Foreign Ministry's Confidential Plan To "Get Rid Of" Thaksin

[Publicus]

Inflammatory posts have been removed. Lets refrain from political invective, thanks.

As for calling Thaksin Takki, while he did, apparently legally adopt the name as displayed in a passport, lets keep things from getting too complicated and try to refer to him as Thaksin, thanks.

Over the top.

This is a reversal of previously stated policy but so be it.

[rixalex]

I don't think the "cause" itself is an embarrassment.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes their cause is about something more than simply clearing and reinstating Thaksin.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes them when they say they are fighting for a whole host of noble causes, democracy and free and fair elections to name a couple.

There's no doubt that there are worthwhile causes of great merit that do need to be fought for, i just don't happen to believe there is anyone in the political sphere out there right now who genuinely cares about those issues. They may say they do but 99.9% of the time it's simply playing lip-service.

[hammered]

Surely there are some (lots) in the Reds and PTT who can see this guy is an embarassment to their cause.

Their cause itself is an embarrassment, as too their figurehead, so a few embarrassing characters in the fold doesn't really make much difference.

I don't think the "cause" itself is an embarrassment.

What is deplorable, is that so many of the so called "leaders" - especially the "figure-head" are either, as corrupt and uncaring of the masses, as those they wish to replace, or just incompetant.

I have always maintained, Thaksin did a lot "right", for the "wrong" reasons...and still does, although his invincability is starting to wane.

But, let's not get into an anti-Thaksin rant and take this topic off on a well-worn path.

A businessman red shirt supporter I occasionally drink with thinks Jatuporn is a total tool and doesnt think much of Nattawut either but he likes Thaksin and thinks Chatchuron is a good guy. There is not really total support for any of the secondary leaders in the red movement. There are also a few lefties who dont really like Thaksin but they never manage to explain how they reconcile their left wing ideals and pro-human rights positions with supporting a movement to return without any snaction whatsoever Thailand's biggest human rights abuser in decades.

By the way, analysis of what he says and when reveals Jatuporn just spouts off anything to cause hatred and division just before a big rally is planned. That is his job. It doesnt matter one iota whetehr true or not as long as some believe and their hatred increases because of belief.

[virtualtraveller]

You're all wrong, what it really said was 'plan to eliminating lying Jatuporn', only it back fired because Jatuporn, can never report a single thing without lying about it. Where do they find these politicians in this country? Really!

[Oberkommando]

There are also a few lefties who dont really like Thaksin but they never manage to explain how they reconcile their left wing ideals and pro-human rights positions with supporting a movement to return without any snaction whatsoever Thailand's biggest human rights abuser in decades.

There have been far, far worse human rights abuses going on throughout the last few decades, Thaksin's sanctioned war against drugs certainly not the worst of them.

Important word: sanctioned.

Not condoning it, merely setting the record straight, and let's not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate.

[RegularReader]

I don't think the "cause" itself is an embarrassment.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes their cause is about something more than simply clearing and reinstating Thaksin.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes them when they say they are fighting for a whole host of noble causes, democracy and free and fair elections to name a couple.

There's no doubt that there are worthwhile causes of great merit that do need to be fought for, i just don't happen to believe there is anyone in the political sphere out there right now who genuinely cares about those issues. They may say they do but 99.9% of the time it's simply playing lip-service.

You're presuming a lot Rixalex.

I don't ever recall saying anything like what you have presumed.

From reading your freqent comments on the TV forum, I believe our opinions might be a lot closer, than you think.

In fact I agree completely with your last statement.

[scorecard]

There are also a few lefties who dont really like Thaksin but they never manage to explain how they reconcile their left wing ideals and pro-human rights positions with supporting a movement to return without any snaction whatsoever Thailand's biggest human rights abuser in decades.

There have been far, far worse human rights abuses going on throughout the last few decades, Thaksin's sanctioned war against drugs certainly not the worst of them.

Important word: sanctioned.

Not condoning it, merely setting the record straight, and let's not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate.

Your comment "....and let's not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate."

I suggest it's not a simple as that.

- Yes Drugs was and still is a very serious problem in Thailand and of course in many other countries.

- 'T' was riding on a high at that moment in time with his so called populist polices / populist Taksinomics. (A lot of which could be challenged in terms of vote buying etc etc.) (I have a Thai colleague whose mother was part of the beaurocratic committee appointed to distribute the original one million baht per village fund. Today she's very very critical about all of this. )

- At that time 'T' had established himself as the saviour. Clever strategy and clever PR?? That's up to everybody's own opinion. Anything he did was OK by the people. If he told the populace to eat ham sandwiches them they would clamor for more.

But it's also true that, at this time, nobody would dare to criticize anything he did or said. Those who could see a different analysis were silenced, mostly by intimidation and threats. Journalists and newspapers - freedom of speech - was severly intimidated. Everything shown on the national TV channel was very obviously full of pro 'T' comment and nothing more.

- The truth is that not one senior person in the drug trade: sellers, distributors, manufacturers, politicians, was caught. In fact I suggest it would be fair to say that the police vigilantes deliberately never approached these people.

- 'T' of course made his famous on-high statement that 'Thailand is now clear of drugs', which was far from the truth. But the people lapped it up, he had established the image of the saviour. And nobody darred to criticise his statements.

- Let's also remember that many people believe this was a personal vendeta rather than much else, but also a good populist activity.

- During this time I carefully made a 'proposition' to many Thai people who were OK with the police shooting druggies on sight.

My proposition was "Would it be OK if your mother, father, brother, son, daughter got killed (gunned down) because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?" In most cases the other person would stop and reconsider there stance and would eventually say "No, it not OK."

[rixalex]

I don't think the "cause" itself is an embarrassment.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes their cause is about something more than simply clearing and reinstating Thaksin.

Guess that makes you one of those who believes them when they say they are fighting for a whole host of noble causes, democracy and free and fair elections to name a couple.

There's no doubt that there are worthwhile causes of great merit that do need to be fought for, i just don't happen to believe there is anyone in the political sphere out there right now who genuinely cares about those issues. They may say they do but 99.9% of the time it's simply playing lip-service.

You're presuming a lot Rixalex.

I don't ever recall saying anything like what you have presumed.

From reading your freqent comments on the TV forum, I believe our opinions might be a lot closer, than you think.

In fact I agree completely with your last statement.

Fair enough. Apologies for any presumptions made. Perhaps you could help my understanding by explaining why you feel that the cause of the reds is not an embarrassment, as i feel it is.

[rixalex]

There have been far, far worse human rights abuses going on throughout the last few decades, Thaksin's sanctioned war against drugs certainly not the worst of them.

Important word: sanctioned.

Agreed. I think the word sanctioned is important because it shows that it was this single action of his which led to everything that followed, concerning the killing of innocents. He had the power and the control to stop it, indeed the power and control to not allow it to start. He did neither.

I'm guessing though that you have different reasons for emphasising the word.

Not condoning it, merely setting the record straight, and let's not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate.

Why should we not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate? What does it matter? It's not the electorate with the responsibility of making these decisions. It's not the electorate that is voted into leadership to make the right decisions on behalf of the country. It's not the electorate that is privy to all the information required to make critical decisions.

When the electorate support a policy that is good and successful, does the electorate take the credit for it or does the politician? Of course it's the politician. And when the politician screws up, the blame is theirs and theirs alone - it's not something to be shared amongst the public.

So my advice is the opposite. Forget what the public did or did not support, and simply look at whether the politician made the right decision or the wrong one, because that's all that counts.

[Publicus]

You're all wrong, what it really said was 'plan to eliminating lying Jatuporn', only it back fired because Jatuporn, can never report a single thing without lying about it. Where do they find these politicians in this country? Really!

This reply is more than your question suggests, but the politicians and government leaders Thailand produces are necessarily and invariably the product of centuries of Thai culture, society, norms, values, mores, its education system, religious beliefs etc. Given the nature of Thai civilization, it is impossible to have anything other than the long parade of greedy clowns or pretenders that exist and always have existed. Look for more of the same into the future.  

[BangkokJazz]

If anyone believes anything coming from Jatuporn's mouth, then they are mental. Even that guy's own mother thinks he's a space cadet. True - google it. or just check it out here lol (link edited out)

No I wouldn't believe or disbelieve. So you are saying that he is not credible but that his opposition are? I don't need Google to see how absurd that is, why do you?

No. I said that Jatuporn is not credible. Never said anything about his opposition, that was you pretending I did, in a lame attempt to disparage my spot on remarks - that being that Jatuporn is a space cadet. (Which he is).

[BangkokJazz]

On a side note - in the "newspaper that must not be named" - it made it clear that the memo in question talks about "Getting rid of Thaksin's influence". Its not a "hit" (assassination) letter. Thats just sensationalism on the part of Jatuporn (for saying it), The Nation (for reporting it), TV (whoever posted the article title ) and TV members (for commenting on it).

Edited December 19, 2009 by BangkokJazz

[rixalex]

So you are saying that he is not credible but that his opposition are?

No. I said that Jatuporn is not credible. Never said anything about his opposition, that was you pretending I did,

If you stick around BangkokJazz you will find this happens a lot. Say something disparaging about a "red" and it will automatically be interpreted by certain forum members that you are endorsing/supporting an opposing group, be that the "yellows", the Democrats, the PAD or whatever.

Imagining that you do support one or all of these groups is what they must do in order to attack your viewpoint. Without it they have nothing, least of all a defense of what they tirelessly and fruitlessly attempt to defend.

[BangkokJazz]

So you are saying that he is not credible but that his opposition are?

No. I said that Jatuporn is not credible. Never said anything about his opposition, that was you pretending I did,

If you stick around BangkokJazz you will find this happens a lot. Say something disparaging about a "red" and it will automatically be interpreted by certain forum members that you are endorsing/supporting an opposing group, be that the "yellows", the Democrats, the PAD or whatever.

Imagining that you do support one or all of these groups is what they must do in order to attack your viewpoint. Without it they have nothing, least of all a defense of what they tirelessly and fruitlessly attempt to defend.

It's ok - I don't have any personal stake in their opinions, one way or another. My only personal stake, are my own feelings of wanting the to see Thailand and its people prosper. So lets bring back Thaksin so he can save the poor by reintroducing the Elite Card.

[Oberkommando]

Why should we not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate? What does it matter? It's not the electorate with the responsibility of making these decisions. It's not the electorate that is voted into leadership to make the right decisions on behalf of the country. It's not the electorate that is privy to all the information required to make critical decisions.

The electorate should have voted Thaksin's party out because of such abuses. The fact that they didn't in subsequent elections speaks volumes, wouldn't you agree?

The electorate certainly does have a responsibility to elect a leadership based on that leadership's decisions.

Thus, as Thaksin's popularity grew after his 'War On Drugs' we can deduce that it was the right decision based on the Thai peoples' positive reaction to it.

Of course if you are firmly in the camp that believes the Thai electorate have no such responsibility to have an opinion or even a vote then you will be pleased that we have a party running the country with no mandate from the people and a drugs problem that is now arguably more out of control than ever.

[TAWP]

Why should we not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate? What does it matter? It's not the electorate with the responsibility of making these decisions. It's not the electorate that is voted into leadership to make the right decisions on behalf of the country. It's not the electorate that is privy to all the information required to make critical decisions.

The electorate should have voted Thaksin's party out because of such abuses. The fact that they didn't in subsequent elections speaks volumes, wouldn't you agree?

Sure it does. That democracy has nothing to do with electing the best leaders.

The electorate certainly does have a responsibility to elect a leadership based on that leadership's decisions.

Thus, as Thaksin's popularity grew after his 'War On Drugs' we can deduce that it was the right decision based on the Thai peoples' positive reaction to it.

No, we cannot. If I give you 10 000baht while I slap someone you don't know across the face, and you the next day vote for me, did you vote for me due to the money changing hands or for your support of me slapping strangers?

You just did a schoolboy mistake, do we need to repeat the phrase for you?

Of course if you are firmly in the camp that believes the Thai electorate have no such responsibility to have an opinion or even a vote then you will be pleased that we have a party running the country with no mandate from the people and a drugs problem that is now arguably more out of control than ever.

The current government has as much mandate as the previous. Anything else is your red tshirt talking.

And the drugs-problem isn't suddenly more out of control than ever. That is pure blanket-killing-apologist-hyperbole.

[Cayenne]

Well, we can't deny that Jatuporn does have some entertainment value...he should definitely should consider a career as a stand-up comedian or a tabloid news editor, which by the looks of things he might have to around January when the boss stops paying his bills.

[caf]

There have been far, far worse human rights abuses going on throughout the last few decades, Thaksin's sanctioned war against drugs certainly not the worst of them.

Important word: sanctioned.

Agreed. I think the word sanctioned is important because it shows that it was this single action of his which led to everything that followed, concerning the killing of innocents. He had the power and the control to stop it, indeed the power and control to not allow it to start. He did neither.

I'm guessing though that you have different reasons for emphasising the word.

Not condoning it, merely setting the record straight, and let's not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate.

Why should we not forget it was an extremely popular policy amongst the electorate? What does it matter? It's not the electorate with the responsibility of making these decisions. It's not the electorate that is voted into leadership to make the right decisions on behalf of the country. It's not the electorate that is privy to all the information required to make critical decisions.

When the electorate support a policy that is good and successful, does the electorate take the credit for it or does the politician? Of course it's the politician. And when the politician screws up, the blame is theirs and theirs alone - it's not something to be shared amongst the public.

So my advice is the opposite. Forget what the public did or did not support, and simply look at whether the politician made the right decision or the wrong one, because that's all that counts.

I agree with your italicising the word sanctioned but not his. Democracies are different in different countries.

Western democracies run on mandates at the election. That is why the reference to popular support is relevant. Politicians try to keep their voters happy so that the get in next time. And politicians should keep their popular manate in mind in following policy. They don't always do that of course

[caf]

You're all wrong, what it really said was 'plan to eliminating lying Jatuporn', only it back fired because Jatuporn, can never report a single thing without lying about it. Where do they find these politicians in this country? Really!

This reply is more than your question suggests, but the politicians and government leaders Thailand produces are necessarily and invariably the product of centuries of Thai culture, society, norms, values, mores, its education system, religious beliefs etc. Given the nature of Thai civilization, it is impossible to have anything other than the long parade of greedy clowns or pretenders that exist and always have existed. Look for more of the same into the future.

You have a point there; but they are also influenced by western ideas and some 21st century thought.

Not a lot though I agree. Nurture is more powerful than nature in politics as well as social behaviour in my view.

[animatic]

Wow. I mean. Wow.

What goes through someone's head to WRITE DOWN a recommendation for political assassination on foreign soil?

I mean everyone new that they had considered it, but with written proof, doesn't the Foreign Minister now open himself up to a variety of criminal charges?

You believe Jataporn? This whole news clip is just unsubstantiated nonsense.

Yes double ditto.

Just because this loudmouth says something, no reason to assume it's backed by facts.

He has a long history of telling outrageous porkies simply to 'instigate his base'

The number of totally unsubstantiated claims he has made in parliament is enough

in newsprint, to wall paper an average house with.

And there is NOTHING that says assassination is the plan, except Jatuporno's mouth,

or that ANY plan actually exists in truth. Thaksin was recently crying that

'knowing his where abouts was part of an assignation plan',

so this is just another part of their whole PR effort, not particularly significant

except for the Red Base masses consumption.

Just more political hyperbole, nothing more.

Edited December 19, 2009 by animatic

[RegularReader]

You're presuming a lot Rixalex.

I don't ever recall saying anything like what you have presumed.

From reading your freqent comments on the TV forum, I believe our opinions might be a lot closer, than you think.

In fact I agree completely with your last statement.

Fair enough. Apologies for any presumptions made. Perhaps you could help my understanding by explaining why you feel that the cause of the reds is not an embarrassment, as i feel it is.

No apologies necessary, we're all big people here.

As for why I can see merit in some of what the Red Shirts claim is their platform, the best way to sum it up, is to say there is a difference between the sizzle and the sausage.

The sizzle being buffoons like Jaturporn and a lot of the Pue Thai pollies, as well as, of course their leader in exile, Thaksin and the false hopes and promises they feed so many of their supporters,but with no real desire, to actually do anything to help them, unless it also enriches them, in its "execution".

As for the sausage, that should be obvious - so many Thais want to be given the chance to improve their lives and the lives of their children - a common desire of most ordinary people, the world over.

That this desire is manipualted and twisted to suit, is what I find very much on the nose.

[rixalex]

No apologies necessary, we're all big people here.

Apologies are always necessary where i come from - size doesn't come into it - well not in that area.

As for the sausage, that should be obvious - so many Thais want to be given the chance to improve their lives and the lives of their children - a common desire of most ordinary people, the world over.

What you describe is what exists in almost all Thais - but it's not what defines nor what propels the red movement. I maintain, the red movement is a sham and an embarrassment, and that there may be decent honest Thais amongst their supporters does nothing to change that fact.

[rixalex]

The electorate should have voted Thaksin's party out because of such abuses. The fact that they didn't in subsequent elections speaks volumes, wouldn't you agree?

This is exactly why the Dems boycotted the election he called.

Like you, Thaksin believed that were he to win that election, it would effectively serve as a not guilty verdict for anything illegal or immoral he may ever have done in the last few years preceeding.

You and him seem to be confused about the difference between a judiciary and an electorate. They aren't one and the same believe it or not.

[Publicus]

The electorate should have voted Thaksin's party out because of such abuses. The fact that they didn't in subsequent elections speaks volumes, wouldn't you agree?

This is exactly why the Dems boycotted the election he called.

Like you, Thaksin believed that were he to win that election, it would effectively serve as a not guilty verdict for anything illegal or immoral he may ever have done in the last few years preceeding.

You and him seem to be confused about the difference between a judiciary and an electorate. They aren't one and the same believe it or not.

Zhe Obercommando speaks as if Thai democracy were a Western one. Thai democracy has a broad range and depth of freedoms and liberties, however, it has verboten subjects in much the same ways the PRC has verboten matters of discussion and discourse. Moreover, Thai democracy still has cash passing from hand to hand and feudal lords and barons who continue to dictate to their fiefdoms in ways mature and advanced democracies have long left behind.

So arguments about the wisdom of the Thai electorate must be highly qualified, as a grade six level of education hardly equips the electorate with any great moral authority or credibility. Then there is the matter of a direct influence certain elites have and exercise over the judiciary. A significant segment of the electorate and the judiciary are directly in opposition. But the 180-degree contrast is not based in a constitutional dispute or in the principle of the rule of law. That is, there are two men in direct opposition to each other.

Thailand continues to be a nation of weak institutions and strong personalities - witness for instance Prem and Thaksin. A personality, whomever he may be,  can command the judicary while simultaneously a personality has a significant number of the population in his grip. Which means something's got to give.

Unless and until Thailand can develop strong institutions and the rule of law, not men, the country will continue to clash until something does give. 

Edited December 19, 2009 by Publicus

[caf]

The electorate should have voted Thaksin's party out because of such abuses. The fact that they didn't in subsequent elections speaks volumes, wouldn't you agree?

This is exactly why the Dems boycotted the election he called.

Like you, Thaksin believed that were he to win that election, it would effectively serve as a not guilty verdict for anything illegal or immoral he may ever have done in the last few years preceeding.

You and him seem to be confused about the difference between a judiciary and an electorate. They aren't one and the same believe it or not.

Zhe Obercommando speaks as if Thai democracy were a Western one. Thai democracy has a broad range and depth of freedoms and liberties, however, it has verboten subjects in much the same ways the PRC has verboten matters of discussion and discourse. Moreover, Thai democracy still has cash passing from hand to hand and feudal lords and barons who continue to dictate to their fiefdoms in ways mature and advanced democracies have long left behind.

So arguments about the wisdom of the Thai electorate must be highly qualified, as a grade six level of education hardly equips the electorate with any great moral authority or credibility. Then there is the matter of a direct influence certain elites have and exercise over the judiciary. A significant segment of the electorate and the judiciary are directly in opposition. But the 180-degree contrast is not based in a constitutional dispute or in the principle of the rule of law. That is, there are two men in direct opposition to each other.

Thailand continues to be a nation of weak institutions and strong personalities - witness for instance Prem and Thaksin. A personality, whomever he may be, can command the judicary while simultaneously a personality has a significant number of the population in his grip. Which means something's got to give.

Unless and until Thailand can develop strong institutions and the rule of law, not men, the country will continue to clash until something does give.

Oberkommando did not say that at all. I think he and everyone else knows there are significant differences between the two democracies.

The Thai definition of freedom is different from a western one. It lacks a moral element. More a matter of doing what one wants regardless of others or laws to some extent. You talk of a depth of freedom of liberties but then give examples where it clearly does not apply.

You refer to corruption and personalities influencing the judiciary. Prem and Thaksin are not of course the only examples and possiblly not the best to fit your argument. You refer later to "two men in direct opposition to each other" do you mean Prem and Thaksin? You also refer to a lack of freedom of speech.

I agree there are elements of feudalism in the Thai system but where do you see fiefdoms? I don't see that in Thailand.

I also agree that low educational standards are a problem in having an informed electorate, but that does not give you your point that the electorate therefore has no moral authority or credibility. Every constitution gave them that authority. Having said the electorate has no moral authority you then go on to talk of their opposition to the judiciary.

Publicus, you have made some interesting points but the contradictions in your post make them difficult to follow and possibly therefore make the force of your arguments much weaker.

[way2muchcoffee]

Publicus, you have made some interesting points but the contradictions in your post make them difficult to follow and possibly therefore make the force of your arguments much weaker.

Thank you for your measured, articulate, and civil response. So often disagreements here tend toward infantile flame wars. It is refreshing to see people of opposing views discuss issues intelligently and without rancor.

[RegularReader]

No apologies necessary, we're all big people here.

Apologies are always necessary where i come from - size doesn't come into it - well not in that area.

As for the sausage, that should be obvious - so many Thais want to be given the chance to improve their lives and the lives of their children - a common desire of most ordinary people, the world over.

What you describe is what exists in almost all Thais - but it's not what defines nor what propels the red movement. I maintain, the red movement is a sham and an embarrassment, and that there may be decent honest Thais amongst their supporters does nothing to change that fact.

Rixalex, I said it is a common thread world wide - not just with Thais.

The red shirts have so far been able to harness this feeling of not getting a fair go, amongst a large section of the poor and often poorly educated Thais. We all know (now) that whilst TRT made the most of the THB30 Health Scheme, the Village Loans and so on, they didn't start very many of them. But you have to give Thaksin credit for being a great communicator to these people and was able to have them believe, he and he alone, was thinking about them and so, if they stuck/stick with him, he would/will forever be, in their debt.

This is classic use and abuse of the patronage culture, which is still so evident in Thailand- at all levels.

Irrespective, they did become "rusted on", because they finally saw someone who they belived "cared" about them.

Even now,although the government is virtually throwing money at this group, the still think Thaksin is "their leader".

My wife was up country this week and spent a lot of time sitting around with the old aunties. They're not poor in that cliched way, but by Bangkok standards they and/or their families don't have the big salaries (THB40k per month); trips overseas, lunch at the Paragon and all those other trappings they are told can be theirs, just by supporting the "big boss" and wearing a red shirt, when required.

Further, by giving THB200 to the Red Shirts, they do recieve some trinkets and things such as a form of "social insurance".

The government is giving even more, but they don't listen to that. It's not being sold with the same pernache and skill, which is more akin to joining Man U, than signing up for (yet another) government plan.

Then on Red/Thaksin TV - the staple in so many Isaan homes, they talk about Thaksin, as if he is still PM - he is still referred to (in Thai) as "Prime Minister, Thaksin" - not as on Bangkok based TV, where he is mentioned as, "Former PM" or just (and this must hurt his fragile ego) "Mr." Thanksin.

I know it is not scientific to base opinion on a straw poll of 5-6 aunties and sundry brothers in law, cousins etc., however, until the current government is able find a way of communicating with these people and show it can "match" and "better the deal" as these people see it, the Red shirts and Thaksin, will continue to get away with their game.

As an aside, you must also accept, the support from the local "big guys"( who still hold enormous sway), comes from the same origins.

They'll follow the "money trail" and the power it bestows on them, as long as it's there.

All these people don't care about the bigger picture. They see themselves so far down the "food chain", that as long as things, FOR THEM, get better, why should they care about how a piece of land in Bangkok was purchased, or a telecomminications company was sold, tax free?

As for the pu yais,that's what so many of them are in it for. Getting away, or at least, just doing this sort of thing with such bravado, is "hero stuff"!

As for taking a program off TV, or pressuring the print media, to only write favorable articles about the government..."that's normal, isn't it" ?

As for human rights abuses, they say "so what"? They've seen it all before. Don't forget, during the Army regimes and one man rule days, under people like Sarit, it was common to see people lose their lives in public and at the hands of government.

Further, during those times, the streets were cleaned (and this has continued), arsonists were publically dealt with and generally "law and order" was maintained, under the hands of a strong men/dictators.

That culture is embedded deep in Thai social culture.

The red shirts are offering a return to this strong man rule (they might call it "democracy", it's easy to con people who have never had it). It's always easier to paint the past as "glorious" - especially when people believe, or are persuaded to believe (as on Thaksin TV), it was corruptly taken away from them.

Freedom and "democracy" are side issues, because thanks to the "glorious" TRT days, the aunties can now get their cataracts treated; their diabetes kept in check and are told, their grandkids will have computers in the local school - all thanks to one man's efforts (for them), at the start of this century.

That all of this is really just a sham, doesn't worry them - now they too, are in the picture, they are not going to let a chance go by.

You and I might get angry and frustrated with all this coniving and manipulation. But until the Red shirts "constituency" is given a "better deal", I believe, they'll remain loyal to the one who they believe, gave them this in the first place - even if his "band of merrymen", are little more than incompetant fools and opportunists.

Edited December 20, 2009 by RegularReader

[xminator]

There was every reason to believe this was PT PR spin until this nice government spokesman comes out and want to drag Jatuporn to the judges for publishing a document that he goes on to say dont exists, and of course his never seen it but it poses no problem for the government that it was leaked. I've never seen so many conflicting statements in one official statement since the Minister of Misinformation had his 15 minutes of fame.

[rixalex]

That all of this is really just a sham, doesn't worry them -

Indeed and this is the point i was making.

What you accurately describe is "ordinary" Thai people's desires, needs, wants and dreams... and their perceptions of what the red shirts and Thaksin represents, even now.

When i spoke about the red cause being an embarrassment i refered not to those people's beliefs or thoughts, but to what we know the red movement is actually striving to achieve. They are two very different things of course.

[Bagwan]

No apologies necessary, we're all big people here.

Apologies are always necessary where i come from - size doesn't come into it - well not in that area.

Seconded. The offering of an apology and the admission of an error are one of the marks of a civilised person. Size, of course, relates to intellectual ability.

Even that nice Mr. Thaksin has been known to admit to making honest mistakes. It is such a shame that so many people think that his mistakes were dishonest.