It has long been known that the three Muslim-majority southern border provinces are not part of the Democrat-controlled South, so I’m afraid that you’re not busting any myths here. The 2005 election results were atypical, and the 2007 election result revealed a reversion to an earlier pattern of multiple party representation. The most optimistic estimates currently are that the Democrat Party will, at best, return 5 out of a total of 11 MPs for the 3 provinces.
‘Do you seriously maintain that Ji is anything but way, way out on a far fringe? Imagining him in a discussion with average “reds” just prompts visions of them switching off en masse within very few minutes of him starting to talk.’
Hmm, no fan of Ji, but at one point in early 2009 he was up on the red stage addressing thousands of reds. I really don’t think too many of his views would be considered so outlandish by a lot of reds. His views on the monarchy aren’t much different from some red leaders (well, fringe leaders but with some popularity) like Surachai, in fact in a way he might be moderate than they are.
Ji’s agitprop style – which I must admit to finding simplistic – actually might appeal more to ‘ordinary’ (which is to say non-intellectual I suppose) red shirts than someone like Somsak Jeamteerasakul. Somsak seems to have a following (and quite some following I might add) amongst a more urbane overtly intellectual group than Ji attracts. Both groups have some crossover and I’m pretty much judging this pretty much by Facebook, which isn’t the best gauge. Obviously I don’t really know what your average red would think when confronted with Ji’s views but I’d actually be surprised if they were too shocked, and I think more people than you think would perhaps support Ji’s manifesto.
As for the RCM51 throwbacks, I think red leaders should’ve strongly condemned them for bringing red shirts as a whole into disrepute over something which is of absolutely no concern to the vast majority of red shirts. Gay pride parades are not a red shirt issue, red shirts are no more homophobic than the general population and there are many, many gay red shirts.
Despite reading the pre-trailing piece, parts 1 & 2 of Thai Story and the various articles, comments, tweets, radio interview etc. I am still struggling to understand Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s intentions and motivations.
I’m wondering what AMM’s presentation of the wikileaks in his story adds? They do not reveal anything new, substantiate anything really or greatly add to already known issues. Anyone who might be interested in reading his version of the story already knows and (sadly) those that don’t know aren’t interested.
For sure anyone who adds to the minimal writings on Thai politics is to be applauded by me, regardless of content. But the bare wikileaks themselves could have been flushed down the net generating such comment as they might support.
With respect, I don’t understand why he would sacrifice his career for the story he has presented.
While rough drafts I also don’t understand why any writer would publish any of the 4 parts until they are all ready. What is the urgency?
If as appears he’s rushing against self imposed deadlines (for whatever reason, why rush that for which you’ve walked away from your career?) that might explain the scattergun and at times aggravating lack of structure in the parts of the story already released.
I agree entirely that this analysis would be much more complete with the 2001 election included in it. The simple truth is that I could not find the figures. The info was not available through the ECT website and my web-searching did not turn it up. I know that one of Professor McCargo’s books includes a breakdown of the 2001 election in the Deep South, but I’m away from home and one can only travel with so many books!
Suffice it to say, you are correct the NAP held a number of seats in the Deep South after the 2001 election, the NAP did enter into a coalition with TRT and there was a precipitous decline in support for the NAP and TRT in the Deep South between 2001 and 2005, presumably in response to Tak Bai etc. In the 2005 election NAP garnered less than 1% of the votes in the Deep South and less than 0.1% in the rest of the South. As to whether and how much the Democrats benefited from this “protest vote”, I can’t say without looking at the 2001 results in detail. It is notable (as I mentioned above) that Mahachon (Great People’s Party) won over 19% of the constituency vote in the Deep South 2005, compared with just over 2% in the rest of the South.
If any of the knowledgeable NM readers can point me in the direction comprehensive 2001 election results, I would be happy to make a more complete analysis, especially once the results of the current election are made public.
pity that political parties and governments get punished for the behaviour of the army that they cannot and, in the case of the Dems, do not wish to control
Most of the inflation comes via money printing lunatics in the US propping up their thieving banksters overlords, yet ironic that regional governments will get the blame from their distraught populations.
This one at least isn’t the Democrats fault, but again it is about perception. Chinese merchants are indeed never shy to overcharge or strip the poor of their land as a guarantee on their overpriced fertilizer etc but again this isn’t their doing either.
Will the US (and Europe) allow deflation and default and hurt the banks or go for inflation and impoverish the middle and working class? I know winch one I am betting on.
“The Red shirts are something different and sadly their ideology is not clearly progressive e.g. Rak Chiang Mai 51 attacking a Gay Pride march. Ji’s advice from exile is to join in with the Red Shirts and turn them into a truly progressive (left) force.”
Always puzzling (however often one sees it – and that’s very often) to see such a huge – and hugely diverse – amalgam of groups characterised by reference to the least representative examples. Do you seriously maintain that Ji is anything but way, way out on a far fringe? Imagining him in a discussion with average “reds” just prompts visions of them switching off en masse within very few minutes of him starting to talk.
As for CM51….. I have the misfortune to view that bunch up close. Quite what the causes are is difficult to gauge but it’s abundantly clear that their outlandish actions are anything but representative of the mainstream of what’s so broadly identified as “red”.
Thanks for the link to Crispin, it always seemed that some sort of deal was the only way forward. Neither side has total ascendancy, they just need to agree to get what they really want and let smaller matters slide.
One thing though, as much as the army was happy to gun down the reds in Bangkok, Taksin was also happy to put them there knowing what the end result would likely be…he is just as culpable.
I prefer life as an observer in the great farce whether Thai politics, Bankster fraud or brain dead Aussie politics. This blog helps unveil some of that smoke.
I completely agree, although I think the transition you envision will necessarily involve a longish period of more or less authoritarian rule by elected governments, i.e. Thaksin would have to be around for the foreseeable.
I guess that’s walking into it with ‘eyes wide open’. My question is, why are you prepared to accept a a longish period of more or less authoritarian rule.
It was accepted in 2001 because many, myself included, thought that at last we have someone to fight corruption. How many times do we need to be proved wrong?
Still you are not alone. Both Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair were elected three times in the UK and Ronald Reagan and GW Bush were elected twice in the US 🙂
Good to see all this South vs Deep South detail broken down – but it does seem incomplete without reference to Phak Khwam Wang Mai (New Aspiration Party). Didn’t Chavalit’s NAP hold quite a handful of the southern Muslim seats from the 2001 election? When NAP joined Thaksin’s coalition, NAP was swallowed up by TRT.
My understanding is that, come the 2005 election, TRT (/NAP) were effectively “punished” for the 2004 Tak Bai incident – and presumably also for Thaksin’s badly misjudged policies in the Deep South. Those (effectively protest) constituency (and list?) votes had to go somewhere – and the Democrats seem to have been the main beneficiaries. Given a less than splendid history of Dem-led policy in the Deep South (or at least allowing ISOC & Co a free – and hard – hand), is it assured or even likely that those 2005 protest votes would again gravitate to them six years later?
Today a Thai friend complained that having Yingluck in charge was effectively having Taksin, which may be true. Her complaint was about nepotism rather than Taksin the person. And so we discussed the role of nepotism in current Thai politics. My take is that the parties are the property of wealthy families battling it out to be tops at cleptocracy with clever front men like Taksin, Banharn, Newin. So to vote against a party because of nepotism likely just moves the vote to another similar mob.
The Red shirts are something different and sadly their ideology is not clearly progressive e.g. Rak Chiang Mai 51 attacking a Gay Pride march. Ji’s advice from exile is to join in with the Red Shirts and turn them into a truly progressive (left) force.
To defend themselves from the Brown Shirt analogy they need to follow up on their line of 2010 demanding that the guns be taken away from the army.
Sorry to break up this little fanclub but what new and original journalistic research did Andrew Marshall actually do?
Sure, he read some cables (which should’ve been put directly into the public domain), then a few books, and then regurgitated it all, but that’s it, surely?
His cliched “Thais all love the King” (no mention of the massive propaganda machine), “Thaksin is evil as are all political parties” (straight out of the PAD spin machine – and no, I don’t think AM is PAD, it’s just the analysis of a lightweight) and his failure, particularly in his FP piece, to really offer any insight whatsoever into the emergence of the Red Shirts, is hardly groundbreaking stuff.
In the final analysis, AM’s analysis is the same old same old, spun out over cables that should’ve been in the public domain from the outset (isn’t that what Bradley Manning went to prison for?). It focuses on the machinations of the Thai elite and the rumor mill of US Embassy staff as told, via over-dramatised self-promotion, by a Cambridge graduate based in Singapore.
It seems that the critical faculties of the people who run this blog have gone on the lamb in quite a tiresome display of almost teenagerish adulation.
Get a grip people – if only Somsak Jeam had been given these cables at the start!
[AW: some edits done on this comment, thus the delay.]
Les Abbey: To be fair, you don’t see people doing it very well mainly because you interpret just about any pro-red, pro-democracy sentiment as support of Thaksin.
Pointing out “double standards” and that the “other lot are just as bad” (or worse as I would suggest) does not constitute a defense of Thaksin; it’s just stating the facts.
From TFRhoden on twitter: classic!: р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╣Др╕г р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Жр╣Ж…р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ър╕нр╕гр╣Мр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡, lady takes р╕┐ from PumJai but votes PueaThai http://t.co/Aibu4AK @newmandala
Seems that Yingluck is turning the heads of more than just Thai men of a certain age Andrew 🙂
Still I do notice your attempts to murder the beautiful Australian language. As everyone knows Australian is a tonal language just like Thai. The interviewer shows this with that marvelous rising tone at the end of each phrase or sentence, so why do you try and speak it using just a single low tone? Or is this just a regional variation bought in by Scottish Presbyterian prison guards in days of yore?
My grand mom, as an example of ordinary view of Abhisit as a prudent and honest young man, and perhaps the most honest politician in their eyes, says given the current election board, no one is more honest than him and he haven’t done anything wrong. It is fair to say that my grand mom, as well as people who still like him and doesn’t think that he had done anything wrong, wasn’t affected by his poor economic and moral policy.
It is perfectly possible to be a red shirt and anti Taksin at the same time. And that is the message I think more and more red shirts -a minority definitely- are trying to get across.
Possible? Possibly, but it’s a tightrope to walk down. On New Mandala I haven’t seen anyone do it very well. In the end they fall back to defending Thaksin, claiming double standards or saying that the other lot are just as bad.
I suspect the small minority that do take this line will be made very uncomfortable in a Thaksin run Thailand. Maybe even as far as a comparison with the German brown shirts in the 1930s.
Of course if Thaksin wasn’t there anymore it could all break down. Will the lucky lady become a new Eva? Will we have rock musicals about her? Stay tuned to New Mandala.
@Mariner said: “It is perfectly possible to be a red shirt and anti Taksin at the same time. And that is the message I think more and more red shirts -a minority definitely- are trying to get across.
With the interests of Thailand at heart I would say that what the country needs is a red shirt win, a ditching of Taksin and identification of the movement with policies rather than a single deeply flawed personality.”
—
Count me in! I always think that the Red Shirts’ ideology are legitimate in itself that it seeks genuine democracy. In fact, I believe that if there is anything which can mar the red shirts’ legitimacy, that thing is actually Thaksin himself 😉
I am one of the Reds who don’t vote for Thaksin. I am Red because I want democracy. I don’t like the ‘invisible hands’ to stand in the way of democracy, and I cannot stand them killing my fellow countrymen who dare to show ‘dissatisfaction’ for their unwarranted intervention!
I don’t know much about 1940 history, so I cannot confirm whether the stuff you talked about (Thai’s occupation of Cambodia) really happened or not. Nevertheless, if there had really been occupation in 1940, then it would have been an invasion. It might not be illegal 200 years ago, but in 1940 it was indeed illegal, and it does not change any status of the map which Thailand accepted.
You said: “there is even no copy of it in the Thai government libraries”
I am not going to argue with you whether this map is in the Thai libraries or not, because I don’t know. But it has been proven in the ICJ that Thailand has accepted the French map. So if you are going to argue that this map does not exist, then please go read the judgment at the ICJ at once.
You said: “why did the then Thailand reoccupy a large part of what was Cambodia in 1940 ? To me it shows that the “demarcation” was NOT accepted”.
Have you studied International Law?
If not, please do yourself and everyone here a favor and go study it right away if you want to post here.
If yes, then you probably have forgotten the case of Mussolini and Hitler during the previous World Wars, where Italy (under Mussolini), and Germany (under Hitler) invaded and occupied various states, then made up new maps to suggest that those occupied parts became part of Germany/Italy. ICJ ruled that those maps to be invalid. Both cases are landmark cases when you study about statehood and territory. Very few people who have studied international law would not know these two cases.
Thus, if Thailand had really invaded and occupied Cambodia like you claimed, they would have to withdraw the occupation and step out of the Cambodian border, based on Hitler and Mussolini cases. And no, invading Cambodia has nothing to do with not accepting the map. It is a totally different issue. I really don’t know why you think it is the same issue.
You said: “But, having border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia judged in The Netherlands (other former colonial power) is very revealing …Thais and Cambodians share the same culture, and that culture is not even understood in the Netherlands !”
Now I know you have never studied International Law, because if you have, you will know that border issue is one of the most frequent legal disputes which come up in the ICJ. And no, the ICJ does not need to understand Thai culture to make a decision about the border. They, however, need to know the legal principles of estoppel and acquiescence (which I explained above, and whether you are going to understand it or not, it is not something that I really care). And they have applied those principles correctly, in my opinion.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Debunking Democrat dominance in the South
It has long been known that the three Muslim-majority southern border provinces are not part of the Democrat-controlled South, so I’m afraid that you’re not busting any myths here. The 2005 election results were atypical, and the 2007 election result revealed a reversion to an earlier pattern of multiple party representation. The most optimistic estimates currently are that the Democrat Party will, at best, return 5 out of a total of 11 MPs for the 3 provinces.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Steve – 148
‘Do you seriously maintain that Ji is anything but way, way out on a far fringe? Imagining him in a discussion with average “reds” just prompts visions of them switching off en masse within very few minutes of him starting to talk.’
Hmm, no fan of Ji, but at one point in early 2009 he was up on the red stage addressing thousands of reds. I really don’t think too many of his views would be considered so outlandish by a lot of reds. His views on the monarchy aren’t much different from some red leaders (well, fringe leaders but with some popularity) like Surachai, in fact in a way he might be moderate than they are.
Ji’s agitprop style – which I must admit to finding simplistic – actually might appeal more to ‘ordinary’ (which is to say non-intellectual I suppose) red shirts than someone like Somsak Jeamteerasakul. Somsak seems to have a following (and quite some following I might add) amongst a more urbane overtly intellectual group than Ji attracts. Both groups have some crossover and I’m pretty much judging this pretty much by Facebook, which isn’t the best gauge. Obviously I don’t really know what your average red would think when confronted with Ji’s views but I’d actually be surprised if they were too shocked, and I think more people than you think would perhaps support Ji’s manifesto.
As for the RCM51 throwbacks, I think red leaders should’ve strongly condemned them for bringing red shirts as a whole into disrepute over something which is of absolutely no concern to the vast majority of red shirts. Gay pride parades are not a red shirt issue, red shirts are no more homophobic than the general population and there are many, many gay red shirts.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Despite reading the pre-trailing piece, parts 1 & 2 of Thai Story and the various articles, comments, tweets, radio interview etc. I am still struggling to understand Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s intentions and motivations.
I’m wondering what AMM’s presentation of the wikileaks in his story adds? They do not reveal anything new, substantiate anything really or greatly add to already known issues. Anyone who might be interested in reading his version of the story already knows and (sadly) those that don’t know aren’t interested.
For sure anyone who adds to the minimal writings on Thai politics is to be applauded by me, regardless of content. But the bare wikileaks themselves could have been flushed down the net generating such comment as they might support.
With respect, I don’t understand why he would sacrifice his career for the story he has presented.
While rough drafts I also don’t understand why any writer would publish any of the 4 parts until they are all ready. What is the urgency?
If as appears he’s rushing against self imposed deadlines (for whatever reason, why rush that for which you’ve walked away from your career?) that might explain the scattergun and at times aggravating lack of structure in the parts of the story already released.
Debunking Democrat dominance in the South
SteveCM
I agree entirely that this analysis would be much more complete with the 2001 election included in it. The simple truth is that I could not find the figures. The info was not available through the ECT website and my web-searching did not turn it up. I know that one of Professor McCargo’s books includes a breakdown of the 2001 election in the Deep South, but I’m away from home and one can only travel with so many books!
Suffice it to say, you are correct the NAP held a number of seats in the Deep South after the 2001 election, the NAP did enter into a coalition with TRT and there was a precipitous decline in support for the NAP and TRT in the Deep South between 2001 and 2005, presumably in response to Tak Bai etc. In the 2005 election NAP garnered less than 1% of the votes in the Deep South and less than 0.1% in the rest of the South. As to whether and how much the Democrats benefited from this “protest vote”, I can’t say without looking at the 2001 results in detail. It is notable (as I mentioned above) that Mahachon (Great People’s Party) won over 19% of the constituency vote in the Deep South 2005, compared with just over 2% in the rest of the South.
If any of the knowledgeable NM readers can point me in the direction comprehensive 2001 election results, I would be happy to make a more complete analysis, especially once the results of the current election are made public.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
This may not seem to be related to this thread, but in a funny way, it is.
Your new banner “Thailand’s Choice”
May I say that I really LOVE its sense of humor. I mean … ahem… putting Thaksin’s and Yingluck’s pictures together.
But it’s debatable whether “Thaksin”, and not somebody else, should be pairing with “Yingluck ? 🙂
Debunking Democrat dominance in the South
pity that political parties and governments get punished for the behaviour of the army that they cannot and, in the case of the Dems, do not wish to control
Walker and Thitinan on the Thai election
Most of the inflation comes via money printing lunatics in the US propping up their thieving banksters overlords, yet ironic that regional governments will get the blame from their distraught populations.
This one at least isn’t the Democrats fault, but again it is about perception. Chinese merchants are indeed never shy to overcharge or strip the poor of their land as a guarantee on their overpriced fertilizer etc but again this isn’t their doing either.
Will the US (and Europe) allow deflation and default and hurt the banks or go for inflation and impoverish the middle and working class? I know winch one I am betting on.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
c148
“The Red shirts are something different and sadly their ideology is not clearly progressive e.g. Rak Chiang Mai 51 attacking a Gay Pride march. Ji’s advice from exile is to join in with the Red Shirts and turn them into a truly progressive (left) force.”
Always puzzling (however often one sees it – and that’s very often) to see such a huge – and hugely diverse – amalgam of groups characterised by reference to the least representative examples. Do you seriously maintain that Ji is anything but way, way out on a far fringe? Imagining him in a discussion with average “reds” just prompts visions of them switching off en masse within very few minutes of him starting to talk.
As for CM51….. I have the misfortune to view that bunch up close. Quite what the causes are is difficult to gauge but it’s abundantly clear that their outlandish actions are anything but representative of the mainstream of what’s so broadly identified as “red”.
2011 Thai election coverage
Thanks for the link to Crispin, it always seemed that some sort of deal was the only way forward. Neither side has total ascendancy, they just need to agree to get what they really want and let smaller matters slide.
One thing though, as much as the army was happy to gun down the reds in Bangkok, Taksin was also happy to put them there knowing what the end result would likely be…he is just as culpable.
I prefer life as an observer in the great farce whether Thai politics, Bankster fraud or brain dead Aussie politics. This blog helps unveil some of that smoke.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Emjay
I completely agree, although I think the transition you envision will necessarily involve a longish period of more or less authoritarian rule by elected governments, i.e. Thaksin would have to be around for the foreseeable.
I guess that’s walking into it with ‘eyes wide open’. My question is, why are you prepared to accept a a longish period of more or less authoritarian rule.
It was accepted in 2001 because many, myself included, thought that at last we have someone to fight corruption. How many times do we need to be proved wrong?
Still you are not alone. Both Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair were elected three times in the UK and Ronald Reagan and GW Bush were elected twice in the US 🙂
Debunking Democrat dominance in the South
Good to see all this South vs Deep South detail broken down – but it does seem incomplete without reference to Phak Khwam Wang Mai (New Aspiration Party). Didn’t Chavalit’s NAP hold quite a handful of the southern Muslim seats from the 2001 election? When NAP joined Thaksin’s coalition, NAP was swallowed up by TRT.
My understanding is that, come the 2005 election, TRT (/NAP) were effectively “punished” for the 2004 Tak Bai incident – and presumably also for Thaksin’s badly misjudged policies in the Deep South. Those (effectively protest) constituency (and list?) votes had to go somewhere – and the Democrats seem to have been the main beneficiaries. Given a less than splendid history of Dem-led policy in the Deep South (or at least allowing ISOC & Co a free – and hard – hand), is it assured or even likely that those 2005 protest votes would again gravitate to them six years later?
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Today a Thai friend complained that having Yingluck in charge was effectively having Taksin, which may be true. Her complaint was about nepotism rather than Taksin the person. And so we discussed the role of nepotism in current Thai politics. My take is that the parties are the property of wealthy families battling it out to be tops at cleptocracy with clever front men like Taksin, Banharn, Newin. So to vote against a party because of nepotism likely just moves the vote to another similar mob.
The Red shirts are something different and sadly their ideology is not clearly progressive e.g. Rak Chiang Mai 51 attacking a Gay Pride march. Ji’s advice from exile is to join in with the Red Shirts and turn them into a truly progressive (left) force.
To defend themselves from the Brown Shirt analogy they need to follow up on their line of 2010 demanding that the guns be taken away from the army.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Sorry to break up this little fanclub but what new and original journalistic research did Andrew Marshall actually do?
Sure, he read some cables (which should’ve been put directly into the public domain), then a few books, and then regurgitated it all, but that’s it, surely?
His cliched “Thais all love the King” (no mention of the massive propaganda machine), “Thaksin is evil as are all political parties” (straight out of the PAD spin machine – and no, I don’t think AM is PAD, it’s just the analysis of a lightweight) and his failure, particularly in his FP piece, to really offer any insight whatsoever into the emergence of the Red Shirts, is hardly groundbreaking stuff.
In the final analysis, AM’s analysis is the same old same old, spun out over cables that should’ve been in the public domain from the outset (isn’t that what Bradley Manning went to prison for?). It focuses on the machinations of the Thai elite and the rumor mill of US Embassy staff as told, via over-dramatised self-promotion, by a Cambridge graduate based in Singapore.
It seems that the critical faculties of the people who run this blog have gone on the lamb in quite a tiresome display of almost teenagerish adulation.
Get a grip people – if only Somsak Jeam had been given these cables at the start!
[AW: some edits done on this comment, thus the delay.]
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Les Abbey: To be fair, you don’t see people doing it very well mainly because you interpret just about any pro-red, pro-democracy sentiment as support of Thaksin.
Pointing out “double standards” and that the “other lot are just as bad” (or worse as I would suggest) does not constitute a defense of Thaksin; it’s just stating the facts.
2011 Thai election coverage
From TFRhoden on twitter: classic!: р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╣Др╕г р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Жр╣Ж…р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ър╕нр╕гр╣Мр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡, lady takes р╕┐ from PumJai but votes PueaThai http://t.co/Aibu4AK @newmandala
The Aljazeera report is well worth a look.
Walker and Thitinan on the Thai election
Seems that Yingluck is turning the heads of more than just Thai men of a certain age Andrew 🙂
Still I do notice your attempts to murder the beautiful Australian language. As everyone knows Australian is a tonal language just like Thai. The interviewer shows this with that marvelous rising tone at the end of each phrase or sentence, so why do you try and speak it using just a single low tone? Or is this just a regional variation bought in by Scottish Presbyterian prison guards in days of yore?
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
My grand mom, as an example of ordinary view of Abhisit as a prudent and honest young man, and perhaps the most honest politician in their eyes, says given the current election board, no one is more honest than him and he haven’t done anything wrong. It is fair to say that my grand mom, as well as people who still like him and doesn’t think that he had done anything wrong, wasn’t affected by his poor economic and moral policy.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Mariner – 143
It is perfectly possible to be a red shirt and anti Taksin at the same time. And that is the message I think more and more red shirts -a minority definitely- are trying to get across.
Possible? Possibly, but it’s a tightrope to walk down. On New Mandala I haven’t seen anyone do it very well. In the end they fall back to defending Thaksin, claiming double standards or saying that the other lot are just as bad.
I suspect the small minority that do take this line will be made very uncomfortable in a Thaksin run Thailand. Maybe even as far as a comparison with the German brown shirts in the 1930s.
Of course if Thaksin wasn’t there anymore it could all break down. Will the lucky lady become a new Eva? Will we have rock musicals about her? Stay tuned to New Mandala.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
@Mariner said: “It is perfectly possible to be a red shirt and anti Taksin at the same time. And that is the message I think more and more red shirts -a minority definitely- are trying to get across.
With the interests of Thailand at heart I would say that what the country needs is a red shirt win, a ditching of Taksin and identification of the movement with policies rather than a single deeply flawed personality.”
—
Count me in! I always think that the Red Shirts’ ideology are legitimate in itself that it seeks genuine democracy. In fact, I believe that if there is anything which can mar the red shirts’ legitimacy, that thing is actually Thaksin himself 😉
I am one of the Reds who don’t vote for Thaksin. I am Red because I want democracy. I don’t like the ‘invisible hands’ to stand in the way of democracy, and I cannot stand them killing my fellow countrymen who dare to show ‘dissatisfaction’ for their unwarranted intervention!
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
@Angelo Michel
I don’t know much about 1940 history, so I cannot confirm whether the stuff you talked about (Thai’s occupation of Cambodia) really happened or not. Nevertheless, if there had really been occupation in 1940, then it would have been an invasion. It might not be illegal 200 years ago, but in 1940 it was indeed illegal, and it does not change any status of the map which Thailand accepted.
You said: “there is even no copy of it in the Thai government libraries”
I am not going to argue with you whether this map is in the Thai libraries or not, because I don’t know. But it has been proven in the ICJ that Thailand has accepted the French map. So if you are going to argue that this map does not exist, then please go read the judgment at the ICJ at once.
You said: “why did the then Thailand reoccupy a large part of what was Cambodia in 1940 ? To me it shows that the “demarcation” was NOT accepted”.
Have you studied International Law?
If not, please do yourself and everyone here a favor and go study it right away if you want to post here.
If yes, then you probably have forgotten the case of Mussolini and Hitler during the previous World Wars, where Italy (under Mussolini), and Germany (under Hitler) invaded and occupied various states, then made up new maps to suggest that those occupied parts became part of Germany/Italy. ICJ ruled that those maps to be invalid. Both cases are landmark cases when you study about statehood and territory. Very few people who have studied international law would not know these two cases.
Thus, if Thailand had really invaded and occupied Cambodia like you claimed, they would have to withdraw the occupation and step out of the Cambodian border, based on Hitler and Mussolini cases. And no, invading Cambodia has nothing to do with not accepting the map. It is a totally different issue. I really don’t know why you think it is the same issue.
You said: “But, having border demarcations between Thailand and Cambodia judged in The Netherlands (other former colonial power) is very revealing …Thais and Cambodians share the same culture, and that culture is not even understood in the Netherlands !”
Now I know you have never studied International Law, because if you have, you will know that border issue is one of the most frequent legal disputes which come up in the ICJ. And no, the ICJ does not need to understand Thai culture to make a decision about the border. They, however, need to know the legal principles of estoppel and acquiescence (which I explained above, and whether you are going to understand it or not, it is not something that I really care). And they have applied those principles correctly, in my opinion.