Abhisit Dismisses Rumours Of House Dissolution

[Xangsamhua]

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

When I looked at this linked it showed Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index and The World Bank's Governance Index which both showed improvement during the Thaksin government - is that what you wanted to point out Xangsamhua?

No, I was more intrigued by the Snoh Tienthong quotes. I referred people to the full discussion because I thought it was fair to do so.

The Transparency International quotes were interesting, though when I tried to go to the site it was unavailable, so I went to the Transparency Thailand site instead, which had more up to date figures, showing a continuing decline in probity. I'm sure Thaksin supporters could use these figures; however the score is "based simply on perceptions", so a difference between 3.2 and 3.8 in a possible score of 10 doesn't tell us much.

As Siriporn said, one can argue that Thaksin and TRT raised the level of corruption to systemic levels, i.e. corruption became enshrined in law and policy. This is a qualitative leap from corruption within a system to corruption of the whole system itself, made possible by the unprecedented wealth of the leader.

There's no doubt, as Transparency Thailand point out, that corruption is endemic to governance and administration in Thailand - a very depressing fact for those who would like to see this country move forward and a broader sense of civic responsibility take root amongst its people. The issue of accountability in political and administrative institutions is critical.

[Denim]

NAMING NEW POLICE CHIEF

PM dismisses rumours of House dissolution

Abhisit also dismissed speculation he might dissolve the House after his failure to push through the nomination of General Patheep Tanprasert to succeed outgoing national police chief General Patcharawat Wongsuwan.

He can relax on this one. Its normally the military who decide whether to dissolve the House.

[h90]

First of all he will do again vote buying, so he is not democratic elected.

Second he is a mass-murder and if people vote for him or not, he is still a mass-murder and must be blocked by all means to kill more people.

Is such defamation allowed on this forum? I will be surprised if it is.

killing 3000 people is mass-murder, or how would you call it? collateral damage, honest mistake?

[h90]

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

When I looked at this linked it showed Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index and The World Bank's Governance Index which both showed improvement during the Thaksin government - is that what you wanted to point out Xangsamhua?

Those figures reinforce how very very corrupt government's before MrT's were (the Dems for example).

MrT was ridiculously corrupt by our western standards (there's a joke in the somewhere; maybe 'standards' should be changed to 'perceptions'), but before him, and after too they're even worse...

[basically, when I was ranting to all the Thais I know during MrT's years they always said - 'you don't realize how bad the options are, they are worse.' Sadly, they were right.]

Thaksin introduced a new form of corruption -policy corruption, just change the law, ie increase foreign ownership maximum from 25% to 49% to facilitate the Temasek deal- 'hey, it's not corruptiuon, I just changed the law!' before that it was more primitive, like the famous 'read my palm and you can see the commission demanded' ( prior mobile phones with their camers but post hidden tape recorders).

Thaksin could do it because he had a big enough majority to push through any law- the tyranny of the majority- dangerous when politicians are corrupt.

It wasn't new though Siripon - they all do, and they've always done it.

I agree that deals like Temasek are complete abuse of power and not how 'decent folk' behave, but Thai politics is not a home for 'decent folk'. The more people focus solely on MrT the worse everyone suffers at the hands of worse people who have never been elected

But since Suchinda I haven't seen any worse people than Thaksin, both in human rights and in corruption.

No question that the Banharn and Newin group currently in government are also some of the worst, but PTP is even worse, Chalerm is coming in my mind....

At least the Democrats are blocking them from doing too much bad things (which also means there is not much time left for doing many good things) but what are the alternatives??

[redscouse]

First of all he will do again vote buying, so he is not democratic elected.

Second he is a mass-murder and if people vote for him or not, he is still a mass-murder and must be blocked by all means to kill more people.

Is such defamation allowed on this forum? I will be surprised if it is.

killing 3000 people is mass-murder, or how would you call it? collateral damage, honest mistake?

Well unless he is convicted of such things then it is clear defamation. If I put in my avatar that you are a paedophile and a murderer without any proof will that be ok with you?

[jasreeve17]

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

When I looked at this linked it showed Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index and The World Bank's Governance Index which both showed improvement during the Thaksin government - is that what you wanted to point out Xangsamhua?

Those figures reinforce how very very corrupt government's before MrT's were (the Dems for example).

MrT was ridiculously corrupt by our western standards (there's a joke in the somewhere; maybe 'standards' should be changed to 'perceptions'), but before him, and after too they're even worse...

[basically, when I was ranting to all the Thais I know during MrT's years they always said - 'you don't realize how bad the options are, they are worse.' Sadly, they were right.]

Thaksin introduced a new form of corruption -policy corruption, just change the law, ie increase foreign ownership maximum from 25% to 49% to facilitate the Temasek deal- 'hey, it's not corruptiuon, I just changed the law!' before that it was more primitive, like the famous 'read my palm and you can see the commission demanded' ( prior mobile phones with their camers but post hidden tape recorders).

Thaksin could do it because he had a big enough majority to push through any law- the tyranny of the majority- dangerous when politicians are corrupt.

It wasn't new though Siripon - they all do, and they've always done it.

I agree that deals like Temasek are complete abuse of power and not how 'decent folk' behave, but Thai politics is not a home for 'decent folk'. The more people focus solely on MrT the worse everyone suffers at the hands of worse people who have never been elected

But since Suchinda I haven't seen any worse people than Thaksin, both in human rights and in corruption.

No question that the Banharn and Newin group currently in government are also some of the worst, but PTP is even worse, Chalerm is coming in my mind....

At least the Democrats are blocking them from doing too much bad things (which also means there is not much time left for doing many good things) but what are the alternatives??

The problem with Abby is that the Dems have always been 100% corrupt, never been voted in and never seen a term through...

Newin is a nightmare, and the yellow / army / Dem partnership gave him an open door... and used him to insight violence through the blue shirters (who have one sole purpose; to insight violence).

MrT had a chance to move democracy forward and kick the old ways out, he abused that chance... it make take years or decades before we get back to a similar time.

The alternative is a new election (UN supported), respect for the winners, pressure groups (not street protests and violence) increasing transparency and accountability, freedom of the papers (army have clamped right down on that), freedom of the internet (Abhisit has been used to clamp down on that), get all the TV stations out of army control, independant (truly independant; get outside support if needed) bodies to insist upon free media, independant judicary (surely some of them must have some spine) and corruption out of the police force (get outside help if required).

- 99.9% of Thais would fully support all of these steps. The biggest hurdle is the use of the army to stop change (using nationalism as their main defence - that option will change soon) and the usual suspect powerplayers... The heart of the PAD and Reds really have the same agenda, as above; some believe Abhisit can do it, some belive MrT can... Even jointly it'd be very tough, but possible.

[h90]

First of all he will do again vote buying, so he is not democratic elected.

Second he is a mass-murder and if people vote for him or not, he is still a mass-murder and must be blocked by all means to kill more people.

Is such defamation allowed on this forum? I will be surprised if it is.

killing 3000 people is mass-murder, or how would you call it? collateral damage, honest mistake?

Well unless he is convicted of such things then it is clear defamation. If I put in my avatar that you are a paedophile and a murderer without any proof will that be ok with you?

If you recall, he is on the run and many things at court are waiting for him. So all criminals police can't find, aren't criminals, just because they hide somewhere??

No one has doubts that 3000 people died.

Often enough Thaksin told direct in the camera how proud he is about the war against drugs. No one doubt that because it is on tape

If for any miracle someone else ordered it, he did not stop it, even he knew it.

If you call me a paedophile I would sue you.

Thaksin should feel free to sue me, I and many other people would be happy to discuss that matter at court.

[h90]

The problem with Abby is that the Dems have always been 100% corrupt, never been voted in and never seen a term through...

Newin is a nightmare, and the yellow / army / Dem partnership gave him an open door... and used him to insight violence through the blue shirters (who have one sole purpose; to insight violence).

MrT had a chance to move democracy forward and kick the old ways out, he abused that chance... it make take years or decades before we get back to a similar time.

The alternative is a new election (UN supported), respect for the winners, pressure groups (not street protests and violence) increasing transparency and accountability, freedom of the papers (army have clamped right down on that), freedom of the internet (Abhisit has been used to clamp down on that), get all the TV stations out of army control, independant (truly independant; get outside support if needed) bodies to insist upon free media, independant judicary (surely some of them must have some spine) and corruption out of the police force (get outside help if required).

- 99.9% of Thais would fully support all of these steps. The biggest hurdle is the use of the army to stop change (using nationalism as their main defence - that option will change soon) and the usual suspect powerplayers... The heart of the PAD and Reds really have the same agenda, as above; some believe Abhisit can do it, some belive MrT can... Even jointly it'd be very tough, but possible.

The Democrats 100 % corrupt? Chuan was most likely the least corrupt premier Thailand ever had.

At the last election the Democrats had approx. the same amount of votes as PPP in the proportional votes. Where person was elected, they got less, but the majority of the elected parliament elected Abhisit. That's complete legal and democratic. That coalition partner change sides or that some groups brake away from a party is happening in many countries. Nothing wrong with that.

Newin is of course a nightmare....I fully agree on that.

Your alterinative can't work...99 % of the Thais won't agree with a massive amount of UN people in every village and harsh interviews from them about the vote buying. And at the end the election would be anyway canceled due to vote buying. Freedom of the media? I recall how Thaksin controlled all the media with money, how do you want to avoid that? How do you want to change the judicary? Who is selecting new judge and where do they come from? If you want to clean out the police, you need to restart it from the bottom and in the mean time you need the army to help out, which would make them even stronger.

Doing that is simply impossible in the short run. Someone like Abhisit, with strong support (which he doesn't has) could that in 20 years (if he don't get corrupt himself).

[plachon]

They are all as bad as each other, but this country needs to break the cycle of coups and just let 'democracy' take it's course as voted by the people. It's a bumpy road, we know that, but no better (or equal) option exists.

It's not just about democracy vs oligarchy, or "muddling through" to the best possible outcome.

The PAD were on about government with accountability; the UDD seems to have either no interest in accountability or no idea of what it is.

This contribution to a Washington Post report in September 2006 is interesting:

Mr. Snoh Tienthong, an ex-Deputy Leader of Thaksin's TRT Party and no. 18 on his party list explained how the Thaksin system worked.

"He placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were ... If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with 'his person' first. Many ministers were approached by 'his person' saying, 'The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party ... Any minister who would not do this, could not remain."

Snoh explained further.

"For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with 'his person' via Khunying Potjaman (wife of Thaksin), the matter could be sent to his trusted 'permanent political representative', who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying."

Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: "In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business." Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, "If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety."

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

The Pasuk and Baker book (2004) on Thaksin is also well worth a read, as things were becoming clearer by then.

Required reading for those wanting to understand Thai politcs.

Its interesting that the PAD want accountability but are shall we say a bit weak on the elections. The UDD want elections but are shall we say a bit weak on the accountability. Put the two together and you have functioning democracy. Shame the power players just use everything and everybody.

Banharn has been called the eel but Snoh is on a complete different plain as far as eeldom goes. After what he exposed, he is now back in camp Thaksin....... Guess one day the old dinos will die out which wiont be at all bad for Thailand

Trouble with eels and dinos, they tend to spawn elvers and dino cubs. Just think of the Chalerm and Kaman Poh creche for the creme de la creme of old school godfather politician progeny.

Your quote above from Sanoh is absolutely priceless, as it suggests that Sanoh was surprised by Pokemon's answer and the concept of raking off percentages from the state budget and handing out vote sweeteners by the ruling parties was new to the old Sakaew Slimer.

To think that eeldom is going to die out with the current breed of anguillids in power, esp, when you have Suthep and Newin with their noses firmly in the trough and many old familiar faces in the second row, is I think being a tad optimistic at this juncture of development. However, I do think that if Abhisit can manage to stay in power for a reasonable period and keep his own nose relatively clean (a la Uncle Chuan), then he could inspire a new breed of Democrats to take up politics with more ideals than the current bunch, which might work its way through the party to a policy-driven, non-nationalistic alternative to the other greed-driven chest thumpers in about 10-15 years time. Here's hoping.

[TAWP]

First; the last election had offers of UN observers - surprise surprise the army said no... funny that. Get the UN observers in! The reds would win easily in a straight election.

Incorrectly slanted - EVERYBODY said no. Including Thaksins proxies.

[TAWP]

So you are clearly stating that if an election were held that a Taksin nominee would win.

Thaksin proxies wouldn't win. They would once again end up in a minority position, like last election.

And when that happens, will you red-fans praise Newin for cutting deals with him so they can rule? Seeing as you clearly call him evil now...

[TAWP]

First of all he will do again vote buying, so he is not democratic elected.

Second he is a mass-murder and if people vote for him or not, he is still a mass-murder and must be blocked by all means to kill more people.

Is such defamation allowed on this forum? I will be surprised if it is.

Didn't you call Victor Bout the same thing?

[TAWP]

Well unless he is convicted of such things then it is clear defamation. If I put in my avatar that you are a paedophile and a murderer without any proof will that be ok with you?

Again, like your and other posters comments about Victor then...

[redscouse]

First of all he will do again vote buying, so he is not democratic elected.

Second he is a mass-murder and if people vote for him or not, he is still a mass-murder and must be blocked by all means to kill more people.

Is such defamation allowed on this forum? I will be surprised if it is.

Didn't you call Victor Bout the same thing?

I refer you to my previous post, find a quote from me about Victor Bout and quote it here, when you have not found it I expect you to be a man and admit your mistake and an apology would be nice. Jog on

[Plus]

...the majority of Thais have been very frustrated with the state of Thai politics for decades, but saw some movement forward for the first time ever when MrT actually gave something back - hence his support.

I can agree that many people saw him giving back more, but to imply that he has somehow improved Thai politics is outrageous. His "Democracy is not my goal" speech on the eve of Constitution day really said it all.

..I very much hope that MrT's government would be 'forced' to work for the country rather than personal benefits - that's what he is elected for.

It's a hope against hope. He has been elected twice and failed to do so, and now he's seeking power to save his wealth, not to help the country. You, of course, can believe otherwise, but the idea of Thaksin's selfless struggle to help Thai democracy is a hard sell outside red circle.

[Maestro]

A flaming post and the replies to it have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[Thai at Heart]

I think it is fair to add a bit of context to Thaksin's famous "Democracy is not my goal" speech.

From Thaksin himself

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal

Fair enough, at least he didn't use a gun.

"We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

I wish people would quote this more because Abhisit needs to learn this.

From Thaksin

"There's no real need to change the highest law at the moment. If we do have implementation problems, we can review the Constitution's organic laws."

Seems that the army likes to have a say also.

From Snoh:

Snoh Thienthong, leader of the Wang Nam Yen faction of Thai Rak Thai, also alluded to support for constitutional amendment and suggested Thaksin was the reason to review the charter. "The prime minister's thoughts run faster than the Constitution, so it might be necessary to change the law to keep up with him. He's a commander who moves faster than his army," Snoh said. Former Constitution Drafting Assembly members who wrote the existing charter have backed calls for amendment to bolster the checks-and-balances mechanism before it falls apart. "When we made it a rule that the censure motion must be submitted by at least 200 MPs, we never envisaged any party would one day have the staggering influence of 400 MPs in Parliament," said Decho Sawananont, one of the charter-drafters. "This hampers the opposition's work and the future looks bleak."

So the greatest politica, legal and constitutional minds of the country get together in 1997 and deliver a constitution that is designed to do away with weak coalitions which had been the bane of Thai politics, and then lo and behold, they get a strong dominant majority and realise that one man is running the country as he sees fit.

Then they create a coup to deliver what again? A weak coalition made up of a nice guy with all the credentials that is nothing more than a pin up, and a gangster that can effectively deliver NOTHING

The people who really run this country know what it needs, they just can't handle the changes that it may require to get it done.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Publicus]

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

When I looked at this linked it showed Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index and The World Bank's Governance Index which both showed improvement during the Thaksin government - is that what you wanted to point out Xangsamhua?

No, I was more intrigued by the Snoh Tienthong quotes. I referred people to the full discussion because I thought it was fair to do so.

The Transparency International quotes were interesting, though when I tried to go to the site it was unavailable, so I went to the Transparency Thailand site instead, which had more up to date figures, showing a continuing decline in probity. I'm sure Thaksin supporters could use these figures; however the score is "based simply on perceptions", so a difference between 3.2 and 3.8 in a possible score of 10 doesn't tell us much.

As Siriporn said, one can argue that Thaksin and TRT raised the level of corruption to systemic levels, i.e. corruption became enshrined in law and policy. This is a qualitative leap from corruption within a system to corruption of the whole system itself, made possible by the unprecedented wealth of the leader.

There's no doubt, as Transparency Thailand point out, that corruption is endemic to governance and administration in Thailand - a very depressing fact for those who would like to see this country move forward and a broader sense of civic responsibility take root amongst its people. The issue of accountability in political and administrative institutions is critical.

Thaksin several times openly stated that corruption is inherent to Thai culture, traditions and society and that therefore, not only was there nothing wrong with it, but it was to be openly revered and celebrated. I got the same statements by the director of a bilingual school in Bangkok where I taught for six years. When I mentioned in a small group chat with the school director that on my arrival in Thailand (Port of Bangkok) I had to pay a Thai Customs officer Bt 3,000 or my crate explicitly would have been set at the back of the processing building for up to six months, the principal said, "We have that custom in Thailand." He said it with a glow of national pride on his face; this is a guy in charge of the education of Thai youth at his family owned school.

It's broadly recognized that during the immediate post 1997 economic meltdown Democrat PM Chuan Leekpai at the least minimized corruption, which is in sharp contrast to Thaksin's open promotion and advocacy of it. Abhisit is necessarily focused on saving the government from the clutches of the Reds as since the coup Thaksin's crowd out of power hasn't been able electorally to reinstate corruption to its unprecedented extent, i.e., of 'elevating' it as the 'normal', brazen and 'natural' national policy that is supposedly consistent with Thai culture and customs.

Further, if Pres Obama has assembled in his administration a "team of rivals", Abhisit has such disparate and unwieldy gangs in his coalition that any leader as he who has genuine democratic goals and aspirations would necessarily find himself in a snake pit and be limited in his governance of a sharply divided country, so I can't lay the blame at his doorstep. In other 3rd world countries a leader who would find himself in Abhisit's situation would by now have created secret 'death squads' which would have disposed of his political opposition, an approach which neither Abhisit nor we want to occur.

Toward the end of Thaksin's first term, with reelection clearly on the horizon, Thaksin was finally feeling enuff hubris to openly state that, "Democracy is not my goal." For sure, these folk in this part of the world have a knack of stating the obvious.

With the pardon petition the Reds have recently been rather mild in contrast to their previous thug and goon behaviours, but one must ask for how much longer?

[Samuian]

You can read the full Washington Post discussion on it here.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...as_thaksin.html

When I looked at this linked it showed Transparency International's Corruptions Perception Index and The World Bank's Governance Index which both showed improvement during the Thaksin government - is that what you wanted to point out Xangsamhua?

No, I was more intrigued by the Snoh Tienthong quotes. I referred people to the full discussion because I thought it was fair to do so.

The Transparency International quotes were interesting, though when I tried to go to the site it was unavailable, so I went to the Transparency Thailand site instead, which had more up to date figures, showing a continuing decline in probity. I'm sure Thaksin supporters could use these figures; however the score is "based simply on perceptions", so a difference between 3.2 and 3.8 in a possible score of 10 doesn't tell us much.

As Siriporn said, one can argue that Thaksin and TRT raised the level of corruption to systemic levels, i.e. corruption became enshrined in law and policy. This is a qualitative leap from corruption within a system to corruption of the whole system itself, made possible by the unprecedented wealth of the leader.

There's no doubt, as Transparency Thailand point out, that corruption is endemic to governance and administration in Thailand - a very depressing fact for those who would like to see this country move forward and a broader sense of civic responsibility take root amongst its people. The issue of accountability in political and administrative institutions is critical.

Well, he institutionalized it and made so with somehow "legal" much more difficult to detect!

He positioned people like Purachai at the forefront to give the impression"all clean here"!

Changing the law to make the Themasek Deal tax free.... was only the very tip of the iceberg

that toppled his crony "money maker machine".

The very days when he was in New York supposedly attending the UN Conference he

was close to go for the "last step" the grab for absolute power - in first declaring the

state of emergency - cause by then he was only a caretaker Prime Minister... things where

in shambles, boycotted elections, suspicion of massive vote buying/riggging!

In no time his TRT had made it to the absolute majority in governing the country - run the business as

he, himself used to call his reign, seing himself as the CEO of Thailand Incorp.

The Army was a step ahead of preventing him "closing the doors", he had successfully planted his minions

throughout the important key positions!

The entire thing was a set up - surely disputable if it was "clever or ruthless", nevertheless it was unethical

and immoral and had the word "Democracy" only painted on to it!

Before his decline, many of his foes have been his friends, supporters...how came that many, including

Chamlong Srimuang turned away, why?

[Loaded]

interesting blog from the Bangkok Pundit regarding the relationships of obligation that are influencing the current choice of police chief:

Suthep and Niphon

Posted by Bangkok Pundit | 8/26/2009 02:00:00 AM

According to Matichon, Gen Pathompong Kasetsuk, who appeared in his military uniform on a PAD stage last year, and now serves as an advisor to the PAD stated on Saturday on the Lab Luang Prahng radio station that Suthep joined hands with Newin and the military, past and present, to form the government.

Suthep is the important key. Suthep looks after the police, but when a problem arose for the PM in choosing the new Police Chief there was news that Suthep and Secretary-General of the Cabinet Niphon double-crossed Abhisit. Therefore, they should take responsbility over the appointment of the Police Chief as they caused Abhisit to lose his stature as a leader.

BP: We all know who Suthep is - Dem Secretary-General and powerbroker in the Democrats. He helped form the government and manages the relations with the coalition partners and the military, but has come under attack from some factions within the Democrats and the PAD. Some see him as a traitor and that he is in bed with Thaksin.

Who is Niphon though? His current role is Secretary-General to Abhisit (in theory this should be akin to Chief of Staff to the President, but Suthep is the real Chief of Staff and Niphon is more the Deputy). His main "claim to fame" is that he was in the vehicle that was attacked at Songkran and was injured.

His connections really go back to when he was a classmate with the Crown Prince in the UK at Millfield Prep School in the late 60s - see here and here. BP understands they are quite close. He was an MP from 1986-2006. He also a Democrat Party stalwart. He served as a Deputy Finance Minister and Minister of Agriculture (Suthep was a Deputy Minister then). It should be noted he is a Democrat MP from the Northeast, albeit Nakhon Ratchasima, and has been described by Asiaweek in the late 90s "as the most popular man in the party aside from Chuan"

He also joined with Suthep in meeting with the military to help form the government. It is said Chuan played a role in appointing Niphon as Sec-Gen to Abhisit as he formally served as Chuan's Sec-Gen.Then in January 2009 news surfaced that he may quit as Sec-Gen to Abhisit after a dispute with Deputy Interior Minister Thaworn and a faction of the Democrat Party.

Now, you are thinking, ok, he was Suthep's boss for a while and seems to be on the same side as Suthep in a few current factional disputes in the Democrats, but is there anything more to their relationship? Why of course, his younger sister is married to Suthep... Hence, it would be fair to say he is with Suthep and thus a sworn enemy of the PAD (of course, now the papers report that Niphon is playing the role of helping Abhisit). The infighting in the Democrats and has said before if anything that would bring down the government it is this infighting causes a split and defections (still a while away now), but PAD are hoping to create a split and sway public opinion and hope they can pick up a handful of Democrat defectors.

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/

[Scott]

Loaded: Thanks for the info and the link. It's nice to have posters who actually give some information to help people understand the very complex situation in Thailand.

Now, to simplify things, it sounds like a big sand box and those in charge decide which politicians get to play in the sandbox and which toys they get to have!

[Plus]

In paper Nation I saw a few more details to the story - Abhisit felt betrayed after Suthep and Niphon didn't back his choice and mentioned that if coalition party leader, Chaowarat, can't back Abhisit's choice, then maybe it's time to reconsider the alliance and think of House dissolution. Suthep and Niphon, boht aghast, turned to Chuan to help calm Abhisit down.

I don't know how true this account is, but it appears that they both know their place and will toe the line when necessary.

After the botched nomination Bhum Jai Thai leaders were apprehensive that the small matter of police chief nomination could have so serious repercussions, so they downplayed the disagreement.

>>

I don't think that because Niphon sister is married to Suthep means that Niphon himself is a sworn enemy of PAD. Has PAD said anything about Niphon? He could actually be a bridge, not an enemy.

[Insight]

Loaded: Thanks for the info and the link. It's nice to have posters who actually give some information to help people understand the very complex situation in Thailand.

Now, to simplify things, it sounds like a big sand box and those in charge decide which politicians get to play in the sandbox and which toys they get to have!

Are you aware how condescending you come across with your posts? I'm sure it's not intentional all the same...

[Plus]

Now, to simplify things, it sounds like a big sand box and those in charge decide which politicians get to play in the sandbox and which toys they get to have!

And who is in charge in this police chief affair? It's no small matter, as the army and the police will have to cooperate when reds or yellows hit the streets.

At this weekend red rally the army will be in charge, but that might change if "not so red" chief is appointed.

Abhisit seems to be winning this war with "blue" Bhum Jai Thai + Anupong's alliance. Under threat of House dissolution BJT had backed off.

Actually, with all the analyses of the potential candidates appearing in the past few weeks, no one has made any mention of the army preferences.

[animatic]

Nothing more than the SOP of saying anything and everything their opponents do or say is bad or worse.

Red News / FoxNews, only the tint is different.

I'm happy to agree with that as long as you agree that: Yellow news / Foxnews, only the tint is different...

(By the way, I quoted Transparency International and the World Bank, not the manager or astv, or Red News.)

I was referring to PTP as an ineffectual opposition party.

[animatic]

Now, to simplify things, it sounds like a big sand box and those in charge decide which politicians get to play in the sandbox and which toys they get to have!

And who is in charge in this police chief affair? It's no small matter, as the army and the police will have to cooperate when reds or yellows hit the streets.

At this weekend red rally the army will be in charge, but that might change if "not so red" chief is appointed.

Abhisit seems to be winning this war with "blue" Bhum Jai Thai + Anupong's alliance. Under threat of House dissolution BJT had backed off.

Actually, with all the analyses of the potential candidates appearing in the past few weeks, no one has made any mention of the army preferences.

I hear all this talk of debacle, embarrassment, backstabbed, and such..

Well I for one NEVER expected his first choice to be accepted on day one.

1 ) There is too much money at stake as police head.

Deals HAD to be made AFTER people knew which ways Abhisit's wind was going to blow.

2 ) This was just the required 'time out' while people realigned and allegiances negotiated.

No doubt payments made and spies placed strategically.

3 ) Push will always come to shove in these situations, but it can't be simply dictated

and not completely thought out; what it means for such a lucrative and powerful position.

[hammered]

Abhisit is defending his position quite well form assault form two sides: military brass and BJT alliance and red-PTPers. However, that mean ssurvival but at the cost of government ability to function. At some point things will have to come to a head. However, now Abhisit also retains what analysts call soft power. The question is how much.

By the way, Im sure everyone has heard of the silent coup rumours that emante from PTP but has the ear of the PAD too who interestingly remain quiet inspite of having problems with government, military and reds. But who can name the 5 generals, 1 politican and 1 policeman rumoured to be behind the silent thingy.

[Thai at Heart]

Abhisit is defending his position quite well form assault form two sides: military brass and BJT alliance and red-PTPers. However, that mean ssurvival but at the cost of government ability to function. At some point things will have to come to a head. However, now Abhisit also retains what analysts call soft power. The question is how much.

By the way, Im sure everyone has heard of the silent coup rumours that emante from PTP but has the ear of the PAD too who interestingly remain quiet inspite of having problems with government, military and reds. But who can name the 5 generals, 1 politican and 1 policeman rumoured to be behind the silent thingy.

I agree with an earlier post which said that his choice was always going to be challenged. Politics isn't nice, and I hope he fights his corner. His power is indeed soft, but it may well increase after this situation has passed (if he can find a way to negotiate through it).

As for who maybe behind the silent coup, that is a bit like asking a husband who his wife is having an affair with. You are always the last one to know.