Matichon reports that a former TRT high-ranking executive close to Thaksin states that Thaksin will return on February 28 and arrive at Suvaranbumi. He will then go to the Supreme Court and apply for bail. Full details will be announced on TrueThaksin tomorrow morning. 28 February is apparently an auspicious number date so that is the reason it was chosen.
UPDATE: From the Hi-Thaksin website (via Jess) comes this crafted public relations image:
COMMENT: There is a call for those who love and miss Thaksin to turn up at the airport to greet him when he arrives at the auspicious time of 9 a.m.* I trust Hobby, the Corporal et. al will be out in force to greet Thaksin on his return.
*If the flight is delayed, does this mean the 9 a.m. arrival is not longer auspicious? Well, I guess it could arrive at 9:09am and that might be even more auspicious (9 is seen as an auspicious number in Thai).
A campaign for Suwicha
2 hours ago
Bangkokpost run a story quoting "Pro-Thaksin site hi-thaksin .net has revealed that Thaksin Shinawatra is due back in Thailand on February 29 at 9:00am".
Just a fun thought, but if they are consider Pro-Thaksin site. I wonder what site are consider Anti-Thaksin site (PAD's may be?).
'Cause I dont think I every hear news report quoting from "Anti-Thaksin" site. Some Thaksin's defence or anti-junta documents leak are regularly coming from "Pro-Thaksin". But when it's bad press or scandal on ex-TRT, it's usually from unnamed source. If you know what I means.
What a drama ! Plus the red card given to Yongyuth today and the (new) risk of dissolution of the PPP !
What a conundrum...
You can hardly contain your excitement can you? Will you and Patiwat be waiting at the airport with your photos for him to sign? :-)
I don't think now is the time for the PAD to retaliate but I find it interesting Chalerm (according to TN) threatened to "drive PAD leaders out of Thailand to ensure stability". Good to see our new rulers being "democratic". What happened to "freedom of peaceful assembly" as per our new constitution? Or are they already letting on at the spite they feel towards constitutions?
Oh, red & white, the gall to talk about spite towards constitutions!
Chalerm has a big mouth, but at least he hasn't actually torn up a constitution yet!
I can't say the same about the sweet-talking, constitution-tearing junta that had (thank God) left.
P.S. I am as happy about Chalerm being a minister as you are, but I have yet to hear that quote in the news. Source please.
-Anonymous Again
whatever opinion one might have of Thaksin, Samak, the Democrats, the hidden hand, etc, the idea that any group, entity or organization organized, financed or led by Sondhi has anything whatsever to do with Democracy or democratic reform is laughable..............
Ah well you knew it was inevitable. And it really didn't take him all that long to get back either. Welcome back Taksin.
I suggest Thaksin goes to live in Liechtenstein with all the other filthy rich tax evaders. Some of us have to pay our taxes. If Thaksin is too miserly to do as the law of Thailand requires him, I suggest he goes to live with the other Kii Nok Farangs he loves so much. I'm fed up with these rich bastards being let off their crimes!
Anon, source is here:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/02/25/politics/politics_30066394.php
Only thing I got wrong was the speaker, it was Pracha Prasopdee.
I think criticism towards Chalerm is justified, it doesn't mean that I don't dislike the junta, too. Why do so many people have this "two wrongs make a right" line of thinking?
R&W,
You asked:
Why do so many people have this "two wrongs make a right" line of thinking?
No one seems to have this "two wrongs make a right" approach. The issue is that the military seems to have done almost everything Thaksin did but worse. However, although they seized power by force, the criticism was pretty quiet.
I don't recall you getting so upset about them jailing bloggers who questioned the monarchy, Saprang looting AOT and TOT, the junta replacing dozens of civil servants, ripping up the best constitution Thailand ever had, giving themselves massive cash rewards, stuffing the organizations with their cronies, declariong martial law, interfering with elections, or the dozens of other wrongs they managed to squeeze into 15 months.
So when you get all excited about one small comment, especially one that you falsely attributed, made by an elected government, it certainly seems apt to ask why you seem to have such a misplaced sense of proportion.
Similarly when Chirmsak, who was a junta crony and sat aside Saprang on the AOT board through his looting spree, is placed in a media role by the an unelected military government, nobody says a word. However, when the elected government removes him, as anyone in their situation would do, there is an outcry.
I am not a huge fan of Thaksin or the PPP. I can't stand Samak and think that Chalerm is a crook. You can not use the simple trick of saying I blindly support Thaksin. I am comparing two things side by side and at this point it should be obvious, even to the blind that the crimes of the junta got a pretty easy treatment at the hands of the same people who are screaming now if Thaksin's necktie doesn't match his shirt.
Yes, I do think an elected government should get a softer treatment than a uniformed mafia that violently seized power. If that makes me biased, so be it. But I think both should come under direct scrutiny and be punished for their wrongs.
However, at this point, the past crimes of an apparently treasonous military should take precedent over the expected crimes of an elected government. Once they have committed the crimes, then they to should be prosecuted.
However, until you call for pursuing the felonies of the military, your obsession with the misdemeanors of an elected government are going to look like partisanship.
After a few minutes of further reflection, I feel that it may be useful to clarify why I find this issue of partisanship so important and so problematic.
In my opinion, Thailand in the midst of a fierce and potentially destruction battle between two factions.
One is a primarily urban establishment that has run the country for decades. As a whole they have wonderful accomplishments to their credit, but have also benefited greatly. They are remarkably tolerant of corruption and the abuse of power, as long as it is done by those on their side.
The other is primarily a rural population that constitutes an electoral majority. They are asking that the promises of democracy that have been made to them to be delivered. They also would like to share a larger portion of the wealth in this country. They are remarkably tolerant of corruption and the abuse of power, as long as it is done by those on their side.
This same dynamic has occurred in just about every society that tries to make the transition from feudalism to democracy (or modernity, if you prefer). In some cases, the transition can be managed successfully and the country emerges better off. In other cases, the rifts can not be healed, compromises can not be made and brinkmanship leads to conflict, violence and destruction.
I don't think I am being overly dramatic in suggesting that the second path is not an impossible option for Thailand.
Partisans on both sides seem to think their side is the “angel” and the other “the devil”. They may hedge their position slightly ("I don't love the junta" or "Thaksin has his flaws, but.." or claim that both are the devil.
In any case the destructive adversarial aspect of the debate has plenty of fuel and looks to be burning hotter by the day.
I believe it is the responsibility of all of us not to succumb to temptation to latch on to easy answers spoon fed to us by one sides propaganda or the other's. Instead, let’s realize that there are three potential outcomes and try to steer the country to the one’s that we think are the best for it. At the end of the day, there are over 60 million people (including most of us) who stand to lose immensely if the resolution of this destroys so much good that this country has as its assets.
Outcome 1: The rural faction crushes elite and crony democracy prevails
Outcome 2: The elite crush the PPP and crony feudalism prevails
Outcome 3: The rival factions make a deal that eases tensions and helps to create a civil society and political culture that can move Thailand forward.
I call on commenters here to be explicit about which option they wish for and act in a way that enables it to occur.
I choose number three.
Observer/Anon, you said.....
I don't recall you getting so upset about them jailing bloggers who questioned the monarchy,
http://tinyurl.com/2w6l64
Saprang looting AOT and TOT,
http://tinyurl.com/2st7cp
ripping up the best constitution Thailand ever had
http://tinyurl.com/39sh3b
giving themselves massive cash rewards,
http://tinyurl.com/33d7sh
interfering with elections,
http://tinyurl.com/2uhupv
or the dozens of other wrongs they managed to squeeze into 15 months.
http://tinyurl.com/33vflu
Now will you be big enough to accept you are wrong and apologise for that tirade?
Will you and Patiwat be waiting at the airport with your photos for him to sign? :-)
Where's Patiwat? (Has he changed his nickname now that PPP is in power?)
I have not noticed any comments from him for months now.
I also miss Vichai N.
For normal politic, I would say.
Outcome 3: The rival factions make a deal that eases tensions and helps to create a civil society and political culture that can move Thailand forward.
Remember, key to dealing is the other side must be more beneficial to deal than not to deal. But looking at bets on the table, the end game is coming and royalist, elite, and far-right extremist had come too far to back off. So I would add a little .
Outcome 4: Thaksin got assasinated. PPP sustains consecutive protests and got coup or new election within 2 years. Then the dealing (outcome 3).
Thaksin just cannot be allow to live and achieve Prem status in the rural's people eyes, and he will definitely outlive Prems. Also, without him, I doubt PPP would be able to hold together, much less sustain the support of rural more than one or two elections.
I am more than happy to acknowledge that you have produced much more balanced and sophisticated analysis on The Nation site than I have seen from you here here. Well done.
However, since I had never seen it, I could not have recalled it and could not have been wrong. If it is helpful, I will say that I respect your opinions and have no desire to get in to a point scoring contest with you or anyone else. Remember, I’m the one who said the adversarial aspect of the dialogue is what is most damaging.
It does seem that a dictionary would be a useful way for you to invest a bit of money. My posts about are by no stretch tirades, much like a routine bureaucratic transfer is not sedition.
Observer, sometimes it's just better to hold your hands up, accept you are wrong and apologise. If you don't want to get into "point scoring" then perhaps you could leave out the snide remarks. IMHO, people who cannot do that are not as secure as they would like to appear. You say you "cannot be wrong" because you did not read my work, but if you did not read my work how can you be in a position to criticise my comments so aggressively and assume that a small number of comments represents my whole stance?
We had one disagreement over the semantics of one word and I took your lengthy comments here as a tirade, let's not get silly by talking about dictionaries. I think anyone who knows me will tell you I have a pretty good grasp of the English language. You’ve made mistakes too and I've overlooked them. From now on let's keep things on topic. Thanks.
From now on let's keep things on topic.
OK. Any comments on the two pages that I wrote on topic, now that the one sentence that may have been off topic has been completely dealt with?
Fall,
Yes, I agree. But to me Prem seems to have suffered a harsh defeat that can not be undone or remediated. It doesn't seem to me that Prem, has much respect in rural areas. In fact it seems like someone else that Thaksin is vying with.
But Anuphong may well be a net winner. Now we just need to see who is calling the shots (although hopefully not literally).
My Scenario Three basically means that Prem, the royalists, elite and far right factions acknowledge, at least privately, that they are losing this battle and decide to cut their losses, realizing that there is no better option.
I do think there is a Scenario Four that could complicate matters. But I see this as more of a delay than a final outcome.
I am not sure that there is no one to replace Thaksin. I don’t see anyone right now, but expect that there are many in waiting. Thaksin himself didn't seem like he would be this kind of a leader until 2000-2001.
At the end of the day, I see Thailand experiencing an epic change that is inevitable. Thaksin is a catalyst rather than an initiator of change, in my view. I think the circumstances created Thaksin as much as he created the circumstances.
I don’t think a bullet can stop it now.
At the end of the day, I see Thailand experiencing an epic change that is inevitable. Thaksin is a catalyst rather than an initiator of change, in my view. I think the circumstances created Thaksin as much as he created the circumstances.
I see Thaksin as being more of the same, and ultimately an obstacle to meaningful change.
I don’t think a bullet can stop it now.
If the bullet comes, I think there is just as much chance it will be from a relative of a drug war victim, or even (organized by) a disgruntled business partner.
BTW, I'm not advocating either, I would just like to see him face justice, pay his taxes, and then go off to Pattani or Yala to solve the big problems down there (that he exacerbated).
Hobby,
Yes, I don't entirely dispute the more of the same interpretation. The key differences may be that he was more effective than previous politicians (at obtaining power) and that the new constitution and other factors made this be incredibly important.
I am less interested in where the bullet comes from than what happens after impact. Note though that the Bangkok Post today says that Thaksin delayed his trip back after there were rumours the army bought sniper rifles, and Anuphong had to step in and move people around.
Snipers sent back to barracks
http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/28Feb2008_news98.php
It is not clear to me that Thaksin did much additional damage in the South (although I am receptive to arguments). It is clear to me that the Army and Interior Ministry, over the last 40 years have completely screwed it up. There certainly wasn't any improvement after Thaksin left and the army seems to be the ones who are doing an Iraq on the locals.
I would like to send Sonthi, Saprang and their grey haired friend down there. I think they bear more responsibility for the whole travesty.
Observer: Can you send me an e-mail - from hotmail/gmail is ok.
Observer, yes, I would agree on the whole with the comments you made. I wrote a similar piece (it was one of the links I gave you) where I argue the case that democratic rule (a subjective term I know) goes through key stages and that Thailand is at an early stage. In a nutshell, I believe - in a Giles Unapgkorn type of philosophy - that popular, working class movements will happen periodically and this will lower the income gap, reform certain institutions and make others more accountable.
Of course all this will take generations to achieve. I can only hope my son is around to see the role of the monarchy resemble that which you described earlier.
R & W,
I do think that Thailand is, as you suggest, in the early stages of democratic progress. I am fairly confident in saying that there are many clear objective qualities of democracy, and that it does appear to be the best choice of governance systems for Thailand.
It is easy to point to flaws in democracy and to speculate that there might be other ways of doing things. However, the need for a plan in Thailand is fairly urgent and in absence of clear alternatives, I do think we need to commit to this one.
In that regard, the voice of the majority does become pretty important. While it is incumbent on Thailand to create a system that ensures voting is transparent and that minority voices are heard, the fact that more than of half of the population chooses to vote for someone means a lot.
In general, I am not entirely sympathetic to the economic and political prescriptions of Giles U, however I do support efforts to “lower the income gap, reform certain institutions and make others more accountable.”
I think Thailand has a struggle ahead of it, but remain highly optimistic that the result can be a better place for your son in a lot of ways.