Us Visit Will Boost Thailand's Image: Pm

[Insight]

Bottle throwers are a small and annoying minority, and there were reports that it's the same group that just follows him everywhere.

The public opposition to Abhisit is grossly overstated.

Just another load of nonsense from Thitinan.

Of course - an internationally respected analyst writes nonsense because he doesn't agree with Plus, an anonymous poster on ThaiVisa...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thitinan_Pongsudhirak

http://www.insightbureau.com/ThitinanPongsudhirak.html

I thought the tone of the article was quite strange given recent news, but then that's just a tiny +1 to the anonymous nobody's whose opinion deserves nothing more than belittling by those that know much better than us.

If one has to summarily dismiss Thitinan's views as "nonsense", than it only deserves belittling at most.

If the article sounds strange to you, then you pay far too much attention on what is in the news, and not enough on analyzes.

Thanks for identifying the difference to me, but I'll settle on the analysis of my staff and friends, thanks.

[justanothercybertosser]

Thanks for identifying the difference to me, but I'll settle on the analysis of my staff and friends, thanks.

...the age of 'i reckon...'... oh my....

[justanothercybertosser]

Thitinan is rather long on description, discussion and narration while falling awfully short on analysis.

The central reason for Thitinan's failure to produce a constructive opinion piece is that Thitinan has become both victim and (yet) another symptom of Thailand's political crankiness/nastiness of recent years. Because Thitinan is an academic rather than a shirt color Thitinan has succumbed to crankiness rather than become a person of action, whether it be an airport occupier or a street thug (to each his/her own!) or a politician.

As Thitinan's conclusion calls for "power to the people" he offers nothing more than the vague and cliched rhetoric of the 1960s USA or perhaps 1920s UK. Wm. Hague has such awesome abilities and intellect that outside of a group of Torries he couldn't outpoll Susan Boyle. Three years ago everyone had told Obama he'd need to wait until 2016.

In his ill temper Thitinan leaves us with too many unanswered questions. However, one unanswered question is more than enuff: Whom would Thitinan prefer as PM? We know it's not Abhisit. Why is it not Abhisit? Because Abhisit is the current PM.

All Thitinan gives us is more cannibalism.

A "constructive" opinion piece is simply not possible at the moment, unless you prefer unrealistic feel good sound bites, or inane activism such as the recent interview by "Prof." Stephen Young.

The answer to 'why not Abhisit' has been clearly given: because of the deals he has made in coming to his present position (i dare not say Prime Minister, which he is in name only) he has deeply disappointed.

[mca]

For example "income disparity which is the source of the polarisation between the countryside and Bangkok". It's just an old tired leftist cliche that doesn't hold any water. There's no polarization between people, there's no polarization between countryside and Bangkok (at best a couple of countryside regions), and the source of that polarization is not income disparity.

What is the cause of the polarisation in your view then Plus?

[Publicus]

Thitinan is rather long on description, discussion and narration while falling awfully short on analysis.

The central reason for Thitinan's failure to produce a constructive opinion piece is that Thitinan has become both victim and (yet) another symptom of Thailand's political crankiness/nastiness of recent years. Because Thitinan is an academic rather than a shirt color Thitinan has succumbed to crankiness rather than become a person of action, whether it be an airport occupier or a street thug (to each his/her own!) or a politician.

As Thitinan's conclusion calls for "power to the people" he offers nothing more than the vague and cliched rhetoric of the 1960s USA or perhaps 1920s UK. Wm. Hague has such awesome abilities and intellect that outside of a group of Torries he couldn't outpoll Susan Boyle. Three years ago everyone had told Obama he'd need to wait until 2016.

In his ill temper Thitinan leaves us with too many unanswered questions. However, one unanswered question is more than enuff: Whom would Thitinan prefer as PM? We know it's not Abhisit. Why is it not Abhisit? Because Abhisit is the current PM.

All Thitinan gives us is more cannibalism.

A "constructive" opinion piece is simply not possible at the moment, unless you prefer unrealistic feel good sound bites, or inane activism such as the recent interview by "Prof." Stephen Young.

The answer to 'why not Abhisit' has been clearly given: because of the deals he has made in coming to his present position (i dare not say Prime Minister, which he is in name only) he has deeply disappointed.

Quit the canned sales pitch and responses. Who would be a better PM? In the present. Who?

[justanothercybertosser]

Quit the canned sales pitch and responses. Who would be a better PM? In the present. Who?

The question is less who is Prime Minister, but how he came to his position. I care less about personalities than about the system. The system that permitted the coup, and that engineered Abhsit's ascend is not tolerable, even less so than the system that allowed Thaksin to happen.

Anybody that is elected via free and fair elections would be a good PM for Thailand. And if it is Abhisit - good luck to him.

[Jingthing]

Anybody that is elected via free and fair elections would be a good PM for Thailand.

Being elected "democratically" does not make the elected one pro democratic. Look at Chavez. Look at Thaksin. Such autocrats seek to manipulate a veneer of democracy to secure lifetime dictatorships.

Its a reasonable area of debate, but many would argue that managing to eject a character like Thaksin, regardless of the high price, was the better option. History will tell us more about the real total price, but we will of course never know what would have happened if Thaksin had been allowed to continue in power.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Jingthing

[Plus]

For example "income disparity which is the source of the polarisation between the countryside and Bangkok". It's just an old tired leftist cliche that doesn't hold any water. There's no polarization between people, there's no polarization between countryside and Bangkok (at best a couple of countryside regions), and the source of that polarization is not income disparity.

What is the cause of the polarisation in your view then Plus?

There's no polarization. There aren't any signs of polarization. There are remnants of Thaksin fan club running around but no one knows what they want and no one cares, even the media.

When reds were at their peak the leftist ideologists saw the sign of a great revolution coming. They naively thought that reds were just a tip of the iceberg, that there was massive discontent brewing in the country, that red movement was growing beyond Thaksin.

Then there was Songkran that killed any public taste for revolutions, and then there was petition that killed any "beyond Thaksin" pretense, and poor lefitst were left peddling their ideological shares in a bankrupt company.

And once reds were placed in their niche of Thaksin groupies with potential for trouble, all that political divide, income disparity, bureaucratic polity and other assorted horseshit suddenly disappeared from public interest.

They are not real issues that bother people, they are subjects of leftist obsession and/or tools to rally Thaksin foot soldiers.

[justanothercybertosser]

Being elected "democratically" does not make the elected one pro democratic.

No, it doesn't indeed. And i would not call Thaksin firmly rooted in Democracy either.

Nevertheless, Thaksin has not been the absolute autocrat many here make him out to be (authoritarian though he was). Otherwise he would not have permitted PAD protests for so long, and been ousted in a coup that easily.

Ejecting Thaksin democratically would have eventually been possible, give it time, through elections in which parties would have taken part that had a proper policy platform. What we have now is a weak government that only technically came through elections, in reality though through elite machinations, and beholden to those elites.

But that may have been what was intended all along...

[Publicus]

Quit the canned sales pitch and responses. Who would be a better PM? In the present. Who?

The question is less who is Prime Minister, but how he came to his position. I care less about personalities than about the system. The system that permitted the coup, and that engineered Abhsit's ascend is not tolerable, even less so than the system that allowed Thaksin to happen.

Anybody that is elected via free and fair elections would be a good PM for Thailand. And if it is Abhisit - good luck to him.

You're such a neutral, objective, detached and balanced true democrat observer that I'm feeling overwhelmed by your genuine concern towards Thailand so kindly excuse me as I must step outside a moment...

There, I'm back now and have managed to pull myself together. I also now note that we're back to Square One again:

First Speaker: "Abhisit was democratically voted PM by a democratically elected parliament and thereby is the constitutionally chosen and legitimate leader of government."

Second Speaker: "No, Abhisit was elevated to PM by a cabal of generals and other dark forces of several categories, thus negating the will of the people as expressed in a general election which had produced a different PM. Ergo, a new election must be held immediately so we can directly receive the will and wisdom of the people."

First Speaker: "You dunno how a parliament works, so let me explain to you that when..."

Well, when you wish someone well you more or less wish him well, or so it should seem. None the less and despite your eternal best wishes to PM Abhisit, I must ask what is your beef of the week against him this week?

Ooops, it isn't that tired old line about him being only a pretty face, this time abroad...or is it? Or that tired old line that he's disconnected from the people...or is it? Oh, yeh, you care about the system itself.

You and I agreee however that Thailand needs and would have a free and fair election

[justanothercybertosser]

There's no polarization. There aren't any signs of polarization. There are remnants of Thaksin fan club running around but no one knows what they want and no one cares, even the media.

Why then is so much media space devoted for weeks before each announced protest by these "remnants"?

Why do you spend such an exorbitant amount of hours at the screen frothing, ranting and raving if you would not care?

No polarization in Thailand...

[Publicus]

There's no polarization. There aren't any signs of polarization. There are remnants of Thaksin fan club running around but no one knows what they want and no one cares, even the media.

Why then is so much media space devoted for weeks before each announced protest by these "remnants"?

Why do you spend such an exorbitant amount of hours at the screen frothing, ranting and raving if you would not care?

No polarization in Thailand...

Polarization is a good topic. Keep trying...

[Insight]

Thanks for identifying the difference to me, but I'll settle on the analysis of my staff and friends, thanks.

...the age of 'i reckon...'... oh my....

Thanks for providing the anticipated belittlement these unknowing, insignificant folk deserve. Perhaps a 70/30 voting principle is more your thing...?

[justanothercybertosser]

You're such a neutral, objective, detached and balanced true democrat observer

Thank you very much for the compliment, but you do me too much honor.

Maybe being from the states and used to a presidential system you have difficulties to understand parliamentary democracy, and the importance of an electoral mandate, especially in a crisis of confidence or legitimacy (which there clearly is). But you are excused.

As to military involvement in politics, may i point you to Paul Chambers latest research, a detailed work of about 100 pages (if you have access to such - it is called: U-Turn to the Past? The Resurgence of the Military in Contemporary Thai Politics). Otherwise a very short version is available on New Mandala: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...gain-ascendant/

[justanothercybertosser]

Thanks for providing

Glad to be of service.

[Publicus]

You're such a neutral, objective, detached and balanced true democrat observer

Thank you very much for the compliment, but you do me too much honor.

Maybe being from the states and used to a presidential system you have difficulties to understand parliamentary democracy, and the importance of an electoral mandate, especially in a crisis of confidence or legitimacy (which there clearly is). But you are excused.

As to military involvement in politics, may i point you to Paul Chambers latest research, a detailed work of about 100 pages (if you have access to such - it is called: U-Turn to the Past? The Resurgence of the Military in Contemporary Thai Politics). Otherwise a very short version is available on New Mandala: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...gain-ascendant/

Which is more common in Thailand, a resurgent military or another government crackdown?

Perhaps there should be a crackdown on the perpetually resurgent Thai military, or maybe better would be a resurgent Thai military's crackdown against a government it doesn't like.

And thank you for your indulgence of my being from the States. Not only is it the downright Christian thing to do, but I wouldn't expect any less of you.