He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi:

‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarhcy is not involved.’

Maybe a “little dismissive and patronizing” – just a little. If you read the whole last paragraph I wrote, we are in agreement.

My point is that it is more than a little dismissive and patronizing to say that “I will not demand that NM give Thailand a fairer, more accurate treatment that it deserves” and that it’s simply a matter of people being free to express their biases.

I thought Chang Noi has struck the right balance on the proportionate action of each group based on available evidences. As my views in #8 and #15 suggests, I prefer to analyze based on the reported actions of each societal players. Many people here seem to take the Economist’s Orientalist gaze and are thus just not giving the highly diverse Thai Democracy stakeholders enough credit. Beyond those actions can only be guesswork…

Perhaps, you mean:

Is there anyone who thinks that UDD is not pro-Thaksin? (Or, “is there anyone who thinks that Thaksin is not behind the UDD?) Was it necessary to introduce this blinding news to the world?

Is it not much more ‘puzzling’ that you choose to introduce only the ‘blinding news’ of Thaksin and the UDD ? What is more ‘blinding news’, really?

Now, be honest please! You choose to introduce only ‘ news’ of Thaksin and the UDD because the other side isn’t ‘news’? Really?

As to how it would change the arguement of the article, I thought I made it quite clear: the suggestion that PAD wants to “go beyond old politics” is dead wrong by its call for the Royal Power, by the fact that the monarchy is “in its background”.

By ‘omitting’ the monarchy-PAD connection, one could of course formally made such rediculous suggestion.

Still, it’s been an interesting thread. Thanks.

I am also of the view that Thai society is already ‘mature’ enough so that a broad-based, diverse groupings of ’stakeholders’ – the politicians, the military, the bureaucrats, the monarchy, the urban middleclasses, the businessmen, the rural voters, the astrologers, religious leaders, unions, NGOs etc…etc… can be ALL ACCOUNTABLE for what the country is today socio-economically and politically (and environmentally too).

It’s too easy to reduce any society’s complexities to a few factors – it gets attention, it is ‘controversial’, it sells magazines and books. But reality is, overwhelmingly more often than now, anything but. It also often gives a wrong impression of a society (particularly internationally where Thailand gets minuscule coverage).

This reminds me of the time before I came to Australia over ten years ago and my ex-Australian student friends were telling me Australia is a racist country. The prominence of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in Asia then did not help. Coming here, many fellow international students were able to recall specific ‘racist’ experiences – locals in drive-bys shouting racist taunts, eggs thrown, cars vandalized, people in shopping malls shouting “go home”, the dominant white cast in Neighbours and Home and Away. Then you hear (as you very rarely see them) about the conditions of the indigenous population and statistics that their life expectancy is decades lower than the general population – all of which can easily reinforce one conclusion.

From my 10+ years here, I will clearly and confidently state that that is not true and an extremely inaccurate picture of the Australia. Yes, racism exists, but amongst a very, very small minority. A much more accurate picture would be a maturing, highly cosmopolitan society increasingly and wonderfully expressed in everyday life spaces – street life, food, popular culture, media (at least SBS and ABC, the best TV stations in the world)…

Having said that, I will not demand that NM give Thailand a fairer, more accurate treatment that it deserves. Australia and Thailand (save for one very minor law which does not apply for the overwhelming majority of Thais, expats and visiting foreigners) are free countries and we are perfectly entitled to our biases…

- About asking judges to sort out a political mess/stalemate – I dont really have any problem with that, but I would if there was clear, provable, interference in the process – the closest I have seen to some sort of proof was a tape that seemed inconclusive to me, and sounded more like people wanting to be seen to be doing something to help resolve the stalemate – I am open to further explanations on this matter.

- About Cheif adviser phoning to express support…I am not sure exactly who/what you are referring to, so cannot comment.

All that said, I do think there is something ‘fishy’ in Thailand, but I am still not sure of exactly who/what is behind it because there are so many major players involved, most of whom I think have dangerous character flaws, and I dont know whether other equally or more powerful characters (also with character flaws) are acting to save the country from certain characters or to preserve their own positions.

Looking around the region does not give me much confidence that things would ever fit with a western view of ‘liberal democracy’ – and that is something which this westerner has trouble holding up as an ideal goal anyway, although thats easy for me to say from my comfortable position which I concede is only made possible because of freedoms given to me by that same western liberal democracy.

On these matters I AM dumb – I rely on people like you to enlighten me, but so far I must be too dumb to be completely convinced that royal power IS the CENTRAL demand, and not just a tool or a means to an end – the end being to be rid of Thaksin, and like I said different groups wanted that for different reasons.

I sometimes attack Thaksin because I dislike aspects of his rule – does that make me on the same side as the PAD?

I sometimes defend Thaksin/TRT for their pro-poor policies – does that make me a red shirt or on the same side as them?

I sometimes attack Abhisit, Kasit, Sondhi L & Chamlong – does that make me a red shirt or on the same side as them?

I sometimes defend Abhisit – does that make me a yellow shirt or on the same side as them?

The iconic leader of the red side is a self confessed loyal monarchist – does that make him on the same side as the PAD?