In fact I tend to believe that now the Royals and the elites themselves are competing for a power struggle and they are divided into four groups:
-the Queen, with Prem and Prayuth on her side, planning to raise Dipangkorn to become the next King and that the Queen serves as Regent.
-Prince V
-Princess Sirindhorn
-Finally, some elites in the army who believe that neither the Queen or Prince V will command the full respect of the Thai people, and they plan to play hero and expose both the Queen and Prince V’s dirty secrets, and seize the power…
…but of course there is the fifth group: the people in Thailand who have woken up from Matrix, and they only want true democracy.
Couldn’t agree more. Moreover, the force that hold fraction 1 – 4 is the king no doubt, and if he is to pass away we might see what might be resemble what had happen to the Nepali monarch.
Keep in mind that the fraction that you just mentioned are really dynamic, they might form into one group and split up as soon as they formed.
Generally I would agree that stuff ups are more common than conspiracy, but when it comes to the establishment (that includes the bureaucracy and legal system) and PT these little mishaps are more likely deliberate. Not that Taksin was any stranger to using the system to his advantage either…
Bureaucrats vote as well and invariably favor those that pad their pockets and swell their ranks the most, no mystery also why the useless parasitic cities of Canberra and Washington invariably vote left wing, nor why they are wealthy enclaves.
The matter mentioned in Andrew Marshal’s Thai Story about Thaksin ‘skimming the lottery and using the Deputy Police Chief to be the bagman for an eventual . . . er third party’ should underscore to everyone that Thaksin’s reputation as ‘Thailand’s mother of all corruption” is well-deserved. Include Thaksin’s extra-judicial (killing) bent, megalomania, voodoo, and Machiavellian genius . . . gentlemen we’ll all have to fasten tight our seat belts because after the elections we’re all for a hair-raising puke-inducing ride, with Thaksin remote-driving of course.
Oh dear, this is all getting a bit personal and off topic. Personally I do not mind journalists giving a story a slant if it is the right one. I am not a great supporter of the even handed ‘on the other hand her Hitler said there was absolutely no evidence that x million people died in the gas ovens’ type of journalism.
Andrew’s stuff I believe would be warmly received by Thaksin, the red shirts and Phuea Thai, none of whom have the same objectives, and probably not liked by the Democrats, and PAD.
He may be right. He may be wrong. But based in Singapore and having visited I am sure all the regional countries here, I am a little surprised to hear him banging on about the truth that cannot be told in Thailand.
A lot of journalists do seem to however have fallen as usual into the ‘democratic’ trap and support the red-shirts as a genuine revolutionary movement (though there will be many genuine democracts amongst them)
And contrary to the impression given by Andrew, Reuters did not dog Thaksin much, especially when he was buying into the Premier League.
Well I think there’s a conspiracy going on. How did Thaksin get the number one spot? Who did he pay off? Was the money in a lunch box? Or are we to believe this 40 to 1 shot just came in?
On the other hand maybe it was just his good luck.
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory is there? 🙂
Anyone want to talk about the bag man and the money from the lottery? Now that sounds like a real conspiracy.
“Sorry, I can’t show you them but your 2008 piece justifying the police brutality …”
So, you cannot show any proof that i have omitted anything of substance, or that i have falsified facts, and your claim of me being “highly partisan” stems from your disagreement with what i wrote on the October 7, 2008, incident? In which you, as far as i can recall, have not been personally present?
Police brutality?
Before you accuse the police of brutality at parliament you have to proof intent. All evidence points clearly to one fact – police was not aware of the lethal nature of their teargas grenades. Police believed that the horrific injuries came from Ping Pong Bombs by the PAD (these injuries are consistent with injuries caused by such, and the PAD had Ping Pong Bombs – as proven by images i took at a later stage of PAD members arrested with such). This believe of the police was a fatal mistake, as it turned out.
Accuse the police of incompetence regarding the teargas grenades, and i will not dispute this. But brutality? No – brutality needs intent.
Police has not fired guns against the PAD protesters. But on numerous occasions PAD protesters that day have fired guns against the police, injuring three officers with gunfire.
Police – different than the military against Red Shirts in 2009 and 2010 – has held back during October 7, 2008.
The problem with Nong Bo is that we do simply not have a proper investigation into her death. Dr. Pornthip has never personally performed an autopsy, and during her investigations of the crime scene she has used the GT200 device. This means that the investigations were completely screwed up.
We have a counter investigation by the police that has found explosive residue on her clothes that came from devices other than the RDX charges of the teargas grenades. But i have pointed out in my books (have you read them?) that this is also not an independent investigation as the police is accused, and i have pointed out the need for another investigation, if that is still possible.
But it is clear that Nong Bo was clearly taking part in an attack against the police, and not, as claimed, simply walking back from parliament to Government House. I have substantiated this claim by the location of her death, and by now even have an absolutely trustworthy witness who saw her just before her death from the side of the PAD.
Again, it is not proven if Nong Bo died by her own ping pong bombs, or by police teargas (or a combination of both). What though is clearly proven is that she was a combatant, and not just a bystander – as the PAD claims.
And i won’t even go into the relevant Wikileaks cable over the intent of the PAD for that day, which further supports and substantiates my reporting of that fateful day…
I was there. From before the early morning attack until the fighting stopped at night. I have taken the only still photo known to be existing of the location of Nong Bo’s death at the time of her death. Where were you?
The Wikileaks cables are a bit more than “word of the street”. They are word of streets that the average person, the average journalist, and even the average diplomat is not able to walk.
US diplomats have far closer access than any other country’s diplomats to the palace, and to people close to the palace. Of course Wikileaks is not the holy grail, it is not no-holds barred interviews with these people, but it is as close as we can presently get information from and about these notoriously secretive quarters of Thai society, and therefore they do revolutionize our understanding of things here.
Your little story is full of assumptions, loony conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods.
Lets just start with Giles Ungpakorn here – you call him a leading Red Shirt member. Leading what? Giles is not, and never was in the central committee of the Red Shirt movement.
You state that the Red Shirt movement is “foreign financed”, implying that it may be financed by the US, or US lobbying companies, and that there is “a United States government intent on regime change and the reinstatement of Thaksin as Thailand’s leader.”
Eh, …what? Have you got any proof or evidence of sizable enough monetary transfers that could substantiate these accusations? The Red Shirt movement has of course financial backers as the donations by common Red Shirts is hardly enough, but the financial backers are wealthy Thai businessmen. Not all rich Thais are on the side of the state, or support the PAD.
Your accusations that US ambassadors, and the US government would support the Red Shirt movement and work towards a regime change in Thailand are laughable, and show complete lack of insight into their world. Reality is that the US has no singular policy how to deal with this entirely homegrown ongoing crisis in Thailand. US diplomats and officials of the state department themselves argue over how to deal with the situation, even over how to analyze it in the first place. There are diplomats who completely reject the Red Shirts, and others who do have some sympathies for the Red Shirts’s demands. Traditionally though the US needs a stable Thailand, and therefore will have certain preferences for the status quo. Your funny idea that the US would want to destabilize Thailand is the exact opposite of the truth – the US needs a stable Thailand, as Thailand still is its most important partner in the region.
Your repeated accusations that Prachatai would be some sort of foreign funded tool of dissemination of falsehoods receiving large budgets to further the agendas of those foreigners is completely out for lunch. Have you ever visited their office? Seen them working? Personally know their staff?
Reality is that Prachatai has constant trouble to obtain their required funds, operates on shoestring budgets, and works to a large part with unpaid volunteers.
Thailand’s “long standing unity”? Have you ever read anything regarding Thai history? You have had long before the US became a player in the world stage, and still have, internal wars, uprisings, intrigues, palace conflicts, military factionalism and coups, separatism, and whatever else.
Unity? Not exactly.
It is rather funny when you accuse Andrew Marshall of just repeating rumor, yet your entire… hmm … “work” … on Thailand consists of nothing but completely unsubstantiated fabulations.
Another complaints from yesterday pre-election. For PT blank, it is hard to fill the form, i.e., you have to press hardly to make the ink visible. Some people said it’s coated by some sort of chemical stuffs.
Its suspicious, yes, but having worked in publications for some time, even though I still feel the EC is biased against PT, in this instance I would chalk it up to pure incompetency. I have seen so many times things get sent off to print typo free only to appear in print with typos and/or incorrectly formatted (English speakers see BKK Post and Nation print and online editions for everyday examples). Maybe it was subconscious bias that led to the mistake, I dont know. i doubt a conspiricy. More likely than not, I would bet that the ballot was prepared by some junior-level copywriter and never even thoroughly reviewed by the EC, if reviewed at all. Even if the mistake was found, the response was probably “Too late now.”
I finished reading Part II of Andrew’s story already, and noticed the reference to Luangta Maha Bua’s (a highly revered Buddhist monk) opinion about Thaksin that Thaksin is a “giant monster who will devour Thailand, and he will destroy the Monarchy, and make himself the first President of Thailand” in 2005.
Can anyone provide me with the link so that I can see this news to confirm that he has really said this? (also feel free to provide extra evidences of Luangta Bua’s further derogatory comment about Thaksin). If he really did say that, then it was extremely uncalled for.
I know monks should be allowed to express their political opinions, but to say he is a ‘giant monster who will devour Thailand, destroys the Monarchy etc’, is not an appropriate remark, because you cannot prove any of those at the time when the speech was made. It is a mere speculation of an uncertain future, and as he himself is someone the public gives high regard to his opinion, making this kind of ‘speculative’ statement is very inappropriate.
Nick Nostitz “The problem here with accusing me off being “highly partisan”, and whatever else is that so far none of my facts have been disproved. I have on numerous occasions invited every critic to correct factual mistakes i made, or find important omissions in my work i should consider.
So far, nil, zilch, nothing, just the same old “he is a Red Shirt supporter”.
This gets a bit boring.”
As Naa Chart used to like to say in defence of his Buffet Cabinet, “Show me the receipts”. Sorry, I can’t show you them but your 2008 piece justifying the police brutality in front of parliament and the use of repeated volleys of explosive tear gas grenades including one that killed Nong Bow, who you obviously thought asked for it, is about as objective as accounts of street protests in Tehran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Loved an EC comment, said with a kind of yawn. Why are PT complaining? If they win will they want to annul the election? Guess which woman stated this?
While briefly entertaining, that would hardly seem the point. As noted in a comment above, this is just more evidence of fiddling. Can’t help thinking that the Democrat Party will somehow pull off a miraculous comeback in the last week and make all the pollsters look dumb. The claim will be that the DP’s policy – we hate Thaksin – brought all the undecided to them.
Nuomi: I would accept that if it were true. However, on the 24th, the Bangkok Post stated: “Addressing a crowd of about 30,000 in front of the CentralWorld shopping mall at Rajaprasong….”. It later adds: “Almost 24,000 people, meanwhile, followed speeches from the stage via Mr Abhisit’s Facebook page…”. That’s not 6,000 + 24,000 unless no one at the Post can write or edit properly. Clearly, “addressing a crowd” and “meanwhile” are statements to imply 30,000+24,000.
If you guys remember, the case of misused money of previous election by the Democrat was discarded by Constitutional Court. The judge said it’s because the period for trail was invalid and out-of-date.
The current Head of EC, as the Parties Registrar, didn’t submit the case to the General Attorney in specific time frame.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
CT – 69
Couldn’t agree more. Moreover, the force that hold fraction 1 – 4 is the king no doubt, and if he is to pass away we might see what might be resemble what had happen to the Nepali monarch.
Keep in mind that the fraction that you just mentioned are really dynamic, they might form into one group and split up as soon as they formed.
Almost no logo
Generally I would agree that stuff ups are more common than conspiracy, but when it comes to the establishment (that includes the bureaucracy and legal system) and PT these little mishaps are more likely deliberate. Not that Taksin was any stranger to using the system to his advantage either…
Bureaucrats vote as well and invariably favor those that pad their pockets and swell their ranks the most, no mystery also why the useless parasitic cities of Canberra and Washington invariably vote left wing, nor why they are wealthy enclaves.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
The matter mentioned in Andrew Marshal’s Thai Story about Thaksin ‘skimming the lottery and using the Deputy Police Chief to be the bagman for an eventual . . . er third party’ should underscore to everyone that Thaksin’s reputation as ‘Thailand’s mother of all corruption” is well-deserved. Include Thaksin’s extra-judicial (killing) bent, megalomania, voodoo, and Machiavellian genius . . . gentlemen we’ll all have to fasten tight our seat belts because after the elections we’re all for a hair-raising puke-inducing ride, with Thaksin remote-driving of course.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Oh dear, this is all getting a bit personal and off topic. Personally I do not mind journalists giving a story a slant if it is the right one. I am not a great supporter of the even handed ‘on the other hand her Hitler said there was absolutely no evidence that x million people died in the gas ovens’ type of journalism.
Andrew’s stuff I believe would be warmly received by Thaksin, the red shirts and Phuea Thai, none of whom have the same objectives, and probably not liked by the Democrats, and PAD.
He may be right. He may be wrong. But based in Singapore and having visited I am sure all the regional countries here, I am a little surprised to hear him banging on about the truth that cannot be told in Thailand.
A lot of journalists do seem to however have fallen as usual into the ‘democratic’ trap and support the red-shirts as a genuine revolutionary movement (though there will be many genuine democracts amongst them)
And contrary to the impression given by Andrew, Reuters did not dog Thaksin much, especially when he was buying into the Premier League.
Join New Mandala’s election watch
yes, http://www.thaielectionwatch.net/
I wanted to post the same one.
Fabian
Almost no logo
Well I think there’s a conspiracy going on. How did Thaksin get the number one spot? Who did he pay off? Was the money in a lunch box? Or are we to believe this 40 to 1 shot just came in?
On the other hand maybe it was just his good luck.
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory is there? 🙂
Anyone want to talk about the bag man and the money from the lottery? Now that sounds like a real conspiracy.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Portman”:
“Sorry, I can’t show you them but your 2008 piece justifying the police brutality …”
So, you cannot show any proof that i have omitted anything of substance, or that i have falsified facts, and your claim of me being “highly partisan” stems from your disagreement with what i wrote on the October 7, 2008, incident? In which you, as far as i can recall, have not been personally present?
Police brutality?
Before you accuse the police of brutality at parliament you have to proof intent. All evidence points clearly to one fact – police was not aware of the lethal nature of their teargas grenades. Police believed that the horrific injuries came from Ping Pong Bombs by the PAD (these injuries are consistent with injuries caused by such, and the PAD had Ping Pong Bombs – as proven by images i took at a later stage of PAD members arrested with such). This believe of the police was a fatal mistake, as it turned out.
Accuse the police of incompetence regarding the teargas grenades, and i will not dispute this. But brutality? No – brutality needs intent.
Police has not fired guns against the PAD protesters. But on numerous occasions PAD protesters that day have fired guns against the police, injuring three officers with gunfire.
Police – different than the military against Red Shirts in 2009 and 2010 – has held back during October 7, 2008.
The problem with Nong Bo is that we do simply not have a proper investigation into her death. Dr. Pornthip has never personally performed an autopsy, and during her investigations of the crime scene she has used the GT200 device. This means that the investigations were completely screwed up.
We have a counter investigation by the police that has found explosive residue on her clothes that came from devices other than the RDX charges of the teargas grenades. But i have pointed out in my books (have you read them?) that this is also not an independent investigation as the police is accused, and i have pointed out the need for another investigation, if that is still possible.
But it is clear that Nong Bo was clearly taking part in an attack against the police, and not, as claimed, simply walking back from parliament to Government House. I have substantiated this claim by the location of her death, and by now even have an absolutely trustworthy witness who saw her just before her death from the side of the PAD.
Again, it is not proven if Nong Bo died by her own ping pong bombs, or by police teargas (or a combination of both). What though is clearly proven is that she was a combatant, and not just a bystander – as the PAD claims.
And i won’t even go into the relevant Wikileaks cable over the intent of the PAD for that day, which further supports and substantiates my reporting of that fateful day…
I was there. From before the early morning attack until the fighting stopped at night. I have taken the only still photo known to be existing of the location of Nong Bo’s death at the time of her death. Where were you?
Confronting Karen homophobia in Burma
[…] Here is a new article from New Mandala on homophobia and rights. […]
Election advice
Do not vote for those who burned our city.
Do not vote for those who despise and seek vengeance against the Institution.
The United Siamese
Election advice
Don’t vote (for)… those (that)… burn the city, burn the nation
Don’t vote (for)… people (that)… despise and want revenge on the “institution”
by the Siam Solidarity Group
Election advice
Could you please provide a translation? Not all people interested in Thai affairs can read thai.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Tony”:
The Wikileaks cables are a bit more than “word of the street”. They are word of streets that the average person, the average journalist, and even the average diplomat is not able to walk.
US diplomats have far closer access than any other country’s diplomats to the palace, and to people close to the palace. Of course Wikileaks is not the holy grail, it is not no-holds barred interviews with these people, but it is as close as we can presently get information from and about these notoriously secretive quarters of Thai society, and therefore they do revolutionize our understanding of things here.
Your little story is full of assumptions, loony conspiracy theories and blatant falsehoods.
Lets just start with Giles Ungpakorn here – you call him a leading Red Shirt member. Leading what? Giles is not, and never was in the central committee of the Red Shirt movement.
You state that the Red Shirt movement is “foreign financed”, implying that it may be financed by the US, or US lobbying companies, and that there is “a United States government intent on regime change and the reinstatement of Thaksin as Thailand’s leader.”
Eh, …what? Have you got any proof or evidence of sizable enough monetary transfers that could substantiate these accusations? The Red Shirt movement has of course financial backers as the donations by common Red Shirts is hardly enough, but the financial backers are wealthy Thai businessmen. Not all rich Thais are on the side of the state, or support the PAD.
Your accusations that US ambassadors, and the US government would support the Red Shirt movement and work towards a regime change in Thailand are laughable, and show complete lack of insight into their world. Reality is that the US has no singular policy how to deal with this entirely homegrown ongoing crisis in Thailand. US diplomats and officials of the state department themselves argue over how to deal with the situation, even over how to analyze it in the first place. There are diplomats who completely reject the Red Shirts, and others who do have some sympathies for the Red Shirts’s demands. Traditionally though the US needs a stable Thailand, and therefore will have certain preferences for the status quo. Your funny idea that the US would want to destabilize Thailand is the exact opposite of the truth – the US needs a stable Thailand, as Thailand still is its most important partner in the region.
Your repeated accusations that Prachatai would be some sort of foreign funded tool of dissemination of falsehoods receiving large budgets to further the agendas of those foreigners is completely out for lunch. Have you ever visited their office? Seen them working? Personally know their staff?
Reality is that Prachatai has constant trouble to obtain their required funds, operates on shoestring budgets, and works to a large part with unpaid volunteers.
Thailand’s “long standing unity”? Have you ever read anything regarding Thai history? You have had long before the US became a player in the world stage, and still have, internal wars, uprisings, intrigues, palace conflicts, military factionalism and coups, separatism, and whatever else.
Unity? Not exactly.
It is rather funny when you accuse Andrew Marshall of just repeating rumor, yet your entire… hmm … “work” … on Thailand consists of nothing but completely unsubstantiated fabulations.
Almost no logo
Another complaints from yesterday pre-election. For PT blank, it is hard to fill the form, i.e., you have to press hardly to make the ink visible. Some people said it’s coated by some sort of chemical stuffs.
Join New Mandala’s election watch
For reporting on electoral misconduct and violence, you might find http://www.thaielectionwatch.net useful
Almost no logo
Its suspicious, yes, but having worked in publications for some time, even though I still feel the EC is biased against PT, in this instance I would chalk it up to pure incompetency. I have seen so many times things get sent off to print typo free only to appear in print with typos and/or incorrectly formatted (English speakers see BKK Post and Nation print and online editions for everyday examples). Maybe it was subconscious bias that led to the mistake, I dont know. i doubt a conspiricy. More likely than not, I would bet that the ballot was prepared by some junior-level copywriter and never even thoroughly reviewed by the EC, if reviewed at all. Even if the mistake was found, the response was probably “Too late now.”
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
I finished reading Part II of Andrew’s story already, and noticed the reference to Luangta Maha Bua’s (a highly revered Buddhist monk) opinion about Thaksin that Thaksin is a “giant monster who will devour Thailand, and he will destroy the Monarchy, and make himself the first President of Thailand” in 2005.
Can anyone provide me with the link so that I can see this news to confirm that he has really said this? (also feel free to provide extra evidences of Luangta Bua’s further derogatory comment about Thaksin). If he really did say that, then it was extremely uncalled for.
I know monks should be allowed to express their political opinions, but to say he is a ‘giant monster who will devour Thailand, destroys the Monarchy etc’, is not an appropriate remark, because you cannot prove any of those at the time when the speech was made. It is a mere speculation of an uncertain future, and as he himself is someone the public gives high regard to his opinion, making this kind of ‘speculative’ statement is very inappropriate.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Nick Nostitz “The problem here with accusing me off being “highly partisan”, and whatever else is that so far none of my facts have been disproved. I have on numerous occasions invited every critic to correct factual mistakes i made, or find important omissions in my work i should consider.
So far, nil, zilch, nothing, just the same old “he is a Red Shirt supporter”.
This gets a bit boring.”
As Naa Chart used to like to say in defence of his Buffet Cabinet, “Show me the receipts”. Sorry, I can’t show you them but your 2008 piece justifying the police brutality in front of parliament and the use of repeated volleys of explosive tear gas grenades including one that killed Nong Bow, who you obviously thought asked for it, is about as objective as accounts of street protests in Tehran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Almost no logo
Loved an EC comment, said with a kind of yawn. Why are PT complaining? If they win will they want to annul the election? Guess which woman stated this?
While briefly entertaining, that would hardly seem the point. As noted in a comment above, this is just more evidence of fiddling. Can’t help thinking that the Democrat Party will somehow pull off a miraculous comeback in the last week and make all the pollsters look dumb. The claim will be that the DP’s policy – we hate Thaksin – brought all the undecided to them.
Democrat or democratic?
Nuomi: I would accept that if it were true. However, on the 24th, the Bangkok Post stated: “Addressing a crowd of about 30,000 in front of the CentralWorld shopping mall at Rajaprasong….”. It later adds: “Almost 24,000 people, meanwhile, followed speeches from the stage via Mr Abhisit’s Facebook page…”. That’s not 6,000 + 24,000 unless no one at the Post can write or edit properly. Clearly, “addressing a crowd” and “meanwhile” are statements to imply 30,000+24,000.
Almost no logo
If you guys remember, the case of misused money of previous election by the Democrat was discarded by Constitutional Court. The judge said it’s because the period for trail was invalid and out-of-date.
The current Head of EC, as the Parties Registrar, didn’t submit the case to the General Attorney in specific time frame.
See who is responsible?