jayboy

Goodness me! "morally defective ... intellectually dishonest ... Goebbels ... Nazi outrage ..." You sure you're not understating your case, jayboy?

I don't think so.Despite your attempt to backtrack (I didn't support the occupation etc etc), your essential message is that it wasn't the PAD's fault but that of the AOT who closed down the airport.Morally defective and intellectually dishonest seems about right.If someone holding your views was cross examined in a court of law say by a first class English QC, the dishonest position you peddle would be quickly exposed.

Some may think that the peaceful occupation of the airport (after it was abandoned by AOT) equates to 9/11 or suicide bombings...

And some may think that those who talk about " the peaceful occupation of the airport after it was abandoned by AOT" as morally defective and intellectually dishonest.It is the type of expression that Goebbels might have come up to justify some piece of Nazi outrage.

What Kasit said he would do is obviously different from what he is now doing. He changed his mind. I have changed my mind in the past. Haven't you?

On Abhisit's choice, you need to understand that Abhisit is not an idiot. While he was advised of the downside of this appointment, he made his decision based on the fact that Kasit at that time (following Sukhumpand's win of the Bangkok election) was the best man for the position.

I often change my mind but then I am not Foreign Minister of Thailand reneging on considered statements of policy.

On Abhisit's choice, I note you have omitted mentioning the very high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted to make an appointment wrapped in yellow.It's simply not the case incidentally that Kasit and Sukhumband were the only options.

What a lot of effort some of you guys put into defending the indefensible!

If from a legal point of view, you are saying that Kasit has a legal right to be FM, but because of the legal charges against him he should resign now, I can't agree with this. If he legally had to resign and was refusing, I would agree, but that isn't the case. Either he has a legal right to remain in office or he does not have a legal right to remain in office. It can't be both ways.

It was Kasit himself wasn't it who said that if charges were brought against him, he would resign?

My position is that he has every legal right to be foreign minister but I'm not particularly concerned by that.The question of legality and the prospect of legal charges are quite separate from the sheer folly of his initial appointment.Recent events make no impact on the rationale for his departure, though of course if convivted that takes care of the matter.

Nobody suggests Kasit is other than a first rate bureaucrat.He made however a terrible error of judgement, and actions have consequences.It's a bit like Noppadon's alleged indiscretions at the FCCT which required his departure though not charged let alone proven guilty of anything.Kasit's alleged offence is of course far more serious.

To be honest I'm more interested in the details of Abhisit's thinking (and the advice he's getting from the charmed circle) on the matter - though I suppose we shall never know that.

Now is the the time of the street gang politcally

There has been a lot of selective and often sanctimonious outrage expressed about violence on the streets.Very few however are inclined to condemn however the thuggish activities of the side they do not generally favour politically.Sparing your blushes you seem to be one of those few who is genuinely evenhanded.

I would like to make a couple of points, in some ways contradictory but still pertinent.

1.The level of political violence has in fact been remarkably low given the tensions in Thai society.This reflects well on the leadership of the various factions and indeed on the security forces, particularly the police and on Thaksin,Samak, Somchai and Abhisit.Zealots will bare their fangs at this and make preposterous comments about PAD vigilantes or Red Songkran revolutionaries but it's the simple truth.I sense that following 1973,1976 and more recently Suchinda's crimes that Thais shrink from any repetition, and more generally there's more common sense and reasonableness around than many would credit

2.Historically political change has often come about through the willingness of young people to come out on to the streets in the knowledge they might expect violence from the authorities (and if one is truthful being prepared to inflict it).

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

You say Kasit's legal rights should be respected, but that he should resign ASAP. You can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. Which one do you respect? For me, it is innocent until proven guilty and this has consistently been my position on TV. Make your mark now. Which do you believe in and then be consistent regardless of which side is involved.

To make it easy here's the summary of my position.

1.Legal rights must be respected but Kasit should go now.If found guilty his punishment will be decided.It's quite different from the question of hanging on to his his position.

2.He should never have been appointed in the first place, so the current legal proceedings are incidental (except in the sense they highlight Abhisit's bad choice.)

EDITORIAL

This is the moment of truth Kasit can't flunk

Foreign minister risks conflict-of-interest accusation if he stays on with his history

Resignation, in the Thai political context, never entails grace. Yet this doesn't mean there's no "graceful exit" in Thailand when political problems are concerned. The exit is always there; it's just that very few people have ever taken it. Former Bangkok governor Apirak Kosayodhin is one of them: he made little fuss over a developing legal case and stepped down shortly after his landslide re-election last year. Most other politicians who have quit in troublesome circumstances did so not because they thought they should, but because they simply ran out of options.

As someone strongly associated with a political movement that cherishes "new politics", time is running out for Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya, who is caught between a "graceful" way out and what his opponents would want to see, a newspaper headline saying that he "resigns in disgrace". The longer he waits, the smaller the window of opportunity for a soft, gracious landing and the bigger the possibility for an old-style departure to be marked by rivals' boos and jeers.

If he resigns now, it doesn't mean that he is guilty. It will simply mean he accepts that the legal controversy surrounding him and last year's seizure of Suvarnabhumi Airport will be better addressed with him outside the corridors of power. It will only mean that he has completely broken free from the politics of old, when resignation was nothing but a shameful admission of guilt, something to avoid at all costs.

If he resigns now, his opponents may jump for joy. They may point to his resignation and say: "See! We told you he was guilty". But Kasit will have to let them. Guilty or not, it's his duty to show that new politics means political courage, and political courage means facing the consequences of one's own beliefs or actions with one's head held high.

Kasit has the right to defend the airport incident. A lot of People's Alliance for Demcoracy activists or sympathisers still are, but they are doing it from the same position as those who believe the airport blockade was very wrong. Yes, Kasit can stand for what he believes, but it's better for him to do so as an ordinary citizen and not as a representative of the Thai government. He may think this is unfair, but the truth is that seizing an international airport to advance a political cause is too controversial to involve a government ruling a deeply divided nation.

His involvement in the airport seizure made him a Cabinet liability from day one. That Kasit has lasted this long is owing to many factors, but now that the issue has come to a head again, the minister has a decision to make. As an ordinary citizen, he can advocate any contentious ideal or activity he likes, but as a foreign minister, what can he say if, for instance, red-shirt protesters take control of Hua Lampong and vow to block the country's rail services until the government resigns?

He may say "same means, different purposes", or that the red-shirt movement might want to give its enemies a taste of their own medicine but with truly ill intentions. This argument, however, ignores another major factor: same means, different purposes and similar outcomes. No matter how such an action is explained, defended or even romanticised, the bottom line is that innocent people are affected, only God knows how much.

We as a nation have already gone through this debate. What's new is Kasit himself. It used to be "Is it right or wrong to take over and shut down an airport to achieve a political goal?" The question, unsettled as it is, has been elevated to "Is it right or wrong to have someone who thinks an airport seizure is right sitting in the Cabinet?" And no matter how wide-ranging the debate has been, in the end it will come down to the man at the centre of it. Kasit himself will have to figure out the answer to the second question.

The airport issue has been wrongly highlighted for its "terrorism" aspect, and Kasit is wrongly defending his decision to stay put on grounds that he is "not a terrorist". The simple fact is that he has advocated an activity that caused obvious and untold ordeals to a large number of people, raising the question of whether he can do that on the other side of the fence, where his responsibility now is to guard the airport, not allow it to be invaded. Kasit was out in the forefront of political activism in the first place in fighting conflict of interest, so the most important thing is that he not let conflict of interest come back and get him. Otherwise he will risk having all this, the airport seizure included, end in vain.

-- The Nation 12th July

The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.

That's not how I see the airport closure, not how PAD sees it, not how Kasit sees it, and, apparently not how Abhisit sees it. So from our point of view - there's no case for Kasit to resign whatsoever.

That has been discussed and decided months ago, it's a dead horse. Fresh charges might bring some new life to your argument, if they have any substance, which they apparently don't.

I'm have no doubt that you, Kasit and PAD see it a different way from the rest of the world.Abhisit is a politician managing an evolving issue but the endgame is known.If you want to make up the numbers I suppose you could add in Luksna Kornsilpa (crazy name, crazy gal).

Anyway it's not really an argument as the facts speak eloquently enough for themselves.Again since you still seem not to have grasped the point, it's a matter of political savvy and dignity as much as a legal issue.You apparently are more interested in preserving some shred of respectabilty for yellow shirts than the honour and good name of Thailand.

While I have already made my comments on his appointment, I don't think Kasit should resign. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the same view I took when the junta was accusing people of all sorts of things. Some ended up being judged innocent when they finally got their day in court. Kasit deserves the same rights as anyone else.

His legal rights should be respected of course.However that's not really the point here.Nobody denies he was a speaker at the PAD occupation of the airport.He should not have been appointed as FM and he should resign as soon as possible.Even his political allies (e.g Chuan) agree on this.An honourable man -or even someone with a modicum of political savvy - would have gone long ago.

If the charge is over the top, there is NO CASE to answer. Speaking on a stage is not an act of terrorism by any means, he shouldn't dignify those accusations with response, so to speak. If there ever was a case, it was when Abhisit first proposed him for the post, and we discussed this already. Despite your opinion, he was appointed, he didn't resign when you expressed your opposition, and so I don't see that he should resign now, in reaction to ridiculous charges.

In fact, the over the top charges only strengthen his point - he did nothing wrong, nothing to nail him for, ... and opinions are, you know, like <deleted>.

He should resign if there's any substance to the charges, however, as he promised, and so I would reserve my opinion until more details emerge, if ever.

With respect I think you are may be looking at this from too narrow a perspective.The "terrorist" charge is a red herring and in fact recent developments haven't changed the situation.It doesn't actually in fact really matter if it is decided no further action is taken against him, i.e the police do not press charges.The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.He has shown no remorse and his position is untenable.He must go.

I note you are still maintaining he "did nothing wrong" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Can't really argue with a value judgement however fatuous but ask yourself - would any other country in the world tolerate a Foreign Minister who had behaved so recklessly, stupidly and irresponsibly?

Well, if no one considers Kasit to be a terrorist, then he shouldn't react to the terrorism charges.

The argument about error of judgement is not new. It wasn't enough for Kasit to resign half a year ago, why should his attitude change now? All that is happened is that the police produced charges you don't believe yourself.

The charge may be over the top I agree but there is definitely a case to answer.He should not have been appointed in the first place, should have resigned when his position became a cause of embarrassment to the government and most definitely should go now.He's a dead man walking.

Thaksin, if he ever comes back, will most certainly completely overhaul the country, the "president of the Republic of Thailand" allegation must be taken seriously by security agencies here.

This was one of the more hysterical allegations made by PAD.Anyway those jokers have had their day.

More generally the charge of republicanism was flung at Thaksin as an attempt to enflame popular passions on a highly sensitive issue against a background of popular disillusion at the stale authoritarian feudal set up.The manoeuvre is pathetically transparent and based on the arrogant assumption that most Thais are such fools they don't see through this lie.They're not and they do.

Interestingly the wiser heads in the establishment who want no truck with Thaksin also recognise the charge is nonsense.

I don't understand why national security and defending constitutional monarchy are unrelated.

Because the monarchy isn't actually under threat.It's revered by Thais and deeply respected in the outside world.Of course there's always a lunatic fringe which is best dealt with by ignoring it.

No the problem is the lese majeste law or the way it is applied if you like.Do we we really need to rehearse again the way it is abused and the damage it is inflicting on the very institution it's designed to protect?

Why should Thailand be denied the right to protect its royal institution if it thinks it's vital to its national security?

It's nothing to do with national security.Thais however have every right to defend a constitutional monarchy which has served the country well over the years.

They can try and charge PAD leaders responsible for taking over the airport, but Kosit wasn't one of them, afaik. I bet he is included in that list just for political purposes, not for real offenses.

You're missing the point, whether deliberately or not is not clear.It's interesting to see the convoluted thinking that leads you to excuse a semi criminal act.

No fair person however considers Kasit to be a terrorist just a decent though mouthy guy who made a massive error of judgement in joining the PAD mob at the airport.Politics is a tough trade and his position is (or should be) unsustainable.Unfortunately the question of his shoddy judgement (not to say his personal honour) surfaces again in view of his unwillingness to walk.

Please submit your boxes of evidence against Thaksin that you obviously have and we can get this show on the road!

Thaksin's orders and statements on the drugs war are on the record.It would be a very straightforward matter for public prosecutors to make the case.

The reasons for not doing, despite the probability of an easy conviction, are well known and accepted even by those who detest Thaksin and his legacy.

Those who don't understand this are either very naive or very ignorant.

I didnt notice the UDD wanting to expel Surapong and a bunch of other ex-PPP ministers when they were charged with offences. In fact they then believed ministers should stay until proven guilty to highest level of appeal. Or it could be argued beyond that considering they are heavily linked to and some would say a front for a convicted criminal.

Just pure partisan politics linked to the usual power plays of the big men here. Dont expect any ideals or that kind of nonsense.

Wonder if Jatuporn ever reflects on his previous years with a sense of irony (and hopefully intense regret) when these statements get made?

I don't buy this kind of moral relativism.Abhisit and Kasit hold themselves to a higher standard, and with good reason.The likelihood now is that Kasit will eventually go but my guess is that the timing will be determined politically, ie when the government is not seen as yielding to opposition/UDD pressure.But the fact remains that Kasit's current posture is one of dishonour, and a highly principled man would have resigned or at least offered his resignation to the PM to avoid embarrassing the government.

Three further points.

1.Why on earth did Abhisit make the appointment in the first place, a guaranteed Heffalump trap as readers of Winnie the Pooh will appreciate.Was it part of an unholy pact with PAD and its backers, when that movement had a lot more clout than it does now?

2.Kasit's attitude reminds me of many upper middle class Thais when they are crossed, a descent into unreasonableness and bad tempered incoherence.

3.Why didn't the fellow offer a face saving apology which would I think have defused the problem? He wouldn't have had to apologise for his motives or deny the genuine morality of the early stage PAD philosophy, just say he deeply regretted his lapse of judgement in joining the airport mob.

My question is why they don't bring the serious offenses to judge before the land case. Why did they judge the land case first?

Since it was easiest to prove. Fast goes first.

Wrong again.The drugs war killings and the resposibility for them were among the easiest to prove.But see my response above to another person who got it wrong.

My question is why they don't bring the serious offenses to judge before the land case. Why did they judge the land case first?

I am not a legal expert only can guess

Depending on the seriousness of a case it can sometimes be very long time until the court opens proceedings

You guessed wrong.The more serious cases will never be brought because they have the potential (and that's putting mildly) of ensnaring some of Thaksin's most rabid opponents.

Hi All.

Koo, The other serious offences are at present stacked up in the Criminal Court for Political Office Holders, The number one reason he is running like a scared rabbit, You do your own research Koo and you will know why he will keep on running, because Koo he knows he is as guilty as hel_l.

phupaman

The charges against him are relatively trivial trivial (not that they don't need to be dealt with in the courts).The serious charges against him to which presumably Koo refers - drug war killings, human rights offences in the South etc - have not been brought against him.

It's interesting that, as far as I can see, the quoted article from The Nation was not posted at the time of publication, given that every other article on the subject is brought to the attention of the forum - usually by the same person.Could it possibly bethe reason for this is that this article points out a few painful truths for the PAD school of whipped up nationalism? Members - or those that have an interest in this ridiculous banana republic squabble- will make up their minds about the moral and intellectual integrity this implies.

It's good to see you are finally contributing to the forum by posting news that supports your opinion; the same as every other member is encouraged to do so.... but don't confuse "integrity" with "opinion."

Well good of you to say so, but frankly I don't have the time or inclination to post news items regularly.I appreciate the public spiritedness of most of those who do as a service to TV members.The reason I posted the article in question is that a whole raft of articles had been posted on this subject, but with the glaring omission of an opinion piece that challenged received opinion.Those who publish a constant stream of articles on various subjects - sometimes several a day - have a responsibility to aim for a reasonably fair coverage.That's the reason for my comment on moral and intellectual integrity.

Incidentally I have no problem at all in posting an article which expresses a view I disagree with, but nevertheless is informed and interesting.

It was a grave error of judgment by Abhisit to allow Kasit to become Foreign Minister

It was not an error. Probably Abhisit hates this kind of dreadful person but he has not choice, he's hostage of the fascist axis which obliged him to take this shitty Kasit and to provoke so stupidly the Reds, Cambodia and the South of his own country.

Now, to say the truth, the today news about PAD charged is surprising. At this moment, I don't have any clue why it happens.

But I'm not Thai and I'm aware of what is behind the curtain.

I think this is an unfair assessment.Kasit is definitely a decent person and what is more an experienced diplomat, and I am quite sure that Abhisit gets on perfectly well with him.The problem - and it's a huge one - is that he made a spectacular lapse in judgement in being an active participator in the PAD airport occupation.Abhisit equally showed shoddy judgement in appointing him as FM.

have they been charged or summonsed to give statements ?

It's just a summons.Charges will never be pressed and PAD know it.That (and in the knowledge their action was highly unpopular) is why they're not out on the streets squealing like stuck pigs.

It's interesting that, as far as I can see, the quoted article from The Nation was not posted at the time of publication, given that every other article on the subject is brought to the attention of the forum - usually by the same person.Could it possibly bethe reason for this is that this article points out a few painful truths for the PAD school of whipped up nationalism? Members - or those that have an interest in this ridiculous banana republic squabble- will make up their minds about the moral and intellectual integrity this implies.

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/06/25/pol...cs_30105971.php

-- The Nation 25th June