Abhisit Is The Most Difficult Thai Pm: Hun Sen

[Moonrakers]

^

Like I said, start a new thread in general and if and when I decide that I want to be educated on the subject, then I shall refer to that thread.

[xminator]

For goodness sakes, if you really want to have a discussion about Thailand's involvement in the Khmer Rouge atrocities then open another thread.

The informations is very much on topic, and a direct consequence of some exPads obviously having no idea about the history of that time period. When calling Hun Sen Red Khmer (to keep the term in english and not french...), as far as I can find he fled to Vietnam when or shortly after Pol Pot started his 4 years of hel_l.

The history of cambodia after pol pots fall speaks for itself about Hun Sen as a decent leader. While not pure white, the grey is most certainly on the lighter side. The gangster stamp is of course very usefull for the Abhisit government and should be no surprise when remembering some of the enlightened words from FM Kasit.

[TAWP]

So atleast we know why the whitewashing is going on here - Hun Sen must be a decent fellow as otherwise the cooperation with Thaksin might taint the latter...

[Lite Beer]

A post discussing Moderation has been deleted as per forum rules.

If anyone has an issue with any form of Moderation please PM the Mod in person or contact support[at]thaivisa.com.

Please do not discuss it on the open forum.

Thank You.

[ballpoint]

This just in:

Winston Churchill is the most difficult British PM says Adolf Hitler. Mr Hitler went on to say that the German people would never be happy and united as long as Churchill remained in charge. "Bring back that nice Mr Chamberlain" he was quoted as saying, "we never had any problem with him".

[Steve2UK]

This just in:

Winston Churchill is the most difficult British PM says Adolf Hitler. Mr Hitler went on to say that the German people would never be happy and united as long as Churchill remained in charge. "Bring back that nice Mr Chamberlain" he was quoted as saying, "we never had any problem with him".

[animatic]

This just in:

Winston Churchill is the most difficult British PM says Adolf Hitler. Mr Hitler went on to say that the German people would never be happy and united as long as Churchill remained in charge. "Bring back that nice Mr Chamberlain" he was quoted as saying, "we never had any problem with him".

For once in a blue moon Steve and I agree.

Edited December 5, 2009 by animatic

[hammered]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

[LaoPo]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

Why ?

The EU, in many cases, is a large entity which roars many times but seldom act as a unity outside their borders. The EU, as well as the US wish to see the present Cambodia Tribunal end sooner rather than later.

Many western countries are still "suffering" (in shame) from the heavy burden of that enormous butter-mountain they carried along, on top of their heads, for years if we speak about Cambodia....

Hypocrisy springs to mind...utter hypocrisy from all those western nations (and Thailand!). I'm sure the younger generation feel deep shame of what happened in Cambodia to those millions, killed, and want to do something about it, but the Governments are hypocrite.

http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/

LaoPo

[hammered]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

Why ?

The EU, in many cases, is a large entity which roars many times but seldom act as a unity outside their borders. The EU, as well as the US wish to see the present Cambodia Tribunal end sooner rather than later.

Many western countries are still "suffering" (in shame) from the heavy burden of that enormous butter-mountain they carried along, on top of their heads, for years if we speak about Cambodia....

Hypocrisy springs to mind...utter hypocrisy from all those western nations (and Thailand!). I'm sure the younger generation feel deep shame of what happened in Cambodia to those millions, killed, and want to do something about it, but the Governments are hypocrite.

http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/

LaoPo

For why read the article if interested. It doesnt have anything to do with butter mountains and is more about human rights or the lack of them and quite frankly what happened in the past doesnt give anyone a pass on what they do today.

If not interested dont worry about it.

[LaoPo]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

Why ?

The EU, in many cases, is a large entity which roars many times but seldom act as a unity outside their borders. The EU, as well as the US wish to see the present Cambodia Tribunal end sooner rather than later.

Many western countries are still "suffering" (in shame) from the heavy burden of that enormous butter-mountain they carried along, on top of their heads, for years if we speak about Cambodia....

Hypocrisy springs to mind...utter hypocrisy from all those western nations (and Thailand!). I'm sure the younger generation feel deep shame of what happened in Cambodia to those millions, killed, and want to do something about it, but the Governments are hypocrite.

http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/

LaoPo

For why read the article if interested. It doesnt have anything to do with butter mountains and is more about human rights or the lack of them and quite frankly what happened in the past doesnt give anyone a pass on what they do today.

If not interested dont worry about it.

I did read the article but it's not related to the Hun Sen versus Abhisit vv topic; it was/is about the power struggle within Cambodia itself and the visit of opposition leader Sam Rainsy to Brussels to ask for attention of his case.

But I agree that what happened in the past doesn't give anyone a pass on what they do today; that includes (present and previous Governments of) Thailand......and Cambodia's Hun Sen of course.

LaoPo

[Publicus]

This just in:

Winston Churchill is the most difficult British PM says Adolf Hitler. Mr Hitler went on to say that the German people would never be happy and united as long as Churchill remained in charge. "Bring back that nice Mr Chamberlain" he was quoted as saying, "we never had any problem with him".

It's interesting to see the witty parallel is appreciated .

[Ricardo]

Perhaps PM-Abhisit might consider appointing Sam Rainsy, as an economic-adviser to the Thai government, to see how Hun Sen likes it ? Turnabout is fair play !

[dumball]

Why don't the Thai government just forget about Hun Sen and Thaksin , get on with the buisiness of running their own country which is sorely in need of some-one , anyone , to do just that . They keep bringing up anything that will hide (or bury) their own ineptude , I do not think they know what to do next , they are so scared of all the other snouts in the common trough their hands are veritably tied

Cambodia is doing quite nicely thank you all very much , with Hun Sen at the helm , the people respect him because he has been slowly working away at improving the lot of the population in general . There has been so many improvements , some in only small ways , but they have been improvements , Thai should take a page out of his book and do something for Thailand , I saw few (if any) improvements the 7 years I lived in Thailand , more the people getting more morose and showing their contempt for foriegners , mostly from the government angle .

Hun Sen has his problems also , but regergitating his past will achieve nothing , as long as he keeps doing what he is doing for his people , nobody cares , least of all what happens in Thailand .all the Thai government does is talk up a storm about this that and the other , acheiving nothing to very little worth mentioning .

[animatic]

People who were children at the time of atrocities, should not acrue blame.

Those here were of adult age and participated in abuses,

even if they later fled their compatriots, likely fearing getting on the list for abuse,

should not get a free pass just because they didn't stick out a bad course to the very end.

See : Hun Sen apologia above. So he split to Nam before becoming a statistic himself.

Doesn't white wash him for before he split.

So some groups in and out of military and some pirates preyed on refugees,

doesn't mean a generally ineffective government condoned it,

just didn't have the organizational integrity to stop it.

One can't blame Abhisit for things when he was 10 years old.

One can't blame whole countries forever for things that were done by previous generations,

even as many seem to think this is fair.

Example: Germany is much different now than 1939.

Some think having long memories, about previous leaders of of large institutions,

gives free reign to malign later generations, but that should only be applied to

those who were active at the time and not those who are working in a different and positive direction

while in the same institution at a much later time.

[Steve2UK]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

I think the EU/outside world opinion factor mentioned about this article (opinion piece as it is, it still provides a useful take and analysis based on facts) is minor compared to what I take as its main thrust - i.e that Hun Sen has significant political issues facing him at home. A key passage: "Last year, Mr. Hun Sen's CPP won 73% of the total seats in a ballot marked by irregularities and administrative faults. CPP rule rests on genuine popularity at rice roots level through its economic development policies and nationalism in defense of Cambodia's territorial sovereignty vis-à-vis Thailand. Mr. Hun Sen's aggressive handling of the dispute with Thailand over land surrounding Preah Vihear temple in 2008 was a vote getter." [my bold emphasis]. One could argue the same about the (possibly CPP-instigated) 2003 street protests that led to attacks on the Thai embassy, Thai Airways and Shin Corp offices etc - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Phnom_Penh_riots . For a wider (Vietnam-related) context, see also http://www.samrainsyparty.org/archives/ach...an%20people.htm - allowing that it's Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy's partial view.

Much has been made on TVF of Hun Sen's (and, of course, Thaksin's) pocket-lining character and there are many comments referring to Hun Sen being used by wily Thaksin or vice versa (IMO the two notions are certainly not mutually exclusive - but each "duping" the other does seem a bit of a stretch). Given that there's little love lost between Thai and Khmer nations - and that each plays its version of the "old Thai enemy/old Khmer enemy" game, it should come as no surprise that each would also adopt the very familiar "my enemy's enemy is my friend" approach. On that basis, each sees the other government as the enemy - and anyone opposed to it as a potentially useful "friend"; by that logic, Thaksin being opposed to the present Thai government of course qualifies him as a (for now) useful friend for Hun Sen. Personally, I doubt that Hun Sen sees Thaksin ever regaining office, but that doesn't diminish Thaksin's current value to him as a chess piece..... just as Hun Sen is in Thaksin's game against the present Thai government. Accordingly, in the IMO highly unlikely event that Thaksin were to ever regain office, it should come as no surprise that Hun Sen would then switch from warm and public embrace of Thaksin to castigating him in much the same way as he now does Abhisit.

I also don't see this part of Hun Sen's chess game as being contradictory to another part mentioned previously (which does relate to world opinion in a way) - i.e. trying to make reasonable bi-lateral talks on border disputes (particularly maritime boundaries) with much bigger neighbour Thailand look impossible and thus increasing the likelihood of international arbitration of them that has tended to favour Cambodia before now. In that respect, Thailand's abrogation of the 2001 marine boundaries MOU can be seen as suiting Hun Sen/Cambodia - in that it effectively winds the bilateral clock back to zero and thus cleans the slate ready for arbitration by a third party. Money talks - and so do strategic interests for vital resources; I doubt that gas/oil companies and interested powers will be slow in putting on pressure to get the disputes settled so that exploitation of them can start.

[hammered]

For those of you interested in opinions of the outside world try this from WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3349134330.html

Maybe the EU sees Hun Sen as more of a difficult proposition

I think the EU/outside world opinion factor mentioned about this article (opinion piece as it is, it still provides a useful take and analysis based on facts) is minor compared to what I take as its main thrust - i.e that Hun Sen has significant political issues facing him at home. A key passage: "Last year, Mr. Hun Sen's CPP won 73% of the total seats in a ballot marked by irregularities and administrative faults. CPP rule rests on genuine popularity at rice roots level through its economic development policies and nationalism in defense of Cambodia's territorial sovereignty vis-à-vis Thailand. Mr. Hun Sen's aggressive handling of the dispute with Thailand over land surrounding Preah Vihear temple in 2008 was a vote getter." [my bold emphasis]. One could argue the same about the (possibly CPP-instigated) 2003 street protests that led to attacks on the Thai embassy, Thai Airways and Shin Corp offices etc - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Phnom_Penh_riots . For a wider (Vietnam-related) context, see also http://www.samrainsyparty.org/archives/ach...an%20people.htm - allowing that it's Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy's partial view.

Much has been made on TVF of Hun Sen's (and, of course, Thaksin's) pocket-lining character and there are many comments referring to Hun Sen being used by wily Thaksin or vice versa (IMO the two notions are certainly not mutually exclusive - but each "duping" the other does seem a bit of a stretch). Given that there's little love lost between Thai and Khmer nations - and that each plays its version of the "old Thai enemy/old Khmer enemy" game, it should come as no surprise that each would also adopt the very familiar "my enemy's enemy is my friend" approach. On that basis, each sees the other government as the enemy - and anyone opposed to it as a potentially useful "friend"; by that logic, Thaksin being opposed to the present Thai government of course qualifies him as a (for now) useful friend for Hun Sen. Personally, I doubt that Hun Sen sees Thaksin ever regaining office, but that doesn't diminish Thaksin's current value to him as a chess piece..... just as Hun Sen is in Thaksin's game against the present Thai government. Accordingly, in the IMO highly unlikely event that Thaksin were to ever regain office, it should come as no surprise that Hun Sen would then switch from warm and public embrace of Thaksin to castigating him in much the same way as he now does Abhisit.

I also don't see this part of Hun Sen's chess game as being contradictory to another part mentioned previously (which does relate to world opinion in a way) - i.e. trying to make reasonable bi-lateral talks on border disputes (particularly maritime boundaries) with much bigger neighbour Thailand look impossible and thus increasing the likelihood of international arbitration of them that has tended to favour Cambodia before now. In that respect, Thailand's abrogation of the 2001 marine boundaries MOU can be seen as suiting Hun Sen/Cambodia - in that it effectively winds the bilateral clock back to zero and thus cleans the slate ready for arbitration by a third party. Money talks - and so do strategic interests for vital resources; I doubt that gas/oil companies and interested powers will be slow in putting on pressure to get the disputes settled so that exploitation of them can start.

Dont disagree with that. At least now the missing part of the analysis is there. International arbitration is something that may have worked in the consensus based past. Now with a new role model -China- on the horizon such things may become menaingless. Will China allow an arbitration process set up and dominated by old powers to decide on their claim to the Spratly's for example or will they just say we need a new way? That will affect all. China's powerful emergence is going to change groundrules. China will have the influence to get world bodies to recreate and ammend rules to suit it as the US has in the past. We are likely moving into unchartered territories and ones in which gambles made by lesser pwoers may or may not pay off.

Ditto in the Arctic and Antarctic carve ups that need to be made too. The rules by which decisions will be made will change and likely give an upper hand to the powerful over the less powerful.

[Publicus]

We'll know if and when global power shifts occur if and when the UN restructures and reorganizes itself. Countries such as Thailand and Cambodia won't have any say except as members of Asean but especally Apec, but the PRChina will have significant say, as would India, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Germany and a few others along with the other four permanent UNSC members.PRChina aleady is a member of the UN Security Council so may favor the present post WWII status quo at the UN, which of course would hinder the UN's legitimacy and effectiveness if the 'world body' were to fail to keep pace with the dynamics of geoeconomics and geopolitics. PRChina's number one concern is energy to fuel its much needed economic growth, but the focus of the PRC in this respect is Africa and Australia, not SE Asia. I doubt Hun Sen or Thailand have much to be concerned about from the PRC until well into the future. Issues such as the Spratlys and energy fields off the SE Asian coast are small potatoes to the PRC, which needs huge long term energy deals. Hun Sen might indeed do better going to arbitration, but it's still a roll of the dice for him to take that route over which he has less control than direct negotiations with Thailand.

[Credo]

I was recently in Cambodia and spent sometime talking to some of the local people. Basically, most people were pretty diplomatic in anything they said about Hun Sen, so it's difficult to get a handle on how much they like/dislike him. Most seem to think that Taksin's visit was a real asset to Cambodia. He's viewed as a good businessman and they think he and Hun Sen together can do a lot of good things. Most had little or no concern for what Thailand thought about it other than seeming to be a little bit puzzled why they were so upset.

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

Dont disagree with that. At least now the missing part of the analysis is there. International arbitration is something that may have worked in the consensus based past. Now with a new role model -China- on the horizon such things may become menaingless. Will China allow an arbitration process set up and dominated by old powers to decide on their claim to the Spratly's for example or will they just say we need a new way? That will affect all. China's powerful emergence is going to change groundrules. China will have the influence to get world bodies to recreate and ammend rules to suit it as the US has in the past. We are likely moving into unchartered territories and ones in which gambles made by lesser pwoers may or may not pay off.

Ditto in the Arctic and Antarctic carve ups that need to be made too. The rules by which decisions will be made will change and likely give an upper hand to the powerful over the less powerful.

Conceited chap that I am, I'll take the first part as an overly generous compliment - I think a reading of Paul Kennedy, Niall Ferguson and Shakespeare would lead almost anyone to similar conclusions. I recommend all three to those that wonder if there's more to history than kings and battles - and who consider that the black hat/white hat approach to who's bad and who's good is best left to vintage Hollywood westerns.

Institutions being what they are, I think what's notionally "consensus" is due to be around for quite a while yet - though I agree that those shaping the consensus will inevitably change as you describe. On that basis, if China is friendly with Cambodia (and they very much are) then I see arbitration looking a better bet for Cambodia than trying to tough it out with Thailand bilaterally. A bet, therefore a gamble - but the odds would seem to favour the "multilateral" route.

As to China's need for resources, those imported from Australia are largely metal ores and coal - and those from Africa largely metal ores again, timber etc and about a third of its imported oil (from Angola, particularly). Personally, I think it's unlikely they'd ignore the prospect of potentially significant oil and gas resources becoming available/accessible in what's relatively their backyard - all the more so if they continue to be frustrated by Vietnam's (and others') ongoing stance in the seemingly never-ending multi-faceted* Spratlys dispute.

But I digress too far from the topic. In any case, chess games have a habit of changing drastically during the play and in political chess new pieces appear on the board that change the situation (and sometimes the rules) even more drastically. So perhaps on this occasion, at least, I can be forgiven for saying "We'll see".

* I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands - it's a fun read and that situation looks set to keep a lot of lawyers in new Benzes for a long time to come. It makes the Thailand/Cambodia maritime border dispute look like a cakewalk.........

Edited December 8, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Publicus]

<snip>

Dont disagree with that. At least now the missing part of the analysis is there. International arbitration is something that may have worked in the consensus based past. Now with a new role model -China- on the horizon such things may become menaingless. Will China allow an arbitration process set up and dominated by old powers to decide on their claim to the Spratly's for example or will they just say we need a new way? That will affect all. China's powerful emergence is going to change groundrules. China will have the influence to get world bodies to recreate and ammend rules to suit it as the US has in the past. We are likely moving into unchartered territories and ones in which gambles made by lesser pwoers may or may not pay off.

Ditto in the Arctic and Antarctic carve ups that need to be made too. The rules by which decisions will be made will change and likely give an upper hand to the powerful over the less powerful.

Conceited chap that I am, I'll take the first part as an overly generous compliment - I think a reading of Paul Kennedy, Niall Ferguson and Shakespeare would lead almost anyone to similar conclusions. I recommend all three to those that wonder if there's more to history than kings and battles - and who consider that the black hat/white hat approach to who's bad and who's good is best left to vintage Hollywood westerns.

Institutions being what they are, I think what's notionally "consensus" is due to be around for quite a while yet - though I agree that those shaping the consensus will inevitably change as you describe. On that basis, if China is friendly with Cambodia (and they very much are) then I see arbitration looking a better bet for Cambodia than trying to tough it out with Thailand bilaterally. A bet, therefore a gamble - but the odds would seem to favour the "multilateral" route.

As to China's need for resources, those imported from Australia are largely metal ores and coal - and those from Africa largely metal ores again, timber etc and about a third of its imported oil (from Angola, particularly). Personally, I think it's unlikely they'd ignore the prospect of potentially significant oil and gas resources becoming available/accessible in what's relatively their backyard - all the more so if they continue to be frustrated by Vietnam's (and others') ongoing stance in the seemingly never-ending multi-faceted* Spratlys dispute.

But I digress too far from the topic. In any case, chess games have a habit of changing drastically during the play and in political chess new pieces appear on the board that change the situation (and sometimes the rules) even more drastically. So perhaps on this occasion, at least, I can be forgiven for saying "We'll see".

* I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands - it's a fun read and that situation looks set to keep a lot of lawyers in new Benzes for a long time to come. It makes the Thailand/Cambodia maritime border dispute look like a cakewalk.........

The People's Republic of China is securing continental energy deals in South America for oil as well as in Africa and Australia. In making huge package deals with certain governments of South America, the PRC simultaneously is trying strategically to get as close to the Panama Canal as possible which is why, in cooperation with the government of the US, most governments on the isthmus of Central America continue to recognize the government in Taipei, Taiwan as the legitimate government of the Republic of China (as in Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek, the Gwomindang).

The PRC government doesn't want to appear to be bully government so it is treading lightly in the Spratlys and is disinterested in offshore energy fields (anywhere) which are in dispute between third party nations, even - and especially - if it is in the PRC's backyard.

The Sino-Thai Thaksin and his people draw the interest of the PRC government because Thaksin and Co are considered "overseas" Chinese which, as such in the eyes of Beijing, are loyally Chinese because they are, well, Chinese even if only in ancestry. This is an illusion of the Communist Party of China but it is none the less their real illusion. I'm asked regularly by PRC elites what the story is in Thailand with Thaksin, so I'm happy to say what I do have to say about it to the Chinese.

The PRChinese elites are concerned enuff about Thaksin & Co and friendly enuff with Hun Sen to perhaps become involved, but ever so quietly, in the disputes between LOS and Cambodia.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Publicus

[Credo]

Both Thailand and Vietnam are competing for the market place in Cambodia. Hun Sen earlier played that card when he essentially said that they didn't need Thai goods. This scared some of the Thai businesses, but made the Vietnamese quite happy.

Much of their petroleum products, natural gas, for cooking and cars comes from Thailand and the border disruption did affect this. Cambodia has the resources, but not the means to develop them into refined products. Thailand has the means to do so. Both Hun Sen and Thaksin know this and Thaksin being business minded also probably knows that there will be less conflict if there is development of the resources and money to be split between them.

Both probably know that either the two countries involved do it; or you end up with someone like China stepping in. Those things don't usually end happily.

[LaoPo]

The People's Republic of China is securing continental energy deals in South America for oil as well as in Africa and Australia. In making huge package deals with certain governments of South America, the PRC simultaneously is trying strategically to get as close to the Panama Canal as possible which is why, in cooperation with the government of the US, most governments on the isthmus of Central America continue to recognize the government in Taipei, Taiwan as the legitimate government of the Republic of China (as in Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek, the Gwomindang).

The PRC government doesn't want to appear to be bully government so it is treading lightly in the Spratlys and is disinterested in offshore energy fields (anywhere) which are in dispute between third party nations, even - and especially - if it is in the PRC's backyard.

The Sino-Thai Thaksin and his people draw the interest of the PRC government because Thaksin and Co are considered "overseas" Chinese which, as such in the eyes of Beijing, are loyally Chinese because they are, well, Chinese even if only in ancestry. This is an illusion of the Communist Party of China but it is none the less their real illusion.

I'm asked regularly by PRC elites what the story is in Thailand with Thaksin, so I'm happy to say what I do have to say about it to the Chinese.

The PRChinese elites are concerned enuff about Thaksin & Co and friendly enuff with Hun Sen to perhaps become involved, but ever so quietly, in the disputes between LOS and Cambodia.

Writing from your desk at ZhongNanHai or did you have a chat with Hu Jintao or one of the other 8 members of the standing committee lately, sipping tea ?

I have to admit.....the snobism is amazing and overwhelming.

"I'm asked regularly by PRC elites...."

LaoPo

[Publicus]

The People's Republic of China is securing continental energy deals in South America for oil as well as in Africa and Australia. In making huge package deals with certain governments of South America, the PRC simultaneously is trying strategically to get as close to the Panama Canal as possible which is why, in cooperation with the government of the US, most governments on the isthmus of Central America continue to recognize the government in Taipei, Taiwan as the legitimate government of the Republic of China (as in Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek, the Gwomindang).

The PRC government doesn't want to appear to be bully government so it is treading lightly in the Spratlys and is disinterested in offshore energy fields (anywhere) which are in dispute between third party nations, even - and especially - if it is in the PRC's backyard.

The Sino-Thai Thaksin and his people draw the interest of the PRC government because Thaksin and Co are considered "overseas" Chinese which, as such in the eyes of Beijing, are loyally Chinese because they are, well, Chinese even if only in ancestry. This is an illusion of the Communist Party of China but it is none the less their real illusion.

I'm asked regularly by PRC elites what the story is in Thailand with Thaksin, so I'm happy to say what I do have to say about it to the Chinese.

The PRChinese elites are concerned enuff about Thaksin & Co and friendly enuff with Hun Sen to perhaps become involved, but ever so quietly, in the disputes between LOS and Cambodia.

Writing from your desk at ZhongNanHai or did you have a chat with Hu Jintao or one of the other 8 members of the standing committee lately, sipping tea ?

I have to admit.....the snobism is amazing and overwhelming.

"I'm asked regularly by PRC elites...."

LaoPo

Man overboard!!!   Throw him a lifeline and lower a rescue boat!  Bring him back onboard and dry him out but send him to his bunk without feeding him because he's being naughty. 

Chinese elites include (and are limited to) the few Chinese who speak English such as some academics, some business people, some government officials, the Chinese English faculty I work with and the students I teach. Chairman Hu Jin Tao is English illiterate, speaks Beijinghua (Mandarin); my Mandarin is even worse than my lousy Cantonese which Mr. Hu doesn't speak either. This has been a lesson pro gratis in the babel of Chinese tongues that make communication among the Chinese on their own soil range from the difficult to the impossible. Which is why all Chinese must learn a common Chinese tongue, and the chosen tongue is Mandarin (putonghua). (Half the students I have can't understand the local tongues of the other half so must resort to communicting in the Mandarin they were taught at school, which takes them beyond the local tongue they learned at home.)

If you'd referenced UK elites I would not have assumed you were referring to your having had tea with Liz at the Palace while chatting in a foreign language such as, say, French (Norman French). 

Once the few English literate Chinese there are in the PRC learn I'd spent ten years in LOS they ask about Thaksin because despite Takki's best efforts, in the PRC he's considered "overseas" Chinese and thus/ergo/therefore loyal to the PRC. Actually, the truth be known, I rather restrain myself in explaining Thailand and Thaksin to the few Chinese who are English literate, I make a (painful) effort to present a relatively balanced point of view. I mean, how does one say to a Chinese who's corrupt that Thaksin was convicted in Thailand for being corrupt? The Chinese immediately demand the real reason for Thaksin's woes, so I tell 'em.  

gl

[LaoPo]

The People's Republic of China is securing continental energy deals in South America for oil as well as in Africa and Australia. In making huge package deals with certain governments of South America, the PRC simultaneously is trying strategically to get as close to the Panama Canal as possible which is why, in cooperation with the government of the US, most governments on the isthmus of Central America continue to recognize the government in Taipei, Taiwan as the legitimate government of the Republic of China (as in Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek, the Gwomindang).

The PRC government doesn't want to appear to be bully government so it is treading lightly in the Spratlys and is disinterested in offshore energy fields (anywhere) which are in dispute between third party nations, even - and especially - if it is in the PRC's backyard.

The Sino-Thai Thaksin and his people draw the interest of the PRC government because Thaksin and Co are considered "overseas" Chinese which, as such in the eyes of Beijing, are loyally Chinese because they are, well, Chinese even if only in ancestry. This is an illusion of the Communist Party of China but it is none the less their real illusion.

I'm asked regularly by PRC elites what the story is in Thailand with Thaksin, so I'm happy to say what I do have to say about it to the Chinese.

The PRChinese elites are concerned enuff about Thaksin & Co and friendly enuff with Hun Sen to perhaps become involved, but ever so quietly, in the disputes between LOS and Cambodia.

Writing from your desk at ZhongNanHai or did you have a chat with Hu Jintao or one of the other 8 members of the standing committee lately, sipping tea ?

I have to admit.....the snobism is amazing and overwhelming.

"I'm asked regularly by PRC elites...."

LaoPo

Man overboard!!!   Throw him a lifeline and lower a rescue boat!  Bring him back onboard and dry him out but send him to his bunk without feeding him because he's being naughty. 

Chinese elites include (and are limited to) the few Chinese who speak English such as some academics, some business people, some government officials, the Chinese English faculty I work with and the students I teach. Chairman Hu Jin Tao is English illiterate, speaks Beijinghua (Mandarin); my Mandarin is even worse than my lousy Cantonese which Mr. Hu doesn't speak either. This has been a lesson pro gratis in the babel of Chinese tongues that make communication among the Chinese on their own soil range from the difficult to the impossible. Which is why all Chinese must learn a common Chinese tongue, and the chosen tongue is Mandarin (putonghua). (Half the students I have can't understand the local tongues of the other half so must resort to communicting in the Mandarin they were taught at school, which takes them beyond the local tongue they learned at home.)

If you'd referenced UK elites I would not have assumed you were referring to your having had tea with Liz at the Palace while chatting in a foreign language such as, say, French (Norman French). 

Once the few English literate Chinese there are in the PRC learn I'd spent ten years in LOS they ask about Thaksin because despite Takki's best efforts, in the PRC he's considered "overseas" Chinese and thus/ergo/therefore loyal to the PRC. Actually, the truth be known, I rather restrain myself in explaining Thailand and Thaksin to the few Chinese who are English literate, I make a (painful) effort to present a relatively balanced point of view. I mean, how does one say to a Chinese who's corrupt that Thaksin was convicted in Thailand for being corrupt? The Chinese immediately demand the real reason for Thaksin's woes, so I tell 'em.  

gl

You missed my point completely; it was about your shameless:

"I'm asked regularly by PRC elites...."

BTW:

I've been coming to China for more than 30 years and know my way around thank you very much, so no need for you to spill your time, trying to teach me about Chinese elite.

I've met and know people (from within ZhongNanHai) in Beijing but I would never write I'm asked regularly by PRC elites

In China, amongst Chinese, such self proclaimed behavior would be considered as unforgivable snobism and my Chinese wife would consider such behavior, if done by me, as having bad manners.

But, of course she's Chinese and you are American. That's the difference, but in my case, being European, it's considered not done to proclaim: "I'm asked regularly by PRC elites....".

It would be called: Snobism.

LaoPo

[Publicus]

Hi LaoPo,

I ask you, how could I miss your meaning in the first post, especially when you use the word "snobism?"

You indeed missed my meaning of "Man overboard" etc, as I made the point you overreacted to my use of "elites" in my original post. I presented that few people in the People's Republic of China speak English, that those who do tend to be among the elites of the society. They are the people who ask me about Thaksin and Thailand.

You may be aware, but for those who might not, every time someone in Thailand puts on a shirt it's on the 44 channels of the same same Central China TV, so the Chinese people themselves are curious about the madness and, worst of all to the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the social disorder and rioting in Thailand which serves the CPC as the negative example of how to have a society.

Most of us have certain things that set us off, as my original statement unintentionally quite pressed your button, but let's both finish growing up and not make our presence at TVF too much of a personal matter. Discourse is better than lecturing or scolding. Accordingly, as you and I might disagree about the PRC, let's try to keep it at that level.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Publicus

[Publicus]

I suspect you and I do disagree about the People's Republic of China and concerning its quiet and closely held views towards the 'injustices' Thaksin has had 'inflicted' on him by the traditional and historic elites of LOS.

I mean, there just isn't any question the Communist Party of China would like to have a Sino-Thai such as Takki Shenegra at the top of and running Thailand, especially given that the ruling 8 member Standing Committee of the Politbureau of the CPC indoctrinates party members and the entire citizenry to believe the illusion that anyone Chinese or of Chinese ancestry abroad is in fact an "overseas" Chinese which ergo/therefore/necessarily makes the person loyal to the PRC and the CPC.

That of course is not to say the Sino-Thai Thaksin & Co are somehow or in any way communist, dictatorial and arbitrary, or favor a state controlled or directed economy by the elite few. I know I've made several lengthy posts at various other threads about the PRC and the CPC, posts which have laid out a number of aspects of life and attitudes in PRChina, that those posts have gone unanswered by anyone with experience living and working in the PRC, even (and especially) those who have had considerably more contact with the PRC and its sheeple than I have in my modest two years in the PRC, to include the necessary dealings any foreign devil has to undergo with the Public Security Bureau (the politics police) in respect to the determining factor as to whether a foreign devil (foreigner), after 'proper' investigation, qualifies to be issued a Residence Permit to be in the PRC.

Getting the work visa in the PRChina is a breeze, however, qualifying for the Residence Permit issued by the politics police overrides all else. One gets it only after a 'proper' investigation. If after a 'proper' investigation of the (foreign) devil h/she is deemed not to be an enemy of the state, fine - if not, gotta go immediately because one could be an enemy of the state, a foreign devil subversive, ie, one who's going to discuss the illegal politics, government, religion among other matters the CPC of the PRC prohibits as subjects. 

 

Edited December 11, 2009 by Publicus

[jackspratt]

Getting the work visa in the PRChina is a breeze, however, qualifying for the Residence Permit issued by the politics police overrides all else. One gets it only after a 'proper' investigation. If after a 'proper' investigation of the (foreign) devil h/she is deemed not to be an enemy of the state, fine - if not, gotta go immediately because one could be an enemy of the state, a foreign devil subversive, ie, one who's going to discuss the illegal politics, government, religion among other matters the CPC of the PRC prohibits as subjects. 

Whilst it is off-topic, I would be interested to know how you define "proper investigation" in the context you put it above.

[Publicus]

Getting the work visa in the PRChina is a breeze, however, qualifying for the Residence Permit issued by the politics police overrides all else. One gets it only after a 'proper' investigation. If after a 'proper' investigation of the (foreign) devil h/she is deemed not to be an enemy of the state, fine - if not, gotta go immediately because one could be an enemy of the state, a foreign devil subversive, ie, one who's going to discuss the illegal politics, government, religion among other matters the CPC of the PRC prohibits as subjects. 

Whilst it is off-topic, I would be interested to know how you define "proper investigation" in the context you put it above.

IMO this isn't off topic because of the connection held by the Communist Party of China which rules the People's Republic of China to Hun Sen and due to the fact Thaksin is Sino-Thai, thus considered by the PRC as "overseas" Chinese meaning still and forever Chinese uber alles. (The population of the PRC accepts this Chinese uber alles line of the CPC as a natural law.)

Investigation by the Public Security Bureau of a foreigner (Public Safety Bureau = ordinary police) varies so much it's difficult to generalize, but there are the common matters of the foreign devil's nationality, any previous history in the PRC, stated purpose(s), whether one has a sponsor, credentials (tho Thailand can be much tuffer in resepect to proof), the province one enters, the point of entry into the PRC, who if anyone there is in the PRC you may know (eg dissidents) etc etc.  

For example in the matter of nationality, being from either the UK or the US is generally a free admission ticket without hassle. Conversely, being from Africa constitutes automatic rejection (but only) in the southern province of Guangdong (adjacent to Hong Kong/Macao). Because French Prez Sarkozy has an especially hostile public history against the PRC, since his election being a French national makes one personae non grata to the PRC to include recent and ongoing hassles of Carrefour in the PRC.

In short, it's better to be unknown to the CPC of the PRC than to be known - as a general rule. Hun Sen and Thaksin are rather well known, to state it mildly.

[animatic]

So many buttons, so little time.