A few questions on notice for Abhisit

1. Why is Kasit still foreign minister? You say you want to promote reconciliation and unity, but how can that be possible when you continue to defend such a divisive foreign minister who actively supported the PAD and even said the airport protests were fun despite the fact that they caused so much ongoing hardship?

2. You have drawn a line between what Kasit said before he was a minister and what he says after, but when Jakrapob was under pressure for what he said before he was a minister, you called on him to resign, saying his "resignation would help reduce tension and division in the country".
Why do you now have a different standard?

3. You say the monarchy needs to be placed above all forms of political conflict, and your government is zealously blocking many legitimate websites and pursuing farcical lese majeste cases against Thais and foreigners, including journalists and academics.
What is your response to those that say such a strategy is actually dragging the monarchy into politics, and the lese majeste laws need to be amended so that they can no longer be used as a political tool?

That's just a start - please add more
(keep it sensible and realistic, otherwise it's a waste of our time)

UPDATE:
I am not a journalist, but I have tried to frame the above questions in a way that reduces the wriggle room for skilled politicians.

I would be interested in what people think the expected responses would be.

Q1 & Q2 don't leave much wriggle room IMO, but I suppose on Q3 we might just get the usual 'thats what the thai people want' or 'you don't understand thainess' thrown back at us.
I suppose I would then counter with: Do you really think the thai people want lese majeste laws used as a political tool, and the monarchy dragged into politics?

Why focus on only Thaksin?

I am often accused of focusing on only Thaksin, and ignoring all other possible corrupt practices.

This is what I posted in response to criticism of my latest foray into commenting over at New Mandala and why I ignore suspicions regarding Surayud and Jaravan:


"I do not know enough about the issues to comment, however would not be surprised if many prominent Thai establishment figures had engaged in corruption.

If there is evidence, by all means press for investigation & prosecution of Surayud, Jaruvan and anyone else reasonably suspected of corruption - I commend your efforts.

However, that is not why I choose to devote time to this hobby of commenting on these blogs.

Whether enough evidence is available to prosecute Thaksin, and whether or not he is not the only suspect character in Thai politics is rather besides the point of my arguments - I focus my attention on Thaksin because he is the person that commands significant electoral support, and also has many ardent supporters on these blogs.

Irrespective of whether he can be convicted on any more substantial charges, it is my opinion that there is enough evidence that (an unchanged) Thaksin is not suitable to be PM.
His authoritarian, heavy handed tactics, manipulation and intimidation, tax havens for tax avoidance (if not strictly evasion), mixing government and family business, his various comments when facing valid criticisms, and worse of all the conduct of the drug war and general lack of remorse are the reasons why I consider he is not suitable PM material - he had his time and has done some good along with the bad, but it is my opinion that his days of leading the country should be consigned to history.

If Abhisit, or any of his fellow politicians do similar things, and are ardently supported by the majority of posters here, then rest assured, I will switch the focus of my forays onto this and other Thai blogs - As far as I can see, that time has not yet come.

Democracy lovers, including pro-Thaksinites here, might think that I am just a PAD stooge, but in reality I have never had much time for Sondhi
Hopefully long term readers can recognise that my thoughts have also evolved slightly over the last 2 years, even though I maintain my anti-Thaksin slant, and the hope that the electoral masses will eventually become more discerning."

I look forward to the time we can all move past Thaksin, and turn our attention to other matters.

As for the man himself, I think he should try to reach a settlement and swear off politics, show some remorse for certain events, get on with living his life as a very wealthy man, who will go down in history as contributing to changing Thailand for the better.

The underlying problem

From Wikipedia:
Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), cronyism, tenurocracy (based in seniority), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power. In a meritocracy, society rewards (by wealth, position, and social status) those who demonstrated talent and competence, demonstrated through past actions or by competition.

IMO, Thailand needs Meritocracy more than Democracy.

Rambling

Bangkok Pundit has made a feature of The Economist articles, but overall I think Crispin's piece is more on the money (despite some nitpicking regarding the voting number discrepancies being used as a way to try to undermine the general thrust of his piece).

I also think Fonzi is wrong when he agrees with The Economist that this mess is all about the monarchy - they are certainly a factor, but Thaksin is still the main cause of the disruption - if only he had moderated his actions (or been moderated by those around him), he would still be in power.

Whilst most mainstream reports portay the dispute as between 2 sides 'reds' and yellows', pro and anti- Thaksin, I think it is more than that and there are 4 main groups, as follows:

YELLOW 'side' is split into 2 major factions:

(a) OLD ORDER: Established business and military elites who want to keep their disproportionate share of the pie (Thaksin was eating into it for himself, his cronies and to a lesser extent, the poor)

(b) IDEALISTIC: Lower/Middle class, educated and moralistic people who cannot stand Thaksin's greedy, tax dodging, authoritarian personality flaws which in most western countries would make him unelectable, but are repeatedly overlooked by the electoral masses

RED 'side' is also split into 2 main factions:

(c) ANTI MONARCHISTS - they have been on the losing side since the 1970's and see Thaksin as a way to start winning some battles in the long running war

(d) DEMOCRACY: Activists, rural poor, taxi drivers etc - includes people who choose to overlook Thaksins flaws and those who love Thaksin simply because he was the first one to give something back


That's still a simplification, because each group has its own 'warlords' using the other members as cannon fodder.


Personally I have sympathy for groups (b), (c) and (d).

I think the IDEALISTIC and DEMOCRACY groups are ideologically not that far apart - they just need to recognize and accept the other side's point of view.
If the DEMOCRACY group dropped Thaksin, then the IDEALISTIC group would probably disband.

That would leave the battle to ANTI MONARCHISTS and the OLD ELITE - the simple solution for this battle is for the palace to change it's ways, dismantle the patronage system and rein in the old elite, in which case all but the hard core anti-monarchists would disappear.

As an added bonus, succession would no longer be such a big issue if the palace changed it's ways.

That's my 2 cents worth from my poor, idealistic perspective - but I'm a farang so I don't understand Thailand anyway!

Why this blog is inactive

I was previously a very regular commentator at New Mandala and Bangkok Pundit (as Hobby) from 2007 to about Sept 2008, but lately have been trying to hold back on commentating on Thai politics because I am not Thai, and I think the current problems need to be solved by Thai's, not foreigners.

(also I do not live in Thailand and think it better to leave the commentating to those who are more directly affected).

I mainly set up this blog to keep track of some of the better posts I saw on those other blogs, then I started to try to offer solutions to the crisis, but now I try not to comment on Thai politics (as outlined above) - so this blog is unlikely to be very active.

I would recommend all people interested in Thai politics to read Paul Handley's 'The King Never Smiles' for background, together with the works of Pasuk & Baker, and Duncan McCargo, on Thaksin.

Hobby

Goodbye & Good Luck

UPDATE: Sorry, but I just cannot resist occasionally giving my 2 cents worth of opinions.

I've decided to stop commentating on Thai politics.

To the regulars, particularly those over at New Mandala & Bangkok Pundit: - thanks for the entertainment over the last 2 years.

In closing, I will refrain from repeating why I think Thaksin is no longer the right person to play a leading role in Thai politics, and instead would like to thank him and TRT for making it hard for future politicians to ignore the plight of the poor masses.

Best wishes to all.