Abhisit Outmanoeuvred By Hun Sen On Disputed Temple

[Scott]

I suggest you stay on the topic of the temple and the relationship between Cambodia and Thailand.

Off-topic and unrelated posts will be deleted.

[whybother]

self deleted.

Edited July 31, 2010 by whybother

[Lite Beer]

A post making accusations about the Monarchy has been deleted.

[IvanDobsky]

is democracy all that it's cooked up to be? your country could be led into an illegal war even if the majority of the people are against it.

Democracy is probably the least worst we have but can you imagine it in (never tried it before) Thailand? Mr Thaksin in power not going to sue the press, not declaring war on his own people, not shutting down anti-corruption committees?

Do not make this out to be something it's not. All we want is elections.

Thaksin was not perfect, he was corrupt, but so is Abhisit and all the individuals of parliment. So is Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Burma. They're all packed with corrupt officials. The difference with Thaksin was he was actually elected. People in Thailand deserve the right to choose who the individuals who lead their country are.

Declaring war on his own people? I'm guessing you're talking either about the southern province Muslims or the war on drugs. In both cases, he took it to questionable extremes, yes, but in both cases he was campaigning against actual criminals.

'we' want elections, you had them already but you can't accept that it is elected politicians who ultimately decide who governs, not the plebs.

The temple shouldn't even be an issue as it was decided 48 years ago. The fact that Noppadon, at Thaksin's behest, confirmed it was part of Cambodia as part of a deal to build a casino should be irrelevant. But it's not.

Thais are fiercely nationalistic. Nearly 80 years of propaganda reaps what was sown. Reds are prepared to ignore or forget but those belonging some other, or no colour at all, are not.

[Changian]

Today my house caught fire. Sadly I didn't notice because I was too busy fighting my neighbour over a rock at the bottom of the garden.

From NotThanong who is not the managing editor of The Nation

[Insight]

You've just confirmed that the timing of the elections was heavily slanted in favour of the ruling party at the time and you're concerned how I sound?

Unlike the previous two elections these were held after his deeply unpopular sale of AIS which brought hundreds of thousands repearedly onto the streets, so suppose he needed all the help he could get...

How did I confirm that? I did not. His leadership was in question by an unpopular minority, so he offered them a chance to challenge it; this is not a bad thing and he never had to do it. That he was not obliged in any way whatsoever to hold an election invalidates anything you could say against it.

Hundreds of thousands? A bit of an exaggeration. Those who did come came because they were told to, not because they wanted to.

His sale was "unpopular" because he sold it to foreigners. It wasn't that the actual sale was immensly unpopular, it's the slant his opposition could put on it, the nationalist followers would eat up any story of Thaksin selling Thailand away to foreigners. Actually, his policy on open and free trade were what made him so popular, contrary to your statement. Through free trade, he exposed Thai business for the first time to real competition, which may have made the wealthy elite angry because their companies ultimetly would lose, but the PM is not there to serve these individuals. Free trade benefited the poor people of Thailand, his voter base, raising the value of the products they produced and raising their income. This might have been attacked in every way possible by greedy elites, but at the end of the day, the average Thais apporved of Thaksins leadership and his free trade policy by awarding him landlside election results.

You said it was a valid argument. Re the protests, we attended because we wanted to, much like the many others we spoke to the multiple times we attended. And unlike the red protests none of us appeared to be under any form of financial incentive.

"greedy elites" - it's amazing anybody still buys into this flawed PR speak, given the last red shirt protests were financed to the tune of some 20bn THB.

[Siripon]

The Dems are in the government, not the PAD. And these Dems don't need to be pushed by the PAD to stand in somewhat ugly nationalistic corner, that is exactly where the Dems coming from, including Abhisit. Don't draw wrong assumption because Abhisit was in Oxford.

I don't care where the schoolboy learned his strategies from.

It's a little hard to understand what you're actually saying here... I'm guessing your first language is not English?

The Democrat governmemt is a coalition. It is not united, it is weak. The Democrat party in itself holds less seats in parliment than the Puea Thai party does. It's power only exists thanks to the backing of 5 other parties; Rum Chart Pattana Party, Bhumjaithai Party, Chartthaipattana Party, Matubhum Party, Puea Pandin Party. What this means is to pass any policy in government, they have to negotiate with other groups, unlike the Thaksin government who was the first sovereign party in Thailand, capable of passing policies by itself. This weak style of coalition government is what the military, PAD and big business/wealthy elite/privy council thrive on. With so many corrupt politicians available to pull strings and negotiate with, it's almost impossible for the Democrats to do anything without the backing of the PAD and the likes, many of which have members in the Democrat party.

I like your words- 'The Thaksin government who was the first sovereign party in Thailand'- exactly!

Thaksin was the sovereign, nobody else had any influence or power, Thaksin was the great dictator, which is why he is hated by every politician not in his payroll; and he still suffers from delusions of grandeur, ' Pi nong, let me come back and I'll solve your problems', unfortunately for him exports are booming and the economy is improving.

This is the assumed reason for the behavior of the PAD and military in the destruction of the Thaksin government and Samak and Somchai; to restore the country to weak coalition governments where these groups have more sway in politics and control over the direction of the country. Not very democratic.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Siripon

[asiancup2007]

Better for Abhisit if they ruled in Camdodia's favour so he could use the situation as a massive red herring to distract the Nation, get people behind the military ect ect

Hel_l even fire up the Aircraft carrier(if it'll start) and order some subs(ker ching!) pronto.

Just as well really because the Khmer's are armed with more than slingshots and firework.

Edited July 31, 2010 by asiancup2007

[patjem]

I don't think he realise that the land under the Cambodian temple is actually Thailand.

Yes, well, not everyone actually agrees with that. This is why independant bodies like UNESCO should be respected to solve these sorts of disputes in a peaceful manner.

UNESCO has no mandate for any such arbitration in these affairs.