jayboy

The obvious solution is a joint listing and this is the policy Abhisit is pursuing.Obviously he needs to be careful in what he says because there are a bunch of crazies out there who unfortunately form part of his constituency.

Sorry you are wrong. This was what proxy-Thaksin government did (through the half-witt Nopadon). PAD & Mark was heavily against it.

Not according to this morning's Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1864...eah-vihear-push

Money quote:

"I would like to see peace in the area and people from both sides benefit from a joint listing of this site," Mr Abhisit said.

Thailand remains firm that joint listing of the temple is the best solution."

The problem was and is mindless nationalism (in Thailand's case stirred up by opportunistic politicians) of two neighbouring countries who should be co-operating not fighting over an important piece of joint cultural interest.

For an umpteenth time - the problem with the listing appeared a full year before PAD brought the issue to the public eye and it had nothing to do with nationalism or border demarcation.

The co-operation ended when Cambodia declared that heritage on Thai side of the border is not worth preserving. That's a fact, and then there are their ridiculous claims that the temple originally belonged to people living under the cliff.

I haven't seen anyone on this board who agrees with their opinion, btw, and Thailand has all the rights to raise a stink at the Unesco over this mistreatement of history, too.

It's probably useless to elaborate but quasi fascist movements often seize on marginal issues but with nationalist connotations which can be exploited for political purposes.Only the most blinkered zealots would deny PAD did this over Preah Vihar, but fortunately we have moved on since then.It's irrelevant frankly that the problem with the listing appeared before the PAD "pointed it out".I'm not incidentally denying the Cambodian arguments on this issue are more than a little crazed.Does Thailand want to be compared to those wanke_rs?

One is reminded of Borges comment on the Falk;lands conflict about two bald menm fighting over a comb.

The obvious solution is a joint listing and this is the policy Abhisit is pursuing.Obviously he needs to be careful in what he says because there are a bunch of crazies out there who unfortunately form part of his constituency.

From the discussion I read above, the temple is in Cambodia. Case close.

Maybe it's time to open the brains and unleash all that dormant power.

According to Unesco rules a whole site should have been listed, not the temple only.

And the listing undeniably caused several armed confrontations and fatalities.

Time for Unesco to own it up, too.

Your logic is flawed.The listing caused nothing of the sort.The problem was and is mindless nationalism (in Thailand's case stirred up by opportunistic politicians) of two neighbouring countries who should be co-operating not fighting over an important piece of joint cultural interest.Tod-daniels has it absolutely right and your contributions on this subject taken as a whole seem slightly deranged i'm afraid.Your attack on UNESCO is just weird.

We know that Cambodia under Hun Sen is an immature government and hair trigger in its reactions.Thailand should be setting an example in this matter.Sumet Jumsai has pointed out the facts and to be fair Abhisit and Kasit are doing their best to sort the matter out sensibly.

And will you please let go of Orwell? He imagined life in 1984, and that was twenty five years ago. Big Brother has got a lot more sophisticated than that, he has read the prophecy and adjusted.

And will you please stop quoting Churchil either - "democracy is the worst system...." Time to move on already, the world has changed dramatically.

I have never quoted Churchill's comment on democracy, not because it isn't pertinent (it is) but because it's such a tired cliche.

If you think Orwell is somehow irrelevant to the modern world you either haven't understood him or haven't read him.How one longs for that crystal spirit to comment on the horrors and absurdities of the age we live in.

How big a trauma you are talking about?

Say ten million purged? Or would one million be enough? Where do you proposed to build re-education camps for them?

Trauma's the wrong word I agree, but a big shake up needed certainly.

No purges, no re-education camps, no violence.

But I'm guessing a sudden convulsion won't happen.Real question is how smart the elite will be because with savvy it could retain most of its wealth and influence.

We can learn from other countries experiences.History has two main lessons:

1.Everything will be changed beyond recognition

2.Everything will in essence stay the same

Whatever happens there will never be a monolithic authoritarian Thailand.Rather like Orwell's observation that Britain could never be fascist because the population would laugh at the jackboot marching style.Deeep down most Thais are profoundly sane and well balanced.

So you need a revolution, even a simple coup won't be enough.

And that was precisely my point - the price for the possibility of bringing Thaksin back will be nothing short of civil war, and Khmer Rouge/Great Leap Forward like purges to clean the country of "elites" and their influence.

Thaksin Smaksin, as they say in Yiddish.Ain't you sick of him.Maybe he should do a deal (as Thitinan recommended the other day) and remain in permanent exile in exchange for say one third of his assets.Each day that passes marginalises him further.

But, quite apart from Thaksin, a cleansing trauma may still be just what's needed in Thailand.A very elite Thai suggested this to me very recently.Not a murderous one like the Chinese or Cambodian ones you mention but a giant shake up.The challenge for the elite is still how to manage its inevitable decline (from a position of overwhelming power but still of course highly influential).

Brian McCartan comments in Asia Times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KF10Ae01.html

I am no admirer of the Thai military but McCartan's "possible motive" (see extract below) strikes me as somewhat paranoid.

"To be sure, the killing of Muslims by insurgents is not new, where those suspected of serving as informants or working in cahoots with the government are known to have been targeted. But certain analysts suggest that the shooting of devotees while at prayer in a mosque would be unusual to the insurgency's established tactics.

One possible motive could be Abhisit's continued pressure on the army to bring security operations under civilian control, repeal martial law and push for reconciliation and justice in the region. The Bangkok Post reported this week that army commander General Anupong Paochinda said any replacement of martial law with a new security law for the southernmost provinces should be carefully considered. Anupong inspected the scene of the mosque massacre on Tuesday and was scheduled to hold meetings with security officials.

Although Anupong said that current allotments for security in the region were sufficient, there is rising criticism that some military officials might prefer that the conflict escalate to justify sustained budgets and big-ticket equipment purchases. Procurement plans for new hardware were put on hold this month after the military's budget for 2010 was cut by about 10 billion baht (US$291.8 million) due to shortfalls in government tax revenues."

Sae Daeng has no post commanding any significant amount of troops, and no influence whatsoever in Army Region 4.

just saying that the argument used against it in this case was severely flawed.)

<< flame snipped>>

Please do not flame, particularly in this interesting discussion.

Personally (and again placing emphasis on history and context) I would have thought the likelihood of Sae Daeng's involvement is highly improbable -completely out of his theatre of operations.

The Straits Times' initial take, bringing out a couple of additional points unmentioned -needless to say- in local English language press reports.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNew...ory_388288.html

You can try to invite William Heinecke for a pizza

US born national, Thai citizen since 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Heinecke

Bill's Wiki entry is a long standing joke among the cognoscenti (because of its over the top self promotion), and even Wiki headlines it as subjective without much real information.He's an interesting guy however - like most genuine entrepreneurs highly intelligent but without much if any formal education beyond high school (ISB?).By far away the most successful foreign businessman here who made the right alliances and understands how the system works.He nearly went under in the Asian crisis but is now stronger than ever.One big misaprehension is that he succeeded by bringing in Western management techniques - only partly true whatever he says in that ghost written book of his.Most observers (and I'm quoting a very high level source) believe he succeeded by playing the traditional self centred Sino-Thai business game.

Sure, it could also easily be militia, army, "mafia", or insurgents. As said, the situation is very unclear and it seems to me that for some members to assume its the army and to reject other equally plausible options is, well, quite a simplistic view of things in the South.

But very few members have assumed the army is responsible.Far more have jumped the gun and assumed responsibility lies with Muslim insurgents.Though as previously noted all is speculation at this stage -to a lesser or greater extent informed-, my feeling is that miltias/vigilantes are the most likely perpetrators but I could of course be completely wrong.But my point now is these are not "equally plausible" options because there is a fair amount of history and context available.... and to suggest that they are equally plausible is, well....simplistic.

Also a highly likely scenario, I was merely refuting the idea that it had to be a secret death squad since Muslims were not killing other Muslims in the South. The fact is, Muslims are killing Muslims in the South.

At the moment all this is the realm of speculation.With that caveat, while you are right that there have been many incidents of Muslims killing fellow Muslims, this latest incident involving a group of men opening fire on worshippers in a mosque bears all the hallmarks of security forces involvement or in my opinion more likely, a Buddhist vigilante group.

Thaksin's legacy also includes keeping his provinces two-three times poorer than provinces run by opposition party.

What a silly comment.You might as well say Mahathir's legacy was "keeping" the bumi Malays two-three times poorer than the Malay Chinese -i.e ignoring the fact he transformed the bumis' prospects.

Provinces in NE and North didn't belong to Thaksin.He and TRT earned their loyalty.These were of course the poorer provinces long neglected by the ruling elite, but to be fair they had many disadvantages relating to climate and geography not to mention history.I'm not for a moment suggesting wickedness or prejudice , just benign neglect.While the gap remains there has been substantial improvement.How much was attributable to "populist" policies is for debate.These populist policies of course continue under the current government although on a scale much greater than under the TRT and its successors.Thaksin, now completely marginalised, but is responsible for the reality ( and for whatever motivation ) that the traditional neglect of the poorer parts of the Kingdom is now unthinkable.

Isanese porverty is a bed of their own making.

I don't want to speculate why they keep electing same guys over and over again. Reasons are too many and none to pleasing to their self-esteem.

A little while ago after I had described the so called New Politics as partly just whining about the peasantry, I reflected I was being too harsh.Obviously (see above) I wasn't.

Incidentally (shock horror) I see the dreaded Dow Jones turns out to be a significant shareholder in our forum's esteemed partner, The Nation

Many of those wanting to live in Thailand because they like it here might appear to the Immigration officials as not the sort of person Thailand needs and seek more information about the persons financial status etc.

For those applicants like retirees who are worth more than a 100 tourists each I think that they usually have no problems and I feel that Immigration officials appreciate their worth to the country.

Complete misconception although the first sentence is true enough.Anyone who seriously thinks retirees - mostly far from wealthy- are more welcome than tourists in Thailand needs their head examined.

... unfriendly officers who are blatantly showing disrespect to applicants and not friendly aware / trained.

The flaw in the OP's logic is quoted above. I don't know how long you've been here, but you still don't "get it."

If you're a government officer dealing with a farang, you are the master and they are the peon. It's the culture. Get used to it.

At last, the simple truth.

Perhaps I would just add that an experienced Thai bureaucrat can sum up at a glance where a supplicant foreigner stands in the pecking order - usually nowhere at all.If he can place you in some kind of hierachical context that's relevant to him (for example if you are a diplomat or a wealthy businessman, or accompanied by high status Thai friends) you will be treated very well.

If you are a relatively poor expatriate without a work permit or obvious reason for being here (even if neatly dressed and polite) or with (in the bureaucrat's perception) a low status partner, you will probably be treared in an off hand way.

Suggestion: Grin and bear it.Immigration couldn't give a flying puck about some round robin letter of complaint.

Oh, and why would anyone go to Wall Street Journal to get a proper assessement of a nascent socialist party?

>>

One thing caught my eye in that article - the cliche about red areas of the country being underdeveloped at the expense of Bangkok and urban centers.

Chang Noi recently re-compiled these statistics from a bit different angle. He found that not only Bangkok, but ALL areas where people traditionally vote for Democrats have two-three times higher incomes than areas voting for NAP/TRT/PTP.

Given that Democrats had been in power for only 25% of the time in the past two decades, and during the crisis, it's difficult to blame them for distorting national policies to favour their strongholds.

Reds have beed screwed up by their own leaders, not by elites, not by the military, not by Democrats.

The Wall Street Post is a serious newspaper which covers many subjects in authoritative detail.Well at least it's not being accused of being in the pay of Thaksin or being "groomed" by Howard Moon, or the usual crazy paranoid rubbish.

>>

You have not grasped (or rather have pretended not to grasp) the thrust of Chang Noi's article.Money quote:

"Of course, you can look at these findings in many ways. A cynic might say that the PPP wins in the poorer provinces because it is cheaper to buy the votes there. Someone more idealistic might imagine that the poorer provinces voted PPP because the people there thought a PPP-led government would give them more help than a Democrat-led one."

Many countries have regional divides - Italy, UK.China to name just a few.TRT turned its attention to Thailand's poor North East which has long been the deprived part of the country.Progress was made under Thaksin (how much is for discussion) and we know the outcome.Reds have never been in power but the cliche you mention is nothing but the truth.That's the odd thing about cliches.I assume you are not serious in the gobblededook logic which appears to blame the reds for the NE's underdevelopment.Of course there has been an ugly unfairness in allocation of resources over many years, but I wouldn't blame the Democrats or other ruling parties.It's a regional problem, as noted earlier, that's hardly unique to Thailand.Now, given events over the last few years, all politicians recognise that benign or not so benign neglect of the poorer regions is at an end.One key point is that NE is no longer a monolithic impoversished block since its industry, people and culture are mixed into the mainstream in a way that would have been unthinkable even thirty years ago.

One point I do agree is that Thailand is about to start a fresh course, not your quasi-fascist new politics (leaving the fuzzy and largely meaningless justifying rhetoric to one side) based on fear, class hatred and privilege but something very different.I think the speed of events may surprise some.As de Toqueville noted, radical change happens not at the lowest point but when things are getting better.Big question is whether the elite can manage change (as their equivalents have often done so in other countries) or be swamped by it.

I don't know anyone who wants to change the present system but the PAD.

Reds don't want any changes, apart from no oversight from "bureaucratic polity".

PTP don't want any changes either, just less control from independent bodies.

New politics idea is to tap into any nascent desire to participate that is there and give it proper channels and legitimacy circumventing "robber baron-feudal client relationship" that has subverted the hollowed OMOV principle.

There's nothing new about PAD just the old old refrain of hatred of politicians and whining about the stupidity of peasants.

You're dreaming if you believe there isn't a passionate desire for change among most Thais.Call them Reds if you like.

Here's a recent summary of why.

Link removed

The court said that the militiary was acting according to rules and regulations. It's unclear if they were legally immune from any prosecution while performing their duties but chances are they were.

Why is this ruling bad and must be Thaksin is exonerated because he was so popular at the time is beyond me.

Questions like why the only person ever to sincerely apologise for Tak Bai was the evil string pulling general and not a single politician is beyond "renowed" scholar's scope of mental masturbation.

Pravit in his recent Nation opinion acknowledged that essentially some people think that military is worse than Thaksin, and some people think that Thaksin is worse than the military. It will take several evolution cycles for the renowed scholar to realise existence of that other opinion.

There's nothing worse than suffering inflicted by listening to half-baked gurus publicly exposing their ignorance.

Very Kafkaesque.We're not allowed to discuss the substance of the subject.We froth and foam backwards and forwards notwithstanding.You call internationally respected Thai scholars "half baked gurus".My view is that the academic experts don't always get it right and half the attraction of this forum is seeing how local knowledge can provide distinctive insights.In an ordered world this could be an interesting debate.

The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.

More than a few times, a high gov't official leaves his post - right as the sh!t starts hitting the fan. Later, if it's shown he/she did wrong on the job, that person can simply say, "that was then, now is now. I no longer hold that position, so there can be no grounds for prosecution. Same happened when TRT was being dissolved, and wrongdoers were saying essentially the same; "I'm no longer a TRT member, so I cannot be prosecuted for what might have happened back then." It works in Thailand.

If it's proven that former Secretary-General Visit Tantisunthorn did illegal things, he should be prosecuted and suffer the legal consequences of his actions. Excuses and saying 'sorry' doesn't cut the mustard. He's not a 4 year old kid who can get away with stealing a cookie. He's a grown-up who knows the rules.

On this I agree. Visit is the former regional head of investment for a major MNC and has sat on the boards of several listed companies in Thailand. There is no question that he knows the rules, which is why I am a bit surprised at these allegations. Time will tell how it plays out.

It's not really clear to me what Visit is meant to have done wrong.Press reports suggest that GPF management had delegated authority to acquire shares up to Bt 200 million without reference to Board (unauthorised investment was one accusation).If funds under management underperformed that almost certainly reflects SET underperformance.There is some suggestion of trading on own account but accusations are very vague and unsubstantiated.My guess -and it's just that -is that GPF may have been too ambitious even reckless in investing in high risk instruments as opposed to safe government and corporate fixed interest securities given its responsibilities to government retirees.Now that would be a dismissable offence but it's incompetence not corruption.

A read of Pleum's Bkk Post piece last week on the more communistic nature of the PAD policies is interesting (especially considering who wrote it!). A look at the history of say Somsak and a quick decko at the line up of some of their people reveals a lot of ex-CPT support, some would argue far more than the red shirts have. It is imho too simplistic to analyse it as a European style facist movement (a very surface analysis) when there are quite abviously some other agendas floating around which may not be as acceptable on the surface as the more traditional ones. Facism or what we label as facism is a lot more acceptable in Thailand where every party without exception is right wing than even quite mild leftish politcal ideas.

The deabtes among the Thai left over red and yellow are quite interesting especially the more open minded ones.

Anyway recommend Pleum's analysis (he spoke for and gave backing the red shirts by the way for those not aware). I dont have a link. Does anyone?

Edited to add link: http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...cs-of-socialism

Yes, the PAD is far less nationalistic - the most basic attribute of fascism - than the TRT/redshirts. In fact the alliance is made up of more than a hundred NGOs, many led by Thais who have dedicated their entire careers to humanitarian issues in Thailand, as well as every major trade union in the country. They are supported by some of our major academics as well, eg Dr Prawase.

The whole royalist association is blown out of proportion, that's just part of the PR although there may or may not support from the monarchy (as would be their prerogative throughout history), something about which it isn't appropriate to conjecture on this forum or anywhere else in Thailand, publicly.

As for Chang Noi: just another western democracy fetishist. The PAD believe, and I agree with them, that majoritarian democracy won't work in the context of Thai society with its deeprooted patronage system and prevalent corruption in business and politics. The idea is to try and elect representation from all sectors of society, from workers, farmers, students, academics, professionals and so on, in the upper house,but leave the lower house elected at large. Many countries have similar approaches to the national legislature, including Belgium and Jordan. Such a bicameral assembly is considered especially effective in societies where there are deep divisions, as in Belgium between the French and the Flemish, in Jordan between rural and urban Muslims, and perhaps in Thailand as well with the split between the North/Northeast and the Bangkok/Central/South regions.

Even critics of the PAD should admit it's much better seeing them enter party politics than taking over airports

Several points here

1.Sheer nonsense to state the PAD isn't uber nationalistic.The trumped up nonsense over Preah Vihar was straight out of the fascist game book.

2.The PAD is an uber royalist movement, part of its pumped up nationalism. I have no idea by the way of what your "prerogative throughout history" comment means.

3.Chang Noi.You don't seem to have understood his position at all.Have you actually read many of his articles?

4.Your comment "western democracy fetishist" gives the game away.Your justification for fettered representation is a series of non sequiturs.Why on earth for example does deep seated corruption mean that democracy should be limited?I would have thought the argument ran the other way.

5.Your Flemish and Jordanian examples are strange.Many countries have minorities or structural differences but don't feel the need to strangle democratic rights.Do you know what bicameral means? Nobody has objections to bicameral representation. or even a partly nominated one (though fully elected is better as Abhisit has stressed).

Actually there is nothing new about PAD's political ideas.Perhaps a more suitable name would be Karn Muang Bolan.

One of the great lessons of history is that evil movements (I think it's fair to describe PAD's leadership in that way) often at the outset say exactly what they mean.Later they backtrack in the face of poltical realities and as they join the mainstream (if only to subvert it later).Think for example of Mein Kampf: a common reaction at the time was that Hitler didn't really mean that fascist stuff to be taken seriously.But he did... every word and when he had a chance he put it into practice.The graves of millions bear witness.

Now of course these PAD jokers are not in the same Premier League of wickedness.However one can see that the more outlandish elements of the so called new politics are now being downplayed.Even the PAD zealots on this forum are now very quiet.And let's face it unless one has one's head buried in the sand it's common knowledge that the movement has splintered and (I'm tiptoeing through the tulips now) lost some key elements of elite support.Nevertheless a disgusting political phenonomen like the PAD should not be underestimated (and I'm not talking about the decent if naive middle class people who gave support in reaction to the Thaksin outrages).Some wit said recently that PAD had no supporters these days other than urban Chinese ladies of a certain age.Well I don't know about that but don't forget there is an unpleasant undercurrent to this movement and all democrats should be passionately opposed to it.

As so often Chang Noi makes the case eloquently.

http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/padmeaning.htm

I'm talking about last two coups.

When Prem retired and politicians took over, they discredited themselves in just a couple of years. When Suchinda overthrowed Chatichai "buffet" govt in 1991 no one shed a tear (the protests started only when Suchinda tried to cling to power).

2006 coup has been discussed to death. Thaksin and TRT screwed up the country so badly that the public generally welcomed the coup.

Junta installed Surayud and he was the first ever Thai leader to sincerely apologise for Tak Bai.

When democratic government returned after 2007 elections the PM went on TV saying the religious zealots were themselves to blame, they died because they were observing Ramadan.

My point is that politicians are in no position to lecture the military on anything, let alone on Tak Bai.

But the reality politicians are not lecturing the military on Tak Bai or its other crimes in the South.It's just been swept under the carpet despite Abhisit's early comments that he would not hesitate to tackle the military's crimes.Draw your own conclusions.

Corrupt politicians can always be chucked out in a democracy.Military gangsters can't as we can see in Burma for example.Don't tell me the junta and its puppet government genuinely wished to loose the the reigns of power.They had no choice given the Thai public's hatred of their incompetence and indolence.As we know however they found other ways to continue military influence -which to use your phrase have already been discussed to death.

Thaksin was a disgrace and his remarks on Tak Bai were disgraceful.We can all agree on that.I have already acknowledged Surayud's decent apology although as noted it was never followed up with action against the military criminals involved.

Briefly on your TRT comment, despite your assumption it was axiomatic there is very dubious evidence that the public generally welcomed the coup.Don't bother to quote some half baked ABAC poll.If there was any positive reaction it was mainly because the political log jam was broken.The sheer stupidity and incompetence of the junta soon turned the nation against them despite.And yes economic management was infinitely better under Thaksin than the junta's appointees.

There are far wider structural questions to be addressed that led to both deadly events. The police, the military and the bureaucracy's role in each are crucial to understanding how they were allowed to occur.

If only political structures had any credibility to "clean up" the military.

The reality was that the military had to clean up politics.

What have you been smoking? The Thai army, notorious for its brutality and corruption, has dominated and participated in politics since the 1930's.