Hong Kong grew as the trading gateway to/from China - and from that into a major financial centre. Singapore grew as an entrepot - and from that into a major financial centre. Both were regarded as hugely important and had investment poured into them by a British Empire at the height of its power. That's just part of the story behind both - I'll leave you to do some background reading for the rest.
BTW, for decades it was highly-qualified Palestinian professionals providing the necessary support to their wealthier Arab neighbours. Per capita, they still produce more graduates than those neighbours - despite the Israeli stranglehold.
Further demonstration (as if it were needed) of how Cartalucci just can't help himself when it comes to twisting words, manipulating evidence and outright distortion. As I tire of pointing out, the so-called "denials" (contradictions) I've highlighted were not "retrospective"; they're included in the self-same articles from which Cartalucci chooses to extract just what he labels as the "admissions" (or here "confessions") on which he sets so much store and from which he edits out any and all qualifications expressed by the speaker and/or writer. What "confessions" that aren't contradicted in almost the next breath? What "physical evidence"? With Cartalucci it's the same perpetual merry-go-round of half-truths stretched, spun and festooned with sweeping references to "impartial accounts". When inspected, these accounts either don't contain what his creative paraphrase says they contain or, if he quotes verbatim, his selected "gotcha" snippet when seen in context turns out to be unconfirmed and/or regarded by the writer as at best just one possibility. This is how prosecutor Cartalucci travels from "might be" to "is". Joe McCarthy would be proud.
"..... repeating verbatim what paid-shill Robert Amsterdam is saying"? I've read Amsterdam's submissions (it would be bizarre if I hadn't, though I wonder if Cartalucci has) along with widespread pro/con coverage in both mainstream and other media - precisely in order to form my own opinion. Interesting to note that Cartalucci & Co never actually get round to identifying just what it is in all that Amsterdam says (complete with citations) that's inaccurate - let alone to disproving any of it. To evade that troublesome challenge, they divert to dismissing him as a "paid-shill". Never mind that all lawyers other than pro bono get paid. Never mind that it's still thought necessary (outside the tunnel vision Cartalucci "court") to actually refute what they say.
I wouldn't bother responding to yet another example of the same dogma-driven spiel from Cartalucci (and won't do so again here) - but for the fact that in the torrents of misrepresentation that are the norm for him comes at long last a valid point: "don't you think the moment armed factions started using their protest for cover and catching them in the crossfire, at the loss of 91 lives, they would have had the decency to end the protest and regroup?". While I'd highlight good sense rather than "decency" (though both apply), I agree with the basic premise. The key remaining leaders did finally call off the protest - but in my view they did so far, far too late and the result was entirely predictable mayhem. In my view, it's one of many serious miscalculations they made. How Cartalucci reverse-engineers this into "proof" for his other contentions we can only wonder.....
When activists like Cartalucci repeatedly deploy such selective (not just cherry-picked but also edited) quoting from published sources to prop up their case, it's entirely valid to draw attention to what they just as repeatedly leave out. If they regard those sources as providing authority for (let alone "proof" of) their version of events, they can't reasonably object to the ifs, buts, inconsistencies and contradictions in them also being identified. Actually, it appears that there are rather few cherries to pick - else why is it the same questionable ones that are presented as "proof" of their 2+2=5 proposition over and over again?
Cartalucci labels Seh Daeng as "schizophrenic". I'm not qualified to judge that condition, but there's ample evidence from the man's own website and on-record contradictory utterings to support the view that he - to put it mildly - absolutely reveled in the attention (and adulation from some) that his wilder and more improbable claims of importance brought. Note that I use the word "claim" where Cartalucci will use "admission" - there's a significant difference between the two which he would do well to try and understand.
I don't try to "cling to their latter [sic] denial, dismissing entirely their admission" (that word again) - I merely point out that both exist.... and, what's more, they both exist in the very source cited as the authority. Likewise, I point out when the quoted writer has also said in the very same article that a] such-and-such claim is not confirmed and/or b] that evidence also points in other directions. While this may hinder the Cartalucci's of this world in their quest to "prove" that what they claim is a slam-dunk certainty, it's simply being objective - something conspicuously absent from the serial theorising they present as incontrovertible fact.
I (and The Economist) "prey on the ignorance of third parties"? How so? By bringing to their attention significant details and inconsistencies which Cartalucci & Co contrive so studiously to avoid mentioning? Still, perhaps I should feel flattered to be bracketed with The Economist in this. Interesting to note that Cartalucci is happy to quote The Guardian as an authority when they publish something suiting his agenda; otherwise, of course, they are airily dismissed as just yet another part of the notorious "globalist nexus...... media giants like BBC, CNN, the Guardian and the Economist" etc etc who "get together to back street protests" [ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/12/thailand-stage-set-for-another... ]
.
Presumably not part of that particular nexus is Asia Times Online? At least not when they publish something he likes e.g. the Crispin article? To borrow Cartalucci's tactics and terminology, perhaps it's worth looking at which nexus they might be part of. So, here's what they "admit" about themselves:
"Historically, in our publication policy and editorial outlook, we are the successor of Asia Times, the Hong Kong/ Bangkok-based daily print newspaper founded in 1995 and associated with the Manager Media Group, which had to cease publication in the summer of 1997 as a result of the Asian financial crisis." [ http://www.atimes.com/mediakit/aboutus.html ].
Key figure behind Asia Times then and behind the Manager Media Group both then and now? Sondhi Limthongkul - PAD founder and leader, now himself charged with terrorism.
Even so, it should come as no surprise that the Crispin snippet Cartalucci now wheels out is itself directly followed in the original article [ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KK12Ae01.html ] by the writer's caveat - that Cartalucci, as usual, ignores:
"Diplomats monitoring the situation have not been able to corroborate the claim, and other UDD leaders have since April backed away from invoking revolutionary themes."
Note that even Crispin sensibly refers to it as a claim - not an admission. As it happens, I think Crispin is reporting accurately - nor is this the only such claim that some hothead UDD leader wannabes made. Frankly, I think it was an utterly stupid propaganda gambit that wiser heads in UDD (by far the majority) rightly rejected. But that's just my opinion - just as Cartalucci & Co have theirs; the difference is that I don't present mine as incontrovertible fact. Which brings us to that UDD discussion of an "armed wing". That the idea was raised and rejected is self-evidently far from being "criminal conspiracy" leading to "murderous methods" as Cartalucci characteristically labels it. Even a Thai court would have trouble making that one stick - however much that agitates him.
Finally, I leave "denouncing" to the jihadist-style zealots for whom such things are as certain as their faith. But, for the record, I certainly don't condone any group using violence to achieve political objectives. Perhaps Cartalucci will point out just where and when he has "denounced" PAD for doing so.
As with Fruitopia123, so with Cartalucci. Readers who take the trouble to go to the first two links he provides will find that those articles also contain direct contradictions of what he yet again presents as proven fact. His language here starts off subtle, but with "8 of those 91 were outright murdered by the UDD" he's soon into his familiar form - as in:
"Snipers, covering the black shirts moving on the ground targeted army troops and protesters alike. Someone within the UDD red shirt movement wanted to make sure a bloodbath took place this April 10th night, even if it meant bringing it upon themselves. As diabolical and unbelievable as that may seem, the proof comes from the UDD red shirt leadership itself.
From a Reuters report: “Red shirt spokesman Sean Boonpracong told Reuters the shadowy black clad gunmen seen at the April 10 rally were there to protect the red shirts. “They are a secret unit within the army that disagrees with what’s going on. Without them, the black clad men, there would have been a whole lot more deaths and injuries.”
"Proof"? As Cartalucci must know very well after quoting it so repeatedly, that same Reuters report continues (no surprise that Cartalucci omits this):
"He also said the red-shirt movement at one point discussed whether it should have an armed wing. 'It was shot down. We merely talked about it. It would be counter-productive to have a military wing. We're not Sinn Fein.' "
While there, readers might also like to look through the rest of Cartalucci's amazing website - http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/ - and thereby form their own opinion of his credibility. In amongst all manner of his ubiquitous "globalist conspiracy" subject matter, I particularly recommend http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-was-inside-job.html - posted as are other "editorials" and "analysis" there by "Cartalucci Group".
On the matter of Hun Sen's actions in Cambodia, certainly I agree it's a subject that The Economist should properly cover. But I doubt Cartalucci (and his "Group"?) will be impressed if they do - just see his penultimate paragraph here for why. That's also a more subdued version of his more usual "globalist nexus" characterisation of Chatham House and its membership.
Returning to the question of "why Thaksin's support is widespread in the rural North and Northeast, but not in the rural South?", it's instructive to look at the significant economic differences between those regions. While there's plenty of data available that illustrates the massive (and hardly surprising) disparity between Bangkok and the outlying regions (Bangkok/vicinity GDP per capita is close to 8 x that of the Northeast), it's simplistic to make just a wealthy metropolis versus poor rural comparison which lumps all the rural regions together.
Looking at 2009 average GDP per capita in baht, we find:
All figures are from tables produced by the Office of National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand (NESDB) and the 2009 figures above are cited in www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps10_144.pdf (page 14). That same study* also makes these observations about the South versus North and Northeast:
"Over the prior decade [1990s], as the economic and cultural gap between urban and rural Thailand gaped wider, the Democrats had clearly identified themselves with the urban, "modern" segment by recruiting technocrats and professionals as party members and MP candidates. Its electoral base became concentrated in the capital and the southern region which is more urbanized (and largely wealthier) than other regions. Moreover, the rise of a southerner, Chuan Leekpai, to head the party and lead two governments over the 1990s had created a strong, emotional identification with the party in the south...... The society of the south developed from old-established port-towns. The economy is based on plantations, mining, and tourism rather than small-scale agriculture."
Enough, I think, to demonstrate that all Thai rural regions are not the same.
* "The Mask-play Election: Generals, Politicians and Voters at Thailand’s 2007 Poll" - by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, published September 2010 by the National University of Singapore. I heartily recommend it to all who are looking for an insight into what has been happening (and why) in Thai politics - particularly the role of the military. Like these authors' other works it's well-researched, well-documented, well-argued and unsparing in its criticism of key players - including Thaksin.
Herrera's comment is so wild as to make one wonder if might even be black propaganda - planted to discredit its purported agenda. By contrast, Fruitopia123 is to be congratulated for a near-perfect performance - very slick.
Why only "near-perfect"? Because his well-crafted and rational-looking input contains the standard 2+2=5 mix of some evidence-based facts helped along with unproven conjecture so as to make possibility look like convincing probability - which he then presents as certainty.
Example: ".....the Reuters article referenced below, as well as the raw footage shows the bombing attacks perpetrated by the Red Shirted rioters exploding and injuring army men, as well as journalists such as Mr Muramoto". The article doesn't even claim and the video certainly doesn't show "bombing attacks perpetrated by the Red Shirted rioters". It does say "..... gunmen on the run, dressed not in red shirts or green army fatigues, but in black and dark, civilian clothes.The government has talked of a "third force" involved in the protests.....". All this is conveniently ignored by Fruitopia123 - along with what's in a later Reuters Q&A link: "WHO ARE THE BLACK GUNMEN? That's the big question no one has answered definitively". Well, plainly, Fruitopia123 has decided what the answer is - but produces nothing to make it "definitive".
Example: "The evidence thus far proves that a great deal of violence was instigated by the Red Shirts, with recorded sightings of the use of firearms, explosives, and other weapons". It doesn't "prove" that at all and what's stated here is also a non sequitur. At a real stretch, one might just about say that it arguably "points" to it..... sufficient to provide some support for his opinion (which is all it is) - but not as proof establishing it as fact. What's actually known can also point in other directions - not least to sympathetic or aggrieved rival elements in the army. It also can't be ruled out that hardline army elements actually wanted to stoke the fires; the pattern in the weeks up to April 10 clearly contradicted (disappointed?) those who loudly predicted the demonstration would be violent from the start - as opposed to the happy-clapper street festival it more closely resembled (and attracting support from many Bangkokians). Day after day, week after week there was talk in the media and from government/military leaders about the dangers of a "third hand". Quite suddenly, that stopped and switched to the new version - that UDD had an armed wing of 300, 400, 500 with "war weapons". The same message as now - though with the claimed numbers drastically scaled down.
Example: "In addition to the article below, it has been well documented in local Thai papers that each rally participant was given 500 baht hidden in food packets....". Interesting that said "article below" doesn't even identify the party intended to benefit from the alleged cash handout. Was it the government's coalition partner BJT or the opposition PT? We don't know. If the "each rally participant was given 500 baht hidden in food packets" claim is so "well documented", why not even one link to a reference in just one of those "local Thai newspapers". Maybe because it might have to come from the Sondhi (PAD leader) "Manager" operation and thus lack any credibility?
Yes, if you cherry-pick your facts and blend in some opinion dressed up as more quasi "fact", it's easy to conjure up a credible-looking scenario and claim "QED"; a little more difficult to make it stand up to scrutiny - however slick (or "nuanced") the presentation is.
His point about "why Thanksin's support is widespread in the rual North and Northeast, but not in the rural South?" is potentially interesting - but not all that mysterious. I suspect he knows very well that most of Thailand's rural constituencies are fiefdoms held and run by today's equivalent of medieval barons - i.e. the local political/commercial power-brokers. They exist in the rural south (operated by and benefiting mainly Democrats) just as much as they do elsewhere (benefiting Thaksin-linked parties and others). Each is adept at turning out the vote for their respective parties in preparation for horse-trading and jockeying for their post-election negotiating position. Handing out cash to individual voters (which all parties do) is the thin end of the wedge. The thicker end is in the six- and seven-figure payments to local headmen (as well as other forms of "pork" patronage for their community); then come golden handshake payments to shiftable factions of MPs in order to achieve the necessary coalition majority in parliament; finally the doling out of lucrative ministries to parties who emerged with enough clout from the election.
I guess I'm one of those people who are "too ignorant" to "know" where "Mr. Pasid received his wealth from"; in fact, your comment is the first mention I've seen of any wealth (payment?) coming to him. So, please tell us - who are you accusing of giving him this wealth..... and what evidence do you have for saying so? And please also tell us where and when Mr. Pasid appeared "on Red Shirt's media".
----------
@ TikMustang
I think you can rest assured that the comment appearing here is NOT from the well-known Chang Noi who contributes columns to Thailand's The Nation newspaper. Apart from the clear difference in language, the other Chang Noi always manages to make sense in what he writes - and always provides evidence for any claims and points he makes.
"I have posted this elsewhere but am compelled to repost here to respond to Steve@Thailand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBDm-jA3N80"
Well, some candour at last from Vichai N; indeed he has posted this slickly-produced piece of marketing elsewhere - and widely. The same thought occurs now as with all the other multiple postings of it: if there IS a properly-argued and substantiated case to make - why the need to fall back on this? "I've run out of facts - so watch this promotional video"? Fine for the Facebook fraternity perhaps, but are Economist readers really so dim that they need to be fed this kind of pre-digested messaging? As it happens, I spent 20 years producing commercials and videos; it's really not difficult to create something seemingly credible - whether it be to vilify UDD as this one does or to eulogise them as other examples on Youtube do. However, unlike the target market for this video, my clients certainly wouldn't accept a facile montage of disembodied snippets taken out of context and then juxtaposed with emotive music to make an impression. "Dodgy dossier" anyone?
Otherwise, far from "responding" to anything I've said, Vichai N simply repeats his stock slogan - "indiscriminate nearly daily M79 grenade/RPG attacks" - later revised to "nearly twice a week" after being called on it. Whatever the frequency, no authority has established a link between any of the attacks and UDD - but, of course, again Vichai N "knows" what they don't. Then, while cherry-picking quotes, he neglects to mention what inconveniently appears right between the two he features from the WSJ article - "Maj. Gen. Khattiya's critics dismiss him as a showman full of bluster. Some mainstream Red Shirt leaders disown him and his methods......."
Some other points about what he "knows".....
a) "......catching police/military (without live ammos) off-guard....." - perhaps he can explain the hundreds of bullet holes in buildings, vehicles and people during 10 April - and the ratio of civilian dead/wounded to the army's casualties? Strange kind of UDD militia to shoot almost entirely at their own people - maybe a precursor to those "hundreds/thousands of martyred Reds" he later tells us that the UDD leadership wanted on 19 May?
b) "...... protesters at Rachaprasong were literally hostages....." - so the government never made that well-publicised standing offer to transport them home free of charge..... and there weren't plenty of protesters rotating in and out of the rally right up until it was sealed off?
But enough of all this. People simply need to separate established fact and prejudiced speculation masquerading as fact.
Relevant to the original article and to my first comment, I offer this closing thought from another article*:
"Thailand’s fatal flaw is its loss of faith in the electoral process. This loss of faith has opened the way for hardliners to pursue violent alternatives. Violence on all sides is deplorable, but remember that those who condemn the red shirt provocations most vigorously are also those who have consistently denied the legitimacy of their peaceful statements at the ballot box."
The ubiquitous Vichai N makes the point for me - yet more of the standard "I claim therefore we know" hypespeak. He claims/knows that "Thaksin S. intereceded and demanded from the Red hardliners to reject PM Abhisit's offer". Evidence to substantiate this? Speculation.
He claims/knows "the Reds leaderships kept on an escalating intimidation game by constant nearly daily M79 indiscriminate grenade attacks". Evidence to substantiate this? More speculation - and, suddenly, an article of unproven credibility sold to Asia Times Online (offshoot of the newspaper founded by PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul's Manager Group) and published fully nine days after the May 19 crackdown. Quote from the article's author: "In my sentbox are pitch letters stretching back more than a week."* So, I will speculate (not claim/know) that this "gripping story" (his words) was offered to many more heavyweight/reliable media outlets - who all passed on it. But then again, as we "know", they're all in the pay of Goldstein, sorry - Thaksin.........
Elsewhere, the busy Vichai N (somewhat unusually) has urged Abhisit "to act with utmost speed to revive his five-point reconciliation map and announce a new election date, earlier than November 14th if possible. Now is the time for solid demonstrable good faith gesture … and not just soothing words." I couldn't agree more - but how to equate that with the mantra of "Reds Shirts = Terrorists"?
@ "krah" - I don't "evade two battles by excluding them from [my] question". They happened and many died as a direct consequence of heavy-handed assaults by troops firing live rounds - and plainly NOT just in the air or for self-defence. In the "six day long clash in May", we saw many well-documented examples of the Thai army carrying out crowd control by sniper fire - at a range of 200-300 metres. Self-defence? Where were the "grenades, assault rifles" you mention in those confrontations? As I've noted before, somehow the truth is never quite enough for the dedicated propagandist.
"Reconciliation requires truth"? Yes, it most certainly does - from ALL sides. And an end to the "simplistic" formula of "Reds Shirts = Terrorists" as well as all the other inventive and inflammatory hyperbole from people who clearly have no interest in addressing the very real grievances that brought the UDD protesters to Bangkok - again. For many, "reconciliation" seems to mean just suppress them and silence them - again.
"The course forward for the red shirts is to learn from their mistakes and become a truly peaceful protest movement"? Absolutely - and, after the 2009 Songkran debacle, that is clearly how the 2010 protest started...... before this nervous, fragile and (I believe) inept government allowed it to be hijacked by the inevitable extremist element. In parallel, the way forward for this government is to stop lying through its teeth, stop muzzling dissenting voices, stop characterising a movement of millions as "terrorists" and - above all - face facts.
It seems "krah" would have us regard the UDD protest as equating to a hostage situation - where the police can and will say whatever it takes to get the hostage-taker to surrender or do whatever it takes to neutralise him. Hardly a valid comparison and not a situation that Abhisit would seem overly qualified for, having for weeks engaged in a get-nowhere mix of largely empty rhetoric, heavy-handed bluster, threats and vilification - with the ever-compliant Thai media acting as his megaphone.
Yesiam puts it well: "In Abspeak: Red Shirt = Terrorist" - and "krah" appears to have swallowed it whole..... "forceful armed occupation of the city center and threatening further violence" - does that accurately describe the true circumstances of this 2-month protest? Was there any violence before 10 April or between then and 19 May to justify that simplistic description? "krah" will no doubt want to cite still-unattributed M79 attacks and some hothead speeches from the rally stage as grounds for dismissing the entire UDD movement as violent thugs - not forgetting that we're also asked to believe that they were ALL there only because of one man and his money. Orwell's description in "1984" of the two-minute "hate" against Emmanuel Goldstein springs to mind - except that this Thai government and almost all Thai media have extended the tactic to a 24/7 routine.
There are precious few "saints" in Thai politics and UDD are certainly guilty of having misplayed their hand. To many of us, it looks very much that Abhisit could have marginalised the UDD hardliners and empowered the moderates. Instead, he achieved the exact opposite. Was that ineptitude or intention - meeting the requirements of his masters behind the scenes? As with most things in the murky mess of Thai politics - almost impossible to say for sure.
A question for Prasit who says: "He [Abhisit] offered to proceed with the rest of his reconciliation plan unconditionally but the offer of November elections was conditional upon the red shirts voluntarily dispersing their protest and their unlawful occupation of the entire city centre."
On what basis does Prasit see it as proper that the nation's PM dangles the prospect (and only a prospect) of an early election in front of a faction in that nation and then promptly withdraws it because that faction did not comply with his demands? All that the PM does is supposed to be in the long-term interests of all the Thai people - including the timing of general elections. That timing is surely not something to be used as merely a short-term and dubious bargaining chip with just a faction of them.
There is some obvious logic to Abhisit's oft-repeated mantra that "conditions must be right" for an election before he'll call it. The same can't be said for his tactics here.
Most of the malls and stores opened today - their choice to do so just as it was when they decided to close when the UDD protesters arrived. No incidents reported - and other stores have announced they will follow suit tomorrow.
Like "comparative politics", I too have become disillusioned by the stark contrast between Abhisit's fine words and his feet of clay actions. Efforts to achieve reconciliation have been token at best. Populist Thaksin policies he condemned in opposition have been continued and even augmented. Actions he condemned in opposition have become the norm once in government - right up to declaring a state of emergency when not at war.
Smooth talk of insisting on media independence has translated into government interference being as pervasive as it was under Thaksin - and in the view of many professionals actually worse. The Thai Journalists Association today issued a statement that includes the following: "The government claimed the blockade of the transmission [PTV] and blockade of access to the website [www.prachatai.com] were done to prevent distortion of information and prevent dissemination of false information to the public. But the government continued to use state-owned radio and TV station to present one-sided information. The government also allowed other radio stations and another satellite TV [PAD's ASTV] to present similar content of state media, which could lead to further rifts in the society. This could lead to criticism that the government was using double standard law enforcement."
The instances and spread of this "double standard" from judicial decisions through media manipulation to censorship have become such a norm for the present government that the phrase is close to becoming a cliche. Bluntly, the hypocrisy is on full show - and few are missing it.
I have no issue with The Economist's use of "cobbling together a parliamentary majority" - except that it doesn't properly convey the fact that Abhisit's coalition was engineered by the military and is the product of rampant bribery through a] the doling out of lucrative ministries and b] straightforward cash payments. So much for the fine talk of "cleaning up Thai politics". To borrow the telling phrase of one respected Thai analyst, Abhisit's "government of contrived circumstances" owes its existence solely to those circumstances and is, consequently, widely seen as lacking legitimacy and a mandate - as well as being in hock to behind-the-scenes string-pullers. Hence the constant cycle of tactics to delay elections - elections that most know full well the Democrats will lose (and that includes the military who conduct their own opinion polling).
I suspect Abhisit knows the countdown on his premiership has already started. Above all else, he has conspicuously failed to deliver what those who installed him demand - to neutralise the "red" problem by crackdown or otherwise. Post-2006, coups are out (for a while); they slickly re-jigged the parliamentary arithmetic in December 2008 to put him in and are just as ready to shuffle it again so as to replace him with someone more to their liking.
As "fZVwtTh8HK" points out, this latest in a series of "decisions not to distribute" does say it all - likely to be reinforced as and when Thailand's ICT ministry blocks internet access again.
Sad (though anything but surprising) to see the likes of "Oriental Orifice" wheeling out the same well-worn "generated-by-Thaksin's-PR-operation" fable again. Different PR agency, same story. As always, we're asked to believe that The Economist (Times/Guardian/NY Times/WSJ/Reuters/AP/BBC/CNN etc etc) are all duped/bought off by Thaksin - anytime any of them produces any coverage that does not slavishly toe the anti-"red"/pro-government line in the way that 90% of Thai media does.
Jaw-droppingly naive? Yes - but that's the flavour of much of what one sees in Thailand these days. I recommend readers to look at a frank and disturbing view of the growing polarisation of Thai media here: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1677
"the UK goverment detains Taksin's 5.5 US billion dollars" ? Perhaps you'd like to share with us any evidence (let alone proof) that this wild claim of yours is true?
Thaksin was a billionaire before he even went into politics never mind became PM. He made vast amounts of money through being awarded near-monopoly telecoms and other concessions in the 1990's - the same as some others did. Once in government, he certainly manipulated things to his business advantage - the same as almost all other Thai politicians have done and continue to do (he was just much better at it).
There are more than enough justifiable and evidence-backed accusations to level at Thaksin without you inventing "facts".
When you accuse a writer of being paid by Thaksin, how about you mention at least one thing the writer has said that is in any way a benefit to Thaksin? As it is, this is no more credible than your other invention.
"Explain Hong Kong. Explain Singapore."
Hong Kong grew as the trading gateway to/from China - and from that into a major financial centre. Singapore grew as an entrepot - and from that into a major financial centre. Both were regarded as hugely important and had investment poured into them by a British Empire at the height of its power. That's just part of the story behind both - I'll leave you to do some background reading for the rest.
BTW, for decades it was highly-qualified Palestinian professionals providing the necessary support to their wealthier Arab neighbours. Per capita, they still produce more graduates than those neighbours - despite the Israeli stranglehold.
And some striking similarities to Bangkok 2010.....
Further demonstration (as if it were needed) of how Cartalucci just can't help himself when it comes to twisting words, manipulating evidence and outright distortion. As I tire of pointing out, the so-called "denials" (contradictions) I've highlighted were not "retrospective"; they're included in the self-same articles from which Cartalucci chooses to extract just what he labels as the "admissions" (or here "confessions") on which he sets so much store and from which he edits out any and all qualifications expressed by the speaker and/or writer. What "confessions" that aren't contradicted in almost the next breath? What "physical evidence"? With Cartalucci it's the same perpetual merry-go-round of half-truths stretched, spun and festooned with sweeping references to "impartial accounts". When inspected, these accounts either don't contain what his creative paraphrase says they contain or, if he quotes verbatim, his selected "gotcha" snippet when seen in context turns out to be unconfirmed and/or regarded by the writer as at best just one possibility. This is how prosecutor Cartalucci travels from "might be" to "is". Joe McCarthy would be proud.
"..... repeating verbatim what paid-shill Robert Amsterdam is saying"? I've read Amsterdam's submissions (it would be bizarre if I hadn't, though I wonder if Cartalucci has) along with widespread pro/con coverage in both mainstream and other media - precisely in order to form my own opinion. Interesting to note that Cartalucci & Co never actually get round to identifying just what it is in all that Amsterdam says (complete with citations) that's inaccurate - let alone to disproving any of it. To evade that troublesome challenge, they divert to dismissing him as a "paid-shill". Never mind that all lawyers other than pro bono get paid. Never mind that it's still thought necessary (outside the tunnel vision Cartalucci "court") to actually refute what they say.
I wouldn't bother responding to yet another example of the same dogma-driven spiel from Cartalucci (and won't do so again here) - but for the fact that in the torrents of misrepresentation that are the norm for him comes at long last a valid point: "don't you think the moment armed factions started using their protest for cover and catching them in the crossfire, at the loss of 91 lives, they would have had the decency to end the protest and regroup?". While I'd highlight good sense rather than "decency" (though both apply), I agree with the basic premise. The key remaining leaders did finally call off the protest - but in my view they did so far, far too late and the result was entirely predictable mayhem. In my view, it's one of many serious miscalculations they made. How Cartalucci reverse-engineers this into "proof" for his other contentions we can only wonder.....
When activists like Cartalucci repeatedly deploy such selective (not just cherry-picked but also edited) quoting from published sources to prop up their case, it's entirely valid to draw attention to what they just as repeatedly leave out. If they regard those sources as providing authority for (let alone "proof" of) their version of events, they can't reasonably object to the ifs, buts, inconsistencies and contradictions in them also being identified. Actually, it appears that there are rather few cherries to pick - else why is it the same questionable ones that are presented as "proof" of their 2+2=5 proposition over and over again?
Cartalucci labels Seh Daeng as "schizophrenic". I'm not qualified to judge that condition, but there's ample evidence from the man's own website and on-record contradictory utterings to support the view that he - to put it mildly - absolutely reveled in the attention (and adulation from some) that his wilder and more improbable claims of importance brought. Note that I use the word "claim" where Cartalucci will use "admission" - there's a significant difference between the two which he would do well to try and understand.
I don't try to "cling to their latter [sic] denial, dismissing entirely their admission" (that word again) - I merely point out that both exist.... and, what's more, they both exist in the very source cited as the authority. Likewise, I point out when the quoted writer has also said in the very same article that a] such-and-such claim is not confirmed and/or b] that evidence also points in other directions. While this may hinder the Cartalucci's of this world in their quest to "prove" that what they claim is a slam-dunk certainty, it's simply being objective - something conspicuously absent from the serial theorising they present as incontrovertible fact.
I (and The Economist) "prey on the ignorance of third parties"? How so? By bringing to their attention significant details and inconsistencies which Cartalucci & Co contrive so studiously to avoid mentioning? Still, perhaps I should feel flattered to be bracketed with The Economist in this. Interesting to note that Cartalucci is happy to quote The Guardian as an authority when they publish something suiting his agenda; otherwise, of course, they are airily dismissed as just yet another part of the notorious "globalist nexus...... media giants like BBC, CNN, the Guardian and the Economist" etc etc who "get together to back street protests" [ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/12/thailand-stage-set-for-another... ]
.
Presumably not part of that particular nexus is Asia Times Online? At least not when they publish something he likes e.g. the Crispin article? To borrow Cartalucci's tactics and terminology, perhaps it's worth looking at which nexus they might be part of. So, here's what they "admit" about themselves:
"Historically, in our publication policy and editorial outlook, we are the successor of Asia Times, the Hong Kong/ Bangkok-based daily print newspaper founded in 1995 and associated with the Manager Media Group, which had to cease publication in the summer of 1997 as a result of the Asian financial crisis." [ http://www.atimes.com/mediakit/aboutus.html ].
Key figure behind Asia Times then and behind the Manager Media Group both then and now? Sondhi Limthongkul - PAD founder and leader, now himself charged with terrorism.
Even so, it should come as no surprise that the Crispin snippet Cartalucci now wheels out is itself directly followed in the original article [ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KK12Ae01.html ] by the writer's caveat - that Cartalucci, as usual, ignores:
"Diplomats monitoring the situation have not been able to corroborate the claim, and other UDD leaders have since April backed away from invoking revolutionary themes."
Note that even Crispin sensibly refers to it as a claim - not an admission. As it happens, I think Crispin is reporting accurately - nor is this the only such claim that some hothead UDD leader wannabes made. Frankly, I think it was an utterly stupid propaganda gambit that wiser heads in UDD (by far the majority) rightly rejected. But that's just my opinion - just as Cartalucci & Co have theirs; the difference is that I don't present mine as incontrovertible fact. Which brings us to that UDD discussion of an "armed wing". That the idea was raised and rejected is self-evidently far from being "criminal conspiracy" leading to "murderous methods" as Cartalucci characteristically labels it. Even a Thai court would have trouble making that one stick - however much that agitates him.
Finally, I leave "denouncing" to the jihadist-style zealots for whom such things are as certain as their faith. But, for the record, I certainly don't condone any group using violence to achieve political objectives. Perhaps Cartalucci will point out just where and when he has "denounced" PAD for doing so.
As with Fruitopia123, so with Cartalucci. Readers who take the trouble to go to the first two links he provides will find that those articles also contain direct contradictions of what he yet again presents as proven fact. His language here starts off subtle, but with "8 of those 91 were outright murdered by the UDD" he's soon into his familiar form - as in:
"Snipers, covering the black shirts moving on the ground targeted army troops and protesters alike. Someone within the UDD red shirt movement wanted to make sure a bloodbath took place this April 10th night, even if it meant bringing it upon themselves. As diabolical and unbelievable as that may seem, the proof comes from the UDD red shirt leadership itself.
From a Reuters report: “Red shirt spokesman Sean Boonpracong told Reuters the shadowy black clad gunmen seen at the April 10 rally were there to protect the red shirts. “They are a secret unit within the army that disagrees with what’s going on. Without them, the black clad men, there would have been a whole lot more deaths and injuries.”
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/05/thailands-red-shirts-how-to-hi... (the "Cartalucci Group" website)
"Proof"? As Cartalucci must know very well after quoting it so repeatedly, that same Reuters report continues (no surprise that Cartalucci omits this):
"He also said the red-shirt movement at one point discussed whether it should have an armed wing. 'It was shot down. We merely talked about it. It would be counter-productive to have a military wing. We're not Sinn Fein.' "
While there, readers might also like to look through the rest of Cartalucci's amazing website - http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/ - and thereby form their own opinion of his credibility. In amongst all manner of his ubiquitous "globalist conspiracy" subject matter, I particularly recommend http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-was-inside-job.html - posted as are other "editorials" and "analysis" there by "Cartalucci Group".
On the matter of Hun Sen's actions in Cambodia, certainly I agree it's a subject that The Economist should properly cover. But I doubt Cartalucci (and his "Group"?) will be impressed if they do - just see his penultimate paragraph here for why. That's also a more subdued version of his more usual "globalist nexus" characterisation of Chatham House and its membership.
Returning to the question of "why Thaksin's support is widespread in the rural North and Northeast, but not in the rural South?", it's instructive to look at the significant economic differences between those regions. While there's plenty of data available that illustrates the massive (and hardly surprising) disparity between Bangkok and the outlying regions (Bangkok/vicinity GDP per capita is close to 8 x that of the Northeast), it's simplistic to make just a wealthy metropolis versus poor rural comparison which lumps all the rural regions together.
Looking at 2009 average GDP per capita in baht, we find:
South^.......102,841
North...........71,105
Northeast.....45,661
^ excluding the three strife-torn muslim-majority provinces still under the long-standing State of Emergency
(See also region-by-region breakdown of 2008 GDP figures at http://www.thaiwebsites.com/thailand-GDP.asp and province-by-province at http://www.thaiwebsites.com/provinces-GDP.asp )
All figures are from tables produced by the Office of National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand (NESDB) and the 2009 figures above are cited in www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps10_144.pdf (page 14). That same study* also makes these observations about the South versus North and Northeast:
"Over the prior decade [1990s], as the economic and cultural gap between urban and rural Thailand gaped wider, the Democrats had clearly identified themselves with the urban, "modern" segment by recruiting technocrats and professionals as party members and MP candidates. Its electoral base became concentrated in the capital and the southern region which is more urbanized (and largely wealthier) than other regions. Moreover, the rise of a southerner, Chuan Leekpai, to head the party and lead two governments over the 1990s had created a strong, emotional identification with the party in the south...... The society of the south developed from old-established port-towns. The economy is based on plantations, mining, and tourism rather than small-scale agriculture."
Enough, I think, to demonstrate that all Thai rural regions are not the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------
* "The Mask-play Election: Generals, Politicians and Voters at Thailand’s 2007 Poll" - by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, published September 2010 by the National University of Singapore. I heartily recommend it to all who are looking for an insight into what has been happening (and why) in Thai politics - particularly the role of the military. Like these authors' other works it's well-researched, well-documented, well-argued and unsparing in its criticism of key players - including Thaksin.
www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps10_144.pdf
Herrera's comment is so wild as to make one wonder if might even be black propaganda - planted to discredit its purported agenda. By contrast, Fruitopia123 is to be congratulated for a near-perfect performance - very slick.
Why only "near-perfect"? Because his well-crafted and rational-looking input contains the standard 2+2=5 mix of some evidence-based facts helped along with unproven conjecture so as to make possibility look like convincing probability - which he then presents as certainty.
Example: ".....the Reuters article referenced below, as well as the raw footage shows the bombing attacks perpetrated by the Red Shirted rioters exploding and injuring army men, as well as journalists such as Mr Muramoto". The article doesn't even claim and the video certainly doesn't show "bombing attacks perpetrated by the Red Shirted rioters". It does say "..... gunmen on the run, dressed not in red shirts or green army fatigues, but in black and dark, civilian clothes.The government has talked of a "third force" involved in the protests.....". All this is conveniently ignored by Fruitopia123 - along with what's in a later Reuters Q&A link: "WHO ARE THE BLACK GUNMEN? That's the big question no one has answered definitively". Well, plainly, Fruitopia123 has decided what the answer is - but produces nothing to make it "definitive".
Example: "The evidence thus far proves that a great deal of violence was instigated by the Red Shirts, with recorded sightings of the use of firearms, explosives, and other weapons". It doesn't "prove" that at all and what's stated here is also a non sequitur. At a real stretch, one might just about say that it arguably "points" to it..... sufficient to provide some support for his opinion (which is all it is) - but not as proof establishing it as fact. What's actually known can also point in other directions - not least to sympathetic or aggrieved rival elements in the army. It also can't be ruled out that hardline army elements actually wanted to stoke the fires; the pattern in the weeks up to April 10 clearly contradicted (disappointed?) those who loudly predicted the demonstration would be violent from the start - as opposed to the happy-clapper street festival it more closely resembled (and attracting support from many Bangkokians). Day after day, week after week there was talk in the media and from government/military leaders about the dangers of a "third hand". Quite suddenly, that stopped and switched to the new version - that UDD had an armed wing of 300, 400, 500 with "war weapons". The same message as now - though with the claimed numbers drastically scaled down.
Example: "In addition to the article below, it has been well documented in local Thai papers that each rally participant was given 500 baht hidden in food packets....". Interesting that said "article below" doesn't even identify the party intended to benefit from the alleged cash handout. Was it the government's coalition partner BJT or the opposition PT? We don't know. If the "each rally participant was given 500 baht hidden in food packets" claim is so "well documented", why not even one link to a reference in just one of those "local Thai newspapers". Maybe because it might have to come from the Sondhi (PAD leader) "Manager" operation and thus lack any credibility?
Yes, if you cherry-pick your facts and blend in some opinion dressed up as more quasi "fact", it's easy to conjure up a credible-looking scenario and claim "QED"; a little more difficult to make it stand up to scrutiny - however slick (or "nuanced") the presentation is.
His point about "why Thanksin's support is widespread in the rual North and Northeast, but not in the rural South?" is potentially interesting - but not all that mysterious. I suspect he knows very well that most of Thailand's rural constituencies are fiefdoms held and run by today's equivalent of medieval barons - i.e. the local political/commercial power-brokers. They exist in the rural south (operated by and benefiting mainly Democrats) just as much as they do elsewhere (benefiting Thaksin-linked parties and others). Each is adept at turning out the vote for their respective parties in preparation for horse-trading and jockeying for their post-election negotiating position. Handing out cash to individual voters (which all parties do) is the thin end of the wedge. The thicker end is in the six- and seven-figure payments to local headmen (as well as other forms of "pork" patronage for their community); then come golden handshake payments to shiftable factions of MPs in order to achieve the necessary coalition majority in parliament; finally the doling out of lucrative ministries to parties who emerged with enough clout from the election.
@ "ChangNoi"
I guess I'm one of those people who are "too ignorant" to "know" where "Mr. Pasid received his wealth from"; in fact, your comment is the first mention I've seen of any wealth (payment?) coming to him. So, please tell us - who are you accusing of giving him this wealth..... and what evidence do you have for saying so? And please also tell us where and when Mr. Pasid appeared "on Red Shirt's media".
----------
@ TikMustang
I think you can rest assured that the comment appearing here is NOT from the well-known Chang Noi who contributes columns to Thailand's The Nation newspaper. Apart from the clear difference in language, the other Chang Noi always manages to make sense in what he writes - and always provides evidence for any claims and points he makes.
"I have posted this elsewhere but am compelled to repost here to respond to Steve@Thailand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBDm-jA3N80"
Well, some candour at last from Vichai N; indeed he has posted this slickly-produced piece of marketing elsewhere - and widely. The same thought occurs now as with all the other multiple postings of it: if there IS a properly-argued and substantiated case to make - why the need to fall back on this? "I've run out of facts - so watch this promotional video"? Fine for the Facebook fraternity perhaps, but are Economist readers really so dim that they need to be fed this kind of pre-digested messaging? As it happens, I spent 20 years producing commercials and videos; it's really not difficult to create something seemingly credible - whether it be to vilify UDD as this one does or to eulogise them as other examples on Youtube do. However, unlike the target market for this video, my clients certainly wouldn't accept a facile montage of disembodied snippets taken out of context and then juxtaposed with emotive music to make an impression. "Dodgy dossier" anyone?
Otherwise, far from "responding" to anything I've said, Vichai N simply repeats his stock slogan - "indiscriminate nearly daily M79 grenade/RPG attacks" - later revised to "nearly twice a week" after being called on it. Whatever the frequency, no authority has established a link between any of the attacks and UDD - but, of course, again Vichai N "knows" what they don't. Then, while cherry-picking quotes, he neglects to mention what inconveniently appears right between the two he features from the WSJ article - "Maj. Gen. Khattiya's critics dismiss him as a showman full of bluster. Some mainstream Red Shirt leaders disown him and his methods......."
Some other points about what he "knows".....
a) "......catching police/military (without live ammos) off-guard....." - perhaps he can explain the hundreds of bullet holes in buildings, vehicles and people during 10 April - and the ratio of civilian dead/wounded to the army's casualties? Strange kind of UDD militia to shoot almost entirely at their own people - maybe a precursor to those "hundreds/thousands of martyred Reds" he later tells us that the UDD leadership wanted on 19 May?
b) "...... protesters at Rachaprasong were literally hostages....." - so the government never made that well-publicised standing offer to transport them home free of charge..... and there weren't plenty of protesters rotating in and out of the rally right up until it was sealed off?
But enough of all this. People simply need to separate established fact and prejudiced speculation masquerading as fact.
Relevant to the original article and to my first comment, I offer this closing thought from another article*:
"Thailand’s fatal flaw is its loss of faith in the electoral process. This loss of faith has opened the way for hardliners to pursue violent alternatives. Violence on all sides is deplorable, but remember that those who condemn the red shirt provocations most vigorously are also those who have consistently denied the legitimacy of their peaceful statements at the ballot box."
*http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/15/reds-fatal-flaw-thailands-fatal-flaw/
The ubiquitous Vichai N makes the point for me - yet more of the standard "I claim therefore we know" hypespeak. He claims/knows that "Thaksin S. intereceded and demanded from the Red hardliners to reject PM Abhisit's offer". Evidence to substantiate this? Speculation.
He claims/knows "the Reds leaderships kept on an escalating intimidation game by constant nearly daily M79 indiscriminate grenade attacks". Evidence to substantiate this? More speculation - and, suddenly, an article of unproven credibility sold to Asia Times Online (offshoot of the newspaper founded by PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul's Manager Group) and published fully nine days after the May 19 crackdown. Quote from the article's author: "In my sentbox are pitch letters stretching back more than a week."* So, I will speculate (not claim/know) that this "gripping story" (his words) was offered to many more heavyweight/reliable media outlets - who all passed on it. But then again, as we "know", they're all in the pay of Goldstein, sorry - Thaksin.........
Elsewhere, the busy Vichai N (somewhat unusually) has urged Abhisit "to act with utmost speed to revive his five-point reconciliation map and announce a new election date, earlier than November 14th if possible. Now is the time for solid demonstrable good faith gesture … and not just soothing words." I couldn't agree more - but how to equate that with the mantra of "Reds Shirts = Terrorists"?
Is "terrorist" a soothing word in Abspeak?
* http://twitter.com/kennethtoddruiz
----------------
@ "krah" - I don't "evade two battles by excluding them from [my] question". They happened and many died as a direct consequence of heavy-handed assaults by troops firing live rounds - and plainly NOT just in the air or for self-defence. In the "six day long clash in May", we saw many well-documented examples of the Thai army carrying out crowd control by sniper fire - at a range of 200-300 metres. Self-defence? Where were the "grenades, assault rifles" you mention in those confrontations? As I've noted before, somehow the truth is never quite enough for the dedicated propagandist.
"Reconciliation requires truth"? Yes, it most certainly does - from ALL sides. And an end to the "simplistic" formula of "Reds Shirts = Terrorists" as well as all the other inventive and inflammatory hyperbole from people who clearly have no interest in addressing the very real grievances that brought the UDD protesters to Bangkok - again. For many, "reconciliation" seems to mean just suppress them and silence them - again.
"The course forward for the red shirts is to learn from their mistakes and become a truly peaceful protest movement"? Absolutely - and, after the 2009 Songkran debacle, that is clearly how the 2010 protest started...... before this nervous, fragile and (I believe) inept government allowed it to be hijacked by the inevitable extremist element. In parallel, the way forward for this government is to stop lying through its teeth, stop muzzling dissenting voices, stop characterising a movement of millions as "terrorists" and - above all - face facts.
It seems "krah" would have us regard the UDD protest as equating to a hostage situation - where the police can and will say whatever it takes to get the hostage-taker to surrender or do whatever it takes to neutralise him. Hardly a valid comparison and not a situation that Abhisit would seem overly qualified for, having for weeks engaged in a get-nowhere mix of largely empty rhetoric, heavy-handed bluster, threats and vilification - with the ever-compliant Thai media acting as his megaphone.
Yesiam puts it well: "In Abspeak: Red Shirt = Terrorist" - and "krah" appears to have swallowed it whole..... "forceful armed occupation of the city center and threatening further violence" - does that accurately describe the true circumstances of this 2-month protest? Was there any violence before 10 April or between then and 19 May to justify that simplistic description? "krah" will no doubt want to cite still-unattributed M79 attacks and some hothead speeches from the rally stage as grounds for dismissing the entire UDD movement as violent thugs - not forgetting that we're also asked to believe that they were ALL there only because of one man and his money. Orwell's description in "1984" of the two-minute "hate" against Emmanuel Goldstein springs to mind - except that this Thai government and almost all Thai media have extended the tactic to a 24/7 routine.
There are precious few "saints" in Thai politics and UDD are certainly guilty of having misplayed their hand. To many of us, it looks very much that Abhisit could have marginalised the UDD hardliners and empowered the moderates. Instead, he achieved the exact opposite. Was that ineptitude or intention - meeting the requirements of his masters behind the scenes? As with most things in the murky mess of Thai politics - almost impossible to say for sure.
A question for Prasit who says: "He [Abhisit] offered to proceed with the rest of his reconciliation plan unconditionally but the offer of November elections was conditional upon the red shirts voluntarily dispersing their protest and their unlawful occupation of the entire city centre."
On what basis does Prasit see it as proper that the nation's PM dangles the prospect (and only a prospect) of an early election in front of a faction in that nation and then promptly withdraws it because that faction did not comply with his demands? All that the PM does is supposed to be in the long-term interests of all the Thai people - including the timing of general elections. That timing is surely not something to be used as merely a short-term and dubious bargaining chip with just a faction of them.
There is some obvious logic to Abhisit's oft-repeated mantra that "conditions must be right" for an election before he'll call it. The same can't be said for his tactics here.
Most of the malls and stores opened today - their choice to do so just as it was when they decided to close when the UDD protesters arrived. No incidents reported - and other stores have announced they will follow suit tomorrow.
Like "comparative politics", I too have become disillusioned by the stark contrast between Abhisit's fine words and his feet of clay actions. Efforts to achieve reconciliation have been token at best. Populist Thaksin policies he condemned in opposition have been continued and even augmented. Actions he condemned in opposition have become the norm once in government - right up to declaring a state of emergency when not at war.
Smooth talk of insisting on media independence has translated into government interference being as pervasive as it was under Thaksin - and in the view of many professionals actually worse. The Thai Journalists Association today issued a statement that includes the following: "The government claimed the blockade of the transmission [PTV] and blockade of access to the website [www.prachatai.com] were done to prevent distortion of information and prevent dissemination of false information to the public. But the government continued to use state-owned radio and TV station to present one-sided information. The government also allowed other radio stations and another satellite TV [PAD's ASTV] to present similar content of state media, which could lead to further rifts in the society. This could lead to criticism that the government was using double standard law enforcement."
The instances and spread of this "double standard" from judicial decisions through media manipulation to censorship have become such a norm for the present government that the phrase is close to becoming a cliche. Bluntly, the hypocrisy is on full show - and few are missing it.
I have no issue with The Economist's use of "cobbling together a parliamentary majority" - except that it doesn't properly convey the fact that Abhisit's coalition was engineered by the military and is the product of rampant bribery through a] the doling out of lucrative ministries and b] straightforward cash payments. So much for the fine talk of "cleaning up Thai politics". To borrow the telling phrase of one respected Thai analyst, Abhisit's "government of contrived circumstances" owes its existence solely to those circumstances and is, consequently, widely seen as lacking legitimacy and a mandate - as well as being in hock to behind-the-scenes string-pullers. Hence the constant cycle of tactics to delay elections - elections that most know full well the Democrats will lose (and that includes the military who conduct their own opinion polling).
I suspect Abhisit knows the countdown on his premiership has already started. Above all else, he has conspicuously failed to deliver what those who installed him demand - to neutralise the "red" problem by crackdown or otherwise. Post-2006, coups are out (for a while); they slickly re-jigged the parliamentary arithmetic in December 2008 to put him in and are just as ready to shuffle it again so as to replace him with someone more to their liking.
As "fZVwtTh8HK" points out, this latest in a series of "decisions not to distribute" does say it all - likely to be reinforced as and when Thailand's ICT ministry blocks internet access again.
Sad (though anything but surprising) to see the likes of "Oriental Orifice" wheeling out the same well-worn "generated-by-Thaksin's-PR-operation" fable again. Different PR agency, same story. As always, we're asked to believe that The Economist (Times/Guardian/NY Times/WSJ/Reuters/AP/BBC/CNN etc etc) are all duped/bought off by Thaksin - anytime any of them produces any coverage that does not slavishly toe the anti-"red"/pro-government line in the way that 90% of Thai media does.
Jaw-droppingly naive? Yes - but that's the flavour of much of what one sees in Thailand these days. I recommend readers to look at a frank and disturbing view of the growing polarisation of Thai media here: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1677
@ OHanuman......
"the UK goverment detains Taksin's 5.5 US billion dollars" ? Perhaps you'd like to share with us any evidence (let alone proof) that this wild claim of yours is true?
Thaksin was a billionaire before he even went into politics never mind became PM. He made vast amounts of money through being awarded near-monopoly telecoms and other concessions in the 1990's - the same as some others did. Once in government, he certainly manipulated things to his business advantage - the same as almost all other Thai politicians have done and continue to do (he was just much better at it).
There are more than enough justifiable and evidence-backed accusations to level at Thaksin without you inventing "facts".
When you accuse a writer of being paid by Thaksin, how about you mention at least one thing the writer has said that is in any way a benefit to Thaksin? As it is, this is no more credible than your other invention.