Pad Announcement 29/2008: Conditions For New Government

[Gravelrash]

With the Royal Decree on Thursday December 11, 2008 for the launch of an extraordinary Parliamentary session to allow the House of Representatives to select the new prime minister on Monday December 15, 2008, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has the following statement to make.

1. Speed up the lese majeste cases against Jakrapob Penkair, Weera Musikapong, websites, publications, community radio stations, and crack down on the movement that endangers the Monarchy as a priority.

Link

Sondhi Limthongkul forgot to put his own name under # 1....

"In September 2005, Sondhi allegedly made repeated disrespectful on-air references to King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Among these references was a claim that the government's 2004 appointment of Somdet Phra Buddhacharya as acting Supreme Patriarch of Thailand in place of the critically ill Somdet Phra Yanasangworn contravened the prerogative of the King. After discussions with King's principal private secretary, Arsa Sarasin, MCOT executives cancelled the program.[152][153]"

The numbers 152 (The Nation - 16 September 2005) and 153 (Bangkok Post, 2 March 2005) are link-numbers to Thai newspaper articles, to be found in the Wiki link, below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Al...y#cite_note-151

And, to Koo82 who wrote: "The Nation said PAD is thinking to form a political party."

The PAD founded their own political party already, back in 2006....sleeping in a drawer, ready for action. I've said it many times before...Sondhi wants it all.

He feels himself invincible after the success of his airports blockades and exactly that makes him so dangerous

The man (together with his mysterious high-so fund-raisers who pay the PAD bills) is VERY DANGEROUS for the future of Thailand and I can't express my worries enough to see that there are still Farang supporters of Sondhi and his PAD.

Thailand is back on track with it's old style, elite- and military backed politics to have the power shared where it belongs: with the elite and military.

If there's still anyone here who believes in democracy in Thailand...forget it and bye bye democracy...

The kind of language Sondhi/PAD uses, is very frightening and intimidating and doesn't promise many good things for Thailand for the very near future...on the contrary: it will become a disastrous 2009 with the financial/economic crisis rolling full speed, on top of the dividing of power.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Thailand would reach an unemployment rate of between 8-10% by the end of 2009 or between 3 and 4 million..if not more.

Than...the real <deleted> starts !

Poor Thailand

LaoPo

I have the same worry, some posters here who in the past have shown a modicum of intelligence are now blindly supporting the PAD. The Thais I can understand, the propaganda machine is unrelenting, but how does anyone with an eye to Thai or world history for reference points come out in defense of these unelected and unrepresentative people with what is a scary agenda?

A point by point breakdown can be found at Bangkok Pundit

[Gravelrash]

That party was formed during junta period when no one knew what was going to happen after the new constitution was accepted, long before Samak debacle and "new politics", and they specifically stated they are not going to participate in politics for at least five years.

You mean after the PAD/Military coup the PAD were worried about the military?

Or that they thought they would have a go a politics with a stacked deck but even then realized that they were completely unelectable. Yes, a coup in disguise the only sure way, eh?

[Gravelrash]

What is unreasonable is that a self appointed vigilante group is able to make these demands....

The "demands" are most basic, most of them are right there in the constution and related laws.

What is sad, as I said already, is that they need to be spelled out publicly and officially.

Actually it's any citizen's right to demand the government to perform it's duties. Call them vigilantes or not.

What exactly do you find unreasonable there?

At last someone with a brain making sense of this item. I have read in disbelief at nearly all of the ignorant posts so far.

All of the demands of the PAD are totally reasonable. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The PAD are acting accordingly risking their lives for the good of the people. They are just a group of like minded people trying to stop the country going back to the rule of a convicted criminal

Did you just come out of a coma? This is December 2008, you have a lot of catching up to do.

[horizon]

I have the same worry, some posters here who in the past have shown a modicum of intelligence are now blindly supporting the PAD. The Thais I can understand, the propaganda machine is unrelenting, but how does anyone with an eye to Thai or world history for reference points come out in defense of these unelected and unrepresentative people with what is a scary agenda?

Yes, indeed! That's one quite fascinating, though disturbing, aspect of all this.

[Gravelrash]

Anybody read the banned Economist article from the 6th December? Made for some interesting reading, I can see why Thailand banned that particular issue, they wouldn't want to start dispelling the myths they have created.

Written by Thaksins PR man

Total paranoid nonsense.

Again I find it strange that a foreigner is condoning the lack of free speech here. To suggest that any view that doesn't fit in with the PAD vision of things , has to be written by a Thaksin PR man is ridiculous.

Just sit back a minute and think, would you be happy if you were not able to discuss the politics of your home country freely.

Just remember truth is often stranger than fiction, and in many aspects of this upheaval I think you will find that this is the case.

I don't agree with the censorship, but must tell that many western countries have the same (Austria and Germany is jumping in my mind, Austria is just now not allowing a Puzzle for children.....), but that Economist article is so obvious ill-intended written from a Thaksin man that it makes it now understandable for me why Thailand has such laws.

Very good point. The only opinions you should be allowed to read should be from The Nation and The Manager. Any other opinion is biased. You forgot to mention all the other many magazines, blogs and newspaper articles outside Thailand that Taksin has also managed to corrupt, the fiend knows no bounds. There was even one in bloody Pakistan that he got to as well.

[Xangsamhua]

PAD lost a lot of foreign support when they announced their support for "New Politics". Since then the foreign media have picked up the theme of moral equivalence between the yellow and red shirts and the New Politics = Fascism trope. People who are actually here in Thailand and engaging with the various points of view - of spouses, friends, local media, etc - can at least claim to have some first hand perspectives, even if they differ strongly among themselves. I would suggest most have invested some strong feeling in their judgments by now and are no longer able to be objective. Two people looking at the same thing are seeing something entirely different.

One would hope overseas journalists would be able to make a more impartial assessment. However, it seems that they also see the world through their own cultural filters. For them, monarchies are archaic and any suggestion that rule by the ballot box alone should be modified is fascism (despite the fact that it gave Germany Hitler, Iraq Saddam and Algeria, until outlawed, the Islamic Salvation Front (committed to Sharia). For these journalists Thaksin comes across as a good guy badly treated by the elite (and elites - any elites - are bad in the ideology of Western liberal journalists).

I have no objection to articles like these being written. They neutralize themselves by arousing as much objection as they do acceptance. They serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country. Thais don't particularly like being spoken down to, though articles like these may have some circulation among students and other English-literate Thais who may find them interesting though nothing new. I can't really understand why the Economist has published two articles (on the same date?) on Thailand's political issues when they must be of real interest to only a tiny fraction of their readers. It really does make one wonder how effective Thaksin's PR firm really is. Who else benefits?

Edited December 13, 2008 by Xangsamhua

[Chaimai]

PAD lost a lot of foreign support when they announced their support for "New Politics". Since then the foreign media have picked up the theme of moral equivalence between the yellow and red shirts and the New Politics = Fascism trope. People who are actually here in Thailand and engaging with the various points of view - of spouses, friends, local media, etc - can at least claim to have some first hand perspectives, even if they differ strongly among themselves. I would suggest most have invested some strong feeling in their judgments by now and are no longer able to be objective. Two people looking at the same thing are seeing something entirely different.

One would hope overseas journalists would be able to make a more impartial assessment. However, it seems that they also see the world through their own cultural filters. For them, monarchies are archaic and any suggestion that rule by the ballot box alone should be modified is fascism (despite the fact that it gave Germany Hitler, Iraq Saddam and Algeria, until outlawed, the Islamic Salvation Front (committed to Sharia). For these journalists Thaksin comes across as a good guy badly treated by the elite (and elites - any elites - are bad in the ideology of Western liberal journalists).

I have no objection to articles like these being written. They neutralize themselves by arousing as much objection as they do acceptance. They serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country. Thais don't particularly like being spoken down to, though articles like these may have some circulation among students and other English-literate Thais who may find them interesting though nothing new. I can't really understand why the Economist has published two articles (on the same date?) on Thailand's political issues when they must be of real interest to only a tiny fraction of their readers. It really does make one wonder how effective Thaksin's PR firm really is. Who else benefits?

Excellent post, extremely well-balanced. Objectivity is difficult once positions have been taken.

[jackr]

14. Squeeze foreigners and prevent further dilution of the Thai gene.

'The PAD wants...', 'the PAD would like...', <deleted> do these people think they are! A bunch of silly children bent on lining their own pockets?

[LaoPo]

I have no objection to articles like these being written. They neutralize themselves by arousing as much objection as they do acceptance. They serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country. Thais don't particularly like being spoken down to, though articles like these may have some circulation among students and other English-literate Thais who may find them interesting though nothing new.

I can't really understand why the Economist has published two articles (on the same date?) on Thailand's political issues when they must be of real interest to only a tiny fraction of their readers. It really does make one wonder how effective Thaksin's PR firm really is. Who else benefits?

You have no objections to articles like ''these'' being written and yet in the same message you suggest someone would possibly benefit ?

To suggest that a highly respected and intellectual media outlet like the weekly The Economist would even consider to accept the views of PR companies is something you wouldn't write and suggest, if you would only know and realize who are behind The Economist, The Economist Group, The Financial Times and Pearson PLC; all related to each other.

Your suggestion makes no sense at all.

That you don't understand why The Economist -print edition- would publish two articles on the same date on December 6h (dated 4th) is easy to explain since the two articles were published in different sections of the publication; one in world opinion and one in leaders.

This is nothing special and happens often in many publications by The Economist or any other magazine/newspaper around the world if they write about other countries like the USA, China or any other country in the world.

The Economist is known for it's very clear and intellectual observations about many world subjects, wrong doings or countries and it's governances around the world but her observations and opinions are sometimes not appreciated by the leaders/governments of those countries...

To claim that "they serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country" is of course a misconception since they have everything to lose, by being banned in a certain country -and thus NO sales in that area- rather than winning or trying to win/influence amongst the foreign community in that area.

If you really think that The Economist would write something to benefit someone, somebody, a group or another entity...even a government or it's opposition, you underestimate the intelligence as well as the independence of the highly respected members/owners* behind the publishers of the above mentioned media.

for example:

"Censorship

Sections of The Economist criticising authoritarian regimes, such as China, are frequently removed from the newspaper by the authorities in those countries. Despite having its Asia-Pacific office in Singapore, The Economist regularly has difficulties with the Lee family, which has successfully sued it for libel on a number of occasions.[43]"

On 15 June 2006 Iran banned the sale of The Economist when it published a map labelling the Persian Gulf simply as "Gulf" — a choice that derives its political significance from the Persian Gulf naming dispute.[44]

Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe went further, and imprisoned Andrew Meldrum, The Economist's correspondent there. The government charged him with violating a statute on "publishing untruth" for writing that a woman was decapitated by Mugabe supporters. The decapitation claim was retracted and allegedly fabricated by the woman's husband. The correspondent was later acquitted, only to receive a deportation order.[45]

from Wiki.

But, it is obvious that some pro PAD supporters will deny anything written that is not in favour of their own opinion and thus throw any other opinion in the garbage can or stamp that opinion as being absurd or ridiculous. But that says more about them rather than the others' opinion.

Luckily, there are still honest and non biased opinions around the world, worth reading, adding hope for a better future for the people of such countries.

* Members of the boards of Directors (and owners) of The Economist Group belong to the highest circles in the UK, House of Lords and are, in many cases, personal acquaintances/friends of the British Royal Family.

LaoPo

[Rinrada]

[yes deleted - MiG16]

[Plus]

There has been several official letters and editorials today severly critisising the Economist for that latest article.

Their main point is that the Economist claimed conspiracy is far to fetched to have any substance, and it's baseless to start with - one controversial book by a western journalist who relied on questionable Thai sources, and it was written before the current crisus started. To go from there to one simplistic explanation to all three years of turmoil is an act of defying any common sense in pursuit of a "story".

And yes, after ex-Economist poster boy Moon became Thaksin's executive director for a bogus foundation their Asian desk "neutrality" looks very very suspicious, especially in the light of their a sudden about turn in support of Thaksin in early 2006.

That's when they were singing praises to Thaksin's democratic credentials while the man himself was busy setting up fake parties with fake registration papers and bribing EC officials to tamper with their database.

[Plus]

[deleted - MiG16]

[Pierrot]

A lot of people in Thailand now claim that foreigners don't understand how Thailand is specific and different form the rest of the world. I believe it's greatly exaggerated. But one thing I learned leaving here, and I know this point is difficult to understand and accept by foreigners, is that Thais will more often than not accept something they somehow know is grossly unfair, even illegal, if it's done under the pretence of social harmony. But at the end it won't change the fact that Thailand needs to evolve to adapt to the rest of the world, because the opposite won't definitively happen any time soon.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Pierrot

[pumpuiman]

[deleted - off topic and border line against forum rules - MiG16]

[Pierrot]

[deleted - off topic and border line against forum rules - MiG16]

[animatic]

PAD lost a lot of foreign support when they announced their support for "New Politics". Since then the foreign media have picked up the theme of moral equivalence between the yellow and red shirts and the New Politics = Fascism trope. People who are actually here in Thailand and engaging with the various points of view - of spouses, friends, local media, etc - can at least claim to have some first hand perspectives, even if they differ strongly among themselves. I would suggest most have invested some strong feeling in their judgments by now and are no longer able to be objective. Two people looking at the same thing are seeing something entirely different.

One would hope overseas journalists would be able to make a more impartial assessment. However, it seems that they also see the world through their own cultural filters. For them, monarchies are archaic and any suggestion that rule by the ballot box alone should be modified is fascism (despite the fact that it gave Germany Hitler, Iraq Saddam and Algeria, until outlawed, the Islamic Salvation Front (committed to Sharia). For these journalists Thaksin comes across as a good guy badly treated by the elite (and elites - any elites - are bad in the ideology of Western liberal journalists).

I have no objection to articles like these being written. They neutralize themselves by arousing as much objection as they do acceptance. They serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country. Thais don't particularly like being spoken down to, though articles like these may have some circulation among students and other English-literate Thais who may find them interesting though nothing new. I can't really understand why the Economist has published two articles (on the same date?) on Thailand's political issues when they must be of real interest to only a tiny fraction of their readers. It really does make one wonder how effective Thaksin's PR firm really is. Who else benefits?

Excellent post, extremely well-balanced. Objectivity is difficult once positions have been taken.

Yes I agree a well thought out post.

Far too many are ignoring facts based logic, and wailing on

about emotional hot button points or worst case scenarios.

Any educated and observant Thai can clearly see many different levels

and attitudes within the 'Thai body politic' around them.

Only those so self-centeredly nationalistic or blatantly paranoid or over the edge partisan,

as to shut out all but hagiographic writings, would not read most articles,

and digest and compare to their own observations,

regardless of liking the external observer's points.

In any culture there are those who just can't stand criticism from 'abroad'.

Oh my god! Canada just said Michagan is polluted, lets go bash some Canadians...

Hey those kids in the next town over said their footballers are better,

they need a beating... etc etc.

Or if this gets printed my business gets hurt... stiffle it.

But typically in my observations those griping about external comments loudest

are FAR from the mainstream individuals that make a country function

and provide its true HEART.

If you write from the middle ground, then BOTH extremes hate you with a passion...

Win win!!

Edited December 13, 2008 by animatic

[LaoPo]

There has been several official letters and editorials today severly critisising the Economist for that latest article.

Their main point is that the Economist claimed conspiracy is far to fetched to have any substance, and it's baseless to start with - one controversial book by a western journalist who relied on questionable Thai sources, and it was written before the current crisus started. To go from there to one simplistic explanation to all three years of turmoil is an act of defying any common sense in pursuit of a "story".

And yes, after ex-Economist poster boy Moon became Thaksin's executive director for a bogus foundation their Asian desk "neutrality" looks very very suspicious, especially in the light of their a sudden about turn in support of Thaksin in early 2006.

That's when they were singing praises to Thaksin's democratic credentials while the man himself was busy setting up fake parties with fake registration papers and bribing EC officials to tamper with their database.

Of course, it's difficult to face the truth.

Only time will tell; during times of real democracy and free press sincere truth will come to surface about PAD and the people behind them.

LaoPo

[Bangyai]

Every follower of Economist line of thinking talks about draconian lese majesty laws.

Yet not a single person has actually been jailed for critisising the monarchy, ever.

There's an outspoken Thai academic who has been charged and even convicted over a dozen times, yet even he hasn't seen the insides of a jail cell. The latest charge was brought against him about a month ago.

Well, just to be pedantic, there was the nut who defaced pictures of his majesty because he couldn't get a beer.......but he was pardoned after a few months in jail.

More seriously, Darunee Charnchoengsilpakul I believe is still in jail on a charge of LM having been refused bail despite a respected academic trying to arrange it. You will remember that Sondhi repeated her remarks ( which by the way is not an o.k. thing to do for obvious reasons ) and then presented himself for arrest but was out on bail an hour later.

So added to the above mentioned cases we now have 4 people to contradict you

Edited December 13, 2008 by Bangyai

[Ulysses G.]

Every follower of Economist line of thinking talks about draconian lese majesty laws.

Yet not a single person has actually been jailed for critisising the monarchy, ever.

This is just not true.

[yumidesign]

Have just read the most excellent article in the Economist on Thailand as suggested by previous poster which is very revealing although now overtaken by recent events that the writer did not foresee and more revealing are the comments from readers, some well educated Thais

Go to www.economist.com

[Plus]

There was a farang in Chiang Mai who defaced images of the king - that's not criticising.

Kisielwicz mentioned earlier wasn't jailed for criticising either, and neither was Darunee - what she was saying was plain unacceptable regarding ANY person, let alone legally protected royal family.

A bit similar to Thaivisa - great many trolls and flamers claim that they've been banned for expressing different views, instead of flaming and trolling.

I'm not saying the law has never been applied, but no one was ever jailed for criticising the monarchy, not for offending it.

The case of Harry Nicolaides is puzzling - the Mandala folks claim he is charged with lese majeste for a book he's written, yet the book doesn't even exist in the first place.

[henryalleman]

I have no objection to articles like these being written. They neutralize themselves by arousing as much objection as they do acceptance. They serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country. Thais don't particularly like being spoken down to, though articles like these may have some circulation among students and other English-literate Thais who may find them interesting though nothing new.

I can't really understand why the Economist has published two articles (on the same date?) on Thailand's political issues when they must be of real interest to only a tiny fraction of their readers. It really does make one wonder how effective Thaksin's PR firm really is. Who else benefits?

You have no objections to articles like ''these'' being written and yet in the same message you suggest someone would possibly benefit ?

To suggest that a highly respected and intellectual media outlet like the weekly The Economist would even consider to accept the views of PR companies is something you wouldn't write and suggest, if you would only know and realize who are behind The Economist, The Economist Group, The Financial Times and Pearson PLC; all related to each other.

Your suggestion makes no sense at all.

That you don't understand why The Economist -print edition- would publish two articles on the same date on December 6h (dated 4th) is easy to explain since the two articles were published in different sections of the publication; one in world opinion and one in leaders.

This is nothing special and happens often in many publications by The Economist or any other magazine/newspaper around the world if they write about other countries like the USA, China or any other country in the world.

The Economist is known for it's very clear and intellectual observations about many world subjects, wrong doings or countries and it's governances around the world but her observations and opinions are sometimes not appreciated by the leaders/governments of those countries...

To claim that "they serve only to influence the foreign community here and people doing business with this country" is of course a misconception since they have everything to lose, by being banned in a certain country -and thus NO sales in that area- rather than winning or trying to win/influence amongst the foreign community in that area.

If you really think that The Economist would write something to benefit someone, somebody, a group or another entity...even a government or it's opposition, you underestimate the intelligence as well as the independence of the highly respected members/owners* behind the publishers of the above mentioned media.

for example:

"Censorship

Sections of The Economist criticising authoritarian regimes, such as China, are frequently removed from the newspaper by the authorities in those countries. Despite having its Asia-Pacific office in Singapore, The Economist regularly has difficulties with the Lee family, which has successfully sued it for libel on a number of occasions.[43]"

On 15 June 2006 Iran banned the sale of The Economist when it published a map labelling the Persian Gulf simply as "Gulf" — a choice that derives its political significance from the Persian Gulf naming dispute.[44]

Robert Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe went further, and imprisoned Andrew Meldrum, The Economist's correspondent there. The government charged him with violating a statute on "publishing untruth" for writing that a woman was decapitated by Mugabe supporters. The decapitation claim was retracted and allegedly fabricated by the woman's husband. The correspondent was later acquitted, only to receive a deportation order.[45]

from Wiki.

But, it is obvious that some pro PAD supporters will deny anything written that is not in favour of their own opinion and thus throw any other opinion in the garbage can or stamp that opinion as being absurd or ridiculous. But that says more about them rather than the others' opinion.

Luckily, there are still honest and non biased opinions around the world, worth reading, adding hope for a better future for the people of such countries.

* Members of the boards of Directors (and owners) of The Economist Group belong to the highest circles in the UK, House of Lords and are, in many cases, personal acquaintances/friends of the British Royal Family.

LaoPo

Another member put an academic view of Thai politics,

Its very interesting, its worth reading it

[Pierrot]

A bit similar to Thaivisa - great many trolls and flamers claim that they've been banned for expressing different views, instead of flaming and trolling.

Are you discussing moderation here?

5) Discussion of moderation issues, actions or moderation policies concerning individual cases are not allowed in the forums.

Be careful, you may be banned but after don't claim it was because of your polical views

Edited December 14, 2008 by Pierrot

[Plus]

"Coup for the rich" is written by a certified communist nutcase Giles. This "academic" book wasn't accepted even by his own university.

Just look at the ridiculous title - people who came to power after the coup were paupers comparing to Thaksin and Co., who, in turn, were the richest group of Thais ever in government.

If you were trying to get a grasp on US/UK or any other western country politics, would you rely on a writings by a leader of a fringe marxist party with less than thirty followers?

[henryalleman]

"Coup for the rich" is written by a certified communist nutcase Giles. This "academic" book wasn't accepted even by his own university.

Just look at the ridiculous title - people who came to power after the coup were paupers comparing to Thaksin and Co., who, in turn, were the richest group of Thais ever in government.

If you were trying to get a grasp on US/UK or any other western country politics, would you rely on a writings by a leader of a fringe marxist party with less than thirty followers?

What is interesting is that he is in some subjects in accordance with the Economist. I have a VCR tape of a BBC documentary from about 15 years ago where they interviewed an expelled lawyer about the same subject, it also was in accordance with the Economist and the nutcase Giles.

Of course we must keep in mind that hes a communist, and that his own university didn't accept his view is rather normal, regarding the subjects he wrote about.

I don't say that he wrote the bible, But I don't find the bible that trustworthy also.

But in one thing he could be correct. In the Thai political spectrum there is no social democrat party, where the working class and workers could identify themselves with, and therefore they are an easy victim for populists. Because he wrote that all political parties even the ones who claim to defend the poor are all led by the rich and upper class is undoubtedly true. And lets be honest the socialist now called Social democrats contribute a lot in reforming Europe to the society that it is today.

Because all social reforms in Europe where accomplished due the pressure of the Socialist movement.

I would like to emphasize that I'm in no way a left winger, on the contrary.

[Samuian]

[...... In the Thai political spectrum there is no social democrat party, where the working class and workers could identify themselves with, and therefore they are an easy victim for populists.

If my perception isn't completely off center, this is exactly what the PAD has written on it's banners...

Because he wrote that all political parties even the ones who claim to defend the poor are all led by the rich and upper class is undoubtedly true. And lets be honest the socialist now called Social democrats contribute a lot in reforming Europe to the society that it is today.

Because all social reforms in Europe where accomplished due the pressure of the Socialist movement.

Politics all over the place get more and more infested with "influential, rich and upper class people" who lost the ties with the "folks" long, long ago, thanks to the lobby of the capital.

It's the run for money & power, everywhere!

Looks like we need a world wide PAD Movement!

[permanent_disorder]

Another member put an academic view of Thai politics,

Its very interesting, its worth reading it

it's the book "A Coup for the Rich". next time please name title and author if you offer a document like this for download. save time for other members.

did you read it, henryalleman?

the author Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a pretty hard core critic of Thaksin and that from the beginning.

he is maybe the most prominent figure of a broader group of people and most of them not trotskists like Giles, but your normal liberals. group of academics, human rights academics, civil rights groups, pro-democracy movement(not PAD) that had never been tired, to point out what is wrong with thaksins policies. that brought attention to the war on drugs, vote buying, corruption, the crisis in te south and so on, during a time Comrade Sondhi il Lim was still best buddy of thaksin and PAD leader Senior General Chamlong il Srim, advisor, mentor of thaksin, the conductor in the background. they don't care about is.

but Professor Giles is also or much more a critic and outspoken against the Coup, the military Junta we had 1-2 years ago, against the 2007 junta constitution, against the PAD and their actions and nor surprise not a fan of the Democrats puppet ensemble.

and the very same people and civil watch groups that collect and published all the material to expose the abuse of human rights that happen under Thaksin in power. is worth to listen what they say now. none of them have a good word for the PAD. for this people is PAD the bigger evil. PAD itself have nothing to do with human rights or democracy or honesty.

oddly enough the pro PAD apologists, loving to use the anti-thaksins argument by these thaksin critics.but if the same people say something against PAD they get a heavy bashing and slander and it's worse than it ever was under thaksin. but what you expect from hypocrites.

knowledge about some basic facts in history, ability to deductive reasoning and to see coherences is necessary to understand most of the anti PAD arguments here in TVforum or the public media. the majority of that voices can not be labeled as thaksin lovers, as small minded people like you often do.

just do a duoble check, if you have old material of thaksins criticism. look what those people say now and vice versa, some more educated opinion against PAD, independend voices, what have they said during the thaksin era. than you will understand.

one of Professor Giles recently published articles had the head line "A Second “Coup for the Rich”", did you read it?

bitter and harsh words, but understandable if you are confronted by a mob of imbeciles.

[henryalleman]

Another member put an academic view of Thai politics,

Its very interesting, its worth reading it

it's the book "A Coup for the Rich". next time please name title and author if you offer a document like this for download. save time for other members.

did you read it, henryalleman?

the author Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn is a pretty hard core critic of Thaksin and that from the beginning.

he is maybe the most prominent figure of a broader group of people and most of them not trotskists like Giles, but your normal liberals. group of academics, human rights academics, civil rights groups, pro-democracy movement(not PAD) that had never been tired, to point out what is wrong with thaksins policies. that brought attention to the war on drugs, vote buying, corruption, the crisis in te south and so on, during a time Comrade Sondhi il Lim was still best buddy of thaksin and PAD leader Senior General Chamlong il Srim, advisor, mentor of thaksin, the conductor in the background. they don't care about is.

but Professor Giles is also or much more a critic and outspoken against the Coup, the military Junta we had 1-2 years ago, against the 2007 junta constitution, against the PAD and their actions and nor surprise not a fan of the Democrats puppet ensemble.

and the very same people and civil watch groups that collect and published all the material to expose the abuse of human rights that happen under Thaksin in power. is worth to listen what they say now. none of them have a good word for the PAD. for this people is PAD the bigger evil. PAD itself have nothing to do with human rights or democracy or honesty.

oddly enough the pro PAD apologists, loving to use the anti-thaksins argument by these thaksin critics.but if the same people say something against PAD they get a heavy bashing and slander and it's worse than it ever was under thaksin. but what you expect from hypocrites.

knowledge about some basic facts in history, ability to deductive reasoning and to see coherences is necessary to understand most of the anti PAD arguments here in TVforum or the public media. the majority of that voices can not be labeled as thaksin lovers, as small minded people like you often do.

just do a duoble check, if you have old material of thaksins criticism. look what those people say now and vice versa, some more educated opinion against PAD, independend voices, what have they said during the thaksin era. than you will understand.

one of Professor Giles recently published articles had the head line "A Second “Coup for the Rich”", did you read it?

bitter and harsh words, but understandable if you are confronted by a mob of imbeciles.

I read it, but I also read what member SAKEOPETE wrote,

I hope you do also, and are not that bias to see the truth in it.

I don't say the democrats are perfect but in my judgement far more better than Thaksin

ll Thais to say the least but lets look at Thaksin's accomplishments:

30 baht health care: results hospitals are almost broke and charging the poor on top of the 30 baht, nice populist policy.

Cheap loans for the rural poor, good idea but he knew Thais are obsessed with gaining face and the first thing they buy is a shiny new phone: result since the Thaksin government put legislation in place to limit cell phone towers AIS had a huge advantage. Farmer buys new phone, new AIS SIM Card Thaksin gets richer as AIS nearly doubles its earnings.

Thaksin government boasts about its economic polices but the whole region boomed from Chinese demand fueled by credit purchases in the west.

Thaksin encourages Thais to spend by credit now Thai house holds have debt 200% higher than pre-Thaksin, how will they pay it back?

Thaksin government boasts of paying off IMF loan, yes he did but only by getting another loan from Singapore with a 30 year interest only payment plan, then after the 30 years Thailand still owes the principle.

Thaksin forces the banks to extend billions in loans to Burma so they could upgrade the cellular and satellite communications, of coarse the risk was worth it to Thai tax payers because Burma had to buy from AIS.

Thaksin doesn't like the criticism from the news papers so he tries and buy through his cronies to control the editors, luckily people protested and it never happened. He continued to control content by law suits and threats of advertisements being pulled.

Thaksin goes on television and asks the poor to pay their taxes for the national interest, then 1 week later sells AIS for 2 billion US dollars and pays no taxes. Not to mention his government changed the country's law to facilitate the 49% foreign ownership rules.

So please tell me what Thaksin did to improve the lives of Thai people that wasn't self serving? What genius did he show for building the Thai economy during a boom time in the region? If he loves the poor why incite violence leading to the death of Thai people so he can stay in politics. If he loved Thai people he would have kept his promise of staying out of politics, if he loved Thai people he would have not formed a proxy government of unqualified ministers (admitted by Samak) to mismanage the country.

Sorry but I don't see what Thaksin did that was so great for Thailand.

[permanent_disorder]

[deleted - MiG16]

it's one of their beloved arguments when they rant about critics and try to silence them.

i just want bring back an older case to the attention.

again it's an article that comes from Giles Ji Ungpakorn and you could say that is just a trotzkyist, so i doubt his credibility. but he is also a respected university lecturer at Chulalongkorn University and political scientist. for example things we know about the recent thai history, like the october 1976, we know because of his work and studies on this subject. he is the one who pointed out samaks involvement 1976.

Mr Sonti Limtongkul's Manager media group promoting violence against a young student activist and a Chairwoman of a workers union

"Over 130 trade unionists, social activists, students and academics have put their names to an open letter condemning the behaviour of The Manager media group.

Those signing the letter include many academics at Chulalongkorn and Thammasart Universities, including the Dean of the faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. Former Senator Jon Ungpakorn and Rawadee Prasertcharoensuk from the N.G.O. Coordinating Committee, Professor Niti Eawsriwong, Textile trade union leaders, worker activists and an academic from the Midnight University are among the signatures.

The letter is in response to the actions of Mr Sonti Limtongkul's Manager group in promoting violence against a young student activist Chotisak Oonsung, who is being accused of lèse majesté because he refused to stand up for the King's Anthem at the cinema. Both Manager group websites and its radio station, Metro Life, have encouraged Ultra-Rightwing Royalists to attack Mr Chotisak. Ms Jitra Kotchadej, Chairwoman of the Triumph workers union has also been made a target for violence by The Manager media. Ms Jitra was singled out because she wore a T-shirt supporting the right to different views in society, including not standing up at the cinema. Both Mr Chotisak and Ms Jitra's photographs and home addresses were published alongside urges to attack them.

The Manager media also encouraged people to attack and break up a meeting on Human Rights at Thammasart University recently.

Those signing the open letter compare the behaviour of The Manager with the past behaviour of Rightwing media such as Dao Sayam newspaper and the Tank Corps radio station in inciting violence that led to the 6th October 1976 blood bath.

The letter calls on people to boycott The Manager media group for abusing basic human rights. The letter also calls on P.A.D. leaders Somsak Kosaisuk, Pipop Thongchai and Somkiat Pongpaiboon to come out and officially condemn The Manager. "

http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=642 May 2008

[jasreeve17]

"Coup for the rich" is written by a certified communist nutcase Giles. This "academic" book wasn't accepted even by his own university.

Just look at the ridiculous title - people who came to power after the coup were paupers comparing to Thaksin and Co., who, in turn, were the richest group of Thais ever in government.

If you were trying to get a grasp on US/UK or any other western country politics, would you rely on a writings by a leader of a fringe marxist party with less than thirty followers?

Absolute rubbish.

Plus, you are, perhaps, the individual making the loudest claims to be democratic while proving, day in day out with your comments, that the opposite is, in fact, the case.

The university (where I work), with land donated from RamaV, is an outragously rich (key land) institution, and is right up there amongst the Bangkok elite. As to your comment of "paupers comparing to Thaksin and Co"; more nonsense. Look at the big land owners, mostly military types and 'old monied families' around Dusit; PAD supporters, both visible and not so. When are you going to understand that they are all as bad as each other, this small Bkk based minority of Thai haters and money lovers; Thaksin, Sondhi, generals, other...

The point is that democratic principles are far more important than these squabbles and lies based on lies that these folk attack and counter attack each other with. Giles explains this, within the context of Thailand, very well.