Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[justanothercybertosser]

..the problem Thai politics has faced increasingly - a socially permitted belittling of politicians, so that equally corrupt bureaucrats and generals are allowed to decide upon policy, and the electorate of Thailand has no say in how the country is run.

Just as confusing as red claims for "true democracy". The bottom line is clear, though - save the politicians from the public.

This will the next big battle, imo - people vs politicians.

That is only confusing if you ignore Thai history - from bureaucratic polity to a reluctant semi democracy where elected politicians are treated as a not very necessary evil, and who are not supposed to make policy decisions. At every step politicians are hindered, and if they develop political views that in parts may question the status quo - the machine of military-technocrat power balance will use every method to cut them back.

No, the coming battles are people against power balance. And that will not just be the Red Shirts, also Yellow Shirts will fight their own battle against this situation, either separately, or in collaboration. This is a scenario which has happened in variations in many cultures and countries, and is a necessary step to development. The only question is if this transition period will pass relatively peaceful, or if we see further violence.

Edited May 19, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[justanothercybertosser]

Also good. Most of the people here who express grave reservations about the Abhisit/Newin government and the modus operandi of PAD are not Thaksin supporters, and do not need to be reminded ad nauseam about Thaksin's corruption and convictions.

Sorry, I should say 'CONVICTIONS' !

That is the problem, isn't it?

It appears the messier this government becomes, they more Thaksin is held up as a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging of having been wrong. Many, including me, had high hopes for Abhisit during the Thaksin era. For me, these hopes have been shattered during the 2006 election boycott. But by now, it should be obvious that a government on the face led by Abhisit, yet in reality by Suthep and Newin, under a constitution that gives unelected entities far too much power, is in many aspects worse. But Thaksin's obvious failings are exaggerated, so that the serious failings of this government can continue to be excused.

[dbrenn]

That is the problem, isn't it?

It appears the messier this government becomes, they more Thaksin is held up as a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging of having been wrong. Many, including me, had high hopes for Abhisit during the Thaksin era. For me, these hopes have been shattered during the 2006 election boycott. But by now, it should be obvious that a government on the face led by Abhisit, yet in reality by Suthep and Newin, under a constitution that gives unelected entities far too much power, is in many aspects worse. But Thaksin's obvious failings are exaggerated, so that the serious failings of this government can continue to be excused.

Yep - you got it. Thaksin had faults, but he is held responsible by Abhisit, the dems, and some of the posters here, for absolutely everything that goes wrong in Thailand. They will be blaming Thaksin for the tsunami next.

All this blaming is merely a smokesceen for Abhisit's obvious shortcomings. I would believe in Abhisit a lot more if he took ownership of problems instead of pointing them all at Thaksin and others.

Edited May 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[Plus]

That is only confusing if you ignore Thai history - from bureaucratic polity to a reluctant semi democracy where elected politicians are treated as a not very necessary evil, and who are not supposed to make policy decisions. At every step politicians are hindered, and if they develop political views that in parts may question the status quo - the machine of military-technocrat power balance will use every method to cut them back.

Thailand has twenty years experience with elected politicians and they have absolutely nothing to show for it. Even Thaksin, the greatest of them all, turned out to be a fraud. Every public opinion poll puts them at the bottom of the pile in terms of trust. But it's nice to know who exactly you are "campaigning" for - politicians, not the people. Typical red agenda.

Politicians never have any policies, btw, it's all done by bureaucrats, from planning to execution. The only input politicians have is at the Cabinet level - two or three "pro-active" ministers out of more than six hundred, including the senate.

And four hundred constituency MPs have nothing to do with bureaucratic polity whatsoever - they are legislative, not executive branch. It's not their job, and they have absolutely no qualifications to pass judgements on it. Only Cabinet members are given this power, and in practice most of them are not qualified either.

Apparently reds have no idea that there supposed to be separation between executive and legislative powers. They just pick up catchphrases that don't make any sense and are dropped after a couple of weeks, like "bureaucratic polity" or "true democracy".

It appears the messier this government becomes, they more Thaksin is held up as a straw man.

What exactly Abhisit has blamed on Thaksin? How exactly he uses him as a straw man? Did you just make it up?

Yep - you got it. Thaksin had faults, but he is held responsible by Abhisit,..

Held responsible for what, exactly?

>>>

Straw man argument is blaming you opponent for something he didn't do, just like you blame Abhisit for nothing now.

Yes, if he had done that it would have been wrong, but he didn't, so?

[animatic]

This goes to the relative difficult of converting a 'Kow Towing, Face Saving, Society'

into a Democratic Capitalist Society when the culture has little or no experience in the basics of it's operation.

Make no mistake this is a total retooling of MINDSET for 65 million souls.

Anyone who thinks THAT can be successfully done in a generation or 2

is fooling themselves grandly.

Since so far the school system doesn't inculcate the proper mindset, but often the INVERSE mindset,

it's not a wonder that so few public persons have a basic comprehension for HOW this should be done.

Edited May 19, 2009 by animatic

[rixalex]

Most of the people here who express grave reservations about the Abhisit/Newin government and the modus operandi of PAD are not Thaksin supporters, and do not need to be reminded ad nauseam about Thaksin's corruption and convictions.

Do not need or do not want?

The trouble is that these people who insist on having no affection for Thaksin, always seem to be on the defensive where he is concerned.

If for example Thaksin's corrupt activities are brought up in the discussion, these supposed non-Thaksin supporters will quickly tell you, "He is no worse than ... (fill in the blank with corrupt politician of the past - there are of course many to choose from!)".

What they should be saying is, "He is as bad as ...".

[dbrenn]

Most of the people here who express grave reservations about the Abhisit/Newin government and the modus operandi of PAD are not Thaksin supporters, and do not need to be reminded ad nauseam about Thaksin's corruption and convictions.

Do not need or do not want?

The trouble is that these people who insist on having no affection for Thaksin, always seem to be on the defensive where he is concerned.

If for example Thaksin's corrupt activities are brought up in the discussion, these supposed non-Thaksin supporters will quickly tell you, "He is no worse than ... (fill in the blank with corrupt politician of the past - there are of course many to choose from!)".

What they should be saying is, "He is as bad as ...".

Again, you are using semantics to assert that anyone who does not support the Dems is a Thaksin supporter. Try to see the shades of grey that exisit in almost every aspect of life.

Most of the people here who do not support the military junta / PAD, myself included, feel that way because the junta / PAD usurped a democratic system and replaced it with an authoritarian one, spawning a cycle of chaos that still prevails today.

Thaksin's popularity would have run its course and, had there been subsequent free and fair elections, people would likely have eventually rewarded Abhisit for his patience and (at the time) clean image. Shame on Ashisit that he and his lot couldn't wait for that legal process, and snatched power with the help of the mob, the army and the mafia instead.

And who are you to insinuate that supporting Thaksin like it is something to hide, something that should be scorned or punished in some way? What kind of democrat are you? An authoritarian one? If people here do support Thaksin, that is their right, just as it is your right to support Abhisit.

[Journalist]

Most of the people here who express grave reservations about the Abhisit/Newin government and the modus operandi of PAD are not Thaksin supporters, and do not need to be reminded ad nauseam about Thaksin's corruption and convictions.

Do not need or do not want?

You're trying to drive the conversation in a pointless circle of nit-picking again!

I don't need the info about his ethics, and I don't want it. Because I know he was corrupted by power. I don't require reminding. I remember living in Thailand when he was implementing a totalitarian regime.

What is not constructive are commentators on the current administration whitewashing any of its perceived shortcomings by just pointing out what a scoundrel Thaksin was, and how anyone who isn't patriotically supporting this Government is therefore a red anarchist. It is simply not as binary as that.

[rixalex]

Most of the people here who do not support the military junta / PAD, myself included, feel that way because the junta / PAD usurped a democratic system and replaced it with an authoritarian one, spawning a cycle of chaos that still prevails today.

They didn't unsurp a democratic system because a democratic system, at least one that was free and fair, no longer existed. And no i'm not just talking about vote buying, before you rush to tell me that that has always been present.

And who are you to insinuate that supporting Thaksin like it is something to hide, something that should be scorned or punished in some way? What kind of democrat are you? An authoritarian one? If people here do support Thaksin, that is their right, just as it is your right to support Abhisit.

I absolutely agree. If people support Thaksin they have every right to - but they should have the balls to come out and admit it and attempt to defend what it is they support, rather than disingenuously pretending to be neutral.

[justanothercybertosser]

Thailand has twenty years experience with elected politicians and they have absolutely nothing to show for it. Even Thaksin, the greatest of them all, turned out to be a fraud. Every public opinion poll puts them at the bottom of the pile in terms of trust. But it's nice to know who exactly you are "campaigning" for - politicians, not the people. Typical red agenda.

Thailand's experience of democracy and elected politicians (it's been more than 20 years, actually) has been disturbed by countless military coups, when extrajudicial powers decided to do so. This is not exactly a fertile ground so that politicians can develop their potential, or their own policies when under constant threat. I do not "campaign" for politicians. Politicians are the elected representatives of the people.

"Burocratic Polity" is actually not a meaningless term picked up by Red Shirts to be discarded, but an academic description of a system with a precise definition - an exclusive and authoritarian group of bureaucrats, technocrats and military officers making executive decision above elected politicians, and therefore not under participation of the people. Before using this term, i would suggest reading up on what it means.

Accusations such "typical Red agenda" are obfuscating the issues. Thailand has to adapt is system to be able to move forward int the 21st century. It must accept that it is a pluralistic society, and it must accept that democracy is a historic force, and not just a western agenda unsuitable to Thailand. The present state ideology had its uses, once, but now it hinders development, and led directly to the present political mess.

Your extremely reactionary view on Thailand is a refusal to acknowledge the obvious, and retreats into ideology and demonization of anybody that has different views. You hold up the strawman Thaksin, wherever you can, and demonize Red Shirts, belittle and simplify them as mindless tools of Thaksin. Yet you ignore that the agenda of the Red Shirts goes far beyond Thaksin. Face it - Thailand has changed, and will change even more. Either the social conservatives will acknowledge this as fact, and find a compromise with which all can live, or, after much blood is spilled and one or several more military coups, they will lose out in the end. Countless countries went through similar struggles and dealt with it in different ways.

Why should Thailand be an exception?

[justanothercybertosser]

The trouble is that these people who insist on having no affection for Thaksin, always seem to be on the defensive where he is concerned.

No, we just have defined common sense and factual debate against hyperbole and inane exaggeration by coup apologists.

[h90]

That is the problem, isn't it?

It appears the messier this government becomes, they more Thaksin is held up as a straw man.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging of having been wrong. Many, including me, had high hopes for Abhisit during the Thaksin era. For me, these hopes have been shattered during the 2006 election boycott. But by now, it should be obvious that a government on the face led by Abhisit, yet in reality by Suthep and Newin, under a constitution that gives unelected entities far too much power, is in many aspects worse. But Thaksin's obvious failings are exaggerated, so that the serious failings of this government can continue to be excused.

Yep - you got it. Thaksin had faults, but he is held responsible by Abhisit, the dems, and some of the posters here, for absolutely everything that goes wrong in Thailand. They will be blaming Thaksin for the tsunami next.

All this blaming is merely a smokesceen for Abhisit's obvious shortcomings. I would believe in Abhisit a lot more if he took ownership of problems instead of pointing them all at Thaksin and others.

Don't need to blame him (for not helping, because Democrats areas) for the Tsunami. Giving the order to murder 3000 people should be more than enough.

[Journalist]

^Yes, we know. we've heard that one a squillion times too. We're well aware of the war on drugs, no need to refer to it for the 5,900th post. We remember that innocent bystanders were murdered by police.

So, let someone press murder charges, not only against him but against the Cops who squeezed the trigger. There must surely be circumstantial evidence.

And its at this point that the same people start going, 'ah but we can't because....."

...and some feeble excuse about how the Police responsible can't be held to account as they are still in active posts.

Preposterous.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Journalist

[Plus]

Thailand's experience of democracy and elected politicians (it's been more than 20 years, actually) has been disturbed by countless military coups, when extrajudicial powers decided to do so.

What countless military coups disturbing "democracy"?

Up until Prem's resignation Thailand has been ruled by democratically elected leaders for how many years? Does even count? Democratically elected PMs did occasionally disturb dictatorial rulers, like Pridi, or a couple of years before 1976 crackdown. And that's about it.

After Prem's resignation we had a long, uninterrupted era of politicians, and they've proven themselves beyond any doubt - worst scum of the nation, greedy leeches with no shame or remorse.

1997 Consitution was meant to give power to the people, not politicians, but now they hijacked even that agenda. They did all they could to subvert it prior to the coup, and they changed the tune only when faced with even more restricting 2007 version.

This is not exactly a fertile ground so that politicians can develop their potential, or their own policies when under constant threat.

What constant threat? They had way over a decade of developing and there isn't a single name worth mentioning among them. Abhisit entered politics just around 1992, and that's it. Not a single person you can trust, outside Democrat party.

What potential? Lie, steal, and plunder?

>>>>

Re. binary world - it is binary at the moment. Whichever way you want to pull, it will be helping red and obstructing yellow or vice versa. There's no third dimension to Thail politics now. Even complete inaction will be playing in only one side's favour.

Tough choice for fence sitters, but no one is having it easy, so stop whining.

Actually re-introduction of fractious politics is going to diffuse this polarisation, so it's not all hopeless.

[Journalist]

Re. binary world - it is binary at the moment. Whichever way you want to pull, it will be helping red and obstructing yellow or vice versa. There's no third dimension to Thail politics now. Even complete inaction will be playing in only one side's favour.

Tough choice for fence sitters, but no one is having it easy, so stop whining.

You are entitled to see the world as black and white, but obviously others don't see it as binary in Thaivisa. Is that a problem? Do we have to be led to gas chambers for our indecisiveness !

It is quite possible to not place 100% favour with either side.

And this silly George Bush, 'you're either with us, or against us'-style talk is ludicrous.

And why is it compulsory to take a fixed position? This is a casual forum, not a courtroom. Its not as if we even have a vote in Thailand.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Journalist

[TAWP]

The trouble is that these people who insist on having no affection for Thaksin, always seem to be on the defensive where he is concerned.

No, we just have defined common sense and factual debate against hyperbole and inane exaggeration by coup apologists.

No, we just have defined common sense and factual debate against hyperbole and inane exaggeration by Thaksin apologists.

[Plus]

You are entitled to see the world as black and white

It's not just how I see it, it's how it is.

There are millions of people in Thailand who don't profess either ideology but with every little action in their lives they play in the hands of one camp or another, most of the time unwittingly.

Most glaring example is Thai republicans, anti-monarchists and assorted lefties. They had their own agenda but they lent academic credibility to Thaksin's thrust for power, that's why they continue to piss off our yellow posters - despite numerous public denials they continue to support campaign for Thaksin's return. It appears they live in denial themselves - can you imagine what kind of clean up Thaksin would organise if he comes back, considering the number of his foes? That will be on top of his usual suppression of democratic rights and freedoms. Perhaps they think it would blend well with their own ideas on re-engineering the society, by force if necessary.

>>>>

The division has eased up a lot after Songkran, btw. Big camps are now repositioning for "after Thaksin" battle, PTP are quite a lonely bunch without any hope.

[HagenvonTronje]

The trouble is that these people who insist on having no affection for Thaksin, always seem to be on the defensive where he is concerned.

No, we just have defined common sense and factual debate against hyperbole and inane exaggeration by coup apologists.

No, we just have defined common sense and factual debate against hyperbole and inane exaggeration by Thaksin apologists.

[Journalist]

You are entitled to see the world as black and white

It's not just how I see it, it's how it is.

There are millions of people in Thailand who don't profess either ideology but with every little action in their lives they play in the hands of one camp or another, most of the time unwittingly.

Most glaring example is Thai republicans, anti-monarchists and assorted lefties. They had their own agenda but they lent academic credibility to Thaksin's thrust for power, that's why they continue to piss off our yellow posters - despite numerous public denials they continue to support campaign for Thaksin's return. It appears they live in denial themselves - can you imagine what kind of clean up Thaksin would organise if he comes back, considering the number of his foes? That will be on top of his usual suppression of democratic rights and freedoms. Perhaps they think it would blend well with their own ideas on re-engineering the society, by force if necessary.

>>>>

The division has eased up a lot after Songkran, btw. Big camps are now repositioning for "after Thaksin" battle, PTP are quite a lonely bunch without any hope.

I dont feel as emotionally invested in this issue as you probably do. I would probably would take a more fixed or passionate position if I felt likewise.

[dbrenn]

Don't need to blame him (for not helping, because Democrats areas) for the Tsunami. Giving the order to murder 3000 people should be more than enough.

What may be enough for Abhisit as he cowers in his barracks, may not be enough to solve the problems for a large segment of society. To wit, a large sector of Thai society who still seem to support Thaksin and/or what he represents.

Nailing Thaksin to a cross just doesn't seem to be helping Abhisit in his fruitless quest for the Holy Grail of reconciliation.

[dbrenn]

What countless military coups disturbing "democracy"?

You gotta love Plus and his dogma. A while back, he was swearing blind that the CDR did not have a nationalistic agenda, and that they were not speaking out against foreign ownership and other foreign expat and business rights at the time of the coup.

Small details like all the newspapers reporting identcally on the generals blundering, the alarm among the business community, the restrictions on capital movements, and the resulting tanking stock market, are neither here nor there as far as plus is concerned.

[Koo82]

Are they still queuing for Bt500/day?

Who?

[dbrenn]

They didn't unsurp a democratic system because a democratic system, at least one that was free and fair, no longer existed. And no i'm not just talking about vote buying, before you rush to tell me that that has always been present.

Ahhh, I get it. You think that the CDR bunch of army generals who sent tanks rolling down the street, while trying to capture the public's imagination by ranting on about curtailing the very rights that you depend upon as a foreigner to live in Thailand, is an improvement. Your viewpoint is masochistic, to say the least. How can you say that the CDR junta was an improvement? Looks at all the chaos and division. At least Thaksin's lot was relatively benign towards foreigners, and let them own things and do business relatively unfettered. The country was running a lot more smoothely than is is now. And all this mayhem for what noble cause? Do you really believe that the CDR were not just as venal as Thaksin's lot? Army generals? In Thailand?

I absolutely agree. If people support Thaksin they have every right to - but they should have the balls to come out and admit it and attempt to defend what it is they support, rather than disingenuously pretending to be neutral.

There you go again with that 'for us or against us' jingoism. You sound just like George Bush. It is possible to have opinions that do not fall exclusively in either Abhisit's or Thaksin's camp, but you seem hel_l bent on lumping anyone who doesn't agree with you into the 'criminal' Thaksin camp, when in fact people have a variety of differing viewpoints that actually have little to do with the man. Accusing your opposition of colluding with the criminal Thaksin is an easier way to shut up the opposition than presenting a valid argument, no? Smacks of authoritarianism and curtailment of political expression, no?

Edited May 19, 2009 by dbrenn

[Scott]

Thanks Dbrenn, for an insightful post. There are some of us who don't clearly subscribe to everything in the camp of our leaning. I am pretty firmly on the red side, but I certainly didn't like Thaksin and wouldn't be happy to see him be back. I do, however, subscribe to the growth of democracy with all it's bumps and boils. I don't think the coup accomplished anything. I don't think Thaksin, as bad as he was, is substantially different from other politicians.

It's proving quite easy and convenient to hound a man who isn't in the country. It's easy to blame him for everything--but quite hypocritical of some of the same people who waied him and fell at his feet earlier. (And yes, he did do plenty of things wrong).

I hope the poorer people get a voice in the country and the elites lose some power.

I don't agree with the yellows, but I also don't believe they wish to destroy the country. I think they are going about it the wrong way. I don't like the way Abhisit came to power, but I do not wish him ill nor do I want him to fail.

This country has the potential to do very well and there is enough to go around--not equally, but to keep a whole lot of people happier than they are now.

[Journalist]

They had way over a decade of developing and there isn't a single name worth mentioning among them. Abhisit entered politics just around 1992, and that's it. .

Does AV have any political beliefs at all?

Apart from a fwaighfully posh English accent, his cute dimples, and a patricians desire to be number one.

If he does, he doesn't seem to be intersted in enacting his ideology, now he finally has the chance to do so dropped in his lap. Instead he embarks on some prolonged Sylvester/Tweety Pie routine with Thaksin.

His ham-fisted PR machine stoically wheel out dying Grannies to anoint him and give the new man-o-the people their gold rings of reconciliation.

And behind the chinless wonder are the usual set of ghastly old anachronisms rubbing their hands with glee.

[rixalex]

You think that the CDR bunch of army generals who sent tanks rolling down the street is an improvement.

Yes it is. The coup wasn't democratic but it didn't pretend to be. Something that masquerades as democracy is no better - in fact it's worse.

Do you really believe that the CDR were not just as venal as Thaksin's lot? Army generals? In Thailand?

Yes i do believe they weren't as venal as Thaksin's bunch - in fact they don't even come close. After the coup they said they would be elections and there were. So please do tell me which general was personally enriched by the coup - names and sums of money please.

It is possible to have opinions that do not fall exclusively in either Abhisit's or Thaksin's camp, but you seem hel_l bent on lumping anyone who doesn't agree with you into the 'criminal' Thaksin camp, when in fact people have a variety of differing viewpoints that actually have little to do with the man.

Not at all hel_l bent on lumping people into a group. You asked me why people who do support Thaksin shouldn't be able to express their views without being lambasted and i agreed that if they do support Thaksin then they shouldn't feel the need to hide it - that they do tells its own story.

P.S. "criminal" Thaksin requires no speech marks.

[animatic]

Re. binary world - it is binary at the moment. Whichever way you want to pull, it will be helping red and obstructing yellow or vice versa. There's no third dimension to Thail politics now. Even complete inaction will be playing in only one side's favour.

Tough choice for fence sitters, but no one is having it easy, so stop whining.

You are entitled to see the world as black and white, but obviously others don't see it as binary in Thaivisa. Is that a problem? Do we have to be led to gas chambers for our indecisiveness !

It is quite possible to not place 100% favour with either side.

And this silly George Bush, 'you're either with us, or against us'-style talk is ludicrous.

And why is it compulsory to take a fixed position? This is a casual forum, not a courtroom. Its not as if we even have a vote in Thailand.

While I don't always agree with my friend Journalist, I do quite a lot, like right now.

There are those more than happy to paint this Thai political structure as binary, or bi-polar...

but I find those most prone to this have a vested interest in OTHERS seeing it this way.

Yes more tha possible to not favor either etremity side even 50%,

your personal 50% can be centered on 55% left or 43 percenrt Right for example.

You may agree with one sides 2 points and abhor the other 15 points attached to that side,

and visa versa.

Of course it is easiest to lable those you disagree with a bit more than 51% of the time,

as the far extreme from your poisitions, it makes your own positions more comfortable.

LIKE A WELL LIVED IN SWEATSOCK.

Fixed in time and space...attitude and outlook.

Not a great pathway through life.

I sit on my sofa and like what I like, I don't move my positions.

Other than the world spining, and it's circumlocution around the sun

and ll and sundry careening outwards from the big bang.

No, no, keep your fixed positions in ALL things...

if you can.

HA!

[Journalist]

It is possible to have opinions that do not fall exclusively in either Abhisit's or Thaksin's camp, but you seem hel_l bent on lumping anyone who doesn't agree with you into the 'criminal' Thaksin camp, when in fact people have a variety of differing viewpoints that actually have little to do with the man.

.

P.S. "criminal" Thaksin requires no speech marks.

Yes it does, because otherwise it implies that everyone in his camp is a criminal. Whereas only he has been CONVICTED.

That said, implying that every Thai who likes Thaksin and voted for him is therefore a criminal might be the perfect hysterical sweeping statement !

Edited May 19, 2009 by Journalist

[Plus]

What countless military coups disturbing "democracy"?

You gotta love Plus and his dogma. A while back, he was swearing blind that the CDR did not have a nationalistic agenda, and that they were not speaking out against foreign ownership and other foreign expat and business rights at the time of the coup.

Small details like all the newspapers reporting identcally on the generals blundering, the alarm among the business community, the restrictions on capital movements, and the resulting tanking stock market, are neither here nor there as far as plus is concerned.

Why don't you address the issue in the original thread instead of dragging it here.

You didn't supply any evidence there, you are not supplying any evidence here either.

Foregn Business Act was drafted by Commerce Ministry and Thai Chambers of Commerce. National Assembly wanted a stricter version and junta appointed government withdrew it altogether rather than risk NLA pushing its own amendments through.

Generals had nothing to do with it.

Are you going to back up your allegations or jump off to another thread?

Does AV have any political beliefs at all?

In a western classification? He's closest Thailand has to social democrats.

[rixalex]

Yes it does, because otherwise it implies that everyone in his camp is a criminal. Whereas only he has been CONVICTED.

I wasn't refering to "the camp" being criminal, i was refering to Thaksin, who as you rightly point out has been CONVICTED.