Meerkat
-
Posts
641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Meerkat
-
-
Very good point to raise. It hasn't been Sondhi owned since he went belly-up post '97.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. It was Asia Time's print edition that went belly-up in '97, not Manager Group, nor its online operation. You will note that on the site, they make reference to its origin, but say absolutely nothing about its current ownership - I'm sure you can agree that this in itself is a red flag.
I can do a little digging on this - a couple of my friends worked for the print edition. It is interesting, however, that the article you linked was not exactly glowing about the PAD
And I agree with you about Saprang.
Again a good point; I'd appreciate the digging (and if you find anything interesting please PM me as well as posting it on this thread).
Crispin writes well though - certainly with more depth than I've experienced from the English-language print media here. I'd be surprised if Sondhi still has any editorial muscle there.
-
Very good point to raise. It hasn't been Sondhi owned since he went belly-up post '97.
Worrying thing for me about the piece is the mention of Saprang; not one of my favourite power-brokers.
-
-
A shrewd move by Samak IMO. He resisted the urge to make a knee-jerk reaction this morning, stayed physically close to the military, and has now given the PAD enough rope to hang themselves within the confines of the law without having to declare an SofE. Depending upon how accurate the media has been, he's potentially got them on various charges - everything from defamation, trespassing, assault and kidnapping, all the way up to perhaps being able to get a charge of sedition or treason in there (depending on how it is defined in Thai law). They have no leg to stand on constitutionally regarding Free Assembly anymore either as that clause stipulates that such assembly must be unarmed.
I hope he tells the PPP MP who was advocating counter-protests to pipe down - that is where the real potential for escalation remains.
-
Given the amount of readers here its plainly obvious that this thread is of interest to vast group of people, and I venture to say that most of us have a vested interest in this country. Today's demonstrations are an important event the result of which will contribute to the shape of Thailand's future. So whilst we may not be able to vote or play a part in any other way, we can at least discuss it here, in this open forum.
If you find the topic dull or tiresome then I suggest you add something meaningful to the conversation or click the red square with the white cross at the top right of your screen or visit one of the other thousands of interesting threads on this site.
Good post!
Seconded!
-
its founder owns a media empire - it can punch well above its weight.
(i dont know so much about this story or PAD)... so the PAD founder owns a media empire? really? do you know which papers or media he/she owns? is it based within thailand? and if so,, do you know if they continually print and show anti-government stuff in their papers?
Sondhi Limthongkul owns the Manager newspaper in Thailand. He also owns the ASTV TV network which includes TOC (Thailand Outlook Channel) which is Thailand's only English language news channel. It broadcasts on the NSS6 satellite or you can see it online. Prepare yourself for some ridiculously partisan editorial though!
I bet episodes like today's must do wonders for his advertising rates...
-
Can't help with the locks, but Isuzu fitted our alarm for B2,400 when we bought our D-Max (they also did the reverse sensors for B3,500). Nice neat job, but the alarm remote is independent of the lock remote so you've got two buttons to press to lock and arm the alarm. Would have preferred a single button.
-
Assuming (and I admit that it is rather a large assumption) that the protest is allowed to go on and that there is no large scale violence, this could actually play out extremely well for the government.
The PAD seem to be going beyond the boundaries of Freedom of Assembly as stipulated in Article 63 of the Constitution (such assembly must be unarmed to be lawful for starters), and by disrupting routes both into and within the capital they are doing nothing to ingratiate themselves with the bulk of the population who just want to get on with their lives - especially so in Bangkok which is the PAD's "heartland".
According to the press it seems that some NBT staff are being held captive, so you can pop kidnapping on the list of alleged offences.
Taking over a state agency (assuming that's how NBT is classified) and storming the metropolitan police HQ. Treason? Possibly. The PAD certainly seem to be guilty of sedition, but I don't know if that's a crime here, as it is in many western democracies.
To those that liken the PAD protests to popular public protests elsewhere in the world, a reminder. The PAD is still a minority group; it does not have the support of the majority of the population. That it is so visible for a minority group is the result of the money it has behind it and the fact that its founder owns a media empire - it can punch well above its weight. Remember too that the PAD's idea of "democracy" is for 70% of MPs to be selected rather than elected. The PAD is fighting against democracy; not for it. Fighting against corruption? Corruption is being fought in the courts, as it should be, not on the streets outside the rule of law.
This is not some altruistic attempt to save the country from a despot; it is a pure and simple power grab by force after failing to attain power for its allies by legal means.
Stay safe everybody.
-
... "New Politics" is a reactionary idea; one that was born out of the PAD's frustration that the majority (or at least a plurality) of the people want the "wrong" party in power.
Where did you get this idea? Read the Sondhi's quote again - it's about "wrong" people, not "wrong" parties. There were some detailed accounts of this proposal where they explain who the target is - corrupt politicians who use money to control the elections. When elected, they do not even think about representing the people - they have huge debts and favours to repay as well as steal as much as possible for themselves.
There's absolutely nothing about "wrong" parties or wrong policies there.
Parties are made up of people - there is no intrinsic value in a "party" without its members. You're welcome to think that the PAD would be heralding New Politics were the Democrats in power, but I'd have to agree to differ.
The PAD scheme does not advocate functional constituencies voted in by the public; only that 70% of MPs would be "selected" or "appointed" to represent them. This begs the obvious question, selected by whom? My guess (and it is only a guess but I don't see it as far-fetched) is that it would be judges and/or bureaucrats - I think this is what the article means by moving power to the urban establishment.That's a legitimate concern. However, the selection process can be made a lot more transparent than nationwide elections once every five years that give out blank checks to unnamed people.
But who selects the selectors? The PAD's scheme puts another level of priveleged souls between the people and their rulers - actually two levels; the selectors themselves, and the selectors' selectors (and who selects them?). How many of these two groups would themselves be elected/accountable to the public? It adds complexity and does nothing to increase transparency. Your scheme on that front is even worse, with multiple series of elections which would very quickly lead to voter-fatigue.
One big advantage is that there must be certain criteria for every position, something that simply doesn't exist in the current system. Apart from the Foreign Minister, no one in the current cabinet would pass even the first round of applications. Rigged selection or not, you won't see spa owners reading up how to run Finance Ministry on the Internet or Mr Happy Toilets. We've really got nothing to lose here.Cabinet members have to have a degree here, and that's already too much regulation as far as I'm concerned; I've brought this up before. John Major could never have become the UK PM for instance as he didn't have a degree, and Thatcher was a chemist. The only criterion for an individual to become an MP should be for them to get themselves elected by their constituents (obviously without corruption, which the beefed up EC seems to be handling well). If they don't do a good job in cabinet, they get sacked by the PM: if they don't do a good job in the House, they get sacked by their constituents. I guess it comes down to how precious you consider democracy, and how much you entrust the public. Recent comments of your's lead me to believe that you don't think much of either. At best.
PAD was concerned with getting representation in parlament for every social group instead of parlament filled with relatives of feudal lords in slavery of big money - that would surely be an improvement. You attack them on non-essential or non-existent issues - who will do the selecting, they don't want certain parties and so on.Depending upon how representative you want the system to be, there aren't enough seats in parliament for every group to be represented; you'd need almost as many seats as there are voters and then still someone will feel left out. Groups can already get representation by directly approaching their member or via lobby groups. Don't get the attention they believe they deserve? Fine: vote them out next time around. It really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp and serves most of the free world admirably well. Better education of the voting public to make them understand their rights would be a good idea.
How you can think that the importance of who does the selecting is either a non-essential or non-existent issue is bizarre. It is the exact opposite of both (and didn't you just say above that it's a "legitimate concern"?).
Unlike Western democacies, Thailand doesn't have 200 years to mature. Globalisation doesn't wait and it doesn't give second chances. You screw once, and you'll be in the cesspit forever. Just look at Philippines.Where did 200 years come from? I was talking about the state of democracy only around a generation ago; perhaps even closer when compared to some western democracies which are still going through growing pains, like Italy's. In the meantime Thailand still continues to grow, foreign businesses continue to come in, and the people are, slowly but surely, living better lives.
My opinion is still that forcing this abomination upon the people would do more harm than good to the natural progression of democracy in the country. Your rebuttals haven't done anything to change my view.
-
Education will be the rate determining factor of how quickly it happens in my opinion but short of ditching democracy it cant be stopped totally.
Thank you (and Blaze) for your kind words.
Yes, better education furthering informed voting is an excellent point and a glaring omission from my post. It is imperative that educational standards are improved, and that those standards are spread everywhere - the notion that urban schools are better than rural ones seems to be something I've often read about.
Do any of the main parties have comprehensive policies to improve education in Thailand and if so what are they? (That's not a cynical or rhetorical question; I'd really like to know).
-
Plus, "New Politics" is a reactionary idea; one that was born out of the PAD's frustration that the majority (or at least a plurality) of the people want the "wrong" party in power. Your interpretation of the 30:70 scheme goes much further than Suryasai's, in that you propose the 70% of MPs still to be elected by the people, but on a functional constituency basis rather than by direct elections.
Your interpretation, though still flawed IMO, at least has more merit than the PAD's one. The PAD scheme does not advocate functional constituencies voted in by the public; only that 70% of MPs would be "selected" or "appointed" to represent them. This begs the obvious question, selected by whom? My guess (and it is only a guess but I don't see it as far-fetched) is that it would be judges and/or bureaucrats - I think this is what the article means by moving power to the urban establishment.
We already have all but half of the Senate selected by just seven judges. That those seven people themselves are affirmed by the very same Senate that they half select leads to what charitably could be called a cozy situation. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The people have to trust that those judges act altruistically and for the good of the country, but if they don't there is no real comeback for the people to oust them; it lacks transparency and accountability, precisely what politics in this country needs more of, not less.
New Politics seeks to extend this system of selection. Whilst we don't know exactly how they would be selected, IMO any selection other than by the public at large (ie election) is a huge step backwards for transparency and accountability. Selection too in no way lessens the potential for "vote" buying; it just changes the the target for those bribes.
Democracies need to mature. Putting up half-arsed schemes to try and "fix" the system in the short term do not allow it to do so (nor do coups) - in fact they set the process back. All mature democracies have gone through difficult periods - you only have to go back to the 60s - perhaps even later - in the US to see some of the same hallmarks of where Thai democracy is now; vote buying by one means or another and small-town voters turning to their town elders for direction on which way to vote *. Similarly you only have to go back to 1968 to find the last serious (though clumsy) plotting towards a coup in the UK. In an eerie parallel, one of the ringleaders, the media baron Cecil King, wanted appointed specialists to be brought into government instead of elected politicians too - his scheme fell apart after he tried to get the monarchy onside though...
These democracies are largely free of such issues now (and they continue to mature and evolve, as we see with Upper House reform in the UK, and talk of campaign finance changes in the US for instance), and Thailand's system of democracy will mature too - but only if it is given the chance to do so. Indeed with access to information becoming easier and easier even for the rural poor, it should progress more rapidly than before, as failures of policy and corrupt practices are more readily exposed (and the PAD has a role in this, but it should be a watchdog over all parties, not just the ones they don't like). Sadly for me, the PAD's recent extremism (not just New Politics, but also Sondhi's ridiculous policy initiative for dealing with Cambodia) threatens to overshadow its potential legitimate role as a civic group exposing abuse within the system.
* There was a interesting anecdote in Bill Clinton's autobiography about when he was on the campaign trail for Senator Fulbright in 1968:
"Center Point was a little place of fewer than two hundred people. The black notebook said the man to see was Bo Reece, a longtime supporter who lived in the best house in town. In the days before television ads, there was a Bo Reece in most little Arkansas towns. A couple of weeks before the election, people would ask, 'Who's Bo for?' His choice would be made known and would get about two-thirds of the vote, sometimes more."
-
I don't know some details about what PAD is proposing, though they're not now calling for a coup d'etat.
The Roi Et chapter of the PAD seemed to be asking for exactly that a month or two ago, at least according to Sondhi's own media network:
The Roiet PAD read out their fourth declaration, stating three objectives: to blame the anti-PAD protestors, to call on the military and police officers to drive out the government of Samak Sundaravej, and to demand the resignation of the puppet government.
I'm not sure how much cooperation there is between the local chapters and the core management team though; I can't find a PAD manifesto online.
As easily as you translate "drive out the government" to mean a coup.... it can just as easily translate to mean to do so by their votes.
...guess it's just up to everybody to interpret as they see fit.
For the record:Chamlong urged PAD supporters to join the protest on Tuesday morning at 7am but refused to say to where the demonstrators would march. He insisted the PAD was not calling for a coup.
- The Nation / today
The Nation seems to have updated that quote. Where your version has a full-stop after "coup", mine has, "and added that even if it did the military would not comply" then a full-stop (bolding my own of course). Changes the tone of the sentence somewhat.
Damned internet...always changing. I've linked the page in case the quote changes yet again - perhaps not a bad policy when quoting online media sources.
-
I don't know some details about what PAD is proposing, though they're not now calling for a coup d'etat.
The Roi Et chapter of the PAD seemed to be asking for exactly that a month or two ago, at least according to Sondhi's own media network:
The Roiet PAD read out their fourth declaration, stating three objectives: to blame the anti-PAD protestors, to call on the military and police officers to drive out the government of Samak Sundaravej, and to demand the resignation of the puppet government.
I'm not sure how much cooperation there is between the local chapters and the core management team though; I can't find a PAD manifesto online.
-
Public spotlight that PAD brings to politics makes it very difficult for anyone to deviate from the prescribed course of actions even if they wanted to. The decisions are made on the streets and by the civil society, not by backroom deal makers.
I wonder where they were when the militairy took control, oh yeah that's right, they had their mission accomplished with help of the militairy.
There were back in the "barracks" for six months. PAD stopped their rallies in the run up to the failed April elections.
For a group which (at least originally) described themselves as pro-democracy, their lack of protest post-coup was deafening. They even disbanded two days afterwards (and disbanded the political party they set up in May). Sounds like "mission accomplished" to me. Oh, it wasn't "mission accomplished", it was "goal accomplished"...
I would like them to seek justice for the Thai People that democratically choose a government but were made irrelvant by those criminals that carried out the coup, but of course they only want justice for one person and one person only. Why are these criminals not on trail, surely they have commited greater crimes then the crimes that Thaksin and his wife have been charged with.At the moment of the coup there was no democratically elected government, no parlament, no senate. There was a "caretaker" government that consitutionally was supposed to last for three months only, and it was headed by a PM who went back on his very public promise to stay away from politics.
The courts were asked by the highest power in the land to sort out the political void; not the army. The army, contrary to the PAD's "New Politics" farce, should have no part to play in politics, and coups are pure and simple treason (until you change the law ex post facto of course).
Democracy has nothing do with with decisions being made on the street, and I hope for the sake of Thailand, they are not made by the PAD. A good example is the Cambodian Temple crisis. Where a perfectly sane deal has been stopped, because the said minister was giving away territory to Cambodia. Everyone but the PAD knows that this was certainly not the case, you cannot give away what you don't own.You can present your arguments in the relevant thread, in short, Noppadon gave away the historical value of the land and communities on the Thai side of the border and put a seven country commitee in charge of disputed territories that Thais claim as their own.
The original plan included provision for a Thai-Cambodian team to manage the disputed areas for their mutual benefit; the seven country committee was only proposed after the PAD and allies forced Thailand to withdraw the plan. You know this, and admitted yourself at the time that the original plan was better than the mess we've now got. To now try and imply that it was Noppadol who has wilfully put Thai territory under foreign control is a distortion of the truth in context. It's exactly the kind of half-truth the PAD use to try and stir up nationalistic fervour to their own ends; the ouster of the democratically elected government.
1) Distaste for democracy. The rural poor are too ignorant to have a vote2) Support for military intervention if it threatens the established old guard.
3) Supportive of individuals using politics as a vehicle for personal revenge
4) Selective justice. Prosecuting some but ignoring the crimes of others.
Strawman arguments - all your points are made up by yourself.
Among PAD supporters on this board:
1. I don't know anyone who rejects the results of the recent elections
2. I don't know anyone who thinks the coup was staged to protect the old guard
3. I don't know anyone who thinks that Sondhi is driven only by his personal revenge and doesn't believe in his stated cause
4. I don't know anyone who doesn't acknowledge any of the countless lawsuit against Thaksin's opponents
1) The PAD's vision of "New Politics" is regressive. It is designed to limit the power of the rural voters (or as you so poetically call them, "truly fuc_ked up people") who they feel do not deserve an equal vote to the rest of the population. As to your point, there have been plenty of comments and implications on the board by PAD supporters rejecting the elections as bought rather than won.
2) "New Politics" seeks to take control of the military away from the government and place the government under the military, enshrining it the power to take over if certain vague conditions are met. What's the last coup got to do with it?
3) Sondhi's involvement in politics only started after his nose was pushed out of Thaksin's trough. Was it the only reason? No, probably not. But would Sondhi have become a "champion of democracy" had that not happened? Hmm...
4) Where has the PAD been campaigning for justice against anybody bar its political foes? What has your comment got to do with the original point?
The PAD had a certain amount of legitimacy in the beginning when its role was to highlight some of the abuses of power within the TRT government (although as stated, IMO it was started only after Sondhi and Thaksin fell out). It has now morphed into some kind of nationalist, seditious, oligarchic monster; I'm pretty surprised that some of those who railed against (perceived or actual) anti-democratic practices of politicians in the past can stand behind the even more anti-democratic proposals of this lot. It beggars belief.
As to those who hold no love for democracy, fair enough. Then it just becomes an agree-to-differ issue on the merits of various forms of government.
-
why?
From a government point of view, high taxes on non-Thai built cars help the domestic (mostly Japanese owned) auto industry. As much as I'm against protectionism, it's a fair point; it's a major export sector and employer for this country.
From an establishment point of view (which includes policy makers), high taxes stop the comparatively lower classes buying so many "face-generating" European cars. Beamers, Mercs et al being as common as muck in the UK/US now of course (but we won't spoil their fun)...
Some Euro models are now assembled in Thailand and are subject to less tax, but because of the higher taxes on their offshore built competition it allows the companies to boost margins. Same way that duty-free booze is slightly cheaper at the airport than on the street, but is still a huge mark-up compared to what it would be if it were sold at equivalent margins.
On the upside for the buyer (or rather to help cushion the downside), it keeps residual values higher, so you'll be able to recoup much of the extra tax when you sell.
-
That's the way it goes I'm afraid - gotta love them taxes.
Base Audi TT Coupe in the US - under USD 40,000
Base Audi TT Coupe in Thailand - THB 4,698,000 or USD 140,000!
-
The reason the PAD has so much support is because it's ultimate goal is a common interest shared by most Thais - clean, transparent politics.
Not really sure how you can say that. The PAD's publicly stated ultimate goal is for a very limited system of "democracy" with most MPs being selected rather than elected. Selection can in no way be described as leading to clean and transparent politics - precisely the opposite. Sondhi has also implied that the people outside of the middle classes are too ignorant to be given the vote - a rollback to feudal times.
They also want any new government to be ultimately answerable to the military, so even that thin shroud of democracy they envisage would effectively be under some sort of unelected military rule.
You think most Thais really want that? You think most PAD supporters even really want that? I've said before that I don't believe many of the demonstrators actually realise what they're demonstrating for. The PAD had a worthy goal of eliminating corruption from politics, but even then it seems to be a form of selective justice only against Sondhi's political foes. I haven't read about them clamouring against the Democratic MPs who may have been in contravention of shareholding laws for instance.
And don't forget as well that the PAD has urged the police and military to overthrow this government. That to me is sedition, a crime against the state in most mature democracies and only a short step away from treason (which incidently IMO is what the coup leaders should have been prosecuted for instead of being allowed to rewrite the law ex post facto to excuse themselves.)
There's clearly a group of people on this forum making big attempts to drag the PAD's name through the mud, but it does seem isolated to this forum and not the reality of the two offices in Bangkok I visit per week where support for the is still very strong.PAD's support will always be stronger in the offices of BKK and other urban centres because their political base lies in the middle classes. Were you to visit farms in the rural north you'd get a completely opposite view I'd surmise. Were there to be a nationwide election tomorrow with only two groups on the ticket; PAD and TRT, my money wouldn't be on Sondhi's lot to win. Of course I doubt the PAD will set up another political party though as they would then come under increased oversight - it's much easier just to project their case under their rights to free speech, and it also gives them a political voice that is way out of proportion to the size of its support base.
As far as I know nobody has received a satang for appearing in a PAD protest, and I doubt they would accept it if offered. I know at least one guy who has donated however...I've read that the "guards" are paid and perhaps some of the overnighters. Given the comparative wealth of the PAD's supporters though, I'd certainly guess that any PPP groups would be more likely to pay their supporters than the PAD would.
-
TAWP, of course you can't make poor people rich or solve the nation's poverty problems overnight. Where did I say you could? It's a ridiculous notion and I'm a bit taken aback that you've read so much (wrongly) into my two modest posts on this thread.
That does not mean that society shouldn't try and improve the living standards of the poorest; those that live in the slums in rickety shacks, with poor water, poor sanitation and poor prospects. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the middle classes would suffer if the poor were better off though - surely increasing the wealth of the nation as a whole would be a good thing. That the middle classes might have to pay their maids and drivers more as we now do in our home countries, well tough - it's still not a proper justification to try and keep them down, as I saw implied in the quoted article. Jeez, I'm a Tory - a Thatcherite if I'm to be pigeonholed - but even I believe that there are certain levels of poverty below which nobody should have to exist and that the state (read taxpayers) should help prevent.
As to Samak's plan, there seems precious little in the way of detail to comment upon it, at least as to what I've found in the English language press, although it's funny (though not surprising given the quality of the press here) that there's more space given to opinion against it than there is to elaborating as to exactly what it is! If it means literally tearing up the shacks and simply rebuilding them out of sight somewhere, which seems to be the view of some here, then obviously I'd be against it. If it was meant as part of a proper long-term rehousing/social welfare initiative, similar let's say to what Hong Kong did in the 50s and 60s after the awful slum fires there, then - broadly speaking and still subject to the minutiae - I'd be for it. The proposed new property taxes would be a fitting way of funding such an exercise, although I'd be amazed if they ever actually get passed.
-
just let the poor remain poor so the middle classes can "cope"
Where did you get the idea that Samak wants to lift them out of poverty?
He just think they are an eyesore and he wants to shift them away so as not to embarass the rich folks and tourists.
How they'll survive in the suburbs is not his problem, he's not going to employ them and pay them wages.
Eh? I didn't even comment on Samak's plan in my post, and I certainly never implied that he was going to lift them out of poverty.
It was about a university lecturer's almost feudal views regarding the poor - views probably shared by politicians across the spectrum including the present government.
-
There was quite a revealing quote in a Nation article over the weekend that touched on the slum issue:
Thammasat University anthropologist and sociologist Pathomrerk Ketutat condemned the idea as "horrible" and said Samak had this mentality long ago, dating back to his time as Bangkok governor.
Pathomrerk said Samak's plan reflected a lack of understanding that the city needed cheap labour and poor workers helped the middle classes cope.
So that's all right then...just let the poor remain poor so the middle classes can "cope". There's never a tug-one's-forelock smiley when you need one...
-
Other than the front grille, and the option to have GPS built-in (which you could get aftermarket anyway) what's actually changed?
For the Fortuner? Quite a few changes (some only on the top model):
Projector headlights - good as the current ones are awful.
17" wheels - not sure how this will affect off-roading.
Powered wing miror retraction.
Softer suspension - will be interesting to see how that feels in practice.
Proper roof-mounted aircon for rear seats rather than the daft one on the current model that only works if you put the sixth seat down.
Electric driver's seat.
New radio - DVD with SatNav on the top model.
Bluetooth hands-free system for phones.
Cruise Control.
Switchable VSC (Toyota's name for stability control), Traction control, and uprated ABS system.
2WD diesel version also available now.
Seems to have answered most of my criticisms of the current/old model, although I'd have liked to have seen more airbags than just two and an extra gear-ratio as well.
Still waiting for more details of the new Pajero Sport to come out to see how it stacks up.
-
Thanks for the heads-up Mac!
So does it join Highway 1 (I assume that's what you mean by main highway) north of the junction onto the No. 9 ringroad?
Should shave a bit between our places next to Rangsit Khlong 3 and Khao Yai.
-
I believe Sondhi was charged for broadcasting Da Torpedoe's performance on air, thus commiting Lese Majesté even though he completely disagrees with what she said at the time. As for Jakaprob, he meant what he said BOTH TIMES at the Foreign Correspondents Club and over in the U.S., no denying it, especially with the arrogant facial contortions that accompanied his words.
I wasn't referring to the LM cases themselves (indeed I wouldn't dare - but I read loud and clear your implication of Sondhi's innocence and Jakaprob's guilt), but to the fact that both of those freed on bail for the charges are rich and well connected, whilst the one who is on remand isn't, which is why I alluded to srj's earlier take on the situation as almost right:
she is a nobody with no wealthy, influential or aristocratic family background and it's one rule for one and another rule for the ruling eliteThe "almost" being that one might scrub out the word "ruling" for perhaps a more accurate assessment of the even-handedness of justice.
-
Court refuses to grant Da Torpedo bail
The Court of Appeals refused to grant Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul, alas Da Torpedo, bail on Thursday. Daranee, a member of the pro-government United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship, was arrested on charges of committing lese majeste in a recent speech she gave at Sanam Luang. The court refused to give her bail because the case is sensitive and her crime is
In the meantime, our friend Jakaprob is walking free on bail while charged under the same crime no?
Er...as is Sondhi isn't he or has that now been dropped? I wonder what's in common between Sondhi and Jakropob that differs from Da Torpedo...srj was almost right.
On a slight tangent, it must be a fairly close-run thing as to how much potential jail time both Sondhi and Samak are facing pending their various appeals and upcoming charges. Anyone care to add them up? Wonder what'd happen if they and Thaksin were sharing the same cell...
PAD Lay Siege On Government House, NBT TV Station
in Thailand News
Posted
Well it would seem that the bulk of not only the international media, but also the domestic media think that the attempted toppling of the elected government is quite clearly not "the right thing" as you and an increasingly shrill sounding group of people think. That even such papers as The Nation, which has hardly gone out of its way to support Samak & Co in the past, is in condemnation of the PAD's illegal acts clearly shows that the they have overstepped the mark this time (not that one needs the media to point out that incitement to commit treason just isn't cricket.)
I'm sorry that "New Politics" refuses to roll over and die as some here would seem to like, but you reap what you sow. I was interested that you believed in an earlier post that at least one editorial used arguments "lifted" from this site in its criticism of the subject. Don't quite buy it myself, but if that's the case, as ThaiVisa's first and perhaps most vociferous critic of this ridiculous rollback of the people's rights, I'm awarding myself a Bronze Star for helping broaden discourse on the matter.
I only wish I'd had enough time to write about Sondhi's breathtakingly bellicose policy initiative on dealing with Cambodia; a "policy" so riddled with flaws that at first I thought it was a piece of satire. Perhaps then it would have led to greater exposure in the English-language mass media (it has garnered virtually none AFAIK; perhaps they all thought it was satire too - heck, perhaps it was satire), and I could afford to give myself a Silver Star instead.
Must dash, apparently there's a Mr. Thaksin on hold...