Domestically, however, it appears the army and Prayuth need Abhisit more than he needs them.

Abhisit managed to frame military’s role into “protect the monarchy and this government” boundary they can’t step out of publicly.

I can’t see any better course of action on his part.

“Let’s not allow the Thai military to get too much into our hair, OK?”

That also begs some questions: “How much is too much?,” “Is it already too much?” and – crucially – “Isn’t it the Thai military that does the “allowing”?.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LF12Ae01.html

Quote:

“… that the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situations (CRES), which was formed to handle the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) protest group’s street protests, is morphing into a sort of “shadow government” to Abhisit’s democratically elected coalition.”

I too am getting uneasy. Nobody believes the news they read or hear anymore. People no longer sense a threat from widespread red insurgency and accordingly PM Abhisit should start to de-fang CRES particularly in areas where the threat is very minimal and could be handled by the police.

Let’s not allow the Thai military to get too much into our hair, OK?

“StanG, why post articles from people that don’t follow the fascist line?”

What?!?

I was under the impression that people like you attack Abhisit for being a puppet of elites that actually made Thailand into an Asian Tiger.

As I have said before I see no good guys here, but sadly you do. What does Abhisit offer this country but more of the same crap that has seen ab Asian Tiger turn into a pussy cat. Not that Thaksin was any better, greed and nepotism decide outcomes, not good economics.

http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1275799476&grpid=01&catid=

BangkokDan

“Vile and dangerous thought” from the opposition party leader Chalerm, while party member Jatuporn ranted on angrily about Da Torpedo’s incarceration, both defending the Red cause.

I know, you know … that both the ruling government and the opposition would rather repeal LM laws, because it gets in the way of any serious open parliamentary debate. Won’t happen during HMK Bhumibol’s reign definitely.

Extremist movements with large followings, the yellow and the red shirts, threatened to polarize Thailand. But both had failed, and leaders of both yellow and red shirts are now facing very serious criminal charges. The rise of the Red and Yellow shirts was good in the sense it raised the urgency of the Thai people unifying on the middle ground to resist the demagoguery of extremism.

The rising popularity of Abhisit reflects the Thai people’s choice of the middle ground.

“Vile and dangerous thought” Chalerm called it.

Two extremes are present in that movement, united only by their thirst for power.

Whichever one prevails should they ever get it, it won’t be pretty.

“Yes, he is the most quoted Thai academic, but not in academic journals – he is quoted in foreign media.”

Sure – just forget about all the columns in Bangkok Post, three books and a couple of dozen articles/chapters in academic journals:

http://www.ids.polsci.chula.ac.th/Documents/CV%20Thitinan.pdf

“Thitinan himself didn’t say much, most of it was the presenter paraphrasing him …”

A basic primer (for those who evidently need one) on condensing a lengthy discussion/interview into a six-minute package … Key passages will be used complete and with the speaker in vision. Other sections will be summarised by the reporter and thereby also enable illustrative footage to be used under his voice. Using that footage under the interviewee’s own voice is a no-no – his words would be construed as commentary on the specific footage as if he had selected it.

“… and there was nothing we haven’t heard from Thitinan before, his angle is well known and has been debated for years.”

Well known to a general ASEAN audience?

“Personally, I noticed Thitinan never raised his eyes to look either into the camera or at presenter’s face as if he had some form of autism or was ashamed of his own words.”

Personally, I hope comment on this is superfluous.

My points (a) more powers/tax money to the provincial/local governments and (b) reallocation of tax money towards accelerating rural development, could be easily addressed now in any open public debate.

My points (c) and (d) pertaining to constitutional rewrite and reconciliation map that addresses grievances and discontent do require an open and free debate that may touch on sensitive Thai issues. Thailand’s lèse majesté (LM) laws are serious impediments to any open debate about how to change the status quo.

The question therefore really is how long before the Thai people dispenses away with its LM laws? I asked this question to StanG weeks ago and his response was it could take “a revolution.” Well Thailand just had a near-revolution from the discontented Reds and had they succeeded LM probably was on top of their get-rid-of list. Certainly NOT during HM King Bhumibol’s reign will anyone dare question LM.

After the royal succession will open up possibilities of tackling LM and other sacred issues. The shadow of the yellow shirts intimidate of course; but their Suvarnabhumi and other shenanigans of past had seriously discredited PAD … so I think PAD will just be that – a shadow making lots of noises.

It will take a really popular respected leader to tackle LM head on, and get Thailand’s parliament to have LM revised or repealed altogether. Maybe Abhisit … maybe but I don’t know.

—————-

To Occasional Poster on his concern about the feudal political lords in Thailand’s provinces. Yes, I agree with you that increasing the powers of the local politicians leads to more power to the political lords and their dynasties. That’s the price of more local autonomy and more democracy. The free-wheeling democracy of the Philippines and their hundreds of local powerful bosses is instructional. That’s democracy (both ugly and beautiful) if Thailand goes the same path.