Corruption Probes: Ministers Won't Point The Finger

[Plus]

Desasters such as democracy, equal opportunities, fair distribution of wealth and power, a proper welfare system?

By openly challenging the establishment even these universal ideas will turn, and always DO turn, disastrous. From French revolution to Soviets to Khmer Rouge.

Any movement that relies on millions of impoverished pesants and urban underclass to convince the rulers to give up power is bound to end in violence.

[ColPyat]

Desasters such as democracy, equal opportunities, fair distribution of wealth and power, a proper welfare system?

By openly challenging the establishment even these universal ideas will turn, and always DO turn, disastrous. From French revolution to Soviets to Khmer Rouge.

Any movement that relies on millions of impoverished pesants and urban underclass to convince the rulers to give up power is bound to end in violence.

And for that reason intellectuals, such as Giles Ungpakorn, who are teaching at universities to future members of the establishment are vital to the development of Thailand, and not, like you prefer to do, accuse them of subversion, of preparing a revolution by "indoctrinating the uneducated masses" (your words, not mine), without any supporting evidence and that way slander them. You even post statements that you support the surveillance of Giles.

Given your statements which are always a staunch defense of a very unfair status quo here in Thailand, and your McCarthyesque attacks against well known and internationally respected intellectals, i do seriously question your understanding of, and your commitment to democracy, human rights, and due process of the law.

[younghusband]

Desasters such as democracy, equal opportunities, fair distribution of wealth and power, a proper welfare system?

By openly challenging the establishment even these universal ideas will turn, and always DO turn, disastrous. From French revolution to Soviets to Khmer Rouge.

Any movement that relies on millions of impoverished pesants and urban underclass to convince the rulers to give up power is bound to end in violence.

If you study history you will find that there are several popular misconceptions about revolutions.Firstly, in almost every case they are not initiated by peasants or workers but by middle class elements.Secondly revolutions tend to happen when things are getting better or when a reform programme is actively under way.The Khmer Rouge,although middle class in leadership,was not really a revolution and in any case was other ways sui generis.

The sequence of events seems to be that the middle class will usually initiate and enact the change of regime,and subsequently turn to the masses for support and legitimacy.This was certainly the case in America,France and Russia.You don't mention the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe when totalitarian regimes were toppled by mass movements without violence for the most part.The exception was Romania, a startling example that when power elites are totally obstinate there is a possibility they will be taken out and shot.I don't think there is evidence to support your view that a violent transition necesarily results in disastrous results.The English,American and French revolutions resulted in an overall improvement in democracy and individual rights although I concede it was a painful journey.

I can already anticipate your suggestion that I am not comparing like with like because the mass of Thais are ignorant, uneducated, drunks etc. and thus not to be compared with the mass rankings of Ph.Ds who tore down communism in Eastern Europe.I disagree but my main point is that such a cataclysm in Thailand is entirely unnecessary and could be avoided with statesmanship.But it will mean the end or at least a very significant reduction in the influence of the Bangkok power complex.

Edited January 31, 2007 by younghusband

[Jai Dee]

Interior Minister assures no officials are involved in undercurrent movements

Interior Minister Aree Wong-araya (อารีย์ วงค์อารียะ) affirmed that there have been no reports of involvements of state officials in undercurrent movements eversince the military backed government has come to power.

Earlier, the Council for National Security had discussed with the prime minister to seek for transfers of officials who showed signs of obscurity in their performances.

Mr Aree admitted that there are still destructive political movements in the Northeastern region and the government has been trying to monitor and prevent them from stirring up the situation. As for websites attacking the government, the minister said he will assign the Information and Communication Technology Ministry to deal with the matter.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 31 January 2007

[Jai Dee]

Speculative references to the Thai monarchy have been deleted from this thread.

Please read the Forum Rules.

[Plus]

If you study history you will find that there are several popular misconceptions about revolutions.Firstly, in almost every case they are not initiated by peasants or workers but by middle class elements.Secondly revolutions tend to happen when things are getting better or when a reform programme is actively under way.The Khmer Rouge,although middle class in leadership,was not really a revolution and in any case was other ways sui generis.

The sequence of events seems to be that the middle class will usually initiate and enact the change of regime,and subsequently turn to the masses for support and legitimacy.This was certainly the case in America,France and Russia.

Thai middle classes support the establishment, they are on "revolutionaries" target list themselves. Look how Thaksin's supporters (and socialists, too) play on urban/rural divide - it's not so much about super rich anymore, it's about general, middle class Bangkokians and their support first for PAD, then for junta.

The question is - who drives these generally apolitical farmers into confrontation? To what ends?

Is there a possibility of a peaceful outcome without the support of middle class (counted in millions themselves and growing)? I don't think so, and I don't want to see them try.

You don't mention the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe when totalitarian regimes were toppled by mass movements without violence for the most part.

Ahhh, but those regimes were abandoned by their patrons, the Soviets and Gorbachev. It was top-down decision not to cling to power. USSR formally ceased to exist without any pressure, or a referendum, or any input from the people. They just woke up one morning and it wasn't there anymore. If there had been a vote, communists would have probably won and the USSR would still be there.

I don't see Thai establishment resigning en masse anytime soon, especially if it means abandoning the monarchy around which it is centered.

...my main point is that such a cataclysm in Thailand is entirely unnecessary and could be avoided with statesmanship.

Statesmanship - do you see any signs of it in either Thaksin or in any of the unknown socialists Colpyat tells everyone to read?

Surayud and Sonthi command far far more respect than any of them and I believe the dialogue with constitution drafters is the best way to affect change, they appear to be flexible enough to accept different opinions. Anti-junta protesters, on the other hand, are not interested in dialogue, they are bent on confrontation.

[blaze]

If you study history you will find that there are several popular misconceptions about revolutions.Firstly, in almost every case they are not initiated by peasants or workers but by middle class elements.Secondly revolutions tend to happen when things are getting better or when a reform programme is actively under way.The Khmer Rouge,although middle class in leadership,was not really a revolution and in any case was other ways sui generis.

The sequence of events seems to be that the middle class will usually initiate and enact the change of regime,and subsequently turn to the masses for support and legitimacy.This was certainly the case in America,France and Russia.

Thai middle classes support the establishment, they are on "revolutionaries" target list themselves. Look how Thaksin's supporters (and socialists, too) play on urban/rural divide - it's not so much about super rich anymore, it's about general, middle class Bangkokians and their support first for PAD, then for junta.

The question is - who drives these generally apolitical farmers into confrontation? To what ends?

Is there a possibility of a peaceful outcome without the support of middle class (counted in millions themselves and growing)? I don't think so, and I don't want to see them try.

You don't mention the velvet revolutions in Eastern Europe when totalitarian regimes were toppled by mass movements without violence for the most part.

Ahhh, but those regimes were abandoned by their patrons, the Soviets and Gorbachev. It was top-down decision not to cling to power. USSR formally ceased to exist without any pressure, or a referendum, or any input from the people. They just woke up one morning and it wasn't there anymore. If there had been a vote, communists would have probably won and the USSR would still be there.

I don't see Thai establishment resigning en masse anytime soon, especially if it means abandoning the monarchy around which it is centered.

...my main point is that such a cataclysm in Thailand is entirely unnecessary and could be avoided with statesmanship.

Statesmanship - do you see any signs of it in either Thaksin or in any of the unknown socialists Colpyat tells everyone to read?

Surayud and Sonthi command far far more respect than any of them and I believe the dialogue with constitution drafters is the best way to affect change, they appear to be flexible enough to accept different opinions. Anti-junta protesters, on the other hand, are not interested in dialogue, they are bent on confrontation.

"The question is - who drives these generally apolitical farmers into confrontation? To what ends?"

Poverty. Grinding unrelenting poverty. degredation, hopelessness- working for people who treat laborers like livestock- having their faces rubbed daily in the social inequities- being denied institutional recourse to seek better. .. these all play a role- but historically, the dangerous period is when hopes have been raised- and then dashed. (that theory was used to explain the success of both communism and fascism in Europe as the depression destroyed what little financial gains that the 'lumpenproletariat' as well as the middle/bourgeoise class had made since the 1870s.)

With the devestation of Europe after the war, an unspoken motivation for the Martial plan was to prevent a re-occurence by propping up the populations. So, with Japan- ---and the way that they were 'propped up' was by insisting on democratic institutions- by programs which some here would call 'populist'- by giving the poor (which was most of Europe) hope again.

Simply seeking to educate the financial elites of a country to 'do better' doesn't work. Spreadsheets don't have a column for compassion;. The elites yield some of their financial/political stanglehold when they realize that it is in THEIR best financial interests to do so.

Either because they recognize that broadening the consumer class will benefit them- or because they fear social unrest. But broadening the consumer class entails pumping money- tax money from the elites- into the economy- so that the peasants can-- tada- buy cell phones and motorbikes.

Edited January 31, 2007 by blaze

[Plus]

"The question is - who drives these generally apolitical farmers into confrontation? To what ends?"

Poverty. Grinding unrelenting poverty. degredation, hopelessness- working for people who treat laborers like livestock- having their faces rubbed daily in the social inequities

Thaksin, their self-proclaimed champion, didn't strike me as particularly poor.

Some opportunist leaders USE porverty to rally the farmers, others use nationalism. My question was - who are these leaders and what do they want? No one (apart from Thaksin) wants to stand up to public scrutiny so far.

Simply seeking to educate the financial elites of a country to 'do better' doesn't work. Spreadsheets don't have a column for compassion....

1997 Constitution, written by elites on behalf of middle classes, had a column for decentralisation, self-reliancy, and empowerment of local communities. Basically it meant to teach people how to fish. Thaksin preferred to hand out the fish instead, and at the same time blamed middle classes for having no interest in farmers sufferings.

... But broadening the consumer class entails pumping money- tax money from the elites- into the economy- so that the peasants can-- tada- buy cell phones and motorbikes.

This is unsustainable model. No one seriously argues for it anymore. It can work for short periods, but blowing away five years of strong economic growth on receiving government handouts was a total waste of time. Overcoming this habit during economic slowdown is nearly impossible, and will certainly be painful.

[ColPyat]

I don't see Thai establishment resigning en masse anytime soon, especially if it means abandoning the monarchy around which it is centered.

I thought we should leave the monarchy issue out of the debate? It does not serve your cause, and neither the debate, if you steer the conversation into a subject that we cannot possibly discuss here.

Statesmanship - do you see any signs of it in either Thaksin or in any of the unknown socialists Colpyat tells everyone to read?

Surayud and Sonthi command far far more respect than any of them and I believe the dialogue with constitution drafters is the best way to affect change, they appear to be flexible enough to accept different opinions. Anti-junta protesters, on the other hand, are not interested in dialogue, they are bent on confrontation.

My "socialists" I advise to read are not unknown. I have named these intellectuals, all professors for different subjects, such as history, political science, economics, etc. I have given links to some of their peer reviewed papers.

The only unknown "socialists" are the ones you accuse of subversion and indoctrination of the masses to support your view on Thailand. Where are they? Can you name them and their papers or statements that support your accusations? So far all your statements are baseless.

Which is rather frustrating as most here in the debate try to support their views by evidence and not ideology (apart from the few who believe that posting childish images and making sarcy and inflaming remarks, in a childish sort of way, can replace evidence. But they are forgiven as they most likely don't know any better).

It is ironic to accuse anti-junta protestors of confrontationalism, while you supported the PAD. Both though use the democratic right to voice their opnion through peaceful demonstrations.

The only real confrontational action on the larger political landscape in the last year was taken by the military junta by staging a coup.

[Plus]

I thought we should leave the monarchy issue out of the debate? It does not serve your cause, and neither the debate, if you steer the conversation into a subject that we cannot possibly discuss here.

There's nothing to discuss, really - any movement that will eventually challenge the monarchy is dead on arrival, and that includes any bottom-up demands to re-distribute power in Thailand, or even educating farmers in the evil nature of Thai "system".

[Mid]

there's a chance that critical mass has been reached already ...........................

pizza's and burgers are big in the north now i hear ...........................

[sbk]

Leave discussion of the monarchy out of this thread. Last warning before the thread gets closed.

[blaze]

"The question is - who drives these generally apolitical farmers into confrontation? To what ends?"

Poverty. Grinding unrelenting poverty. degredation, hopelessness- working for people who treat laborers like livestock- having their faces rubbed daily in the social inequities

Thaksin, their self-proclaimed champion, didn't strike me as particularly poor.

Some opportunist leaders USE porverty to rally the farmers, others use nationalism. My question was - who are these leaders and what do they want? No one (apart from Thaksin) wants to stand up to public scrutiny so far.

Simply seeking to educate the financial elites of a country to 'do better' doesn't work. Spreadsheets don't have a column for compassion....

1997 Constitution, written by elites on behalf of middle classes, had a column for decentralisation, self-reliancy, and empowerment of local communities. Basically it meant to teach people how to fish. Thaksin preferred to hand out the fish instead, and at the same time blamed middle classes for having no interest in farmers sufferings.

... But broadening the consumer class entails pumping money- tax money from the elites- into the economy- so that the peasants can-- tada- buy cell phones and motorbikes.

This is unsustainable model. No one seriously argues for it anymore. It can work for short periods, but blowing away five years of strong economic growth on receiving government handouts was a total waste of time. Overcoming this habit during economic slowdown is nearly impossible, and will certainly be painful.

My fault- I thought you were speaking of peasants confronting the moneyed elites in history- you were, I see, speaking specifically of Thailand. But what was this confrontation you refer to then? Voting TRT was hardly tantamount to confronting the establishment. So what is your question- what is the psychological nature of people who champion the poor? What is their angle? Why would anybody care?

As you said, the constitution did seek to broaden power- but as you also said, it was drawn up for the elites on behalf of the middle class- which only five years previous had taken to the streets. Furthermore, many of the people involved in writing the constitution were idealists- (aristocracies and moneyed elites do sometimes produce liberal idealists! -and the odd (shudder) socialist!) Had the events of '92 not occurred, I wonder if the constitution would have been so willingly accepted by the more conservative elements.

My last statement about cell phones and motorbikes was a bit facetious- though not entirely. Ideally, teaching the poor how to fish - AND giving them fishing poles, nets and refrigerators and means of transporting the fish and access to markets controlled by corporate fish farms and... (ya get my drift) - benefits everybody. That is how the consumer base is truly broadened- a new 'fishing' class. And it staves off the despair and hopelessness that can turn deadly. But every where this occurs- there are abuses- and these abuses are usually what captures the headlines- hence the cell phones and motorbikes reference. (For the record, I am not convinced that the abuses were as wide spread as rumored- but I wouldn't be all that surprised if they were- which does NOT mean that investment in the poor should be scrapped- a position apparantly shared with the current govt.)

Edited January 31, 2007 by blaze

[Plus]

My fault- I thought you were speaking of peasants confronting the moneyed elites in history- you were, I see, speaking specifically of Thailand. But what was this confrontation you refer to then? Voting TRT was hardly tantamount to confronting the establishment. So what is your question- what is the psychological nature of people who champion the poor? What is their angle? Why would anybody care?

We had TRT moblising 300,000 farmers to descend on Thailand and threatening to do it again if PAD was to resume their protests. We had trained and armed forest rangers, we had people hired to beat up protesters in plain view of the police. We had an opinion that the coup was staged to prevent imminent violence.

Yes, voting TRT wasn't a move against the establishment in itself, and had Thaksin campaigned on "let's go to Bangkok and kick some ass" platform he wouldn't get anywhere, but that's what he incited farmers to do once he got their trust.

Generals don't want anyone else pulling the same trick, and that refers to socialists as well. Communism is actually illegal in Thailand.

SBK is right with her warning - as soon as you look into socialism, the challenge to the system comes up, and we know what follows next. That's why socialism is a non-starter, it's tolerated in academia only and is never presented to the public for scrutiny, it won't stand a chance as a political platform.

They'd do far better if they concentrate on real issues and practical solutions. All we heard here form them is Thai system bashing instead - history, culture, national identity, politics, policies, religion, army, police, elites, now middle classes - nothing escapes them.

As you said, the constitution did seek to broaden power- but as you also said, it was drawn up for the elites on behalf of the middle class

I think I said it was written BY elites (Anand et al) in response to demands made by middle class. It was not FOR elites, it was called "people's constitution".

Here are some other interesting reasons why socialism would never take off in Thailand - middle classes support the "system", and the poor, downtrodden Isanites are actually the happiest bunch of all Thais. Hardly a revolutionary mix.

[ColPyat]

My fault- I thought you were speaking of peasants confronting the moneyed elites in history- you were, I see, speaking specifically of Thailand. But what was this confrontation you refer to then? Voting TRT was hardly tantamount to confronting the establishment. So what is your question- what is the psychological nature of people who champion the poor? What is their angle? Why would anybody care?

We had TRT moblising 300,000 farmers to descend on Thailand and threatening to do it again if PAD was to resume their protests. We had trained and armed forest rangers, we had people hired to beat up protesters in plain view of the police. We had an opinion that the coup was staged to prevent imminent violence.

No, you had TRT claiming 300 000 farmers coming down to Bangkok, to demonstrate peacefully, which is in their democratic right as much as the PAD demonstrations.

The alleged trained and "armed" (a few guns borrowed from the army, nothing of any consequence especially not against the far better equipped army) forest rangers were nothing but another unproven allegation by Sonthi L., the man who also propagated the ridiculous "Finland Declaration". There is no proof, or even evidence for any of those ridiculous claims.

Yes, voting TRT wasn't a move against the establishment in itself, and had Thaksin campaigned on "let's go to Bangkok and kick some ass" platform he wouldn't get anywhere, but that's what he incited farmers to do once he got their trust.

Generals don't want anyone else pulling the same trick, and that refers to socialists as well. Communism is actually illegal in Thailand.

SBK is right with her warning - as soon as you look into socialism, the challenge to the system comes up, and we know what follows next. That's why socialism is a non-starter, it's tolerated in academia only and is never presented to the public for scrutiny, it won't stand a chance as a political platform.

I don't want to second guess moderators, but i believe the statement had more to do with *you* not leaving this subject alone. Exactly what you do again. Just <deleted> leave it, for christ's sake.

They'd do far better if they concentrate on real issues and practical solutions. All we heard here form them is Thai system bashing instead - history, culture, national identity, politics, policies, religion, army, police, elites, now middle classes - nothing escapes them.

As you said, the constitution did seek to broaden power- but as you also said, it was drawn up for the elites on behalf of the middle class

I think I said it was written BY elites (Anand et al) in response to demands made by middle class. It was not FOR elites, it was called "people's constitution".

Here are some other interesting reasons why socialism would never take off in Thailand - middle classes support the "system", and the poor, downtrodden Isanites are actually the happiest bunch of all Thais. Hardly a revolutionary mix.

Unbelievable, just don't let truth spoil a good story. The Land of Smile, the poor happy farmers. So happy that these happy villages are regularly emtied of young people who so happily work 16 hour shifts in the industrial zones in factories far from their homes, brothels all around Thailand and abroad staffed by the so happy daughters (and sons) of those happy farmers, happily serving the needs of their clients.

Excuse my sarcasm, but isn't it even obvious to you that there is something slightly wrong with your view on Thailand????

[Plus]

No, you had TRT claiming 300 000 farmers coming down to Bangkok, to demonstrate peacefully, which is in their democratic right as much as the PAD demonstrations.

Do you mean they didn't come or do you claim their were not brought in by TRT, transport, food and little flags paid?

The alleged trained and "armed" (a few guns borrowed from the army, nothing of any consequence especially not against the far better equipped army) forest rangers

4,000 rifles against PAD.

the ridiculous "Finland Declaration".

Everyone but you agreed that the it was pretty much on the money. No one really thinks that it's the actual paper, printed, signed and sealed.

Why are YOU so sure it didn't exist? Have YOU been present at that meeting?

Thais been monitoring "happiness index" for a while now Isanites consistently score higher than anyone else. That is a fact.

[ColPyat]

No, you had TRT claiming 300 000 farmers coming down to Bangkok, to demonstrate peacefully, which is in their democratic right as much as the PAD demonstrations.

Do you mean they didn't come or do you claim their were not brought in by TRT, transport, food and little flags paid?

You lost me. Does it matter who organised their transport etc.? What matters is that as long as they are holding a peaceful demonstration it is within their legal right. Anyhow, it is a moot point as there did not 300 000 famers come to Bangkok.

The alleged trained and "armed" (a few guns borrowed from the army, nothing of any consequence especially not against the far better equipped army) forest rangers

4,000 rifles against PAD.

In a city packed with army barracks and a police that has during the demonstrations been mostly absolutely neutral (apart from one incident, and that was not high ranked police), and admiringly so - no way that forest rangers are going to descend on the PAD with their few rifles.

Nevertheless, this would have been a unique opportunity to expose Thaksin and his henchmen, though i do not see anyone responsible in jail, accused at court, on the opposite - the person allegedly responsible is free, after he was a few days in detention right after the coup.

If you discount lunatic conspiracy theories - all evidence points to that there simply was nothing behind that rumor.

the ridiculous "Finland Declaration".

Everyone but you agreed that the it was pretty much on the money. No one really thinks that it's the actual paper, printed, signed and sealed.

Why are YOU so sure it didn't exist? Have YOU been present at that meeting?

Acoording to that logic you could also state that the world is governed by a secret government of aliens, without presenting any evidence, and you say that you are right because i have never attended a meeting of those aliens.

Sorry, but there is no evidence of this idiotic theory existing other than a rumor spread and repeated by lunatics on conspiracy theory websites.

Thais been monitoring "happiness index" for a while now Isanites consistently score higher than anyone else. That is a fact.

Oh me god...

Edited January 31, 2007 by ColPyat

[Siripon]

My fault- I thought you were speaking of peasants confronting the moneyed elites in history- you were, I see, speaking specifically of Thailand. But what was this confrontation you refer to then? Voting TRT was hardly tantamount to confronting the establishment. So what is your question- what is the psychological nature of people who champion the poor? What is their angle? Why would anybody care?

We had TRT moblising 300,000 farmers to descend on Thailand and threatening to do it again if PAD was to resume their protests. We had trained and armed forest rangers, we had people hired to beat up protesters in plain view of the police. We had an opinion that the coup was staged to prevent imminent violence.

No, you had TRT claiming 300 000 farmers coming down to Bangkok, to demonstrate peacefully, which is in their democratic right as much as the PAD demonstrations.

The alleged trained and "armed" (a few guns borrowed from the army, nothing of any consequence especially not against the far better equipped army) forest rangers were nothing but another unproven allegation by Sonthi L., the man who also propagated the ridiculous "Finland Declaration". There is no proof, or even evidence for any of those ridiculous claims.

Yes, voting TRT wasn't a move against the establishment in itself, and had Thaksin campaigned on "let's go to Bangkok and kick some ass" platform he wouldn't get anywhere, but that's what he incited farmers to do once he got their trust.

Generals don't want anyone else pulling the same trick, and that refers to socialists as well. Communism is actually illegal in Thailand.

SBK is right with her warning - as soon as you look into socialism, the challenge to the system comes up, and we know what follows next. That's why socialism is a non-starter, it's tolerated in academia only and is never presented to the public for scrutiny, it won't stand a chance as a political platform.

I don't want to second guess moderators, but i believe the statement had more to do with *you* not leaving this subject alone. Exactly what you do again. Just <deleted> leave it, for christ's sake.

They'd do far better if they concentrate on real issues and practical solutions. All we heard here form them is Thai system bashing instead - history, culture, national identity, politics, policies, religion, army, police, elites, now middle classes - nothing escapes them.

As you said, the constitution did seek to broaden power- but as you also said, it was drawn up for the elites on behalf of the middle class

I think I said it was written BY elites (Anand et al) in response to demands made by middle class. It was not FOR elites, it was called "people's constitution".

Here are some other interesting reasons why socialism would never take off in Thailand - middle classes support the "system", and the poor, downtrodden Isanites are actually the happiest bunch of all Thais. Hardly a revolutionary mix.

Unbelievable, just don't let truth spoil a good story. The Land of Smile, the poor happy farmers. So happy that these happy villages are regularly emtied of young people who so happily work 16 hour shifts in the industrial zones in factories far from their homes, brothels all around Thailand and abroad staffed by the so happy daughters (and sons) of those happy farmers, happily serving the needs of their clients.

Excuse my sarcasm, but isn't it even obvious to you that there is something slightly wrong with your view on Thailand????

[Personal remarks bordering on flaming deleted. Stay on topic please. No Freudian personal analyses of other posters are required. Thank you. /Meadish]

[Siripon]

No, you had TRT claiming 300 000 farmers coming down to Bangkok, to demonstrate peacefully, which is in their democratic right as much as the PAD demonstrations.

Do you mean they didn't come or do you claim their were not brought in by TRT, transport, food and little flags paid?

You lost me. Does it matter who organised their transport etc.? What matters is that as long as they are holding a peaceful demonstration it is within their legal right. Anyhow, it is a moot point as there did not 300 000 famers come to Bangkok.

The alleged trained and "armed" (a few guns borrowed from the army, nothing of any consequence especially not against the far better equipped army) forest rangers

4,000 rifles against PAD.

In a city packed with army barracks and a police that has during the demonstrations been mostly absolutely neutral (apart from one incident, and that was not high ranked police), and admiringly so - no way that forest rangers are going to descend on the PAD with their few rifles.

Nevertheless, this would have been a unique opportunity to expose Thaksin and his henchmen, though i do not see anyone responsible in jail, accused at court, on the opposite - the person allegedly responsible is free, after he was a few days in detention right after the coup.

If you discount lunatic conspiracy theories - all evidence points to that there simply was nothing behind that rumor.

the ridiculous "Finland Declaration".

Everyone but you agreed that the it was pretty much on the money. No one really thinks that it's the actual paper, printed, signed and sealed.

Why are YOU so sure it didn't exist? Have YOU been present at that meeting?

Acoording to that logic you could also state that the world is governed by a secret government of aliens, without presenting any evidence, and you say that you are right because i have never attended a meeting of those aliens.

Sorry, but there is no evidence of this idiotic theory existing other than a rumor spread and repeated by lunatics on conspiracy theory websites.

Thais been monitoring "happiness index" for a while now Isanites consistently score higher than anyone else. That is a fact.

Oh me god...

To claim the police were neutral under Thaksin is ludicrous, he promoted his own class mates and relatives far beyond their potential, jumping rank, ie Chaisit, causing widespread resentment.

He tried to do the same with the army, but he didn't forsee General Anupong 'jumping ship'.

There has never been such interference in military and police reshuffles as under Thaksin.

[blaze]

My fault- I thought you were speaking of peasants confronting the moneyed elites in history- you were, I see, speaking specifically of Thailand. But what was this confrontation you refer to then? Voting TRT was hardly tantamount to confronting the establishment. So what is your question- what is the psychological nature of people who champion the poor? What is their angle? Why would anybody care?

We had TRT moblising 300,000 farmers to descend on Thailand and threatening to do it again if PAD was to resume their protests. We had trained and armed forest rangers, we had people hired to beat up protesters in plain view of the police. We had an opinion that the coup was staged to prevent imminent violence.

Yes, voting TRT wasn't a move against the establishment in itself, and had Thaksin campaigned on "let's go to Bangkok and kick some ass" platform he wouldn't get anywhere, but that's what he incited farmers to do once he got their trust.

Generals don't want anyone else pulling the same trick, and that refers to socialists as well. Communism is actually illegal in Thailand.

SBK is right with her warning - as soon as you look into socialism, the challenge to the system comes up, and we know what follows next. That's why socialism is a non-starter, it's tolerated in academia only and is never presented to the public for scrutiny, it won't stand a chance as a political platform.

They'd do far better if they concentrate on real issues and practical solutions. All we heard here form them is Thai system bashing instead - history, culture, national identity, politics, policies, religion, army, police, elites, now middle classes - nothing escapes them.

As you said, the constitution did seek to broaden power- but as you also said, it was drawn up for the elites on behalf of the middle class

I think I said it was written BY elites (Anand et al) in response to demands made by middle class. It was not FOR elites, it was called "people's constitution".

Here are some other interesting reasons why socialism would never take off in Thailand - middle classes support the "system", and the poor, downtrodden Isanites are actually the happiest bunch of all Thais. Hardly a revolutionary mix.

So the confrontation -of the peasant classes against the elites that you refer to - is the one that didn't occur but might have. Or do you mean the Chatuchak demonstrations in favor of the elected government serving its legal tenure. Hardly the same thing as a confronting the elites.

You say that Taksin was encouraging his supporters to "go to Bangkok and kick some ass" once he had secured their trust. But that was pretty much secured with the elections of 2005. Is that when he started conniving to have the peasants march on Bkk?

As far as the equation of socialists and communists- well a lot of Scandinavians would find that pretty --- strange.

You object apparantly to the socialist habits of criticizing the police, army, etc. Is it only socialists whose critical analysis of society bothers you? Or does all analysis and critique offend? Should people not analyze the forces that shape their lives and when they feel it is appropriate, critique those forces? If we had not done that in my country, we would still have child labor, police as a law unto themselves, domination of communitys by the church, and blind obedience to every form of authority that would seek to abuse us. Surely you would accord thais the same right to criticize?

And yes, that was a typo- (should have read 'by the elites' not 'for the elites' - I don't see what difference it makes though.

[ColPyat]

To claim the police were neutral under Thaksin is ludicrous, he promoted his own class mates and relatives far beyond their potential, jumping rank, ie Chaisit, causing widespread resentment.

He tried to do the same with the army, but he didn't forsee General Anupong 'jumping ship'.

There has never been such interference in military and police reshuffles as under Thaksin.

I am going to ignore your post before this, as retaliating in the same way would be against all decency and manners i was brought up with.

I would advise you to read my posts properly before making false statements. I have never claimed that police under Thaksin was not siding with him. What i have stated was that during the period of the PAD demonstrations police handled the situation extremely neutral. I was very suprised by this.

[Plus]

So the confrontation -of the peasant classes against the elites that you refer to - is the one that didn't occur but might have. Or do you mean the Chatuchak demonstrations in favor of the elected government serving its legal tenure. Hardly the same thing as a confronting the elites.

You say that Taksin was encouraging his supporters to "go to Bangkok and kick some ass" once he had secured their trust. But that was pretty much secured with the elections of 2005. Is that when he started conniving to have the peasants march on Bkk?

Remember when Thaksin declared a war on influential person beyond the constitution? That was a speech delivered to the meeting of the top bureaucrats forcing them to make their choice. On the other side Gen. Prem had rallied his troops as well, literally. Farmers obviously were not told they were at war, they were protecting their hero.

As far as the equation of socialists and communists- well a lot of Scandinavians would find that pretty --- strange.

Yeah, but you won't equate Scandinavians with Chavez either. Thailand, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, will NEVER become Scandinavia - home to the most honest and transparent governments.

You object apparantly to the socialist habits of criticizing the police, army, etc.

Everyone in Thailand critises the army, the police and the government. The difference is that everyone wants to IMPROVE the system while socialists REJECT it. This approach is unrealistic and so does not have popular support.

There was another curious research on happiness published a few days ago, Thailand didn't score very high but the top ten were dominated by the likes of Costa-Rica, and the winner was actually Vanuatu. None of the western countries was anywhere near. There's no obvious direct correllation between percieved levels of happiness and objective levels of development.

[Tony Clifton]

So neutral that no one was arrested when protesters were attacked at Central Plaza, so neutral that no one was arrested when hired motorcycle taxi drivers held sieges and threw water bottles at the public, so neutral that no one was arrested when The Dem's rally was rushed by pro-Thaksin by throwing chairs and ending the rally, attacking people, so neutral that not a single person has yet been formally charged for the numerous school burning or bombs in BKK over the last year, and on and on.

I call that siding.

[ColPyat]

So the confrontation -of the peasant classes against the elites that you refer to - is the one that didn't occur but might have. Or do you mean the Chatuchak demonstrations in favor of the elected government serving its legal tenure. Hardly the same thing as a confronting the elites.

You say that Taksin was encouraging his supporters to "go to Bangkok and kick some ass" once he had secured their trust. But that was pretty much secured with the elections of 2005. Is that when he started conniving to have the peasants march on Bkk?

Remember when Thaksin declared a war on influential person beyond the constitution? That was a speech delivered to the meeting of the top bureaucrats forcing them to make their choice. On the other side Gen. Prem had rallied his troops as well, literally. Farmers obviously were not told they were at war, they were protecting their hero.

Oh, yes. I still wonder which provision in the constitution did actually give Prem the power to install a military reshuffle, which preceeded the coup about 1 1/2 months. Maybe you can find that for me.

As far as the equation of socialists and communists- well a lot of Scandinavians would find that pretty --- strange.

Yeah, but you won't equate Scandinavians with Chavez either. Thailand, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, will NEVER become Scandinavia - home to the most honest and transparent governments.

You object apparantly to the socialist habits of criticizing the police, army, etc.

Everyone in Thailand critises the army, the police and the government. The difference is that everyone wants to IMPROVE the system while socialists REJECT it. This approach is unrealistic and so does not have popular support.

I think you really confuse *socialism* with something else.

There was another curious research on happiness published a few days ago, Thailand didn't score very high but the top ten were dominated by the likes of Costa-Rica, and the winner was actually Vanuatu. None of the western countries was anywhere near. There's no obvious direct correllation between percieved levels of happiness and objective levels of development.

You have convinced me - lets get rid of all the modern developments such as universal healthcare, free education, due process of law, social security, etc. We must have been all along on the wrong path - lets have only the elite access to those things, so that the poor can keep on being so happy.

Hmmm...just one thing - why are there so many people from those happy poor countries illegal immigrants in the developed and unhappy west, if they are so happy in their poor countries?

[ColPyat]

So neutral that no one was arrested when protesters were attacked at Central Plaza, so neutral that no one was arrested when hired motorcycle taxi drivers held sieges and threw water bottles at the public, so neutral that no one was arrested when The Dem's rally was rushed by pro-Thaksin by throwing chairs and ending the rally, attacking people, so neutral that not a single person has yet been formally charged for the numerous school burning or bombs in BKK over the last year, and on and on.

I call that siding.

Neutral enough that there was no incident of violence of police officers against demonstrators during the many months of PAD rallies blocking traffic in some of the most busy streets, blocking government house, neutral enough that the police has permitted the PAD to demonstrate wherever they wanted without ever chasing them away, neutral enough that police officers even did not carry firearms to any PAD demonstration, neutral enough that police always negotiated with PAD leaders, and never used force or threats. Neutral enough that police protected single Thaksin supporters who appeared at the rallies without ever using force against enraged PAD demonstrators who tried to attack those lone lunatics.

This is very impressive, and far more professional than i would have prevously thought the police here.

Edited January 31, 2007 by ColPyat

[John K]

So neutral that no one was arrested when protesters were attacked at Central Plaza, so neutral that no one was arrested when hired motorcycle taxi drivers held sieges and threw water bottles at the public, so neutral that no one was arrested when The Dem's rally was rushed by pro-Thaksin by throwing chairs and ending the rally, attacking people, so neutral that not a single person has yet been formally charged for the numerous school burning or bombs in BKK over the last year, and on and on.

I call that siding.

Neutral enough that there was no incident of violence of police officers against demonstrators during the many months of PAD rallies blocking traffic in some of the most busy streets, blocking government house, neutral enough that the police has permitted the PAD to demonstrate wherever they wanted without ever chasing them away, neutral enough that police officers even did not carry firearms to any PAD demonstration, neutral enough that police always negotiated with PAD leaders, and never used force or threats. Neutral enough that police protected single Thaksin supporters who appeared at the rallies without ever using force against enraged PAD demonstrators who tried to attack those lone lunatics.

This is very impressive, and far more professional than i would have prevously thought the police here.

Well one of the things the PAD stressed to it’s rally participants is obey all laws. I can remember them even making and announcement not to touch the fence around the Government house as is may been viewed as an attack. Thaksin sent up plenty of traps that the PAD was wise enough to see. When that did not work Thaksin took it to the next level by initiating the assaults Tony talks about. Being neutral is one thing, not doing your job by protecting people who were exercising their rights to protest against Thaksin, I can’t see that as being neutral but more of a bias negligence.

[sriracha john]

Assets Examination Committee hopes to remove key permanent officials involved in corruption cases

The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) will Monday seek to move key permanent officials involved in the 13 corruption cases from their powerful posts to prevent witnesses from reversing their statements in court.

AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said Sunday that the AEC would hold a meeting with Council for National Security chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin and perhaps also Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

He said the AEC had earlier lodged a complaint with Surayud over the lack of cooperation from some officials who refused to come forward and file complaints with the AEC against former political office holders involved in the scam causing delay in prosecuation.

"Officials under the old power group are still in power. They are directly involved in the cases but have not been transferred out of key posts. They do not cooperate fearing that they may be punished too. The government has to consider if they must be move out of their job so that our work can move forward more efficiently,'' Sak said.

- The Nation

--------------------------------------------

Getter stronger in the repercussions of stalling... but I think they'll need to get even more strict.

It would appear that the Editorial Board at the Bangkok Post agrees:

Give ASC more muscle to act

The Assets Scrutiny Committee's frustration at the lack of enthusiasm and cooperation from officials and ministers in its investigations into alleged corruption implicating former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his cronies, is understandable and the ASC deserves support. Instructed by the Council for National Security to mop up the trail of corruption left behind by the Thaksin regime and bring the alleged wrongdoers to justice, the ASC faces an unenviable and daunting, if not insurmountable, task, the success of which hinges on full cooperation from the agencies affected by the irregularities.

Editorial continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/01Feb2007_news16.php

[hammered]

Assets Examination Committee hopes to remove key permanent officials involved in corruption cases

The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) will Monday seek to move key permanent officials involved in the 13 corruption cases from their powerful posts to prevent witnesses from reversing their statements in court.

AEC spokesman Sak Korsaengruang said Sunday that the AEC would hold a meeting with Council for National Security chief Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin and perhaps also Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.

He said the AEC had earlier lodged a complaint with Surayud over the lack of cooperation from some officials who refused to come forward and file complaints with the AEC against former political office holders involved in the scam causing delay in prosecuation.

"Officials under the old power group are still in power. They are directly involved in the cases but have not been transferred out of key posts. They do not cooperate fearing that they may be punished too. The government has to consider if they must be move out of their job so that our work can move forward more efficiently,'' Sak said.

- The Nation

--------------------------------------------

Getter stronger in the repercussions of stalling... but I think they'll need to get even more strict.

It would appear that the Editorial Board at the Bangkok Post agrees:

Give ASC more muscle to act

The Assets Scrutiny Committee's frustration at the lack of enthusiasm and cooperation from officials and ministers in its investigations into alleged corruption implicating former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his cronies, is understandable and the ASC deserves support. Instructed by the Council for National Security to mop up the trail of corruption left behind by the Thaksin regime and bring the alleged wrongdoers to justice, the ASC faces an unenviable and daunting, if not insurmountable, task, the success of which hinges on full cooperation from the agencies affected by the irregularities.

Editorial continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/01Feb2007_news16.php

Thanks for bringing this back on topic. It was getting hard to follow.

[Plus]

I still wonder which provision in the constitution did actually give Prem the power to install a military reshuffle, which preceeded the coup about 1 1/2 months. Maybe you can find that for me.

Keep on wondering, the reshuffle was signed by Sonthi who was the Supreme Commander, not Prem.

[Jai Dee]

Subcommittee inspecting the rubber sapling graft holds its first meeting

The first meeting of the Subcommittee inspecting the rubber sapling graft case was held yesterday at 10.00 hours.

Mr.Bancherd Singkhaneti (บรรเจิด สิงคะเนติ), the chief of the Subcommittee, revealed that the today meeting will set up the framework on investigation the case, and all 8 names of the Subcommittee will be released.

Currently, over 70 people suspected of involvement in the graft have been forwarded to the investigation committee.

The suspected people include former deputy minister of agriculture and cooperatives, Newin Chidchob (เนวิน ชิดชอบ), the former director-general of the department of agriculture, Chakan Sangraksawong (ฉกรรจ์ แสงรักษาวงศ์), the ex-deputy prime minister as a committee revising the rubber sapling procurement, Somkid Jatusripitak (สมคิด จาตุศรีพิทักษ์), and the Charoen Phokkhaphan (เจริญโภคภัณฑ์) Seeds Company.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 02 February 2007