Observer – Clearly, subjective drivel. You almost made a sensible point about fans’ beliefs then ruined it by demonstrating your antipathy towards Thailand and your bitterness towards City. Shame.
MUFC – Wrong. Everyone loses. First Suree, because he will be forever known as Thaksin’s stooge. Second, City’s promising academy players. Third, expectations are raised to an unrealistic level. Oh yeah, let’s be positive with our own little dictator at the helm, not to mention the human rights abuses etc etc etc. Oh, and I promise I won’t mention the derby result:)
The Thai boys had a trial which everybody’s known from the first day what the outcome would be. (Do I need to tell you that it is “No, they wont get signed”?
IMO, everybody wins -the boys, Thaksin & Citeh- so I don’t know why you’re making a fuss about this.
Be positive for once will not make you lose a sleep.
Military Advisor – It will be interesting to how Thaksin is viewed in Britain in one or two years time. He will get away with interfering as long as the team is making progress. Business practice is very different in the UK and accountability mechanisms are well developed. Other strong personalities have chaired English football clubs – Maxwell, Ellis, Swales, Bates et al – they all took the fans for granted and became hate figures at their respective clubs.
Thad Williamson – I enjoyed reading your thoughtful paper which is linked at my blog. Thai coach (Chanvit) is saying that Kiatprawut Saiwaew and Teerasil Dangda will also be signed. I wonder if Sven knows about this as it hasn’t been reported in England.
Thaksin bought the team and he owns it. You claim of temporary custodianship appears based on nothing more than a fan’s belief that a football team is something more than it is.
Thaksin can stuff the entire team with Thais if he wants and even make Lydia the captain. He will lose all his games and all his money. But that is what you get to do when you buy things – and what others lose when they sell them.
I thought Thais were silly when they considered giant turbine made by GE or Mitubishi as national treasures, but your team spirit make a lot less sense than their nationalism.
If this team was a quarter as important as you seem to think it is, then it should be easy to collect a group of fans to put up the money and be custodians.
So what you have is 2 very dynamic figures in peoples lives.
One who has always been held in extremely high regard by the entire country, the other rising from the filth of politics and business.
The rural poor I think never had any issue amalgamating the 2 figures into their lives. One as their spiritual guardian, the other as their champion for equality in sharing of the countries riches.
The urban rich are still struggling with the issue. What the PAD did when they demonstrated was to take advantage of this and drive a wedge between Thaksin and HMK that didn’t exist previously. They demonstrated with loyalty to HMK, and drove the idea that Thaksin was against HMK. So in order to stop the demonstrations, the urban rich had to make a choice between HMK and Thaksin.
“To help you fine tune some local sentiment. HMK is held in the highest regard in Thailand by almost everyone I have ever met. This is unconditional. He helps the poor, is incorruptible, and seen as holding the peoples interest at heart.”
I can’t comment on the people you have met. But I don’t think the high regard is as universal or unconditional as you suggest. But let’s put that issue to one side for the moment. The point I was making in my speech was that more open public commentary on the king would encourage a more realistic appraisal of his leadership. In the absence of this public commentary the image of disinterested and virtuous leadership that you present can readily persist without serious challenge. And it is an ideologically potent image that serves the interests of coup makers.
To help you fine tune some local sentiment. HMK is held in the highest regard in Thailand by almost everyone I have ever met. This is unconditional. He helps the poor, is incorruptible, and seen as holding the peoples interest at heart.
The palace and the PC doesn’t have the same level of regard from the public.
The government is seen as slow and inefficient. It is also seen as very corrupt. This I can vouch for if you ever have to process government documents.
The police force is corrupt. Bribery is more the norm than the exception.
Elected government never delivers on the promises it makes. The usual platform is to wipe out corruption, deal with drugs and alcoholism, increase the livelihood of the masses.
The army is not a big player in politics, unless that is when it decides to stage a coup. The first reaction from the public is to welcome the army as saviour.
This time is slightly different. The needs of the rural voters are different than that of the urban rich. Thaksin did deliver on many of his platform promises he made to the rural voters. The urban rich felt excluded and at odds with policy being dictated from the poorer regions.
Well . . Andrew Walker’s ‘six threats’ were also rhetorical and speculative, including Andrew Walker’s continuing spin that there exist a (1) Thai ‘rural constitution’ capable of rational choices untainted by Thaksin’s handouts and (2) rurals whose eyes not shut to Thaksins crimes and (3) the rurals would have eventually seen the light that would have resulted in Thaksin eventually (not my lifetime surely!) being democratically eased out of power.
I believe my version is more down to earth and carries more foundation than Andrew Walker’s ‘rural constitution’. Thaksin would have resorted to his own ‘coup’, because Thaksin’s corrupt dead-end democracy was NOT working and was facing non-stop street protests up to the very moment General Sonthi carried out his pre-emptive coup. (Historicus was of course lying when he posted his otherwise version of Thaksin’s last moments in power).
Re 8: “The only thing that will solve the problem in the end is a strategic application of good ole Buddhist metta.” For jihardists! I don’t think so. I am not sure of the solution but it might help if the Islamic community started to condemn their co-religionists terrorism and not just the terrorism of the Thai army and police force. But criticism in the Islamic community of their brothers never seems to happen.
Ladyboy: I did not excuse their behavior.
It’s not that black & white – there will always be fundamentalists and they can usually be contained, but it’s not made any easier when moderates are being conflicted by the ‘American stupidity, arrogance, invasions, torturing etc’ that you mentioned.
Anyway, this is hardly the forum for that discussion – I was merely making a point to Thaicrisis (#3 above) that there were other factors affecting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree with LSS: ‘that there exists a shared ideology throughout the Islamic world that, in combination with the current technology that makes globalization possible, allows the terrorism occuring in the south of Thailand to be part and parcel of a larger, ‘open-source’ movement’.
My concern is that the ‘ideology’ is spreading, in part because of, rather than in spite of, American policy.
What a yawn jeru. You simply go back to your assertions and views that have been discussed ad nauseum since the coup. I know this is a waste of time and effort because it is preaching to one who has no ability to hear, but here goes, as briefly as I can. No, Thaksin had not brought democracy to an end. The courts had intervened, perhaps not altogether legally, and had made decisions that set a course to a new election. Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown. Those protests stopped after Prem took leadership of the anti-Thaksin strategy. And what, exactly, do we know about Thaksin that we didn’t know before? That Thaksin was capable of nasty things is well-known (“crimes” in jeru’s view: I note there have been no convictions so far, except in jeru’s mind). So why not a coup. That’s a rhetorical question, and not deserving of a response on NM given all the discussion that has already taken place here.
Thaksin Shinawatra clearly brought Thailand’s democracy to a dead-end and to the brink gentlemen, and that is FACT. Thaksin usurped powers firstly by massive vote buying (arguably his version of democracy) and suborning institutions . . . and once facing street protests had all the intentions to remain in power by hook or by crook . . . with his own military coup.
Perhaps it was speculations and perhaps it was not speculation. But knowing now what we know of Thaksin Shinawatra gentlemen, I am inclined to believe Thaksin Shinawatra capable of every crime in the book . . . so why NOT the coup?
By the way, using Thanong for “evidence” is about as secure as using Thaksin or Sonthi. Thanong has produced absolutely no evidence to back the claim he made, apart from Sonthi using the same claim immediately after the coup. Thanong has also been the military’s mouthpiece.
Of course the military coup was unavoidable. The palace and the royalist military decided to do this some time before. Plenty of evidence for that. jeru keeps saying the same things again and again. We all know that. Many of us have reviewed it again and again. Some of us have written about it at length. So this is a broken record, stuck in the same groove. But what about your military heroes? Are they right, correct and good on everything simply because they took their orders and threw Thaksin out?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Own goals at Manchester City?
Observer – Clearly, subjective drivel. You almost made a sensible point about fans’ beliefs then ruined it by demonstrating your antipathy towards Thailand and your bitterness towards City. Shame.
MUFC – Wrong. Everyone loses. First Suree, because he will be forever known as Thaksin’s stooge. Second, City’s promising academy players. Third, expectations are raised to an unrealistic level. Oh yeah, let’s be positive with our own little dictator at the helm, not to mention the human rights abuses etc etc etc. Oh, and I promise I won’t mention the derby result:)
Six threats and one opportunity
I am not using any code here. I am referring to the king.
Own goals at Manchester City?
The Thai boys had a trial which everybody’s known from the first day what the outcome would be. (Do I need to tell you that it is “No, they wont get signed”?
IMO, everybody wins -the boys, Thaksin & Citeh- so I don’t know why you’re making a fuss about this.
Be positive for once will not make you lose a sleep.
Own goals at Manchester City?
Military Advisor – It will be interesting to how Thaksin is viewed in Britain in one or two years time. He will get away with interfering as long as the team is making progress. Business practice is very different in the UK and accountability mechanisms are well developed. Other strong personalities have chaired English football clubs – Maxwell, Ellis, Swales, Bates et al – they all took the fans for granted and became hate figures at their respective clubs.
Thad Williamson – I enjoyed reading your thoughtful paper which is linked at my blog. Thai coach (Chanvit) is saying that Kiatprawut Saiwaew and Teerasil Dangda will also be signed. I wonder if Sven knows about this as it hasn’t been reported in England.
Own goals at Manchester City?
Thaksin bought the team and he owns it. You claim of temporary custodianship appears based on nothing more than a fan’s belief that a football team is something more than it is.
Thaksin can stuff the entire team with Thais if he wants and even make Lydia the captain. He will lose all his games and all his money. But that is what you get to do when you buy things – and what others lose when they sell them.
I thought Thais were silly when they considered giant turbine made by GE or Mitubishi as national treasures, but your team spirit make a lot less sense than their nationalism.
If this team was a quarter as important as you seem to think it is, then it should be easy to collect a group of fans to put up the money and be custodians.
Demo[of]Crazy: A blog from Surat Horachaikul
Re 9 Thanks nganadeeleg – that explains it to me more clearly. I quite well agree with what you are saying
Six threats and one opportunity
Banyaoonjingjing.
Six threats and one opportunity
Andrew,
When you are referring to HMK, are you referring to the Palace as a whole, including the PC, and all the other royalists, or just HMK himself?
Six threats and one opportunity
So what you have is 2 very dynamic figures in peoples lives.
One who has always been held in extremely high regard by the entire country, the other rising from the filth of politics and business.
The rural poor I think never had any issue amalgamating the 2 figures into their lives. One as their spiritual guardian, the other as their champion for equality in sharing of the countries riches.
The urban rich are still struggling with the issue. What the PAD did when they demonstrated was to take advantage of this and drive a wedge between Thaksin and HMK that didn’t exist previously. They demonstrated with loyalty to HMK, and drove the idea that Thaksin was against HMK. So in order to stop the demonstrations, the urban rich had to make a choice between HMK and Thaksin.
Six threats and one opportunity
“To help you fine tune some local sentiment. HMK is held in the highest regard in Thailand by almost everyone I have ever met. This is unconditional. He helps the poor, is incorruptible, and seen as holding the peoples interest at heart.”
I can’t comment on the people you have met. But I don’t think the high regard is as universal or unconditional as you suggest. But let’s put that issue to one side for the moment. The point I was making in my speech was that more open public commentary on the king would encourage a more realistic appraisal of his leadership. In the absence of this public commentary the image of disinterested and virtuous leadership that you present can readily persist without serious challenge. And it is an ideologically potent image that serves the interests of coup makers.
Six threats and one opportunity
Andrew,
To help you fine tune some local sentiment. HMK is held in the highest regard in Thailand by almost everyone I have ever met. This is unconditional. He helps the poor, is incorruptible, and seen as holding the peoples interest at heart.
The palace and the PC doesn’t have the same level of regard from the public.
The government is seen as slow and inefficient. It is also seen as very corrupt. This I can vouch for if you ever have to process government documents.
The police force is corrupt. Bribery is more the norm than the exception.
Elected government never delivers on the promises it makes. The usual platform is to wipe out corruption, deal with drugs and alcoholism, increase the livelihood of the masses.
The army is not a big player in politics, unless that is when it decides to stage a coup. The first reaction from the public is to welcome the army as saviour.
This time is slightly different. The needs of the rural voters are different than that of the urban rich. Thaksin did deliver on many of his platform promises he made to the rural voters. The urban rich felt excluded and at odds with policy being dictated from the poorer regions.
Six threats and one opportunity
Well . . Andrew Walker’s ‘six threats’ were also rhetorical and speculative, including Andrew Walker’s continuing spin that there exist a (1) Thai ‘rural constitution’ capable of rational choices untainted by Thaksin’s handouts and (2) rurals whose eyes not shut to Thaksins crimes and (3) the rurals would have eventually seen the light that would have resulted in Thaksin eventually (not my lifetime surely!) being democratically eased out of power.
I believe my version is more down to earth and carries more foundation than Andrew Walker’s ‘rural constitution’. Thaksin would have resorted to his own ‘coup’, because Thaksin’s corrupt dead-end democracy was NOT working and was facing non-stop street protests up to the very moment General Sonthi carried out his pre-emptive coup. (Historicus was of course lying when he posted his otherwise version of Thaksin’s last moments in power).
Demo[of]Crazy: A blog from Surat Horachaikul
Re 8: “The only thing that will solve the problem in the end is a strategic application of good ole Buddhist metta.” For jihardists! I don’t think so. I am not sure of the solution but it might help if the Islamic community started to condemn their co-religionists terrorism and not just the terrorism of the Thai army and police force. But criticism in the Islamic community of their brothers never seems to happen.
Demo[of]Crazy: A blog from Surat Horachaikul
Ladyboy: I did not excuse their behavior.
It’s not that black & white – there will always be fundamentalists and they can usually be contained, but it’s not made any easier when moderates are being conflicted by the ‘American stupidity, arrogance, invasions, torturing etc’ that you mentioned.
Anyway, this is hardly the forum for that discussion – I was merely making a point to Thaicrisis (#3 above) that there were other factors affecting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree with LSS: ‘that there exists a shared ideology throughout the Islamic world that, in combination with the current technology that makes globalization possible, allows the terrorism occuring in the south of Thailand to be part and parcel of a larger, ‘open-source’ movement’.
My concern is that the ‘ideology’ is spreading, in part because of, rather than in spite of, American policy.
Six threats and one opportunity
What a yawn jeru. You simply go back to your assertions and views that have been discussed ad nauseum since the coup. I know this is a waste of time and effort because it is preaching to one who has no ability to hear, but here goes, as briefly as I can. No, Thaksin had not brought democracy to an end. The courts had intervened, perhaps not altogether legally, and had made decisions that set a course to a new election. Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown. Those protests stopped after Prem took leadership of the anti-Thaksin strategy. And what, exactly, do we know about Thaksin that we didn’t know before? That Thaksin was capable of nasty things is well-known (“crimes” in jeru’s view: I note there have been no convictions so far, except in jeru’s mind). So why not a coup. That’s a rhetorical question, and not deserving of a response on NM given all the discussion that has already taken place here.
Six threats and one opportunity
Thaksin Shinawatra clearly brought Thailand’s democracy to a dead-end and to the brink gentlemen, and that is FACT. Thaksin usurped powers firstly by massive vote buying (arguably his version of democracy) and suborning institutions . . . and once facing street protests had all the intentions to remain in power by hook or by crook . . . with his own military coup.
Perhaps it was speculations and perhaps it was not speculation. But knowing now what we know of Thaksin Shinawatra gentlemen, I am inclined to believe Thaksin Shinawatra capable of every crime in the book . . . so why NOT the coup?
Six threats and one opportunity
Rebuttal of what, Sir?
Six threats and one opportunity
jeru invites a rebuttal of a series of unsubstantiated assertions and opinions.
Six threats and one opportunity
By the way, using Thanong for “evidence” is about as secure as using Thaksin or Sonthi. Thanong has produced absolutely no evidence to back the claim he made, apart from Sonthi using the same claim immediately after the coup. Thanong has also been the military’s mouthpiece.
Six threats and one opportunity
Of course the military coup was unavoidable. The palace and the royalist military decided to do this some time before. Plenty of evidence for that. jeru keeps saying the same things again and again. We all know that. Many of us have reviewed it again and again. Some of us have written about it at length. So this is a broken record, stuck in the same groove. But what about your military heroes? Are they right, correct and good on everything simply because they took their orders and threw Thaksin out?