked a very particular question which had remained unanswered and wasn't dealt with yesterday.

As it happens a member has now kindly alerted me to a message on the Economist site

"To tell you the truth, the announcement of returning the Bt 30,000 million to the ex-PM is entirely distorted as this value is mostly based on share certificates. Furthermore, part of this Bt 30,000 will be subject to taxed claimed by the RIS. As a result, the residual money will be less than 20% of this amount.

The court simply announced that the ex-PM would get Bt 30,000mil or around 40% of Bt 76,000mil just to avoid public panic - both locally and internationally.

The court claimed that the ex-PM abused his power in favour of Shin Corp share prices. In fact, according to Bloomberg data, since Thaksin had become the PM until he was ousted, the SET index increased by 161%. Shin Corp share price gained 166% - only 5% above the SET index. However, some other shares such as Siam Cement plc (SCC) gained almost 680% over the same period. I don't really know how Thaksin abused the power in the way that his shares only outperformed the market by 5%!"

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You appear to be suggesting that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

The rulings on abuse of power and concealment of assets were clearly laid out yesterday. What are you on about?

It doesn't exonerate him at all, as I thought I had already made clear.However if the performance of the Shin listed entities only had an average increase in value (jury still out on this as far as I'm concecerned) it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions.I detect some annoyance in your tone.Don't you think this is worthy of discussion?I've made it clear I totally respect the court's verdict.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.

More important questions were answered yesterday by more important people.

As I mentioned earlier the question, actually rather a significant one, remains unanswered.What is the nature an abuse of power if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle just matches or even underperforms the market during his time as PM? If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is) one must look for other criteria and that's I'm sure what the judges did in arriving at their conclusion.It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.Nobody with a care for this country finds the Court verdict other than fair and wise (I'm quoting by the way from the Finance Minister's Twitter account).This doesn't mean that questions such as the one I posed can't be asked in a respectful way.To suggest otherwise is to assume the mentality of some dumb hick at a red or yellow rally, unquestioning and unwilling to debate hard questions.

So having disposed of that minor foolishness, does anyone know the answer to my original question?

If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.

Everyone knows that it was politically motivated. That's not the question. The question is, were the charges valid? The judges gave us that answer yesterday.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

That was a helpful contribution!One could equally say that about the yellowshirts!

On the abuse of power issue I was wondering how this could be demonstrated by comparing the performance of another benchmark stock,say Siam Cement, during the time Thaksin held office as PM.If the Shin performance notably exceeded that of Siam Cement that would be a very practical demonstration the charge was justified.If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.I have no idea and wonder if anyone knows.

It is the opinion of many that it is possible to criticise Prem and not criticise anyone else. However, if you are criticising Prem when he is acting in an official capacity that becomes highly questionable. Look at the duties of the members of the P.C. and it becomes much clearer.

Yes the position of Privy Council member is above criticism.

Was he acting in his official or unofficial capacity when involved or at least complicit in an overthrow of the elected government by army officers.Please advise so we know whether one is able to criticise or not.

Facetiousness apart, your response simply underlines your cheerleader for reaction credentials.What is more the substance of your reply shows startling ignorance.Nobody is above criticism and we have that on the highest authority.

No, they didn't. Most voters in the North East favoured the same candidates, and their proxies, as always. Thaksin merely bought many in 2001, and did deals with the rest to form a coalition, and then bought out most of the rest in 2005. He linked up with the vote winning (and vote buying) cabals of Newin, Chavalit, Banharn and others to win the elections. And still felt the need to have to cheat. If people were so enamoured of Thaksin, and the policies of the TRT, in 2001 then why did he need to do this? If that were true then he could have run new, "clean" candidates under the TRT banner and still won the election.

I'm going to ignore your embarrassing apologetics for the military junta that grabbed power if you don't mind.In normal circumstances I would pull you up on your very misleading comment about what "normally happens in parliamentary democracies", but not on this occasion.

The part of your reply quoted is more interesting, and raises a very fair point, namely why did Thaksin participate the same old Thai electoral chicanery when in most peoples view he had the support anyway.I suspect the answer is the obvious one - meglomania and a kind of anal retentive determination.I know you doubt whether he had that basic support, but election after election proves you wrong.

Sorry, nobody is saying ALL rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

Note ---- to think that popularity overrides democracy when the popular guy is corrupt --- is stupid and ignorant and corrupt

Since most voters in the North And North East favoured TRT and its successors, the majority get caught in your definitions of ignorant and/or corrupt.Actually in terms of moral corruption, I'm not sure that the urban middle classes who enjoy a grotesquely unfair share of state resources - health, education, infrastructure etc have much to complain about.

I have no real idea what your final sentence means.Are you suggesting that a corrupt but popular leader should not be protected by democracy? I agree that's a hard one which the Italians for example are grappling with.But the supposed cure of military intervention is worse than the disease (as we have seen all too clearly in Thailand).Actually I think a PAD type movement (but with proper leadership as opposed to the actual grisly cabal and their repulsive value systems) has a role to play in this kind of difficult situation.It's hard work of course.

yes, yes, yes.... the "democratically elected government"... this goes on and on like a Tibetan prayer mill, round, and round!

If it wasnt' a democratically elected government it would have been illegal!

And yes, "elected" as plachon describes rural Election in post #126... and yes dissolved, whatsoever - if sugar is dissolved in a glass of water, there is no sugar anymore, it's only evidence is the sweetness.... the evidence of a once elected government here in turn is rather bitter and quite annoying - move on PLEASE, the cheap, 1 actor stage play "they steal my life savings" is so repetitive that it is getting really very boring by now, someone put on a new reel please!!

it's really boring....!

So you are saying that any bunch of miltary thugs can take over a country, and to point out that the previous elected government had a popular mandate is "boring".What I find "boring" are the tired excuses for an unelected and unaccountable elite and the absurd assumption that rural voters are ignorant and corrupt.

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

The ELECTED parliament was dissolved by Thaksin. Parliament elects the government. No Parliament = no elected government.

Doesn't take a mental giant to see the truth here now does it?

As I noted, some will look for any excuses to support military coups for the reasons detailed above.In this foolish example it's not worth bothering to demolish.There are some more compelling arguments but they're not articulated by this poster.

My two cents worth, of course the Thaksin led government had been elected. Of course the caretaker government had continued past the length a caretaker government was constitutionally allowed to, and there was a legal question of whether the PM had earlier resigned or not. The two legal points were never clarified iirc. Make everyone right and wrong depending on what arguement you want to stress.

You are as usual quite right.Different people according to their views will interpret evidence differently, though in this instance I would have thought there is rather limited room for interpretation.Some of us incline for democratic values for all the flaws and messiness that often goes with them.Others will look for excuses to support military coups and repression to reinforce unelected and unaccountable elites.Returning to the particular it is of course either dishonest or ignorant to suggest the caretaker government was unelected.

What's your point?

My point is i am disputing the claims by various people that the September 2006 Coup removed a democratically Elected Government/PM - they didn't, they removed a Caretaker PM - subtle but important difference

Are you suggesting the caretaker government was not elected, specifically that it did not have a popular mandate?

The 2006 Coup removed a Caretaker PM, who for some reason was dragging his feet in calling a new election...

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary

What's your point?

So Abhisit/Korn have a mammoth task ahead of them - if they last.

But first they have to get over the "old politics" of Thailand and that is where my "genuine" Super Hero, who wants to do it for the country first, comes in to play.

There have of course in the twentieth century been a number of political leaders in the super hero format who came to power with a self determined mandate to crush "old politics."In almost every instance these heroes rule resulted in economic disaster and in some cases mass murder.My point is that we shouldn't be too enthusiastic about any leader.Scepticism is sometimes a great virtue.

The only difference I have with your comment now is to question how large that "wide spread emotional attachment is and if it is "real" or just "playing for the money". That's why I said if a less "demanding" provider is present and can sell to them with equal "charisma", then I believe their "loyalty" will move quickly.

Of course finding the tipping point for that is the hard part.

I think it's real and widespread.The playing for money aspect exists but is ridiculously overstated by many members of this forum as motivation for the red movement.I can assure you senior members of the current government don't make this mistake,notwithstanding rhetoric about Thaksin's gold.They know very well they are up against a solid movement brought into being by the elite's neglect of the rural majority.Your point about someone with equal charisma is interesting.The lack of it is my main worry about the Abhisit/Korn approach.Equally it raises the possibility of a newcomer with the necessary qualities making a dramatic impact.