• Thanong
  • ranking : Nation Staff
  • email : thanong@nationgroup.com
  • created : 2007-07-02
  • entry : 279
  • visitors : 201286
  • votes : 316
  • send msg :
Thanong
Thanong Khanthong
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong
Monday , September 14 , 2009
Is History Going to Repeat itself?
Posted by Thanong , Reader : 1572 , 09:45:56  
Print


Is History Going to Repeat Itself?

Published on September 14, 2009

We'll have a couple of days before us when we arrive at the third anniversary of the September 19, 2009 military coup. During that time, then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was making his overseas trip. He attended the Asia-Europe meeting in Finland. He and his entourage stopped over in Cancun, Mexico, before heading to New York to deliver a speech at the United Nations. About 200 pieces of the Shinawatra family's luggage had already been shipped to London.

There had been rumours of a coup before Thaksin left Bangkok. But Thaksin brushed the rumours aside. A coup was almost impossible. He had consolidated most of his political base and was on his way to become the most powerful leader in post-World War II. He had Parliament in his pocket. The police was under his domain. More than half of the military backed him. The bureaucrats threw their support at him. He also had 14 million votes, mostly in the North and Northeast, in his hand due to the magic of his populist policy.

Only if Thaksin could cross over Gen Prem Tinsulanonda, the president of the Privy Council, so that he could emerge as a new Ammat, if not a Peron-style popular leader.

Thaksin had been on a collision course againt Gen Prem, accusing him of acting as a "charismatic person who musters power beyond the Constitution." He could not reshuffle the military list according to his wish.

On the streets around the Government House, the Yellow Shirted protesters under the People's Alliance for Democracy were demanding Thaksin's unconditional resignation. Thaksin's pocketing US$2 billion from the sale of his Shin Corp to Temasek Holding of Singapore reignited the middle-class dissent against his business interest. Thaksin caved in by dissolving Parliament in the first half of the year. His party Thai Rak Thai won the election again, with some election legal problems. The judges were out to mediate the most polarised political conflict in modern time. The Yellow Shirts hoped that a coup would do away with Thaksin and create a new platform for New Politics.

And a coup did happen. It was staged by Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the army chief, as the nomimal head.

Gen Sonthi used to be a subordinate to Gen Surayuth Chulnanont, a former army chief and a member of the Privy Council. Gen Surayuth was an ally with Gen Prem.

But we have to be careful when we talk about the Privy Council. It is a separate entity from the Monarchy. Similarly, the Crown Property Bureau is a separate entity from the Monarchy. For this reason, the Privy Council or the Crown Property Bureau are not the Monarchy. Many people get confused by associating the Privy Council and the Crown Property Bureau with the Monarchy.

To maintain his ultimate impartiality, His Majesty the King does not associate himself with any institutions or organisations. They have the right to give him counsel. But the King also has his prerogative to listen to or not to listen to their advice. In the end, only his Royal signature matters. And because he stays above the conflict, his impartiality has come to gain respect from the people.

When Thaksin heard about the coup from his Grand Hyatt New York, he was shocked. Many of his military friends had warned him about the coup before, but he did not believe them. He trusted the intelligence information supplied to him by the police, who discounted a possibility of the coup.

He urged his military allies at home to fight back. There was a confrontation throughout the day between Gen Sonthi-led army and the military ally of Thaksin in Bangkok. They were ready to shoot at each other. Thaksin planned to go to the UN forum to denounce the coup at home. When worst came to worst, he would form a government in exile. Many countries would recognise his government in exile.

In the end, Thaksin's military ally was neutralised. Thaksin's attempt to appear at the UN to woo for international support for his cause was blocked.

The Monarchy did not approve the military coup because it went out of the norm, created instablity and could go out of control. Thaksin's allies could not prevail against the coup makers. But as the country could not remain in a void, His Majesty the King was obliged to ink his signature in support of the military coup. The country had to move on.

(To be continued)

##################################

The People's Alliance for Democracy yesterday warned that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra would resort to violence to try to destroy the government.

Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the PAD's New Politics Party, said Thaksin was expected to mobilise all of his men, including those in uniform, to try to topple the government not long after the red shirts start their rally on Saturday, the third anniversary of the coup that ousted Thaksin.


Security agencies would also need to monitor the situation outside the rally ground, as Thaksin would use his network to stage a disturbance near the rally so that the violence could escalate until the government collapses.


The pro-Thaksin movement is expected to gather at the Royal Plaza, Government House and possibly the residence of Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, he said.


Thaksin apparently realises that Saturday's rally would be his last chance to overthrow the government, he said.


If Thaksin fails this time, it will be harder to force out the Democrat-led government and it might complete its term. Thaksin could be convicted in other cases and his network could eventually disintegrate, he said.


Thaksin would have to use his network to carry out underground operations to try to oust the government because it is expected that the people joining the rally would not be enough to depose the government, he said.


The rifts among the red-shirt leaders would result in a low turnout, he said.


The red shirts were divided into two groups - the three buddies or Veera Musigapong, Natthawut Saikua and Jatuporn Prompan on one side, and Jakrapob Penkair and his allies on the other, he said.


The three buddies want to take revenge for Thaksin while Jakrapob is seeking change to the ruling system, he said.


Thaksin is now a fugitive in exile.


Senator Prasarn Marukhapithak expressed confidence that no coup would happen because of the rally on Saturday.


He said there would be no justification for a putsch as the government could control the situation and no violence would arise.


Thaksin could not manoeuvre much abroad because his host countries, including the United Arab Emirates, would restrict his political movements, he said.


No more than 20,000 people would join the rally in front of Prem's house and they would disperse peacefully, he said.


The rally would be held just to try to extend the life of the red-shirt movement, he said.


Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said it was weird that coup speculation sprang up.


"Actually, nobody should have talked about a coup again because they have been calling for democracy. Now, why has it changed into a call for a change through a coup?" he said.


On Saturday, former supreme commander General Chaisit Shinawatra, a cousin of Thaksin, said he supported a coup if it would improve the country's situation. If one does take place, politics would have to start anew so that the conflicts in the country could end, he said.


Abhisit said he had talked to acting police chief Thanee Sombunsap, who reassured him that there should be no violence on Saturday, as most people want to protest peacefully.


But the government would try to prevent any untoward incident, the prime minister said.


Read comment

comment 85
notdisappointed date : 20/09/2009 time : 19.44


Ouch, fq, thought a vampire mosquito bit me but it was only you. Your trying to suck off the naivete and ignorance of the unsuspecting bloggers has been found out (in spades on Erik's recent blog) with your vehement attacks on someone else's opinions.

Sorry what was it you wanted me to say. let me know in advance and I'll try to follow the thkasin line. It'll be hard but I'm only just a small cog in the BPAD chapter.
comment 84
FelixQui date : 20/09/2009 time : 11.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.83,
More shooting off about "subtle but biting denigration and discrediting of those who might have a counter viewpoint to pre-empt those naive readers who would seek an alternative viewpoint and thereby sub-consciously to set up 'soft' barriers to a differing POV," and "disguises and underLYING presentations".

The difference between when I correctly accuse you of lying or making false statements and when you falsely accuse me of distortion and the like is that in every case I specify exactly where your claims are false or misleading, as I did below in c.37 and following, whereas you never do that, but merely make vague, general accusations with no supporting examples or substantiation.

I suggest that when you see me doing something that is distorting that you point it out and show exactly how I have distorted. Your accusations would then have some substance, and readers will be able to assess the worth of your claims, which have hitherto been nothing but personal attacks devoid of any shred of substance.

I'm making a concrete suggestion to help you attack me more effectively because it will greatly improve the quality of discussion if you do point out real errors that I make. It will also improve the quality of your writing for academic purposes if that matters to you.
comment 83
notdisappointed date : 19/09/2009 time : 21.53


Let's do this then.

let me fall back on what I have been saying to eo.

You pepper your writing with subtle but biting denigration and discrediting of those who might have a counter viewpoint to pre-empt those naive readers who would seek an alternative viewpoint and thereby sub-consciously to set up 'soft' barriers to a differing POV. For those readers who haven't any inkling of the state of affairs, your propaganda-cum-blogs are articulate and reasoned.

Thus your game is to entice and bag the naive and ignorant to your point of view. Wouldn't you say that this is a true sign of the true propagandist? Exp and Px are no match for you, maxwell or even Ian; I would also add fq and kb. They have too much emotion and will thus lose in any exchanges between you and them. They wear their hearts on their sleeves.

Whereas you and your gang use rationality and articulation to win over your debates. Even though the subject is it is presented in a one-sided manner filled with bias, distortions, and spin - the 'presentation' is a winner. That’s why you want ‘debates’ and not discussions and conversation.

But I don't buy into it and I can see through your disguises and underLYING presentations. You take the high road and make pre-emptive attacks to keep your detractors on the back foot and on the defensive.

But I must say you guys are good! Too bad you’re cheering on the wrong side of morality, honesty, and integrity.

And at the end of the day it's a 'Thai thing' pure and simple. All your rethoric and illusions will not change that and your violent evolution will hopefully not come to pass and that we Thais will be able to overcome the manipulations and propaganda from the reds, the puea thai party, thaksin and the foreigh carriers of facts and truths couched in subtle disregard for the truth.
comment 82
Ian date : 19/09/2009 time : 07.54
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

ND, you are truly yellow in the way you handle a debate, and might I suggest in both meanings of that word. First you try to wriggle out of it, then when that fails you resort to misquotes and lies, finally when all else fails you fall back on the hackneyed accusation that Felix has revealed himself to be a red. This is pathetic, it is your catchall response when you start to intellectually flounder, it puts you in the same category as Expresso and Peacefulness, non thinkers who hide behind personal abuse and vulgarity.
comment 81
FelixQui date : 19/09/2009 time : 01.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.80,
So you do agree that the correct and incorrect inferences are obvious when so stated?
That is, that your inference is obviously wrong, and my intended meaning is a correct inference?

Would you like to suggest a better way of conducting a survey, rather than making it a TOEFL sort of question?
What is your problem with TOEFL like questions? Do you now think that TOEFL must fail to fairly assess a test taker's command of English and critical thinking skills?
comment 80
notdisappointed date : 19/09/2009 time : 01.16


fq, I dodn't make the statements and then make up the snwers for them for others to choose. that was a good more. Most willful and deceptive in its subtlety. Moveing along that thaksin has no need to buy popularity fq, now doesn't need Thanong's blog.

It's easier to manipulate and distort on his own blog. Looking for dishonesty, wilful subversion, and outright distortions looko no further then the new and improved fq blogs!!

All coincidentaly done to celebrate the anniversary of the ouster of his hero and paymaster thaksin the serila liar.
comment 79
FelixQui date : 19/09/2009 time : 00.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re.c77 again,
By the way, you have proven yourself an outright liar in c.77.
There is nothing I have ever written any where, here or on any other blog or other place, that could possibly allow any rational and honest person to infer that I think "that thaksin is clean and pure as the driven snow." If you think I'm wrong and that my statements somewhere do "suggest that thaksin is clean and pure as the driven snow," then present your evidence and I will apologise. Until then, you are a liar and a deliberate distorter of what people say.

If you were writing c.77 in heat and got carried away, I suggest you retract, apologise and calm down a little.
comment 78
FelixQui date : 19/09/2009 time : 00.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.77,
Your comments in c.77 cannot be seen as anytihg but wilful, knowing and deliberate dishonesty.

You based your false inference in c.37 on what Ian and I wrote in c.25 and c.27 respectively. c.25 and c.27 are the only relevant context needed to test what inferences will in fact be made by honest readers.

Your false inference, for which I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was based on a failure to understand my English, is option A. in the list. My actual inference is option C. Both of these alternatives need to be in the list of possible answers. I added a couple of others to round it out to four choices.

Doing teh survey exactly as I have outlined is a perfectly reasonable way of finding out which inference an educated English user who can think critically would choose based on the two text that under dispute.

Why do think there is something wrong with conducting the survey exactly as I have outlined?

I think you now realise, in fact, I think you have realised all along, that you were wrong and you now want to avoid the risk of independent verification.

I notice you have also told at least one outright lie on my blog, "Coup leaders: Where are they? Where should they be?", along with further false, unfounded and deliberately deceitful "inferences", but I will address those there.

I suggest you take a leaf out of Krajog's book. He obviously does not like some of the points I make, but either presents his case without deliberately distorting what I've said, or he lets somethng pass if he is uncomfortable or otherwise does not with to pursue it. Despite our strong disagreements, I cannot imagine that i would ever have cause to call Krajog either a liar or a wilful deceiver.
comment 77
notdisappointed date : 19/09/2009 time : 00.08


Great you make the implications then you make the answers. OH OK; that seems logical and fair.

Choose of only these four answers and tell us if fq has or has not inferred that “that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.”

Don't dance away from my comments by going along a different tack. My comments is clear enough for me. Just as your commnets are clear enough for you to distort, manipulate, and to suggest that thaksin is clean and pure as the driven snow.

Right we all believe that don't we? od course we do fq says so ands he's able to site a foreign economist study of the U'S. elections. Oh Yeah thta makes sense. An economist; how fitting. Maybe next time you'll have an opthalmic surgeon doing open-heart surgery.
comment 76
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 23.57


yeah, yeah, yeah, like the Beatles do you?

Just another apologist for thaksin and his hoodlums.

Making denials for him and his crew. Another thaksin lover found out on the Nation webblog. Didn't take that long to smoke you out of your rat-hole.

just do what pj and maxwell and hermione do; 'come out' and be a man about it. Don't try to deceive the readers that you are unbiased and neutral. Trying to have a dialgue with you is fruitless because you use every word game in the book to justify your distortions and deceits.

Once the whistle is blown then others here will know you for what you are. Just another farang scoundel who uses words to show care and concern for Thialand while make accusations and insinuations and distortions and IMPLICATIONS.
comment 75
FelixQui date : 18/09/2009 time : 22.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Oh, ND, one more thing.
If you don't want to take my word for it that the meaning of my c.27 is clear; also, what can and cannot be reasonably inferred from it, I suggest you actually do the survey I suggested. Try it and see.

First, just ask respondents, people who achieved a high TOEFL score or who are university educated native speakers, to read both Ian's c.25 and my full c.27. Don't tell anything else, just let them read the both c.25 and c.27 in their entirety. Those are the two comments that began the problem.

Next, give them the list of four options, A, B, C, and D, and ask them which can reasonably be inferred from all of my c.27.
I am confident that all or most of your respondents will correctly choose C. as the only correct answer. They will not follow you in choosing A.
In fact, I think I'll do the same thing, just in case I am wrong and the comment was much more difficult to understand than I thought.
And if other readers would like to do the same, please feel welcome, and let us know the results.

_______________

I'll paste them all in here for convenience and so that we are both using exactly the same texts and instructions for respondents. Passage 1. is Ian's c.25. Passage 2. is my c.27.
_______________________

First.
Please read the following two passages by different authors:
1.
Let me respond in a rather round about way. Can we start from the premise that even though mostly uneducated, the average Thai is not stupid.
In my village there was a recent election for "Village Boss", the incumbent walked around and spoke to people, his rival spent money on lavish entertainment. Every day, dozens would gather and partake of the free food and drink that this rival offered. Yet come election day, and 30,000 Baht poorer this rival lost out by a large majority to the incumbent.
What I am saying is that I do not believe that you can buy a Thai's soul simply with money, there has to be an ideology also.
Thaksin has money, the Reds use his money, but if his money ceased I do not think the Reds would also cease.
i have yet to meet a Thai who would reject the offer of money, why reject Thaksin's?
Thaksin is not the richest man in Thailand, I think Forbes lists 6 others who are richer. If Thaksin's money was the sole driving force behind the red movement then his supporters could simply be bought out from under his feet, just like Newin was.
Thaksin did not create the Red movement, it created itself, Thaksin's financial support was simply a bonus, just as other ultra rich were a bonus to the PAD movement.
I accept that money plays an important role in this conflict, but do no over emphasis it, ideology is the major factor.

2.
The economist Steven Levitt has also written a paper where he carefully analyses, with a wholesome abundance of statistics, the effect of money on elections in the US. His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false.
Your experience in the village election bears out the same thing.
If it were a simple matter of equating money with political influence, the Forbes guide you cited would tell us exactly who is best situated to be manipulating Thai politics, and it sure ain't Taksin any more. Those who simple-mindedly repeat the falsehood that all of Taksin's support comes from his money, with not a shred of support for their persistent mantra, are fooling themselves, and such wilful self-deceit is unlikely to prove healthy. The fact is that Taksin really is and has been popular for a long time now. And he was once also the darling of Chamlong and Bangkok - perhaps the "money buys them cheap" mob think that Taksin didn't offer them enough money?

And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.
___________________

Now.
Which of the following can be inferred about the author of passage #2:
A. The author believes that vote buying does not occur in elections.
B. The author believes that vote buying is one way of using money to win an election.
C. The author believes that spending the most money on contesting an election does not guarantee winning.
D. The author believes that advertising does not occur in elections.

The correct answer is ...
comment 74
FelixQui date : 18/09/2009 time : 22.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND,
Don't worry. I'm now prepared to make a much stronger claim than the one I made in c.27.
As my more recent post makes clear (I hope), there are no good grounds for believing that Taksin won elections by vote buying, or that his political heirs repeatedly won as a result of vote buying, or that the Thai electorate is so stupid and easy to buy, or that Taksin's enduring popularity with many is crudely bought. But I have NOT said or implied there that he is not in fact spending a lot of money to stir things up and try to manipulate public opinion. Please don't jump to conclusions and get any more TOEFL questions wrong.

See "Vote Buying: Encouraging political news from the masses" at http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui/2009/09/17/entry-1
comment 73
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 22.02


Oh fq? One more thing. And because of my confusion I read your comments as implying maybe something that you didn't write for others to read but for yourself. And that's why I said you should write in a way for the reader to have a clear understanding and not to understand what you yourself understands.

You asid that you personally felt that you didin't say such or implied such. All's I did was to say that IMHO your writing does give readers room for double meanings. Know what I mean?
comment 72
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 21.55


Yep, when you’re right you’re right fq re. c70/71 concerning your c 27. (was it that many comments ago already with the confusion still hanging around?)

Yep, I didn’t try to deceive but was made confused by the stitching together of your words, sentences and paragraphs to confuse the thoughts of the readers. I was confused whether you meant that:
votes are not bought or;
bought votes are not a factor for his popularity or;
or that wanted to make a subtle attack against thaksin’s detractors who accuse him of vote buying, by saying that his popularity isn’t necessarily bought. Let me in your words explain why how your writing was confusion:

Firstly, your introduction cited, 1. a ‘foreign’, and 2. who is an ‘economist’ who has analyzed that for the U.S. concluding that: “His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false.” It cannot be proven that money cannot buy an election in Thailand. Therefore this citation of a foreign economist whose study is focused on the economics not the dirty politics. To cite this as an example with respect to Thailand’s election environment is as I said, is like comparing apples and oranges.

In your second paragraph you then, using the citation of a foreign economist, knowingly and intentionally to denigrate those people who believe that thaksin had in fact bought the election by saying that his popularity, citing again this foreigner. That you did not allow that he may have done this initially through the actual buying votes, manipulating Thai politics with his marketing gimmicks and advertising, ‘buying’ through incentives and power sharing smaller political parties, and then with his ill-conceived ‘populist handouts.

This was confusing. Did you use the foreigner to support your contention that thaksin had no need to or did not buy votes; or did you mean that he had no need to buy his popularity? The confusion is that the foreigner talks about vote buying in an election, but you talk about popularity in the absence of vote buying. Confusing huh?

Your final paragraph strongly supports your contention that: “the common falsehood that money buys elections” - means that money does not buy elections. So therefore since money does not buy elections; “that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.” The cherished falsehood being that thaksin bought his popularity through elections; because he didn’t buy his continuing popularity. This is another attempt to cite the past actions with the recent events. You again failed to allow that, although he’s seen to be popular with some segments of the population; that it’s due to his financing of the red mobs, and that he has organized and orchestrated their agitation through his nominees, or that although no evidentiary proof, that he has ‘bought’ their involvement every demonstrations and mob action.

Are we talking about buying elections or are we talking about buying popularity?

“And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.”

Perhaps doesn't need a high TOEFL score or better comprehension to manuever through your ambiguities; it just needs a like-minded 'red minded thaksin lover to understand what you wnted to say; I guess.

So that's why I'm confused.

If you want me to explain further; maybe I can find another way to do so.

And please be aware that I have never called you a liar only that your prose leads to a distortion of your intent.
comment 71
FelixQui date : 18/09/2009 time : 16.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND,
OK, I concede that you did not lie and I apologise for my mistake in thinking that you had tried to deceive when the truth was that you had completely failed to understand my clear English in c.27 and all of my subsequent clarifications.

The TOEFL candidate survey I suggested at the end of my c.70 will confirm this for you.
comment 70
FelixQui date : 18/09/2009 time : 16.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND,
In c.45 I wrote: "Neither Ian nor my self have EVER said or implied that there was not and is not vote buying in Thai elections."
This definitely means (directly implies) that I believe that both Ian and I most definitely DO think that there is now and has been in the past vote buying in Thailand. Ian's example related in his c.25 details an example of vote buying - one that failed, but vote buying nonetheless. That is one reason why I was confident enough to include Ian with myself in the c.45 quote above.

It should have been perfectly clear from that point on that both Ian and I really do that think that there is vote buying in Thailand, that it has occurred in the past and that it still occurs today.

What I objected to as dishonest on your part was where you wrote in c.37: "Every Thai and foreign blogger who believes fq’s and Ean’s is correct that there is NO vote buying in Thailand; please raise your hands," which is both false and does not follow at all from my comments about Levitt or anything else in c.27 or elsewhere. The most that could be seen as implied from my comments in c.27 is that in a well run election, vote buying is unlikely to make a significant difference, not that vote buying does not occur. No reasonable command of English and basic critical thinking allows the latter to be inferred from my statements: "His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false." and "the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal." Neither of these entail or imply that there was not vote buying going on, or that I did not believe that there was vote buying going on. The most that they imply is that any vote buying that did occur was unlikely to have had any significant impact on the outcome of the elections, which is a far cry from your claim that I was denying the existence of vote buying.

As I pointed out in c.53, I wasn't even explicitly talking about vote buying! It was all in your head until you wrote it down in a comment and then published it.

In case you still have doubts as to my command of English, you might like to conduct a survey. Ask a few people who have done well in TOEFL:
What can we infer from the following statement: 'His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false.'
A. Teh author believes that vote buying does not occur in elections.
B. The author believes that vote buying is one way of using money to win an election.
C. The author believes that spending the most money on contesting an election does not guarantee winning.
D. The author believes that advertising does not occur in elections.

The correct answer is ...

Hint: As you can see, A. (what you claim is implied) is logically equivalent to D. Do you really want to argue that you could reasonably infer from my statements in c.27 that I don't believe that people advertise in election campaigns?
comment 69
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 13.01


fq c27 : “And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.”

The first part of your statement: “And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections” – therefore it is an implied ‘common falsehood’ as backed-up per your quote of Levitt, “His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false.”

The second part of your implication: “and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.” This seeks to say that thaksin’s popularity is not the result of in your words: “And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections”.

So what is it you’re trying to imply here fq?

You begin your post with a quote from Levitt and then you end your post with the “common falsehood that money buys elections”. The structure and wording of your sentence:
“And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.”

It would lead to the implication that no votes are bought in Thailand and that thaksin has no need to buy votes to have become so popular. But have you ever said that thaksin never bought votes or that thaksin doesn’t need to buy votes to be popular?

You wrote it I just read it.

Have I called you a liar? NO.

But what I have said and that by way in which it is written, by its IMPLICATION may lead to distortions of facts.

You yourself cannot show evidence that thaksin has never bought votes; has never financed the reds; has never manipulated and managed the media and naïve to his own ends.

Don’t get mad at me for what you wrote.

Maybe you should think before you write and structure your sentence that won’t lead to IMPLICATIONS.
comment 68
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 12.41


I am not trying to pick a fight with you fq. And I feel that my English comprehension is at your level or perhaps a bit better.

So fq please don't try to dance your way out of this.

I'm just suggesting that per your statement: "“Neither Ian nor my self have EVER said or implied that there was not and is not vote buying in Thai elections.”

That you have made the 'implication' and have 'implied' that is the case per your statement.

I focus on the word IMPLICATION/IMPLY. I did not say you were aliar. But Ionly said that the way you stated you opinion would lead to the implication that votes are not bought in Thailand or that thaksin did not need to buy votes.

There is no proof on your part either way. I am not trying whatsoever to disaociate myself from my opinion that your posts on the many further implys that you believe that thaksin didn't ever buy votes.

So did he ever buy votes or not is the question? Don't dance your way out of it by saying BUt But BUt everybody else does it.

Your post concerns thaksin: Did he ever buy votes?

Yes or No?
comment 67
FelixQui date : 18/09/2009 time : 09.01
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.64 & 5,
Why keep digging your hole of deceit deeper? It would be simpler and more honest to have admitted at c.49 that you were wrong and naughty.

This time you wrote: "Oh I must be wrong that Levitt's analysis does not support that money buys elections. Would it not imply that money doesn't buy votes?"

Yes, Levitt's analysis does support the idea "that money doesn't buy votes". The trouble is, that's what Ian and I said, it is not your lie that we had claimed that there were no efforts to vote buying in Thailand. We claimed, rightly, that vote buying was not the reason that Taksin was repeatedly elected, that vote buying was not the reason his political heirs were repeatedly elected, that vote buying has not been and is not the reason for his continuing popularity. You said we claimed that there was no vote buying, and that is where you bacame a liar, you have since compounded your deceit and continue to do so. Such persistent deceitfulness can only cast doubts on your integrity in general.
comment 66
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 08.33


"His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false. "

Oh I must be wrong that Levitt's analysis does not support that money buys elections. Would it not imply that money doesn't buy votes?
comment 65
notdisappointed date : 18/09/2009 time : 08.33


"His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false. "

Oh I must be wrong that Levitt's analysis does not support that money buys elections. Would it not imply that money doesn't buy votes?
comment 64
FelixQui date : 17/09/2009 time : 18.52
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

bzzzzzBee, re c.62,
I agree.
This issue seemed to me to deserve it's own blog and discussion, and since some very useful facts have just today become available, I've written a blog specifically on the issue of Vote Buying, in which I also cite this blog by Thanong as a source.
"Vote Buying: Encouraging political news from the masses" is at http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui/2009/09/17/entry-1
comment 63
SARDINES date : 17/09/2009 time : 14.27

bzzzbee c62: Yes you are right, can you please explain with some examples of what you had in mind?
comment 62
bzzzzzBee date : 17/09/2009 time : 12.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/beehive

vote buying does not necessarily always equate or relate to votes "bought" with cash.
comment 61
dryshrimp date : 17/09/2009 time : 05.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

re c 59, janus


comment 60
noonin date : 16/09/2009 time : 19.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/noonin

I am a FARANG!

I am super rich.

So they think!
comment 59
janus date : 16/09/2009 time : 19.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mi58

I say it again and again and again.
Thai respect wealth; they do not care where the wealth came from.
Big house, flash car,status from connections and being RICH, RICH, RICH.

Buy your way into the aristocracy.

Ian(Ewan) was correct when he stated a simplified version of history; I stated it long ago, perhaps few read or remember; Thailand is in the same stage of development as Victorian Britain.

Gladstone, the son of a successful entrepreneur,using politics to join the ranks of the approved aristocrats.
Disraeli the charming eloquent Jew, who broke through, climbed the greasy pole, and won the love of Queen Victoria.

A man of conscience though, and contrary to all expectations, a Tory.
Britain's Obama!

Taksin does not come near.
comment 58
SARDINES date : 16/09/2009 time : 18.46

hi all,

I agree that there was probably plenty of "VOTE BUYING" by ALL the parties. The Dems just as guilty as the PT.

But in saying this, also believe that there was very LITTLE of "vote SELLING". What I believe that the folks in the South, North and Northeast did was pretty much take the money (thank you very much from both sides) and just went ahead and voted for whom they wish to vote for.

Looks to me more of the "less" educated might be more intelligent than some the "more" educated at times.
comment 57
HA_HA date : 16/09/2009 time : 16.53

c56.. "Taksin was elected because he was popular, and that he genuinely remains popular."

THAKSIN BUYS VOTE AND THAKSIN IS CORRUPT is the convinient reasons for the coup.

Exactly. it's his popularity that scare the shXt of some people because they too couldn't figure out how? and why? ...

Why didn't we attain such popularity despite our present in Thailand politics scene for seven decades VS Thaksin for less than one decades?
...The Democart should ask themselves and figure it out. It might help them to win. 555


I would like to give you 100 points for the comment, mr. felix qui


comment 56
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

But getting back to the issue: although there were doubtless traditional efforts to buy votes, probably on both sides, there is no evidence to suggest that it was on a very massive scale. There is certainly no substantiation to support the reckless opinion that Taksin won because he bought votes.
What is more likely is that Taksin, like everyone, did spend a lot of money on the elections; however, as dryshrimp's and Ian's examples, and Levitt's analyses suggest, it is simplistic and most likely false to say that Taksin bought the elections with money. At the very least, before so offensively insulting a majority of the Thai people, any such assertion needs some solid support.
You and all the others who simple-mindedly assume that most Thai people can be and were so cheaply bought do so because it most conveniently explains away the inconvenient fact that Taksin was elected because he was popular, and that he genuinely remains popular.

As I've repeatedly stated, I don't think the he deserves this popularity, but pretending it is not sincere is wilful self-delusion, and deeply insulting to the intelligence and character of the majority of the Thai people. And no sound support for such an ugly opinion has ever been presented.
comment 55
HA_HA date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.48

knock knock
who' there?
....
.... who
.... the richest man in Thailand.



Who should be blamed for making the word "richest" so filthy, Thaksin or Sondhi Lim who accused him? Now nobody wants to be known as the richest man in Thailand ... so who is?

ummm.... may be CP or Red Bull ???


comment 54
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.47
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.49
Further, if you read my first paragraph in c.27: "The economist Steven Levitt has also written a paper where he carefully analyses, with a wholesome abundance of statistics, the effect of money on elections in the US. His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false. " It is perfectly clear that I am discussing not vote buying but the effect of money on electoral success.
You are guilty not only of active distortion, but of selective quotation to seek to seriously change the clear meaning of your source, my c.27, and like your distortion, this is very naughty of you.

To make it worse, in c.49, you quote in full my concluding sentence where I clearly state my main idea: "And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal."
Not once in c.27 did I explicitly mention vote buying. There is one implied reference, where I refer to ian's example and write that "Your experience in the village election bears out the same thing." The whole point of which is that the vote buying in Ian's example just that: an example of one way that money is commonly believed to influence electoral outcomes. Again, it is clear that understanding this sentence entails recognising that there is a distinction between vote buying and the effect of money on elections which I was discussing in c.27.
My c.46 response to dryshrimp's c.44 explicitly recognises that as another example, and in that one the example she gives is not about vote buying at all but about the quantity of money used in an election campaign.
comment 53
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.30
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.49
You wrote: "The way you posted this statement would lead one to believe or IMPLY that there is no vote buying."
No, only someoneintent on wilfully DISTORTING the meaning could have falsely read this meaning into my words: "And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal."
My words do not even mention vote buying!

Your attempt to extricate yourself from an exposed lie has merely shown you adding further distortions and falsehoods to your documented deceitfulness.

The only honourable explanation is that you completely misunderstood the English, but your English is very good, and you have clearly looked very carefully at exactly what I wrote in c.27, which unfortunately leaves us with the less honourable conclusion.
comment 52
notdisappointed date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.19


Ean there you go again misunderstand me. SS as in the Secret Service or whatever that hermione gives you credit for. I just used the initials.

What were you thinking?
comment 51
Ian date : 16/09/2009 time : 15.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

ND, 49. I think you are confused, it is your mindset which is modeled on the fascist SS ideals, not mine.
Perhaps if you could mentally dance as well as I can you would understand the absurdity of many of your statements.
Let me simplify my English for you as you seem unable to understand much that is written.
Money undoubtedly has a role in securing votes.
However, money will not make someone vote against their own interests, unless, they are either stupid or undecided anyway.
Most people will vote for the ideology they favour, a small minority may be bought.
Vote buying only has significance when results hang by a thread.
comment 50
Ian date : 16/09/2009 time : 14.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Dryshrimp, 44. When it is money versus money, then as you said using it creatively can give you the edge. Thaksin is not the richest man in Thailand, but he uses his money creatively and with flair. Something his enemies cannot emulate.
comment 49
notdisappointed date : 16/09/2009 time : 14.23


Responding to fq’s c45; “Neither Ian nor my self have EVER said or implied that there was not and is not vote buying in Thai elections.”

fq’s c27 “And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.” How should we read an opinion with regard to this statement; “that a common falsehood that money buys elections”. The way you posted this statement would lead one to believe or IMPLY that there is no vote buying. If that was not how you meant it then you should have put a little more thought into your statement before posting it unless you meant for it to lead or distort the views of the readers. When you preface your posting with a quote from some journalist sets the stage for your implications. Don’t forget the wise sayings of the master himself, Maxwell – “This is a common fascist tactic used in arguments - mislead the other by pointing out non-existant facts pretending to 'quote' or it to be 'commonly estalished'."

Ean c.25, because of his time spent in the SS, simply has better footwork in dancing around the issue than fq does with his; “What I am saying is that I do not believe that you can buy a Thai's soul simply with money, there has to be an ideology also.” An Ean-ist masterpiece in its implications.

Both statements; the former does IMPLY a viewpoint while the latter leads one to understand in one village no vote buying that’s place therefore it’s ideology not money that affect the outcome of a vote.

That’s my read of your statements anyways. And I do have the right to read it as I see it or I may have bveen confused by your prosaic prose. Thus it upon you rather, to write in a way that will make your views more understandable and not to confuse the reader.

All all's I said is who believes that their is no vote buying in Thailand? Was that question out of line?

And to think that I thought we had come to an understanding in the way we discuss matters.
comment 48
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 14.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re your lies in c.37
I mistakenly referred to my c.27 as c.37.
Your lies intended to wilfully distort and deceive are in your c.37.
Your lies and distortions are referring to my c.27.

We await with interest your explanation of your lies, which are, as you correctly noted in c.37, quoting Max, "a common fascist tactic used in arguments".
comment 47
HA_HA date : 16/09/2009 time : 11.29

c44, yes k. dryshrimp, i remember that fever..and then the May 1993 fever, and PAD (before 19/9) fever... time changes, situations change, all kind of fevers come and go. Thailand will have another fevers as we Thais are short of memory.

So why don't let things happen as it is. If the Yellow is fear of Thaksin. Thaksin too will come and go. Let the system run without messing it. Let people choose.

People might want Chamlong again. He can join the election under democracy system.


comment 46
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 10.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

dryshrimp, re c.44,
Thank you for providing another example to support the point that Ian and I were making against ND's false presumption about the basis of Taksin's previous and continuing popularity.
comment 45
FelixQui date : 16/09/2009 time : 10.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.37,
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

You wrote: "Every Thai and foreign blogger who believes fq’s and Ean’s is correct that there is NO vote buying in Thailand; please raise your hands. This is what is called “denial” and distortion."

Only your last sentence here is true: it is lying and distortion, and that is exactly what you have done in your c.37. Neither Ian nor my self have EVER said or implied that there was not and is not vote buying in Thai elections. Nor did I say either that vote buying did not occur in US elections or that money was not important in elections both here and in the US.

Would you care to explain your lying and wilful distortion of what I have said in my c.37 below on the question of vote buying in Thailand and elsewhere?
comment 44
dryshrimp date : 16/09/2009 time : 10.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

Chamlong campaign at that time spent less money than his competitors but achieved more reach and was very creative and impactful, Ian.
..
You had not lived here yet, am I right?
comment 43
Ian date : 16/09/2009 time : 09.53
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Money and politics are twins, always have been always will be. The only differences between nations is the manner in which the twins work together. In the developed world it is by advertising campaigns (propaganda), rallies, parties and political tours, all helped by affiliated sections of the media.
In the developing world the approach is simply more basic, forget all the above, simply give the money directly to the voting public.
comment 42
dryshrimp date : 16/09/2009 time : 08.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

Khun Ha_ha,

You seem very hot.
comment 41
HA_HA date : 16/09/2009 time : 08.17

c40 k. dryshrimp :

yea the yellows always shouting THAKSIN BUY VOTE E E E E E , THAKSIN CORRUPTION N N N N N ..how about other? do you think democrat or others don't?

Anyway, what i want to say here is we have the Election Commission whatever (¡¡µ.) to monitor the election and the Anti-Corrupiton whatever (»»ª) to handle the corruption. What Yellows are stepping on their faces then and also the justice system of the country.

And now with Nevin hugging with AV (yes, what did ¡¡µ. do with Never which has been banned)? And perhaps Nevin can buy vote to set up the government with AV again.

Yes, why don't we have election now? I don't care if your democrat win. I only care about election. Let the people choose.



ps. Other comment don't be hurt (noi jai) that i didn't comment on you I just haven't read yet. This including k. thanong main topic too. will come back later if there's nothing fun to do
comment 40
dryshrimp date : 16/09/2009 time : 06.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

It's a pity that some Thai citizens in some areas are defeated by vote buyers.
Integrity after weighing with greed or poverty seems diluted.
Otherwise we would know who really win the election.
Just like the Bangkok Governor's election during Chamlong Srimuang and the Democrat competitor.
Chamlong campaign was very strong.
His wave of popularity pushed the qualified Democrat to the second.
comment 39
notdisappointed date : 16/09/2009 time : 04.03

stal with respect to your last paragraph; it ain't gonna happen. The red leaders are targeted as being the first ones to be hussled onto police vans and charged with a criminal offense under the ISA if even a loud sneezing occurs from the reds.

This attempt at mob intimidation on the 19th will turn out to be basically an E.D. Limp and useless as are the red as a civil 'public' cause representing the disaffected. The only people who would believe this are the farangs who cheer the underdog nominees of thaksin's.
comment 38
stalingrad date : 16/09/2009 time : 00.38
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

The consensus in these last few days is that a coup is very unlikely, because no justification for those in a position to do so; they have what they want and no one wants to rock the boat and risk losing what they have. Also, no military leaders want to be hounded by the people for upsetting the economic recovery perceived to be-- and actually is--underway; all econ indicators such as new orders etc. point to it. Moreover, the tourism sector is rebounding, with bookings coming in, and you'll have some very angry businessmen if a coup happens.

Similarly, the red shirts, if they provoke a disturbance with fires burning, shots fired, streets blocked, will incur a lot of wrath from the people. It will set back their movement and the cause of Thaksin for months and maybe years (red shirts are identified with Thaksin, internationally). The planned demo in front of Gen. Prem's house is pointless, infantile, and is actually playing into the hands of the Democrat. It leads one to think that the red strategist who planned this is secretly under the pay of the "Amataya", unless there is a hidden motive here.

So vigilance is seen as necessary because if a situation is manufactured and the government fails to control it like at Pattaya, it will definitely lose its legitimacy to rule and have to resign. Those whose interests have been adversely affected by Apisit in these last months may manufacture such disorder, and they achieve 2 things: 1. Resignation of the government for having failed to assure law and order a second time 2. Perhaps drawing in the military to seize control in the name of law and order, but not calling it a coup. With a new set of leaders, it would be easier for the perpetrators to insert themselves into the new government structure and work to further the interests of those adversely affected by the Democrat's policies in the last 9 months.
comment 37
notdisappointed date : 15/09/2009 time : 21.52


How nice or fq and Ean to be comparing apple and oranges to persuade us to believe that money and politics and the although less recorded evidence of vote buying does not take place in Thailand!! Every Thai and foreign blogger who believes fq’s and Ean’s is correct that there is NO vote buying in Thailand; please raise your hands.

This is what is called “denial” and distortion. To quote maxwell: "This is a common fascist tactic used in arguments - mislead the other by pointing out non-existant facts pretending to 'quote' or it to be 'commonly estalished'."

The quote by an American analyst that we should believe that in the U.S.'s 21st Century mature electorate can be compare and used as evidence that vote buying is a false belief and thus is not the case in Thailand. Or that a village just 30 kilometers from Bangkok, is a true example for say a village in Udon or Sukhothai. Oh yeah! I’m convinced – NOT!!
comment 36
Plaadip date : 15/09/2009 time : 20.58

Felix, C27, I think that Thaksin bought local politicians and their henchmen at village level. The money they delivered just before election is just a symbolic one. If he gives more money, villagers will feel he takes more care of them, or more bluntly putting it, they feel how much powerful he is, and think that he is different from other politicians. I think this is a factor that made Thaksin win the elections.
comment 35
notdisappointed date : 15/09/2009 time : 20.17


There is one concern I have. I just found out that HMK will be checking into Siriraj Hospital tonight for his annual check-up and will be in hospital unitl this Saturday. I hope and pray that there is no violence on Saturday, and that the red demonstration is not their usual violent mob scene.
comment 34
janus date : 15/09/2009 time : 19.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mi58

I suspect many criminals have more money than those on Forbes' list! No not money , assets.

Thai respect wealth, they do not care how the wealth was acquired.

A ignorant farang in Pattaya, with a bar and money is respected!

The chief of police , who has great wealth, well beyond his salary is respected.

Chalerm became a billionaire as a police officer, is respected.
Thaiksin gained a monopoly of telecommunications, as a police officer, is respected.
This list could include all those who have power in Thailand.
Respect them!
comment 33
janus date : 15/09/2009 time : 19.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mi58

As fo Forbes and money, money declared or hidden assets?
comment 32
janus date : 15/09/2009 time : 19.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mi58

Comment 21

When you quote George Orwell, please state your source!
comment 31
Thann26 date : 15/09/2009 time : 18.44

My gut feeling tells me something bad is going to happen. First, this is going to be the last chance of Thaksin and the Red Shirts. And he has cancer. Second, the day is an event day - a 3rd anniversary of the coup as well as the day that both Thaksin and his nominee Somchai got kicked out. So a revenge there. Then the dispute between Abhisit and the police and the two brothers...will surely make it worse. Just too much mess. !!!
comment 30
Ian date : 15/09/2009 time : 15.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

peacefulness 29. Congratulations, a new picture
comment 29
peacefulness date : 15/09/2009 time : 11.04
nationmultimedia.com


Khun Dryshrimp C26-- the three bottle-headed stooges(ÊÒÁà¡ÅÍËÑǢǴ) veera/jatuporn/natawut and the redshirts supporters (most of them are our innocent, less educated , less informed fellow grassroot folks), are now running out of "gimmicks" after petition for royal pardon on 17aug09, most probably it will be treated as "NULL and VOID" at the end, so now the redshirts will re-start the "vicious circle" again by rallying in front the gen. prem's sisaothevej residence on 19sep09 saturday which seems to be pointless .......... as u mentioned in your C26 "The fish is struggling for the last breath"

pics, fish ready tobe cooked for grilled fish, roast fish, sweet and sour fish, or even japanese raw fish, assorted fish and so on..............
comment 28
peacefulness date : 15/09/2009 time : 10.35
nationmultimedia.com


khun dryshrimp c19/26-- pls ref my comment on stalingrad's blog "The next phase in the political conflict (2-3 months)"

Qte

comment 15
peacefulness date : 06/09/2009 time : 17.24
nationmultimedia.com



thailand next few months.........until next yr 2010

just stay put nothing will happen. the stupid idiot redshirts stooges and their supporters may create some small commotions in front of privy council president Prem's residence on 19sep09 saturday and disperse on the early hrs of 20sep09 sunday and go home.


THAT IS ALL, EASY AND SIMPLE.
Unqte

pics, the final hours of the redshirts........
comment 27
FelixQui date : 15/09/2009 time : 09.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Ian, re c.25,
The economist Steven Levitt has also written a paper where he carefully analyses, with a wholesome abundance of statistics, the effect of money on elections in the US. His strongly supported conclusion is that the commonly held belief that money buys elections is, like so many commonly held beliefs, false.
Your experience in the village election bears out the same thing.
If it were a simple matter of equating money with political influence, the Forbes guide you cited would tell us exactly who is best situated to be manipulating Thai politics, and it sure ain't Taksin any more. Those who simple-mindedly repeat the falsehood that all of Taksin's support comes from his money, with not a shred of support for their persistent mantra, are fooling themselves, and such wilful self-deceit is unlikely to prove healthy. The fact is that Taksin really is and has been popular for a long time now. And he was once also the darling of Chamlong and Bangkok - perhaps the "money buys them cheap" mob think that Taksin didn't offer them enough money?

And of course, the common falsehood that money buys elections and that that is why Taksin has been and remains so popular is not the only cherished falsehood still breathing noxious fumes of ignorance over the public weal.
comment 26
dryshrimp date : 15/09/2009 time : 08.54
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

K. Peacefulness,

I'm not worried. The fish is struggling for the last breath, I guess.
comment 25
Ian date : 15/09/2009 time : 08.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

ND, 23. Let me respond in a rather round about way. Can we start from the premise that even though mostly uneducated, the average Thai is not stupid.
In my village there was a recent election for "Village Boss", the incumbent walked around and spoke to people, his rival spent money on lavish entertainment. Every day, dozens would gather and partake of the free food and drink that this rival offered. Yet come election day, and 30,000 Baht poorer this rival lost out by a large majority to the incumbent.
What I am saying is that I do not believe that you can buy a Thai's soul simply with money, there has to be an ideology also.
Thaksin has money, the Reds use his money, but if his money ceased I do not think the Reds would also cease.
i have yet to meet a Thai who would reject the offer of money, why reject Thaksin's?
Thaksin is not the richest man in Thailand, I think Forbes lists 6 others who are richer. If Thaksin's money was the sole driving force behind the red movement then his supporters could simply be bought out from under his feet, just like Newin was.
Thaksin did not create the Red movement, it created itself, Thaksin's financial support was simply a bonus, just as other ultra rich were a bonus to the PAD movement.
I accept that money plays an important role in this conflict, but do no over emphasis it, ideology is the major factor.
comment 24
FelixQui date : 15/09/2009 time : 07.37
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

ND, re c.23,
You wrote of me that "it's a qeustion of one man's undue influence and your denial of it".
Where have I ever made or implied any such denial?
I recall saying here on several occasions that Taksin is able to exert immmense influence and manipulate because of LM laws and other factors, but I don't recall EVER denying that he was influential and manipulative.

I presume you can back up the claim you made in c.23.
comment 23
notdisappointed date : 15/09/2009 time : 03.37


fq, I’ll answer your c1 if you don't mind.

If the reds disassociates themselves from thaksin, all his henchmen who lead them, thaksin’s money, and his puea thai party then I will listen and support their, which are universal demands, for a fairer and more equitable country for all Thais.

It's not a question of color per se; it's a qeustion of one man's undue influence and your denial of it. Dialogue as I have shown on maxwell's and eo's blogs can be achieved if we take out the 'spoiler' or 'joker in the deck'.
comment 22
yabua date : 15/09/2009 time : 03.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yabua

Yuri, may I have a say here, please?
I think it is just human that everyone wants to have a good life. I believe that those who have had it already will try to remain in their place and why not?
Those who are not satisfied with what they have, if they can, they will try to have a better one. They may not be successful in their generation but they usually hope that their children would be luckier.

This is valid for everyone, no matter from the high, middle or the working class.
And that is fair enough as long as people try to remain where they are or try to have a better standard of life by making their ways according to the law and morality, as long as they keep in mind that their personal gain must go in line with the public interest.

It is absurd to conclude that those born with more luck must be bad people and those with the humble origin must be good.
There are good and bad, kind and cruel, sacrificing and exploiting people in every level of society.

I don´t support changes which are the products of prejudice, jealousy and hatred.
I have never been poor and I have never been rich. I admire anyone who leads a valuable life, regardless of his wealth or poverty. I always try to help anyone who needs support if he deserves it. Above all, I don´t have envy or hatred towards anyone who have more than me if he acquires his fortune in a legal and honest way.
comment 21
Hermano_Lobo date : 15/09/2009 time : 00.23
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/yurivelasquez

That's all history ever does.

Repeat itself......

THIS is what is happening now....
-----------------------------------------

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.
comment 20
peacefulness date : 15/09/2009 time : 00.07
nationmultimedia.com


khun dryshrimp---- nothing behind the bamboo for sure, but something behind the MONEY, when money talks, bullshit talks.

no worry, every thing will be fine on 19sep09 saturday.
comment 19
dryshrimp date : 14/09/2009 time : 22.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/dryshrimp

Thaksin's people become more aggressive every day. The old soldier, the old police, the media and the propagandists.
..
There is something behind the bamboo.
comment 18
stalingrad date : 14/09/2009 time : 20.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

K. Thanong, just had a chance to read your blog. Whatever is going to happen, preparation must be done as if a coordinated uprising like in April will occur; it is only prudent that the government- any government- prepares. It should not trust words uttered like " I promise it will be peaceful etc." Talk is cheap and of course they have to say that. But you can't rule based on believing what people say; you have to base decision on facts, and the facts are in that last April an uprising was attempted regardless of what the red leaders declared.

Now they are already laying the groundwork by talking darkly of a third hand that may lead not to a midnight end to the rally but result in another undefined but probably terrible kind of outcome. The services of a martyr might also be required to act as a catalyst.

If it all passes peacefully, fine. But defensive deterrence is needed, for prudence’s sake, and this is normal in tense political situations anywhere.

As for a coup, it depends on who has an interest in overthrowing Apisit. But a coup now is nation-destructive, especially if it involves fighting. The economic will relapse drastically, as investors will give up on Thailand and there will be capital flight, to Vietnam-- to anywhere but Thailand. It will be a mess, and the coup makers will be punished by mysterious forces; this prediction should not be taken lightly as there are precedents.

And there will certainly be a counter coup and street action as well. The result is a free-fall into the abyss for Thailand. And who do you think deities and auspicious beings will side with?
comment 17
janus date : 14/09/2009 time : 18.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/mi58

Comment 13

On Saturday, former supreme commander General Chaisit Shinawatra, a cousin of Thaksin, said he supported a coup if it would improve the country's situation. If one does take place, politics would have to start anew so that the conflicts in the country could end, he said.


Did he say it or not.
The Nation now prints the same.

Gosh, who to believe!
comment 16
ErikOrange date : 14/09/2009 time : 16.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ErikofOrange
http://neworangecafe.org/forum/

Ian with only one functional brain cell, P’full only got the ability focusing on one at the time. Don’t worry your time will come again to be blessed with his vile anger once more.
comment 15
Ian date : 14/09/2009 time : 16.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Why has peacefulness stopped attacking me, what am I doing wrong?
comment 14
bzzzzzBee date : 14/09/2009 time : 15.26
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/beehive

nothing will happen. it will be status quo ..... when so many cards are already on the table for all to see ... what more other surprises can happen?
comment 13
Al date : 14/09/2009 time : 15.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/albert

I must say peacefulness is really developing more and more. Perfect!
comment 12
Thanong date : 14/09/2009 time : 14.37
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

HA HA:
I am happy to eat your som tam. You only have to set the appointment date.
comment 11
HA_HA date : 14/09/2009 time : 14.27

you come to my papaya pok pok stall, k. thanong. i will explain what is what to you.



anyday, except 19/9. i'll be at the rally.
comment 10
FelixQui date : 14/09/2009 time : 13.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness,
You might also like to read and take heed of Krajog's very wise comments on "ugly and extremely uncivilized protest" (c.9) on his latest blog at http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/oldguard2/2009/09/13/entry-3
comment 9
FelixQui date : 14/09/2009 time : 13.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

peacefulness,
I am sure that Thanong greatly appreciates your contribution to his blog.
I suggest you try a new curse: the current one does not seem to be working.
comment 8
massein date : 14/09/2009 time : 13.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

all pretense of demoracy would be called off. the gentleman in ? would become a dictator, and no mercy would be shown to his opposition. Blood would run down the walls
comment 7
massein date : 14/09/2009 time : 13.00
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

If this event take the turn for the worest, I think you could predict a recovery in maybe 20 years
comment 6
wch date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/wch

pmAV can offer the Red three choices,

1. ISA,
2. Martial Law
3. Alpine golf and commemoration party

If they choose nr. 3, government must support them with sufficiency economy bonus, 100baht per head. Also the golf club is free from nr. 1 and 2.
comment 5
peacefulness date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.27
nationmultimedia.com

"M/F' felix qui--- i hereby seriously curse YOU "mai dai tai dee". peacufulness.
comment 4
peacefulness date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.22
nationmultimedia.com


"M/F" felix qui------ lices/fleas now eating your rotten skull until u die second by second.......with all sufferings and tortures endlessly and all your immediate direct relatives (wife/childfren/ and all)
comment 3
peacefulness date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.16

"M/F" Felix Qui------- "F/U" , "F/U", "F/U"..........
comment 2
FelixQui date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

My prediction:
I'm not expecting history to repeat itself.
But neither will I very surprised if I'm proved wrong within the week.
comment 1
FelixQui date : 14/09/2009 time : 10.12
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Thanong,
If the Red Shirts divested themselves of Taksin, would you then support their aspirations as being legitimate demands for change?
I have no problem acknowledging that the Yellow Shirts had real and legitimate grievances against Taksin's govt. (I share most of them), but was as appalled by their self-serving leaders such as Chamlong the blood soaked and their terrorist excesses against the Thai nation as must as you appear to be by Taksin and his excesses.

Would you like to see the Red Shirts continue as a political force representing the poor farming majority against the traditional Bangkok rulers?
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."


  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top