jayboy

Had to laugh when I read elsewhere today that Jatuporn Prompan claims that Chavalit has more democratic values than Prem, even though Chavalit has stated in the past he supports and wants to see a coup against the current government. With Jatuporn, if a coup benefits him and his group, it's called democracy, if it benefits another, it's called dictatorship. Jatuporn certainly helps his cause.

What one apparently just talks about, the other has actually masterminded.Jatuporn's point holds.

Personally, I think higher education is generally over-rated. I've rubbed shoulders with all sorts of folks, .....from dirt farming Akha to cum laude graduates from prestigious universities. There are some differences, to be sure, but intelligence and/or the enhancement of skills is not necessarily augmented by top-ranked university education.

Some of the biggest swindlers/connivers of the Wall Street melt-down of '08 were hot shot U graduates.

U education can be useful, but folks in their late teens through mid-twenties - what are they most dwelling upon? You guessed it; getting laid, partying, and rock & roll.

What a muddled post.To take just a few points.Nothing in this thread is about intelligence.If you said higher education is not for everyone you would have a reasonable point, particularly in the developed world where some end up in higher education when they would be more suited to a trade apprentice scheme (German style).In Thailand it's not really relevant..But you didn't.You said higher education is generally over-rated which is a statement almost totally devoid of meaning.To cap it all, your inane comment on Wall Street hotshots is really beyond words.Why dont you talk about Nobel science laureates where with almost without exception each is a ht shot U graduate, to use your rather revealing phrase.

Let me take a wild guess.You didn't graduate from a top rank university.

One sounds pretty 'jump and then rebound', come what may,

the other measured and considered in words and deeds.

I know which I prefer in a leader or elder statesman.

Who knows what Chavalit's motivation might be?

However on the subject of acts of betrayal against the country, I am not sure Jiew has offended - though plenty of foolishness in his past to be sure.

But as to the leader/elder statesman you refer to, the historians of the future will in my view not judge him kindly.In the current hothouse of Thai politics it's impossible for a cool calm take on his actions.

Being surrounded by slums never hurt the Univ. of Chicago.

or Yale, which is an island of beauty imbedded in New Haven, not exactly a slum perhaps but distinctly dodgy from a British and I would imagine an American eye.

depth of the government's unpopularity

I remember in Si Sa Ket elections Newin candidate lost but still managed to get about a third of the vote. That's quite a lot, about the same as Dems got in the national tally on party list.

Imo, more appropriate would be saying that Abhisit hassles show that reconciliation with extreme elements is impossible and they need to be further isolated from the mainstream society.

On red radio they are engaged in absolutely brutal, uncivilized campaign against him, calling him all kinds of names and referring to him not as a person but as "it". No wonder folks who listen to this trash behave like they do.

But again, it doesn't reflect Abhisit's perception among non-radical groups.

I agree there's an unpleasant extreme but it's just one end of the spectrum, just as nutty right wing radio jocks don't really represent the Republicans in the US.Have the attacks on Abhisit been more vitriolic than those on Obama by extremists in the US I wonder? The current Thai government is genuinely unpopular among the mainstream in the NE and much of the North.You can blame this on agitators if you like but is that really convincing? My guess is that the ham fisted and expensive government PR campaign has been counter productive.It rests on the assumption that ordinary Thais are gullible and ignorant fools whose duty is to be deferential.And with all those with eyes to see and the wit to understand, that assumption just ain't true.

Reporters searching for ANY story.

Pheu Thai looking for any reason to hassle Abhisit.

Non-story.

It's not much of a story I agree.

A more important and less reported story is the depth of the government's unpopularity in many parts of the North East.Abhisit's irregular visits there are necessary (there can be no no-go areas for a PM) but a PR nightmare for the administration.That's why we always hear slightly dubious spin about grateful grandmothers or outright fibs about Abhisit adoring fans in the NE, when the reality is that he and his unsavoury path to power are detested. The reactionaries and the gullible believe or pretend to believe it's all orchestrated by Thaksin and the PTP.The reality is that disenchantment is widespread.

It's time to make something clear to some of the forum warriors on here.

Your comments aimed at trying to belittle and bash ALL of Thailand's educational institutes, regardless of the fact you obviously don't have any experience in ALL of Thailand's educational institutes, and perhaps none of them at all, are extremely insulting to people who work hard in the system here. Nobody denies that there are many substandard unis, schools, colleges etc.. in Thailand. But, some of you "forum experts" simply can not accept that there are actually some very good unis, schools, lecturers, teachers, programs and students working very hard here, bringing a HIGH quality of education to Thailand. Your negative, IGNORANT comments are truly insulting to all of these people and you should all be ashamed of yourselves that all you can do is moan and bash online. Although, they do say that ignorance is bliss.......

I'm sorry but the reality is that whether judged by regional or international standards, Thailand does not have any "very good" universities.There are a number of perfectly acceptable universities here and perhaps three which could be labelled "quite good".In this Thailand does not differ from Vietnam, Indonesia or Malaysia incidentally.

If one looks at the position nation wide the position is distinctly substandard.

One slightly catty anecdote.A Thai friend who was educated at a major English public school and then at Cambridge told me in all seriousness that he thought the academic standards of 13 year olds at his (admittedly high powered ) English school were somewhat higher than those of Chula students where he briefly taught.In terms of diligence , application and love of learning the English schoolboys were streets ahead.Why this should be so I'm not sure because both groups would be relatively well off/upper middle class.I think it's also fair to say that the English public school involved (Winchester) has a large number of precociously intelligent pupils.Still a bit mystifying none the less.

Big story of the month: rhe Nobel Peace Prize. Have we learned some things about peace?

Possibly though I doubt it. We haven't yet learned however what the position of pacifists might be in taking up arms against intolerable evil, for example Nazi Germany.

The New York Times reports that Bill Clinton was infuriated by the award.By some means the paper obtained a transcript of his subsequent conversation with George Bush Junior on the subject.Read and enjoy.

October 11, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist

Gandhi Wuz Robbed

By MAUREEN DOWD When he heard the Nobel Peace Prize shocker on Friday, Bill Clinton went into one of his purple rages. He picked up the phone and dialed the one person on earth who would be as steamed as he was.

CLINTON: Hey, man, it's me. This thing is plumb crazy. Can you believe it?

W: No way, Jose!

CLINTON: First that prig Carter. Then that prig Gore. And now President Paris Hilton. The guy's in office three days and he gets the peace prize? He should have gotten the Nobel in chemistry, because chemistry's all he's got. Talk about a fairy tale. This ... is ... just ... wrong! It's killing me, man. I feel like my head's explodin'. First I had the vast right-wing conspiracy, and now I have the vast left-wing conspiracy.

W.: I hear ya, 42. As if his head wasn't big enough. This cat is all cage, no bird. He doesn't have a clue.

CLINTON: Heck no.

W.: See, I'm the one who should be mad. Let me tell you, this Norwegia thing has nothing to do with him. It's just another way for the pinkos of the world to drop a cow patty on my legacy. All that garbage in the prize statement about how special La Bamba is for bringing back wimpy multilateral diplomacy, dialogue and negotiations, the kind my dad and Scowcroft loved. Those Nobel ninnies are so lulu left they make the U.N. look like a Fox jamboree. The rookie already got rewarded once for not being me when he got elected. Gosh, what would he do without me?

CLINTON: Fine, but you never expected to win this prize. You were the quote-unquote war president and proud of it. I had to put up with a gazillion hours of Arafat's insanity, but I guess that still wasn't enough for those Oslo ice queens. I guess ending ethnic cleansing in Bosnia wasn't enough, or bringing peace to Northern Ireland. And I guess my work with the Clinton Global Initiative saving lives in Africa and hanging with Bono and Barbra wasn't enough.

W.: Calm down, bro. You gotta take care of that ticker.

CLINTON: It was a case of premature adulation.

W.: Heh-heh-heh. Yeah, very pre-emptive, sort of like Cheney's pre-emptive war policy.

CLINTON: If they weren't going to give it to me, they should at least have given it to the Chinese human rights movement or the Iranian protesters or AIDS workers in the Congo. Or even Bono.

W.: Yeah, man. Bono.

CLINTON: That would have helped make life better for the good guys and harder for the bad guys. Once again, action loses out to talk, just like with Hillary and Obama in the campaign. Nobel Prize for blah-blah-blah. Heck, I used to be considered a pretty good talker myself.

W.: It's aggravating, I agree. But look at it this way, 42. Everybody's laughing at La Bamba. He gets a Nobel for nada. Being loved by Europeans isn't gonna do him any good here in the U.S. of A. I whupped that Frenchy Kerry, didn't I?

CLINTON: The only peace Obama has made is bringing together the Taliban, Rush Limbaugh, the Palestinians and the Israelis to agree the guy is undeserving. It just confirms everyone's suspicion that all this dude knows how to do is dazzle.

W.: He doesn't want to be a Decider. He wants to be a Transformer. He transformed, all right — from Miss America to Miss Universe. He's a five-spiral crash, and getting the gold is just a reminder of all he hasn't done. He's going to have to look over and see that big medallion hanging up there in the Oval, mocking him as an empty suit, a pretty boy beloved by the Blame-America-First crowd, whenever he has to send more troops to Afghanistan, or the Taliban act up, or Iran fires up for nukes.

CLINTON: Maybe you're right, George. Some winners think the Nobel's the kiss of death. Any peace prize that goes to Henry Kissinger but not Gandhi ain't worth a can of Alpo. Heck, if Gandhi had known he was going to lose out to Henry the K, he could have had more time to eat french fries and chase girls.

W.: And finish getting dressed. Heh-heh-heh.

CLINTON: Barack's going to give that $1.4 million away to charity. I got a charity. How 'bout he just signs it over to me? Speaking of money, we need to do another of those joint lecture things.

W.: I'm fairly footloose. This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Go choke on a herring, Norwegia!

From 23% supporting New Politics proposal.

Of course it overlaps with Democrat support so very few of these people would actually switch, but it still matters and Democrats will have to acknowledge it.

On numbers - about half the country is anti-Thaksin, they supported PAD's overall goal though not every PAD action. Airport wasn't too popular, for example, and approval for it was probably in low digits. New Politics got a lot of trashing, too, and I don't know anyone there who'd say he approved it. Yet it still got 23%.

So, when it comes to votes - they won't get many, when it comes to anti-Thaksin agenda - they'll get a lot, when it comes to NP - they'll get substantial number worth noticing.

On numbers - about half the country is anti-Thaksin, they supported PAD's overall goal though not every PAD action.

And once again, where do you get this from?

He's just taking a subjective view which is all anyone can do.There's no scientific evidence available and the polls are unreliable.

For what it's worth my view is also that the country is split down the middle on Thaksin but I believe the anti-PAD position is far more widely held than Plus suggests.Incidentally what is the PAD overall goal? - or does this just mean the overthrow of Thaksin (mission accomplished in that event) and his legacy (jury still out on the latter).

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?...........Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

I an an absolute pacifist because I am a conservative Christian. Reagan and Bush 2 showed they were neither. Moral strength comes with religious pacifism: Jesus as a peaceful Jew; Gandhi, King, Oscar Romero, etc.

So do you think for example taking up arms against the Nazis was wrong?

By the way what does "conservative Christian" actually mean? I suspect both Reagan and Bush 2 would have described themselves as "conservative christians" but it seems a contradiction in terms to me.

Nah, Regan was an insane warmonger.

For just a moment I would ask you to contemplate whether such a statement reflects much more about you than it does about Reagan.Do you have that level of self awareness I wonder?

My politics are left leaning and if I had been an American voter my choice would always have been the Democrats.Nevertheless historians will conclude that Reagan played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the end of communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe.Millions of people who lived under those discredited totalitarian regimes recognise Reagan's major role.Not an intellectual at all but a communicator of genius.His domestic economic policy was flawed but that's another matter.

At the time of British appeasement of Nazi Germany there were those who used almost identical language as you of Winston Churchill.Sometimes wickedness has to be addressed, and sometimes that means showing one's military and moral strength.

I don't know that Obama has done one thing in particular for which he should receive the Peace prize. Many of the things he's done and accomplished are subtle. First, he engages in dialogue--even with leaders and groups that most thing he shouldn't. Second, he has risen above the race issue and this has had a knock-on effect in race relations. As soon as Obama was elected, I noticed a lot more ordinary white people talking with blacks. This was simple things--like in the line at the grocery store, asking directions etc. It was small and it was simple, but it was an example set by the President.

Will he create world peace. No. Will he affect change. I hope so. If he doesn't, it won't be because he didn't try.

Getting people to sign big agreements isn't always productive. They can go home and not follow them. Getting ordinary people to acknowledge others, that's a big step forward.

Great post Scott which well summarises my views at least, in other words probably a premature award but recognising a leader of extraordinary promise who has set many initiatives in the right direction.

I don't intend to say more on this because the thread is already showing up some of the illiteracy and insanity (or so it appears to foreigners) that plagues American right wing politics, eg the accusation that in his speeches Obama is "trashing" the USA.A pity really because there is a decent conservative case to be made criticising Obama but it's being lost through the disintegration of an intelligent Republican argument.

I don't care for Sonthi, but bombs really aren't the solution to a problem.

They tried to assassinate him, too, if that's better. The perky chink just wouldn't die.

Calling him such names ss offensive and derogatory, but I hope mods lest slip this little joke. There were nine bullet fragments in his head, and yellow "Thai - Chinese save the nation" t-shirts were the talk of the town last year.

But the million dollar question is who are "they" and what were their motives?

Now that you puked - what was Chalerm thinking?

It looks like he is trying to enlist Hun Sen in a political war against fellow Thais.

He wants Hun Sen to come and smash Kasit and Democrats, so that Thai government can collapse.

Unbelievable.

He seems to me to be just another political jerk, exploiting nationalist sentiment over a ridiculously unimportant matter for political advantage - i.e the mirror image of the PAD creeps.

In the aftermath of WWII for instance the US, which had declared Thailand to have been an ally, blocked the UK from trying to make Thailand into a colony after the Brits had declared Thailand to have been an enemy.

The policy described (The US taking Siam's side in the post war settlement in contrast to the British demands for financial retribution) is more or less correct but the facts are muddled.

1.The US never declared Siam to have been an ally.

2.The Brits at that time under a Labour government were in full retreat from Empire and had no wish to make Thailand a colony.There was some talk of a protectorate essentially to see that reparations were enforced.

3.The key Brit bone of contention was reparations and it was here that the US took a completely different view, and of course got their way.

.

The public opposition to Abhisit is grossly overstated.

One rather obvious way to find out, isn't there?

Yes Abhisit was well aware of the time frame and consequences at the core of this action. He wisely waited until his return from a successful, perhaps triumphant visit to the US to address the UN General Assembly then circulate among the G-20 in Pittsburgh while racking up a photo op with Pres Obama that was splashed throughout all media in Thailand.

Look I rather like Abhisit too despite the little tease in my last post.But seriously do you really think his visit to the US was "triumphant".Some of the puppy love in this forum over Fatty Abhisit (gosh how he's filled out) is more than a little absurd.I'm not one to mock a chaste man crush but really......

Abhisit gave a clear signal who is in charge of the police...

The PM of Thailand

Chaiyo chaiyo

Now that's clear, perhaps he might consider sending a signal confirming that army generals are also subject to civilian direction like any normal civilised country (or even uncivilised ones like China and Russia).Oh no I forgot he can't do that because he's in their pocket.

I think Abhisit should now turn his attention to military funding priorities such as that third cavalry division for the North East.It will only cost a few billion baht and it's important to show those warlike Laos across the border we can kick ass.(Yes I know they kicked ours last time round but best not speak about that.) Even if the great military campaign against the mighty Lao military machine is postponed, there is of course the side benefit of intimidating the local Thai population which - how to put it - is not exactly Abhisit's natural constituency.

When Hun Sen issues threats to shoot, you can't reply with wais and smiles. Thailand can't play a generous and friendly neighbor role anymore. Imposing economic sanctions would also achieve very little, as will be stopping any other forms of govt assistance - these things will be needed as carrots and as proof of Thai sincerity.

His military threat must be responded in kind, with sticks, and he must be forced to back off and onto the carrots.

Backing on to carrots sounds as though it could be painful.

Seriously what a load of tosh.I note Bangok Pundit quotes Thitinan from the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...-to-irredentism

Money quote

"At home, the Preah Vihear imbroglio is likely to be played for domestic gains. The PAD protests in Si Sa Ket were under the nose of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose units entered service in the dispersal and suppression of the red-shirted riots in Bangkok on April 13. That these units were uninvolved in preventing the yellows to go so far, suggests the PAD can simply get away with more than their arch-nemesis. They seem to have an enigmatic entitlement about them, an aura and attitude that they can always get their way.

The political capital from the PAD's Preah Vihear wrath may also be parlayed to determine domestic outcomes. With its locomotives all revved up and ready to rumble, the PAD can now turn to its domestic preferences. It can now bring even more pressure to bear on the Abhisit government to go its way, particularly on the appointment of the new police chief, concurrently stirring a royalist-nationalist tide for its New Politics Party ahead of the next polls."

Perhaps this schoolyard nationalistic froth is just window dressing, and there's an underlying motive that Thitinan touches on.Either way it seems doomed to failure.

This actually comes back to a policy of the Surayudh government, which PPP has continued.

Thailand had reversed this policy late in 2007, and neither Surayud nor Nittaya were closely involved.

The clue is right there, in the agreement from Surayudh's days:

“The State Party of Cambodia and the State Party of Thailand are in full agreement that the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear has Outstanding Universal Value and must be inscribed on the World Heritage List as soon as possible.."

Later Cambodians, among other things, insisted that only temple itself, which is on their territory has "Outstanding Universal Value", and whatever happens to be on the Thai side of the current border is not worth preserving.

Thais protested and tried to thwart the bid (and would have probably succeeded).

Then Noppadon took charge, overrode previous Thai objections and agreed with Cambodians to list the TEMPLE of Preah Vihear only, no more "SITE of the the Temple of Preah Vihear".

For heavens sake can't you see how ridiculous all this is.It's a minor matter which could easily be sorted out in ten minutes by ministers with good will on both sides.What on earth has prompted your fixation with this silly little squabble anyway?

So far we haven't seen the expected "nattering nabobs of negativism"

weighing-in all to light weight here, well the day's not done.

RIP Bill Safire,

great line had to use it!

Wasn't "nattering nabobs" Spiro Agnew's line?

You ever thought to consider that support of Privy Council and the military could be viewed as a guarantor of Abhisit's weight and govt stability whereas some party with Thai style electoral mandate that wishes to overthrow the long existing orders is a bad news in every sense.

No never thought that not least because it's a topsy turvy Alice through the Looking Glass way of looking at the world.I suppose one could argue the same point the other way round, namely that a plausible PM like Abhisit with clean underpants and an Old Etonian tie gives weight and stability to a discredited military (political meddling,criminality, corruption and incompetence) and a Privy Council that in the politest possible way I can think of has perhaps exceeded its constitutional role.The "Thai style electoral mandate" you mention, flawed though it is, at least gives some major influence to the Thai people as opposed to some self appointed guardians whose record anyway is at worst appalling and at best self interested.

What do you mean by long existing orders anyway? If it's some veiled reference to the constitutional monarchy that's nonsense although the propagandists for the status quo always flings this accusation around (in the knowledge the subject is ultra sensitive ) .In fact the constitutional monarchy is one of Thailand's greatest strengths and there's no support for "overthrow" to use your term except from a tiny number on the loony left.If you mean the unsavoury collection of generals, monopolistic businessmen, fat cat bureaucrats , feudal functionaries and reactionaries who have caused so much damage to this country then I would tend to agree.These groups need a thorough shake up and a reminder they are the servants of the Thai people, and are accountable to them.

Saying a career derailed, SHOULD have been read as meaning,

'if he is sullied by second hand slime, guilt by potential association,

then it diminishes what HE CAN DO, for the country in the future.'

It's an odd way of putting it but yes that describes his motivation better.People like Tej Bunnag are not "career minded" or certainly not at this relatively late stage.Was he right to bail out? I don't know but certainly when dealing with a man of his calibre one doesn't question his integrity.

Why are you so defensive of that article? Did you write it or what?

It fails to provide sufficient details to really explain the latest clash, and it relies on their long held beliefs that PAD are nationalistic thugs and Kasit is a terrorist.

So, what exactly is so fascinating in that article? What exactly does it add to the discussion?

Defensive? I simply posted it as a good article.

It's an opinion piece for an educated world wide audience, most of whom don't have an anally retentive fixation with the issue.If there's anything in it which is unfair or in the inexplicable word of your fellow traveller "loutish", let's discuss it.