Thai Constitution Court President 'Get Flak' From Fellow Judges

[webfact]

CONTROVERSIAL CLIP

Constitution Court chief 'get flak' from judges

By Atthayuth Butrsripoom

The Nation

The Constitution Court president was rebuked by his colleagues over the video-clip scandal involving his now-removed secretary, a source said yesterday.

A fellow Constitution Court judge even implied that the court's chief, Chut Chonlavorn, should take responsibility for the scandal that has compromised the court's credibility and step down, according to the source.

The unnamed judge said during Wednesday's meeting chaired by Chut that Pasit Sakdanarong, his secretary who was removed on Tuesday, had done much damage to the court's reputation and that his removal was insufficient to make amends, according to the source.

"Society wants the court president to take responsibility. ... I wonder what you think about this," the judge was quoted as asking Chut. The court's president did not respond to the comment, according to the source.

Earlier reports had said that Chut expressed regret about what had happened.

Constitution Court judges agreed among themselves, behind the president's back, that whatever his verdict would be in the dissolution cases against the Democrat Party, it would be questioned, the source said.

According to the source, Pasit caused much suspicion among his colleagues at the Constitution Court. His claim that he was a doctor working for a private hospital was later found to be false. He had never worked for Chut when the latter served as a Supreme Court judge. And Pasit changed his name four times, which was quite unusual, the source said.

"Chut has never made satisfactory explanations to other Constitution Court judges about these suspicions, particularly about Pasit's background," the source said.

Before the scandal, the court's president had shown his high degree of trust in Pasit, according to the source. Chut nominated Pasit for royal decorations and Pasit appeared at many state functions on behalf of the court president.

In a related development, the head of the court's fact-finding committee charged with investigating the video-clip scandal said yesterday that although Pasit is not in the country now, the panel has measures to find out the facts about the matter.

Sanit Jon-anan, an adviser to the Constitution Court's Office, said his panel would hold its first meeting today. It was instructed to complete its work within 15 days although the timeframe could be extended.

-- The Nation 2010-10-22

[chantorn]

I thought ex-PM Khun Chuan say there was nothing wrong wit the leak clips, and nothing wrong for his MP to meet Khun Pasit.

Question is:

Why sack Khun Pasit?

Why Khun Chut need to be responsible?

Why Khun Chut needs to expressed regret?

Why need a fact-finding committeeto investigate?

Also Khun Pasit changed his name four times is his private business. Thai people like to change name after consulting monk or fortune teller. This is a normal everyday life thing.

[silp1979]

I thought ex-PM Khun Chuan say there was nothing wrong wit the leak clips, and nothing wrong for his MP to meet Khun Pasit.

Question is:

Why sack Khun Pasit?

Why Khun Chut need to be responsible?

Why Khun Chut needs to expressed regret?

Why need a fact-finding committeeto investigate?

Also Khun Pasit changed his name four times is his private business. Thai people like to change name after consulting monk or fortune teller. This is a normal everyday life thing.

[silp1979]

I thought ex-PM Khun Chuan say there was nothing wrong wit the leak clips, and nothing wrong for his MP to meet Khun Pasit.

Question is:

Why sack Khun Pasit?

Why Khun Chut need to be responsible?

Why Khun Chut needs to expressed regret?

Why need a fact-finding committeeto investigate?

Also Khun Pasit changed his name four times is his private business. Thai people like to change name after consulting monk or fortune teller. This is a normal everyday life thing.

[animatic]

Well ;

1 ) Looks like someone wants his Presdent's Chair.

Or at least to distance themselves from him as much as possible.

Causing such a public loss of face is pretty strong distancing /

dissing in Thai terms. Lose of face to total nostril removal.

2 ) ThePres, seems to have had a very dodgy dude as his secratary.

Why?

Or; What did he know and when did he know it?

3 ) Makes one wonder if Pasit, or what ever his name is,

had something on the good judge as leverage. 4 name changes,

is far from typical for even the most dodgy types.

4 ) Was Pasit a long term plant by an influential figure?

Edited October 22, 2010 by animatic

[RKASA]

If all else fails - then shoot the messenger.

[asiawatcher]

If all else fails - then shoot the messenger.

But there is still more to this than we know at this point!

[gregb]

If all else fails - then shoot the messenger.

But there is still more to this than we know at this point!

It does appear that Khun Wirat walked into a trap that was set for him. He should have been smart enough to walk away, but lets be honest, if prey was all the difficult to ensnare the human race would never have survived.

I don't believe that Jutaporn or any of the others bellowing loudly about these videos would have been able to resist the temptation to talk about it either. Doesn't make it right of course, just makes it Thailand.

So the real story in this unfolding drama is not really that two people were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Given the nature of the way that upper class Thais operate it is hardly surprising that something like this happened. It is just like those people who make a big deal out of, shock and horror, vote buying. It is just a normal part of the Thai landscape. But the interesting question is why there was an attempt to entrap Wirat in the first place, and who paid Pasit to film the meetings and then get out of dodge before the shi1 hit the fan. It is not really a matter of shooting the messenger, but simply recognizing that the message itself is totally expected, but the choice of messenger is the intriguing part.

Either way though, Wirat should also be punished for his involvement in this. Just because he was probably enticed, that doesn't make what he did correct. Sorry, but no matter how cute and fuzzy the bunny if he can't resist the bait he winds up being rabbit stew. That's just the way political survival of the fittest works.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The Nation

The Constitution Court president was rebuked by his colleagues over the video-clip scandal involving his now-removed secretary, a source said yesterday.

A fellow Constitution Court judge even implied that the court's chief, Chut Chonlavorn, should take responsibility for the scandal that has compromised the court's credibility and step down, according to the source.

The unnamed judge said during Wednesday's meeting chaired by Chut that Pasit Sakdanarong, his secretary who was removed on Tuesday, had done much damage to the court's reputation and that his removal was insufficient to make amends, according to the source.

"Society wants the court president to take responsibility. ... I wonder what you think about this," the judge was quoted as asking Chut. The court's president did not respond to the comment, according to the source.

Earlier reports had said that Chut expressed regret about what had happened.

Constitution Court judges agreed among themselves, behind the president's back, that whatever his verdict would be in the dissolution cases against the Democrat Party, it would be questioned, the source said.

According to the source, Pasit caused much suspicion among his colleagues at the Constitution Court. His claim that he was a doctor working for a private hospital was later found to be false. He had never worked for Chut when the latter served as a Supreme Court judge. And Pasit changed his name four times, which was quite unusual, the source said.

"Chut has never made satisfactory explanations to other Constitution Court judges about these suspicions, particularly about Pasit's background," the source said.

Before the scandal, the court's president had shown his high degree of trust in Pasit, according to the source. Chut nominated Pasit for royal decorations and Pasit appeared at many state functions on behalf of the court president.

In a related development, the head of the court's fact-finding committee charged with investigating the video-clip scandal said yesterday that although Pasit is not in the country now, the panel has measures to find out the facts about the matter.

Sanit Jon-anan, an adviser to the Constitution Court's Office, said his panel would hold its first meeting today. It was instructed to complete its work within 15 days although the timeframe could be extended.

Wake up, you fools.

[Hitch22]

The Nation

The Constitution Court president was rebuked by his colleagues over the video-clip scandal involving his now-removed secretary, a source said yesterday.

A fellow Constitution Court judge even implied that the court's chief, Chut Chonlavorn, should take responsibility for the scandal that has compromised the court's credibility and step down, according to the source.

The unnamed judge said during Wednesday's meeting chaired by Chut that Pasit Sakdanarong, his secretary who was removed on Tuesday, had done much damage to the court's reputation and that his removal was insufficient to make amends, according to the source.

"Society wants the court president to take responsibility. ... I wonder what you think about this," the judge was quoted as asking Chut. The court's president did not respond to the comment, according to the source.

Earlier reports had said that Chut expressed regret about what had happened.

Constitution Court judges agreed among themselves, behind the president's back, that whatever his verdict would be in the dissolution cases against the Democrat Party, it would be questioned, the source said.

According to the source, Pasit caused much suspicion among his colleagues at the Constitution Court. His claim that he was a doctor working for a private hospital was later found to be false. He had never worked for Chut when the latter served as a Supreme Court judge. And Pasit changed his name four times, which was quite unusual, the source said.

"Chut has never made satisfactory explanations to other Constitution Court judges about these suspicions, particularly about Pasit's background," the source said.

Before the scandal, the court's president had shown his high degree of trust in Pasit, according to the source. Chut nominated Pasit for royal decorations and Pasit appeared at many state functions on behalf of the court president.

In a related development, the head of the court's fact-finding committee charged with investigating the video-clip scandal said yesterday that although Pasit is not in the country now, the panel has measures to find out the facts about the matter.

Sanit Jon-anan, an adviser to the Constitution Court's Office, said his panel would hold its first meeting today. It was instructed to complete its work within 15 days although the timeframe could be extended.

Wake up, you fools.

Why are you guys surprised ? Ther has nevr been a rule of law in Thailand, and there never will be .

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Why are you guys surprised ? Ther has nevr been a rule of law in Thailand, and there never will be .

The only thing I'm surprised about is the inability for so many to notice the obvious.

I even highlighted lots of big red hints to assist....

[SergeiY]

The Nation

The Constitution Court president was rebuked by his colleagues over the video-clip scandal involving his now-removed secretary, a source said yesterday.

A fellow Constitution Court judge even implied that the court's chief, Chut Chonlavorn, should take responsibility for the scandal that has compromised the court's credibility and step down, according to the source.

The unnamed judge said during Wednesday's meeting chaired by Chut that Pasit Sakdanarong, his secretary who was removed on Tuesday, had done much damage to the court's reputation and that his removal was insufficient to make amends, according to the source.

"Society wants the court president to take responsibility. ... I wonder what you think about this," the judge was quoted as asking Chut. The court's president did not respond to the comment, according to the source.

Earlier reports had said that Chut expressed regret about what had happened.

Constitution Court judges agreed among themselves, behind the president's back, that whatever his verdict would be in the dissolution cases against the Democrat Party, it would be questioned, the source said.

According to the source, Pasit caused much suspicion among his colleagues at the Constitution Court. His claim that he was a doctor working for a private hospital was later found to be false. He had never worked for Chut when the latter served as a Supreme Court judge. And Pasit changed his name four times, which was quite unusual, the source said.

"Chut has never made satisfactory explanations to other Constitution Court judges about these suspicions, particularly about Pasit's background," the source said.

Before the scandal, the court's president had shown his high degree of trust in Pasit, according to the source. Chut nominated Pasit for royal decorations and Pasit appeared at many state functions on behalf of the court president.

In a related development, the head of the court's fact-finding committee charged with investigating the video-clip scandal said yesterday that although Pasit is not in the country now, the panel has measures to find out the facts about the matter.

Sanit Jon-anan, an adviser to the Constitution Court's Office, said his panel would hold its first meeting today. It was instructed to complete its work within 15 days although the timeframe could be extended.

Wake up, you fools.

hehehe.

but, one question... are you new to Thailand or at least new to reading The Nation?

Edited October 23, 2010 by SergeiY

[rubl]

Why are you guys surprised ? Ther has nevr been a rule of law in Thailand, and there never will be .

K. Thaksin is also complaining that currently he only seem to win defamation cases

[TheyCallmeScooter]

hehehe.

but, one question... are you new to Thailand or at least new to reading The Nation?

Define 'new'? I wouldn't consider myself 'new' to Thailand - I certainly understand a great deal more than most, with the obvious caveat that what I don't understand dwarfs what I believe I understand.

As far as The Nation goes, I'm having a hard time making sense of it. I tend to prefer to make up my own mind about things like slant or agenda - but I endlessly hear references to The Nation being pro-establishment. As Thais don't do sarcasm all that often, I'm literally confused to the point of frustration.

A frustration that almost every article I come across which has been published by The Nation (I'm subscribe to The Bangkok Post - which is an exceptional paper) seems to almost exclusively consist of unacceptable (even illegal) Red Propaganda rhetoric. Idiotic circular fallacy spin where the 'journalist' will attribute positions to the government, the monarchy, the Army that they clearly do not possess - then use his own manufactured opinions of their agenda to challenge...the agenda he just manufactured for them. It's moronic drivel which inspires a non-idiotic reader to nausea. (caveat: I really only see The Nation articles which come across my radar which is TV, Prachatai, and a few blogs and smaller forums - I accept that perhaps only their idiotic articles make it to my tiny radar - but I'm not going to read their paper to determine if they balance it out, for the simple reason that they cannot balance out the filth, not even if every page I don't read is anti-idiocy. The sickening nature of the ridiculous articles...is simply impossible for them to 'justify', no matter what the rest of their content contains.

My question to you (or anyone) is this: Why is The Nation publishing criminal - irrefutably so - articles which actively seek to promote chaos by undermining democratic institutions; and why is The Nation employing terrible writers like Pravit and publishing his ridiculous OpEds which all attempt to 'report' on his own agenda as being somehow representative of public sentiment?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

(nb. this is some rambling I initially had in the post above but which is largely unrelated to the question I wished to ask about The Nation. But it's non-idiotic rambling, so whilst the prose isn't great, I think rather than deleting it as I had planned, it's worth a single post. Or two, lol - I've got one more coming about Thaksin being a Nazarbayev remix. And I swear that will be it. I hope.)

Compared to what I have seen from The Nation...The Bangkok Post is incredibly impressive; in ways that inspire a level of hope for Thailand's future. A hope which is largely dashed by the rest (of the English media).

My one annoyance with them is a similar concern I have with Abhisit's government. Both are far too generous to "the other side". In ways the other side would never reciprocate. If I was a bookmaker setting a betting line for a boxing match without any real referee to keep the fighting clean - and with the Thai public as judges, who don't seem to deduct points for low blows, elbows, knees, late punches after the bell, etc - I'm not going to be accepting wagers on the classy fighter who continually fights fair, helps his opponent off the mat when he stumbles, graciously allowing him to recover his breath, takes 40% of the power off of his punches, Marquess of Queensberry stuff. All very classy, dignified, honourable and inspiring. If life was a Disney movie, Abhisit and the Democrats win 100/100 times. But alas...

In real life, the most committed usually win. Want to see what most committed looks like?

The judges aren't even deducting points for this crap, let alone disqualification. It's an ugly business, reality.

Against a dignified opponent, who wishes to make arguments and present a case for (xxx), no matter how strongly you disagree with their opinions - you must defend their right to speak. Their right to speak, not burn Bangkok CBD after two months of violence and anarchy.

But giving equal coverage to the voices speaking for the other side of this 'debate'? No. That's a ridiculous concession. You do not give terrorists concessions. Doing that really backfired in April and May this year.

a) The Red Propaganda Network of portals publishing ludicrous lies and spin, where writers without a shred of character gleefully publish endless attempts to rewrite recent history, sling endless unsubstantiated mud at their clean opponents, conveniently ignore any and all evidence which obliterates their 'arguments'; and, worst of all....

b ) They then silence anyone who persists in presenting arguments or evidence disproving their ridiculous slanted nonsense. They'll slander and ban you rather than answer simple, polite, valid, diplomatically-phrased questions like the ones I persisted in posing to faux academics publishing New Mandala propaganda. They never answered a single question I asked of them. Of course they couldn't without exposing their duplicity, but that's not exactly my fault. Perhaps they shouldn't hold such indefensible positions. Then they wouldn't be embarrassed by their inability to answer polite questions.

c) Thaksin and the Red Shirts are NOT representative of a genuine or legitimate opposition. Simply claiming the sentiment of a large minority doesn't give you the right to represent them. Not when the reality is that almost no one (sympathisers, or even Red Shirt protesters themselves) would actually accept the realities of the package Thaksin and his lemmings are promising to deliver. If those realities were explained to them.

The Red Shirts do not have one. single. policy. platform. (correct me if I'm wrong?) - I guess they have "Immunity for Thaksin" and "Immunity for our Terrorist Leaders" chants down pat. They had a couple (almost) legitimate demands at one point. I seem to remember them winning an unlikely Disney-like victory (in the sense it was a 100:1 shot), then quickly rejecting the undemocratic (5000 < 30,000,000 the maths are not complex) capitulation of the government they were holding hostage. Bit strange to battle desperately for 8 innings, only to then forfeit after busting the game open driving clean into the bleachers with bases loaded top of the 9th. Why is the media allowing them to get away with it? Why are they allowed to simply terrorise, without any demands aside from "give criminals amnesty" - it's not right.

When you combine all the Red Shirts core aims, the % of Thais who would actually support the total package of what their leaders are fighting for would be under 5%. I make this claim by including these below Red Shirt policy positions and strategies for achieving political results.

• Thaksin amnesty and universal pardons for all past and all future crimes. His return to power would immediately place him above the law.
• A republic and the end of the monarchy.
• Terrorism = acceptable for achieving political aims.
• Ransom, violence, arson, chaos = acceptable for achieving political aims.
• Damaging Thailand's economy, reputation and infrastructure = acceptable for achieving political aims.
• Destruction of landmarks which represent either the government or the opulence of the 'elites' = acceptable for achieving political aims. It doesn't matter if the landmarks aren't even government or 'elite'-owned. If it looks like a swan and gobbles like a turkey, roast it like a duck. I'm quite sure the 7/11 franchises they destroyed near my place were not owned by Bangkok's "old powerful families" or by the government. Clearly the B49 meal deals were a haughty symbol of the elites lording it over the lower classes.
• Any and all means are justified in the pursuit of desired ends. Using children as human shields? Means to an end. Killing your fellow countrymen in uniforms purely to provoke return fire? Means to an end. Killing your own protesters with MiB snipers when frustrated by pacifist soldiers refusing to deliver your required / expected body count? I think it's obviously apparent that this occurred. Killing journalists with MiB snipers knowing their deaths will be blamed on soldiers; and guaranteeing yourself some media allies and increased exposure? I think it's obviously apparent that this occurred.

Anyone who's fired a high quality assault rifle - and, in particular, anyone who's fired a quality sniper rifle at a distant scoped target - would understand the realities of the situation in Bangkok's CBD earlier this year. Those amazing yet horrific instruments allowing the delivery of precision death, it's just...so incredibly obvious what really went down. Anyone who understands how military RoE restricts the actions of soldiers to incredibly specific and unambiguously-worded sequences of events that must be ticked off before they can engage (rules which, if broken, usually result in court martial as best, and firing squad at worst) - anyone who understands that highly trained soldiers armed with Israeli TAR-21 "ergonomic fully automatic assault rifles" capable of delivering 900 rounds / minute downrange, accurate up to 550 metres with high precision scope, anyone who understands that if soldiers armed with TAR-21 fully automatic rifles were actually "firing indiscriminately into crowds of protesters, journalists and innocent bystanders", then...and by all means, you can verify this statement...there simply would be no protesting after a couple hours. All the protesters would be dead.

In the 6 weeks of riots, the 15,000 soldiers armed with TAR-21 rifles could decimate most of Bangkok. Millions of deaths. Instead there was a 76 to 6 (?) civilian v soldier body count? The Royal Thai Army soldiers are national heroes for keeping the toll that low. It almost defies belief.

• The end of human rights in Thailand. Extra-judicial killings will return. Parliament would legislate laws which discriminate against foreigners, Muslims, the gay and lesbian community, and other minorities.
• The end of self-determination and the introduction of a one-party Republic. If Thaksin is given carte blanche power by these idiots to operate above the law, whilst everyone else is quite under his thumb, that will have only one result in a very short time. Democracy? Kazakhstan has the democracy Thailand will have if Thaksin returns. True democracy might arrive deep into the 2nd half of the 21st century; albeit perhaps only after a bloody war is fought against Thaksin's entrenched successors.

Thailand wouldn't become a failed state, I don't think. Thaksin wouldn't turn be a colossal failure like Libya's Gadhafi, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, Cuba's Castro, etc....he would really be something a lot like Kazakhstan's Nazarbayev.

Thaksin would be so much like Nazarbayev, it's almost freakish.

Anyway, the reality is that over 90% of Thais support their King, over 90% do not believe terrorism and violence and war crimes and using children as human shields is acceptable. Therefore, Thaksin and the Red Shirts therefore really only represent a tiny fraction of extremists.

The media acts as if they have a mandate for legitimacy when they simply do not. Firstly, most of Isan is simply too stupid to understand they're trading in an Audi R8 for a crappy replica of a Lotus Elise. Secondly, terrorists don't get to share the Teleprompter. Why does the media act as if the pro-Thaksin lobby had a legitimate position they wished to present? One which, if valid, should probably have been presented prior to embracing terrorism. Why is the media pretending that terrorists and terrorism-apologists have the mandate to speak for a cross-section of society large enough to even put 'reconciliation' on the table for discussion.

The PTP and Reds need to be FORCED to state publicly their policy positions, their goals, what they hope to achieve, announce which factions wearing Red actually belong to the Red Shirt 'movement'. Then they must denounce the actions of the rest. As the situation stands, it's a ridiculous farce where claims of peaceful intent are littered with leaders' making unveiled threats of violence directed at high court judges or mainstream media daily papers publishing ludicrous OpEds which 'report' on future events (ahem); such as casually 'suggesting' violence will likely follow a lawful verdict. Or even more despicable, desperately attempting to justify violence as being the correct emotion when the inevitable just verdict is read out. Red leaders threaten suicide bombers, even Thaksin himself makes explicit threats of violence and demands his followers riot to demand his return. Whilst calling for reconciliation and an end to violence, of course.

Anyway, my rambling point being that if you packaged together what the Reds ACTUALLY stand for, and presented it to Thais in a "take it or leave it" scenario, less than 5% of the country would actually accept the horrors as 'acceptable'. They should be made to understand their support for X really means support for Y, Z, A, D, F, W, T...and *maybe* (if they're lucky) a bit of X.

And this is the job of the media. Who should be educating the public about the importance of defending democratic institutions. Rather than educating the public with idiotic ideas that they should riot when a judiciary hands down an obviously fair verdict. Thailand's media are (collectively) failing Thailand. They are not educating their readers to the realities of getting into bed with Terror.

• There are no uninvested statesmen for the "other side" for whom the setting aside of column space is justified. There are only paid shills and invested jokes selling the 'message'. This is fact. I challenge Red Shirt apologists here to name the list of respected luminaries that are speaking out in support for Thaksin or the Red Shirts. Name one name, if a list is asking for too much.

I pretty much guarantee you I will be able to destroy their credibility.

Try me. Seriously, please. I'm hella bored.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

(nb. lol final one I swear. For now. This one is pretty interesting though - Kazakhstan: A Warning for Thailand; or A Blueprint for Thaksin's Re-Ascendency)

The below summarised bio for Nazarbayev reads like a template for perfect gameplay 'popular' dictatorship. If Thaksin returns to power, he could do far worse than mimic this outline.

Nazarbayev elected President of Kazakhstan by the Supreme Soviet before winning the 1991 presidential election on 1 December, capturing 91.5% of the vote in an election in which no other candidate ran against him. Thaksin's Presidential / Emperor 'election' in his new Republic will mirror this result if given the chance.

Nazarbayev created the Ministry of Defense and appointed Sagadat Nurmagambetov as Defense Minister on 7 May 1992. Only 5 months to take control of the military as Priority # 1. Nicely done.

The Supreme Council began debating over a draft constitution in June1992. Once he controls the military,Priority # 2.

The new constitution created a strong executive branch with limited checks on executive power. Boy, that must have surprised everyone.

Opposition political parties Ezat, Zheltoqsan and the Republican Party, held demonstrations in Almaty calling for the formationof a coalition government and the resignation of the government of Prime Minister Sergey Tereshchenko and the Supreme Council. Kazakh security personnel forcibly put down the protest on 18 June 1992. After terrorism to get there, do you think he'll be squeamish at a few protesters deaths? Oh, what am I saying, how embarrassing. He's ALREADY KILLED a few thousand in a failed experiment. His threshold must be 100,000 deaths. Let's hope it's not higher...

The Parliament of Kazakhstan adopted the new constitution on 28 January 1993. 13 months from election to perfection. Thaksin must idolise this guy.

An April 1995 referendum extended his term until 2000. lol. We don't need those pesky elections. Only one candidate anyway!

Hewas re-elected in January 1999 Sigh. Why must we go through this ridiculous charade. The people love me! If they didn't, other candidates would join the race!

...and again in December 2005. lol. Okay, I'm starting to half-admire this guy.

On May 18, 2007, the Parliament of Kazakhstan approved a constitutional amendment which would allow Nazarbayev to seek re-election as many times as he wishes. This amendment applies specifically and only to Nazarbayev: the original constitution's prescribed maximum of two presidential terms will still apply to all future presidents of Kazakhstan. This is just....it doesn't get more spectacular than this. The SINGLE reason for Term Limits is to protect against this. But no, lol. "We'll exempt Term Limits, but only for me okay guys? The next dictator, you really have to make sure his reign is limited." And then the next dictator says "Well, we have precedent...."

Here is the good. His government's policies are considered moderate and maintain a balance between the United States and Russia. Notwithstanding Kazakhstan's membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, under Nazarbayev the country has had good relations with Israel. I'm not sure how many people understand just - quite - how stunning an achievement is outlined above. Spectacular stuff. Presiding over a country sandwiched between the two Cold War powers, sandwiched between Muslims and Israel....you'd think the nation would be ripped apart by ideological tugs-of-war...but he just juggles them all off so that he's a Friend to All. Amazing genius.

But then the bad. Always, always the bad. In 2004 Transparency International ranked Kazakhstan 122nd in its listing of 146 countries by level of corruption. Kazakhstan's total score was 2.2 out of 10 (any score under 3 indicated "rampant corruption"). Oh my. Thailand's future in a mirror if populist idiocy wins out over substance.

President Nazarbayev declared a holy war against corruption and ordered the adoption of "10 steps against corruption" to fight corruption at all levels of state and society. Oh come on, you are compelled to admire this guy! He's hilarious.

A few international NGOs have accused the Nazarbayev government of merely paying lip service to anti-corruption efforts. Oh my. I wonder how they managed to come to that conclusion? Did they not hear about his HOLY WAR against corruption. Obviously 122 / 146 cannot be his fault. I mean, it's not like he was fighting a winnable war, like a "Drug War".

Civil activists inside and outside the country stated little was done to address "human rights abuses" and "widespread corruption". Deja vu?

The Nazarbayev family itself was embroiled in a series of investigations into money laundering, bribery, and assassinations. What's that Thai family who's mixed up in all that stuff as well? In addition to legendary corruption from The Big Boss...I think the wife was also corrupt, even the kids were mixed up in corruption cases, there were brothers-in-law banned for corruption, other relatives....I think even the servants got their hands dirty. I forget which family it was though...

And that's it for me tonight. God bless anyone who can read at decent wpm rates.

[Siam Simon]

My question to you (or anyone) is this: Why is The Nation publishing criminal - irrefutably so - articles which actively seek to promote chaos by undermining democratic institutions; and why is The Nation employing terrible writers like Pravit and publishing his ridiculous OpEds which all attempt to 'report' on his own agenda as being somehow representative of public sentiment?

It's obvious, stupid! They've wised up to the facade presented by the current bunch of ghoulish incumbents. Putting one of the Good Guys at the front and then neutering him at each and every turn no longer fools even the semi-tame Thai press. I strongly suspect that this new-found freedom of opinion in the press is pro-Abhisit and anti-old establishment uglies. We can live in hope.

[whybother]

My question to you (or anyone) is this: Why is The Nation publishing criminal - irrefutably so - articles which actively seek to promote chaos by undermining democratic institutions; and why is The Nation employing terrible writers like Pravit and publishing his ridiculous OpEds which all attempt to 'report' on his own agenda as being somehow representative of public sentiment?

It's obvious, stupid! They've wised up to the facade presented by the current bunch of ghoulish incumbents. Putting one of the Good Guys at the front and then neutering him at each and every turn no longer fools even the semi-tame Thai press. I strongly suspect that this new-found freedom of opinion in the press is pro-Abhisit and anti-old establishment uglies. We can live in hope.

What? There is no more media control and censorship by the "Bangkok elite"?

I'll have to save this post for future reference ....

[TheyCallmeScooter]

It's obvious, stupid! They've wised up to the facade presented by the current bunch of ghoulish incumbents. Putting one of the Good Guys at the front and then neutering him at each and every turn no longer fools even the semi-tame Thai press. I strongly suspect that this new-found freedom of opinion in the press is pro-Abhisit and anti-old establishment uglies. We can live in hope.

Interesting.

But if I understand your theory correctly, you're implying the trick is an old one? My only concern with that sentiment (if the theory has validity), is that Abhisit is something of a freak and nothing like the lambs which have (allegedly) preceded him to the slaughter (?).

I can see a lot of logic in the theory - in so much that the powers that be (the powers that put him in the PM's chair) likely thought he was just going to be another idealist who would run into roadblocks at every turn, endlessly trying to do his best - but doomed to fail obviously because the task is impossible. You can't push a bus up a mountain alone whilst every other passenger remains seated, heckling your efforts, demanding you push harder, demanding more and more speed, only to then viciously attack like piranhas when, exhausted, you slip and the bus starts sliding backwards.

Yeah, I can imagine a world where they'd support him as he would be expected to do their bidding (as those before him always had, no doubt rationalising their moral plurality with eyes locked onto their Idealist Visions), he would be expected to fight the good fight, but - like all those who came before him - he would inevitably crash and burn. They always do. They always have. No one can keep all 200 balls in the air indefinitely.

Or...can they?

He was pretty heavily assisted by some pretty powerful people to get into the position where he might effect real change (I'm denigrating the dysfunctional system of course, not the PM - in any functioning democracy, he'd win landslide elections)...and that assistance likely means he's beholden to those very powerful folks - but that only means what he has achieved is even more impressive.

I can't think of any examples where he was fooled into acting like a puppet. Can you? I can think of many obvious spots where he'd found himself in the middle of very powerful games being played by very powerful people and quite clearly he'd been ambushed or his hands are temporarily tied - much to his obvious annoyance every time. The standout one for me was the promotion of the Policeman Saudi Arabia HATES. I thought the jig was up for Abhisit there and he'd been ambushed by someone too powerful, so powerful they hadn't even consulted him prior to moving their chess pieces, I was sure nothing could be done. But....every time, in the end, somehow, he seems to get his way. It's kind of freakish.

In spots where it's ludicrous that he could possibly be expected to do anything. The GT bomb detector farce. The huge diplomatic row averted just in time for annual Mecca festivities. Ignoring half the country yelling at him to send the Army in to disperse the CentralWorld hijackers and restore law and order, or resign to make way for someone who would (imagine the disaster that would have been - Thaksin might be back in the mix had Abhisit buckled). Defusing tricky diplomatic tensions with Thailand's boisterous neighbour (no thanks to Thaksin; happy to accept government position with Thailand's historical 'enemy'; purely to raise tensions and be a pest). Thaksin > Thailand. Always.

He's hampered by all these ridiculous, obvious restrictions placed on him by Isan voters (BJT), a belligerent and wealthy PTP which never does anything constructive (they just sit around funding bombings, it would seem? oh and conspiracies to smear the Constitutional Court with a mole and misrepresented footage....oh yeah and that whole running interference for the terrorist attacks on the capital in Apr/May this year was top-notch legislating), a largely useless Police force which largely cannot be relied upon to perform their primary Serve / Protect role when the nation needed them most (under attack by terrorists), who answer to powerful enemies of Thailand who play curious and strange games like sudden selling of child porn for pennies on the main tourist strip in what had to be some conspiracy or shenanigan (you cannot convince me that scandal was about money - come on, child porn on Sukhumvit isn't bringing in huge bucks, wake up Thailand!); and - on top of everything - he's forced to parry endless ridiculous attacks from Thailand's immature and irresponsible media. Who understand all the complexities, who are well aware that he is placed in endless Lose / Lose spots (often by the media themselves), and they know he's gingerly negotiating trap after trap, trying to guide Thailand into the 21st century.

The media knows why BJT crossed the aisle; they know Abhisit can only slap their hands away from the till up to a point - if he slaps too hard, Newin gets furious and starts ranting and making threats. Why don't the media ever focus on Newin's corruption, instead of focusing on Abhisit's 'inability' to handle Newin's corruption? They know if he slaps Newin's buddies' hands a little too hard or too often, he risks handing the country back to the most corrupt political party in SE Asian political history. I suspect - that - is why.

The media dam_n well knows Abhisit is the first spotless-clean PM Thailand has seen. But rather than assist him by hounding and pressuring the coalition's corrupt junior partners; rather than publishing blistering OpEds on the real issues facing Thailand; rather than commission investigative reports into the scandals which rock the nation endlessly; rather than investigating PTP links to terrorism, rather than cracking the whip across the face of Thaksin's 1000 contradictions and exposing his duplicity; rather than educating the idiotic public not to sell their votes and not to send BJT and PTP corrupt candidates to Parliament; rather than actually reporting pragmatic facts (that Abhisit is endlessly choosing the lesser of two evils imposed on him; BJT under his wary eye, where he can exert a modicum of control...is far better than a BJT / PTP / Thaksin Inc orgy of corruption); rather than teach their readers that democracy is a partnership where all stakeholders have responsibilities and that Isan isn't delivering on their end of the partnership; rather than fall in behind Thailand's first real shot at genuine political progress at a watershed moment...all the media wants to do is harass him with idiotic leading questions that everyone already knows the answers to.

And they lament Abhisit's inabilities to fix X problem or Y problem (and ignore the source of those problems). And they refuse to help Abhisit explain to Isan idiots that he's throwing way more welfare and cash at them then Thaksin ever did...whilst he's throwing way more welfare and cash at them then Thaksin ever did. They'd rather explain to the public that the public has lost faith in this or lost faith in that; and they report to the public that the public is already furious (why aren't you also furious, Reader?) about this or about that. Which was first again, the Chicken or the Egg?

And they quote all these confidential sources which sound to me like Pravit has finally worked out that quoting himself in his OpEds was making him look stupid. And he's finally discovered British tabloid 'sources'. Now he can simply quote himself as "an anonymous source in (the government, the court, the palace, the army)", and voilà! He finally got what he wanted. His own little machine to generate (Government > Pravit) dialogue. To assist with dissemination of rumours that he has created and wishes to inject directly into the public consciousness.

All very journalistic.