But I still prefer to hear the dirty secrets direct from the horse’s mouth – Thaksin. The songs Frank Shinawatra can sing, with Jim Taylor providing the second vocals, to the entranced Thai judges . . . rap music anyone?

The religious angles of the ongoing saga is very interesting and has not be discussed much. What’s missing here is the role (whether active /passive) of Dharmakaya sect. The sect is pro-Thaksin, obviously. The acting supreme patriach that Thaksin promoted is said to be sympathizer/protector of the sect. IIRC, the Dharmakaya abbot is supposed to be defrocked but the matter get shoved onto a backburner or something like that. There’s also the group called Yuwasangha (young monks) with a very militant/ anti-PAD website. There’s also a large gathering of monks at Sanam Luang that antagonizes the early PAD protest. Just bits of details that I’m reminded of, upon reading this article.

All in all, though, I think the religious angles is mostly tactical maneuverings by both sides, to galvanize support/ open new avenues for attack, etc. Neither side strike me as particularly religious/ spiritual. I suspect they both didn’t give a damn about religions.

If true, that’s a big story – I look forward to hearing more from Jim or others.

A year or so back the junta had requested that Sodhi L. ask Luang Ta Maha Bua for access to the Reserve Funds. This was refused. Sondhi never again returned. Luang Ta may have ben set up in the proceeding two years by Sondhi and his friends who attempted to get close to the revered monk and continue to mis-inform him of political and economic realities. These funds were established with the economic recovery of the nation post-2007 under Thaksin’s management- a fact which critics do not acknowledge. A year after the 2006 coup the coup-makers and friends squandered massive amount of the nation’s wealth for nice fascist toys and an impressive and extensive propaganda campaign to discredit Thaksin (seemingly effective even today). They used the Sangha as only one means to achieve this rift. Leaked sources indicate that Thaksin’s billions have been used by these same people taken out of his domestic bank accouts (at the time frozen) so Thaksin had to be found guilty at any cost- even changing the law and emplacing judiciary that were anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat (who were in alliance with the military for their own ambitions). Thaksin therefore has to be found guilty and he must be imprisoned. The outcome has already been determined way back. The 2006 Constitution reflects the desparation of these folk to protect their illegal acts. The real puppet Master is not Thaksin (re-Andrew Walker) but Prem. That is another story and too long to relay here. The coup-makers and friends cannot be touched as long as the 2006 Constitution is not changed. Hence the desparation by these people not to change the Constitution. As it stands PAD are now proposing 70-30 system whereby 70% of lower house are “selected” (by guess who?), while 30% are elected.This is not “democracy” by any stretch of the imagination; neither is the arrogant urban, elite attitude that the peasantry are stupid and don’t know anything. I would argue that they know more about true democracy than PAD. You have all been duped.

If I walk into a liquor store with a pistol and the clerks just hand me money, it was still not a peaceful transaction.

If Thai people had resisted the military they would have been slaughtered like they were in 1992 – and I was here for both coups.

This is Oliver Pye’s and Wolfgang’s Schaffer’s research into the PAD – ‘Anti-Thaksin Movement in Thailand: an Analyses’, which was included into the Special Edition of the Journal for Contemporary Asia.
I honestly do not know why this research was included in the otherwise excellent publication, because there is a far more competent paper on the same topic available.

Pye’s and Schaffer’s research has several factual mistakes, such as simply taking over the numbers presented by PAD and the Nation, without re-checking their validity.
They also overstate the influence of NGO’s and others, and have misinterpreted the Royalist influence (read Winitchakul and Ungpakorn, who both also have different views on these points).

Please compare this research with Michael Nelson’s ‘People’s Sector Politics in Thailand: Problems of Democracy in Ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’.

I do find Michael Nelson’s research far more competent, and the facts presented do correspond to what i have found. Also the present position of the PAD as a group has re-confirmed Nelson’s research, and not Pye and Schaffer’s.

Here’s a link to Nelson’s paper:

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/WP87_07_MNelson.pdf

How the opinion of different sections of the electorate in Bangkok has changed and evolved with respect to Thaksin over the last eight years would be far more interesting to learn about than elite maneuverings and grudge matches.

Many in Bangkok must be fed up with Thaksin for a variety of reasons. Because of the barbaric approach he took to solving many problems in the South (Tak Bai, Krue Se) or the “war on drugs.” For concentrating all power in one party and then using it to push people around, e.g. the media. For using divisive politics, clearly a huge division exists between the center and the periphery that needs to be healed. For milking the telecoms industry for everything it was worth (detailed in the Thai capital paper that the current author co-authored with Chris Baker). The Sondhi protests started escalating exactly when Thaksin sold Shin Corp to Temasek. This was the crucial breaking point. By now, many probably would just like to get rid of him so that Thailand can get rid of street protests and return to some semblance of stability. Continued political conflicts are not good for investment, business, revenues, or incomes.