jayboy

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.

Well I'm an "interested person" and I think the PAD's expedition to Sisaket was stupid, but I'd hardly rate the Economist article as "fair and pertinent". Emotive and loutish are the terms that come to mind - more yellow press than serious journalism. The article makes no attempt to be fair and balanced.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "loutish"? If you do perhaps you would identify the offending part of the Economist article.While you're at it perhaps you would also identify any part that is not "fair".

One thing was clear, they installed a reluctant, but eminently talented, replacement,

Tej Bunang, I believe. Head and shoulders above Nopadon and respected in Cambodia

and much of the world by many accounts; installed to repair the damage Noppadon caused.

When Samak fell Kuhn Tej bailed as soon as possible,

so as not having a career derailed in the eminent demise of PPP.

Wise move. He is one of so few, including Kuhn Devakula, who managed

to gracefully survive Thaksin's proxy govt associations.

Unlike you I actually know Tej Bunnag.He is a good and decent man.He took the FM post because he is a patriot and not interested in political skulduggery.When you talk of his concern that his career might be derailed, it just underlines your ignorance of what motivates people like Khun Tej.His motivation other than love of country is personal honour, something that eludes most actors on either side of the great divide.

Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident

I agree that the average Joe flipping through Economist pages on Asia doesn't care. To the people who are familiar with the situation, the article has nothing to offer other than the few platitudes about yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally. Apparently history must be applied to yellows only, reds are exempted.

Balanced my ass.

My comment on the PAD leadership dithering was not related to the Economist article, but to the perception here in Thailand.

If you are upset about the PAD's disastrous public relations (the thuggery on the border contrasted with the peaceful red rally in Bangkok) I can understand your position, but to most interested people the Economist article was very fair and pertinent.Readers are not just average Joes but also key regional and international leaders.

As a possibly welcome change from the protagonists on this thread ranting at each other, more sober and balanced opinion will be interested in the Economist's comment.The reality is that this issue is simply not very important and those who believe otherwise are either completely lacking in perspective or seeking to whip up nationalist frenzy for their political ends.

What exactly has attracted you in that article?

It's a news pill for people with no background knowledge or interest in the issue, complete with labels like "thugs" and "mobs" and reminders that Thaksin was ousted in a coup. It was clearly written for "newbies" and there's nothing sober or balanced about it.

What exactly make Kasit "nationalist PAD ideologue" as far as the latest clash is concerned, for example? The "sober and balanced" Economist completely ignored the fact that PAD and Kasit are at odds over the temple issue, or that none of the PAD leaders was involved in that march to the border.

In a sense the Economist article is for "newbies", as you call them, because whether you believe it or not the wider world is mainly interested in the broader significance of events rather than the intricate detail which some of us -particularly hardcore PAD aplogists such as yourself - get tied up in.The more relevant question is whether the article is based on fact and I believe it is.Actually I think you have completely misinterpreted the article's point on Kasit, although it is always worth reminding ourselves this fellow is completely unsuitable for the FM post given his past history.Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident:they are constantly backing away from ideology which proves to be unpopular, eg their crazy electoral reform proposals.Anyway the PAD has served their attack dog purpose already and if necessary the elite will marginalise them even further.

As to the use of the terms "thugs" and "mob", no serious observer of these events would dispute the terms particularly in view of PAD's violent and criminal history.

As a possibly welcome change from the protagonists on this thread ranting at each other, more sober and balanced opinion will be interested in the Economist's comment.The reality is that this issue is simply not very important and those who believe otherwise are either completely lacking in perspective or seeking to whip up nationalist frenzy for their political ends.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...ory_id=14506572

Well that flushed the predictable responses out.Leaving aside the real or simulated outrage, Noppadol's action still seems perfectly sensible.If it was unconstitutional (and assuming the courts are not "directed" on the matter), then he has to accept the consequences.I don't however recall any senior officials resigning at the time in response to the "unconstitutional" action.And the PAD craziness is very relevant given the political context, particularly the whipping up of frenzied nationalism.Oh and by the way Plus, a Foreign Minister is within his rights to change Thai strategy and also sack negotiators if they are incompetent, as seems to have been the case.They are only frigging civil servants after all, not properly elected representatives of the Thai people.

I dont think anybody would question that the very quiet and quick way Noppadon signed the agreement was questionable. Whether it was just an attempt to do something on the quiet that was always going to be a stromy issue in Thailand but which needed to be done to move on internationally or whether there were more nefarious reasons behind the affair will be oppen to question. That it was politcal novice Noppadol and not a politcal heavyweight with history is also going to add to conspiracy ideas. It remains to be seen what cover the rest of the latter day cabinet will offer Noppadol if it comes to a wider court case.

I haven't seen any evidence that Noppadon was guilty of anything on the border issue except political naivety.We know the PAD crazies and those who back them believe or in some cases pretend to believe otherwise.In another country,where the ruling elite is in a less panicky and frightened mood, Nopadon's (actually quite sensible) action would barely attract comment.

maybe it is just me....

I like his shows immensely. His shows based in the EU, especially France, just make my mouth water. He's inspired me to do a 2 week canal cruise on a houseboat one day. In general, his shows are excellent, some of the best around.

But with this one...well...he looked a bit like a lost brit on holiday and there were a few cringy parts (at the market he takes the freshly cooked curry and dumps a spoon of rice in it....bad manners!!!).

Absolutely with you on this one.He looked completely out of his depth, a failure at presenting Thai cuisine and an absolutely cringe making when he attempted travelogue.His Asian series was generally slammed by reviewers in the UK.I preferred his West Country seafood oriented programmes although these could have done without his little runt Jack Russell, Chalky, being a constant presence.Rick Stein is actually a highly intelligent and knowledgeable cook but as you say he just looked and sounded like another gormless Brit on holiday (or cough cough in residence here).In one of his Thai programmes there was footage of that brilliant Ozzie chef David Thompson:now there's someone who I would love to see present a programme on Thai cooking.

there is something about Thai food, in my book at least, which precludes it from being the subject of food wanke_ry. I can (at least try) to do food wanke_ry with the best of them - sitting at a French Michelin (sp?) starred place - banging on about the complexity of the textures and flavours etc etc. But with Thai food, for the most part, I view most of it as good comfort food, and if you know the basics, it is very hard to do badly, which I guess is its genius. I for some reason don't see the need/or understand how it fits to the world of 'gastronomy' deserving of cookbooks and high-end restuarants, especially when most Thai food can be purchased for between 30 to 100baht at very respectable and popular places.

Oh dear you have lost me here.If you are saying pretentiousness is to be avoided then I would agree whether for Thai or any other cuisine.If you are saying that there isn't a high end Thai cuisine which is complex, delightful, time consuming to prepare, the result of centuries of Thai civilisation .... then you are not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

If you see Thai food as just cheap and easy comfort food (it can be that of course but is far from being limited to that) then you are missing out on a lot.I once heard Kukrit Pramoj on this subject.At the time I thought he was overplaying Thai food's complexity and sophistication.I don't think so now.Of course every cuisine has its cheap and cheerful or peasant food side, and that I agree is probably what the majority eats.

maybe it is just me....

I like his shows immensely. His shows based in the EU, especially France, just make my mouth water. He's inspired me to do a 2 week canal cruise on a houseboat one day. In general, his shows are excellent, some of the best around.

But with this one...well...he looked a bit like a lost brit on holiday and there were a few cringy parts (at the market he takes the freshly cooked curry and dumps a spoon of rice in it....bad manners!!!).

Absolutely with you on this one.He looked completely out of his depth, a failure at presenting Thai cuisine and an absolutely cringe making when he attempted travelogue.His Asian series was generally slammed by reviewers in the UK.I preferred his West Country seafood oriented programmes although these could have done without his little runt Jack Russell, Chalky, being a constant presence.Rick Stein is actually a highly intelligent and knowledgeable cook but as you say he just looked and sounded like another gormless Brit on holiday (or cough cough in residence here).In one of his Thai programmes there was footage of that brilliant Ozzie chef David Thompson:now there's someone who I would love to see present a programme on Thai cooking.

Surprising,

but very Thai in the end.

When I hear foreigners say something is "very Thai", I metaphorically reach for my revolver.

In this instance I cannot immediately recall a court verdict that was more predictable.It was surprising only to those who continue to believe against all the evidence that the scales of justice are evenly balanced.

A.A Gill has a somewhat different perspective on the great man's passing.

"Tonight Keith Floyd sleeps with the fishes. I can’t in all honesty say that I’ll miss him. I was once sent to interview Keith in the south of Spain, where he’d retired: one of his many retirements, all hurt and self-pityish, to escape from the ravages of unions, socialists, philistines, do-gooders, traffic wardens, political correctness, immigrants, critics and sober bores who had apparently taken over Great Britain, the country he loved except for everything it did and everyone in it.

I found him in one of those sorry expat Costa del Sol pubs at 10.30am, necking pints, leaning on a bar with half a dozen hacking, pasty-faced, nicotine-fingered taxi drivers and nightclub bouncers, flicking through The Sun while complaining about the football and the price of Marmite. Four hours later I left him slumped and insensible in an armchair, his sweet young wife apologising with a well-practised, half-hearted boredom as she tried to get him off the soft furnishings before his bladder gave up.

I expect the obituaries will refer to Floyd as a bon viveur; it was how he referred to himself. Bon viveur is the great Franglais oxymoron: self-appointed bon viveurs are never good and rarely lively. It is a euphemism for boorish, bullying, opinionated, abusive and drunk. He was, though, inspirational on telly. It will come as no surprise that many of the best people on the box are the worst off it. Floyd’s first two series completely changed the way food and cookery were presented on screen.

He was the person who made eating about ingredients rather than techniques and tricks. He is the godfather of Jamie, Hugh, Rick, Nigella and the Hairy Bikers. He got out of kitchens and into streets and markets and dining rooms. He cooked with spirit and gusto on Primus stoves. He abused the cameraman and had a sense of dangerous reality, of enthusiasm, and of course he drank. Copiously, ostentatiously, provocatively. That he hasn’t passed on. Drink has almost entirely vanished from food programmes. Perhaps Hugh will daringly uncork the dandelion and burdock champagne, maybe a schooner of chilled amontillado if we’re making paella, but there is a rising prudery and parsimony about TV dinners now. All the love and the compliments are drizzled over the vegetables rather than the diners. There’s more wine in the stew than the guests. Floyd’s version of bonhomie, a larger-than-life trencherman, is well past its sell-by date, done in by smoking bans, drink-drive laws and Yakult."

still, there is nothing stopping a yellow or blue shirt putting on a red shirt and provoking the police & escalating violence. .... then the media will blame it all on the red shirts

Dream on. BTW what do you paid to do this crap ?

I agree it's nonsense.Equally so is the recent post by Cayenne suggesting the Red demonstrators were paid, as if - even hypothetically accepting some were - that this was the main motivation.Then Hammered obliquely comments "small turnout" as if the government's security arrangements (quite sensible in my view given past events) had nothing to do with the numbers.But 20,000 is not an unreasonable number.Just a quick sampling which suggests we in TV often seem to be like just ants wandering around a mosaic.It would be good to focus a bit more on the wider significance of all this, and obsess less about marginal detail.For example the current silliness on the Cambodian border doesn't really undermine the Yellow political platform, however much the Thaksinistas say it does ( and I say that as someone broadly sympathetic to the Red cause).

Dre's post is most welcomed. I don't completely agree with his position, but the history speaks for itself. Times were different then. We now live in a different world and the country needs to move in a direction where the people in power are a lot 'cleaner' than they were then. People are better educated and financially better off than they were then. We have TV, we have the internet. Thais need to have access to information on their politicians who need to 'serve' the public, not the other way around.

I don't really agree.Dre's post is just old timer bar talk.You can go to Washington Square and listen to the oldsters rabbit on in this way for hours if you have a high boredom threshold.I've no problem with people saying what they like but this is historically inaccurate and intellectually incoherent.Where I do agree is that Prem in the early 1980's served the country with distinction and honour, respecting traditional values but also the country's nascent democratic ideals..Whether he has maintained those standards in the last few years is a matter on which I could not possibly comment.

Sorry TAWP. I forgot to take my fair and balanced pill this morning!

The prescription has been refilled and I think I am back on track!

The comment about taking over a country was presumably made ironically, given that the earlier part of your post was bang on the money and certainly perfectly fair comment.

Since there is nothing to propose that taking over the government house was in any way 'approved' by the military or police, it was not at all a 'perfectly fair' comment.

Or name whoever approved it.

With all due respect,the protection enjoyed by the PAD is not really a matter of any controversy.Chang Noi summarises the position.

"The PAD seems to be protected, perhaps by friends in important places, but also by virtue of its widespread urban support. No other Bangkok protest has suffered so little harassment. When the prime minister angrily threatened to clear PAD off the streets, the security forces refused to cooperate and the prime minister had to back down. When PAD set up a permanent blockade of roads, the police stood aside and public-opinion surveys were surprisingly lenient over the disruption to traffic. When the protest moved to Government House, the police resistance looked like a token showing designed to fail. This apparent immunity gives weight to PAD’s message.

The PAD is flirting with the old agent provocateur’s technique of placing its own crudely armed gangs in places where they will be attacked by enemies. This creates violent incidents, apparently initiated by their opponents, though in truth a result of the inherent violence of the PAD itself.

In short, PAD is an anti-democratic movement, supported by high investment and shadowy protection, that exploits the fears of the privileged and a deliberately anti-rational nationalism, and flirts with militarism and violence."

Sorry TAWP. I forgot to take my fair and balanced pill this morning!

The prescription has been refilled and I think I am back on track!

The comment about taking over a country was presumably made ironically, given that the earlier part of your post was bang on the money and certainly perfectly fair comment.

See that there is our major disagreement, Plus.

I see the army as the problem..

Do you? Why? What problems are they causing that really matter to Thais as a whole?

Rhetorics aside, the reds are backing the army's choice over Abhisit in the current police chief spat, and, politically, Chaisit Shinawatra who controls PTP, last week supported another coup.

According to survey, the army is the secong most trusted institution, too.

So, where do you see any evidence of a real anti-army movement? Not the "we are against coups, but if the next one goes our way, then it's ok", or "we are against generals meddling in politics, but if they bully Abhisit, that's ok, too".

It's a non-issue.

I don't think there's an anti army movement.There's an Economist article today which says the army is treated with respect and suspicion, which I think is about right.Many of us have relatives in the army, in my case a young officer serving in the South.His dedication and cheerfulness in face of real danger is very humbling, and there are thousands like him.I would never dream of disrespecting the ordinary fighting soldier.Having said that there's a problem in the senior officer class -- often corrupt, interfering in politics, ludicrously over-generalled (if that's a proper word).

I don't think there was ever a receptive audience, so the nipping in the bud argument doesn't really work.

Mental asylums are full of people who throw faeces around.Anyone who does this for whatever cause is to be pitied and treated but not to be taken seriously.

Yes, she was right on some things but as I said earlier her sense of presentation and occasion was dreadful.

I'm sorry but your comments on solitary confinement and the warders treatment of her continue to strike me as creepy.Never mind: it's not a major point for me.

There's an irony that this instance you defer to the passions of the mob (though I don't really accept your premise of outraged Thais).

A fine rather than a jail sentence for defamation seems about right

On the other hand she still feels no remorse for her LM offense. A year in jail seems not enough.

Another goal of punishment is developing a Pavlovian reflex - do not repeat your crimes, it hurts, even if you don't fully comprehend it. On the day of her sentencing she looked like she'd go and repeat her speech straight away. In her recent interviews she sounds a lot more apprehensive. Apparently solitary confinement has this effect on people.

Say what you want, but jail, and all its internal credit-debit system are designed for people who otherwise don't get it. I mean everyone knows that stealing or dealing drugs is wrong, but some don't have strong enough convictions against it.

Pity that Torpedo doesn't get that offending the monarchy is not acceptable here. She still thinks she was absolutely innocent. And pity those who take her views as some sign of Thai societal thinking. It isn't, she is a freak they all want to put away, including her former comrades. Pity those who take lessons in courage from this misguided woman.

Sorry but you're projecting your own extreme views on the Thai people as a whole and it doesn't wash.Firstly there's no evidence whatsoever the monarchy is offended by this rather silly woman.Secondly most Thais are only dimly aware of this case.Those that know the background don't feel that strongly because they correctly believe that this woman doesn't represent a threat at all, and indeed on some subjects - quite separate from the LM charge - she has done no more than point out some true and salient facts.Thais know that when individuals start frothing about LM, they invariably have some political agenda.In your case thousands of posts tell us what that is - no problem with that at all: you are an articulate proponent.You might say that her approach, tone and sense of occasion showed shoddy judgement, and with that I would fully agree.I also agree that she doesn't represent any significant section of Thai society on the serious charge.But get some sense of proportion: your slightly creepy comments on solitary confinement show how angry you are, but really there's much less going on here than meets the eye.Any way the way this case is turning out suggests that the crazies aren't in charge yet.Has a compassionate signal been sent out I wonder?

I generally don't trust the gov't--neither mine nor the Thai gov't. I don't like the idea of the ISA being put in effect, but hopefully the gov't has a good reason for it. I also hope it isn't misused.

I would think what happened in Pattaya and soon after in Bangkok (during Songkran) would be good enough reasons. If this had happened in your country or mine, the Red Shirts would already be finished.

Whether you like it or not the Red Shirts represent a major political force which one way or another will stamp its mark.You talk about what would have happened to the Red Shirts in another country, with the implication they would have been crushed.What an ignorant remark.Yes, the Reds would not have been allowed to disrupt a regional summit, although a minor offence compared with the criminal occupation of an international airport.More to the point in another country the political agenda doesn't allow military coups, and the red viewpoint would have much more mainstream representation.Even now I suspect it represents a majority view in Thailand.Absurd you think? See what happens in a fairly conducted election.

..One aspect puzzles me which is why more weight needs to be given to the bureaucracy in Thailand than in other successful countries.

I'm not offering solutions, just describing the problems.

Thaksin has declared bureaucracy the enemy of the country and elected leaders the saviors.

In my view it's the other way around.

As for solutions - they should improve the quality of leaders that come through electoral system. It's not easy because there's fundamental flaw here - the only tests politicians need to pass are collecting votes but the jobs they want to do require completely different sets of skills and knowledge.

Well yes ok this is all rational stuff but I don't really see why a strong bureaucracy can't sit side by side a regular electoral democracy where the politicians/lawmakers are chosen by the people.The bureaucrats serve the politicians who in turn are servants of the people.Clearly in Thailand a bureaucracy of high professionalism and incorruptibility would be an enormous asset and where it exists should be cherished.But incompetence and corruption are unfortunately all too common common in the bureaucracy so I'm not quite sure why you think it deserves such an elevated reputation.To take one rather obvious example the crimes and excesses of politicians like Thaksin wouldn't get beyond first base without the willing co-operation of officials.Yes resistance could mean transfer or dismissal but isn't that what professioal integrity would require?

As to your last point about the test of politicians being to capture votes when their jobs require different skill sets, this is debated the world over and not unique to Thailand.One thing to remember is that most politicians remain back benchers and don't get ministerial jobs so those of indifferent quality don't get selected (in theory, I understand what actually happens in Thai coalition governments!).But there are still enough first class people - Korn, Abhisit etc who are willing to enter this dirty game not for money but because of patriotism and ambition (the latter is perfectly acceptable in men of energy and talent, eg Churchill, Obama, Harry Lee).I think what Thais should be doing is to encourage men and women of high ability and honour to enter politics.We should be careful not to blacken the profession because then we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.It's a messy business and probably always will be but in my mind fully fledged electoral democracy preferable to rule by a small number of high minded guardians (not least because these in almost every instance prove to be as selfish and flawed as the average elected politician).At least in an election you can kick the current bastards out, not so with those who think they have some non accountable right to rule.

Re. UK funds freeze - Bangkok pundit e-mailed the arabian editor and got a standard "we can't confirm anything and would rather say we were wrong" reply. The story wasn't officially withdrawn, btw.

A few weeks later Thanong from the Nation wrote a very long article detailing Thaksin's money movements that went far beyond that one line from Arabian News.

Thanong didn't disclose his sources, but he's got extensive contacts in money circles, there's no reason to dismiss his theory as completely groundless.

The money wasn't frozen in the UK, those funds were kept in Swiss banks, acc. to Thanong, and there was a news in European media about Thaksin blowing his fuse off at some Swiss bankers.

I've looked at the Arabian Business response to Bangkok Pundit, and it looks like a complete withdrawal to me.No other news outlet has published it.There's also the suggestion in BP that the Dubai based Arabian Business is a dodgy outfit barely tolerated locally and run by spivvy British Indians.No idea about that and don't much care.

Reality check: Thanong is a widely acknowleged joke and disgrace as a journalist and I don't know anyone who takes him seriously.Find a reputable source if you continue this line, although thanks for the laugh about "his extensive contacts in money circles".

Don't know about the Swiss angle.Any evidence?

ArabianBusiness reported this on Decemeber 1, 2008.

"The UK froze his reputed $4bn of assets, forcing him to sell Manchester City to Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour. To add to his troubles, his UK visa was revoked - oh, and his wife divorced him last week."

In other words you have no evidence at all apart from hearsay from "ArabianBusiness".As a matter of fact, all this was discussed on various forums last December and while gaining sume currency at the time is now regarded as complete nonsense.Only the most gullible,ignorant or dishonest peddle theat line now now, and I note that Animatic sensibly distanced himself from this canard.I also believe Arabian Business issued an apology to the effect that what they meant was that Thaksin had been denied a UK visa and thus was compelled to sell his Man City investment.(I'm not sure this is really quite right).

Point is that by including this lie in your post you bring everything else you say into doubt.I'm not accusing you of dishonesty:it may be simple ignorance.