jayboy

Its either evolutionary readjustements that all can live with now, which it looks like Abhisit is trying or face the possibility of a Chavez style figure in the future and not some faux socialist like Thaksin or one of the almost comedic aging guys in jungle fatigues and red stars.

Well I agree it's best for the country to stick with Abhisit for the time being.I also definitely agree Thailand can do without a Chavez type figure although if the sheer stupidity and selfishness of the elite continues that's exactly what we might get.What Abhisit has to demonstrate is that he's his own man and can face down opposition from his own side.His positions on evenhandedness towards offending red and yellow leaders, amnesty and reform of the regressive 2007 consitution are promising.It would be encouraging if he brought the military criminals to book not perhaps the traitors who launched the coup (I'm trying to be a realist!) but certainly those responsible for Krue Se and Tak Bai.Actually I seem to remember the Attorney General has only recently let the military murderers at Krue Se off the hook - so not too hopeful on that point.

Personally I don't think evolution alone will do the trick, but "events" will be the catalyst for change.

They seek him here

they seek him there

those PAD pupets seek him everywhere

Is he in heaven

or is he in hel_l

That damned elusive Thaksin... kin'ell

Be a shame to catch him now as they may have to do something about he economy next!

The present economic problems are global, nothing the democrats or any other Thai party can fix or even dream influence.

The country is on the brink of civil war, that's where priorities are, getting rid of the criminal element and Thaksin zombies infesting parliament, the police and all levels of government and society.

There are of course global economic difficulties but the point is these have highlighted the particular weaknesses of the Thai economy, notably its excessive reliance on export manafacturing, its lack of genuine entrepreneurship - specifically the rentier nature of many of its large corporations.These are structural issues largely independent of the world economic crisis.

I share your wish that getting rid of the criminal element in Thailand would be a good thing.However if you believe the kindergarten view this is confined to "Thaksin zombies" you are sadly and naively mistaken.There are large scummy and exploitative elements in Thai society which predate Thaksin and will no doubt remain after he is long forgotten.For change to happen there would have to be a massive cultural shift probably led from the top recognising the disgusting inequalities in Thai society, stamping hard on incipient yellow fascism, red demagoguery and feudal reaction.So far no sign of a suitable leader.

Fatal flaws that wrecked Thailand's promise

By David Pilling, Financial Times

Published: April 29 2009

In 1995 The Economist projected that by 2020 Thailand would be the world's eighth-largest economy. Its forecast, which now looks a tad, shall we say, optimistic, followed a 10-year run in which Thailand muscled out even China as the world's fastest-growing economy, expanding at a blistering 8.4 per cent a year. Those were the days.

The decade after the Asian financial crisis, which began with the devaluation of the baht and ended with the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister, has not been so kind. Although the country bounced back from the 1997 devaluation, when it carelessly misplaced 15 per cent of gross domestic product in 18 months, the economy never recovered its former vigour. It has bumbled along at a respectable, but less than socially transformative, 4-5 per cent a year. This year its economy is likely to shrink by some 5 per cent. In that, admittedly, it is not alone.

Yet it is fair to ask why Thailand has failed to fulfil its potential. Once mentioned, at least by the excitable, in the same breath as high-tech Taiwan, it is now more likely to be grouped with the high-maintenance Philippines. Far from closing in on the world's eighth-biggest economy – a slot currently occupied by Spain, with an output nearly six times that of Thailand – it languishes in 33rd place. In per capita terms it plods in at an even more pedestrian 78th, with an income of $3,851, far below Taiwan's $17,000 although above the likes of Indonesia at about $2,000.

Adding to its woes – or arguably helping to explain them – Thailand is stuck in a seemingly intractable political crisis. Long a country of coup and counter-coup, for years it nevertheless managed to maintain something approaching political stability. Now it is caught in a trap in which a previously disenfranchised rural poor wants a say in a political system still dominated by the Bangkok elite not yet prepared to allow the "barbarians" through the gate. The stand-off has undermined the already shaky confidence of foreign and domestic investors.

This month, Thailand showcased its political chaos for flummoxed regional leaders attending the Association of South-east Asian Nations summit. The gathering was cancelled and the likes of Wen Jiabao, China's premier, had to be evacuated after the conference facilities were stormed by a brightly coloured mob of Mr Thaksin's supporters. In subsequent clashes on the streets of Bangkok at least two people were killed. A car carrying Abhisit Vejjajiva, the third prime minister since democracy nominally returned in 2007, came under attack after he declared a state of emergency. There are, Mr Abhisit said with admirable understatement in a Financial Times interview last week, "some major challenges we have to face up to".

One of the reasons Thailand has failed to flourish as once predicted is that its growth was built on weaker foundations than supposed. What was in the 1950s an economy based on US patronage, and exports of rice and tapioca, developed into one fuelled by Japanese capital looking for a home after the revaluation of the yen in the mid-1980s. Japanese companies poured in money, building an industrial base, especially in car manufacturing, that remains central to whatever economic success the country still enjoys.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, local entrepreneurs clambered aboard, funded by a powerful local banking system and oiled by age-old connections. The political situation was always chaotic; there have been 18 coup attempts since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932, 11 of them successful. But for much of the time, according to Supavud Saicheua, an economist at Phatra Securities, the country maintained an uneasy equilibrium between monarchy, military, aristocracy and bureaucracy.

Thailand produced few truly world-class companies. It remained, by and large, a rentier economy, funded by foreign capital and driven by foreign expertise. At the time, of course, that was all the rage. In 1991, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund held their annual meetings in Thailand, a testimony to its openness and liberal reform. That went to Thailand's head. In 1993 it went the whole hog, liberalising its capital account and setting in train the disastrous over-borrowing in foreign currency that ended with the 1997 crash.

The crisis led to what Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker call in their book Thailand's Boom and Bust a "decapitation of Thailand's [foreign-currency indebted] capitalist class". The country has never recovered from the mass beheading. Today, bank lending to business languishes at two-thirds of 1990s levels. The economy has become more dependent on foreign demand, a liability in a world of frightened consumers. Trade accounts for 150 per cent of GDP, against 80 per cent before 1997.

The destruction of Thailand's entrepreneurial class helped pave the way for Mr Thaksin, one of the few capitalist survivors of the crisis. He converted his wealth, which came courtesy of a telephone monopoly, into political capital, riding into office with the votes of a newly empowered rural poor.

Mr Thaksin's election and subsequent conduct proved too much for a Bangkok elite that had not previously seen fit to share power. Its displeasure was finally vented in the coup of 2006, an attempt to roll the country back to a prelapsarian land of smiles. But there is no going back. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear how Thailand can move forward either.

By 'they', I was referring to the bog-standard peasant (not a red militant). The average Joe in the fields does not want a revolution. He just wants to do a bit better in life - preferably this one, not the next one.

Usually he's offered no improvements by any political party, (So THB 500 is the next best thing). I don't blame these people for feeling cynical about the townies, and then selling out their vote.

I also meant bog-standard peasant - they've been enlisted in someone else's war.

Every party offers populist schemes to them now, they are not fighting for that. I hope you don't think they took to the streets because PPP somehow offered them better policies last year than Democrats. They have no idea why they took to the streets, they can't give you (us) a single reason. They just parrot irrelevant stuff they've been made to feel strongly about.

The average Joe may not want a revolution but it's this kind of insufferable patronising rubbish that ends up getting throats slit.I accept (or rather hope) that the language used is partly for dramatic effect though for someone who seems to know the country well it is strikingly unThai in tone (though consistent with some of the racist rhetoric used at PAD rallies.) What is remarkable is its ignorance (there's no such thing as a bog standard peasant) and barely concealed hatred.Incidentally revolutions always happen when things are getting better not worse. and things have been getting better oin Thailand.

Anyway thank goodness people like this aren't in charge, and never will be.

Hold on here - who are you talking to? First few paragraphs in your quote are not mine.

What is this "patronising" you were talking about?

As far as I can see, the only part of MY message that you could be referring to is this:

"They have no idea why they took to the streets, they can't give you (us) a single reason. They just parrot irrelevant stuff they've been made to feel strongly about."

Instead of blasting me - give me ONE single legitimate reason for their protests that was supposed to address THEIR problems and not Thaksin's.

Sorry my fault.I apologise unreservedly (though I'd question the "made to feel strongly about" comment)

Too quick on the draw before caffeine fix, I'm afraid.

Apologies again.

By 'they', I was referring to the bog-standard peasant (not a red militant). The average Joe in the fields does not want a revolution. He just wants to do a bit better in life - preferably this one, not the next one.

Usually he's offered no improvements by any political party, (So THB 500 is the next best thing). I don't blame these people for feeling cynical about the townies, and then selling out their vote.

I also meant bog-standard peasant - they've been enlisted in someone else's war.

Every party offers populist schemes to them now, they are not fighting for that. I hope you don't think they took to the streets because PPP somehow offered them better policies last year than Democrats. They have no idea why they took to the streets, they can't give you (us) a single reason. They just parrot irrelevant stuff they've been made to feel strongly about.

The average Joe may not want a revolution but it's this kind of insufferable patronising rubbish that ends up getting throats slit.I accept (or rather hope) that the language used is partly for dramatic effect though for someone who seems to know the country well it is strikingly unThai in tone (though consistent with some of the racist rhetoric used at PAD rallies.) What is remarkable is its ignorance (there's no such thing as a bog standard peasant) and barely concealed hatred.Incidentally revolutions always happen when things are getting better not worse. and things have been getting better oin Thailand.

Anyway thank goodness people like this aren't in charge, and never will be.

Practically, first step towards reconciliation means realising that yellows were right

And that really sums it up doesn't it?

Yes it does.

There will be no reconciliation until you accept "right" for what it is and not for its color.

That's the first stumbling block - you can't accept that anything connected with yellow is right. Well, like it or not, but nothing will happen unitl you grow out of that kindergarten sandbox mentality.

It is not a case of agreeing, it is a case of understanding that other people have a right to think for themselves nd make their own decisions in life.

NO, reconciliation means agreeing on something together, not simply understanding the other side. Wolves might understand sheep and sheep might understand wolves, but no matter how deep this understanding is - they are not going to live in peace.

Looking at current Thai politics - there will be no reconciliation, period. The red leaders have gone overboard with their latest revolution and they have absolutely no intention to live in peace with Democrats.

Red supporters, the grassroots, should really start thinking for themselves and formulate their own agenda, they should separate themselves from Thaksin and greedy, self-serving politicians. Then we can start talking about healing the rift in society at large.

Hold on, I think there was much in the grassroots yellow movement that was not only admirable but arguably essential in moving the country forward from the logjam it found itself in.One of the flaws in the more thoughtful wing (can we argue whether there is such a thing another time perhaps!) of the red movement is its failure to appreciate the heart felt disgust at old style politics.

What I'm querying is your assumption that we should accept the "yellows were right" in a hook,line and sinker sense.It's another manifestation of the zero sum approach that plagues the extreme wings of Thai politics.Compromise will need to be found and contrary to a -dare I say it - kindergarten sandbox mentality, it will involve both sides accepting some things they don't particularly like.To be frank I can't really see the red leadership is a more repulsive crew of self serving villains than their odious PAD counterparts, but following your train of thought I suppose if the yellow rank and file could detach themselves from their leadership that would be helpful.Long jail sentences in an ideal world would be a possible catalyst, but let's face it whatever Abhisit says to the FT etc we all know these yellow gruppenfuhrer are untouchable.

Interview with Abhisit Vejjajiva

Published: April 23 2009 12:11

Here is the full transcript of an interview with Abhisit Vejjajiva, prime minister of Thailand by Tim Johnston and David Pilling in Bangkok on 23 April 2

The Financial Times: Thailand has always had this reputation of being a jewel in Asia, one of the strongest tigers, people were comparing it to Taiwan: now the comparison is much more with countries like the Philippines. Something seems to have gone seriously wrong. Have things really got that bad?

Abhisit Vejjajiva: I think there are some major challenges we have to face up to. First of all, I think the last couple of years have seen a trend where there's a breakdown of law and order.

In the past I think we have had problems with enforcement of the law, but perhaps at street level, and maybe in terms of some loopholes and not so strict enforcement of the law. But for the bigger picture in terms of disorder in general that has not been the case. Clearly that changed over the last two to three years. And it's one of the main reasons why I felt the government had to put that right.

Secondly, I think there has been a division that has run throughout the last four or five years of political conflict where we try to get to grips with what democracy entails.

I have always maintained that to say that the conflict at the moment is a rural-urban divide, or some kind of class divide, is not identifying the problem right. There may be elements of that, just as you see different views of urban rural voters everywhere.

But you cannot say, for instance, that the people who support Thaksin do not include the very rich, the middle class. At the same time, clearly opposition to him, say people who joined the PAD, include a lot of rural people. Even the voting for the democrat, or Puea Thai , or PPP or Thai rak Thai in regions where each party wins overwhelmingly - that means rural supporters.

That's missing the point. The real point is the expectations that people have of what democracy entails. And one group clearly stresses the will of the majority, which of course is correct. Therefore they think that once there's an election outcome that's that.

The other group does not necessarily deny this but maintains, and I think correctly too, that democracy entails a limited government: a majority does not give you the licence to put yourself above the law, whether it is election law or whether it is corruption law.

Of course when you resolve the issues who has broken or violated the law or not, you rely on the courts or other such organizations. Which in all democracies are not elected.

So there seems to be a confusion of this.

And essentially what has made things perhaps worse is that one group goes too far to say you can use political solutions for what is strictly legal problems and the other group goes so far as to say you can use legal solutions for political problems.

So that's where we're at and that's what my government wants to put right.

FT: Your problem in terms of perception, certainly international perception, is that you would appear to be on legal not the democractic side?

Abhisit: I don't think that's fair. For one thing, I have been in electoral politics for almost two decades now, and my stance on every single issue throughout the 18 years that I have been in politics is clear: I do not support undemocratic means.

But when things were breaking down prior to the last coup it was clear that we had an elected government that clearly violated democratic principles. You are talking over 2,000 people dead, from policies that clearly violate human rights. You have seen blatant interferences with the various organizations that are supposed to be neutral including the electoral commission. So we voiced opposition to that. I myself have stuck with the parliamentary system. And I have never moved out of that realm. When the protest took place last year, every time the protestors did things that I felt were not right, I voiced my disagreement.

After the coup, my position was also clear. I disagreed with it, but I thought the quickest and smoothest way of returning to things back to normalcy was not to have violence in the street but to make sure that the coup leaders stuck to their pledge that they would return power to the people in a timeframe of say a year, which they did.

And the constitution itself passed a referendum, and although we don't like all the provisions in it, it received the support of the majority of the Thai people and it should be amended once we return to normalcy.

And the constitution itself may have provisions that parties might think inappropriate. But they accepted it, they accepted the rules when they participated in the elections and when they violate the rules they have to accept the consequences.

FT: Which provisions do you find unacceptable?

Abhisit: We said that a number of sections or articles which we feel should certainly be amended, on the role of MPs, on the senate and so on.

FT: Would you like to see an elected senate?

Abhisit: Yes

FT: Would you like to scrap the provision that has political parties disbanded for the misdemeanours of single officials?

Abhisit: I disagree with this disbanding parties but I think that we have to also get the balance right in that sometimes the executive committee knows what's going on and is basically party to the violation and they should accept the consequences.

You may recall when the Thai rak Thai party was disbanded, I was of the opinion that a new party set up should be able to be called Thai rak Thai, if the members so wished. My stance on this has always been clear.

But it is one thing to say that's a problematic provision and it should be amended, and another to say that somebody who has direct vested interest should be pushing for that as almost personal agenda, which obviously will only provoke opposition, which is what happened last year.

Which is why, when I took over, my offer was that it was best to have a neutral organization -- maybe academics -- who can begin setting the ball rolling about what should be or not be in the constitution to remove any suspicion that politicians are doing this for ourselves.

Unfortunately, the opposition turned that offer down. It wasn't us that stopped the process going, it was the opposition who refused the offer. So I was in the process of trying to find a new process and then all these events took place.

At the same time it is also clear that, while the majority of protestors had these genuine feelings of injustice and wanted a better form of democracy, it cannot be denied that a core group of people leading the protests also wanted violence and were more interested in their personal agenda.

FT: It seems on the surface that the country is entirely divided and when one party is in power the other feels entirely unrepresented. How do you convince the red shirts that you represent their interests?

Abhisit: There is a clear difference. When Thaksin was PM, he said that he would look after the interests of people who voted for him first. I have never done that, and in all my time in office I have never discriminated against any group of people and when they have peaceful protests and when they voice opposition through various media I never interfered. I listend to them. I took the cause of constitutional amendments which I was not so keen on last year, given these circumstances, and I actually conceded to get the process going.

That's just one issue that proves that I am here to work for everybody and all the policies that I have implemented and designed in no way discriminate against one group or another. In fact it could even be argued that the package that we put through in terms of the economic stimulus, particularly how much money were are putting to support agricultural prices, giving income support to low income people, you could even argue that these were addressing the people who traditionally didn't vote for us.

FT: That is precisely what you should have been doing, isn't it?

Abhisit: Which I have done, which is why I think I have proved that I am not here to protect any group's interest. I am here to work for everybody.

FT: In which case, why don't you call an election?

Abhisit: Two reasons, the first is that the opposition do not accept the current rules. Now, if I called an election and say a party was involved in election fraud and they got disbanded again, then what's going to happen? We just back to where we are.

And you know much is made of me. I read stories saying I lose elections by a landslide: actually there was just 100,000 votes separating us and them, out of 30m. In January we won 21 out of 27 byelections, almost all in rural constituencies. The issue is not whether I would win or not, but first, would the rules be accepted, would we not just end up in another cycle of election fraud, disbanding of parties, feelings of injustice and adding anger to the cycle.

Second issue is the protestors have openly stated that they would not allow us to campaign in certain areas, That is not a condition for free, fair and democratic elections. We saw glimpses of that during the byelections. It doesn't help if elections turn violent, if you are going to divide a country into regions where one party can campaign and one cannot. I wanted to make sure that these feelings die down before we move to the elections.

That's leaving aside the previous three months where it was clear it was time for Thailand to have some stability, get some medicine for the economic downturn and address the concerns of the majority of people, which are actually economic.

FT: You said that some of the protesters had a genuine feeling of injustice. Do you think that was justified or do you think it was a problem of perception?

Abhisit: A little bit of both. I think there are cases where they have the right to feel injustice. I can understand them feeling the cases against PAD have been slow.

But the problem is that PAD action didn't take place during my administration and the process that began to investigate.

FT: It not just that you are or are not prosecuting the yellow shirts, they see the system being stacked against them.

Abhisit: That can't be right given that the police have been accused of being on... certainly not on the government's side. So it is not the system. The cases where there was clear violence during the PAD protest - one famous picture on international media was use of gunfire into a group of protestors. That took place in if I remember correctly, August. When I came in there was not progress, and the first thing I did when I came in was call in the chief of police and said, look: that's a blatant instance where somebody has to be prosecuted and arrest warrants were issued after that.

The people who oppose my government, might feel why did it take four or five months. But they forget that I wasn't in power.

FT: You were voted in on December 15. The airport protests ended two weeks before you came to power, but four months on nothing has been done.

Abhisit: I have summoned the police chief and expressed my concern that the case is ruling slowly and they have made some progress. They dealt with the Government House occupation first and they have now issued warrants and summons for people involved and they are moving on to the airport case. Frankly speaking, all these issues I said I would try to clear up after what was supposed to be the East Asia summit, because I put clear priorities about getting the economic package in place and finalizing the details of next year's annual budget and then we have this very important summit coming up and I said that after that was cleared up we would be talking about the constitution and clearing up all the pending cases as quickly as possible. But unfortunately all these events took place before.

FT: You are on record saying during the airport siege that it would not be a good idea for the army to go in, yet you put the army on the streets last week. What changed?

Abhisit: I am not to sure that the degree of violence as expressed during the two protests was the same. If you listen to the protestors on these occasions. But leaving that aside, the difference is this: once people were in government house, once people were in the airport any kind of military operation I think would have been extremely risky. And I took a similar decision on night of 13th (April) when there were about 4,000 people at most, and maybe less than 2,000 in the end people surrounding government house. My decision was not, at the end, for the military to go in, but to negotiate.

But the incidents that took place before that, you know, the various intersections in Bankok, the gas truck and so on: they had to be cleared. They were basic rioting, while the protest at government house was not. So what I did was I cleared the points of riots, but not the mass protests. So nothing's changed.

FT: Moving on: the blue shirts?

Abhisit: I have already said we should not create a new colour.

FT: Was someone in your party trying to create a new colour?

Abhisit: Not in my party. The interior ministry wanted to run a campaign about protecting the monarchy. So they had these volunteers, blue shirts, but since there is now a suspicion that this would transform into something else.

The colour blue, I guess they took it from the flag.

FT: So the blue shirts down in Pattaya were organized by the interior ministry?

Abhisit: In Pattaya was another story. It was local people, volunteers and so on. Whatever. But now that it's created a suspicion and fear that it would transform into something else, I say, look lets put an end to this.

FT: Who were the ones down in Pattaya: Khun Newin was seen down there on the back of a bike with his hat pulled down over his eyes…

There were lots of politicians down there.

FT: There is prima facie evidence that he was involved in organising a group of thugs with masks, sticks and at least one gun.

Abhisit: My instructions were clear that there should be no violence and the following incident that took place where there had been violence from both colours will be investigated and treated fairly.

FT: Have you got assurances from Khun Newin that he wasn't involved in that incident.

Abhisit: I haven't talked to him. Investigations will continue and whoever is involved will have to be investigated.

FT: Including Khun Newin if he is shown to be involved?

Abhisit: If he is involved, yes.

FT: You mentioned earlier on the class war aspect, which seems to be a new and disturbing element.

Abhisit: It is part of the propaganda.

FT: Do you think it is getting traction?

Abhisit: It is something that resonates with groups of people, but I maintain that if you look at the policies of this government, there is certainly no class bias in any of the policies that we implement or design.

FT: What about the 'democracy of the rich' that some commentators like Thitinan Pongsudhirak have posited?

Abhisit: He must prove his case. What policies have I adopted and designed that have favoured the rich. The complete opposite is true. It is odd to accuse a government of being a government for the rich when most of the policies are designed for the poor. It just doesn't make sense. And how can you explain the voters in the south? Are they rich? That is the second poorest region from the northeast and they have consistently supported us. I really can't understand why these very basic facts are conveniently ignored.

FT: You said it resonates with certain groups, why do you think that is?

Abhisit: It resonates everywhere.

FT: Do you think it could become a problem for you?

Abhisit: Of course it could become a problem such divisions, or any kind of divisions took place: class, ethnic, religious… all very dangerous. Which is why we need to address this very basic fact that why would we want to support anybody who wants to divide the country. Why not support someone who wants to unite and why not take a little care to analyse the truth or verify what is being claimed: just as I have mentioned, very basic facts about the rural/urban rich/poor divide. How you explain the voters in the south, how do you explain the voters in Bangkok? Bangkok has not consistently voted for us, we've lost two previous general elections in Bangkok. We've only won the gubernatorial elections and the last general elections.

FT: Another disturbing development: a number of businesses seem to have been targeted. Thailand's business life hasn't really been affected by the political upheavals in the past: is this bleed into commercial side worrying you?

Abhisit: It certainly goes to show that the person who wants to divide a country will not stop at any point, they will drag everybody into conflict.

FT: Do you think Khun Thaksin is that person?

Abhisit: He has openly said so.

FT: Do you think he is the ideological leader of the red shirts?

Abhisit: I wouldn't say ideological, he is the leader.

FT: What is his role?

Abhisit: You can ask the protesters.

FT: What about the pursuit: are you talking to Nicaragua, the United Arab Emirates?

Abhisit: Yes. We want every Thai to be under the same law.

FT: So you would like to get him in Thailand?

Abhisit: I have always said so.

FT: Would that not be destabilising, to have him in a court in central Bangkok?

Abhisit: It is our responsibility to handle that and I think more and more people who have legitimate causes concerning injustice and democracy are now going to distance themselves from people who want to provoke violence and have their own personal agenda.

FT: You have had to clamp down on democracy to hold this situation together…

Abhisit: I would not clamp down on democratic rights. I have asked and in the parliamentary debate I am participating in now, I am saying that the emergency decree will be lifted very soon and protest demonstrations can resume. The only thing we will not allow is inciting violence and rioting.

FT: When will the emergency be lifted, can you give us a time scale?

Abhisit: A few days time.

FT: By early next week?

Abhisit: Possible.

FT: Does that mean that some of the radio stations and websites that have been blocked will be allowed to reopen?

Abhisit: Yes, so long as they don't violate the law.

FT: And that is incitement to violence?

Abhisit: Yes. I am sure you wouldn't allow people in your country to go on radio and television and say 'let's to and burn that place down, let's go and kill that person'. I'm sure not.

FT: What about the economic fallout. You said yesterday possibly five per cent contraction this year?

Abhisit: Yes

FT: Is that a worst case scenario or is that a realistic scenario?

Abhisit: Much depends on the global economy itself, which again I'm not sure anybody can make predictions with certainty, but I think a range of –3 to –5 is realistic for us.

FT: The central Bank just dropped to 3.5. Is 3.5 with risks on the downside what you are looking at?

Abhisit: Yes.

FT: Khun Korn said you might boost your stimulus package to try and mitigate some of the effects of this crisis.

Abhisit: We have already outlined the basic framework for the second round of stimulus, I don't think that needs to be changed. We have to work out all the details, particularly the source of financing?

FT: What percentage of GDP would that be roughly?

Abhisit: It's a funny game, because it depends on how you lump things, and we are talking about a stimulus that runs on for three years. I see lots of these between-country comparisons, and I don't think they are comparable.

FT: But could you give a rough figure?

Abhisit: Do you want the three years or the one year?

FT: One year?

Abhisit: But that's not how other countries do it.

FT: How about three years?

Abhisit: If it is three years… It is almost 15 per cent. But over three years, so that would be 5 per cent a year.

FT: Do you get any impression that business is running shy because of these problems?

Abhisit: Of course all these events will raise real concerns.

FT: Have you had concerns from the Japanese: they used to see Thailand in a sense as an insurance policy against China – China + 1 – and that one was often Thailand, but that kind of political security might be fast disappearing. Have you had expressions of concern?

Abhisit: I'm sure there are concerns everywhere, and we will have to move very swiftly to address those concerns. The steps to doing that for me are clear: I think on the economic policy side we've been very good touch with these people about what needs to be done, so that is not so much the concern, and again the fundamentals in terms of the financial system here, the basics are OK. The political situation for me is first restore law and order and two seek a political solution.

FT: Fairly chaotic scenes yesterday, do you get the impression that….

Abhisit: It wasn't too bad compared to other occasions and a lot of people thought it was pretty subdued.

FT: Do you have the feeling that the other side are willing to bridge this divide?

Abhisit: Parts. Or Some. Or maybe a majority, I don't know. Not all of them obviously.

FT: Do you think it is a possible task?

Abhisit: I do. I do. I still believe the majority of people don't want to see violence, don't want to see neverending conflict, don't want to see their pockets hurt by dragging this on.

FT: Can you give me specifics on that?

Abhisit: The latest case with Prachatai website was definitely mishandled and certainly went against my policy and apparently action was taken by people who were not supposed to be in charge of this issue.

FT: That wasn't under the Lese Majeste law, it was under the computer crimes act?

Abhisit: That's what I mean. People went to the people who handle the computer crimes and used this and that reason and it turned out like that.

FT: And your ability to influence and control that…?

Abhisit: Before the prachatai case I thought that there had been quite a good working relationship between people who run websites, the police who are working on this.

FT: And that broke down?

Abhisit: I hope that was an isolated incident and would be put right

FT: What happens next: what's the next few weeks and months?

Abhisit: Emergency decree lifted, I hope that parliament has some mechanism to move forward with a political solution that is acceptable to all.

FT: What might that look like?

Abhisit: Talks of some kind of commission on political reform, constitutional amendments.

FT: Talking to people like Khun Thaksin?

Abhisit: What about?

FT: So you want an institutional solution?

Abhisit: Yes. Sure.

FT: And the time frame?

Abhisit: And that should also involve a clear time frame.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Practically, first step towards reconciliation means realising that yellows were right

And that really sums it up doesn't it?

After the Uprising

by Thitinan Pongsudhirak

Posted Apirl 19, 2008 (updated April 21).Far Eastern Economic Review

BANGKOK – For a fortnight before Thailand's rebellion was put down, the brutal axiom of Thai politics that the countryside elects governments but Bangkok gets to overthrow them was put to its litmus test. Tens of thousands of red-shirt protesters under the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) espousing upcountry messages and grievances against what they saw as systemic injustices and double standards had encircled Government House to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and members of the King's Privy Council who were deemed to have violated the constitution by masterminding the military coup in September 2006 and blatantly taking sides since.

But just as their opponents underestimated their pent-up rage and strength in numbers, the UDD leaders overestimated their ability to wage a spontaneous people's revolt and bring down not just the Abhisit government but also the establishment that traditionally rests on the monarchy, military and bureaucracy, the holy trinity that has called the shots in Thailand for decades. After forcing the cancellation of the Asian summits, the red shirts ran amok on the Thai New Year on April 13th, rioting, blocking traffic, commandeering buses, and torching public facilities in Bangkok in an effort to provoke the government and the army into an overreaction that would mobilize more reds into the streets, reinforced by UDD columns in major provinces in the north and northeast regions

The consequent anarchy and mayhem doomed their months-long movement. Their moral high ground and the righteousness of their cause were quickly lost, replaced by public anger and backlash. As soldiers closed in on the desperate and cornered red shirts outside Government House, UDD leaders turned themselves into police custody on the following day. The physical toll included 123 injuries and two deaths, the latter involving local residents' clash with protesters.

This recent drama and brinkmanship was not unprecedented in Thailand's three-year crisis. A starkly opposed set of circumstances last year featured the pro-establishment yellow-shirt demonstrators under the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) who railed against two elected governments favored by the red shirts and aligned to Thaksin Shinawatra, a former premier turned fugitive now wanted by the Thai authorities. The army decidedly stayed on the sidelines while the PAD had its way with seizures of Government House and Bangkok's international airport last December. The army chief publicly suggested that the pro-UDD prime minister at the time should resign in view of street protesters.

Ultimately, the Constitution Court dissolved the ruling party and left a vacuum for Mr. Abhisit to fill. To the reds, Mr. Abhisit's coalition government may have constitutionally coalesced in parliament through the power brokerage of his Democrat Party's backers in the army, judiciary and PAD, but its democratic credentials are tainted and incomplete. Thailand's contested democracy in the eyes of the UDD and beyond means that Establishment prerogatives and preferences have carried the day for too long.

While the red shirts have lost the battle, it would be mistaken to write off their crusade against gross injustices in Thai society–between the haves and have-nots, between the traditional elite and the governed–as long as they remain unrecognized and unaddressed. Elite consensus held Thailand together in years past and enabled remarkable economic development, but it is coming loose at the seams. New social strata and the bottom rungs of society want a louder voice and a greater share of the pie, and are decreasingly willing to accept outcomes determined by traditional power brokers at the top.

Having overcome an ominous uprising, Mr. Abhisit and his backers still appear reluctant to respect and recognize the claims and grievances of the red shirts. The pro-establishment bias in Thai society runs deep. Most movers and shakers have an incentive to see the Abhisit government succeed and to see Thailand move forward in a direction consistent with establishment interests. They heard the reds' noises but they discounted them on various grounds from gullibility and stupidity to financial opportunism. They resort to the comfort and convenience of seeing Mr. Thaksin as the sole force behind the reds. Now that Mr. Thaksin has been further disgraced and discredited during the red shirts' downfall, they will be tempted to conclude that all's normal, that the brief sound and fury seen in Thailand was just a passing nuisance.

But the reds represented more than Mr. Thaksin. Their quest for the will of the majority to shine in a genuine democracy was real and relentless. Their efforts came to naught this time, but the anti-establishment sentiments behind them are likely to simmer and fester until they find an outlet somewhere else sometime down the road. The undercurrents against establishment forces are deep and wide in Thailand. The lack of recognition and accommodation will make them pent-up and potent.

Thailand's ongoing transformation should not lead it to replicate the experience of Nepal, as the institution of the monarchy is integral to Thai history and identity. Nor does it want to follow in the footsteps of the Philippines, whose periodic people's power movements brought neither political stability nor economic vibrancy. And it should not turn the clock all the way back to end up in comparison to Burma's military dictatorship. Indonesia's democratic transition after decades of autocratic rule offers hope. Somewhere out there lies Thailand's organic and optimal longer-term destination.

The onus for the way forward now rests on Mr. Abhisit and his supporters. He should reach out to the reds rather than to mop up their remnants. What is needed next is the willingness of establishment forces to make self-enlightened reforms, adjustments and concessions in coming to terms with the grievances and expectations of the early 21st century to reconcile Thailand's inheritance from the past and its future demands. Otherwise, popular movements for greater justice and a fairer shake may well reappear in other shapes, forms and colors.

Last Friday's assassination/murder attempt on Sondhi Limthongkul, organizer of the yellow shirts, is murky. Naturally, theories and conspiracies abound. The use of war weapons (M16, AK-47 and M79) suggests military, but which faction/side faction remains conjecture.

Suffice it to say that the assassination attempt has raised political temperatures. Tellingly, Mr. Sondhi's only son, Jintanart, indicated that it was a "third hand" bent on creating and exploiting a clash between reds and yellows to use as pretext for intervention and a power grab. Whoever is responsible, the shooting has raised temperatures and is an indication that the crisis and turmoil will persist and could intensify. But this is also the first time that yellows are not blaming reds but in fact (based on Mr. Sondhi's son's account) the yellows are putting the reds in the same boat as mutual victims of this murder attempt.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak is associate professor and director of Chulalongkorn University's Institute of Security and International Studies

But you are completely wrong.Most people would far rather the army disperse the red protestors without bloodshed, and credit to Abhisit and the security forces for doing just that.Naturally there was a huge amount of frustration but I think most people just wanted an end to the situation.

In the long run, yes, but on the spur of the moment many people wanted someone to shoot the reds for what they did.

Lives are cheap here and if killings are percieved as justified no one would shed a tear.

Even if PTP finds some proof that the army really killed some protesters, the anger would be about denial, not the shooting itself.

Similar feelings towards Tak Bai - do you really think Thais give a dam_n about some dead troublemaking muslims? Do you really think they give a dam_n about those killed inside Krue Sue mosque? At Ratchaburi hospital? Do you think they care about thousands of lives lost during drug war? During 1976 crackdown? Communists killed in Isan jungels afterwards?

Once your innocence in the public eye is lost, you are a fair game, no mercy. Welcome to Thailand.

I hate to say it but you are probably right.

I think there was some remorse among middle class Thais (a much smaller group than today) about 1976 deaths, but not that much.On the rest you are right.

Incidentally the CPT had wide national coverage, not just Isarn -and they were very unpleasant.Didn't deserve any sympathy

Speaking by phone from the undisclosed location, he told the BBC their struggle to bring down the current government would carry on, but that the movement would no longer rely on conventional forms of protest. "The state of emergency is a big help. It puts people underground," Jakrapob said.

In fact, deadly tactics aimed at instigating violence have already started, with the assassination attempt on People's Alliance for Democracy leader Sondhi Limthongkul last Friday.

Source:

fighting for "genuine democracy"?

shouldn't that be done in Parliament?

Yes, to both questions.God knows what Jakrapob is playing at.Even if one supported his general aims (which I don't) his tactics and stategy seem absurd.There is something of Goebbels in that fellow.

Talking of Goebbels, the link you provided to the Nation editorial seemed to imply that Thaksinites were behind the attempted assasination as did that blowhard Kasit much more directly at the Asia Society in NY.There's absolutely no evidence to this effect so far and many many possible options.

Quite so, Plus is not pro-violence. He was just making an observation about

the expectations and the get on with life attitude of most Thais.

It never said most Thais, nor himself, would be happy if some red shirts got shot.

Plus's comment was directed QUITE CLEARLY at the Red Shirt Leadership's pathetically, cynical and amoral

views on the people: sacrafice a few pawns and build a bigger army of street warriors from sympathy votes.

Too bad the pawns are real people, but only little people, so we can lose a few of them and keep going..

You haven't read his post properly.Furthermore by shouting in block capitals can't bring into existence what was never said or even implied.I accept that he didn't offer violence as his personal view though a reasonable presumption on this is a different matter.

Anyway the more important point is that in a very divided country hotheadedness needs to be guarded against, as it always does in Thailand.I remember there were many when the yellows sezed strategic parts of the city various idiots called for violent clearance which would have cost many lives.Fortunately cooler heads prevailed, as they have more recently.

This whole idea is based on a wrong premise - that if people see army shooting red protesters they'd somehow change their minds and sympathise with rioters. The more likely reaction is "som nam na".

A revealing insight into your zero sum game thinking.Kill the red horde and dam_n the consequences (which would of course been catastrophic)

But you are completely wrong.Most people would far rather the army disperse the red protestors without bloodshed, and credit to Abhisit and the security forces for doing just that.Naturally there was a huge amount of frustration but I think most people just wanted an end to the situation.

No. 1 Thaivisa

No. 2 Google News. A quick look at international news, 'Thailand' in the search box, then sort by date. Scroll for anything of interest. Pages open in a new tab...helps the bandwidth issue. The quick way to review almost all E sources.

I agree Google News is a fantastic resource

I am copying part of an interview in Der Spiegel with MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra

4/20/2009 03:36 PM

A DIVIDED NATION

'In Thailand, the Law of the Jungle Prevails'

In a SPIEGEL interview, Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the governor of Bangkok and a cousin of the king, condemns former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and criticizes the Thai Army. He says he is deeply concerned about the state of Thailand.

SPIEGEL: Thailand doesn't seem to be able to return to normal, as the latest uprising in Bangkok proves. The riots we saw last week were the worst ones witnessed in years.

Sukhumbhand Paribatra: In terms of how widespread it was geographically, it was the worst the city has ever experienced. During the unrest of 1973, 1976 and 1992, there were more deaths …

SPIEGEL: … but in 1973 and 1976 we were primarily dealing with student protests.

Chaos in Bangkok: "The worst the city has ever experienced."

Sukhumbhand: This time there was senseless violence in many parts of the city. People set fires and attacked each other.

SPIEGEL: Everything began the weekend before last, when the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship -- as the supporters of deposed ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra call themselves -- succeeded in halting the Asia summit in the coastal resort of Pattaya. Doesn't that indicate a total failure of your military and police forces?

Sukhumbhand: We have to admit that. The conference hotel is located on a hill and only three narrow roads lead to it. They should never have permitted this venue to be stormed. The police leadership downright refused to intervene and the armed forces only came to help at the last minute. By then Prime Minister Abhisit was trapped.

SPIEGEL: His car was attacked and his driver was hit. In other countries, bodyguards would have reached for their weapons. Why didn't they in Thailand?

Sukhumbhand: The instructions were not there to shoot. There was a vacuum, which allowed the protesters to do what we saw.

SPIEGEL: Earlier, Thailand was considered the epitome of a Buddhist tropical paradise. But today the country is mentioned in the same breath as civil war and chaos. How do you explain the polarization of your society?

Sukhumbhand: There has always been a division between the rich and the poor in Thai society, and there always was an extreme gap between the urban and the rural masses. But that has always been kept under control by an unstated consensus on the part of all political leaders that certain things should not be touched. There was a consensus that political leaders may quarrel among themselves, but they may not take their quarrel to the extent that it would have any impact on the monarchy or to the extent that it would aggravate these fractions in society.

SPIEGEL: But Thaksin suddenly did not play to the rules of the old political elites.

Sukhumbhand: What happened during the Thaksin period was that he didn't play according to that rule anymore. In fact, he tried to impose his own rules. That might have been for good reasons, I don't doubt that. But there was a rule that there are certain things that you don't do. It might partially be due to his personality and partially due to the extent of his three election victories. The consensus in our society broke down and there is no mechanism to put it back in place right now.

SPIEGEL: The Red Shirts complain that there is no democracy and no justice in Thailand because their leaders have been arrested, but the Yellow Shirt leaders who blockaded Bangkok's international airport last year go free.

Sukhumbhand: The facts are obvious. There has always been injustice in Thai society. But under Thaksin, was there justice? This is one of the problems in Thailand -- there has been always the law of the jungle. Between 2002 and 2005, when Thaksin ruled, thousands of alleged drug traffickers and terrorists were killed. I don't say that Thaksin ordered that killings. But thousands were murdered. They disappeared and the media was silenced. What is better, that people who blocked an airport are not punished or that innocent people are murdered? I cannot condone any act of injustice. The sad truth is that in Thailand the law of the jungle prevails. It's also a fact that Thaksin's followers are no angels, and we Democrats aren't either.

SPIEGEL: In retrospect, was the military putsch that toppled Thaksin on Sept. 19, 2006 a failure?

Sukhumbhand: I don't condone military coups, and I was not in favor of that coup, either. But if the coup leader felt there has to be a coup, they should have carried it to its logical conclusion.

SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Sukhumbhand: They weren't forceful enough. Ironically, first the coup leaders broke the most important law of the land, the constitution, and then they didn't dare to break the little laws. If the generals had smashed Thaksin's network right at the beginning, and if they would have confiscated his properties straightaway, we wouldn't be confronted with the chaos that we have today.

SPIEGEL: Why did the generals mess it up?

Sukhumbhand: Stupid, they are stupid. Thaksin's popularity was on the way down, anyway.

SPIEGEL: Thaksin's passport was only recently revoked. What would his supporters do if he were extradited to Bangkok to stand trial for corruption and inciting the uprising?

Sukhumbhand: They would go completely berserk.

SPIEGEL: Wouldn't new elections be the best solution for restoring peace?

Sukhumbhand: No. The outcome would be the same as before. We will be confronted with equally large blocs opposing each other. I think it will be better if the government stays in power to the end of this term. Then the voters should decide, but not on the streets. But no one has any magical solutions right now.

Interesting first hand account:

New mandala - Crushing of the Red Shirts

It's too long to post in entirity so take a look at the link. In the first few sentences he has his dates wrong it should be March, but you can follow the timescale through.

Wow, certainly a brave man, and completely "Fair and balanced" wasn't he.... Journalist of the highest standards there.

I thought we had heard the last of the Red Shirted non-journalist Nick Nostitz... but apparently not.

Oh well... at least his self-assessments are accurate.

A predictable ad hominem attack by someone overwhelmed by prejudice on a brave journalist who has presented a perspective that's unavailble elsewhere.The pre-eminent historian Chris Baker thinks so too:

"Huge admiration for Nick. The photos are superb, but the diary narrative is what makes this outstanding. So much photojournalism focuses our attention on a single image which has a limited range of messages. This essay puts a whole slew of images into the context of a story, allowing the humanity to break through the brittle surface of the drama. The woman massaging the soldier. Dancing under the expressway. The small dramas in the sois. Nick’s own personal dramas. And the humanity is important to the politics. Whatever else happened in this two days (provocation, third hands, who knows), most of those involved invested their frustrations and hopes. The previous episodes in this series have been superb, but this moves to another level."

Insight on local press coverage from IPS

THAILAND:

With Censorship, Thais Turn to Websites and Foreign Media

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Apr 19 (IPS) - When the Thai government imposed an emergency law cracking down on rampaging red-shirted protesters on the streets of Bangkok, the military, in combat gear, was not its only weapon. The state’s censors were given liberty to silence critical media.

By the weekend, this climate of censorship had spread beyond the capital and five neighbouring provinces where the emergency decree is still in force. Community radio stations sympathetic to the anti-government ‘red-shirts’ in northern and northeastern provinces were raided by the police and closed down.

The information and technology ministry flexed its muscles, too, ordering Internet service providers to shut down 67 websites. That number may grow, warns a media rights activist, since "websites that were critical but not sympathetic to the ‘red-shirts’ have also been targeted."

The four-month-old coalition government, led by the Democrat Party, justifies such measures to prevent more violence and mayhem on the streets as was witnessed from Apr. 13 through 14 in the capital. Clashes between angry ‘red-shirts’ and troops at a number of street corners resulted in over 100 people being injured and reportedly two deaths.

"The radio stations were closed because they were being used to incite violence," Buranaj Smutharakas, Democrat Party spokesman, told journalists. "The right to free speech ends when it is being used to call for violence."

"Although the government has brought to an end the ‘red rampage’ in Bangkok, the situation remains fragile," he added. "The government’s major efforts are to prevent [‘red shirt’] members from resorting to terrorism and [creating an] armed resistance movement."

Yet the act of censorship - beginning on Apr. 13 with the shutting down of the satellite news broadcaster ‘D Station’, the mouthpiece of the ‘red shirts’ - has inadvertently exposed the bias that grips local media. Mainstream print and broadcast media were not censored - they had portrayed the Democrat Party-led coalition in a positive light.

"The newspapers were not under pressure from the government. They chose to do it because they like the Democrats and their backers, hate the reds," a senior television journalist told IPS on the condition of anonymity. "So they have not to worry about censorship."

The mainstream television stations were under some pressure, he revealed. "My boss was told by a powerful person not to run pictures damaging to the military or to the government."

A respected media analyst faults the mainstream media for such one-sided coverage - where little effort was made to understand and explain why tens of thousands of ‘red shirts’ from the provinces and the capital responded to the protest call by the organisation leading the anti-government movement, the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).

"Reports about UDD rallies were not published, but when they were, it was more the negative aspect of the rallies," says Ubonrat Siriyuvasak, professor of communications at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University. "The media needs to cover all colours of Thailand’s politics because that is their responsibility to society. They have to try and be professional and neutral."

"The biased coverage by the mainstream media has made UDD supporters grow very unhappy and frustrated," she added in an interview. "These marginalised people have been left with little choice but to create their own alternative media space through community radio and websites on the Internet."

This, however, is not the first time where the alternative media has been a target of censorship, while the mainstream media remained untouched. Over 300 community and local radio stations were silenced by military operatives days after the powerful Thai army staged a coup in September 2006, ousting from power then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

"All northern community radio stations have been temporarily closed down after some were found to have provoked disunity among people and created misunderstanding about Tuesday’s military coup," the Bangkok Post, Thailand’s largest English-language paper, reported during the week of the country’s 18th putsch. "Community radios are now seen as a significant threat to the [junta’s] authority as they could be used by supporters of the ousted prime minister to incite public resentment against the [junta]."

The current round of censorship that targets the ‘red shirt’ media has parallels with the media policy of the country’s last military regime. Many of those who have been silenced were openly supportive of Thaksin, now living in exile as a fugitive for breaking conflict of interest laws, and wanted for corruption charges.

But the silenced radio stations and websites also aired views that called on the coalition government to dissolve the parliament and call fresh elections, attacked the military leadership and the conservative bureaucracy, and demanded that senior advisers to the kingdom’s revered monarch resign for their alleged role in the 2006 coup.

They were views that proved too much for the mainstream media to stomach. And the street violence engineered by the ‘red shirts’ a week ago - as part of a call by the UDD to stage a "revolution" on behalf of the poor - appears to have been the last straw for the Bangkok-based media powerhouses.

Newspapers responded with screaming headlines, gloating coverage, and shrill commentary at the failed ‘revolution’ of the ‘red shirts’. The television stations largely marched to the same tune.

‘Red shirts’ have been seething at the "one-sided" coverage of the mainstream media. "The press in Thailand is with the government. It is like a business partnership," said a 47-year-old resident of Bangkok who gave his name as Somchai. "They have let us down. They cannot be called a national media."

"We cannot trust the Thai journalists, because what we know is not reported," added Salukjit Sangmuang, a businesswoman, who, like Somchai, had joined some 500 ‘red shirts’ at an open field in the historic part of the capital on Apr. 14 to come to terms with the defeat their movement suffered at the hands of the combat-ready troops. "We depend on websites and foreign media for the news."

This news blackout has even brought out a controversial figure to help get the story of the ‘red shirts’ on the Internet: Lt. Sunisa Lertpakawat, who has written two books that are fawning accounts of the fugitive Thaksin, despite her being an officer serving in the military.

"What I have seen on Thai television about the ‘red shirts’ is not the truth. A lot of incidents have not been shown," said the 34-year-old during a pause from video recording a scene of angry, weeping ‘red shirts’ at Sanam Luang, an open field surrounded by ancient temples and a palace. "The people are angry, because what the newspapers and television have said about them is not true."

(END/2009)

My reading is you have breached forum rules here, on which you like to lecture others on so enthusiastically.

Anyway assuming we are allowed to discuss I don't think it matters one way or another whether the comments are "unprecedented".The pertinent question is are his statements true.I am fairly sure they are not.

You want to mention rules... see above and the Forum rule #26

26) Not to create multiple accounts. Any member found to have more than one account on the ThaiVisa Forum will be suspended. Suspended or banned members found creating additional accounts will be banned immediately.

Pathetic attempt to dodge the bullet.

If you have evidence I or anyone are breaching forum rules, I suggest you report it to moderators.I assume IP addreses are logged

I have no bullet to dodge. I don't feel my comments breached the rules. I didn't discuss what was said by him.

You, on the other hand, are faced with the obvious evidence that your own postings betray your pre-existence on the board.

You guys are so quick to sort out when you post looming errors, such as events occurring long before you were here. A good multi-ID'er is getting harder and harder to encounter on here while amateurs are dropping evidence all over.

Who needs IP tracking when your clumsy efforts unravel so quickly and you give yourselves away?

Look again at forum rules on the matter.In the last week a post of your was removed by moderators for much the same reasons.Your card is marked.

As to your rather silly personal accusations, take it up with moderators or keep quiet.

So very diligent you are in your review of Plus's posts that were made months and months before your arrival to Thaivisa membership.

Strange.Only recently you were extolling TV's search facilty and now you get hot and bothered when someone uses it.Actually I have followed Plus's contributions for at least 9 months before I joined.I also am well aware of your record and fondness for feuding.

My reading is you have breached forum rules here, on which you like to lecture others on so enthusiastically.

Anyway assuming we are allowed to discuss I don't think it matters one way or another whether the comments are "unprecedented".The pertinent question is are his statements true.I am fairly sure they are not.

You want to mention rules... see above and the Forum rule #26

26) Not to create multiple accounts. Any member found to have more than one account on the ThaiVisa Forum will be suspended. Suspended or banned members found creating additional accounts will be banned immediately.

Pathetic attempt to dodge the bullet.

If you have evidence I or anyone are breaching forum rules, I suggest you report it to moderators.I assume IP addreses are logged

So, a pardon won't be coming up any time soon now.

After years of obfuscation, he's finally taken the plunge with his latest interview...

^^^ well its hardly any revelation.

Most Thais know this anyway.

yellow ribbons tied around the tanks shooter thing (whats the name of it, dont know)... images all over the tv during the coup .....

whats interesting is the alleged justification ..... not corruption ... but disloyalty.

i imagine if the justification was for corruption the reaction would have been

but for disloyalty...

His statements to The Financial Times are unprecedented, AFAIK, in the history of modern Thailand.

My reading is you have breached forum rules here, on which you like to lecture others on so enthusiastically.

Anyway assuming we are allowed to discuss I don't think it matters one way or another whether the comments are "unprecedented".The pertinent question is are his statements true.I am fairly sure they are not.

Chang Noi has totally lost the plot here.

Chang Noi is just being naive.

In your predictable opinion.When I see a perceptive analysis being rejected in toto, I'm reminded of Talleyrand's comment on the restored House of Bourbon.They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.So Chang Noi now joins the ranks of the BBC, Jonathan Head, Financial Times, Guardian, New York Times, New Mandala, Human Rights Watch etc who are ignorant, naive, tainted or bought off by Thaksin's PR people (ignoring the fact that Chris/Pasuk are probably the world's leading authorities on contemporary Thai politics).

You're not really left with many authorities are you -Crispin on a good day notwithstanding his tendency to present rumour, often from his innumerable mysterious "sources", as fact.Well I suppose you have that Pattaya ladyboy guru, Andrew Drummond.Perhaps you could enlist Stickman or Bernard Trink.That plebeian weirdo Hastings who "edits" (ha ha) the Big Chilli might back you up.

Honestly (and the two paras above are meant facetiously) surely Chang Noi puts down some sensible pointers on the way ahead.The trouble is I fear is that those of your way of thinking see the conflict as a zero sum game.It's not.....and where are the Bourbons now?

Opinion CHANG NOI

The rage before the rampage

Published on April 20, 2009 (The Nation)

IN THE RED RALLY from April 8 at Government House to the blockade of Victory Monument, we heard a passion and venting of rage that rarely rises above the surface. By breaking taboos, by naming names, Thaksin smashed other mental shackles (how easy it was). Of course, some protesters parroted the talk of "real democracy" from Thaksin and other leaders. But in interviews, vox pops and video clips, people repeatedly talked about unfairness, injustice, privilege, double standards and a sense of utter frustration. This was a moment of terrible clarity. Such thoughts acquire new meaning when they are spoken out aloud and shared.

The rampage that followed was both appalling and pathetic. From the moment it became clear that a scrappy, nasty and obviously ill-fated attempt to provoke urban disorder was underway, the red crowd began to melt away. The planned rallies at provincial halls drew a fraction of the numbers there a few days earlier. The crowd at Government House thinned to a few thousand by the time of the surrender.

PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE

But who comprised this crowd at its height? We have to guess from the faces and other facts. They seemed mostly in the age range of 25-45; mainly male (perhaps 3-to-1); more Thai than Chinese in features; jeans and sneakers as standard dress.

On April 8, the crowd swelled to 100,000, then dropped to 25,000 overnight, before rebuilding on the following day, suggesting most had a home nearby. Many had vehicles - taxis, motorcycles, songtaew trucks.

The best guess is that the core members were migrants who had moved to the capital to work in easy-entry occupations like hired motorcycle or taxi driver, vendor, construction worker and other casual labour.

The rage is not difficult to understand. The motorcycle driver lives his working life in the exhaust fumes of air-conditioned saloons. He is constantly harassed by the corrupt police, while watching the Benz owners break the law with impunity. He is only in Bangkok because farming has declined over a generation of persistent government neglect while public funds were poured into the highways that wreathe Bangkok.

One surprise in the red rhetoric was the appearance of amathiyathipatai. Forty years ago, the word was invented to translate "bureaucratic polity", a term used by an American scholar to label Thailand's military dictatorship. It had been confined to the world of academia, and almost forgotten.

But someone unearthed it to mock the military-backed Democrat government as a throwback to the distant past. Thaksin picked it up. Red orators repeated it. By April 8 it was emblazoned on the backdrop of the Government House stage, pared down to "amat", preceded by a single ringing call, "Overthrow!"

Of course, almost none of the audience could parse the word's Sanskrit-Pali roots, or know its obscure academic history. But clearly they responded to its feel. Amat joins a list of terms (patronage system, privilege, double standard) that grope to convey the gut feeling of being victim of multiple injustices.

Thaksin's populism was not only about what he gave to people (cheap healthcare, micro loans) but also how he gave it. His personal style was hot, active, open. He made people feel they had some power. He made them sense they had a leader they could own. He gave them an inkling that their vote could matter, and a hope that it could be a tool to gain a lot more.

REDRESSING WRONGS

The trashing of democracy over the past two-and-a-half years has blasted those hopes. The coup not only removed Thaksin, but also announced a U-turn in leadership style. In person, General Surayuth can be warm and amiable. As prime minister, he chose to play the ultimate bureaucrat - body closely controlled, face devoid of expression, eyes drained of emotion, coolant in the veins.

Abhisit, of course, is almost frenetic in comparison. But his carefully controlled speech, aloof manner and failure to look through the camera into the eyes of his audience still give him a bureaucratic aura. He reminds us that the Democrats are famous for telling people not to protest but wait in their villages until the benevolent government has time left over from the arduous task of saving the country to attend to them.

Many are now clamouring for Abhisit to reach beyond his faithful fans. Perhaps it's better to look at the situation from the bottom up.

Over the last three years, Thailand has developed two socio-political movements, red and yellow. They represent different parts of the population, and have contrasting ideas about change. Up to now they have been fighting on the streets with buses, golf clubs and cooking gas tankers, holding the national economy hostage. Parliamentary democracy was developed so that such conflict between people and ideas may be resolved under peaceful conditions.

Here, it has not been allowed to perform this function - for many reasons. "Money politics" gets in the way. Some people want to believe there is no conflict. Some with a Cold War mentality and training in manipulation cannot resist playing puppet masters in the background (Panlop is a great example). Many are just scared they will lose.

This is a delicate and desperate moment. If the red and yellow movements can be translated into parliamentary politics, they could begin to drive out money politics. If they cannot, the prospects are dire. Building a Great Wall around Bangkok won't work. The Trojan Horse is already inside.

Embrace the proposal to return to the 1997 constitution with some fixes for its few well-known failings. Amnesty the 220 banned politicians. Don't try to stifle the red voice; listening is better. Punish the yellow on par with the red or others will do it for you. Stop worrying about the Nicaraguan special ambassador. Bring back a properly elected parliament and government as soon as possible. Accept the result and let the system work. Never again give the puppet players the support they don't deserve.

Don't use the rampage as an excuse for ignoring the rage.

It is interesting that the BBC had Alistair(?) somebody doing the red riot reporting on the ground while Head occasionally made some comment nowhere near events. Wonder if Head is on a down or they are shiftinghim up. Head is obviously one that used Jakrapobs statements as fact. He is also obvioulsy fits the group the group Crispin/Connors is having a go at. The world media suddenly seems to be a little more critical of the Thaksin meme empire and when Jakrpob sent the "all local media is BS" SMS to international reporters just before he skippedaway I wonder if he was thinking about how the Thai and International Media all semed tobe on the same wavelength of out of control red riots and a country needing to bring chaos under order and nobody believing the red reports of mega death.

Interesting to watch meme creaotrsand then watch them fall as they grow overconfident. In propoganda it is always a good idea to keep refreshing the team By relying for too long on Jakrapob Thaksin built in his own propoganda defeat thorugh overconfidence and accepting advicethat he could spin win ever bigger events which of course was to forget the cardinal rule of never let the neutrals actually see what you are doing. Now anything he or his supporters say will be suspect.

Alistair Leithead is the name, formerly with the BBC in Afghanistan for several years.He did an interesting face to face interview with Abhisit a couple of days ago, contradicting Crispin who stated he was holed away in a secret location and only doing interviews by telephone.

Jonathan Head's reporting from Bangkok has been magnificent, and the abuse he has received on this forum is frankly contemptible.He has shown considerable courage in the face of trumped up lese majeste charges.I doubt whether many of the anonymous foreigners on this forum has the slightest idea how Jonathan obtains his background or mixes with the ease Jonathan does in political circles.Your comment on the Head/Jakrapop relationship is just your personal hypothesis, and I suggest to you it is untrue.If you have any facts to support them let's see them.There is no Crispin/Connors school of opinion.If you bothered to read them properly you would see they have completely different perspectives.

Seems like you (and possibly the banned Younghusband) are the only ones who might call Head's reporting "magnificent". The general consensus on this and other forums is that it is atrociously biased and lacks breadth & depth in his analysis. Alastair Leithead, by comparison, was at least able to get down to street level and wander into the battlezone for material, something Head seems incapable of doing. The way that Head introduced Jak at that infamous FCCT interview he gave, suggests to me that they were intimate buddies.

Head's even got quite a fanclub in the Postbox of BP today it seems, which is quite an achievement for someone who's been in Thailand for as long as that.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...-the-truth-lies

Plachon

Thanks for the BP reference, and I agree that Somluck there makes a fair point.Overall I do agree JH has a mixed reputation among expats though not so much among Thais.I jumped to his defence because I think the criticsm he's pro-Thaksin is misfounded.It's true that he's highlighted divisions in Thai society, and personally I think he's right to do so.I think he's reported with intelligence but perhaps he was asking for trouble by taking a "view".Your point on Alistair Leithead is a good one, ie getting into the thick of things.JH is more analytical tyoe of correspondent.

It is interesting that the BBC had Alistair(?) somebody doing the red riot reporting on the ground while Head occasionally made some comment nowhere near events. Wonder if Head is on a down or they are shiftinghim up. Head is obviously one that used Jakrapobs statements as fact. He is also obvioulsy fits the group the group Crispin/Connors is having a go at. The world media suddenly seems to be a little more critical of the Thaksin meme empire and when Jakrpob sent the "all local media is BS" SMS to international reporters just before he skippedaway I wonder if he was thinking about how the Thai and International Media all semed tobe on the same wavelength of out of control red riots and a country needing to bring chaos under order and nobody believing the red reports of mega death.

Interesting to watch meme creaotrsand then watch them fall as they grow overconfident. In propoganda it is always a good idea to keep refreshing the team By relying for too long on Jakrapob Thaksin built in his own propoganda defeat thorugh overconfidence and accepting advicethat he could spin win ever bigger events which of course was to forget the cardinal rule of never let the neutrals actually see what you are doing. Now anything he or his supporters say will be suspect.

Alistair Leithead is the name, formerly with the BBC in Afghanistan for several years.He did an interesting face to face interview with Abhisit a couple of days ago, contradicting Crispin who stated he was holed away in a secret location and only doing interviews by telephone.

Jonathan Head's reporting from Bangkok has been magnificent, and the abuse he has received on this forum is frankly contemptible.He has shown considerable courage in the face of trumped up lese majeste charges.I doubt whether many of the anonymous foreigners on this forum has the slightest idea how Jonathan obtains his background or mixes with the ease Jonathan does in political circles.Your comment on the Head/Jakrapop relationship is just your personal hypothesis, and I suggest to you it is untrue.If you have any facts to support them let's see them.There is no Crispin/Connors school of opinion.If you bothered to read them properly you would see they have completely different perspectives.