Foreign media strive to avoid simplistic portrayal of Thai woes

[rixalex]

If you can't see that the names of this old money are so entwined with business and politics and that they are all.largely distinctly democrat you must be blind.

I can see that. Seeing that doesn't prevent me from seeing the pivotal role that Thaksin (and his family) has been playing, and goes on playing, in the centre of all this mess.

[jayboy]

What you cannot do however is lie.I have never posted anything remotely akin to the specific charge you have made about Yingluck/PTP and the amnesty.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I haven't lied. I have a distinct memory of having had a discussion with you around the time that PTP were elected, in which i argued, along with a good number of others, that all this talk of the need for reconciliation and these claims of the PTP being the ones who could possibly achieve it (if not acheive it, certainly do a better job than the Dems) was a load of baloney, and that the only reason they were constantly talking about reconciliation was because of opportunity it potentially presented to them to get Thaksin back and off the hook. And my distinct memory is of your response to that being, along the lines of, "don't be silly, stop trying to preempt what they will do... wait and see... the chances of them doing that are very remote, because of the political and social turmoil it would create... the PTP / Yingluck aren't that stupid... stop obsessing about Thaksin...".

Come on, you have to admit, that does sound like you, doesn't it? No?

Sadly, Thaivisa records only go back a year so i can't quote you directly. I will make you a deal therefore. If you can put your hand on your heart and tell me you said nothing of the sort, that you in no way misjudged this debacle in the way i am describing, then i will take you at your word, retract my claim, and apologise for my bad memory. I'm happy to do that because although I know you to be many things, i don't take you as a liar. So, over to you...

Well thank you for the reasonable tone which I appreciate.What prompted all this in the first place was your very unreasonable response when I pointed out the Democtat/Suthep links.Anyway in the same spirit if I have personalised any of our discussions excessively, I apologise.

Turning to your specific question, the honest answer is I can't remember in detail.I certainly may have said the new government should be given a chance since it had a clear mandate.As to Thaksin I am quite sure however my position was (and is) that the charges against him were politically motivated and in any event relatively trivial,his shocking human rights offences being off the agenda because those in pursuit of him were also implicated.I am also sure I have posted that Thaksin must remain in exile for the forseeable future.I have never been a fan of the amnesty.Though a different point I may well have said stop obsessing about Thaksin because I believe this struggle is fundamentally about other causes.Thaksin is the mere catalyst though I'm aware you disagree.The question you might want to ask yourself is a hypothetical one.If Thaksin and his family were today magically spirited away to Nirvana would the country revert to the status quo ante? or would - as a result of Thailand's profound social changes - a political movement emerge very quickly (hopefully led by a less divisive person) to win power at the expense of the Democrats (and those non elected power groupings that have been backing them?)

Incidentally I had always hoped the Democrats under Abhisit would get their act together.I feel much more comfortable personally with people like Abhisit and Korn - and they are closer to me in social and educational background.Still I firmly believe that when historians consider events in Thailand fifty years from now Abhisit will be seen to have been a greater disaster than Thaksin, someone who had all the talents but failed because of character defects.

[jayboy]

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

[Humberstone]

This thread confirms Thailand has changed - for the worse. At one time we all boasted that we were all ex-special forces with hi-so connections.

Now the latest dick-swing is pretending you had a public school education followed by Oxbridge and then bragging about it endlessly as a way of giving yourself extra credence.

[jayboy]

This thread confirms Thailand has changed - for the worse. At one time we all boasted that we were all ex-special forces with hi-so connections.

Now the latest dick-swing is pretending you had a public school education followed by Oxbridge and then bragging about it endlessly as a way of giving yourself extra credence.

Welcome back.

Obviously it's wrong to pretend what you are not.However this is an anonymous forum so one can pretend to be anyone or anything.You are for example pretending this is your first post.

By definition ex special forces types in Bangkok do no have hiso connections.

If one pretends to be well educated and isn't, that's inevitably reflected in posts - however hard one tries to sound intelligent and well informed.If one is actually well educated, that's a good thing isn't it?

[samran]

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

I saw macargo's quote and i think it is fundamentally wrong.

Affluent bangkokians feel they are permanently outnumbered (hence this prolonged Suthep led hissy fit).

They have yet to grasp though the logic of electoral democracy however, that when the numbers are against you, you gotta go out and convince them to vote for you.

But that requires hard work and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the democrats are up for a challenge. Which is a shame really, as any political stategist worth his salt could figure out a strategy to beat this Puea Thai 'B' team.

Edited February 19, 2014 by samran

[jayboy]

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

I saw macargo's quote and i think it is fundamentally wrong.

Affluent bangkokians feel they are permanently gree the tragedy isould aoutnumbered (hence this prolonged Suthep led hissy fit).

They have yet to grasp though the logic of electoral democracy however, that when the numbers are against you, you gotta go out and convince them to vote for you.

But that requires hard work and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the democrats are up for a challenge. Which is a shame really, as any political stategist worth his salt could figure out a strategy to beat this Puea Thai 'B' team.

You are entirely correct.However I don't think your position is inconsistent with what McCargo says.As I understand it he is saying affluent Bangkokians do understand the electoral implications of their minority position, hence - the implication being - have unwisely thrown their lot in with anti democratic forces personified by Suthep.As I think you would agree the tragedy is that the Democrats haven't risen to the challenge.Indeed all the signals from Abhisit (less so Korn) are that he doesn't really feel much needs to be done by way of internal party reform.It's very frustrating as in a country like Thailand it's hard to believe the rural majority (at least in the N and NE) is a monoloithic Thaksinite lump.

The need to reform a political party allied to the establishment in the face of electoral pressures is hardly unique to Thailand.Look at the UK's Tories (even crustier than Thailand's Democrat Party at one time).It reformed itself so that it attracted millions of newly enfranchised working class voters.Result - the aristocratic and wealthy classes sacrificed a little but kept most of what they had.The risk in Thailand given the present no compromise craziness is that the elites may lose everything, in extremis even their lives.

[rixalex]

Well thank you for the reasonable tone which I appreciate.What prompted all this in the first place was your very unreasonable response when I pointed out the Democtat/Suthep links.Anyway in the same spirit if I have personalised any of our discussions excessively, I apologise.

Turning to your specific question, the honest answer is I can't remember in detail.I certainly may have said the new government should be given a chance since it had a clear mandate.As to Thaksin I am quite sure however my position was (and is) that the charges against him were politically motivated and in any event relatively trivial,his shocking human rights offences being off the agenda because those in pursuit of him were also implicated.I am also sure I have posted that Thaksin must remain in exile for the forseeable future.I have never been a fan of the amnesty.Though a different point I may well have said stop obsessing about Thaksin because I believe this struggle is fundamentally about other causes.Thaksin is the mere catalyst though I'm aware you disagree.The question you might want to ask yourself is a hypothetical one.If Thaksin and his family were today magically spirited away to Nirvana would the country revert to the status quo ante? or would - as a result of Thailand's profound social changes - a political movement emerge very quickly (hopefully led by a less divisive person) to win power at the expense of the Democrats (and those non elected power groupings that have been backing them?)

Incidentally I had always hoped the Democrats under Abhisit would get their act together.I feel much more comfortable personally with people like Abhisit and Korn - and they are closer to me in social and educational background.Still I firmly believe that when historians consider events in Thailand fifty years from now Abhisit will be seen to have been a greater disaster than Thaksin, someone who had all the talents but failed because of character defects.

Thank you for your honesty.

Will endeavor to do my part in keeping this on a more civil footing.

As is often the case with your posts, i find it a little contradictory. On the one hand you suggest that if you have any sort of favoritism, it would lie towards the Democrat side, but on the other, in your summation of some of the key Thaksin related incidents, you seem to give him, in my opinion at least, something of an easy ride: you say that his conviction was politically motivated and in any event relatively trivial.

Politically motivated is the phrase always banded around by Thaksin's side. What does it really mean? The implication of it of course is that he was unfairly treated. It should be noted that there is never any declaration of innocence. Kind of weird don't you think. I think the reason why is that in actual fact, the dispute isn't to do with guilt or innocence, since there is no real argument there, but to do with the fact that crimes of this nature, usually don't result in convictions, because the individuals concerned, are able to use their power and influence to wriggle free from justice. We saw precisely this sort of thing happen at the beginning of Thaksin's tenure, when he managed to avoid a certain five year political ban for blatantly "hiding" his assets. Thaksin clearly believed that the land trial would end with a similar outcome. The fact that his own party were in power at the time of the trial, and the fact that stumped up all those lunchbox packed notes as a gift to the courts, would in normal circumstances surely have been more than enough to guarantee his freedom. It wasn't, or at least it wouldn't have been if not for that pressing Olympics engagement of his. This should have been something to celebrate. Instead a lot of people, like yourself, seem to have some sympathy for his "plight", and argue that on the basis of all the other rich and powerful people who have evaded justice for similar crimes, why shouldn't Thaksin be extended the same courtesy? I don't get that. Justice has to start somewhere, and personally i'm not so fussy about where, just as long as the person is actually guilty.

In actual fact, we can even forget the crime committed in the purchase of that land, if you wish, and just consider what it means for an ex-prime minister of a country, to have their legal team turn up to a court case and hand out large sums of cash. That act alone, in any properly functioning legal and democratic system, would have far reaching and incredibly serious implications for the culprit. Or are we actually suggesting that Thaksin wasn't privy to what his legal team were planning to do. Stretches the imagination a bit, surely.

The other thing we have to consider, with concerns Thaksin's crime(s), is that the case that made it to the courts, was simply the easiest and fastest one to make it there. To state that his only crime is a trivial matter, is ignoring the fact that had he not fled the country, there were a host of other cases against him waiting to proceed, majority of which were far more serious. Now of course we have no way of knowing how those cases would have ended, but i think we have to consider the possibility that he would have been found guilty of at least some of them. What we certainly shouldn't do, is give a person who flees from justice the benefit of the doubt in the cases they deliberately stall, which you are tantamount to doing when you make no mention of them at all. If anything, we should do the reverse. If we gave the accused their court date, and told them that if they don't bother turning up, they'll be found guilty, things might proceed more quickly.

And then there's his human rights record which you mention. The fact that he won't be tried for that, for reasons we agree on, doesn't in any way minimize the crime. Nor does the fact that he had public support on his side. The public were only agreeing to what they were told would happen, not what actually did happen.

Finally, to address your hypothetical question, if the Shinawatras disappeared overnight, i believe a real people's political movement, perhaps along the lines of the red shirts, would quickly emerge and could potentially be very successful, and that would be a great thing to see. But until the Shinawatras are out of the picture, this will never happen. If the implication of my answer is that we have to be thankful to Thaksin for doing some of the ground work, ok, fair enough, but i think i'll save my thanks until he has actually gone, one way or another, even if sadly that means he'll never get to hear it.

[samran]

And perhaps a final quote from the illustrious scholar Duncan Mccargo summarising what the heart of the problem is all about:

"Affluent Bangkokians have finally grasped the logic of electoral democracy: they are permanently outnumbered by the rural masses."

I saw macargo's quote and i think it is fundamentally wrong.

Affluent bangkokians feel they are permanently gree the tragedy isould aoutnumbered (hence this prolonged Suthep led hissy fit).

They have yet to grasp though the logic of electoral democracy however, that when the numbers are against you, you gotta go out and convince them to vote for you.

But that requires hard work and I haven't yet seen any evidence that the democrats are up for a challenge. Which is a shame really, as any political stategist worth his salt could figure out a strategy to beat this Puea Thai 'B' team.

You are entirely correct.However I don't think your position is inconsistent with what McCargo says.As I understand it he is saying affluent Bangkokians do understand the electoral implications of their minority position, hence - the implication being - have unwisely thrown their lot in with anti democratic forces personified by Suthep.As I think you would agree the tragedy is that the Democrats haven't risen to the challenge.Indeed all the signals from Abhisit (less so Korn) are that he doesn't really feel much needs to be done by way of internal party reform.It's very frustrating as in a country like Thailand it's hard to believe the rural majority (at least in the N and NE) is a monoloithic Thaksinite lump.

The need to reform a political party allied to the establishment in the face of electoral pressures is hardly unique to Thailand.Look at the UK's Tories (even crustier than Thailand's Democrat Party at one time).It reformed itself so that it attracted millions of newly enfranchised working class voters.Result - the aristocratic and wealthy classes sacrificed a little but kept most of what they had.The risk in Thailand given the present no compromise craziness is that the elites may lose everything, in extremis even their lives.

You make a good parallel with the UK Tories. Fact of the matter is any political party can find itself in the wilderness for that long. In Australia the labor side of politics was out of government of an extremely long time between the 50s and 80s.

I see Korn as their heir apparent on the dems side, but while the dems may be unelectable the current PT leadership is ultimately unacceptable. I wonder who might be looking to step up to the plate there? The current transport minister seems to be immune to the failings of the government but I wonder if he is too much of an academic at heart...

Edited February 19, 2014 by samran