I couldn’t put it any better.

Dr Connors, and Japan, please accept my apologies and for (inadvertently) starting this nonsense.

When I read Susie’s post…. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry

either way tears are coming out of my eyes….

After reading your article, I feel your writing lacks integrity. The essence of academic profession is truth. Scholars state their ideas openly either as liberal or conservative. You are twisting the facts to serve Japan’s post-Cold War objectives in the Asia-Pacific.

1. As an academic, one would expect you to go through a literature review. You did not because you want to use Ji Ungpakorn’s honest reputation to your benefit. You know who Ji is. You reviewed one of his books. Ji supports Thaksin and the red shirts, but you twisted the fact to be the contrary. Francis Fukuyama can create documents with his camera at home (see C-Span video) so please do not bull me with your manufactured information about Somsak J, would you?
2.Your article published on Sept 24th, 2007 and here is what I quoted from your article:

“Other channels were available to restrain or fell Thaksin: further popular protest, the weakening of his parliamentary dominance, the use of legal measures.”

“the game moved to the elite sphere. Social forces on the ground were not sufficiently organized to determine the political outcome.”

You can write about the events in advance because you are part of the operation to set Thaksin up. Everything moves according to the set up game plan. Nothing happened by accident. Everything developed according to the game theory plan. Your article was published in 2007, the events occurred in 2008.

“further popular protest” means 6 months of PAD protest (May–December 2008)

“the weakening of his parliamentary dominance” means divide and rule, split Thaksin’s group by taking Newin Chidchob and Sanan Kajornprasart. (17thDec 2008)

“the use of legal measures” means using the bias Thai Supreme Court, with 5 members found Thaksin guilty and 4 found him not guilty. (21st Oct 2008).

There is no way that an individual Thaksin can fight with Japan’s finance and intelligence operation.

See:

See http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?act=Print&client=wordr&f=2&t=9139.

My own piece was actually a response to Somsak’s comments on the position. I inserted the Thai phrase next to my terminology ““no to the two camps”.

In the link provided above, Somsak comments

“Since, during the past two and a half years, I’ve spent quite ‘large amount’ of my time and energy on these political writtings on line without getting any pay, I sometimes entertain the idea of ‘patent’ the phrase!”

So it seems the phrase is patented afterall.

Again, I repeat various people came to the “no to two camps position” (in 2006-2007) by different routes. Again, I do not know who used the term “song mai ow” in this context first – in doing so they characterised a position that was in existence. It became a convenient label. My suspicision is that Somsak J. originated the term, in his effort to explore (expose?) the implications of the position, but I don’t know. My explanation of the position is mine, informed by my own politics and in conversation with people. If the origin of the term is located I would be more than happy to acknowledge who coined the term. The term reminds me of my teenage shouting years “Neither Washington Nor Moscow”.

I am aware of the difference between tax ‘evasion’ and ‘avoidance’, however the dividing line is not exactly clear cut especially when nominees and tax havens are introduced into the picture.

In relation to the Shin sale, I am getting tired of saying that I agree the ultimate sale looks to be legitimately tax free, but the transaction that should have been taxed was the Ample Rich deal – When he was in power, the Thaksin family appears to have received favorable treatment on this matter from the revenue department.

That aside, it is my ethnocentric opinion that most tax revenue authorities and law makers are trying to stop or reduce the impact of various schemes that the wealthy use to avoid tax. It’s a never ending battle as new loopholes are found & exploited and then closed by the authorities.
Politicians should be setting a positive example, and I retain my opinion that their use of tax havens, nominees and other such manipulations is unethical.

It’s too late (or too early if you believe in total collapse) for Plato’s philosopher kings system to be introduced, so I don’t intend wasting much time on it, other than to say I like the idea as a concept, and don’t think it would have turned out any worse than the other systems of government that have been tried.

Your question about who does the appointing reminds me of the republican debate here in Australia – I much prefer for the the head of state to be appointed by the parliament (elected politicians), than directly by the people, otherwise it just becomes another election.

1. In the U.S. all business administration students learn about the difference between “tax evasion” (evil) and “tax avoidance” (good). There was a case that reached the Supreme Court back in the 1930’s, when the income tax was still fairly new. The Internal Revenue Service sued a taxpayer, because he had arranged his investments in such a way that he (legally) had to pay only a very small tax. The supreme court ruled that a taxpayer is not required to arrange his affairs so that he pays more than the smallest tax he can while still following the law (which includes the IRS regulations). As I understand it, the Chuan government (the cockroach party) was the one that created the law that transactions carried out through the Thai stock market would be exempt from tax. You can’t blame Thaksin for that, like you can blame him for manipulating the Foreign Business Act to allow a larger foreign investment in a telecommunication company. I agree his failure to pay tax on such a huge profit was a terrible public relations disaster, but it wasn’t illegal or even unethical! What should he have done, taken 20% of his profit and donated it to the government? Or maybe to charity?

2. I hope that someday you find one or more philosopher king to rule, but as I recall Plato expected they would be especially bred for the role and raised in isolation so they wouldn’t be contaminated by human emotions or feelings. How are you going to recognize one when he comes along? It’s kind of like having an appointed parliament — who’s going to do the appointing?

As for Philosopher kings, yes, I like Plato’s idea.

Anyway I hope when you say you preferred Philosopher kings, I hope you really mean what you said.