-My recollection is that there was a general acceptance of the drug war killings by more or less all Thais, including, judging by his public statement, one at the highest level. . You might find that arguable, but to continue the point, clearheaded unequivocal criticism came more from those arrogant, misunderstanding foreigners – press, human rights groups – than it did from Thai opinion-makers.

-The bigger point, though, concerns the implication that ‘acceptance’ and ‘blood lust’ were cultivated or fanned by Thaksin.

Aren’t we talking about adults who have pretty much gone through most of their socialization process by the time Thaksin took office? The weaknesses of Thai society – and I’m thinking pretty much of the educational system – clearly pre-date Thaksin. (As for extra-judicial killings, you know as well as I do that they are practically a national tradition.)

As for “his ultra arrogant speeches…” Arrogant, so what? He’s not a particularly inspiring speaker, and IMHO, not an inflammatory one. In a demagoguery contest, he’d finish dead last at a PAD rally.

I wonder if that concern is for the right reasons, or for self preservation reasons?

Anyone else see any irony in the fugitive in London probably having the final say on whether the evidence fabricating cook is re-appointed?

It’s a good test on which they are more interested in:
Reasonable compromise & reconciliation, or victory.

That is ridiculous. Sidh is exactly right.

There is so so much paternalism in the all-knowing wise in democracy big white brother lecturing his little Asian brother because he really doesn’t understand democracy. Any paternalism on the part the Thai government bureaucracy pales in comparison to the paternalism of the western media and academics.

I am a foreigner and there is no doubt in my mind that about 99% of foreign public opinion keeps on repeating the same line of though over and over again without seeing the real issue which is the return of Thaksin.

Thaksin may have found a way to build absolute power but there was absolutely nothing democratic in a deeper sense about that absolute power or the way that it was obtained and used at all.

Thaksin played up to rural public opinion and brought out the absolute worst in these people.

I suggest you go back and take a good look at the extrajudicial executions that became common during his tenure, the acceptance of this heavy handed approach by the rural masses, and the blood lust that accompanied it. And then his ultra arrogant speeches. Even encouraging blood lust in monks. His heavy hand in the south has almost cost the Thais part of their country. Then the tendency to dish out public money to rural areas to support and build his power in off-balance sheet projects, is this democracy?

The missing Muslim lawyer, for example. Also, I will never forget how people were gunned down in cold blood without trial or arrest. Two in one night on the main street in Maesai while I ate dinner and checked up on my email at the internet cafe. Even came across one of the bodies on the way home. Then no investigation at all into 2000 murders with the standard boiler plate that it was the mafia cleaning house. Other cases surfaced during the coup appointed government, such as the police stolen car ring and the kidnapping for ransome by high level police in Mae Sot, investigations that only seem to happen when there isn’t a so-called democratically elected government.

He deserves exactly what he has got. It is as though the immune system of Thailand itself has rejected this demagogue. That elections were not the vehicle for his expulsion is really besides the point.

In economics as well as intellectually Thailand stands way over-exposed to the west and this is what is tearing it apart.

I read from a Thai newspaper that one of the reasons the SCB did not want to release the money was that it was afraid that the transfer (Bt12 billion) would affect the bank’s liquidity. But I didn’t hear this reason repeated again. Can anyone help shed some light on this matter? Is it okay for a non-state bank to keep and manage frozen assets and make financial gains from them?

That is an interesting re-reading of the events. Go back and look. Chai-Anan Samudavanija and 98 other public intellectuals (I recall the no. was 99, but I may be wrong) signed a petition to force him out in amongst a lot of campaigning for an elected PM. There were threats to reveal deep and dark secrets about Prem’s private life. Hardly graceful (and that is ignoring two failed coup attempts against the old man).

On another matter SS says that, “Contrary to what foriegners think, the judiciary are now doing their job commendably…” – why are foreigners singled out? Are you being racist-nationalist or just ignoring all those Thais who think there are problems with the judiciary?

And, the idea that a 7000 baht fine and a suspended sentence makes the courts look good seems a bit weak. Given that the courts have been especially zealous in protecting themselves, this is a wrist-slap. I’m sure Prasong puts tobacco in his pipe that costs more than this a week. What about all the other cases against PAD and pro-PAD persons brought by their opponents? What’s the progress on them? (That’s a real question as I seem to have lost track of them).

The new Bank of Thailand Act, even though granting a lot more independence to the Bank, begins to reveal some of the problematics. It is good that now politicians have to find a really damanging cause to fire Bank Governor but MOF still has the power to appoint the selection committees, which would go on to choose key decision-makers, including Bank Governor. The interesting thing is that the latest version of the draft was not the one proposed by Pridiyathorn when the coup-installed government came to office. That draft was revised again by the MOF (under Chalongphob) to retain some of the authority with the ministry and was quickly pushed through the NLA at the end of 2007.

In my opinion, laws are the reflection of the power distribution at the time. The NLA got to lay down some new rules of the game, some of which are groundbreaking. But there will be unexpected consequences as players adapt themselves to the new rules. At the end of the day, I still think the end (the passages of these laws, the implications of which remain to be seen) does not justify the means.

Most of the ground breaking legislation that has been coming into effect during the course of the year seems to have been passed by the coup-appointed NLA at the end of their tenure. Like the new broadcasting laws and banking laws that get tough with conflicts of interest.

Much seems to have come from old but good legislation that perhaps could never have passed under a democratically elected parliament where big money holds sway.

So one argument runs that the coup-makers in some deeper sense enabled this necessary ground breaking legislation.

(A bannana pie in the face for me for suggesting this, perhaps, but I have not seen any adequate discussion of where all that legislation at the end of the NLA’s tenure came from, seems like there are some resemblances to legislation during Anand’s tenure also).