jayboy

It would be very helpful if someone could let me know, especially since CDwarehouse has closed down, whether there's anywhere in Bangkok with a reasonable range of jazz CDs.

Maybe he is a moron in his own right, no need to pay for displays of his stupidity.

Oh, wait, he can't be wrong, he is world famous such and such. We don't question the judgement of famous people. We absorb any crap they feed us without questioning.

I'm not sure he's famous but he's certainly a distinguished journalist.Actually I also have a number of issues with his article which I regard as being rather unfair on Abhisit since Lloyd-Parry seems to underestimate the tight corner the PM finds himself in and the pressures he is under.I would quite like a rational discussion in which our advantage of being Thailand based could bring more depth to some of these international perspectives.To be fair L-P makes some very good points as well which are not as well understood locally as they should be.

Perhaps I'm also being a little unfair but one gets the impression that whenever PAD is exposed or questioned, the possibility all rational discussion disappears and some simply take refuge in ad hominem attacks.

Someone's been reading Thaivisa too much.

Also goes for credibility of Western media - Rohingyas were pushed out in December, when the cabinet hasn't even been properly set, and following procedures laid out by the previous government.

Democrats won the largest number of seats in their history and a national party list vote.

But nice rant, makes it easy to spot a moron.

Not only a moron but undoubtedly in the pay of the exiled Great Beast.

Presumably the writer has no connection with Richard Lloyd-Parry, the distinguished Asian correspondent who wrote a very well received book on Indonesia "In the Time of Madness"

From The Times (of London)

" The charmer making a mess of his country.The Prime Minister of Thailand, best friends at Eton with Boris Johnson, is presiding over a chaotic and callous regime.

However indignant you felt about him, and the calamitous mess over which he presides, it would be impossible ever to throw a shoe at a man such as Abhisit Vejjajiva. Among his peers, the new Prime Minister of Thailand challenges even Barack Obama for the title of World's Most Decent Leader.

As a young politician, he was a heart-throb among middle-aged Bangkok matrons. At Eton, where he was known by the name “Mark Vejj”, he was best friends with Boris Johnson. He is handsome, youthful, brilliant, cosmopolitan, impeccably well mannered and rather posh. So when he gives a speech at his old university, Oxford, tomorrow, it is safe to assume that the audience at St John's College will be keeping its brogues securely laced.

But Mr Abhisit's charm should not be a distraction from ugly truths about what is happening in Thailand. In the past four years, it has gone from being one of the most free and stable countries of South-East Asia to one of its most chaotic and divided. Writers, academics and journalists have been imprisoned or hounded into exile for harmless comment on Thailand's monarchy. Helpless boat people have been chased out to sea to their deaths. Democratically elected governments have been forced out, first by the army and then by the power of the mob.

All of this has been done with the approval - sometimes passive, sometimes explicit - of the nice Mr Abhisit. The title of his talk at St John's tomorrow, “Taking on the Challenges of Democracy”, could not be more appropriate, for Thailand's leader is indeed democratically challenged. Rarely since the days of Dr Faustus has a gifted and promising man achieved power through such grubby and disreputable means.

Since Mr Abhisit became the leader of the Democrat Party in 2005, there have been two general elections in Thailand. He boycotted the first one in 2006, which was won, for the third time in a row, by the man at the centre of 21st-century Thai politics, Thaksin Shinawatra. His next electoral test came in 2007, when he was defeated decisively. The greatest “challenge” of democracy for Mr Abhisit has been as simple as that - whenever they have been given a chance to elect him, Thai voters have chosen someone else.

Thaksin represents another challenge: a profoundly unsavoury politician who is adored by the majority of his own people. As Prime Minister, he used his great wealth to political and personal advantage (last year he and his wife were convicted in absentia of a multimillion-pound property cheat). In southern Thailand he ordered a brutal campaign against Islamic insurgents which left scores of innocent people dead.

Thaksin's version of the war on drugs was to license the police to execute without trial anyone they suspected of being a dealer. But for all of this, he changed for the better the lives of millions of rural Thais.

His cheap healthcare programme gave the poorest people access to affordable medical treatment for the first time ever. A micro-credit scheme allowed many villagers to lift themselves out of subsistence level poverty. But the majority of Thais chose him as their leader, time and again - and after he was forced into exile, and then criminally convicted, they have gone on voting for his political heirs and supporters.

By contrast Mr Abhisit owes his job, not to the will of his people, but to the support of powerful friends - and even they have required a comically large number of attempts to propel their boy to power. First there was the army, which drove Mr Thaksin into exile in a bloodless coup in 2006. Over the course of a year, the generals convened an assembly of tame delegates who rewrote the country's constitution to give Mr Abhisit a better chance of winning. To imagine the election which followed in footballing terms: the Democrat Party was playing downhill, against a team without a striker, in a game refereed by one of their dads. And still Thaksin's side won.

At this point, Mr Abhisit was helped out by a new and sinister force in Thailand - the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). At times he has had the decency to appear slightly embarrassed by this mob of yellow-shirted anti-Thaksin activists, led by a rich media owner and apparently supported by the Thai Queen. What exactly the PAD believes in is not easy to pin down, but at heart they want to strip the vote from those silly people who can't be trusted not to vote for Thaksin's side.

When they don't get their way, they resort to force, occupying first the Prime Minister's office and then Bangkok's international airport last year, in chaotic scenes that were broadcast across the world.

The Democrats have never employed such tactics themselves, but they have benefited from them. After the latest pro-Thaksin Government was forced from power by a court ruling last year, they formed a Government by jumping into bed not only with PAD supporters, but even former Thaksin cronies, under the watchful supervision of the army. Mr Abhisit might argue that these were political compromises necessary so that a decent man could finally get his hands on the levers of government. But in the three months since he became Prime Minister, he has come to look more like the puppet than the master of those who hoisted him to power.

A series of disgraceful incidents have made it harder than ever to understand what has happened to the liberalism for which he used to stand. In January, the Thai military beat up and set adrift some 1,000 boat people from Burma, scores of whom died at sea. Journalists and academics continue to be arrested and imprisoned under Thailand's Kafakaesque lèse-majesté law, under which a prison sentence of 12 years can be imposed for dispraise of the Thai King and his family.

At times, it has looked as if someone in power is consciously making a fool of Mr Abhisit - such as the speech he gave last week about the importance of media freedom, which was followed a few hours later by the arrest of the webmaster of an independent website.

Thailand is no Zimbabwe or China, and by comparison with most of their Asian neighbours, Thais are blessedly free and prosperous. But it has the alarming air of a democracy lurching into reverse and out of control, in which familiar freedoms are flying out of the window with unpredictable speed. It is all the more painful that this should be happening under a leader of such obvious talent, a man with all the qualifications except the essential one - democratic legitimacy".

Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia editor of The Times

Chaiyan said he isn't surprised by the contents of Red Siam Manifesto because he has worked with Giles and knows his attitudes and political standing.

Exactly. Giles is just exploiting the current situation to put himself in spotlight, for eyar no one has ever paid him any attention, but now he has a red wagon to jump on to.

He's a marginal figure with no political base.I tend to agree he's using the Red movement as a band wagon.Where I differ slightly is that I don't think he's into self promotion, just another lefty academic and I concede probably a decent human being.He'll be in his element in the crazy oddly ill-informed bunch of low level British academics I read about in New Mandala.I see that lunatic Jones (his explanations for his attempted censorship of Khun Abhisit are richly comic) has had his letter to the President of St John's Oxford published in the Nation.

Army duty is to protect the country, not to make coups.

Until people can tell us to accept another form of government, we are now 1 person 1 vote. In a country having true democracy, the Army don't make coups.

End of this month, the reds may have another rally to protest against Abhisit government. How do you think if the reds block Suvarnabhumi and won't be punished months after that? If so, what do you think if the Army make a coup and Abhisit and this whole government will lose all positions? How do you think if Army will cooperate with Peua Thai Party and all the reds to appoint a group of 9 persons all from the red side, and another group to draft a new Constitution Law, and Abhisit will be wrong by one or some reasons (such as hugging Newin which is more reasonable than cooking like Khun Samak), and he must live outside Thailand? Maybe Abhisit can phone in when the PAD and Democrat Sor Sor members hold rallies.

Not fair? If they don't like that, why do they think the reds must like?

Democracy also means accountability, transparency, things Thaksin refused to accept, allowing no debate in Parliament about the sale to Temasek, castrating all the independent organisations. His authoritarian, divisive leadership was the reason for the first coup since 1991 and its large support from the middle class.

Your scenario of a coup against Aphisit is impossible because he's not a threat to the country's unity or peace.

Let the wandering tamed streetdog come back and enter the defendant's box to hear the other 6 cases waiting for it.

Does it dare?

You are right that democracy is much more than having fair elections.You mention transparency and accountability which are of course essential.Thaksin as you again rightly suggest played fast and loose with the democratic infrastructure so to speak.The efforts of civil society and the democratic opposition to curb his excesses was entirely justified.All reasonable people can agree on this.

Where you have gone off the rails, along I agree with many of the country's middle class, is to connive at a cure which was worse than the disease.Of all the constituent elements of democracy the rule of law is perhaps the most critical of all.The generals who launched the coup effectively drove a coach and horses through the painfully slow but real democratic progress Thailand had made.What is more they, unwittingly I concede, damaged the institution they professed to respect above all else.The results are with us now.

You say tomayto I say tomato.Not sure much more mileage in this discussion.Still I can't help smiling at the outrage we're supposed to feel (Thaksin cracking down bloodily on airport demonstrators) at events that never took place except in enflamed imaginations.Reality is -for both Reds and Yellows to reflect on - is that the level of violence in the last few years has been thankfully very small.

There's a plausible case to be made that Thaksin could have been defeated democratically, or at least compelled to be less of a meglomaniac and perhaps more collegiate.

I see absolutely no way Thaksin being defeated democratically. Even without him his proxy party managed to hold on to power for almost a year before beeing booted out by courts. There's zero chance of that happening with Thaksin actually in charge.

With Thaksin in power there's be no AEC investigations. All charges for his past crimes wouldn't even exist. The court wouldn't have guts to disband TRT either. Thaksin and co would have acted with absolute impunity.

The military wasn't playing its own tune, btw, they simply projected the power from people both above and below, while taking all the flak.

I'm afraid the rather obvious retort is the inconvenient reality that many Thais, possibly a majority, perceived Thaksin/TRT and proxy parties as the best bet and voted accordingly.Some say this is because they were "bought", a piece of silliness easily refuted.I believe their loyalty was because Thaksin is a modern politician (as Abhisit recently pointed out himself) taking up the cause of those long neglected and patronised.Yes he worked within the tainted network system but so does Abhisit.

Thaksin major crimes have not yet been raised against him.The charges actually made were legitimate enough but trivial in the scheme of things.It would take someone with a very straight face to say the Thai courts weren't enlisted on the side of Thaksin's pursuers.I don't buy the Al Capone (convicted through a trivial tax offence) argument.Exactly why haven't the drug war deaths and Tak Bai crimes been invoked?

You can't argue that civil society, democratic politics, persuasion wouldn't have worked because it wasn't tried.Rightly or wrongly it looks to the world as if vested interests intervened to overturn the Thai peoples wishes.(qf CIA in Allende's Peru).

The popular pressure from above and below you refer that the army "reflects" is straight out of the coupmakers playbook.By taking this seriously you simply show where you stand. as is of course your right.But don't expect any dispassionate observer to take it seriously.

Without the coup Thaksin would still be ruling the country and anti-Thaksin movement would have been crashed.

Like it or not, but the army was a guarantor of stability duing these past couple of years, forcing restraints on police and the government.

PAD has campaigned for only 190 days, the rest of the time the country was relatively peaceful. There would have been no chance of that at all if Thaksin was still in power.

It's very easy to make comments like this, much more difficult to prove.There's a plausible case to be made that Thaksin could have been defeated democratically, or at least compelled to be less of a meglomaniac and perhaps more collegiate.We will never know.The often made assumption that the anti-Thaksin movement would have been crushed is pure hypothesis, and in many ways the evidence points the other way.I agree the army has been a calming influence and helped with stability.But that's quite a different issue from excusing the criminality of the coup, and for that matter justifying the military's political influence.The excesses of the PAD damaged the country at least as much as anything that happened under Thaksin.

Hammered

I know you are not implying this but perhaps just to clarify the matter for all his faults one thing Giles cannot be accused of is supporting Thaksin.That's one area where his record is clear.However you are right that his views may be misrepresented in the political inferno.

My own view is that he's a rather marginal figure and strangely out of touch with mainstream views.There's no support for his latest radical proposal.And, while recognising his fighting spirit, isn't there something a bit tiresome about Marxist intellectuals in 2009? If he had toned down his agitprop agenda by say 50% I might have paid him rather more attention because not all he says is silly.

If Eton and Oxbridge have been so popular among Thai aristocrats and have been qualifications for high office, then just say what 20th Century Thai Prime Ministers had that kind of background.

if there was a trend of this - then I'll stand corrected. Till then I'll continue to wallow in my (apparently) mistaken belief that the people who get most erect about Abhisit's pukka British background are British expats !

Two different things here.The elite British education remains the gold standard in many upper class Thai minds, less so than say thirty years ago as US elite prep schools and universities are increasingly attractive.It's certainly not a qualification for high office -anymore than it is in the UK- though off the top of my head Abhisit,Anand, Seni, Kukrit give it a fair representation.

I don't think what British expats think matters very much does it? Given that British expats in Thailand reflect -some might say over represent- the UK's chavvy and pikey population the old school Thai is more likely to generate a chippy class resentment.We have some evidence of that on this forum.

^Yeah, in the late 1800s - and still in the UK Conservative Party today, but I think the cachet he gets today from his British background is probably most appreciated by British expats in Thailand.

I'm guessing with all due respect you don't know that many upper class Thais.What British expats think is frankly neither here nor there.

No problem with any of the comments made but one has to wonder whether the government hasn't more important things to worry about given the economic holocaust in prospect.Thaksin's barami is surely dwindling by the day in line with his wealth.Pro-active pursuit will presumably be unpopular in the NE heartland where the government needs to make up ground.Why don't the authorities just leave the situation as it is along with the occasional extradition threat to freak him out? Best to ignore him rather than see him as an all devouring Sauron demon straight out of Lord of the Rings.Meanwhile the government proceeds with a populist spending plan that even Thaksin would have been shocked by.Ironic, innit?

He comes from a family that is well versed in this game, went to the right school, the right university.

He went to Eton and Oxford !!!

Do you think anyone in Thailand even faintly considers Eton and Oxford are the 'right' places to be educated??

This is Bangkok and Korat, not Sandhurst and Whitehall.

Actually there is a long tradition in Thailand dating back to the nineteeth century of upper class Thais including royalty being educated at elite English schools and universities.It added a particular English aristocratic frisson to Thailand's ruling class, and leant it at least part of its characteristic charm.The answer to your question is that many Thais would certainly agree that Abhisit's education in England was a good thing in a long and fine Thai tradition.However I would agree the anglocentric influence is in decline along one could say with the English gentlemanly tradition that was its inspiration, as England itself has lost that tradition as the spivs and chavs take over.So the world turns and these days many Thais on the make choose obscure and second rate places like Houston to study police science or some such nonsense.

There certainly IS a movement to discredit the royal insitution, which is now spends more time on trumping up LM charges.

Sadly -because I believe strongly in a constititutional monarchy in Thailand- I fear you are right.The question is what gave this movement its catalyst, and in my view the answer lies with the short sighted fools who launched the last military coup.Every adverse event follows from this.

Small rallies by reds here and there only play in Abhisit's hands, like the one in Lopburi. He can claim that he allows democracy and opposition to flourish and even congratulates them for being nice and orderly. They are no threat, just underline his credentials as a democratic and open minded PM.

Perhaps we should take seriously Khun Abhisit's beliefs that Thais genuinely have the right to demonstrate within the law, and his congratulations to the Reds for being "nice and orderly" were heartfelt and not just a typical politician's cynicism.More specifically perhaps we should accept the rather unusual situation in Thailand that we do have a clean, democratic and open minded PM steeped in civilised values - in the tradition of Kukrit perhaps.Obviously he has to compromise and only the naive (our silly friend Jones from Oxford perhaps) don't understand the pressures he is under.He is uncomfortable with the way he came to power and he viscerally detests the PAD excesses, as all decent people should.He has been given a poor hand too because the economic outlook in Thailand is toxic and social unrest could give the Reds an unanticipated boost, strangely uncommented on in this forum.But he deserves our support.Let's say it's best to keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.

Lets be honest in the real world what gets said by whoever at an academic institution and especially one of the worlds most exclusive has little effect in the real world especially when it is on a fringe issue (real world) in a country most dont even think about.

The talk or demoing against it may be big for the very small circle of academics or students involved in Thai studies, which is a small insular and undeveloped world, but it will have little to no effect outside that circle with one pssible exception. If Abhisit is demonstrated against but is seen to stand up for his monarch against the demonstrators it will be reported all over Thailand to obvious effect - even better if it is seen as Abhisit standing up against Giles who is seen as a red shirt. In the outside world it will be just seen as another government leader heckled at a debate. Real Politik versus academic stuff. Why would Abhisit go if it wasnt potentially to his advantage? Dont forget Giles is a red shirt and his views are unacceptable. The government dont mind if people associate Giles and red shirts right now. In fact I am sure they positively love making sure the two remain linked.

It depends.My impression is that the talk Khun Abhisit will be giving will be a fairly intimate one at his own college, where quite correctly he will be an honoured and respected guest as a distinguished old member.The question is not whether there will be some boorish demonstration but whether he will be asked some rather more searching questions than usual.

I am still struggling to understand what you are implying when you say "especially in one of the world's most exclusive".Are you saying that what goes on in Oxford is somehow less relevant than other lesser places?

A very interesting letter from a Professor at Oxford University concerning a rumoured "Abby" talk about, of all things, "democracy".

.

1) He's not a professor, just a junior reseach fellow - dozens of them around mostly glorified grad students and certainly don't speak for the University

2) Appears to be advocating censorship of Abhisit's proposed lecture at his old college, hardly an advertisement for the freedoms he advocates

It's not the first time in history that some airports got closed due to protests. Sure there are people affected by it, sure there are people pissed off that protests intevened with their plans.

Life stil goes on. In the big scheme of things it's just a blip in a long struggle for a better society.

And it's not illegal to assemble at a departure lounge of the airport, btw. They didn't storm it with guns blazing, shooting their way through and then kept hostages.

One can argue about details but the central fact remains that the occupation of the airport was an act of strategic stupidity, notwithstanding the short term gains and apparent "victory".The leaders of the PAD movement are forever tarnished, and few dispassionate observers would deny this.I know the zealots will never budge.If PAD forms a new political party (notwithstanding the strenuous denials in the past), that will be a way to determine their national support.As to Kasit he is not taken seriously internationally given his past actions and word is that Abhisit will drop him when it suits his political interest, pity really because with the exercise of better judgement he could have been a competent FM.

I was struck by the following by the childrens poet, Philip Pullman, on the state of British liberty.Though no fan of either the reds or the yellows, it makes me think that Thailand's liberties are in better shape.

"Are such things done on Albion's shore?

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake's prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don't know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don't know who you are

You're mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don't want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation's dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don't mind if we are. They don't think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards"

Isn't it the case that nobody with one exception (i Don't think I need to spell the details out) comes off well in this slightly absurd episode?

- the talentless mediocrity who to a very major extent dropped himself in a sewage pit of his own making

- the absurdly overwrought "prisoner of conscience" claim made by some sections of Australian academia and liberal opinion.

- more parochially, the meanspirited and highly predictable hounding of this weak and unmanly (what's with the constant blubbing) individual by one or two forum ideologues.

-