jayboy

I read that Financial Times article yesterday, Jayboy. I think you used the correct word, "flavour" it is.

Balanced, it is not.

It's just an article, not an attempt at a full "balanced" account.Actually the FT over a period of months has produced quality reporting.If there's a bias it's towards the Abhisit/Korn approach, and that's a position I share.The article I posted does make the key point that many millions of Thais believe unelected and unaccountable elites have suborned the courts and the democratic approach generally.From my experience that's also the view of most well educated foreigners, most of whom also detest Thaksin.

Okay, perhaps I didn't read it properly - my 1 free item a month subscription was used on this, so I'll take your word for it.

But, I know the FT has tended to focus a lot of the other articles as you say. If the paper is "balanced", I guess that means more.

As for your comment about many millions of Thais believing they've been subjected to the will of the "elites", I think that starts a lot lower down the food chain with the local headmen. It's been Thaksin/TRT which has woken many up, to those in the lofty towers - he/they didn't touch the "local" elites - he knew (back then) not to touch those guys. Even then the average people, such as my relations up country, always knew about how they were treated anyway. But up until they were thrown some trinkets by the snake oil salesmen, it never worried them. The practical facets of life mattered more and the "snake oil men" (Thaksin/TRT) helped ease that burden - even if like with much "quack" medicines the relief was temporary.

Will they do what he asks now ?

I doubt it.

And if they are provided with real reforms and other benefits from someone else who is less troublesome why not ?

Thai people - such as that guy mentioned in the article are not stupid.

"Show Me The Money"...

I think your comments are sensible and clearly not everyone reacts the same way.Where I might differ is to point out the widespread emotional attachment of so many to Thaksin/TRT, not necessarily logical but a factor that has to be recognised.

Last time Thaksin told if the army comes he'll come and march down from Isaan to lead his ........ (hmm how to call them......) followers to Bangkok and .........

If you're struggling to come up with appropriate crude racist language (hmm how to call them) cast your mind back to the PAD rallies in Bangkok.I'm sure you will recall a wide range of suitable epithets.

I read that Financial Times article yesterday, Jayboy. I think you used the correct word, "flavour" it is.

Balanced, it is not.

It's just an article, not an attempt at a full "balanced" account.Actually the FT over a period of months has produced quality reporting.If there's a bias it's towards the Abhisit/Korn approach, and that's a position I share.The article I posted does make the key point that many millions of Thais believe unelected and unaccountable elites have suborned the courts and the democratic approach generally.From my experience that's also the view of most well educated foreigners, most of whom also detest Thaksin.

JD happens to be one of the better informed posters herein. When other posters ask questions or seek qualification about something (usually to do with T and the Reds), JD has been known to respond with historical facts. Supporters of the Reds, on the other hand, wax loquacious about future dire scenarios, but shy away from citing actual facts relating to the topic at hand - or descend to name calling when stumped for a thoughtful response.

Er yes quite.JD did produce an excellent reference recently with an interview from the late lamented FEER.Unfortunately it proved a point diametrically opposite to the one intended, namely Prem's illiberal and often bizarre dotage.The trouble with this kind of facile discussion is that it is over personalised and crudely black and white.Thus Thaksin is demonised and Prem for example is sanctified.The reality of course is that both men have their strengths and weaknesses.The following piece from the FT gives some flavour of the complexity.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/701c4202-201a-11...144feab49a.html

You might like to remember just one part of this puzzle; General Prem has been seen as a very very wise and genuine and humble guide for many years by a very very large percentage of the Thai population who love him and adore him.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this ludicrous comment.For that at least one should be grateful.

The slightly sad aspect is that before assuming the role of a Thai Petain, Prem once showed elements of statesmanship.

Oh and as for the "very very large percentage" of the Thai population who "love and adore" him,try taking a poll.

Yes the P.C. is NOT the Government ... They serve at the will of the Head of State. they can be removed at the will of the head of State. They are advisors.

Exactly right, hence the importance of not meddling in politics.The FEER interview is fascinating and it I'm afraid provides all the evidence needed that old soldiers should quietly fade away

Sorry GK .....

But everything you have documented seems like it would fall into 'advisory' in nature. The FOX tactic you are using is clear.

Feel free to document anything you wish but in your posts above you do not document anything at all. Where do I have his detailed interview? Where did you document anything? You express a blatant opinion about partisanship but don't document it. In fact "I leave it to others to decide" when giving no evidence is a VERY FOX news tactic

The rest ... well was it your opinion? Was it part of an article published somewhere? What was it? Hmmmm Prem is old? ummm duh. Does his age make him more or less capable of doing things?

again all you gave was opinion ... no evidence at all

The slightly hysterical response here is interesting given that GK's post was polite, measured,accurate and perceptive.I personally do believe that Prem should be resting quietly at home like other very old soldiers with a distinguished past, writing memoirs perhaps.There is prima facie evidence that he committed some gross errors of judgement, specifically his role in at very least tolerating the illegal coup, which in other countries might have got him into very deep trouble.Some of his recent public statements have also verged on the unconstitutional.I don't think that anyone other than some of the extreme reds wants charges pressed aginst someone who has done the state some considerable service.However as British PM Attlee once said of one of his ministers a long period of silence from Prem would be very desirable.

"He gave them attention and hope". Can never agree with this, he bought their votes and their emotions, nothing more than that.

You are wrong.Even his political enemies accept Thaksin gave rural Thais attention and hope.If you are in error on what is undisputable your other points won't be taken seriously I'm afraid

OK, so:

1. Quote some examples of his political opponents saying that he gave rural Thais attention and hope. And perhaps you would like to give some rational arguments, facts, etc., to support your claims about attention and hope.

2. Please list the things that he did for the rural Thais that would fall in the category of deep, wide, solid structural reforms aimed specifically at building a fairer Thailand and which gave the rural Thais a real opportunity to actually really have a better quality of life.

And please don't list handouts, that's not the answer.

Over to you.

As to your points:

1.Why on earth do you think that the current Government is preserving and in some cases enhancing Thaksin's policies towards the rural majority? Thaksin changed the game plan forever.

2.You miss the point completely.I made no claims for the benefits of the "populist" policies.As it happens I think they made less of a contribution than some supporters maintain.What is utterly indisputable however is that Thaksin took the majority of Thais seriously, and in doing so challenged the feudalists, their military goons, the lazy corporate monopolists and assorted middle class dupes.Was he corrupt and greedy himself? Yes of course.

"He gave them attention and hope". Can never agree with this, he bought their votes and their emotions, nothing more than that.

You are wrong.Even his political enemies accept Thaksin gave rural Thais attention and hope.If you are in error on what is undisputable your other points won't be taken seriously I'm afraid

Prem is with many others an honorable statesman, which the fugitive has completely failed to prove for himself and in attacking these "elites" as he and his lackeys claim, they are attacking the very core of Thai Society and with this will lose the plot completely, besides showing their real intentions ever more and ever clearer, mudslinging, blackmailing of honorable people is not a very honorable thing, especially if it is to defend a fugitives very own shortcoming, which is so obvious, despite all apologies and promised honesty!

I disagree.Prem has a great deal to answer for and I suspect it will be future historians that write the verdict, not contemporary observers.More disturbingly is your facile assumption that what you describe as "Thai elites" should not be criticised whatever errors they have committed on the grounds that this somehow would be an attack on the core of the Thai nation.This servile attitude which is probably not shared by most Thai people( though enthusiastically propagated by corrupt and greedy elites themselves) is partly what gives rogues like Thaksin their opportunity.

I tend to agree that the likes of Abhisit and Korn can if given support and a modicum of luck be instrumental in moving the country forward. However, that window for them is starting to close and if they or those backing them dont move soon it will be lost.

Quote: "However, that window for them is starting to close and if they or those backing them dont move soon it will be lost."

It's obviously true that, in politics, things can change quickly, and unexpected 'things' can appear with no warning.

On the other hand, Abhisit is becoming bolder and demaning more accountability. And he's standing up more to Suthep (which he couldn't really do at first because it was Suthep (and Chuan) who paved the way for Abhisit to get into the driving seat).

Korn has strong support from a large percentage of the business community (those who see the big picture, rather than pure greed and selfishness), and Korn has recently won two prestigious international awards for his policies. And Korn has already (with Abhisit) laid a long term path for a more civil society where there is more equal opportunity and more sharing of the wealth.

Good post and its refreshing to see at least some discussion of the bigger picture as opposed to the one dimensional view that everything's explained by votebuying and Thaksin's wickedness..The Abhisit/Korn route is surely the way forward to redress the imbalances in Thai society.Even at one's most cynical it represents a smart attempt of the ruling class to preserve its interests, as opposed to the crazed greed of the generals, monopolist businessmen and feudalists.

The road to true democracy is voting for Thaksin Shinawatra because he is the only one supporting democracy.

Nonsense of course.However with the PAD movement with open elite support campaigning to restrict the franchise (I know they backtracked on this), it's easy to see how Thaksin seized the true democracy banner.The answer is surprisingly simple:treat all Thai people with respect and don't unfairly discriminate.I believe Abhisit/Korn understand this and gradually if they are are given a chance the baleful influence of Thaksin will wane.Trouble is the greed, stupidity and innate violence in the Thai elite is unpredictable.

But to suggest that the movement is simply one of paid peasants is simply silly,

I think the suggestion might have been refering to those attending the rallies / riots, rather than the entire movement and all of its sympathisers. In that sense, i don't think it's far from the truth.

and ignores the huge divisions in Thai society that gave the Red movement its impetus in the first place.

Let's not kid ourselves; Thaksin was (and still is) the impetus - divisions in society just one of his devices.

I take a different view on the rally participants' motivation.Even those who were paid are unlikely to have this as primary motivation to attend.I know the opposite view is a common mantra in some middle class circles, precisely echoing ninetenth century British middle class comments in the early days of the Labour Party.It was ever thus.

As to Thaksin, of course he exploited divisions in Thai society but he wasn't responsible for them, and without the profound unfairness and corrupt self serving elites he would never have achieved traction.But I agree it's a very messy situation which doesn't yield itself to quick and facile explanations.

Lawyers, doctors and businessmen? Truly a broad cross section of Thailand. How many of these people actually attend the red rallies? The point being made was that, in a large rally - I'm not talking about the miserable little efforts they've managed recently, the majority of the protestors, there to make the numbers large, are indeed paid. It may be in cash, food or a mixture of both. This was also true of the PAD rallies, and I personally know of a number of people who attended both for the money. There is no fixed rate, the level of pay varies depending on whether the attender is a front line banner waver or a back of the crowd foot clapping clown.

None of the professional people I mention have attended red rallies which are largely lower middle class /working class.Nevertheless I don't really buy your thesis that the motivation for those who did attend Red or PAD rallies was a free lunch or a few hundred baht.

How the red movement evolves will be interesting indeed. Right now it encompasses the whole spectrum form extreme right to extreme left with regional and self interest groups thrown in as well plus a lot who are just Thaksin admirers devoid of ideology beyond that.

I think that comment and the rest of your post is very fair.The Red movement is certainly a broad coalition and it would take a very astute mind to predict exactly how it will evolve (or whether it will collapse and be replaced ( as PeaceBlondie alludes) by a more effective movement largely free of Thaksin's shadow (though his catalytic influence is a matter of record now).But to suggest that the movement is simply one of paid peasants is simply silly, and ignores the huge divisions in Thai society that gave the Red movement its impetus in the first place.A chancer like Thaksin could never have ignited such a movement unless there was a massive resentment of Thailand's greedy and corrupt elite.Note for some:spare me the litany of Thaksin's greed and corruption:I'm well aware of the ironies in this situation.

One problem for the reds is that their demonstrators run away after their paid time or even before. So they want to pay the money AFTER.

But no one want to agree with payment after. All want the money BEFORE.

If you are under the impression that every Red is motivated by a payment (and post after post suggests this is indeed your view) then I suppose you are entitled to deceive yourself.But please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

Of course they flaming well are, what on earth makes you think otherwise ?

There have been several responses to my comment on the above lines.I suppose with the Thaksin assets verdict in prospect there isn't much possibility of clear thinking from some in their over excited state.But one wonders do any of the usual suspects actually meet a broad cross section of Thai people.I know it's a minority but I know several well educated Bangkok Thais who are broadly red supporters - lawyers, doctors,businessmen.It's also true that most of these were Thaksin supporters, albeit disappointed ones.It's a reasonable area for discussion - can the Reds represent democratic and progressive values without Thaksin's support? Perhaps one day this can be discussed rationally but not I suspect in this febrile atmosphere and certainly not with those who ludicrously maintain the reds are just bribed peasants and a handful of commies.

One problem for the reds is that their demonstrators run away after their paid time or even before. So they want to pay the money AFTER.

But no one want to agree with payment after. All want the money BEFORE.

If you are under the impression that every Red is motivated by a payment (and post after post suggests this is indeed your view) then I suppose you are entitled to deceive yourself.But please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us.

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

This is dishonest and ignorant nonsense I'm afraid.There's no doubt that there were many positive aspects in Thaksin's efforts to improve rural Thailand's position.It is for that reason that the present Government has retained and in some cases even enhanced benefits provided under the Thaksin Government.Note for the naive: politicians all over the world implement policies to induce voters to lend support.Having said that some of Thaksin's supporters have overstated their case, and the actual results were sometimes surprisingly marginal.But to talk of a dependency cycle manafactured to buy votes is so childish it's not even worth discussing.

For the more serious there's actually quite a lot of evidence now on the impact of Thaksin's populist policies, none of it particularly supporting either side of the political divide.The subject is complex but when demonstrable error surfaces I think it's important to identify it promptly.

Yes there are probably one ore two people a year who fall for a bar girl and want to take them on the first available flight home, they are few and far between and are pretty soon weeded out by the authorities. There are people who are in genuine relationships for a number of years but who are only able to visit their loved one a couple of times a year, that's because they probably work for a living - how much leave do you get?

I would have thought it was far far more than one or two a year.My question is why should they be weeded out by the authorities.If the girl complies with the rules, has the funds and has no intention to overstay why on earth should she not be granted a visa? I accept that in many cases this might be difficult to prove.It's not however a morality test (if it was many Thai businessmen would be denied visas) nor should there be a "genuine relationship" requirement.

I would also add that many of these so called genuine "long distance" relationships are only so in the mind of the gullible foreigner.In most cases the background of the girl concerned...well no need to spell it out.

They are looking for reasons to reject and they have obviously wised up to the fact that applicants are prone to score own goals by acting as non-exec directors or doing voluntary work without WPs because they don't understand this falls within the law's very broad definition of work. Personally I find the attitude of the Labour Ministry and Immigration on this issue reprehensible. Without a detailed knowledge of Thai labour law, it is not intuitive that a WP is needed for these cases. The Labour Ministry could prevent expats from unintentionally violating the law by ensuring that notices are printed on WP application forms warning that these types of "work" also need to be recorded on WPs. Sadly I think they enjoy this situation and the result is criminalization of many expats, especially senior expats with decision making power about investments in Thailand who are more likely to be in this position. Immigration could also post similar warnings, including on the guidelines for applications for PR, but they choose not to. I wonder how many others have been caught like this.

I disagree and furthermore there is no basis on which you can argue they are looking for reasons to reject.What I find reprehensible is not the Labour Ministry and Immigration (who are actually simply doing their job by enforcing the very clear rules ) but the apparent sense of entitlement that some foreigners think they have in Thailand.Application for permanent residence is a serious undertaking and is not to be undertaken on an intuitive basis.Most savvy residents know perfectly well that non-exec directorships have to be approved by the Labour Department.If someone, rather implausibly to my mind, has reached the stage of being able to apply for PR without knowledge of this fact, then he or she should probably hire an experienced immigration lawyer to handle the paper work.If there was a deliberate attempt to deceive for whatever reason, he deserves all the frustration and disappointment coming his way.

Democratically elected? The people you are referring to were party list executives of a party that were caught cheating. To say "democratically elected" about people responsible for voting fraud is a laugh.

When individuals are caught for buying votes the penalty is that they are banned ... when party executives are caught then the penalty is banning the party and all party-list MP's.

How can someone claim any moral highground for winning when they were cheating to get there?

The voting fraud is undeniable but the post above gives the impression the writer believes that as a result there was no mandate.In fact all election monitors confirmed that the overall result reflected what the Thai people wanted.To suggest that the TRT/PPP achieved success with vote buying/electoral fraud as a decisive factor is only believed by the dimmer bulbs around or those operating at the Enid Blyton end of Thai politics.The much more interesting aspect in the 2007 election was the disgraceful attempt at manipulation by the usual suspects but how the Thai people delivered the military and its elite supporters a sharp slap in the face.Basically the electorate destroyed the generals' plans.

The situation is well summarised by Pasuk/Baker:

"The junta had imagined the army returning to a supervisory role in Thailand's democracy.They had prepared the way with a constitition that weakened the parliament, and a slew of legislation passed in the dying days of the junta's appointed legislature including the Internal Security Act, a bill on computer crimes, a law reducing the PM's role in military promotions, a new Broadcasting Act, and a bill restoring appointment of village heads.Like his counterparts two decades earlier, General Sonthi had contemplated a "promotion" from army chief to premier.

But the generals had failed.Despite reviving the old anti-communist tactics of intimidation of Thaksin's electoral base, destroying his party by court judgements,luring away his former politician supporters with cash and promises, mobilising public money and resources to manipulate the election, and launching a campaign of disinformation,the generals could not prevent the return of a Thaksinite government througfh the ballot box."

This is the background which most Thais readily now understand.When some uninformed or dishonest person suggests vote buying and electoral fraud deny legitimacy, it's clear that they have absolutely no idea of the overall context which Pasuk/Baker neatly encapsulate.So retirning to the thread don't forget that if the red movement is at war with the military, it is a war that the military started.

It's a shame Jayboy can NOT understand why appeasment is a bad thing versus aggressive groups with agendas.

It is pretty clear and I used a good historical example. The conclusion, in the current context,

doesn't support giving in the Thaksin and the reds intimidations, so maybe that's why it can't be agreed with.

If a general point about appeasement is made clearly as above I understand very well, and indeed agree.The problem was that the reference you gave was just muddled and poorly written gobblededook.As for the specifics I was actually never a participator in the debate.If however you are saying that Thaksin is a bad man and his red followers shouldn't threaten violence, nobody - stifling a yawn - is going to disagree with you.

If you want to be taken seriously why don't you stop repeating stale mantras and aim for some nuance, sensitivity and insight (even walking on the wild side and trying to imagine the other fellow's point of view).It's not as though you don't have the time - but do you have the knowledge, wit or imagination? On a forum like this there needs to be some give and take.

"The Central Forensic Science Institute also used the GT 200."

I can take it that the Thai police and army are stupid. But the Central Forensic Science Institute too? I mean Khunying?

No.

Meanwhile, Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of the Forensic Science Institute and who always uses the GT200, said the UK had only banned the ADE651.

She said the detector was effective when searching for bombs and even nails under water.

I hope that now people can understand why I do not have much respect her. She seems to have never met a microphone that she didn't like. Unfortunately, this position will undercut her credibility. I wonder if she watched too many Quincy, ME shows,

I couldn't agree more. She is in the limelight far far too much. The fact that she thinks this machine works says it all. Why would you want to find nails under water anyway?

This machine is quite odd, in the fact that wouldn't sniffer dogs achieve largely the same result and 1/10th of the price?

Couldn't really care one way another about the overhyped Dr Pornthip, the sort of Thai that a particular type of farang latches on to.What's more interesting is the pack of lies relating to the GT200 that's making a sortable problem into a huge one for the government and the military.

It was not aggressive unless it strikes a nerve with you.

And where was the agression? It was a simple declarative sentence,

but you find it aggressive. You're getting a bit touchy lately.

Seems you still want to avoid the question and question the phrasing.

So an accurate assessment in a short few words.

People can see through your act too you know.

Your own words make your attitude clear.

However in passing it seems you still miss the point, not that it was an earth shattering one.

I checked the reference you gave and couldn't really understand it I'm afraid.

Ignore the question and question the phrasing.

Same same.

Strange.Rixalex gave me a polite reply, not disputing the proposition but pointing out reasonably that someone else defined the terms.That ended the matter.You jump in aggressively and rudely missing the point completely.And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by many.