As a Thai who just read this blog, i would say there are heaps of people who could actually see right through all the curtain. there are also lots of thai people getting frustrated but couldn’t dare to speak up what it actually is.
I must have missed this before in the Nation (here from Bernama.com):
**Thanong Khanthong, the editor of The Nation … wrote that the Thai political crisis had been singularly revolving around this pot of gold of 76 billion baht.
“Pojaman (Thaksin wife) almost landed in Thailand (last Thursday) along with Somchai to pave the way for her ex-husband’s return. Somchai would like to hang on his premiership as long as possible
to prepare for Pojaman’s return. Pojaman would like to clear all the cases against her and her husband and get a chunk of her family’s 76 billion baht, now being frozen at the banks, back in return for Somchai to dissolve Parliament. But this deal could not get through,” he wrote.**
So that’s the reason for the airport seizures. And all the time I thought it was because the government was going to change the constitution and have the privy council murdered.
Bkk Optimist: you say that “By joining the Truth Today protest you are helping to polarize the country further, (by the way the theme tune for the truth today is “Battle Hymn of the Republic – last used in the American Civil war), not a good thing.”
I don’t get it. Why is this. Are you saying to stay away from PAD too? Then you’d be closer to neutral.
Lost me Frank. Maybe you can explain more clearly. Are you saying that PAD is a legitimate civil society-based reaction to oppression or is it something else?
US Observer, thanks for the correction. So why would Samak resign as he could jump parties under the scenario you lay out? Whatever happens, apparently some 22-25 party execs would be gone, added to the 111 already banned. They can run nominees, but it seems that the banning of politicians in this way is a neat way to convince people to vote for the “right” parties.
Actually, the first couple of comments are things that have been said many times before. Linking the queen to these current events is easy because of the funeral, but as people generally think there’s some kind of power struggle within the palace (I don’t – look at the happy family pics on the royal funeral day), the queen can be portrayed as different from the king. Here are some comments I put up at Bangkok Pundit, based on an article in the New Straits Times by long-time American “operative” in SE Asia Scott Thompson:
Ignoring the historical fallacies in the article to cite some interesting stuff from it:
“He [the king] is now 80 and frail but intends to stick around until he’s won this recent and, for him, final round.”
Says it all.
“There was always, though, a ‘permanent government’ of foreign educated princes, ever expanding their ranks but never ceasing to rule, even today, through great-grandsons of kings keeping a tight hold on day-to-day power, and always holding direct lines to the palace.”
Chatichai did a bit to shake this up, and Thaksin more so. There lies a problem. See also McCargo and the network monarchy.
“Bhumipol is a gentle man but has never countenanced opposition gently. It was he who signalled the army to move in September 2006 to depose Thaksin. But the government all but placed in power by him failed to move in the way desired. Even direct encouragement by the palace to the ministers to get on with their mission seemed to fail. In their failure lies the immediate precedent to the present crisis.”
That seems accurate.
“Thaksin was seen as an illegitimate upstart; ‘he is not one of us’, a famous prince said to me. In their amor proprio, they came to believe that any means was legitimate to rid Thailand of this bromide, but it hid badly their underlying determination to rule themselves. Thaksin just happened to be in the way.”
So get rid of him even if it means running the country into the ground for the good and great can bring it back. Well, maybe.
“Just wait — the king will wave his magic wand and the crisis will be over. The army — or some other appropriate delegate — will take power, and the country will find the patience to wear out the endurance of an expiring Thaksin, who in exile loses wealth and legitimacy by the day. Mai pen rai, things will quiet down and everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. It will end not with bang but a whimper.”
Wishful thinking? I tend to think that this round will end in a wimper, but will those whose interests are rolled back accept it? Will there be a hunting down of PAD/royalist opponents? Will there be a low-level opposition as the “reds” regroup?
Thank you for an excellent article, particularly the chronology of the events. I had not been paying attention to Thai politics until in the last 4-5 years. I usually read and get information almost exclusively from the internet, such as Prachathai, Thaienews, and New Mandala. As I try to sort out all those information and pinpoint the root cause of political turmoil in Thailand, I came to my own conclusion that what is seriously wrong with Thai politics is the (in) justice system in Thailand.
We often hear from the “enlightened elites” mantra that most poor and uneducated rural voters are not ready for democracy and should not be allowed to vote. Even if most of us who embrace democracy go along with this absurd notion the one thing nobody can deny that all of us know what justice or injustice is. And we know the (in) justice system in Thailand is the best money can buy or as best as your patron agents.
If liberty is to live on our own terms and slavery is to live by other’s terms, then to live on our terms means that we have a choice of actions (good or bad). If we are forced to act our ability to choose has been pre-empted. From this we can safely conclude that only free people can be just people!
JUSTICE must be the foundation and objective principle (not opinion as we witnessed in PM Samak case) for a free society to exist. Because the purpose of a society is make sure that our life and property is protected! Without justice as rule and foundation the society disintegrates into barbarism (as we are witnessing PAD in actions).
DB- My impression (in a Northern rural setting) is that a plurality fall into 4. Even with a certain reverence for elections- be they local local level or Obama/Clinton (McCain never existed in my area)- I don’t think that there is a sense of direct connection between BKK and their lives. That, of course, would put them in line with other countries, where in any given election a plurality of eligible voters will decide that the outcome is irrelevant to them, too.
Frank G Anderson said:
>I guess it would be better to shut up and ignore the cacophony here, but the simplistic dismissal of PAD and its anti-Thaksin stance is disturbing to the nth degree.
It’s not just hotheaded blog commentators who define the centrality of the current problem as NOT being Thaksin, it’s about 95% of the serious commentary by academics, Thai and farang, who take the same position. Many have come around from positions that were somewhat sympathetic to the PAD before — I’m thinking particularly of Acharn Kasien’s New Left Review piece in 2006, but by now I think you could add the somewhat enigmatic Nidhi and others to the list.
I’m not saying that there are no scholars who stick to their pro-PAD guns or a more ambiguous position (for the former see various law school deans, for the latter consider Michael Connors). And there is of course the Manager stable, folks like Chai-anan, whose writing is almost religious in nature with its apocalyptic overtones (assassination of ‘bad’ politicians, etc).
It’s pretty hard to find a coherent and current analysis that doesn’t condemn the PAD. Please refer us to any you might come across.
If you look at Thaksin, the problem is Thaksin. If you look at Thailand, it is pretty clear that Thaksin is just part of the problem.
It’s easy to figure that out unless you believe Thaksin was given the heave-ho in 2006 because of his corruption and terrible record on human rights and civil liberties. I’m guessing even you don’t believe that.
I think all parties want 1, but differ greatly on how to to get there given the economic disparity and the opportunity for corruption (which by the way is the biggest problem that Thailand faces).
The problem comes when one family dominates that so called Democratic process. But this is what I mean about polarization – all the reds are good and all the yellows are bad and paid for…
… it is jst too simplistic and doesn’t take into account that there are good-intentioned people on both sides as well as the opposite of that.
My point is that out of say 63m Thai people, I would say (excluding the children call that 23m) that 42.5M simply want a safe, secure future filled with hope for their kids. and these people are silent suffering under the shriek, shrill voices of extremism and naivete combined.
If you really studied the full comments of both sides – they do actually want the same thing (as a body of people, who knows the minds of their extremist leaders) – they differ in how to get there.
The PAD are saying that the rural masses that voted for Dr. Thaksin really need to know what they are voting for; which in the PAD opinion is a dictatorship. From my time watching and listening to Thaksin I don’t think they were wrong.
What we need – is someone who is truly respected to come out with a roadmap to 1. Specific steps, timing, etc with specific and very harsh rules for corruption (like lethal injection), rather than a slap on the wrist and a transfer to an inactive post.
Correct to say that foreign reporting is increasingly explicit in tracing the royal parameters of a do-or-die political war. In that respect, PAD has made our job much easier than before. If they wanna drag the crown into the political fray, so be it. Then we can talk about it freely (sorta).
But as long as Thai media must pretend the royal power play isn’t happening, what does it matter? None of the cited reportage is highlighted in Thai coverage of Thaksin vs Sondhi, round whatever.
This is the most difficult part of the puzzle – how far does reverence for HM extend to the other players? How many people see through the propaganda? We have no idea. No opinion polls to dissect. Only anecdotes and speculation.
Michael (#2): Apologies, but you’re actually using a name (mine) that has been contributing to NM for some time. To avoid confusion, it would be a good idea for you to change your name. Thanks.
Frank G. Anderson, “Claims that the PAD is forcing members to be martyrs, that the PAD is only looking for violence, that the PAD is wrong and violent and harmful to the nation’s interests,…well, this all sounds like reactionary pro-government knee-jerking at best.”
I don’t see where you”re coming from. It’s the PAD with its “new politics” that is the reactionary group here. They have repeatedly stated that they will not negotiate. They have repeatedly denied they have done wrong, while clearly conducting insurrection, unlawfully detaining citizens, destroying property, shooting at bystanders, intimidating news reporters, and causing the airports to close. They have said that the resignation of the Prime Minister is not enough. They have even said that dissolution of parliament is not enough. They have said that new elections will not solve the problem.
Look, fundamentally government is based on force. If people refuse to pay taxes, the government can use force to make them pay and/or go to jail. If people break the law, the police can use force to seize them and take them to the court for judgment. If a group refuses to obey the law the army can use force to disperse or kill them. If a government is not able to use force it is not able to govern.
This government lost its ability to govern when Gen. Anupong mutinied in August (that’s what refusal to obey orders is, mutiny). They should have tried to sack him then. Since they didn’t, he has essentially already carried out a coup, and what we see now is simply the winners of the coup (the PAD) in the process of establishing their authority.
But again perhaps we don’t need their ‘sacrifice’.. it’s time to allow truly egalitarian values to replace hierarchical power structure.. or else there won’t be any chance for ordinary people to pose challenge to other inequalities, conservative and oppressive social and cultural norms…And I do mean it when I say this– that cliche abt Thailand being the land of smiles– I would say it’s more oppressive than all-smiles.. Perhaps I will get a lot of flak for saying this, maybe even be labelled unpatriotic and treacherous..never mind..
Martin, Thank u. Now I know what u mean by encouraging ordinary people to get involved, and after a second thought, I also realize that my previous suggestion is not realistic. But even during the 1973.. when there were demonstrations against the then dictators, it was only a brief period of ‘victory’ and only a few years afterwards, there was a massacred that allows the rise of more or less the same elitist class..(of course some miltary men were got rid of but their likes remains)..
I think some Thais know who are the invisible hands behind the PAD, however, many simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and will vehemently denounce whoever dare to suggest this.I don’t know what these powerful figures still feel the need to strive for.. they already have everything– wealth, prestige, etc… why not just sacrifice a bit for ordinary people’s sake…
And we haven’t even mentioned the Royal Thai Police yet. Or the civil service. Or those business elites who do unscrupulous stuff like ….. have the audacity to back different horses when ever the fancy takes them. This truly is a hydra-headed monster!
If I might clarify my point;
who or what will break the current stalemate between elements of the power elite in this country?
My belief is that ‘the people’ (students, general public) need to get involved. Not, under any of the current banners and their coloured shirts, but as a population. It has happened before (’73, etc) and it needs to happen again. Unfortunately, the power elite see this as a threat to their personal wealth, rather than a warning from the people that things need to change. As demonstrated in the past, when the elite seem/are threatened, they put guns in the hands of the security forces and the murder and disappearances begin.
To be blunt, the international community will not get involved. If the Burmese junta was able to ride out the complaints that arose with their lack of acceptance of aid after cyclone Nargis and the UN sat idly by as hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, then involvement in Thailand is not going to happen (Joy, forgive my somewhat direct rejection of your argument).
Of course, my ideas are somewhat idealistic and maybe heading into the streets will never happen.
As an aside, I wonder if we will ever know, or is it known already, who the members of the (real) power elite are?
actually I think Thaksin is just the stalking horse that the PAD use to convince people that participatory democracy is bad. He was rich and knew when to sell his business for a huge profit, very easy to be jealous of him…
The real objective they are paid to reintroduce is government by the Thai ruling families
Meanwhile I think Sondhi also has been running the protests to shore up his media businesses … apparently this worked in 2006 to the tune of B100M per month or so.
Sondhi recently went bankrupt n part of his clutch of companies and claimed he had given all his money to the PAD… but I keep trying to remind people that “bankruptcy is a rich persons way of avoiding his debts”… I assume he has already moved the worthwhile assets off shore.
the word I get from Thais is that Khun Thaksin has been involved in too many financial transactions that should not be publicised so he is persona non grata which is the sort of term I think would be used by european royalty
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
End of the royal taboo?
As a Thai who just read this blog, i would say there are heaps of people who could actually see right through all the curtain. there are also lots of thai people getting frustrated but couldn’t dare to speak up what it actually is.
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
I must have missed this before in the Nation (here from Bernama.com):
**Thanong Khanthong, the editor of The Nation … wrote that the Thai political crisis had been singularly revolving around this pot of gold of 76 billion baht.
“Pojaman (Thaksin wife) almost landed in Thailand (last Thursday) along with Somchai to pave the way for her ex-husband’s return. Somchai would like to hang on his premiership as long as possible
to prepare for Pojaman’s return. Pojaman would like to clear all the cases against her and her husband and get a chunk of her family’s 76 billion baht, now being frozen at the banks, back in return for Somchai to dissolve Parliament. But this deal could not get through,” he wrote.**
So that’s the reason for the airport seizures. And all the time I thought it was because the government was going to change the constitution and have the privy council murdered.
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
Bkk Optimist: you say that “By joining the Truth Today protest you are helping to polarize the country further, (by the way the theme tune for the truth today is “Battle Hymn of the Republic – last used in the American Civil war), not a good thing.”
I don’t get it. Why is this. Are you saying to stay away from PAD too? Then you’d be closer to neutral.
BTW, you must have been away for a while. The Battle Hymn of the Republic is still used and fairly often: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic
Restraint is discredited
Lost me Frank. Maybe you can explain more clearly. Are you saying that PAD is a legitimate civil society-based reaction to oppression or is it something else?
Too late for royal intervention?
US Observer, thanks for the correction. So why would Samak resign as he could jump parties under the scenario you lay out? Whatever happens, apparently some 22-25 party execs would be gone, added to the 111 already banned. They can run nominees, but it seems that the banning of politicians in this way is a neat way to convince people to vote for the “right” parties.
End of the royal taboo?
Actually, the first couple of comments are things that have been said many times before. Linking the queen to these current events is easy because of the funeral, but as people generally think there’s some kind of power struggle within the palace (I don’t – look at the happy family pics on the royal funeral day), the queen can be portrayed as different from the king. Here are some comments I put up at Bangkok Pundit, based on an article in the New Straits Times by long-time American “operative” in SE Asia Scott Thompson:
Ignoring the historical fallacies in the article to cite some interesting stuff from it:
“He [the king] is now 80 and frail but intends to stick around until he’s won this recent and, for him, final round.”
Says it all.
“There was always, though, a ‘permanent government’ of foreign educated princes, ever expanding their ranks but never ceasing to rule, even today, through great-grandsons of kings keeping a tight hold on day-to-day power, and always holding direct lines to the palace.”
Chatichai did a bit to shake this up, and Thaksin more so. There lies a problem. See also McCargo and the network monarchy.
“Bhumipol is a gentle man but has never countenanced opposition gently. It was he who signalled the army to move in September 2006 to depose Thaksin. But the government all but placed in power by him failed to move in the way desired. Even direct encouragement by the palace to the ministers to get on with their mission seemed to fail. In their failure lies the immediate precedent to the present crisis.”
That seems accurate.
“Thaksin was seen as an illegitimate upstart; ‘he is not one of us’, a famous prince said to me. In their amor proprio, they came to believe that any means was legitimate to rid Thailand of this bromide, but it hid badly their underlying determination to rule themselves. Thaksin just happened to be in the way.”
So get rid of him even if it means running the country into the ground for the good and great can bring it back. Well, maybe.
“Just wait — the king will wave his magic wand and the crisis will be over. The army — or some other appropriate delegate — will take power, and the country will find the patience to wear out the endurance of an expiring Thaksin, who in exile loses wealth and legitimacy by the day. Mai pen rai, things will quiet down and everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. It will end not with bang but a whimper.”
Wishful thinking? I tend to think that this round will end in a wimper, but will those whose interests are rolled back accept it? Will there be a hunting down of PAD/royalist opponents? Will there be a low-level opposition as the “reds” regroup?
New Mandala in The Age
Thank you for an excellent article, particularly the chronology of the events. I had not been paying attention to Thai politics until in the last 4-5 years. I usually read and get information almost exclusively from the internet, such as Prachathai, Thaienews, and New Mandala. As I try to sort out all those information and pinpoint the root cause of political turmoil in Thailand, I came to my own conclusion that what is seriously wrong with Thai politics is the (in) justice system in Thailand.
We often hear from the “enlightened elites” mantra that most poor and uneducated rural voters are not ready for democracy and should not be allowed to vote. Even if most of us who embrace democracy go along with this absurd notion the one thing nobody can deny that all of us know what justice or injustice is. And we know the (in) justice system in Thailand is the best money can buy or as best as your patron agents.
If liberty is to live on our own terms and slavery is to live by other’s terms, then to live on our terms means that we have a choice of actions (good or bad). If we are forced to act our ability to choose has been pre-empted. From this we can safely conclude that only free people can be just people!
JUSTICE must be the foundation and objective principle (not opinion as we witnessed in PM Samak case) for a free society to exist. Because the purpose of a society is make sure that our life and property is protected! Without justice as rule and foundation the society disintegrates into barbarism (as we are witnessing PAD in actions).
Noi
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
DB- My impression (in a Northern rural setting) is that a plurality fall into 4. Even with a certain reverence for elections- be they local local level or Obama/Clinton (McCain never existed in my area)- I don’t think that there is a sense of direct connection between BKK and their lives. That, of course, would put them in line with other countries, where in any given election a plurality of eligible voters will decide that the outcome is irrelevant to them, too.
Restraint is discredited
Frank G Anderson said:
>I guess it would be better to shut up and ignore the cacophony here, but the simplistic dismissal of PAD and its anti-Thaksin stance is disturbing to the nth degree.
It’s not just hotheaded blog commentators who define the centrality of the current problem as NOT being Thaksin, it’s about 95% of the serious commentary by academics, Thai and farang, who take the same position. Many have come around from positions that were somewhat sympathetic to the PAD before — I’m thinking particularly of Acharn Kasien’s New Left Review piece in 2006, but by now I think you could add the somewhat enigmatic Nidhi and others to the list.
I’m not saying that there are no scholars who stick to their pro-PAD guns or a more ambiguous position (for the former see various law school deans, for the latter consider Michael Connors). And there is of course the Manager stable, folks like Chai-anan, whose writing is almost religious in nature with its apocalyptic overtones (assassination of ‘bad’ politicians, etc).
It’s pretty hard to find a coherent and current analysis that doesn’t condemn the PAD. Please refer us to any you might come across.
If you look at Thaksin, the problem is Thaksin. If you look at Thailand, it is pretty clear that Thaksin is just part of the problem.
It’s easy to figure that out unless you believe Thaksin was given the heave-ho in 2006 because of his corruption and terrible record on human rights and civil liberties. I’m guessing even you don’t believe that.
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
I think all parties want 1, but differ greatly on how to to get there given the economic disparity and the opportunity for corruption (which by the way is the biggest problem that Thailand faces).
The problem comes when one family dominates that so called Democratic process. But this is what I mean about polarization – all the reds are good and all the yellows are bad and paid for…
… it is jst too simplistic and doesn’t take into account that there are good-intentioned people on both sides as well as the opposite of that.
My point is that out of say 63m Thai people, I would say (excluding the children call that 23m) that 42.5M simply want a safe, secure future filled with hope for their kids. and these people are silent suffering under the shriek, shrill voices of extremism and naivete combined.
If you really studied the full comments of both sides – they do actually want the same thing (as a body of people, who knows the minds of their extremist leaders) – they differ in how to get there.
The PAD are saying that the rural masses that voted for Dr. Thaksin really need to know what they are voting for; which in the PAD opinion is a dictatorship. From my time watching and listening to Thaksin I don’t think they were wrong.
What we need – is someone who is truly respected to come out with a roadmap to 1. Specific steps, timing, etc with specific and very harsh rules for corruption (like lethal injection), rather than a slap on the wrist and a transfer to an inactive post.
Peace Brother
End of the royal taboo?
Correct to say that foreign reporting is increasingly explicit in tracing the royal parameters of a do-or-die political war. In that respect, PAD has made our job much easier than before. If they wanna drag the crown into the political fray, so be it. Then we can talk about it freely (sorta).
But as long as Thai media must pretend the royal power play isn’t happening, what does it matter? None of the cited reportage is highlighted in Thai coverage of Thaksin vs Sondhi, round whatever.
This is the most difficult part of the puzzle – how far does reverence for HM extend to the other players? How many people see through the propaganda? We have no idea. No opinion polls to dissect. Only anecdotes and speculation.
End of the royal taboo?
Michael (#2): Apologies, but you’re actually using a name (mine) that has been contributing to NM for some time. To avoid confusion, it would be a good idea for you to change your name. Thanks.
Restraint is discredited
Frank G. Anderson, “Claims that the PAD is forcing members to be martyrs, that the PAD is only looking for violence, that the PAD is wrong and violent and harmful to the nation’s interests,…well, this all sounds like reactionary pro-government knee-jerking at best.”
I don’t see where you”re coming from. It’s the PAD with its “new politics” that is the reactionary group here. They have repeatedly stated that they will not negotiate. They have repeatedly denied they have done wrong, while clearly conducting insurrection, unlawfully detaining citizens, destroying property, shooting at bystanders, intimidating news reporters, and causing the airports to close. They have said that the resignation of the Prime Minister is not enough. They have even said that dissolution of parliament is not enough. They have said that new elections will not solve the problem.
Look, fundamentally government is based on force. If people refuse to pay taxes, the government can use force to make them pay and/or go to jail. If people break the law, the police can use force to seize them and take them to the court for judgment. If a group refuses to obey the law the army can use force to disperse or kill them. If a government is not able to use force it is not able to govern.
This government lost its ability to govern when Gen. Anupong mutinied in August (that’s what refusal to obey orders is, mutiny). They should have tried to sack him then. Since they didn’t, he has essentially already carried out a coup, and what we see now is simply the winners of the coup (the PAD) in the process of establishing their authority.
Help
Who the heck is calling for an invasion? Insecurity breeds paranoia.
Restraint is discredited
But again perhaps we don’t need their ‘sacrifice’.. it’s time to allow truly egalitarian values to replace hierarchical power structure.. or else there won’t be any chance for ordinary people to pose challenge to other inequalities, conservative and oppressive social and cultural norms…And I do mean it when I say this– that cliche abt Thailand being the land of smiles– I would say it’s more oppressive than all-smiles.. Perhaps I will get a lot of flak for saying this, maybe even be labelled unpatriotic and treacherous..never mind..
Restraint is discredited
Martin, Thank u. Now I know what u mean by encouraging ordinary people to get involved, and after a second thought, I also realize that my previous suggestion is not realistic. But even during the 1973.. when there were demonstrations against the then dictators, it was only a brief period of ‘victory’ and only a few years afterwards, there was a massacred that allows the rise of more or less the same elitist class..(of course some miltary men were got rid of but their likes remains)..
I think some Thais know who are the invisible hands behind the PAD, however, many simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and will vehemently denounce whoever dare to suggest this.I don’t know what these powerful figures still feel the need to strive for.. they already have everything– wealth, prestige, etc… why not just sacrifice a bit for ordinary people’s sake…
End of the royal taboo?
And we haven’t even mentioned the Royal Thai Police yet. Or the civil service. Or those business elites who do unscrupulous stuff like ….. have the audacity to back different horses when ever the fancy takes them. This truly is a hydra-headed monster!
Restraint is discredited
If I might clarify my point;
who or what will break the current stalemate between elements of the power elite in this country?
My belief is that ‘the people’ (students, general public) need to get involved. Not, under any of the current banners and their coloured shirts, but as a population. It has happened before (’73, etc) and it needs to happen again. Unfortunately, the power elite see this as a threat to their personal wealth, rather than a warning from the people that things need to change. As demonstrated in the past, when the elite seem/are threatened, they put guns in the hands of the security forces and the murder and disappearances begin.
To be blunt, the international community will not get involved. If the Burmese junta was able to ride out the complaints that arose with their lack of acceptance of aid after cyclone Nargis and the UN sat idly by as hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, then involvement in Thailand is not going to happen (Joy, forgive my somewhat direct rejection of your argument).
Of course, my ideas are somewhat idealistic and maybe heading into the streets will never happen.
As an aside, I wonder if we will ever know, or is it known already, who the members of the (real) power elite are?
Grade 4 travel advisory…for Bangkok
actually I think Thaksin is just the stalking horse that the PAD use to convince people that participatory democracy is bad. He was rich and knew when to sell his business for a huge profit, very easy to be jealous of him…
The real objective they are paid to reintroduce is government by the Thai ruling families
Meanwhile I think Sondhi also has been running the protests to shore up his media businesses … apparently this worked in 2006 to the tune of B100M per month or so.
Sondhi recently went bankrupt n part of his clutch of companies and claimed he had given all his money to the PAD… but I keep trying to remind people that “bankruptcy is a rich persons way of avoiding his debts”… I assume he has already moved the worthwhile assets off shore.
Speculations on health and mateship
the word I get from Thais is that Khun Thaksin has been involved in too many financial transactions that should not be publicised so he is persona non grata which is the sort of term I think would be used by european royalty