Kasit, Pad Leaders Charged

[Old Man River]

If from a legal point of view, you are saying that Kasit has a legal right to be FM, but because of the legal charges against him he should resign now, I can't agree with this. If he legally had to resign and was refusing, I would agree, but that isn't the case. Either he has a legal right to remain in office or he does not have a legal right to remain in office. It can't be both ways.

It was Kasit himself wasn't it who said that if charges were brought against him, he would resign?

My position is that he has every legal right to be foreign minister but I'm not particularly concerned by that.The question of legality and the prospect of legal charges are quite separate from the sheer folly of his initial appointment.Recent events make no impact on the rationale for his departure, though of course if convivted that takes care of the matter.

Nobody suggests Kasit is other than a first rate bureaucrat.He made however a terrible error of judgement, and actions have consequences.It's a bit like Noppadon's alleged indiscretions at the FCCT which required his departure though not charged let alone proven guilty of anything.Kasit's alleged offence is of course far more serious.

To be honest I'm more interested in the details of Abhisit's thinking (and the advice he's getting from the charmed circle) on the matter - though I suppose we shall never know that.

What Kasit said he would do is obviously different from what he is now doing. He changed his mind. I have changed my mind in the past. Haven't you?

On Abhisit's choice, you need to understand that Abhisit is not an idiot. While he was advised of the downside of this appointment, he made his decision based on the fact that Kasit at that time (following Sukhumpand's win of the Bangkok election) was the best man for the position.

[Old Man River]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

It is impressive and I guess there arent too many technocrats who want to take the risk of getting involved in the power games these days. However, it still seems like an error politcally.

Abhisit understood the political issues.

In general, Thai coalition governments don't last long. A foreign minister's cards are normally not finished being printed before that minister is out the door and there is a new one. There isn't a long line of applicants.

When people on this thread were still discussing Kasit's charges, I made the comment that this isn't really about Kasit, but about Abhisit's appointment of Kasit. Hence, I have not agreed with this from the outset. Still, I understand Abhisit's position. At that time, Kasit was the best man for the job that was willing to take it.

[jayboy]

What Kasit said he would do is obviously different from what he is now doing. He changed his mind. I have changed my mind in the past. Haven't you?

On Abhisit's choice, you need to understand that Abhisit is not an idiot. While he was advised of the downside of this appointment, he made his decision based on the fact that Kasit at that time (following Sukhumpand's win of the Bangkok election) was the best man for the position.

I often change my mind but then I am not Foreign Minister of Thailand reneging on considered statements of policy.

On Abhisit's choice, I note you have omitted mentioning the very high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted to make an appointment wrapped in yellow.It's simply not the case incidentally that Kasit and Sukhumband were the only options.

What a lot of effort some of you guys put into defending the indefensible!

[Old Man River]

What Kasit said he would do is obviously different from what he is now doing. He changed his mind. I have changed my mind in the past. Haven't you?

On Abhisit's choice, you need to understand that Abhisit is not an idiot. While he was advised of the downside of this appointment, he made his decision based on the fact that Kasit at that time (following Sukhumpand's win of the Bangkok election) was the best man for the position.

I often change my mind but then I am not Foreign Minister of Thailand reneging on considered statements of policy.

On Abhisit's choice, I note you have omitted mentioning the very high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted to make an appointment wrapped in yellow.It's simply not the case incidentally that Kasit and Sukhumband were the only options.

What a lot of effort some of you guys put into defending the indefensible!

What statements of policy are you talking about? I don't remember anyone saying that Kasit reneged on statements of policy. Please clarify.

You make the comments that there was high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted when he made the Kasit appointment. Nobody would twist an arm over a foreign ministerial position.

Defending the indefensible? You are calling for Kasit to resign when you don't even know yet what he is accused of. Valid questions in today's Bangkok Pundit:

"What is Kasit guilty of? Bad judgment or a criminal offence? There may be sufficient evidence that some PAD leaders or supporters committed a terrorist act, but did Kasit? Proving that someone committed a terrorist act is very difficult. We haven't been told specifically what did Kasit say before the airport takeover? Is he been accused of directly committing a terrorist act? Conspiring to commit a terrorist fact? (Section 135/2) Or being an accessory or supporter? (Section 135/3). So far we know he did speak on the PAD stage after the airport had been taken over, but it would be a slippery scope if merely speaking on a stage constitutes conspiracy or being an accessory. Hopefully, we will see more details on this."

[jayboy]

What statements of policy are you talking about? I don't remember anyone saying that Kasit reneged on statements of policy. Please clarify.

You make the comments that there was high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted when he made the Kasit appointment. Nobody would twist an arm over a foreign ministerial position.

Defending the indefensible? You are calling for Kasit to resign when you don't even know yet what he is accused of. Valid questions in today's Bangkok Pundit:

"What is Kasit guilty of? Bad judgment or a criminal offence? There may be sufficient evidence that some PAD leaders or supporters committed a terrorist act, but did Kasit? Proving that someone committed a terrorist act is very difficult. We haven't been told specifically what did Kasit say before the airport takeover? Is he been accused of directly committing a terrorist act? Conspiring to commit a terrorist fact? (Section 135/2) Or being an accessory or supporter? (Section 135/3). So far we know he did speak on the PAD stage after the airport had been taken over, but it would be a slippery scope if merely speaking on a stage constitutes conspiracy or being an accessory. Hopefully, we will see more details on this."

Kasit said he would go if charges brought against him.Now that these are likely he decides he won't go.Sounds like reneging on a policy statement to me.

Arm twisting.Mere mortals don't know for sure but there's a view that those who led Abhisit by the hand to power by means of a miltary coup, a rigged constitition and a "directed" judiciary might have "suggested" to him a yellow shirt and Thaksinophobe as the public face of Thailand.OK I'm being mildly facetious but if you think Abhisit was a free agent you are a close spiritual soul of Pollyanna.

I've said all along that Kasit isn't a terrorist or criminal, and that my case against him is not based on legal criteria but his shocking lack of judgement which precludes him being FM.Bangkok Pundit is just looking at the latter and makes, as you suggest, some sensible remarks.I note you don't quote BP's view that Kasit's departure is a "when" not an "if" question.

Edited July 14, 2009 by jayboy

[rixalex]

I've said all along that Kasit isn't a terrorist or criminal, and that my case against him is not based on legal criteria but his shocking lack of judgement which precludes him being FM.

Don't agree with all of what you say, but that sentence above makes a lot of sense.

Just as the PPP's choice (or should i say Thaksin's choice) of Somchai as PM was stupid, not only because the man was obviously way out of his depth, but because it was obvious that in the interests of moving forward, the last thing Thailand needed at that time was a close relative of the former PM as PM, the promotion of Kasit to FM, with his activity at the airport demonstration, was always going to be contentious and divisive.

Abhisit needs people who can build bridges, not burn them down. Kasit should fall on his sword sooner rather than later in the interests of the country.

[hammered]

Article 135/1 of the penal code concerning terrorism looks at the crime and then the intent to commit terrorism. Proving terrorism charges is not some slam dunk when intent is included.

The article also excludes constitutionally protected demonstrations from being included.

Lots of wriggle room there.

Specific criminal charges is the way to go and not contentious politcal charges imho.

By the way the reds and LPG tankers could also easily fall under this law with the same provisos as above.

[Old Man River]

What statements of policy are you talking about? I don't remember anyone saying that Kasit reneged on statements of policy. Please clarify.

You make the comments that there was high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted when he made the Kasit appointment. Nobody would twist an arm over a foreign ministerial position.

Defending the indefensible? You are calling for Kasit to resign when you don't even know yet what he is accused of. Valid questions in today's Bangkok Pundit:

"What is Kasit guilty of? Bad judgment or a criminal offence? There may be sufficient evidence that some PAD leaders or supporters committed a terrorist act, but did Kasit? Proving that someone committed a terrorist act is very difficult. We haven't been told specifically what did Kasit say before the airport takeover? Is he been accused of directly committing a terrorist act? Conspiring to commit a terrorist fact? (Section 135/2) Or being an accessory or supporter? (Section 135/3). So far we know he did speak on the PAD stage after the airport had been taken over, but it would be a slippery scope if merely speaking on a stage constitutes conspiracy or being an accessory. Hopefully, we will see more details on this."

Kasit said he would go if charges brought against him.Now that these are likely he decides he won't go.Sounds like reneging on a policy statement to me.

Arm twisting.Mere mortals don't know for sure but there's a view that those who led Abhisit by the hand to power by means of a miltary coup, a rigged constitition and a "directed" judiciary might have "suggested" to him a yellow shirt and Thaksinophobe as the public face of Thailand.OK I'm being mildly facetious but if you think Abhisit was a free agent you are a close spiritual soul of Pollyanna.

I've said all along that Kasit isn't a terrorist or criminal, and that my case against him is not based on legal criteria but his shocking lack of judgement which precludes him being FM.Bangkok Pundit is just looking at the latter and makes, as you suggest, some sensible remarks.I note you don't quote BP's view that Kasit's departure is a "when" not an "if" question.

Reneging on a Policy - Kasit made these comments before he was Foreign Minister. He is simply an individual changing his mind. It happens. You have done it.

Abhisit as a free agent - No politician in the world is a free agent.

Lack of Judgment - I have never agreed with Kasit's position on the PAD and I have never said this. Knock yourself out. Show me where I have.

[Samuian]

It's an offence to seize control of an airport

Kasit was not a leader of the PAD and I doubt the terrorism charge will stick, but he was involved in a serious crime and as such must resign....

Surely did the PAD NOT seize the Airports!

And because of this and no proper law regulating such events as a mass meeting on an airport to welcome a Prime Minister, having their own security guards checking suspicious vehicles approaching the airport area because of a lack of security/police presence, I cannot see the "serious offence" Mr.Kasit supposedly has committed, this has to be left to a court of law!

And not to some newspaper geek who writes today this and tomorrow that - they have to ensure to sell their "News"!

Just remember the "News" controversy about Mr.Thaskins remark that he has "good friends in Malaysia who gave him an escort of 20...." which NOBODY except himself stated in one Phone in... into Udon ...picked up by this "newspaper"... and published it.. without to double check?

Just to Denial it almost same day, waht is going on?

...and, and, and it's all massive political bickering, charades, and deceit and I don;t see this to disappear soon, it will peak before the Elections with MANY more "innocent victims"... the man is working on his come back....make it or break it is his slogan!

Edited July 15, 2009 by Samuian

[AnaisNin]

"And, of couse, there's the usual line that PAD didn't go to Suwannabhumi to close it down, they went to "greet" Somchai, taking over the airport was not the goal. It eventually happened when the management closed it down themselves." plus

Before the Suwannabhumi incident, PAD members was on the RUNWAY of Phuket airport. AOT did not shut Phuket down, but diverted all flight away. Somchai was never going to Phuket.

www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30081908

A number of protesters pushed through police barriers and stormed into the runway and the passenger building at Phuket Airport on Friday.

They committed vandalism by breaking windows at the VIP room.

The provincial governor was trying to negotiate with organisers from the local chapter of the People's Alliance for Democracy. Protesters said they were angry that the airport allowed the state carrier, Thai International Airways, to continue its flights.

The Nation (a business partner of ThaiVisa)

[hammered]

What statements of policy are you talking about? I don't remember anyone saying that Kasit reneged on statements of policy. Please clarify.

You make the comments that there was high probability that Abhisit had his arm twisted when he made the Kasit appointment. Nobody would twist an arm over a foreign ministerial position.

Defending the indefensible? You are calling for Kasit to resign when you don't even know yet what he is accused of. Valid questions in today's Bangkok Pundit:

"What is Kasit guilty of? Bad judgment or a criminal offence? There may be sufficient evidence that some PAD leaders or supporters committed a terrorist act, but did Kasit? Proving that someone committed a terrorist act is very difficult. We haven't been told specifically what did Kasit say before the airport takeover? Is he been accused of directly committing a terrorist act? Conspiring to commit a terrorist fact? (Section 135/2) Or being an accessory or supporter? (Section 135/3). So far we know he did speak on the PAD stage after the airport had been taken over, but it would be a slippery scope if merely speaking on a stage constitutes conspiracy or being an accessory. Hopefully, we will see more details on this."

Kasit said he would go if charges brought against him.Now that these are likely he decides he won't go.Sounds like reneging on a policy statement to me.

Arm twisting.Mere mortals don't know for sure but there's a view that those who led Abhisit by the hand to power by means of a miltary coup, a rigged constitition and a "directed" judiciary might have "suggested" to him a yellow shirt and Thaksinophobe as the public face of Thailand.OK I'm being mildly facetious but if you think Abhisit was a free agent you are a close spiritual soul of Pollyanna.

I've said all along that Kasit isn't a terrorist or criminal, and that my case against him is not based on legal criteria but his shocking lack of judgement which precludes him being FM.Bangkok Pundit is just looking at the latter and makes, as you suggest, some sensible remarks.I note you don't quote BP's view that Kasit's departure is a "when" not an "if" question.

Hahaha. Name any politican in any democracy who is a free agent. Lobbyists, corporations, vested interests, unions, mafia, blackmailers, people with money etc all have the ear of various poltiicans in various places around the world including the most adavnced democracies. Polticians worldwide have also shown they are not such an honourable or honest group too There are whole debates going on about the future of democracy and it failings right now, which hopefully will lead to a betterment of it.

[jayboy]

Hahaha. Name any politican in any democracy who is a free agent. Lobbyists, corporations, vested interests, unions, mafia, blackmailers, people with money etc all have the ear of various poltiicans in various places around the world including the most adavnced democracies. Polticians worldwide have also shown they are not such an honourable or honest group too There are whole debates going on about the future of democracy and it failings right now, which hopefully will lead to a betterment of it.

It's a question of degree.Even a properly elected leader like Obama is not a free agent.Abhisit is in a totally different category. It's just not realistic to see Abhisit as other than permanently kowtowing to the elite groups that guided his way to power.

[jayboy]

Reneging on a Policy - Kasit made these comments before he was Foreign Minister. He is simply an individual changing his mind. It happens. You have done it.

Abhisit as a free agent - No politician in the world is a free agent.

Lack of Judgment - I have never agreed with Kasit's position on the PAD and I have never said this. Knock yourself out. Show me where I have.

1.Changing his mind.So you apparently believe any politician can just ignore past statements which conflict with current actions.Of course politicians can change their minds but some form of explanation is needed and I don't think Kasit has provided this yet

2.Free agent.I have dealt with this point in another post.It's a question of degree and Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM I can think of.

3.Lack of judgement.So we agree on Kasit's shocking lack of judgement.I don't think I commented on your position one way or another.

[jayboy]

Interesting to note from the New York Times that Hilary Clinton is about to make her first visit to Thailand as Secretary of State.One would have thought that Kasit and his supporters would have trumpeted this around...but no, a deafening silence.Could perhaps the State Department have sent a signal it doesn't want substantive contact with the little fellow? Just a thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/polit...clinton.html?hp

[animatic]

Maybe the want her to be less of a target for southern insurgents while here?

[Old Man River]

Reneging on a Policy - Kasit made these comments before he was Foreign Minister. He is simply an individual changing his mind. It happens. You have done it.

Abhisit as a free agent - No politician in the world is a free agent.

Lack of Judgment - I have never agreed with Kasit's position on the PAD and I have never said this. Knock yourself out. Show me where I have.

1.Changing his mind.So you apparently believe any politician can just ignore past statements which conflict with current actions.Of course politicians can change their minds but some form of explanation is needed and I don't think Kasit has provided this yet

2.Free agent.I have dealt with this point in another post.It's a question of degree and Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM I can think of.

3.Lack of judgement.So we agree on Kasit's shocking lack of judgement.I don't think I commented on your position one way or another.

We will agree to disagree on the gravity of what Kasit said. BTW, Kasit is not a politician. He is a diplomat. There is a difference.

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

[Old Man River]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

It is impressive and I guess there arent too many technocrats who want to take the risk of getting involved in the power games these days. However, it still seems like an error politcally.

I had the opportunity to discuss Kasit with an Ambassador to Thailand from a major western European country recently. I asked him whether the accusations against Kasit would negatively impact his ability to do his job with the diplomatic community. He said no way, that Kasit was very well respected by the diplomatic community and the accusations are all politics (and they all understand politics).

He then added that the biggest problem the diplomatic community have with Thailand is getting anything accomplished with a different Foreign Minister every few months.

Hence, with Kasit being fully qualified for this position and well respected by the diplomatic community, forcing him to resign will only negatively impact Thailand. Why make any agreements with Thailand when you will only have to re-do it again a few months later and then again a few months after that. It is a bit of a joke.

[jayboy]

Why did Abhisit ever choose Kasit? I never understood that.

Thirty plus years of experience. Held senior positions and is well known in diplomatic circles AND he was willing to take the job. The bio is not up to date, but helpful.

http://www.ustbc.org/events/kasitbio.html

It is impressive and I guess there arent too many technocrats who want to take the risk of getting involved in the power games these days. However, it still seems like an error politcally.

I had the opportunity to discuss Kasit with an Ambassador to Thailand from a major western European country recently. I asked him whether the accusations against Kasit would negatively impact his ability to do his job with the diplomatic community. He said no way, that Kasit was very well respected by the diplomatic community and the accusations are all politics (and they all understand politics).

He then added that the biggest problem the diplomatic community have with Thailand is getting anything accomplished with a different Foreign Minister every few months.

Hence, with Kasit being fully qualified for this position and well respected by the diplomatic community, forcing him to resign will only negatively impact Thailand. Why make any agreements with Thailand when you will only have to re-do it again a few months later and then again a few months after that. It is a bit of a joke.

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

[jayboy]

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

[Old Man River]

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

I thought you were referring to a PM who was not the choice of the people, in which case Surayud would be an excellent example. Since this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

[jayboy]

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

I thought you were referring to a PM who was not the choice of the people, in which case Surayud would be an excellent example. Since this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Pressure from upstairs

[LawnGnome]

You say Abhisit is less of a free agent than any PM you can think of? I have no desire to debate this. All I will do is remind you of Surayud. It wasn't that long ago.

I'm sure you don't want to debate this because you don't have much of a case.Surayud was a willing participant in the military grab for power so it's not a very good example.

Why do you care so much? It's just another day in LOS. Go cut the grass or something.

[Old Man River]

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Firstly, "swoon at the presence of Thai upper class culture"? Obviously one of these guys has pissed you off. Try not to make it personal.

Secondly, we can go round and round as to whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community. My understanding is yes (Grand Cordon - Japan, Grand Cross Germany etc.) but you think no. Whatever. I do think it interesting that you have narrowed western Europe down to just three countries. It must have made European history easy for you.

Thirdly - noted.

Fourthly, your comment on bilateral agreements is wrong. Major agreements have to be constantly resubmitted and renegotiated as governments change. It is a major reason why things take so long to be put in place in Thailand. Bureaucrats may do the legwork, but it is the MP's that make the decisions and with the ministerial revolving door, waiting for new ministers to present their views is a constant delay.

Lastly, I am lost as to what you think I am defending. I maintain that Kasit should not resign. Where I come from a person is innocent until proven guilty. What is indefensible about this? Note, I never said anything about whether Kasit would be forced out or not. On this, you must be confusing me with someone else.

[jayboy]

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Firstly, "swoon at the presence of Thai upper class culture"? Obviously one of these guys has pissed you off. Try not to make it personal.

Secondly, we can go round and round as to whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community. My understanding is yes (Grand Cordon - Japan, Grand Cross Germany etc.) but you think no. Whatever. I do think it interesting that you have narrowed western Europe down to just three countries. It must have made European history easy for you.

Thirdly - noted.

Fourthly, your comment on bilateral agreements is wrong. Major agreements have to be constantly resubmitted and renegotiated as governments change. It is a major reason why things take so long to be put in place in Thailand. Bureaucrats may do the legwork, but it is the MP's that make the decisions and with the ministerial revolving door, waiting for new ministers to present their views is a constant delay.

Lastly, I am lost as to what you think I am defending. I maintain that Kasit should not resign. Where I come from a person is innocent until proven guilty. What is indefensible about this? Note, I never said anything about whether Kasit would be forced out or not. On this, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Firstly.You misunderstand me.My facetious comment was to reflect the reality that many diplomats and others are seduced by the charm and manners of Thailands's upper class elite.I am to an extent as well.That's why many foreign residents (I'm talking about highly educated successful people, not the hoi polloi) find it difficult to go against the Thai current.

Secondly.For the umpteenth time I don't dispute Kasit was a very competent professional diplomat.A Foreign Minister requires different qualities as I would have thought obvious.As to the definition of Western Europe it was you that mentioned "major" powers.In diplomatic terms there are only three countries that really count.That's just a fact, and to make it rather specific nobody gives a toss what the Belgians, Austrians or Portugese think about Kasit or anything else.To be fair in addition to the major powers, one should probably mention the Scandinavian countries which have had a longstanding special relationship with Thailand.

Thirdly, noted

Fourthly, I'm not sure you're right here (most bilateral agreements aren't contentious in nature, and bureaucrats do the work anyway.) but prepared to concede the point as I don't think it makes any impact on the argument one way or the other.

Lastly again for the umpteenth time my case against Kasit doesn't depend on the current legal charges.I don't understand your point on Kasit being forced out.

[hammered]

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Firstly, "swoon at the presence of Thai upper class culture"? Obviously one of these guys has pissed you off. Try not to make it personal.

Secondly, we can go round and round as to whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community. My understanding is yes (Grand Cordon - Japan, Grand Cross Germany etc.) but you think no. Whatever. I do think it interesting that you have narrowed western Europe down to just three countries. It must have made European history easy for you.

Thirdly - noted.

Fourthly, your comment on bilateral agreements is wrong. Major agreements have to be constantly resubmitted and renegotiated as governments change. It is a major reason why things take so long to be put in place in Thailand. Bureaucrats may do the legwork, but it is the MP's that make the decisions and with the ministerial revolving door, waiting for new ministers to present their views is a constant delay.

Lastly, I am lost as to what you think I am defending. I maintain that Kasit should not resign. Where I come from a person is innocent until proven guilty. What is indefensible about this? Note, I never said anything about whether Kasit would be forced out or not. On this, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Firstly.You misunderstand me.My facetious comment was to reflect the reality that many diplomats and others are seduced by the charm and manners of Thailands's upper class elite.I am to an extent as well.That's why many foreign residents (I'm talking about highly educated successful people, not the hoi polloi) find it difficult to go against the Thai current.

Secondly.For the umpteenth time I don't dispute Kasit was a very competent professional diplomat.A Foreign Minister requires different qualities as I would have thought obvious.As to the definition of Western Europe it was you that mentioned "major" powers.In diplomatic terms there are only three countries that really count.That's just a fact, and to make it rather specific nobody gives a toss what the Belgians, Austrians or Portugese think about Kasit or anything else.To be fair in addition to the major powers, one should probably mention the Scandinavian countries which have had a longstanding special relationship with Thailand.

Thirdly, noted

Fourthly, I'm not sure you're right here (most bilateral agreements aren't contentious in nature, and bureaucrats do the work anyway.) but prepared to concede the point as I don't think it makes any impact on the argument one way or the other.

Lastly again for the umpteenth time my case against Kasit doesn't depend on the current legal charges.I don't understand your point on Kasit being forced out.

Not my row this one but I think OMR is saying he believes a person is innocent until proven guilty and hence poltical resigantions are not needed until a court delivers a guilty verdict. This is a belief of his in what is right and proper and is indeed a trait of democracy if we are honest, so it is a commendable position to take. However, being forced out is part of the politcal game of give and take. More real politik than about high ideals or democratic values. Polticians "resign" over many things that would never result in a guilty in court when the damage gets politically too much for the party. Terrorism charges against Kasit are highly unlikely to see a guilty verdict even if they make it to court.

[jayboy]

Hammered

Don't disagree.My presumption is that these terrorist charges against PAD including Kasit will come to nothing and nobody will be punished.I suppose on Kasit - who I know is a decent man - my irritation is simply the lack of honour among so many Thai politicians, and specifically the denial of Kasit that he's done anything wrong.My ideal would be Lord Carrington who in 1982 after the invasion of the Falklands simply took the blame on the chin and resigned immediately without being pushed.In my heart of hearts I hold Abhisit,Kasit etc to higher standards to the likes of the opposition but to date have been disappointed.

[hammered]

Hammered

Don't disagree.My presumption is that these terrorist charges against PAD including Kasit will come to nothing and nobody will be punished.I suppose on Kasit - who I know is a decent man - my irritation is simply the lack of honour among so many Thai politicians, and specifically the denial of Kasit that he's done anything wrong.My ideal would be Lord Carrington who in 1982 after the invasion of the Falklands simply took the blame on the chin and resigned immediately without being pushed.In my heart of hearts I hold Abhisit,Kasit etc to higher standards to the likes of the opposition but to date have been disappointed.

I doubt the terorism charges will come to anything. Actually they sound ridiculous. I would rather thay face specific criminal charges that dont seem ridiculously politcal. Same for the reds. Criminal charges.

Im not sure if at the end of the day everyone stays free. That risks encouraging anyone at any time in the future to just seize and airport or threaten to blow up LPG tankers.

Im not sure there is much honour in any poltician anywhere. Look at what Harper threatened to stay in power in Canada. Berlusconi won an election and then changed laws to avoid prosecution. Bucket loads of British MPs who "accidently" ripped off the tax payer with fraudulent expense claims remain as MPs including the leader of the Conservative party and expected next PM. I could go on. I personally have a low opinion of politicians and expect little. It helps to avoid being constantly outraged I find.

I personally feel Kasit should go but he'll at least try to take the Surapong route and claim until final judgement...... If he becomes too much of a liability though he will be pushed. Maybe after Asean.

Apirak set a good example but it is never going to be followed and where is he now? We have MPs involved in some of the worst things in the country and many have held or hold positions. While there is little honour in politics worldwide thiose involved in it in Thailand are often dubious to say the least.

[Old Man River]

Wow you've nailed your colours to the mast here.I had better explain to you a few facts, firstly that a FM's duties are to relate Thailand's case to the wider world not just the cosy little Bangkok diplomatic community with its tendency to swoon in the presence of Thai upperclass culture.Secondly the fact that you allegedly spoke to an Ambassador of a major Western country (in practice there are only three and I know for a fact one holds a completely different view) who saw no problem does not mean Kasit is "well respected by the diplomatic community".Thirdly, nobody in this dialogue has ever questioned Kasit's competence.Fourthly the coming and going of ministers has very little to do with bilateral agreements.As Plus has been telling us on and off for a long time bureaucrats do the real work anyway.

What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible.He's toast and it's just a question of when he goes.

Firstly, "swoon at the presence of Thai upper class culture"? Obviously one of these guys has pissed you off. Try not to make it personal.

Secondly, we can go round and round as to whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community. My understanding is yes (Grand Cordon - Japan, Grand Cross Germany etc.) but you think no. Whatever. I do think it interesting that you have narrowed western Europe down to just three countries. It must have made European history easy for you.

Thirdly - noted.

Fourthly, your comment on bilateral agreements is wrong. Major agreements have to be constantly resubmitted and renegotiated as governments change. It is a major reason why things take so long to be put in place in Thailand. Bureaucrats may do the legwork, but it is the MP's that make the decisions and with the ministerial revolving door, waiting for new ministers to present their views is a constant delay.

Lastly, I am lost as to what you think I am defending. I maintain that Kasit should not resign. Where I come from a person is innocent until proven guilty. What is indefensible about this? Note, I never said anything about whether Kasit would be forced out or not. On this, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Firstly.You misunderstand me.My facetious comment was to reflect the reality that many diplomats and others are seduced by the charm and manners of Thailands's upper class elite.I am to an extent as well.That's why many foreign residents (I'm talking about highly educated successful people, not the hoi polloi) find it difficult to go against the Thai current.

Secondly.For the umpteenth time I don't dispute Kasit was a very competent professional diplomat.A Foreign Minister requires different qualities as I would have thought obvious.As to the definition of Western Europe it was you that mentioned "major" powers.In diplomatic terms there are only three countries that really count.That's just a fact, and to make it rather specific nobody gives a toss what the Belgians, Austrians or Portugese think about Kasit or anything else.To be fair in addition to the major powers, one should probably mention the Scandinavian countries which have had a longstanding special relationship with Thailand.

Thirdly, noted

Fourthly, I'm not sure you're right here (most bilateral agreements aren't contentious in nature, and bureaucrats do the work anyway.) but prepared to concede the point as I don't think it makes any impact on the argument one way or the other.

Lastly again for the umpteenth time my case against Kasit doesn't depend on the current legal charges.I don't understand your point on Kasit being forced out.

Firstly, noted.

Secondly, for the umpteenth time ++, neither of us dispute Kasit's competency. No need to keep repeating it. However, you have made the comment questioning whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community (this is different from competency) and I responded to this. As to the definition of Western Europe, according to the UN there only 9 countries in W. Europe. When I said an Amb. of a major western European country, I meant exactly what I said.

Lastly, your have commented: "What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible." Certainly "innocent until proven guilty" is defensible. It is a fundamental principal of a democracy. You may not believe in democracy, but that does not mean one of its most fundamental principals is not defensible.

[jayboy]

Firstly, noted.

Secondly, for the umpteenth time ++, neither of us dispute Kasit's competency. No need to keep repeating it. However, you have made the comment questioning whether Kasit is respected in the diplomatic community (this is different from competency) and I responded to this. As to the definition of Western Europe, according to the UN there only 9 countries in W. Europe. When I said an Amb. of a major western European country, I meant exactly what I said.

Lastly, your have commented: "What's a bit of a joke is the way as I mentioned before you continue defending the indefensible." Certainly "innocent until proven guilty" is defensible. It is a fundamental principal of a democracy. You may not believe in democracy, but that does not mean one of its most fundamental principals is not defensible.

My point was that the overseas government view of Kasit has many more aspects than what one ambassador in Bangkok might think. (I'm still not clear whether your source was from the big three or one of the others, never mind).

It's my strong belief in democracy that informs everything I say on this forum.Again rather wearily I must point out that of course Kasit legally is innocent until proven guilty.But my case against him is not a legal one.

I think this exchange has run its course.Thank you for remaining civil and by all means comment further if you want to, but no more from me.

P.S I see Visit has been absolved of insider dealing at GPF.I'm pleased.

[Publicus]

If the charge is over the top, there is NO CASE to answer. Speaking on a stage is not an act of terrorism by any means, he shouldn't dignify those accusations with response, so to speak. If there ever was a case, it was when Abhisit first proposed him for the post, and we discussed this already. Despite your opinion, he was appointed, he didn't resign when you expressed your opposition, and so I don't see that he should resign now, in reaction to ridiculous charges.

In fact, the over the top charges only strengthen his point - he did nothing wrong, nothing to nail him for, ... and opinions are, you know, like <deleted>.

He should resign if there's any substance to the charges, however, as he promised, and so I would reserve my opinion until more details emerge, if ever.

With respect I think you are may be looking at this from too narrow a perspective.The "terrorist" charge is a red herring and in fact recent developments haven't changed the situation.It doesn't actually in fact really matter if it is decided no further action is taken against him, i.e the police do not press charges.The point is that the Foreign Minister of Thailand was an active participant in what was undoubtedly a criminal act which did Thailand untold damage, both economically and reputationally.He has shown no remorse and his position is untenable.He must go.

I note you are still maintaining he "did nothing wrong" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Can't really argue with a value judgement however fatuous but ask yourself - would any other country in the world tolerate a Foreign Minister who had behaved so recklessly, stupidly and irresponsibly?

The points you make, and that so many others make, are well taken.

However, don't we well know that recklessness, stupidity and irresponsibility are relative terms, especially when one considers Thailand. So are many other well known and respected norms. (This is true whether we're referring to players in either the private sector or the public, or both.)

To wit: In how many countries over the past 50 years have segments of the population seized control of the major international airport, refusing to budge until the government quit? That hasn't happened even in Zimbabwe. The IRA never had the thought nor have anti-war protesters in the US or Europe during several wars and other genocides over the past 50 years.

(Unhappily, only people such as al Qauda can think in such ways and beyond.)

Chavalit while PM led Thailand into the complete collapse of 1997 (he hiked the country to win the right to usher in the disaster).

Thaksin and TRT was the even more disatrous Thai response to the collapse and to globalism. Previous to that there was the coup and slaughter in the streets of 1991-2, which itself had been preceded by the wild ride while Prem was PM.

There were the slaughters of 1973 and, especially, in 1976.

Yes, in a proper government Kasit would be long gone by now but, more spot on, never appointed to a government position at all, much less one in the cabinet.

Kasit's decision to go to the airport to speak was the natural Thai one. Speaking at such a scene in support of the actions underway at the time and circumstance was/is a natural act to a Thai.

The Thai Wheel of Fortune in yet another fiasco is spinning and where it will stop nobody knows. Certainly no one posting here.