This is a blog
I have been watching with interest the web reaction to ‘The Times’ interview with Thaksin on some of the local forums, and am amazed that few people actually get it……. and that, perhaps, includes the author.
The interview by Richard Lloyd Parry was indeed a
Thaksin reminisces about his days in London
scoop. It was the first time Thaksin laid his cards on the table to such an extent to the foreign press, and even though nobody else from the foreign press seemed to want to chase this particular scoop, Parry got full access and then a tape recorded interview - the transcripts which were apparently provided by Thaksin’s staff themselves.
So Thaksin went into this interview eyes wide open and obviously expecting some political capital out of it.
Now take a look at the news story and look at the actual transcript of the interview.
Well actually you can’t check the news story now if you are in Thailand, unless its posted somewhere else, because that has been blocked, well, so says the man you cannot gag in ‘The Times’.
Actually the interview has not been blocked which is quite surprising, or it it? No not really, because it is the news story more than the interview, which has caused the offence.
Enter the conquering hero
Actually the author has missed the bottom line on this story and that it is quite simply: Thailand is going to the dogs but Thaksin says will come back to power in Thailand by hook or by crook with Puea Thai after the next election, his sins will be wiped, he will be found not guilty, and he then can put the country together again and save us all.
If he wants to march in, he will march in from the north, but he wants to avoid bloodshed, he says, thankfully for once.
Richard Lloyd Parry, in the interview labours a lot on, and questions, the role of the Monarchy and or institution thereof. That is all perfectly valid. But Thaksin Shinawatra is very careful in his answers, whether we believe him or not. He has said nothing against the monarchy, but criticised advisors to the monarchy and even suggested they tried to ‘assasinate him’. In fact the Times claims that Thaksin wants the monarchy reformed, but that comes from a question by RLP and Thaksin is answering ‘Yes, Yes’ to reforms of institution around the monarchy.
So actually the interview does not stand up the story but perhaps could have done had he asked the appropriate questions and we have to assume the ‘ Times’ has not censored the interview.
Actually anyone reading the interview might gather that the interviewee thinks he is one step short of canonisation. So blood has already been drawn there intentionally or otherwise.
But in fact what ‘The Times’ has done is to use the interview to convey a certain set of circumstances, and relationships, which have been widely talked about in journalistic and diplomatic circles in Bangkok, and London, and get them into a news story.
It would be inappropriate for me to spell out what that conspiracy, real or imagined, is.
That ‘Times’ agenda seems to be confirmed by a follow-up story by Richard Lloyd Parry headed: ‘The interview that dared to break Thai Royal taboo’.
I have always seen, rightly or wrongly, Richard Lloyd Parry, as a closet supporter of Thaksin, even though he once described him as unsavoury he has painted, the current Prime Minister, as much more of an ogre. I took ‘The Times’ to task about it about earlier in this year. See this for example ‘The charmer making a mess of his country’.
Richard, who lives in Tokyo, as a journalist has never had to live under Thaksin and things like the ’War on Drugs’ and media suppression and men with baseball bats at the FCCT.
The possibility that Thaksin could actually be guilty of the crimes brought against him have been given half hearted acceptance in ‘The Times’ if any at all.
The fact that he was democratically elected it seems is enough. This is about a threat to democracy. Of course democratically elected leaders can have their own agenda as Adolf did.
The newspaper was silent about his critics when Thaksin took over Manchester City. If you wanted to see criticism of Thaksin you had to look to the sports pages of the Daily Mail and Guardian.
Anyway I voluntarily parted company with ‘The Times’ earlier this year to return to my old friends at the ‘Evening Standard’ (or rather ’Eenie Stannit’ according to comedian Eric Morecombe).
By that time I was concerned about ‘The Times’ and went public about why, and after 10 years, they were suddenly equally concerned about my byline appearing in ‘numerous other newspapers’.
Though I have since written for them, I do not want to represent them. They would be foolish to disagree.
Anyway, who am I to say Thaksin is not a democract and a man of the people which he described himself in the interview, agreeing he had some similarities to Aung San Suu Gyi? Well they were both democratically elected and removed from power for example.
Needless to say Thaksin is a lot friendlier with Burma’s ruthless military junta, with whom he does business, so you wont see him chanting in support of democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi.
(And ‘Man of the people’ ? Well he was not exactly brought up in the fields of Issan. He comes from a long line of Thai Chinese Royal tax collectors (ironically) and muleteers doing something along the Thai Burma border and dealing with whatever used to cross there)
On November 9th Richard also wrote this.”Mr Thaksin is a paradox. While in office, he was feared and loathed by many Thais, especially the educated middle-class, as an opportunist and authoritarian who trampled on human rights, the media and independent institutions in the pursuit of power. For the rest of the population he was — and remains — Thailand’s most adored leader, re-elected repeatedly and forced out by a naked military coup.
“After the generals returned power to elected politicians Thais voted for Mr Thaksin’s supporters and proxies who were subsequently forced out of power not at the ballot box, but through a series of questionable court decisions.”
That’s one way of looking it (though I am not sure what a naked coup is) and clearly Richard thinks the courts were rigged in all the Thaksin cases. So lets not talk about what his new buddy Hun Sen in Cambodia is doing to his people and their land and homes, which he is bulldozing selling to foreigners, Thaksin included. Thaksin will not be talking about it, as he is now economic advisor to the Cambodian government.
What it means though is that, if and when Thaksin comes back into town on his white charger, and Thai courts become honest again and find him innocent, I’ll be following British public schoolboy Abhisit and paddling my own canoe out of town and heading for retirement like that other ex-British public schoolboy and former excellent but unelected Thai PM, Anand Panyarachun.
So why can’t former British public schoolboys rule Thailand?
I guess we are of touch with the common man.
Entertaining and imaginative take on things as ever, Andrew. Thank you.
I agree with a lot you say and I dare you you have a lot more insight into affairs than me but somehow I am getting depressed with the constant personalisation of the whole affairs from, not you, but all the media reports.
The way I see it may be naive but I see the priority to be fixing a country in massive decline. Poor education, lagging technology, outdated infrastructure, racist attitudes, selfish values and disastrous foreign relations (to name just a few!) are the root cause of all this trouble NOT any individual.
For years now the Bangkok elite have ruled those outside and treated them as near slaves to further their cause. Thaksin, whilst clearly far from perfect, was the first to give them some semblance of hope, respect and a better life (which is why they ALL overwhelmingly love him).
Right now, the rural poor will not relinquish this hope lightly and the ruling elite know they cannot win against such overwhelming numbers in the end but they choose to delay the inevitable in a French revolution sort of way or is it just that Thai habit of putting the head in the sand when it all gets too much!
Until then, there will be turmoil, civil war even and Thailand will probably sink without trace if a solution is not found soon. I cannot think of any solution other than a fair (moderated by international observers) election and all agree to abide by the result. Following this there HAS to be a set of judicial values that are fair and where no one side always gets off the hook (as is the case now all the time with the PAD).
Then and only then Thailand can start to try to claw its way back to some semblance of what it was as it will have a truly elected government and a fair justice system. I am not pro-Thaksin, I am pro-true democracy and a future for Thailand. That will never be on the agenda of the BMW brigade in Bangkok but it is on the agenda of millions of rural dwellers whether the elite like it or not…
I don’t want to comment on individuakl newspapers.
One issue that this raises however is freedom of the press.
By supressing comment on what he said the authorities are, in my view, making the same mistake that Dimbleby and the BBC made when they turned a discussion program into a one-sided attack on one political party (BNP, Nick Griffin)
I no more support Taksin than Griffin or what they stand for; but supression can sometimes have a contrary and sympathetic effect
Then why don’t you mess up Richard’s day and spoil the hidden agenda. Certainly, we have been discussing the possible intrigues at work today. It was concluded that Richard was absolutely useless at asking hard questions. But us all being Thailand-jaded sadists, we would have like to see Thaksin really squirm. It’s exactly what the jerk needs! You owe to your fellow expats to spill the conspiracy. It’s obvious you owe The Times (that Murdoch hi-so bog paper) absolutely nothing. 55555!
Well if it isn’t Eton & Harrow types, its military academy graduates. Thaksin is obviously of the opinion that this country is obliged to treat him as near-royalty because he went to that horrible military academy which breeds such arrogant stuffed-shirts and flat-out criminals. I am far from happy with Abhisit, but still think he is infinitely preferable to a person who thinks we all owe him a massive slice of our tax revenue just for being a very so-so businessman, politician and human being. Fact of the matter is just about all local bigwigs are out of touch with the country’s peasantry. As for those Thais who are now blaming everything on the UK and the low education of their fellow citizens, they might well want to ask themselves what they have ever done to improve matters. It’s not even as if many upper and middle-class Thais show much sophistication in politics anyway. And the rest, not very surprisingly, try to survive which ever way they can.
You are right to point out that Richard has no experience of living under a Thaksin regime.In the expat community, there is wide spectrum of political opinion. But those who have been here any length of time are almost unanimously anti-Thaksin. And even able to realize that he ruthlessly exploits those who have few economic and social defenses. Whatever our political persuasion, it seems we are able to figure that this man has the highly manipulative nature that we usually associate with criminals. It tends to be newcomers who are prepared to cut Thaksin a piece of slack. This points out, to me, how politically naive most westerners are about politics in the majority world. And with the likes of Richard pitching such soft balls, it is hardly surprising people back home are so ignorant. Kleptocracy is pretty much how the whole of SEA politics pans out.
Edward Boniface: Can’t really take you to task on anything you have said here
But Thaksin does have a lot of big business and BMWs behind him too. Still if Abhisit cannot convince the poorer regions, the scenario you outline is, well, out there.
Hi Andrew… That is the point. I agree with you totally. Thaksin is a rich chap and hardly the poor peasant BUT ha was smart enough to realise that power lies in the majority and revolutions never started with the middle classes.
If you were one of the millions of rural dwellers looked down on for decades by the BKK hi-sos, I think you would back the guy giving you a voice and some dignity. I know I would!
Tough questions? You mean about the extra-judiciary killings in the drug war? You know what T. will say. That is also something you generally never heard Thais complain about when he was in power, just the bleedin hearters from the West.
You know what they say about getting the government you deserve?
I am not a fan of T., but you have to admit, but Abhisit and co. behave like someone scared of there shadow whenever the media reports T doing something as little as shaving. He would do better to ignore him and try to improve the situation for Thailand.
Well people don’t really tend to get the point about extra-judicial murders (’killings’ is way too sanitised) until it is their own sons and daughters who are getting murdered. It is now as easy to label a person as a drug-dealer as it was once to label them as communists. Sure real criminals get shot. (Shit happens to those who dabble.) And sure also it is just used as an excuse to waste anyone you don’t personally like. Such as the man who wishes to tell the world you are a heavy-duty tax evader. (RIP, Shipping Moo.) And that is also my bone of contention with middle & upper-class Bangkok people. They want ALL the profit, but they want ZERO responsibility for their actions in gathering that profit. My heart doesn’t bleed over this. It isn’t going to change anytime soon, and I can do nothing to stop it. so I live with it. Am I going to condone it it? No! Especially since I have evidence that a prominent Thaksin relative has been bumping people off for no other reason than the fact that they were in competition with him. Obviously he is a free-marketeer. “I shoot them, so I am free to do as I please.” To me, that is all the Land of the Free means. Those with all the guns are free to do anything they like. And that is ultimately why I am not willing to lend even the slightest tacit support to Thaksin. I see him for the thug he really is.
That said, I think Danny B is absolutely correct in wondering why Abhisit is so totally incapable of stealing some of Thaksin’s populist thunder. But this is pretty much how Thai society works. There are uniformed and armed bullies (Jeeko) like Thaksin, and there are wealthy and educated wimps like Abhisit who scuttle around, but never really confront. Hardly the right recipe for a ‘Land of Quality and Refinement’.
Sure the rich have to learn to compromise. But then again, the rich & also elite Thaksin has learned nothing of compromise. As a politician, I think he is a rank amateur.
I notice Richard-Parry-Thingy allowed Thaksin to get away with the lie he was born poor. That is just 100% spin. There is considerable evidence that he was born into a family that was already well on itts way to making it to the richaest 1%. Thus Thaksin was born with a lie, and doubtless he will also die with a lie on his lips. we expect politicians to lie. We also expect them to lie convincingly, and to positive effect.
I am not sure if we can quote other rags here, especially such poorly written ones as the Nation but this interview says it all for me. I know very little of Hun Sen but he does appear to have summed up the Thai situation perfectly: http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/11/12/politics/politics_30116424.php
(Andrew, pls edit or re-produce the link as you see fit)
Largactil. No need for me to do it. The questions appear to be phrased to bring the another member of the ‘institution’ more into the equation. But they did not draw out the sought responses.
Edward: Yes I read it. The fact is there has been dirty dealing along all of Thailands borders for years.
I am not up to speed actually on why Hun Sen blames Abhisit for all of this though. He has just inherited what his forbears created.
Quite clearly though the temple business has been seized upon to provoke people both sides of the border and because the temple appears to have been given away by the Thaksin faction this has got the yellows into a tizzy.
I know very little of Hun Sen too. But that little is enough. Just the sort of person that Thaksin would feel happy dealing with. Let’s face, it has zero to do with democracy in either country. But it does have everything to do with those offshore oilfields. That is the irony of living in this region. I feel reasonably at home talking to ordinary locals. When I meet the rich and influential here I always feel I am degrading myself by just being in the same room as a bunch of murdering two-faced scumbags. Hun Sen has far too many skeletons in the cupboard to start talking like a righteous man.
Yes, ask Chavalit all about the dirty dealing Edward. (Pom Mai Roo. Mai Nere Nawn.) Hun Sen - the man who instigates anti-Thai riots as part of his foreign policy. Hardly an honest man either.
I agree with Edward. Most forums are taking personal stances when it is the country and its problems that need attention. The Thais won’t go the French revoluntionary route as you indicate but i do wish they would think a little bit more deeply on what is happening to their country politically. ( And economically, compared to other asean countries)
Mae bhen rai has its place and can be beneficial; but for the country, a more determined position needs to be taken and they may be running out of time. Not their style or ability to revolt but maybe a charismatic leader who can take on the elite and get some compromise. A slow process but it needs to start.
In all fairness, I think the majority of Thais are still very capable of compromise - given the opportunity to be something a bit more than just the manipulated. But here’s the kicker. As always, it is those with deeply-entrenched interests that continually come out swinging at each other. And yes, they are fighting the succession war, to see who will gain the rich upper hand under what will undoubtedly be a very weak and pliable successor. I certainly don’t disagree with Edward and Newbie, but I AM saying that it is the Thai elite, its business classes, its military and civil service that have all the power to clean up their own act. The writing is firmly on the wall and they seem totally incapable of figuring out that their horrible and continual double-dealing is destroying the country. It is just plain no good blaming subsistence farmers for the country’s problems when absolutely all the evidence is that the damage has been done by supposedly educated, influential and wealthy people. Indeed, many such people make a complete mockery of the idea that it is all about education, since it is obvious that those with such privileges seem to think it is carte blanche for them to use the rest of Thai society as cheap labor.
It is for this reason that I will continue to oppose both sets of shirts. It is actually very important for the majority NOT to forget the past. Not to forget those who continue to oppress them. If the elite, with its various shirt-color goon squads, want to continue running this country, it really is time for THEM to grow up and get rid of their childish and shallow material greed and sham ultra-nationalism. (Thaksin says it is a sham, but his own manipulation of that ugly kind of politics is completely cynical and contrived. Worse than a local soap opera!)
When I read posts in many forums, I am constantly struck by the idea that foreign investors (and posters)are very keen on the idea of yet another quick fix. This is presumably a means to protect their investments here. Unfortunately, it usually means that the majority of the population will yet again be ripped off. Such voices are essentially asking us to cut major tax-evaders and the deeply corrupt a piece of slack for the sake of their investments. We’ve seen such quick fixes before, but all they do is delay the development of a more equitable society. Thus, 1992 was just another example of how a forced compromise (Yep, not above criticism! He tod us so. Some remember. Why forget!) doesn’t work. All such compromise does is allow the worse offenders to walk away from their own fuckups, and start up exactly the same factional conflict again some months down the line.
Newbie is right to highlight the ‘mai pen rai’ of the general population, but it is important to realize just how under the thumb the general population is. Those with all the guns have limited the ability of the general population to express their views for decades. But the likes of Thaksin don’t think this has any significance. To them it is only important to create some economic freedom so that cheap labor slaves can be morphed into their consumer slaves. They still want to keep the lid on people’s political aspirations, which is exactly why ex-cop (Are they ever ex?) Thaksin still wants to resort to such primitive tools of repression as the War on Drugs. Make no mistake. It has nothing to do with killing drug addicts and dealers. (He would have to shoot his own son if that was truly the case. He would also have to shoot fellow elitists and policemen, who have frequently benefited big time from the trade.) The WOD was nothing more than a cynical means to stifle genuine dissent, as opposed to dissent which can be manipulated for his own political and financial gain. We’ve seen it all before in the communist repressions, when every one with even the slightest political gripe became an overnight red to be incinerated alive.
Thaksin had the opportunity to turn a new page in Thai politics. Instead he chose to use the same corrupt and barbaric means as those repressive regimes who preceded him (and follow him). Hardly a real and honest reformer! He only has himself to blame for this bloody farce. He resorted to the quick fix when he should have been working with a much more gradual and finessed approach. I have no sympathy for this man. He brought it all on himself (and us) with his blind bull-headed stupidity. The man who can never admit his mistakes is essentially useless. I have no desire to rehabilitate this man’s political career by letting him escape justice. The onus is on him and his fellow elitists to begin the process of genuine reform, by showing us that they accept responsiblity for their numerous mistakes and criminal acts. Unless, they signal that such change has to come (and that they are in earnest about it themselves), they cannot realistically expect the long shat-upon general population to rise to the challenge.
I would not disagree with Largactil’s summary
I have talked with a mature masters graduate in political science - a former soldier - and he would probably be in agreement with the views expressed though he would of course be careful in the words he used.
living in thailand teaches you to read between the lines and not on them.
he does not talk of yellow shirts or red shirts. he links them as the mob.
so yes, there are thais that think differently from those discussed in some of the, how cam i put it, lesser blogs and forums.
It is extremely sad that those who have absolutely genuine greivances so often find that their cause has been subverted by those with motives that owe a great deal more to a wish to monopolise than a wish to survive or better oneself. It’s sad that those who need to protest are so often tarred with the ‘mob’ label. It stifles genuine and spontaneous protest by those who really should be protesting. Such ‘real’ people undoubtedly exist in both shirt factions, but I am sorry to say that they are not by any stretch of the imagination calling the shots. And that is yet another reason why I am in no hurry to back either. You vote for democracy and end up with kleptocracy. That has long been how it always pans out, and Ice-T shows no signs of doing it any differently from the megalomaniacs who preceded and who will follow him. All the genuine radicals are long-dead - Killed by the same people who are orchestrating this divisive succession grab.
Transparency International has moved Thailand to 84th place in the corruption industry, from 80, meaning that it is more corrupt than the last rating.
I thought getting rid of Thaksin was going to fix Thailand’s corruptions problems?
Won Hu: That was rather optimistic of you wasn’t it?
Andrew,
Few things - while many of your criticisms of Thaksin are justified, your view that Abhisit and his coalition of crooks (Newin), half-wits (Kasit) and plain old fascists (the PAD) are some beacon of democracy is completely disingenuous. You often come across as a closet PAD supporter and have been almost completely silent on the PAD’s ultra-nationalist activities, not to mention Sondhi L’s dubious financial dealings.
Secondly, to complain about politicians/journalists using each other for mutually beneficial outcomes is just absurd.
Thirdly - there is a former journalist in prison in Thailand. She received 18years in a secret trial. Da Torpedo. Whether you agree with her or not, she is a former colleague and deserves your support. Your silence on this by omission doesn’t do your credibility many favours.
Franks
Frank Frank: You are completely wrong to believe that I am a supporter of the yellow shirts or Sondhi. Why would I be? They hate the foreign press. I neither think the reds or yellows have got it right. But both have valid arguments.
Nor am I a supporter of the baggage that Abhisit has had to carry with him to stay in power.
I am rather simplistic on this subject. I would tend to support an honest man in favour of a dishonest one.
On your second point I stated that the journalist in question used the interview to introduce or strongly hint into a story a conspiracy which has been talked about in media and diplomatic circles for a long time.
Your interpretation is wild. Journalists and politicians use each other all the time.
Da Torpedo is not relevant to this post. My silence on the subject is only dictated by the editors/readers. But I am not closed on the subject.
Fair response, Andrew
Question. Who do you admire most in Thai politics? Answer. Total silence.
“Why can’t British public schoolboys rule Thailand?” To simply answer your initial question, they can now. Since the Junta readjusted the wording in the New constitution. Previously the wording was “Thai Born” something that Abhisit was not. Possibly it was just a coincidence the Junta supporting the Democrats and Abhisit and their wording change, and then possibly not.
Frank Frank: I am even less liable to support the yellow shirts and Sondthi particulary as this blog has been misquoted in Manager magazine. Thank you SDW for pointing this out.
Finally all and thanks to SDW this is how 2bangkok.com translated the summary of the Manager article on the piece above. (Perhaps this was done by Google translate).
“Andrew Dummons Poining out that Lloyd Parry interview with Thaksin has been prepared by Thaksin’s men and Mr. Parry has been picked since he never been to Thailand during the regime of Ai maew and he is a staunch spekaer for Ai Maew”.
So you think the western press is bad. Anyway I have googled this guy Andrew Dummons together with Thaksin, Thailand etc and thank god I cannot find anthing else.
Ricefield Radio: I think you may be taking me too literally.
Hi Khun Andrew,
I’m the one who make such English translation avaiable in 2Bangkok dot com … Sorry for many typo errors I’ve done … but I do my best to show the opinions of Thai nettizens (in Thai and English) and English translation avaiable.
Sheer amount of news I’ve recieved really cause a difficulty for me to keep track on correcting typo errors though.
Apparently, you’ve missed the crucial point.
Thailand doesn’t need Aphisit.
He offers the country NOTHING.
Ever since right/wrong has been muddled, we’re only left to look at the FACTs.
It’s not about how good he looks.
It’s not about how he graduated from ETON.
It’s about how Aphisit can solve the country’s problems.
To look for pretty points in a political jobs is a Utopian dream.
I guess foreigners would like to look at Thailand with a ‘Farang’ view.
That’s what makes it so difficult for you all to see the problem.
It’s not about pretty boys.
It’s about a man who gets the job done.
No matter how hideous he is, Thailand can overlook it.
Mr leeyiankun,
Now, those red shirt in Chiang Mai are threatening to assasin Khun Mark (Abhisit) during the visit on SUnday 29 Novembeer 2009.
it is definitely gone too far!
You have daid that “Thailand doesn’t need Aphisit.” so it it the NOBLE thing to assasin Khun Abhisit?
Leeyiankun:
Thanks for that. I’m not particularly interested in Abhisit’s good looks, and, yes I have to confess as a farang, I am probably taking a view which has taken on board many elements of my culture. Even though I have been here 20 years, still major cultural difference I fear.
I am not about to tell the Thais how to run their country. I’m just saying I will happily retire if TS comes back. It’s merely a gut feeling.
Is Abhisit qualified to run Thailand? Yes. Can he do it? I really don’t know.
Sadly seems very unlikely he can improve things as time and time again the same ogres in Thailand raise their heads above the parapet with impunity.
History shows almost anybody can run Thailand. Its how they do it that matters. Thaksin I believe would again be divisive, whereas Lee Kuan Yew gained the support of a much higher percentage of his people in Singapore.
I agree with the sentiments of your last line ‘No Matter how hideous he is, Thailand can overlook it’.
That is in essence the difference between the two cultures.
I merely hope it need not continue to be so. In the meantime I accept of course that a vast amount of Thai people, even the majority, would disagree with my views. Does not necessarily make them right of course.
Wiz: No problem. I am presuming you translated from Manager magazine, not this website. I’m not worried about the literals, but the general miscomprehension of what I wrote.
Thailand has known very little but military and police strongmen running the country since 1932. One wonders, if they were so wonderful (if somewhat ugly), why is the country now in such a state? Surely a naive Eton boy couldn’t have reduced it to this parlous state in such a short space of time. Where were those inherent strengths in Thai society that the self-same strong men always like to rattle on about? Or was it just that the majority are piss-poor because self-same hideous strongmen tended to keep most of the profits for themselves?
Leeyiankul’s logic flies in the face of all the facts. Indeed, its twisted logic like that that keeps the status quo in power and hideously rich.
“Gets the job done!” You mean he tries to kill inconvenient truths about himself. And fails abysmally!
Having scared us all too death about strong men who get things done (to the point of frizzle)(Khun Samak perhaps?), Khun Lee will now disappear elsewhere online to intimidate the local non-Thaksin elite. Make sure he doesn’t stamp on your smarties, Eton Boy!
http://leeyiankun.deviantart.com/gallery/
Indeed, Why can’t local uni grads rule Thailand? Too busy with their airbrushes, and terrorising Man City forums most probably! The Ho Chi Minh king-kong superman pose is hilarious.
http://www.angkor.com/2bangkok/2bangkok/forum/showpost.php?p=26368&postcount=321
It looks like at least a few locals appreciate Andrew’s stance.
To answer Leeyiankun. Yes, Abhiset is expendable. And so is Thaksin. His handling of the South was abyssmal. For that reason alone, he will go down in history as an incompetent. And there are dozens of other reasons. A more equitable society will never come from a man who still believes in money politics, and who encourages his aides to murder his opponents.
I think I am now waiting for Leeyiankun and Wiz to both profess their eternal gratitude to Khun Samak and then start fighting over who will inherit the man’s slaveowning mentality.
Well, for Ang Moh (Farang) with Black Hair (Thai derogatory for Singaporean) like Leeyiankun, I have NOTHING to say about him at the time being.
Let’s see how Khun Mark and Democrat men going to survive after alienating PAD and even the Southerners by trying to catch several big fish at the same time .. hurting PAD to please those who HATE PAD .. while still keep PAD as Democrat alliance.