macaroni21

I'm not denying that money is flowing in from Thaksin to the Red Shirts. What I was saying is that wherever that money was coming from, it wasn't from the 76 billion baht that had been frozen. Thaksin very likely has money stashed abroad, for example, didn't he sell his stake in Manchester City Football Club? But once again, let me repeat: Don't dismiss the passion of the Red Shirts. It would be a mistake to think they're only doing this because they are paid to do it, and that once money stops, they'll all go home and the crisis will be over. Far from it.

The question of "Is it over" needs to distinguish carefully between Thaksin and Red Shirts. For Thaksin, I think it sill be extremely difficult for him to overcome this. In fact worse may follow. New cases may be launched to claw away some or all of the 30 billion baht this verdict returned to him. He'll be so mired in one case after another, it's difficult to see him playing a significant role in the long run. For the Red Shirts, this is far from over. After all, they've gotten this far without any of this money, which had been frozen all this while. We're witnessing only the beginning. As Khor Tose said, the real contest will only start when a particular death occurs. One reason I can offer why the Red Shirts feel they don't need to erupt right now is simply because they know time is on their side. They probably know this: 1. They still have wide support in the provinces; 2. Abhisit has to call an election sooner or later, and none of the present coalition parties stand a chance of winning. In other words, it is in the interest of the Red Shirts to bide their time. Whereas it is more likely that the hotheads of the Yellow Shirts, or military, will want to use force to "settle" the matter once and for all... which of course is impossible. What the Ancien Regime wants is untenable. Network monarchical rule cannot survive certain personalities. Governing to benefit a few over the interests of many is inherently unstable. That is why I indicated earlier that in the long run, the Ancien Regime can only lose. Whether the end result is some kind of compromise with the Red Shirts, or an outright sweep by the Red Shirts (e.g. what happened in Nepal) is one of only two questions left. The other is how much blood has to be spilled before we get there.

Like MauRICE, I have a somewhat skeptical view of Thaksin's "achievements", and in my opinion they were driven more by short-term political advantage to himself and his party than long-term benefit to the country. Particularly in education, an area where results take a generation to show,it is hard to assess, given only six years in office, what good he actually did. Yet this veering of the thread shows exactly what is holding up our ability to understand Thailand. We're still debating the past and the man, when frankly, I don't see Thaksin returning to office. I don't see him as any more than an influential side figure now, in a long struggle by bigger forces for power and ascendancy. It's the forces that matter.

I don't think it is helpful to understanding a complex situation by adopting a position that dismisses the views of a huge number of people, in bkkguy's case, the views of the Red Shirt supporters. To suggest that they are no more than fools duped by Thaksin is to adopt a condescending attitude to their native intelligence. Firstly, I find it hard to see how so many can be fooled. Secondly, I'd say if we set the bar high and judge the Thais to be easily fooled by politicians, then it is no more so than Americans or Australians by theirs. To understand the dynamics of a political situation requires us to divorce our own personal judgements from our observations. We don't have to like any leader, we don't have to think highly of him, but we have to be able to see when others do. Our opinions (least of all, moral judgements) are not useful starting points for understanding. Looking objectively at the chess pieces on the ground and their relative strengths is what is needed.

It's more a case of the US Dollar, Euro and Sterling being troubled rather than baht being strong. Generally, Asian currencies are steady, with their economies pulling out of recession early. The baht's value against other floating Asian currencies like the Yen, the Singapore Dollar, has remained quite constant. (I'm omitting a discussion of the Yuan because it's not freely floating). The US Dollar is suffering because prospects of a quick recovery in the American economy look to be receding further and further away. And now a tax revolt is gaining momentum. The US-China trade dispute also seem to be heightening, causing worries about how the Chinese will respond. They are already trimming their holdings of US federal debt. The Euro is making headlines, as we know, not only because Greece is on the precipice of bankruptcy, but because Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy aren't too healthy either. Meanwhile, the UK's economy is in the doghouse and the budget deficit is just about out of control. There are local reasons too. Thailand has posted some good figures for the 4th quarter. Its GDP grew 3.6 percent over the 3rd quarter and 5.8 percent compared to 4th quarter 2008. Exports and manufacturing came up strongly. With the chance of interest rates going up and stocks likely to perform well in the coming year, investible funds are flowing into Thailand (and other Asian countries in a similar situation) thus keeping the baht value strong.

I'm not Thai and I don't think very highly of Thaksin. But I have a political science background, have been a political watcher of various countries for a long time (I dare say I can read trends) and I have sympathy for the downtrodden. In the US, I'd be cussed a pinky leftist liberal. I used the word "us" as a rhetorical device in order to plant the reader into the shoes of the "little people".

Bkkguy - I sense that you are applying a moral judgement to decide whether Thaksin is "good" or "bad". Many westerners, particularly Americans, expect morality from politicians. Or from sportsmen like Tiger Woods. It's a peculiarly Western hang-up. But Thais see it differently: All politicians are corrupt. When they get to office, they feather their own beds. All buy votes at election time. It's been like that for decades, since before Thaksin even appeared. Thaksin may be no different. A Westerner would use these indictments to see Thaksin as "bad". But from the Thai villager's, or the urban working stiff's (e.g. taxi drivers in Bangkok) point of view, there is a huge difference. Other party politicians are corrupt, buy votes, and after winning the election ignore us the little people. Thaksin may be corrupt, may have bought votes, but after the election continued to pay attention to us little people. Who do you think the little people will support in their hearts?

From brief glimpses of the audience in the TV clips, it seems the bars were well patronised. Looks like a pretty good high season this year for Boyztown? Or were other non-special evenings vastly different?

Hehe. Maybe he's Khun Manee, the illegal immigrant from across the Lao border - that makes him international. He once won the "Most likely to succeed" basketball player award in high school. (Just joking).

Neither do I, but most likely it would be someone from the Puea Thai Party, not Thaksin himself. However, I do not see the Red Shirts succeeding so quickly. Spot on. I can't agree more. Calling Thaksin a dictator is to fall for the Ancien Regime's propaganda. Like cdnmatt, I don't see that he was one. Fact: Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party was the first ever in modern Thai history to win an absolute majority at an election, therefore he was the first ever PM to govern without a need for a coalition government. This gave Thaksin a freedom of manouver that no other politician has ever had in Thailand; he did not have to painstakingly bargain and make trade-offs with other political leaders and shadowy figures among the old elite. Naturally, the old elite hated this state of affairs, they were not used to being sidelined and un-consulted. In their eyes, Thaksin was behaving like a "dictator", when really, he was just behaving like any normal PM with a big majority in Parliament, setting out to implement his agenda to take better care of his voter base (the poor majority), again like any normal politician, and to whittle away at the power base of his opponents. He probably had a big ego and was brash about his power and this probably annoyed the old elite even more. If one insists on seeing him as a dictator one will never understand why he had and still has such wide support. In any case, the issue has moved beyond Thaksin. It is a social revolution. The idea of social justice and political equity is now at the core of the struggle, not about just one man.

It'll be wrong to think of this as merely a fight over Thaksin's assets. This latest crisis is just one phase in a 10-20 year struggle between two visions of Thailand. It's actually a revolution in progress, but a slowly developing one rather than an acute and horribly violent one, the way most of us think of "revolutions". The two sides in this revolution are the Red Shirts and what I would call L'ancien regime. The latter are a mix of the urban middle- and upper-class, the business elite, the palace and the army. For the last half-century, they have had their way with Thailand, shaping laws, government spending and policies to benefit themselves (e.g. broadcasting licenses are given to the military, no civilian oversight of the military, enforcement of lese majeste laws). Although Thailand is nominally a democracy, the l'ancien regime has paid so little attention to schools and education (and health and other social welfare services) that the majority of Thais, particularly in the rural provinces, are poorly educated, and hitherto, have not had either the intellectual awareness or economic independence to challenge the ancien regime. Instead, the rural masses have remained under the sway of village chiefs per traditional custom and have voted in elections according to the village chiefs' recommendations or for whichever Bangkok party gives out the most cash to buy votes. That's how the ancien regime has maintained its hold on power despite the veneer of democracy. In the past, it didn't matter which party won elections. All parties were part of the ancien regime serving the same interests. What has happened in the last 10 years has been the erosion of this social model. Whether you like Thaksin or not, whether he was corrupt or not, he was the first politician to rise to the top as both an insider and outsider. He was an insider in the sense that he was a successful businessman in his own right, and the ancien regime originally thought of him as one of their own. He was an outsider in that his climb to success was not due to much help from the charmed circle of palace/military. After he became Prime Minister, Thaksin revolutionised Thai politics by showering the rural provinces with social welfare policies, and winning their solid support in subsequent elections. For the first time, the rural masses saw what their numerical strength could mean in terms of getting the distant government in Bangkok to pay attention to their needs. Thaksin also began to dismantle the levers by which shadowy figures of the old elite controlled power. This naturally threatened the old elite. At the same time, other social changes were gaining momentum. The rural masses were breaking out of their subservient way of thinking, getting more politicised, and through media, seeing how the "other half" lives. The Asian financial crisis of 1997, which bankrupted many Thai businessmen, also broke the aura of invincibility that the ancien regime had acquired. The poorer Thais would never again be in awe of the rich. So, when the military, with the support of the palace, mounted the coup d'etat of 2006 to depose Thaksin, thinking they could restore the ancien regime without too much opposition like previous coups d'etat, they were badly surprised. The people had changed. They would not accept a return to the old order. At first the resistance (Red Shirts) was centred around Thaksin, and aimed to restore Thaksin to power, but it would be erroneous to see it as a Thaksin-led force anymore or to hold the same aims. It is now much bigger than Thaksin. It is a social revolution, not well organised, short of resources, but with wide support. It no longer aims to restore Thaksin to power. It wants a decapitation of the Thai elite and a complete reappraisal of the purposes of the Thai state - for the welfare of the people rather than for the benefit of the rich and well-connected. Most members of farang online forums take the side of the old elite (You can see it from others' comments) and pour scorn on Thaksin and the Red Shirts. Mine is a minority opinion on these boards. While I don't have the right to take sides in this Thai revolution, I recognise the power that the Red Shirts have and the legitimacy of their grievances. I also predict that in the long run, they will win. My hope is that their victory need not be through violence. It would be best, and quite foreseeable, for more and more sections of the old elite, e.g. Abhisit's Democratic Party, to make compromises and accommodate the demands of the Red Shirts, and gradually abandon their hitherto knee-jerk subordination to the palace and military.

I recently came across a commentary article, quoting some Thai academics, that said, in a nutshell, the judges are acutely aware of the political implications/risks of whatever decision they are going to make. Thus a likely verdict would be a one that gives something to each side - there'll be no clear winner or loser. There will be some seizure of assets, but not all. What likelihood of this split verdict, of course I can't predict. What effect on the various political camps, I can't predict either. But it's saying that everything possible will be done to achieve a "fizzling out" solution rather than provoke a greater crisis.

In general, I agree, but it may be much more dynamic than that. The bottomline though is that the chief competition for Pattayaland Soi 3 (Boyztown) is Soi Twilight in Bangkok. I believe I've said this before, but still I don't know whether the business owners of Boyztown realise this sufficiently. Even in the early days, I remember Pattayaland Soi 1 and Soi 3 to be quite distinct. Soi 1 had (and still has) the smaller boys while Soi 3 tried to be the supermarket with a wide range of boys from small to beefy, and nightly shows at the Cockpit and Boyzboyzboyz. As Sunee developed, Soi 1 suffered, a decline that I have noticed from 5 - 10 years back. (What is the state of the bars there, can anyone update us?) Yet, the desertion of Soi 1 probably has its effect on Soi 3. Didn't people who liked the Soi 1 type of boys also visit the Soi 3 bars for showtime? In other words, even if they didn't off the boys of Soi 3, I would think they still added revenue through buying drinks. But, as Sunee grew, the same people stayed all evening in Sunee instead. They went less and less to the bars of Soi 1, and lately, it appears that the shows of Jomtien are in a position to cannibalise Soi 3's shows too. However, this effect, if any, would have been secondary to the chief competition - Soi Twilight. Over the years, Soi Twilight has been adjusting to market trends while Soi 3 has stayed stagnant. The trends were these: The rise of Asian tourism and the plateauing of Western gay tourism. Asian tourists have different tastes. They prefer more masculine boys, and think that watching a cross-dressing cabaret performer is a waste of time. Soi Twilight has gradually phased out the small queeny boys (only Classic Boys has them, and not even a majority anymore.) They've also ditched the queeny cabaret shows, and gone the whole hog with bold shows. The last remnant of femininity - using a femme guy in fuck shows - has now disappeared. Nowadays, they use a masculine guy as the bottom. At Soi 3, they have stuck to the drag queen and cabaret formula, a formula that does not interest the typical Asian tourist. And of course, Pattaya has stricter enforcement against nudity. Hardly any wonder then that between staying in Bangkok for the bold shows and travelling to Pattaya to see drag queens, the increasingly numerous Asian tourists (and Westerners with similar tastes) stayed in Bangkok. Yet the decline of Soi 3 could have been averted. Soi Twilight had two huge weaknesses - service quality by the boys once off'd and demands for money become worse and worse. Despite the handicap of not being able to put on bold shows, Soi 3 could have fought back on these two fronts to keep itself attractive, but I suspect they didn't know how (exceptions below). For a while, Wild West Boys showed the way with its more energetic shows with a lower drag queen quotient, but it soon shot itself in the foot with a mamasan that was even worse than the worst of Soi Twilight's. Then there's Funny Boys. Isn't it interesting that of all the bars in Soi 3, I think people will agree that Funny Boys is probably the only one that's still doing OK? It's the one with no shows and an attention to service - exactly the formula that is needed to hold one's own against Soi Twilight. Yet, my observation is that Funny Boys is getting more farang visitors than Asian, so by that measure, it is still not succeeding against Soi Twilight for the growing market. I guess, by itself, it can never. One bar cannot alone do it. The whole soi needs a critical mass.

That's a strange way of putting out revised information - trying to edit somebody else's post rather than saying it plainly. Naturally it got me interested in finding out what Gannymede (which I presume represents the business) is trying to bury under the mass of words, and so I just had to pick it apart. There seem to be three significant differences. 1. Gaybutton reported in his original post that there would be a sauna on the ground floor "and at least one level above will have privacy rooms." Gannymede changed that to read "and it will have 14 hotel rooms above the sauna." 2. Gaybutton reported that the sauna was "at least one or two months away from being ready to open. Gannymede wrote "two or three months". 3. Gaybutton's original post had these two sentences: "The off fee is 300 baht. The boys get 100 baht from that fee." They are omitted in Gannymede's version.

Important caveat: My experience limited to only 2 suits made about 2 years apart from two different tailors. The quality is passable but not great, but considering the lower price, I've been happy. On the second occasion, I asked for some specific features which they never quite understood and in the end didn't deliver accordingly. I figured out what the problem was. The tailor who takes your measurements does not do the tailoring. He passes on the key measurements to a subcontractor. With such a production chain, they are good at handling the basic measurements and features, but ask for any variations and they get mighty confused... or lost in translation between shop and subcontractor. So I smiled and accepted the "standard" suit/cut they could produce and got my special suit made in Singapore instead (at 3 times the price). Of course it now means that I have one more suit than I need. (I also suspect that if you have a non-standard body shape, they may have similar problems coping.) I have no experience asking for heavy material. I've forgotten the price range (US$100?) The shops put their prices up front ... but beware, that's for suits made of the cheap material. Shop around and ask for a more precise quote. Yes they can do it in three days (I think it's the minimum), but as I mentioned... don't expect them to handle special requests if you're relying on the production chain method.

While I'm not a regular visitor to Sunnee, of all the bars I've popped into when I was last there (March or April this year, I think) Euroboys struck me as one of the few eye-pleasing places. The boys - generally on the smaller side - actually danced and seemed to be enjoying it, unlike so many other places where they appear comatose. The lighting is also good, with a slick modern feel. My one gripe about it is that the seats are uncomfortable, probably because the shop is so narrow and there just isn't space.

Yes, I've been to Royal House and had a pretty good time. See review here: http://shamelessmack.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/black-t-shirt/ Then there's a very basic-looking massage shop just a few steps from Smart Relaxation on Second Road, called Pawanthip Massage. Review here: http://shamelessmack.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/floppy-thai-massage/

I understand the Thai system. I've heard that other Asian cultures also apply a similar system, though I'm no authority on that. It makes sense. It's just as logical as the Western system to say "He's in his fifteenth year" meaning he's somewhere between his 14th and 15th birthday per the Western system. What I've been meaning to ask for a long time but never had the opportunity, is this: If that is the Thai system, then wouldn't Thai law be interpreted in the same way? That is, if the law says a boy needs to be 20 to enter a bar, would that mean that the boy needs to be in his twentieth year (i.e. past his 19th birthday) to enter a bar?

Yes. I noticed last week that that possibility exists. I actually think moving the check-points for hand-carried luggage to BEFORE duty-free compromises security. Now it is possible for someone to check in at Suvarnabhumi, go through passport control and bag control and then mingle with thousands of other travellers in transit in the duty-free area. Think of the possibilities of two terrorists meeting up within the transit area with the in-transit guy passing a gun or small bomb to the guy who's just checked in from the Bangkok side. The Bangkok guy can then proceed to board his flight with no further checks. How easy is it for a guy in transit have a gun or bomb to pass to the Bangkok guy? That depends... how many dodgy airports have flights into Suvarnabhumi? This means that Suvarnabhumi's security is only as good as the worst airport that connects to it. I flew from Suvaranabhumi to Changi Singapore and for the first time I saw the Singapore authorities putting up a checkpoint to screen passengers as they disembarked. All hand-luggage had to go through scanners, all pockets checked before people could enter the Changi terminal. I thought it showed how much trust the Singapore authorities placed in Suvarnabhumi's security.

When you say "Silom line", do you mean the BTS (skytrain) line that runs from National Stadium to Wongwien Yai? I think the answer is that there is no direct transfer. The website http://www.bangkokairporttrain.com/index.html says - * - * - The Airport Link to Suvarnabhumi Airport will provide 2 Transit options: * A Direct Express Train that will take 15 minutes from the City Air Terminal (Makkasan) train station. This service will connect to the city

It runs only once per hour. Costs 150 baht (before adding the cost of the taxi from Makkasan to hotel). Doesn't sound competitive.

I assume you realise that the +86 numbers are China. I believe +86 136.... would lead you to a cellphone in that country.