I Will Return To Post Of Prime Minister: Thaksin

[sriracha john]

Former Army Chief Chaiyasit Shinawatra

Chaiyasit [shinawatra] holds ceremony for Thaksin [shinawatra]

Former Army Chief Chaiyasit Shinawatra, a relative [cousin] of ousted premier Thaksin, and his wife together with the Love Chiang Mai 2008 group held a religious ceremony on Tuesday to better the fate of Thaksin. The ceremony was held at Umong Temple in Muang district of the northern province of Chiang Mai. General Chaiyasit said the ceremony is to prolong the life of Thaksin and to take away the ill fates facing him. Hundreds of red-shirt members joined the

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...ony-for-thaksin

[sriracha john]

Spokesman denies Pheu Thai MPs visit Thaksin to get money

Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong Nopparit Friday denied that a group of PTP MP's plan to ask for money from former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra when the meet him in Hong Kong.

Prompong said the MPs left for Hong Kong to meet Thaksin Friday out of their love and respect for the former prime minister.

He dismissed reports that the MPs would take money from Thaksin to organise a mass rally outside Government House on Tuesday.

Prompong said the res-shirted supporters of Thaksin would join the rally without being paid to do so.

- The Nation / 2009-02-20

==============================================================

Chalerm visits Thaksin in Hong Kong Thursday

Pheu Thai Party MP Chalerm Yoobamrung and a team of PTP MP's left for Hong Kong on Thursday to visit former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a Party source said.

The source said Chalerm's team was another team led by Chaowarin Latthasaksiri, which left Bangkok on Friday.

The source said Chalerm would consult Thaksin on the planned censure debate against the government.

Chalerm's entourage included Kanchanaburi MP Ma Phongarm and Nakhon Ratchasima MP Somchai Phetprasert.

The source said Chalerm's team would wait for Chaowarin's team and both teams would visit Thaksin together on Friday.

- The Nation / 2009-02-20

[sriracha john]

Puea Thai Party MP's meet Thaksin

Some PTP MP's have flown to Hong Kong Thursday and Friday to meet ousted PM Thaksin to discuss the no-confidence debate tentatively planned for the end of March. PTP MP Chavarin Latthasaksiri told reporters before leaving the capital that many party MP's have left before him to meet Thaksin. He dismissed speculation that the meeting will be focused on the red-shirt mass rally that is planned to be held at the Government House on Tuesday, however, he refused to reveal the meeting point, claiming that it is kept confidential for Thaksin's security reason.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...ps-meet-thaksin

[sriracha john]

Pheu Thai Party MP Police Lieutenant Chaowarin Latthasaksiri

Pheu Thai Party MP Police Captain Chalerm Yoobamrung

DAAD Leader Veera Muksikkapong

Former heart-throb movie actor and current Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong Nopparit (2nd left)

Pheu Thai Party MPs in Hong Kong to meet Thasksin

A group of Pheu Thai Party MPs led by Chaowarin Latthasaksiri yesterday went to Hong Kong to visit former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Chaowarin said the MPs would consult Thaksin on the plan to hold a no-confidence debate against the government.

He said Thaksin had just arrived at Hong Kong, having previously been 'in hiding' in Nicaragua.

"Thaksin has been in hiding in several countries because he could be assassinated. And he has been keeping a low profile in Nicaragua and has just visited Hong Kong," Chaowarin said. "I won't say where we will meet him, because assassins may try to kill him."

Meanwhile, another team of Pheu Thai MPs led by Chalerm Yoobamrung on Thursday left for Hong Kong to visit Thaksin, a Party source said.

The source said Chalerm's team would consult Thaksin on the planned censure debate against the government, too. However, they will wait for the Chaowarin group before meeting Thaksin together.

The party source said members of Chalerm group include Veera Muksikkapong, a leader of the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship.

Pheu Thai Party Spokesman Prompong Nopparit yesterday denied that a group of Pheu Thai MPs plan to ask for money from Thaksin when they meet him in Hong Kong.

Prompong said the MPs left for Hong Kong to meet Thaksin out of their "love and respect" for the former prime minister. He dismissed reports that the MPs would take money from Thaksin to organise a mass rally outside Government House on Tuesday. Prompong said the redshirted supporters of Thaksin would join the rally without being paid to do so.

- The Nation / 2009-02-20

[sriracha john]

Prosecutor to Seek Thaksin's Return

Despite clear information that fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is living in Hong Kong, the Attorney-General on international affairs claims he must receive coordination from the police before bringing the exiled premier back to the motherland for prosecution. The police say the Thai government must contact Hong Kong directly on the matter.

National Police Spokesman Lieutenant-General Watcharapol Prasarnratchakit has announced the reason why officials cannot arrest former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who fled following a two-year jail sentence for the Ratchadapisek land purchase scandal, even though they know Thaksin is in Hong Kong.

Police Lieutenant General Watcharapol said initially the police should receive a request from the Director-General of the Office of the Attorney-General's International Affairs Department and then they will be able to work with the Hong Kong Police to arrest the ousted premier.

He added that the Thai government can contact Hong Kong officials for a temporary seizure. However, no opposition MPs have provided a specific address of Thaksin in Hong Kong.

The National Police Spokesman admitted that it is not easy to capture the exiled premier because his rapid moves make learning his address difficult.

Meanwhile, Director-General of the Office of the Attorney-General's International Affairs Department Sirisak Tiyaphan said the agency will submit a request asking the police to provide documents related to Thaksin's extradition.

Sirisak revealed the Attorney-General has not received a specific address or the court warrant for Thaksin from the police. Furthermore, the agency cannot continue the extradition procedure since the police have not submitted a document indicating that they have failed to arrest the culprit.

He also informed that the Attorney-General on International Affairs is ready to forward a request to foreign countries asking for cooperation to bring Thaksin back to Thailand for further legal action.

- TOC / 2009-02-20

[sriracha john]

He added that the Thai government can contact Hong Kong officials for a temporary seizure. However, no opposition MPs have provided a specific address of Thaksin in Hong Kong.

Difficult to decide if these PTP MPs are guilty of...

1. obstruction of justice

or

2. aiding and abetting a criminal fugitive

.... I'll go with 1.

[Plus]

SJ is retired, wait until you have all the time in the world on your hands and nothing to do.

Reportedly there was an ad on craigslist once inviting people to post on forums like TV to promote "democracy" by posting anit-Pad messages.

[Sandstone Art]

It is so not true.

There are many more forumers that are sick and tired of Thaksin and his wrong doings.

We ( including ) myself are not anti-democratic and pro-PAD.

Just stating those interesting facts about what had Thaksing done wrong and what is the latest happenings to him.

And you just need to register a new nick just to post this?

Edited February 21, 2009 by Mario2008
quoted deleted post removed.

[Mario2008]

Try to keep it civil and not to get personal.

Flame deleted.

[Ricardo]

jacobbells, ThaiVisa is owned by a gentleman named George, not by SJ.

Post edited to remove flaming post by another member, since removed by mods, and my response to it.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Ricardo

[brahmburgers]

What an odd post, Jacobbells. First off, being Pro-PAD is not being anti-democratic. You'd make a better point if you said being pro-Thaksin (or pro-TRT, pro-pua Thai, UDD, DAAD, etc) was like being anti-democratic - because Thaksin and his ilk are renown for blatantly paying for votes and otherwise rigging voting systems. Sounds like jacobbells has a bunch of axes to grind and he's using a cardboard grinding stone.

[hammered]

Well with all these visits at least we arent in any doubt who the owner of PTP is

Wonder how much money is being bandied around.

[justanothercybertosser]

What an odd post, Jacobbells. First off, being Pro-PAD is not being anti-democratic. You'd make a better point if you said being pro-Thaksin (or pro-TRT, pro-pua Thai, UDD, DAAD, etc) was like being anti-democratic - because Thaksin and his ilk are renown for blatantly paying for votes and otherwise rigging voting systems. Sounds like jacobbells has a bunch of axes to grind and he's using a cardboard grinding stone.

Every party in Thailand is known for "blatantly paying for votes" - see the recent case where Deputy Prime Minister Suthep from the Democrat Party was indited for exactly the same violation. Yet the effect of vote buying has been studied - and these studies suggest that "vote buying" has transformed from an direct money for vote effect during the 80's into an issue of further incentive to vote for a party that people vote anyhow for. You are right to describe TRT not as fully democratic, as the Thai system has never really been.

The PAD though is democratic only in name. One of their main proposals in their "new politics" is to take away votes from sectors of society they deem as "uneducated", and to have a certain rather high percentage of parliamentarians being appointed. Contrary to all sophism thrown around to support this notion - this has as much to do with democracy as the "democratic" republics in the former Warshaw Pact.

More than a few academics have described the PAD as proto-fascist after analysing their demands and their hyper-nationalist position, therefore one is quite right in calling the PAD 'undemocratic'.

Edited February 21, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[hammered]

What an odd post, Jacobbells. First off, being Pro-PAD is not being anti-democratic. You'd make a better point if you said being pro-Thaksin (or pro-TRT, pro-pua Thai, UDD, DAAD, etc) was like being anti-democratic - because Thaksin and his ilk are renown for blatantly paying for votes and otherwise rigging voting systems. Sounds like jacobbells has a bunch of axes to grind and he's using a cardboard grinding stone.

Every party in Thailand is known for "blatantly paying for votes" - see the recent case where Deputy Prime Minister Suthep from the Democrat Party was indited for exactly the same violation. Yet the effect of vote buying has been studied - and these studies suggest that "vote buying" has transformed from an direct money for vote effect during the 80's into an issue of further incentive to vote for a party that people vote anyhow for. You are right to describe TRT not as fully democratic, as the Thai system has never really been.

The PAD though is democratic only in name. One of their main proposals in their "new politics" is to take away votes from sectors of society they deem as "uneducated", and to have a certain rather high percentage of parliamentarians being appointed. Contrary to all sophism thrown around to support this notion - this has as much to do with democracy as the "democratic" republics in the former Warshaw Pact.

More than a few academics have described the PAD as proto-fascist after analysing their demands and their hyper-nationalist position, therefore one is quite right in calling the PAD 'undemocratic'.

I think Giles first described the PAD as protofacist and in the same article described the PPP government as being staffed by sleazy politicians and gangsters and led by an ultra rightist. What anyone wants to make of Giles remarks right now since his revisionist version of history to describe Thailand's burgeoning democracy of 5 years ago though is obviously open to question. Sad really as he used to seem to see the wrong in both sides even if his analyses were modelled to fit a marxist historical transition that has been shown to be flawed in the past (and i write this as a leftist myself)

Persoanlly I think proto-facist could describe a number of groups in Thailand on different sides of the coin. However, it doesnt describe them all and to some degree misses that both street organizations are actually alliances of groups across the politcal spectrum who dont agree with everything leadership calls for. We have seen this recently with the reds but Sondhis call for new politics actually created some shock, disagreement and even a few boos at a PAD rally. There are no doubt elements of the yellow side that are proto-facist as there are elements of the red side - be interestinmg to see if the left on the red side have the courage to abandon the right or whether the alliance of convenience will remain in place.

[justanothercybertosser]

I think Giles first described the PAD as protofacist and in the same article described the PPP government as being staffed by sleazy politicians and gangsters and led by an ultra rightist. What anyone wants to make of Giles remarks right now since his revisionist version of history to describe Thailand's burgeoning democracy of 5 years ago though is obviously open to question. Sad really as he used to seem to see the wrong in both sides even if his analyses were modelled to fit a marxist historical transition that has been shown to be flawed in the past (and i write this as a leftist myself)

Persoanlly I think proto-facist could describe a number of groups in Thailand on different sides of the coin. However, it doesnt describe them all and to some degree misses that both street organizations are actually alliances of groups across the politcal spectrum who dont agree with everything leadership calls for. We have seen this recently with the reds but Sondhis call for new politics actually created some shock, disagreement and even a few boos at a PAD rally. There are no doubt elements of the yellow side that are proto-facist as there are elements of the red side - be interestinmg to see if the left on the red side have the courage to abandon the right or whether the alliance of convenience will remain in place.

I had to look up in the thesaurus what "burgeoning" actually means. There are two definitions - "developing" and "flourishing". If Giles meant to say developing - yes, i would agree with this assessment of Thailand 5 years ago. If he meant to say flourishing i would disagree.

Given his TRT critical POV, and the criticism of Puah Thai he wrote in his manifesto as well - i believe we can conclude that the definition he used there in his statement was "developing".

The difference between PAD and the Red Shirts is that the Red Shirts are a lose alliance of different groups (which also include some right wingers), while the PAD is a stiffly organized group where very little discourse is happening. New Politics may have initially drawn cristicism of some elements. But as we can see it is main agenda now, and who cannot submit was free to leave (and be hounded by vitriolic speeches on the stage as happened to many that have left PAD). This is very similar to the initial criticism of some civic groups about the Article 7 issue back in early 2006. These groups had to submit, or had to leave (such as Dr. Weng, who later became one of the founders of the UDD).

I would suggest listening to some of the rabid poison propaganda spread from the PAD stage, also attacking former supporters. If you ever have the chance to speak with some of those who have left the PAD you will find that they are very reluctant to make critical statements in public due to fear of being attacked viciously from the stage.

While the Red Shirts have started to develop into a pro-democracy group by also increasingly attracting Thaksin critics (some of them, such as Dr. Weng, have been founders of the UDD/Red Shirts), the PAD has only regressed into a increasingly radical and militant organization along extreme nationalistic and chauvinistic lines - and should be labeled proto-fascist.

Edited February 21, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Plus]

I see no signs of Reds developing past Thaksin.

Five years ago, in Giles "burgeoning" democracy several thousand innocent people were brutally killed and press was forbidden to even keep count in public and press freedom index dropped some hundred places. He must use a very funny defintion of burgeoning.

Just imagine what would happen if Giles communism starts "burgeoning" here, too.

[hammered]

I think Giles first described the PAD as protofacist and in the same article described the PPP government as being staffed by sleazy politicians and gangsters and led by an ultra rightist. What anyone wants to make of Giles remarks right now since his revisionist version of history to describe Thailand's burgeoning democracy of 5 years ago though is obviously open to question. Sad really as he used to seem to see the wrong in both sides even if his analyses were modelled to fit a marxist historical transition that has been shown to be flawed in the past (and i write this as a leftist myself)

Persoanlly I think proto-facist could describe a number of groups in Thailand on different sides of the coin. However, it doesnt describe them all and to some degree misses that both street organizations are actually alliances of groups across the politcal spectrum who dont agree with everything leadership calls for. We have seen this recently with the reds but Sondhis call for new politics actually created some shock, disagreement and even a few boos at a PAD rally. There are no doubt elements of the yellow side that are proto-facist as there are elements of the red side - be interestinmg to see if the left on the red side have the courage to abandon the right or whether the alliance of convenience will remain in place.

I had to look up in the thesaurus what "burgeoning" actually means. There are two definitions - "developing" and "flourishing". If Giles meant to say developing - yes, i would agree with this assessment of Thailand 5 years ago. If he meant to say flourishing i would disagree.

Given his TRT critical POV, and the criticism of Puah Thai he wrote in his manifesto as well - i believe we can conclude that the definition he used there in his statement was "developing".

The difference between PAD and the Red Shirts is that the Red Shirts are a lose alliance of different groups (which also include some right wingers), while the PAD is a stiffly organized group where very little discourse is happening. New Politics may have initially drawn cristicism of some elements. But as we can see it is main agenda now, and who cannot submit was free to leave (and be hounded by vitriolic speeches on the stage as happened to many that have left PAD). This is very similar to the initial criticism of some civic groups about the Article 7 issue back in early 2006. These groups had to submit, or had to leave (such as Dr. Weng, who later became one of the founders of the UDD).

I would suggest listening to some of the rabid poison propaganda spread from the PAD stage, also attacking former supporters. If you ever have the chance to speak with some of those who have left the PAD you will find that they are very reluctant to make critical statements in public due to fear of being attacked viciously from the stage.

While the Red Shirts have started to develop into a pro-democracy group by also increasingly attracting Thaksin critics (some of them, such as Dr. Weng, have been founders of the UDD/Red Shirts), the PAD has only regressed into a increasingly radical and militant organization along extreme nationalistic and chauvinistic lines - and should be labeled proto-fascist.

The PAD as they stand now have certsainly lost most of their moderates or centerists as these really wanted a Dem government and now they have it. That leaves the right and oddly enough the left. Be interesting to see how that develops. However, the PAD have changed in nature to more of a watchdog (with teeth no doubt) than a street demonstrating organization. There is also a party as in celebration angle which keeps them in the limelight as they tend to party in opposition strongholds. They will no doubt stay relatively quiet unless they see issues they dont like surfacing again.

The reds right now consist of so many groups thsat is hard to analyse unless first identifying what is meant by reds. There are those in the umbrella leadership group and those outside. There are nationalists, socialists, thugs, pure thaksin adorers, communists, liberals, conservatives, provincial power people, and of ocuirse in the big demos mercenaries (same as yellows side in fact some have attended both yellow and red demos for money! )... I think part of the problem when we talk about the reds is that different people are reffering to different segments of the umbrella. This may get easier if the groups start to move in different directions and become more easily definable. That however means leaner rallies, and in street demos people do get number obsessed so maybe the loose but fractious alliance of groups will continue for now. I have no doubt there are some democracy movement groups in the overall red umbrella but right now they are also in alliance with quite a lot of others sop it is hard to say what the overall movement is becoming imho.

Edited to add: or even if it is really changing as I think it has always included democracy advocates - as has the PAD oddly enough.

Edited February 21, 2009 by hammered

[justanothercybertosser]

I see no signs of Reds developing past Thaksin.

Five years ago, in Giles "burgeoning" democracy several thousand innocent people were brutally killed and press was forbidden to even keep count in public and press freedom index dropped some hundred places. He must use a very funny defintion of burgeoning.

Just imagine what would happen if Giles communism starts "burgeoning" here, too.

That is only partially true.

5 years ago, in 2004, the 2 months period of the killings have been over already. During the first one and a half months of the killings there was open reporting of the killings, every day on TV news we have seen footage. Only after that period no official numbers of the killed were not given out anymore. But if you go back into the archives - you will see that critical articles were indeed published, also by Thai based news organizations. The national Human Rights Commission has also issued a damning statement of the drug war killings at the time.

There was coverage, and critical coverage as well, of the drug war killings. This is a fact.

As i have stated, it was a developing democracy. I do not contest the Human Rights violations - they happened.

What though fulfills the aspect of "developing" democracy is that Thaksin's policies have drawn sectors of society that have never been part of the political process into it, which can be defined as the beginning of people participation.

You may not see the Red Shirts developing past Thaksin, but there is clear evidence of this. Giles joining the Red Shirts is evidence as he was a clear Thaksin critic, and has also in his manifesto criticized Puah Thai and Thaksin. You are free to dislike Giles's politics, but when he - a Thaksin critic - joins the red Shirts, than this is proof of my theory.

[ballpoint]

To paraphrase Groucho Marx:

Any club that would have Giles Ungphakorn as a member isn't worth joining.

I see he still uses his university title of associate professor, despite vigourously slamming the university.

[justanothercybertosser]

The PAD as they stand now have certsainly lost most of their moderates or centerists as these really wanted a Dem government and now they have it. That leaves the right and oddly enough the left. Be interesting to see how that develops. However, the PAD have changed in nature to more of a watchdog (with teeth no doubt) than a street demonstrating organization. There is also a party as in celebration angle which keeps them in the limelight as they tend to party in opposition strongholds. They will no doubt stay relatively quiet unless they see issues they dont like surfacing again.

The reds right now consist of so many groups thsat is hard to analyse unless first identifying what is meant by reds. There are those in the umbrella leadership group and those outside. There are nationalists, socialists, thugs, pure thaksin adorers, communists, liberals, conservatives, provincial power people, and of ocuirse in the big demos mercenaries (same as yellows side in fact some have attended both yellow and red demos for money! )... I think part of the problem when we talk about the reds is that different people are reffering to different segments of the umbrella. This may get easier if the groups start to move in different directions and become more easily definable. That however means leaner rallies, and in street demos people do get number obsessed so maybe the loose but fractious alliance of groups will continue for now. I have no doubt there are some democracy movement groups in the overall red umbrella but right now they are also in alliance with quite a lot of others sop it is hard to say what the overall movement is becoming imho.

Edited to add: or even if it is really changing as I think it has always included democracy advocates - as has the PAD oddly enough.

Sorry to disagree. PAD started to lose its moderates already with the 2006 coup, and continued to lose them at their re-appearance, then massively because of "new politics" and the Government House occupation. I also disagree with your view that PAD changed into a watch dog. Their speeches in Udon were as radical and provocative as ever. As has been reported - PAD arrived in Udon with massive amounts of their Guards. They are a radical street protest and right wing pressure group as they were before. Now they do not need to provoke the government, as it is a PAD friendly government. Their strategies have changed into intending to provoce the Red Shirts into violence against them.

It is not that hard to define the Red Shirts. Just forget that there is a leadership group as in the PAD. That makes it easier. Red Shirts are a lose umbrella of autonomous groups which at times collaborate, and at other times do not.

[sriracha john]

I think Giles first described the PAD as protofacist and in the same article described the PPP government as being staffed by sleazy politicians and gangsters and led by an ultra rightist. What anyone wants to make of Giles remarks right now since his revisionist version of history to describe Thailand's burgeoning democracy of 5 years ago though is obviously open to question. Sad really as he used to seem to see the wrong in both sides even if his analyses were modelled to fit a marxist historical transition that has been shown to be flawed in the past (and i write this as a leftist myself)

Persoanlly I think proto-facist could describe a number of groups in Thailand on different sides of the coin. However, it doesnt describe them all and to some degree misses that both street organizations are actually alliances of groups across the politcal spectrum who dont agree with everything leadership calls for. We have seen this recently with the reds but Sondhis call for new politics actually created some shock, disagreement and even a few boos at a PAD rally. There are no doubt elements of the yellow side that are proto-facist as there are elements of the red side - be interestinmg to see if the left on the red side have the courage to abandon the right or whether the alliance of convenience will remain in place.

I had to look up in the thesaurus what "burgeoning" actually means. There are two definitions - "developing" and "flourishing". If Giles meant to say developing - yes, i would agree with this assessment of Thailand 5 years ago. If he meant to say flourishing i would disagree.

Given his TRT critical POV, and the criticism of Puah Thai he wrote in his manifesto as well - i believe we can conclude that the definition he used there in his statement was "developing".

The difference between PAD and the Red Shirts is that the Red Shirts are a lose alliance of different groups (which also include some right wingers), while the PAD is a stiffly organized group where very little discourse is happening. New Politics may have initially drawn cristicism of some elements. But as we can see it is main agenda now, and who cannot submit was free to leave (and be hounded by vitriolic speeches on the stage as happened to many that have left PAD). This is very similar to the initial criticism of some civic groups about the Article 7 issue back in early 2006. These groups had to submit, or had to leave (such as Dr. Weng, who later became one of the founders of the UDD).

I would suggest listening to some of the rabid poison propaganda spread from the PAD stage, also attacking former supporters. If you ever have the chance to speak with some of those who have left the PAD you will find that they are very reluctant to make critical statements in public due to fear of being attacked viciously from the stage.

While the Red Shirts have started to develop into a pro-democracy group by also increasingly attracting Thaksin critics (some of them, such as Dr. Weng, have been founders of the UDD/Red Shirts), the PAD has only regressed into a increasingly radical and militant organization along extreme nationalistic and chauvinistic lines - and should be labeled proto-fascist.

Posted as only Colpyat can post. Returning yet again, eh?

Whenever are you going to sort out that sorting you is so easy?

Edited February 21, 2009 by sriracha john

[Plus]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

It's true that for the first few weeks there was extensive coverage in the media, but it is also a fact that the government put a tight lid on it when this coverage became threatening to the govt itself. Human Rights Watch and The Nation could criticise it all they want, it's not quite the same as the daily impact of bloody corpses on front pages of all Thai dailies and body count tickertape on Thai TV.

And by describing Thaksin's bloodiest year as "burgeoning democracy" Giles is not tricking anyone that he is not Thaksin's supporter. Five years ago he wasn't, granted, but now it walks and talks like a duck.

And the worst thing is that he wrote that article for Guardian, to "inform" the Brits about his country. They'd swallow this shit hook line and sinker.

"Burgeoning democracy under Thaksin" has no chance of flying in Thailand. Giles would be ridiculed by editors even if they allow this nonsense to be printed in the first place.

But for this patriot it's not the truth that matters, he has his own story to sell, and it can't start with "five years ago democracy was under serious threat in Thailand", so let's rewrite it. To hel_l with the truth and how readers would perceive Thailand.

[hammered]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

It's true that for the first few weeks there was extensive coverage in the media, but it is also a fact that the government put a tight lid on it when this coverage became threatening to the govt itself. Human Rights Watch and The Nation could criticise it all they want, it's not quite the same as the daily impact of bloody corpses on front pages of all Thai dailies and body count tickertape on Thai TV.

And by describing Thaksin's bloodiest year as "burgeoning democracy" Giles is not tricking anyone that he is not Thaksin's supporter. Five years ago he wasn't, granted, but now it walks and talks like a duck.

And the worst thing is that he wrote that article for Guardian, to "inform" the Brits about his country. They'd swallow this shit hook line and sinker.

"Burgeoning democracy under Thaksin" has no chance of flying in Thailand. Giles would be ridiculed by editors even if they allow this nonsense to be printed in the first place.

But for this patriot it's not the truth that matters, he has his own story to sell, and it can't start with "five years ago democracy was under serious threat in Thailand", so let's rewrite it. To hel_l with the truth and how readers would perceive Thailand.

To fit a marxist historical framework the analysis needs to be a developing capitalist class trying to take the reigns of power in a positive and progressive manner from a feudal/mercantalist class was resisted and struck back against by the forces of fuedal power. That is how Giles is trying to analyse it. However, that both sides included forces of reaction and forces or progression kind of messed the analysis up. That is why the left is so badly split in Thailand. Giles reresents one arm of it. The analysis also fails on a number of historical points in capitalist and pluralistic democratic development imho; not to mention the peasantry needs to be redefined as a working class to use the strict marxist historical analysis. A numbe rof problems but no doubt theroetical left wing academiocs will argue the point and I persoanally will leave them to it.

Five years ago it could be argued that even a developing democracy was not really happening although it would depend on how you defined democracy. If only as elections then it was. If it was meant to include the trappings usually associated with democracy - relative freedom of speech, human rights, checks and balances etc - then it could be seen as taking a step back. Certainly these ares had moved backwards since pre-millenium times and they remain backwards now.

all imho

[justanothercybertosser]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

So, in order to let facts suit your argument, 5 years ago is now "technically" 6 years.

The National Human Rights commission (i did not mention Human Rights watch - one is an NGO and the other a at that time still independent commission) did make a damning report criticizing the drug war killings. In this aspect, and not just technically, the system is Thailand under Thaksin did function to some extend. And in a developing democracy it is not expected that systems function perfectly.

Also, i would suggest reading the relevant UN report - and that states that the killings were regrettable, but the drug war altogether has led to a massive reduction of the drug trade.

That argument may have no chance of flying with you. The facts in Thailand though speak for this argument. Thaksin was never more popular than during the drug war. No government after, including the rabidly anti Thaksin governments, have made any serious effort to investigate the killings other than forming toothless committess.

What you conveniently ignore though is that Thailand had a drug problem that was completely out of control.

[hammered]

The PAD as they stand now have certsainly lost most of their moderates or centerists as these really wanted a Dem government and now they have it. That leaves the right and oddly enough the left. Be interesting to see how that develops. However, the PAD have changed in nature to more of a watchdog (with teeth no doubt) than a street demonstrating organization. There is also a party as in celebration angle which keeps them in the limelight as they tend to party in opposition strongholds. They will no doubt stay relatively quiet unless they see issues they dont like surfacing again.

The reds right now consist of so many groups thsat is hard to analyse unless first identifying what is meant by reds. There are those in the umbrella leadership group and those outside. There are nationalists, socialists, thugs, pure thaksin adorers, communists, liberals, conservatives, provincial power people, and of ocuirse in the big demos mercenaries (same as yellows side in fact some have attended both yellow and red demos for money! )... I think part of the problem when we talk about the reds is that different people are reffering to different segments of the umbrella. This may get easier if the groups start to move in different directions and become more easily definable. That however means leaner rallies, and in street demos people do get number obsessed so maybe the loose but fractious alliance of groups will continue for now. I have no doubt there are some democracy movement groups in the overall red umbrella but right now they are also in alliance with quite a lot of others sop it is hard to say what the overall movement is becoming imho.

Edited to add: or even if it is really changing as I think it has always included democracy advocates - as has the PAD oddly enough.

Sorry to disagree. PAD started to lose its moderates already with the 2006 coup, and continued to lose them at their re-appearance, then massively because of "new politics" and the Government House occupation. I also disagree with your view that PAD changed into a watch dog. Their speeches in Udon were as radical and provocative as ever. As has been reported - PAD arrived in Udon with massive amounts of their Guards. They are a radical street protest and right wing pressure group as they were before. Now they do not need to provoke the government, as it is a PAD friendly government. Their strategies have changed into intending to provoce the Red Shirts into violence against them.

It is not that hard to define the Red Shirts. Just forget that there is a leadership group as in the PAD. That makes it easier. Red Shirts are a lose umbrella of autonomous groups which at times collaborate, and at other times do not.

My use of watchdog was probably not the best. My intention was to try and say they have gone into a quieter mode in terms of what they do. Occasional high profile parties in opposition areas is a relaxation of activity over all out occupations of several locations and that is the distinction I was trying to make (unsuccesfully?).

I dont doubt the PAD wouldnt mind provoking the reds into something. Poltically that undermines the reds if it happens.

I still dont think the reds can be defined as a group seemingly with no leadership. I notice the same people appearing on stage and making phone ins whener they have a large gathering and the same figures leading groups in the provinces. They may not all have the same aims or destinations but there is a leadership that is noticeable. Admittedly it could be that the media have created a meme of leadership that doesnt exist but then it has become a fait accompli. Maybe they should put some different speakers on the stage and do away with Jatuporn, Jakrapob, Nattawut, Weng etc or at least rotate them. Maybe they could not have the same guy call in every meeting. It certainly gives credence to a leadership. Or maybe I am playing devil's advocate.

[sriracha john]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

So, in order to let facts suit your argument, 5 years ago is now "technically" 6 years.

The National Human Rights commission (i did not mention Human Rights watch - one is an NGO and the other a at that time still independent commission) did make a damning report criticizing the drug war killings. In this aspect, and not just technically, the system is Thailand under Thaksin did function to some extend. And in a developing democracy it is not expected that systems function perfectly.

Also, i would suggest reading the relevant UN report - and that states that the killings were regrettable, but the drug war altogether has led to a massive reduction of the drug trade.

That argument may have no chance of flying with you. The facts in Thailand though speak for this argument. Thaksin was never more popular than during the drug war. No government after, including the rabidly anti Thaksin governments, have made any serious effort to investigate the killings other than forming toothless committess.

What you conveniently ignore though is that Thailand had a drug problem that was completely out of control.

more Colpyat-isms... but at least he's more up front about it now.

[justanothercybertosser]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

It's true that for the first few weeks there was extensive coverage in the media, but it is also a fact that the government put a tight lid on it when this coverage became threatening to the govt itself. Human Rights Watch and The Nation could criticise it all they want, it's not quite the same as the daily impact of bloody corpses on front pages of all Thai dailies and body count tickertape on Thai TV.

And by describing Thaksin's bloodiest year as "burgeoning democracy" Giles is not tricking anyone that he is not Thaksin's supporter. Five years ago he wasn't, granted, but now it walks and talks like a duck.

And the worst thing is that he wrote that article for Guardian, to "inform" the Brits about his country. They'd swallow this shit hook line and sinker.

"Burgeoning democracy under Thaksin" has no chance of flying in Thailand. Giles would be ridiculed by editors even if they allow this nonsense to be printed in the first place.

But for this patriot it's not the truth that matters, he has his own story to sell, and it can't start with "five years ago democracy was under serious threat in Thailand", so let's rewrite it. To hel_l with the truth and how readers would perceive Thailand.

To fit a marxist historical framework the analysis needs to be a developing capitalist class trying to take the reigns of power in a positive and progressive manner from a feudal/mercantalist class was resisted and struck back against by the forces of fuedal power. That is how Giles is trying to analyse it. However, that both sides included forces of reaction and forces or progression kind of messed the analysis up. That is why the left is so badly split in Thailand. Giles reresents one arm of it. The analysis also fails on a number of historical points in capitalist and pluralistic democratic development imho; not to mention the peasantry needs to be redefined as a working class to use the strict marxist historical analysis. A numbe rof problems but no doubt theroetical left wing academiocs will argue the point and I persoanally will leave them to it.

Five years ago it could be argued that even a developing democracy was not really happening although it would depend on how you defined democracy. If only as elections then it was. If it was meant to include the trappings usually associated with democracy - relative freedom of speech, human rights, checks and balances etc - then it could be seen as taking a step back. Certainly these ares had moved backwards since pre-millenium times and they remain backwards now.

all imho

There are other reasons for the split in the left. One of them is that many former leftists that returned from the jungle received grants for education, and underwent ideological transformations. I have read comments of Giles where he himself called this a somewhat "messed up" class war. I believe he is aware of the problems of applying Marxist theory too dogmatic to the present conditions.

5 Years ago there was relative freedom of speech in Thailand. There were serious infractions against Human Rights just happening the year before (drugwar killings). The checks and balances system function functioned not very well, but it was not completely dysfunctional. Yet there were more people oriented politics than under the previous governments. In some aspects Thaksin's Thailand had clear signs of regression into more authoritarian rule, but it also had elements of democracy more developed than previosuly.

I believe one should be careful with issueing hyperbolic blanket statements of either way.

Especially now, the authoritarian streek of the Thai government has remained also under the Democrat government, Human Rights violations have continued, and freedom of speech now is in many aspects not given. The foreign media is now attacked worse than it has been under Thaksin by PAD and some quarters of the Democrat government.

And, the military is now more involved in politics than it has been since '92.

I do not see that things have moved in any positive direction in terms of democratic development.

[Samuian]

To paraphrase Groucho Marx:

Any club that would have Giles Ungphakorn as a member isn't worth joining.

I see he still uses his university title of associate professor, despite vigourously slamming the university.

"phony hypocrite" close to loosing his marbles would be a bit extreme, but then... at least he lacks some genuineness, ah well., difficult to be a creative critic and a good example the same time - the base of his marxist-socialist agenda has been proven invalid by time!

We need more creative ideas, thinkers then the ever ruminants of past times!

[justanothercybertosser]

I still dont think the reds can be defined as a group seemingly with no leadership. I notice the same people appearing on stage and making phone ins whener they have a large gathering and the same figures leading groups in the provinces. They may not all have the same aims or destinations but there is a leadership that is noticeable. Admittedly it could be that the media have created a meme of leadership that doesnt exist but then it has become a fait accompli. Maybe they should put some different speakers on the stage and do away with Jatuporn, Jakrapob, Nattawut, Weng etc or at least rotate them. Maybe they could not have the same guy call in every meeting. It certainly gives credence to a leadership. Or maybe I am playing devil's advocate.

I believe the media has created a meme. One example of blatant misreporting was the supposed split between the Udon Lovers and the Red Shirts, and the supposed alliance between Newin and the Udon Lovers.

Jatuporn, etc. are leaders of the "Truth today" group. There are many other groups with their own leaders. Right now, for example, the stage at Sanam Luang is from another group (or groups), and you will find people such as Jaran, Weng, and Shinawat (who leads his own group) as speakers - and not the aforementioned.

[mc2]

Techinically we are going to "celebrate" the sixth anniversary of Drug War soon, but "five years ago" phrase used by Giles shoould cover that period as well.

So, in order to let facts suit your argument, 5 years ago is now "technically" 6 years.

The National Human Rights commission (i did not mention Human Rights watch - one is an NGO and the other a at that time still independent commission) did make a damning report criticizing the drug war killings. In this aspect, and not just technically, the system is Thailand under Thaksin did function to some extend. And in a developing democracy it is not expected that systems function perfectly.

Also, i would suggest reading the relevant UN report - and that states that the killings were regrettable, but the drug war altogether has led to a massive reduction of the drug trade.

That argument may have no chance of flying with you. The facts in Thailand though speak for this argument. Thaksin was never more popular than during the drug war. No government after, including the rabidly anti Thaksin governments, have made any serious effort to investigate the killings other than forming toothless committess.

What you conveniently ignore though is that Thailand had a drug problem that was completely out of control.

more Colpyat-isms... but at least he's more up front about it now.

always blaming the boogie man when someone doesnt agree with your views.

ohhh must be colpyat. must be a troll. must be a banned nic

nothing but a bunch of baseless and wild accusations.