The Abhisit Tragedy

[Gravelrash]

Khi Kwai Blog

The good people of Thailand have a long history of meekly acquiescing to coups d’état. So it was not altogether surprising that they appeared to collectively breathe a sigh of relief when Abhisit Vejjajiva emerged from the siege of Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang airports with just enough parliamentary votes to become Thailand’s 27th Prime Minister. By-elections held on January 11 gave him an unexpected boost. The Democrat Party picked up a handful seats; its performance in a number of constituencies in Northern and Central Thailand improved markedly. The Thai people, it seems, genuinely want the new government to succeed.

In truth, Thai voters have never really liked Mr. Abhisit. The Democrat Party has lost every national election it contested under his leadership. Some joke that this Oxford-educated son of privilege needs a visa to travel to the rural areas where most Thais still reside. Despite his clean, boyish looks, Abhisit is manifestly squirmy and uncomfortable in his own skin - his charisma and charm scarcely exceeding that expected of the greyest, most anonymous of menial clerical workers at the lowest rungs of the country’s vast bureaucracy. To be sure, Barack Obama he is not. But having witnessed the People’s Alliance for Democracy inflict still untold damage on the Thai economy and the country’s increasingly tenuous image around the world, many ordinary people were simply relieved when Thailand’s bureaucratic, economic, and military elites executed the final stage of a carefully orchestrated plan - first, by using their control of the courts to remove a government their paramilitary and military wings had mortally wounded through a mixture of terrorism and insubordination; then, by forking out the cash needed to buy off a sufficient number of MPs to form their very own “nominee government.” Precisely because of the elite support it enjoys, at the very least Abhisit’s government promised to return the country to a measure of normalcy. And, unlike the coterie of swine that has ruled Thailand for decades, the Thai people can reliably be counted on to place country over partisan interest.

[way2muchcoffee]

Any points that might have been made in this blog are completely obscured by the highly inflammatory language the author chose to use. This is unfortunate as it renders the entire piece unconvincing and almost unreadable.

[madjbs]

Load of complete rubbish and a pathetic piece of writing.

[jasreeve17]

  way2muchcoffee said:

Any points that might have been made in this blog are completely obscured by the highly inflammatory language the author chose to use. This is unfortunate as it renders the entire piece unconvincing and almost unreadable.

Couldn't disagree.

The contained argument is pretty spot-on, but the delivery is too aggressive. It reads like Plus's alter-ego.

[Xangsamhua]

Harry Nicolaides should not be in prison. The court handed down the most lenient sentence they could under the law, but the law really needs to be looked at.

Abhisit was too quick to defend the navy over the Rohingya incident/s. He now looks weak and unethical. I hope he learns from this.

The rest of the article is same-old, same-old....

I'm just waiting for the deals to be done with Thaksin.

[neverdie]

Quite day at the office, Gravelrash?

[mc2]

i hope harry gets out ASAP.

some very good points by the author, I share his disappointment.

[dinthailand]

  madjbs said:

Load of complete rubbish and a pathetic piece of writing.

It is long and too caustic but has som points that are debatable

Rather than rubbish it why not precis it? At least that would be a positive contribution to the forum

A pity, as other posters have commented, that the piece was spoilt by its style

[clausewitz]

A nice piece, thanks for that.

[wayfarer108]

In the most recent 2007 general elections the Demos earned proportionally more of the popular vote than the PPP did. In the election before that the Demos, along with the Thai Nation Party and Great People's Party boycotted the election, despite which the TRT only managed 61%. In previous elections the Demos earned plenty of votes, more than all other parties combined.

Thaksin built a formidable political machine and that would have happened no matter who headed the Demos. So IMO it's an invalid conclusion to unequivocally state that 'Thai voters have never really liked Mr. Abhisit.'

Abhisit remains popular among Democrats, and the Democrats are popular in Bangkok, Central Thailand and the South. He is probably more popular in the North and NE than at any time in the past as well and the party transfers suggest a shift is in progress. Those who opposte the Demos are more vocal than however because that is the political climate at the moment.

Abhisit had nothing to do with the imprisonment of Nicolaides. The man was arrested before the Demos came to power and the PM does not have the power to pardon.

As far as the Rohingyas are concerned, we don't have all the facts and one hopes the government will act decisively, but were Thaksin or one of his alter egos in power right now, they would shrug off all international criticism with classic statements like 'Don't listen to those who criticise,' or 'The UN is not my father.' At least under the Demos the alleged abuse looks like it will be investigated. The TRT/PRP machine would have rolled right over it and kept on going, as they did with smothering deaths in the South and the 3000 extrajudicial killings carried out around the nation under the guise of a war on drugs.

[jasreeve17]

  wayfarer108 said:

In the most recent 2007 general elections the Demos earned proportionally more of the popular vote than the PPP did. In the election before that the Demos, along with the Thai Nation Party and Great People's Party boycotted the election, despite which the TRT only managed 61%. In previous elections the Demos earned plenty of votes, more than all other parties combined.

Thaksin built a formidable political machine and that would have happened no matter who headed the Demos. So IMO it's an invalid conclusion to unequivocally state that 'Thai voters have never really liked Mr. Abhisit.'

Abhisit remains popular among Democrats, and the Democrats are popular in Bangkok, Central Thailand and the South. He is probably more popular in the North and NE than at any time in the past as well and the party transfers suggest a shift is in progress. Those who opposte the Demos are more vocal than however because that is the political climate at the moment.

Abhisit had nothing to do with the imprisonment of Nicolaides. The man was arrested before the Demos came to power and the PM does not have the power to pardon.

As far as the Rohingyas are concerned, we don't have all the facts and one hopes the government will act decisively, but were Thaksin or one of his alter egos in power right now, they would shrug off all international criticism with classic statements like 'Don't listen to those who criticise,' or 'The UN is not my father.' At least under the Demos the alleged abuse looks like it will be investigated. The TRT/PRP machine would have rolled right over it and kept on going, as they did with smothering deaths in the South and the 3000 extrajudicial killings carried out around the nation under the guise of a war on drugs.

Just repeating; the others were worse, the others were worse, is meaningless. Yes, MrT was awful, but Abhisit promised so much more, and as yet is not delivering - indeed, his route to power proved in itself what he's about (not democracy...).

I hope that I'm wrong, and the Rohingyas situation gives Abhisit the perfect platform to prove it. If he gets to the bottom of the truth and tries / imprisons senior army officials (if guilty) then he will quickly earn my respect. Of course if he plays the nationalism card agaaaain and sweeps it uder the carpet agaaaain, I'll think; here comes another corrupt and self-serving Thai politician, agaaain.

Do you not think that the 2007 'election' was a tad stacked in his favour? (& he still managed not to win, thus forcing their next undemocratic power taking plan.)

[angiud]

Just propaganda papers.

Wait a little to judge Abhisit.

[Gravelrash]

  neverdie said:

Quite day at the office, Gravelrash?

Not sure what you mean? I posted that when I got home as found it interesting, some of us actually read beyond The Nation. Would agree that it is a bit early to condemn Abhisit, but I believe worrying signs are starting to emerge. Agree or disagree, doesn't change my life, however debate is healthy, and last I heard thinking was not a fatal disease.

As previously stated, the political stability the Democrats bring is better for me personally and business wise, however I still believe Thailand has taken a step backwards into the past to benefit the already wealthy wanting to be moreso. Time will tell of course. At any rate if you disliked or disagree with the article why not explain why? No doubt many here would benefit from your indepth analysis and critique. Please tear it to shreds intelectually and show us why it is all based on false assumption.

[jdinasia]

I thought we didn't quote blogs in here much less run them in their entirety ... this one is an example of why!

[jumnien]

Intelligent political discussion should be offlimits on a forum such as TV. I agree with JA; this doesn't belong here. Let's have some more rightwing banter from the PAD; keep it amusing and sanuk!

[Gravelrash]

  jdinasia said:

I thought we didn't quote blogs in here much less run them in their entirety ... this one is an example of why!

JD, you have two choices if you don't like a thread, ignore it or tear it to shreds with your renowned insightful wit. Calling for for partisan political censorship without any reason apart from apparently upsetting your view of reality is a rather sad reaction. You're American aren't you, where did the rush to censorship come from, land of the free and all that? Or does freedom of speech only apply to what you want to hear? No room for debate?

If TV tells me not to quote anything that criticizes the current administration then I will comply and move on to other pastures, however that has not happened.

It is rather pathetic to see foreigners getting upset about a Thai government critique of all things, yet not one of you has actually dissected the article and pointed out its errors or its conclusions and explained why. I await enlightenment, not rushes to dark ages censorship.

[Scott]

Thanks. It's excellent and quite informative.

The measure of a man isn't only by what he does, but by what he doesn't do.

[jdinasia]

LOL ... apparently reading just isn't your cuppa tea is it?

Why discuss rubbish? As for the rules .. they apply equally to all people on all sides nothing partisan about this .. as for my view of reality? Well what I see is YOU attacking a person (me) while all I did was comment on what I believed to be the rules Classy! (The only one upset here seems to be you

[neverdie]

  Gravelrash said:

  neverdie said:

Quite day at the office, Gravelrash?

Not sure what you mean? I posted that when I got home as found it interesting, some of us actually read beyond The Nation. Would agree that it is a bit early to condemn Abhisit, but I believe worrying signs are starting to emerge. Agree or disagree, doesn't change my life, however debate is healthy, and last I heard thinking was not a fatal disease.

As previously stated, the political stability the Democrats bring is better for me personally and business wise, however I still believe Thailand has taken a step backwards into the past to benefit the already wealthy wanting to be moreso. Time will tell of course. At any rate if you disliked or disagree with the article why not explain why? No doubt many here would benefit from your indepth analysis and critique. Please tear it to shreds intelectually and show us why it is all based on false assumption.

Gravelrash,

As others have already pointed out to you, some of the stuff you have delved into here may have some merit. Others have also quickly pointed out its the aggressive nature of your writing that lets your post down. There is nothing like good old constructive critism, if you look into some of it you may even be able to improve yourself.

You proudly waffle on about all types of allegations but offer no evidence to support these. Perhaps you could remove some of the aggression and stick to the facts.

Your style is very aggressive & the whole thing comes across as if your trying to ram your political opinion down everyone elses throat......mainly because you are the only one who is right about something, right? This is something that you have probably done as a child and giving up won't be easy, but your an intelligent well educated man, you'll move forward from this.

On the positive side, you definately come across as someone with writing skill & a great command of the english language. You are also somewhat entertaining.

Anyway, my original comment related to perhaps you doing too much thinking today?? Do you always occupy you day with such vile thoughts? I have a very good psychologist, would you like his number?

I wish you a very happy 2009, Gravelrash & I hope you can start to focus on the positive aspects of the world asap, the mind is a very powerful weapon & yours is working overtime.

[Gravelrash]

  jdinasia said:

LOL ... apparently reading just isn't your cuppa tea is it?

Why discuss rubbish? As for the rules .. they apply equally to all people on all sides nothing partisan about this .. as for my view of reality? Well what I see is YOU attacking a person (me) while all I did was comment on what I believed to be the rules Classy! (The only one upset here seems to be you

Rubbish is of course in the eye of the beholder, but should he be shielded from it so that he cannot form his own judgment? I wasn't attacking you per se, I am sure you are a delightful person, just against your rallying for censorship. Isn't there enough of that going on in the world now? I see though that you still have not offered any constructive rebuttal to the article, you are just playing semantics instead. Come on, tear it up and show us all why it is rubbish. Otherwise stop farting into the wind.

[neverdie]

  jdinasia said:

LOL ... apparently reading just isn't your cuppa tea is it?

Why discuss rubbish? As for the rules .. they apply equally to all people on all sides nothing partisan about this .. as for my view of reality? Well what I see is YOU attacking a person (me) while all I did was comment on what I believed to be the rules Classy! (The only one upset here seems to be you

Actually jdinasia......hes attacked just about anyone whos made a comment in here, I only said a few words to him.......hes obviously out for blood tonight, perhaps my original question should of been "Bad day at the office today GR?"

[jdinasia]

Pardon me Gravel .... but you are violating "fair usage" rules by posting this rubbish (and that is all it is.) Why respond to it? You are welcome to post it under your own name and then it would not be a blog (and using it wouldn't violate the rules) If you are indeed the author.

As for your claims that people need to respond to your rubbish .. hel_l son, you haven't even said what is good or bad about the article, you have only attacked other people.

[Gravelrash]

  neverdie said:

  Gravelrash said:

  neverdie said:

Quite day at the office, Gravelrash?

Not sure what you mean? I posted that when I got home as found it interesting, some of us actually read beyond The Nation. Would agree that it is a bit early to condemn Abhisit, but I believe worrying signs are starting to emerge. Agree or disagree, doesn't change my life, however debate is healthy, and last I heard thinking was not a fatal disease.

As previously stated, the political stability the Democrats bring is better for me personally and business wise, however I still believe Thailand has taken a step backwards into the past to benefit the already wealthy wanting to be moreso. Time will tell of course. At any rate if you disliked or disagree with the article why not explain why? No doubt many here would benefit from your indepth analysis and critique. Please tear it to shreds intelectually and show us why it is all based on false assumption.

Gravelrash,

As others have already pointed out to you, some of the stuff you have delved into here may have some merit. Others have also quickly pointed out its the aggressive nature of your writing that lets your post down. There is nothing like good old constructive critism, if you look into some of it you may even be able to improve yourself.

You proudly waffle on about all types of allegations but offer no evidence to support these. Perhaps you could remove some of the aggression and stick to the facts.

Your style is very aggressive & the whole thing comes across as if your trying to ram your political opinion down everyone elses throat......mainly because you are the only one who is right about something, right? This is something that you have probably done as a child and giving up won't be easy, but your an intelligent well educated man, you'll move forward from this.

On the positive side, you definately come across as someone with writing skill & a great command of the english language. You are also somewhat entertaining.

Anyway, my original comment related to perhaps you doing too much thinking today?? Do you always occupy you day with such vile thoughts? I have a very good psychologist, would you like his number?

I wish you a very happy 2009, Gravelrash & I hope you can start to focus on the positive aspects of the world asap, the mind is a very powerful weapon & yours is working overtime.

Hi Neverdie,

It wasn't my handiwork, it was a copy from a blog, posted for discussion, I was hoping for more dissection actually. I have neither contradicted nor supported its allegations, lean towards the assumptions but really more concerned about it's implications. I admit that my personal writing style can be seen as aggressive, but that is just how I write.

I'll pass on the psychologist for now as my life is pretty OK, but will PM if things go south. The mind working overtime can't be all bad can it, surely it is preferable to being in stasis? Best to you too for the new year.

[neverdie]

No worries Gravelrash, I didnt even notice it was blog stuff. I will leave it for others to chop up...if thats okay with you

[Gravelrash]

  jdinasia said:

Pardon me Gravel .... but you are violating "fair usage" rules by posting this rubbish (and that is all it is.) Why respond to it? You are welcome to post it under your own name and then it would not be a blog (and using it wouldn't violate the rules) If you are indeed the author.

As for your claims that people need to respond to your rubbish .. hel_l son, you haven't even said what is good or bad about the article, you have only attacked other people.

No JD, I am not the author, nor do I know who he/she is. Compare writing styles, it is better expressed (not referring to facts) than what I do, plus touches on areas I am not interested in going.

I'll leave it alone now for others, but surely, isn't calling the article "rubbish" expressing an opinion? You only belabor the term rubbish, but which rubbish and why. Tear up the article if you can JD, why bother going off on an irrelevant tangent attacking me with ridiculous and unfounded assertions?

[jdinasia]

Read again Gravel ... you are the only one that has attacked anyone in this thread

You don't even bother to say what is good or bad about the rubbish you posted, why should anyone else? but it is clearly a "fair usage" violation of copyright

[soundman]

Sorry, this "bullshit" article is not for Thai Visa. Too many problems considering court's decision on LM case and in any event, you are all having a go at each other rather than discusiing issues.

Closed.

[sbk]

  jdinasia said:

I thought we didn't quote blogs in here much less run them in their entirety ... this one is an example of why!

A small quote and a link but to quote the blog in its entirety is not allowed. Post has been edited.