Thaksin's Letter To George W Bush Exposed

[Plus]

Thaksin is alone in that fight, the one that started in 1932. He'd better not declare publicly that he is in THAT fight at all. That's probably why he doesn't want talk about it. On the other hand, in light of "Finland plan", he follows the script perfectly. He wants to snatch power while the people are not looking but Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class have already caught him in the act.

[Old Man River]

He wants to snatch power while the people are not looking but Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class have already caught him in the act.

The PM has not lost an election in 5 years. He already has the power. What he is trying to do is hold on to it.

The various voting blocks you mention above are not the voting majority, even in the aggregate. If Thailand holds to democratic elections, it is still tough to see the PM losing, unless many of the people he relies on defect to another power broker such as Barnharn. Failing their defection to another power broker, the TRT will waltz through the next election.

Plus, the whole issue on the political front has never been about eliminating corruption in Thailand. This is what the press writes about, but it is not the issue. The issue is and has been about sharing in the corruption. Prior to 2001, it was equal opportunity. Once the PM came into power, he put a wall around corruption so that only those loyal to him were able to share in it. Anyone who thinks Sondhi started the people's movement because he wanted to eliminate corruption is clueless (Plus, this comment is not meant for you). Sondhi found himself on the other side of the fence and lashed out at his former benefactor. Corruption is a way of life in Thailand and regardless of what people write, it is big business and will remain so. The question going forward is not how big a piece of the pie you get (pre-2001), but do you get a piece at all (post 2001).

[Martin]

"....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class...." are understandably teed off that a Northern upstart should get the Norteasterners on his side, too, and push them away from the trough.

But they are not going to get any sympathy from 'ban nork'.

If anything, their squeals will just raise the thought that, if Thaksin is getting up their noses, Thaksin must be doing something right.

"...Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class..." are seen as the groups who have never done anything positive for 'ban nork', but have done a whole lot of negative.

Bangkok is the place that has monopolised the jobs, so village grandparents have to look after the grandchildren whilst the young folk work in the Bangkok factories for the money that keeps the family going.

It is also the place that sent a lot of them back with AIDS.

"....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class ...." are the ones who make a cushy living out of paying low prices for the rice and sugarcane produced by 'ban nork' and selling it on at high prices.

"....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class...." draw away any 'ban nork' youngsters who succeed in getting educated.

Then "...Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class...." sneer at those who remain in 'ban nork' as "poor and uneducated".

'Ban nork' has so little in common with Bangkok that the country (and, especially, its politics) are disjointed.

It will take a long time to build the ligaments and muscles that are needed at the joint.

And, so far, there has been no sign (other than 30-baht health consultations from Thaksin) that there is the political will to that.

What is needed is things like distributing two thirds of the industry of Bangkok and the Eastern Seaboard to the provincial towns and cities.

Because 'ban nork' people are kindly, tolerant and pacifist, they have not taken issue with "....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class...."

But they can't be expected to have any sympathy for squealing from "...Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class ....".

For myself, I am concerned that Thaksin has fuelled economic activity so much by making credit too easily available, and that he sold Shin to foreigners and avoided paying tax.

But those things don't weigh much in 'ban nork's' eyes.

In fact, this week I heard the simple view expressed that it is drug barons whose businesses were crippled by Thaksin who will be behind this trying to get rid of him.

And "....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class...." shouldn't sneer at such a simplistic view going unchallenged. Take away all the brightest and best and there isn't anybody to do such challenging.

I sense that 'ban nork' thinks that "....Bangkokians, Southerners, country's elite, and middle class..." have got the PM they deserved, and will put him in again next time.

[Siripon]

What you're saying about the great divide is true and Thaksin has exploited it brilliantly to gain mass support, make himself out to be 'one of the people', eat somtam once in a while and offer cheap loans and populist policies, all paid for by the taxpayer, mostly in Bangkok.

The ' Bangkok is Thailand'' mentality has been around for a long time and past governments have offered various tax incentives for companies to move to the rural areas but to little avail, the distances to the ports from Issan makes moving not worth it financially.

I would admire Thaksin if he truly had the interests of the rural majority at heart, if he hadn't turned ITV into another game show station but had kept it as a hard hitting news station. If he really tried to promote education instead of marketing gimmicks like one district one scholarship, one dream school. If he lent the money, I million baht one village for loans that had been screened first, as they are in Japan where the idea originated.

If he truly pushed for decentralisation as the constitution demands.

But there's no democracy in TRT, MPs are employees with no rights, TV is censored, the peasants are offered goodies especially prior an election, after that no questions are allowed until the next election.

I don't see the rise of peasant power in this. Look at the labour unions in Thailand, they constantly fight amongst themselves, leaders more concerned with personal benefits, and these are workers in a concentrated area; for the rural majority, if or when Thaksin is gone, I expect a return to the feudal politics of local MPs promising to develop their constituencies.

Rather here's no way poverty is going away in 5 years! Even the mafia are still around, Thaksin hasn't got rid of the vultures that charge 100.000 baht for labour fees for labourers to work abroad.

[aaaaaa]

... this week I heard the simple view expressed that it is drug barons whose businesses were crippled by Thaksin who will be behind this trying to get rid of him....

I've suspected something like that for a long time - thanks for making this point !

I mean, Sonthi is too little pawn, although appears in media as almost national hero who the only one could stand up to Thaksin. unless of course he is one of those barons or closely related to them.

that would explain many things, including the fact that "opposition" can only do rallies and yell a lot, but fail to get organized sufficiently and pose SERIOUS and REAL opposition which can win DEMOCRATIC elections DEMOCRATICALLY !

Thaksin is not an angel at all - however those who try to get rid of him perhaps even more far from that.

[Plus]

Oldmanriver, the fight that started in 1932 mentioned by Martin is not about winning over opposition in elections. It's not about Thaksin snatching the power from "Bangkokians, elite, middle class etc." It's more to do with "Finland plan", if the number 1932 doesn't say much to you.

Martin, two major classes (Bangkokians et al and ban nork) are divided but not antagonistic yet. I get the impression that you want to deepen the divide instead of healing it. I don't know any Bangkokians who'd sneer at ban nork, it's the impression TRT is trying to make (all in the name of unification, btw) Many, if not outright majority of Bangkokians and middle class have ban nork roots and dutifully support their folks back home.

I don't want to engage in "who's more important to the country" debate - it's pointless and counter productive but don't forget that the ban nork, 50% of Thai population, contributes only 9% to GNP. If not for Bangkokians and middle class Thailand would be one of the poorest countries in the world. There would be no 30 baht scheme (and no hosptitals, too), no village funds, no motorbikes or cell-phones to buy etc.

I don't believe for a second that it's drug barons who are plotting Thaksin's downfall. There are more imortant issues at stake than any illegal business interests. Sondhi might have his own agenda, but people at the PAD rallies didn't come to protect drug barons. It's ridiculous to suggest that, or that "charismatic person" is some drug baron.

It's also ridiculous to suggest that PAD demonstrated because they didn't get their share of corruption.

Corruption will not end with Thaksin, true, but the next leader will not dare to engage in it so openly and without any shame.

If that condition exists, it's not really that important who wins the elections - TRT of Democrats, as long as they play by the rules they will have to work for the country's benefit - that's how the system is supposed to work.

[Martin]

I would agree, 'Siripon', that the autombile assembly plants couldn't come up to the North or North East, as we only have a single track railway.

But, if there was proper incentive, the electronics assembly plants could. High-value, low-volume finished goods don't cost much to transport.

But there hasn't been the political will to push from Bangkok, nor to pull from the provinces.

One senses that that the powers-that-be in the provinces are happy to be 'big fish in a little pond'.

That is not surprising, considering that, till recently, Bangkok monopolised University-level education. So those who might have been 'stirrers' on behalf of 'ban nork' were seduced away early on.

It is noticeable that European countries and America don't have just one hyper-urbanised primate city. Industry started small and there was some in every town and city. So there were prospects that kept a good proportion of able youngsters in the provinces. In fact, in England, Manchester led London in some ways, and there was a saying "What Manchester thinks today, London will think tomorrow".

But the Thai provinces never had a chance. They hadn't been allowed to develop the infrastructure.

Actually, the American Air Force left Udon Thani and Khon Kaen well supplied with in-town infrastructure, but the railway and highway were only single track. That was adequate for what they had been built for, a century previously: to move troops from Bangkok to the border, if necessary.

That they weren't dualled when industrialisation got going twentyfive years ago is a testament to KK and Udon having no 'political clout'.

But, 'bo peng yang' and 'mae pen lai', it is raining nicely and the rice is coming on well, as I type!

[Martin]

No, 'plus', I don't want to deepen the divide, and I would like to see it filled.

But, in the six months that I worked in Bangkok (at a 'posh' international school), we heard plenty of sneering at 'ban nork'.

I am overweight, and don't mind overhearing myself referred to as a 'chang noi', but overhearing 'kwaai' is different.

The divide won't get filled by pretending that it isn't there.

And the sooner that there is the political will to 'get the dumper trucks rolling and tipping in the necessary tons' the better.

Actually, once started, it would have its own momentum. Having a decent job with a decent salary gives a much better lifestyle in the provinces for a man and his family than having the same in Bangkok.

Within a generation of a serious start being made, the dis-jointedness would be much less.

[farangsay]

Sounds to me like something carefully scripted to be released onto the domestic audience at a strategic point in time rather than a serious diplomatic letter from one head of state to another.

I know it's nit-picking but...

President of a republic equals head of state.

(Caretaker) Prime Minister of a constitutional monarchy does not.

Edited July 19, 2006 by farangsay

[aaaaaa]

...It's also ridiculous to suggest that PAD demonstrated because they didn't get their share of corruption.

Corruption will not end with Thaksin, true, but the next leader will not dare to engage in it so openly and without any shame.

If that condition exists, it's not really that important who wins the elections - TRT of Democrats, as long as they play by the rules they will have to work for the country's benefit - that's how the system is supposed to work.

yes, it supposed to work. unfortunately many supposed things don't happen.

I don't think it is so ridiculous to suggest that about PAD - why it is, simply because they have such a name PAD, which implies that they SUPPOSed to be more democratic and therefore less corrupted ? I rather agree with A. Panyarachun who said that "I suppose people in any democracy become disillusioned with politicians".

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_12/photoshr/39.jpg[/img]A giant hand advertises the Democrat Party’s campaign for “Politics with Clean Hands.”

Democrat Party has enough corruption history:

A Thai crusade for clean politics

New watchdogs now have the teeth to fight corruption but old-style politics aren’t going to disappear overnight. Some say this will take no less than a revolution in political culture

Not a day goes by in Thailand without some new tale of corruption being aired in the press. Some see a revolution underway while others question the use of attacking such a long-accepted disease. So what chances do the anti-corruption crusaders have?

If events this year are anything to go by, they might well be gaining the upper hand. The first senatorial elections by popular vote held in March turned into a veritable soap opera with the newly established Election Commission ordering more than half the races to be run again because of irregularities or vote-buying. In the end, it took five rounds of voting to fill all the seats. { }

Later in the month, Sanan Kachornprasart, the all-powerful interior minister and secretary-general of the ruling Democrat Party, was forced to resign after the National Counter-Corruption Commission (NCCC) accused him of falsifying documents concerning a $1.2 million loan.

The list of scandals gets longer each day in a country where corruption drains away 10 to 20 percent of the national budget–about 2.25 to 4.5 billion dollars.

“There’s clearly a knock-on effect,” says Pasuk Phongpaichit, an economics professor at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University and author of several books on corruption. According to the drafters of the NCCC programme, “there is broad consensus in favour of a national crusade against corruption aimed at reforming the whole society.” A recent poll showed that Thais saw government corruption as the country’s third most serious problem, behind the economic crisis and the rising cost of living, and just ahead of drugs...

People knew economic recovery could only come through political reforms. The drafting of a new constitution, the 16th in the country’s history { }, switched into higher gear. It introduced new checks and balances, such as a constitutional court, the NCCC, a national election commission and a human rights commission...

The NCCC can prosecute and punish deputies, senators and cabinet ministers and has various legal weapons. The most feared is the obligation to disclose financial assets, which has already caused a few heads to roll, and the so-called “50,000 signatures law,” which can force authorities to investigate someone suspected of corruption. But these weapons can be difficult to handle...

Beyond these practical considerations is a sense that corruption is profoundly rooted and all-pervasive–even among doctors, teachers and monks. The latter have been involved in many recent scandals, even though the law still forbids looking into the assets of their temples.

“It’s very hard to make people realize that what they’ve done all their lives is in fact illegal and can land them in court,” says Abhisit Vejjajiva, head of the prime minister’s office. “You really have to change the political culture and that’s not going to be easy.”

Many aspects of Thai culture and social values–such as respect for hierarchies, a distaste for confrontation and the belief that wealth and a powerful job go hand in hand–tend to encourage corruption...

Clearly, the anti-corruption crusaders are not about to claim victory but the big clean-up has well and truly begun.

and Re "corruption will not end with Thaksin" - that's very true, I agree. same as it didn't start with him I. from those only few previous to Thaksin PMs, in 90's, hardly one WASN't accused of corruption. I bet that the ONLY one was Anand Panyarachun. and before that - there was no even ANY ELECTEd PM, although corruption was not less I guess. Military controlled government most of times, often suspending Consitution.

however second part of your statement is arguable that "the next leader will not dare to engage in it so openly and without any shame" - somehow the history shows that corruption is common (or natural?) tendency of PMs, even those democratically elected.

Inflation, corruption in government, and the mysterious death (1946) of King Ananda all contributed to the overthrow (1947) of Pridi's government by Pibul. In 1957 a military coup led by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat overthrew Pibul Songgram and made Gen. Thanom Kittikachorn premier. In 1958, however, with the stated purpose of combating Communism, Sarit deposed his own premier, suspended the constitution, and declared martial law. King Bhumibol Adulyadej proclaimed an interim constitution in 1959 and named Sarit premier. When Sarit died in 1963, Thanom Kittikachorn was returned to power. A new constitution was finally promulgated in 1968...

The increasing economic and security problems prompted a coup in Nov., 1971, by Premier Thanom Kittikachorn and three military aides, in which they abolished the constitution and the parliament and imposed military rule...

In Oct., 1973, the military regime of Thanom was toppled after a week of student demonstrations and violence in Bangkok. King Bhumibol Adulyadej appointed Sanya Thammasak as Thanom's successor, giving Thailand its first civilian premier in twenty years. The new premier promised to complete a constitution and to hold general elections. In May, 1974, citing the heavy burden of the office and the sharp criticism directed against the government, Sanya resigned, but he was soon persuaded to form a new government. In June he was sworn in as the head of a revamped, all-civilian cabinet. A new constitution was promulgated in Oct., 1974. Over the next few years the civilian government made little headway in establishing its authority. In 1976, the military took control of the government once again. After that, the military held power almost continuously until the early 1990s.

from Wikipedia:

"Thaksin entered politics in late 1994 under the invitation of Chamlong Srimuang, who had just reclaimed the position of Palang Dharma Party (PDP) leader from Boonchu Rojanastien. In a subsequent purge of PDP Cabinet ministers, Thaksin was appointed Foreign Minister in December 1994 as a non-MP minister.

The PDP soon withdrew from the government over the Sor Por Kor 4-01 land reform corruption scandal, causing the government of Chuan Leekpai to collapse...

Chamlong, strongly criticized for mishandling internal PDP politics in the last days of the Chuan-government, retired from politics and hand-picked Thaksin as new PDP leader...

Thaksin ran for election for the first time in July 1995, winning a parliamentary seat from Bangkok. However, the weakened and internally divided PDP won only 23 seats, compared to 46 in the 1992 elections.

Thaksin joined the government of Banharn Silpa-acha and was appointed Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Bangkok traffic. In May 1996, Thaksin and 4 other PDP ministers quit the Banharn Cabinet (while retaining their MP seats) to protest widespread allegations of corruption, prompting a Cabinet reshuffle. {isn't it somewhat familiar to what according to rumours 6 Ministers preperaing to do now ? }

Chavalit was elected as Prime Minister on November 25, 1996 after Banharn Silpa-Archa resigned. On November 6 1997, Chavalit resigned as Prime Minister due to the Asian financial crisis. He was replaced by Chuan Leekpai.

...

Although there was much controversy about the root causes of the fall of the PDP, most agree that it was due to internal divisions in the party. Particularly divisive were conflicts between the Chamlong "temple" faction and subsequent generations of outsiders, including Thaksin.

After the fall of the Chuan-government in 2001, TRT won a sweeping victory in the January 2001 elections, the first election held under the People's Constitution of 1997. It was the first time in Thai democratic history that a single party had won a governing mandate.

BTW current Consitution of Thailand - drafted by Anand Panyarachun, who's considered the best candidate (IF people would choose) to be a PM by Thai I've spoken to so far anbecause of his repoutaion as honest person (if not the EVER ONLY). unfortunately he never wanted to be in politics and never wanted to take part in any elections.

A Politician by Accident

On March 2 [1991], Cambridge-educated diplomat-turned-businessman, Khun Anand Panyarachun, was sworn in as the country’s 18th Prime Minister since the introduction of the constitutional monarchy in 1932. Eight days earlier, on February 23, Thailand’s first elected Prime Minister, Chatichai Choonhavan, had been overthrown by the Army in a blood-less coup. The interim National Peacekeeping Council cited several reasons for staging the coup, ranging from alleged Government corruption to choking traffic conditions in Bangkok....

“I am not a politician by profession, I’m not a politician by aspiration. I am a politician by accident. I happen to be a man who is holding a political position that’s all.

“I have gone on record that I’m not going to stand for election...

Why, then, did he agree to become Prime Minister?

“It provides me with ample opportunities to do things as a concerned citizen of our country, to do things that I believe to be right, to do things that I believe to be in the long-term interests of the country...

It’s very important that I introduce new elements into the government of our country. I want, by the time I leave my job, by the time our government is no longer there, Thai people to look back and say that at least for a short period we had a clean, honest government. This is not something, which is unique. Too many times in the past, people have been disillusioned, I suppose people in any democracy become disillusioned with politicians. You often get the case, in America, in all sorts of places, but that’s a part of life.

“I have never regretted it (taking the job). In all my life, once I made a decision, I stood by those decisions. I don’t do anything half-heartedly. I have said that for me this is an interim time. I am an interim Prime Minister of an interim government, but I am anything but interim in what I do. I hope that my decisions of the past months, things that have happened, procedures established, the systems, I hope that they will last and not be reversed by the future government.”

“I enjoy the work I’m doing, I enjoy the job but I do not enjoy the position of being Prime Minister. In a way I am a rather private man, I cherish my own private time, I cherish my own private life. In the political arena you have to stand in front of the public every day, every hour. All of your words, all of your deeds are scrutinised and assessed. Sometimes there’s a lot of character assassination. It’s not that I am not in a position to answer all of these accusations, all of these slanders and 'what-not', but it’s not my 'cup of tea.'”

many things he's mentioned 5 years ago remain the same:

On political reform, Anand hailed three major phenomena which have taken place since the 1992 pro-democracy uprising - the drastically reduced role of the military in politics, democratic changes of government and ever-increasing public willingness to get involved in the political process.

"But while soldiers have left politics, have they left vested business interests? And while politicians surrendered to the 1997 Consti-tution, they haven't changed their thinking. The selection process for members of key constitutional independent bodies still provides loopholes for unscrupulous things to happen," he said.

from: Recovery still four, five years away: ex-PM Anand(Published on Oct 13, 2001) Edited July 19, 2006 by aaaaaa

[penzman]

The following is from today's online version of The Nation - Editorial Opinion - 18 July 2006:

A 'Dear Thaksin' letter the govt doesn't want you to see

Very few people know that besides the short official response US President George W Bush wrote to caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on July 3, the US leader also sent him a more personal note which was never made public but a copy of which was leaked to me.

But you can be sure that both Government House and the White House will deny the existence of this "Dear Thaksin" letter.

Dear Thaksin;

Thank for your letter and for enlightening me on the current political situation in your country. It was a pleasant surprise given that I have hardly received any personal messages from Thai leaders in years. Your expression of "high personal regard" for my leadership was much appreciated in the face of the brickbats that my administration and I have been receiving from all other parts of the world.

I have two reasons to be grateful for the contents of your letter. Firstly, it has restored my confidence in the influence that the United States wields over Thailand. Your predecessors obviously showed nothing but ignorance when it came to the deference that your country owes a great power like the United States. They never cared to confide in American presidents and seek their blessings the way Thai leaders in the past did. Thanks to your great leadership and political farsightedness, you have now re-established that tradition. And secondly, it brings to my attention the sloppy work our diplomatic mission in Bangkok has been doing.

I was particularly struck by what you described as "a threat to democracy in Thailand" from your "opponents" through "extra-Constitutional tactics". I have to confess that I had been hoodwinked all along by our embassy in Bangkok and the American media. Contrary to what you explained in your letter, they tried to distort the political crisis you are facing as the pro-democracy middle class rightfully challenging the legitimacy of your political leadership. You have to forgive me for mistaking those peaceful street demonstrations as a sign that Thai democracy was maturing. Even worse, I was so ignorant - again, blame it on our mission in Bangkok and the media - that I thought key democratic institutions in Thailand had been undermined single-handedly by you. Your letter makes it all clear to me that you have been a victim of a political conspiracy.

I have to admit that for a while I really fell for the analyses that claimed many Thais felt you were unfit to rule because of rampant corruption and conflicts of interest in your administration. I almost wrote you off as a lame-duck prime minister rejected by all major institutions in your country. Our diplomats even described you as a "beleaguered prime minister" and for some time I also referred to you in this manner.

Your explanation about the April-2 election was very enlightening for me. I had been fooled by our Bangkok mission and the media into believing that the election was extremely dirty - even by Thai standards - and designed in such a way that a victory for your Thai Rak Thai Party was a foregone conclusion even before the first ballot was cast. I was also duped into buying charges that your party got a helping hand from the Election Commission. Your letter made it all too clear to me that your party swept the election entirely because of your popularity. You didn't spend a single baht to buy votes. You didn't coerce local officials to support your candidates. And you didn't call the snap election because you wanted to escape scrutiny over your family's business deal with Temasek of Singapore as charged by your opponents - and, again, as reported by our mission in Bangkok.

You know as well as I do what sore losers are capable of doing or saying. I had my own lesson in the 2000 presidential election. I am totally convinced that I won the election on the basis of my strong leadership - not because my brother who happened to be the governor in Florida had a hand in the contentious vote counting that turned out to be in my favour. Needless to say, my sympathy lies with you.

I am particularly glad that you mentioned "our on-going war on terror" which I suppose you know perfectly well is the cornerstone of my policy. You sure know my soft spot. I congratulate you for your tough approach in cracking down on the terrorists in southern Thailand. But as a friend, I cannot hide my disappointment at the low body count. There is definitely something you can learn from the American adventure in Iraq. We bomb, we kill and we destroy. Military force is the only language that terrorists or separatists - or whoever they are - understand. And you know that you can always count on "Uncle Sam" if you really want to stamp out terrorism in your country.

My friend Thaksin, by confiding in me, you not only reinforce my confidence in your loyalty to my administration but also give me much-needed proof that I made the right decision in granting Thailand the status of a major non-NATO ally in 2003. I hope your June 23 letter will not be the last. And I can assure you that our correspondence will be kept strictly confidential as it would do more harm than good (to you, my friend) if it were made public.

Finally, I want to assure you that heads will roll at our diplomatic mission in Bangkok. I don't tolerate diplomats who think they are smarter than their host. And you can be sure that I will use all the power I have to get all those dumb American media correspondents in Bangkok who have been feeding me with misinformation replaced. I hate journalists who ask stupid questions and pen reports that are not constructive as much as you do.

By the way, even though my hotline is open 24 hours, please don't call unless it's a real emergency - like needing an airlift in the middle of the night. You can be sure that we never abandon friends in time of troubles. Field Marshal Thanom and family members of late President Marcos can testify to that.

Sincerely,

George

Submitted to TheNation by Penz?

Why is it ok to post this version now when mine was removed?

[Plus]

Aaaaaa, your first article about Democrats is dated 2000? What does it mantion - half the senators were yellow/red carded and Democrat Secretary General banned from politics. That was only the beginning, people hoped. Instead it was the end.

Democrats played by the rules and results were there. People want the same rules enforced now. Both for elections and corruption charges.

Next leader will have his power clipped. I doubt politicians would be able to quietly change government contracts with their own companies and then go to courts to claim unfair rules and better conditions - the ITV case. The initian arbitration panel ruling was based on addition to paragraph 5 of the contract that was never endorsed by the Cabinet. It's in today's news.

[Plus]

I don't think it is so ridiculous to suggest that about PAD - why it is, simply because they have such a name PAD, which implies that they SUPPOSed to be more democratic and therefore less corrupted ?

They are obviously less corrupted but that's not the point - the point was whether they marched on government house to demand less corruption or to demand bigger share.

They didn't march on Democrat led government, they marched against Thaksin and his TRT.

[hammered]

Interesting set of sudden military rotations by the head of the army as reported in the Nation

Military Transfers

I wonder if that is to to make a coup less or more likely?

[John K]

Interesting set of sudden military rotations by the head of the army as reported in the Nation

Military Transfers

I wonder if that is to to make a coup less or more likely?

I think it is more of "in your face" type of move. If I read it right Thaksin people are moved away from key posts. Perhaps the First Prem vs Thaksin ... what ever you want to call it.

[lukamar]

Interesting set of sudden military rotations by the head of the army as reported in the Nation

Military Transfers

I wonder if that is to to make a coup less or more likely?

I think it is more of "in your face" type of move. If I read it right Thaksin people are moved away from key posts. Perhaps the First Prem vs Thaksin ... what ever you want to call it.

Maybe General Sonthi is really the mysterious person and is hardening his position, with a reshuffle 6 months early, for a coup. Probably brought on by the news he may be promoted to a desk job by the government that would effectively neutralize him.

[jdinasia]

LOL

oh well .. we can always ignore recent history ... new placements in the South etc ...

and that this is NOT a reshuffle ... this is the Gen moving MID-ranked officers to <in the opinion of the article> prevent politics being the controlling factor on the military IN BKK

[Plus]

Last week Thaksin's men appeared to have an upper hand in military matters, maybe now the "elite" strikes back.

There are rumors about coups and counter-rumors about counter-coups everywhere on a daily basis.

What does BP say today?

[Martin]

Lots of sound and fury, signifying not very much.

They are all "jockeying for position" to have their preferred marginal effect on the size of 'semi' in what the history books will say, in their section on 2000 to 2020:

"When.................occurred, the effect was only to bring about 'semi-Finland', and .....".

[hammered]

Lots of sound and fury, signifying not very much.

They are all "jockeying for position" to have their preferred marginal effect on the size of 'semi' in what the history books will say, in their section on 2000 to 2020:

"When.................occurred, the effect was only to bring about 'semi-Finland', and .....".

Or when the new elite tried to supplant the old elite, after a political stand off a compromise was finally struck that resulted in .......

[fxm88]

...Free and open political systems can be unpredictable, but the Thai people are resilient and Thai democracy is strong, and I know that your country will emerge from the current situation with a renewed focus on that which makes Thailand great.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

Whoops!

Any new letters from Bush to Thaksin floating around?

[Ta22]

go watch Da vinci Code

and if you do read the real letter , you might DECODE it from the text that read

" MASTER HELP "

reply " DON"T WORRY MY PADAWAN "

whahahhahahah --

[Netfan]

Perhaps if Dr T hadn't spent the week before in Cuba snuggling up with George's least favorite people he would be getting a little more sympathy from his old pal. Being seen holding hands with Fidel, Hugo and the guy from Iran wouldn't have put Dr. T in good light in Washington. Not a good move.

[ovenman]

Perhaps if Dr T hadn't spent the week before in Cuba snuggling up with George's least favorite people he would be getting a little more sympathy from his old pal. Being seen holding hands with Fidel, Hugo and the guy from Iran wouldn't have put Dr. T in good light in Washington. Not a good move.

One of the Bangkok-based CNN reporters made the observation that for all of the usual posturing by the various Western governments about "restoring civilian rule as soon as possible" in Thailand post-coup, not a single one of these champions of democracy is calling for the restoration of Mr. Big as the rightful Prime Minister of Thailand.

[Martin]

"Getting seen in a good light by Washington" is soooooo twentieth century.

"Getting yourself seen in a good light by China" is the name of the game for this one.