Thai Director Wins Cannes Palme d'Or

[Guest fountainhall]

Congratulations to Apichatpong Weerasethakul for his huge achievement in winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes. It's the first film from South East Asia to win one of the movie world's most prestigious awards. Khun Joe (as he is called) is both Thai and gay, and so I think qualifies for inclusion in this Board.

[KhorTose]

Congratulations to Apichatpong Weerasethakul for his huge achievement in winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes. It's the first film from South East Asia to win one of the movie world's most prestigious awards. Khun Joe (as he is called) is both Thai and gay, and so I think qualifies for inclusion in this Board.

 

The man sounds like a red shirt, but he can't be, as he is brilliant and now the winner of two international awards.

 

I say this because he says his country (Thailand) is being ran by a bunch of Mafia.

[Guest fountainhall]

The man sounds like a red shirt, but he can't be, as he is brilliant and now the winner of two international awards.

 

I say this because he says his country (Thailand) is being ran by a bunch of Mafia.

Your sarcasm betrays some wishful thinking. I assume you refer to his comments in the Bangkok Post (reprinted in time.com) which you should quote in greater detail as his comments are clearly about Thailand governments in general, not in particular -

 

"Thailand is a violent country. It is controlled by a group of mafia. Our governments, present and past, have been such a mess," Apichatpong told the Bangkok Post a day before winning the Palme d'Or.

See

MediaWATCH: Warrant Issued for Thaksin; Thailand's 'Mafia' Blasted; Phuket Occupancy Up, Then Down - Phuket Wan

 

In his most recent interview yesterday for indiemoviesonline, he says this about the current situation -

 

It's a class war, and it's very complicated because it's not only about underprivileged people voicing their concern but, with the red shirts there are also tycoons and politicians involved. It's not as easy as the poor and the rich, it's more about power. It's very hard for me to fathom now because it shows how we've been manipulated by the media since we were young and this situation forced us to rethink our belief, our judgement and our morals, and how do we stand.

Interview with Palme d'Or winner Apichatpong Weerasethakul

 

And in reading most of the interviews he has given, he clearly is more angry with successive governments about censorship and the lack of artistic freedom.

[Guest voldemar]

Your sarcasm betrays some wishful thinking. .

It was pretty clear from his comments in Cannes that he referes to current situation.

He was refering to impossibility to describe the current events in BKK due to censorship.

Your apology for current regime goes far beyond wishful thinking and frankly appauling.

In this respect I have a concrete question:

Can you briefly describe why you hate Thaksin with such an incredible passion (which can be harmful for a man of your age). I mean how Thaksin damaged you personally or make your life more complicated. Please, avoid usual bulshit (can I use this word on this forum?) about war on drugs etc.

I hope you are not drug dealer and it did not effect your business.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Look at Wikipedia regarding Thaksin and then decide for yourself what you think about him.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shinawatra

[Guest fountainhall]

Can you briefly describe why you hate Thaksin with such an incredible passion (which can be harmful for a man of your age). I mean how Thaksin damaged you personally or make your life more complicated. Please, avoid usual bulshit (can I use this word on this forum?) about war on drugs etc.

I hope you are not drug dealer and it did not effect your business.

I don't respond to such pathetic questions.

[KhorTose]

It was pretty clear from his comments in Cannes that he referes to current situation.

He was refering to impossibility to describe the current events in BKK due to censorship.

 

That is the way I read it too. It is pretty clear to me, that he is talking about the current situation. Just another Thaskin Dupe who is probably paid to say that.

[Guest voldemar]

I don't respond to such pathetic questions.

There is at least one very well-known poster (who does not post on this message board)

who actually suggested that he did not like Thaksin because his policies could lead to elimination of cheap sex in Thailand. At least that poster was honest. I know some people claim that it became difficult for them to conduct their business operations in Thailand. I wonder what kind of business they mean.

As a frequent visitor in Thailand, I recall I was personally annoyed by reduced business hours for entertainment venues (though Madam Won from Phuket's my Way always blamed Purachai for that rather than Thaksin).

Four years since coup was a total disaster for Thailand. My favorite hangout in BKK -Paragon seems to be fine but having Central World next door burned down making the whole area for me no go zone. I do not think I will ever come to BKK after what happened

(and in any case having vacations in war zones is not my idea of entertainment).

I will take reduced hours in entertainment venues versus shooting people by snipers as sitting ducks any moment.

I guess it all depends on perspective, it all depends whether someone feel entitled for certain things by the fact he has some more dollars or pounds, it all depends on unjustified feeling of supremacy or who knows may be in some cases false elitism.

Of course, various people entitled on various viewpoints but to be honest I do despise the group (including some posters on this message board) who are willing to justify everything this government do. Who see nothing wrong. PM is fine, soldiers are great.

Kill them all. Bury Thaksin. Just let us enjoy our cheap sex. That I think is really pathetic.

[Guest fountainhall]

Of course, various people entitled on various viewpoints but to be honest I do despise the group (including some posters on this message board) who are willing to justify everything this government do. Who see nothing wrong . . . That I think is really pathetic.

I agree. It's clear, though, that you have not read many of the posts here, because there has been a great deal of regular criticism of institutions like the government, the army and the police.

[Guest fountainhall]

Your apology for current regime goes far beyond wishful thinking and frankly appauling.

In this respect I have a concrete question:

Can you briefly describe why you hate Thaksin with such an incredible passion (which can be harmful for a man of your age). I mean how Thaksin damaged you personally or make your life more complicated. Please, avoid usual bulshit (can I use this word on this forum?) about war on drugs etc.

I hope you are not drug dealer and it did not effect your business.

Having looked at your answer to your question above, I begin to see what you were expecting. So I’ll withdraw my objection and give you an honest answer.

 

You know from our previous discussions that I lived in Hong Kong for many years and have lived in Bangkok for more than 8. Prior to that move, and with retirement starting to loom on the horizon, I decided to purchase a small place somewhere in the region, as I had no wish to return to Europe. I narrowed the field down to Kuala Lumpur, which I always enjoy visiting, and Bangkok. I selected Bangkok for 3 reasons. 1) It is closer to and has many more daily flights to Hong Kong where my basic business remains to this day. 2) I had some concern about possible future religious tensions in Malaysia. 3) I had more friends here.

 

The availability of sex had absolutely nothing to do with my decision. If I want it, I have never had any difficulty finding it, whether it be here, in Hong Kong, in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore - wherever. So Thaksin’s policies on entertainment and nightlife had zero effect on me.

 

You asked why I “hate Thaksin with such an incredible passion” adding “(which can be harmful for a man of your age).” I’m not sure where you get the idea that I hate the guy with passion, or that such feelings might be harmful. The fact is I do not hate Thaksin and there are far more things to worry about in life which might be harmful to me.

 

Let me start by saying what I liked about Thaksin.

 

1. I came to live in Bangkok about the time he became Prime Minister. He immediately brought a more business-oriented approach to government and the economy started a long multi-year expansion. To be fair, almost any government would have achieved this, as these years immediately followed the austerity years of crippling IMF bailout package when interest rates were for a long time well over 30%. With the crisis easing, it did not take much to kick-start the economy again.

 

2. He seemed to bring stable government which the country desperately needed.

 

3. He did a lot of good for the poor. lvdkeyes referred you to wikipedia and there is no need for me to list again his accomplishments

 

4. He brought a sense of optimism that the future could indeed be bright for the country.

 

So what do I dislike about him? Here are some reasons.

 

1. He lied and hid his assets when declaring them prior to his election to parliament in 2001. When it was subsequently discovered that his gardener and another servant owned millions of shares in his company, he was charged by the courts. But, as we know from the pastrygate affair, Thaksin’s lawyers had no concerns about handing court officials boxes full of cash. So it is reasonable to assume after the event that in order to get the assets case thrown out, bribes did the trick.

 

2. He muzzled the media, just like his idol Lee Kwan Yew. That may sound strange when a few people now consider the media a mouthpiece of government. But Thaksin went further. His crooked lawyers were always on the scene threatening lawsuits left, right and centre if his line was not printed. Remember the case of the cracks in the new airport runway? The Bangkok Post ran a front page article, Thaksin called it lies, sued the paper and won damages. He also had the writer and a senior editor summarily fired. Yet, what the Bangkok Post printed was 100% the truth, as was later discovered.

 

3. Nepotism. He filled a lot of posts with his cronies and family members. He even made his cousin Commander-in-Chief of the army. He proved so ineffective, he had to be replaced.

 

4. As his power increased, he increasingly used that power to enrich himself, often against the interests of the nation as a whole. The sale of Shin Corporation to Temaskek Holdings for US$1.9 billion and there being no tax on the gains was only possible because he had an absolute majority in parliament and quickly rammed through two pieces of legislation, so denying the people and the government any share.

 

5. His government extended a credit line of several billion Baht to the impoverished state of Myanmar so that it could do a satellite deal with his own family business.

 

6. He changed the agreement then in place re revenue sharing between the TOT and his company AIS to the very positive advantage of AIS.

 

7. He got the Board of Investment to grant tax breaks of Bt. 16.4 billion to his family business for a satellite project.

 

8. He got the Transport Ministry to drop the government-mandated minimum air fare. That done, he then announced that his company was going into a joint venture with Air Asia to found Thai Air Asia. Without the earlier government action, that would not have been possible. It is yet another of many examples of changing government policy to enrich himself and his own businesses.

 

9. It has been proved he has overseas tax shelters, which are against the law for any Thai politician.

 

That is enough for any reader to plough through. But you advise me “avoid the usual bullshit about war on drugs.” Well, I will not avoid it. Human Rights Watch estimates that 2,275 people were killed in its first 3 months. Thaksin’s government said only 50 had been killed at the hands of the police. Many others say most were “extrajudicially executed” and of these many had nothing to do with the drugs business in any way.

 

So there are 9 reasons why I dislike the man. I would dislike the leader of any country guilty of such excesses. To me he did some good and positive things for the country. But he has been proved time and again to be a dictator, a liar and a crook who, like many dictators, used his position in government to vastly enrich himself and his family. And now he foments rebellion, hiding in his tax shelters whilst the red-shirts protest and die in an effort to bring him back. Yet he only wants to come back so he can again live in the country of his birth and to recover his ill-gotten gains.

[Guest voldemar]

Though you provided a lot of redundant information, you answered my question. It appears that you personally not only did not suffer but , in fact benefited under Thaksin. So, in fact many other foreign businessmen in Thailand. It is not accidental that he has so many friends among international business community which turned out to be quite useful for him under present circumstances.

Regarding your laundry list, I can easily dispute every point in it but who really cares.

You may recall thousands of pages of debates on each of the items in Thaivisa and these materials are still easily accessible.

From my perspective, Thaksin tried to achieve the major goal: rapid economic growth and as a result higher living standards for the population. It was impossible without narrowing the gap between rich and poor and hence, he declared and partially successfully implemnted the program of elimination of poverty.

Lula in Brasil is doing the same. Both politicians are probably corrupt but not more than

others in concrete circumstances of each country. Lula will probably be considered as a most important politician in modern Brasilian history. Thaksin is currently accused in terrorism. Brasil may become one of world's giants in twenty years. Thailand may disintegrate and plunge into chaos (having excellent economic fundamentals).

Politicians are judged on the balance and eventually this balance will be in Thaksin's favor.

[Gaybutton]

Politicians are judged on the balance and eventually this balance will be in Thaksin's favor.

On a philosophical level or on a practical level?

[Guest fountainhall]

Though you provided a lot of redundant information

Why redundant? You asked the question, I answered it with a lot of facts. No doubt it's redundant because you don't want to hear it.

 

It appears that you personally not only did not suffer but , in fact benefited under Thaksin.

Your trouble is that you continuously make assumptions without proper evidence - in fact, often with scarcely any at all. How could I benefit as a businessman when I did no business at all in Thailand during Thaksin's years in power? I only happened to live here. All my business was, and continues to be, done in Hong Kong and greater China!

 

You may recall thousands of pages of debates on each of the items in Thaivisa and these materials are still easily accessible.

I don't read other sites.

 

Both politicians are probably corrupt but not more than others in concrete circumstances of each country

Oh really? Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, because your maxim, stated clearly on another thread, is that first wealth needs to trickle down to the less well off before corruption can be tackled. We had a long discussion on that before. I happen to believe that leaders have a duty to show leadership and set an example. Those who amass great personal wealth whilst in power as a direct result of being in that position of power are scum. History will judge Thaksin in the same light as it has Marcos, the Duvaliers and others who robbed their states. The poor in Thailand will eventually have a new champion and Thaksin will soon be forgotten.

[Guest voldemar]

Your information was redundant because my question was formulated pretty clearly: how Thaksin effected you personally. It appears that it did not effect you personally in any negative way. The remaining bullshit which is in your post is nothing new, was discussed many thousands times and for people like myself who follow events in Thailand very closely assesed long time ago. What you call my maxim is simply how things evolve everywhere in the world: all countries go through the phase of corruption and simply outgrow these desease. Things in Thailand went terribly wrong and it is not difficult to understand why: it suffices to realize what differ Thailand from other countries and what types of structural transformations were not done. I have already explained it in other posts. You really should not take my word for it: as your compatriots like to say the proof is in the pudding. Take a walk in BKK. And I am afraid is far from being over.

[Guest fountainhall]

Your information was redundant because my question was formulated pretty clearly: how Thaksin effected you personally. It appears that it did not effect you personally in any negative way. The remaining bullshit which is in your post is nothing new, was discussed many thousands times and for people like myself who follow events in Thailand very closely assesed long time ago.

There you go again. You have a special knack (in terms of posters on this Board) of twisting everything. You say the question was formulated "pretty clearly". Well let me remind you in your words what the question actually was:

 

Can you briefly describe why you hate Thaksin with such an incredible passion (which can be harmful for a man of your age). I mean how Thaksin damaged you personally or make your life more complicated. Please, avoid usual bulshit (can I use this word on this forum?) about war on drugs etc.

I hope you are not drug dealer and it did not effect your business.

So it was not one question, but two - or at best one question with two distinct parts: (i) hating Thaksin, and (ii) how Thaksin damaged me personally. But then - as usual - you conveniently forget that when it comes to your responses, whilst at the same time you dish out very strongly implied insults - about drug dealing, in this case.

 

You also fail to respond to other questions put directly to you, instead twisting meanings to suit the answer you always trot out like a somewhat jaded parrot. For example –

 

What you call my maxim is simply how things evolve everywhere in the world: all countries go through the phase of corruption and simply outgrow these desease.

Oh really!! So the Philippines has outgrown the corruption which has plagued it for many, many decades? Tell that to those poor people who scavenge on the rubbish tips for anything that will help them buy food. Tell that to the powerful clans who have no intention of giving up their power. Tell that to the people of Haiti. You showed in the discussion about Hong Kong corruption that you really have no idea about ingrained corruption in Asia and how impossible it is to even start eradicating it when the people in power are not only themselves hugely corrupt but enrich themselves massively by looting the state of many of its assets. You have a very strange set of values. You admire Thaksin for some help for the poor; yet you accept that his being an out-and-out crook enriching himself by stealing what rightfully belonged to all the people of the country, is part and parcel of economic growth.

 

In addition, you have tainted your oft-quoted passion about your solution to Thaiiand’s economic problems through the statement made in your last post about Thailand –

 

I do not think I will ever come to BKK after what happened

Tourism is one of Thailand’s lifelines to improved economic growth. It is now in tatters with many hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. It is estimated it will take up to 2 years to recover. I am happy to stay in Thailand and play my small part in contributing to the economic growth. You take your money elsewhere, preferring to spout your simplistic principles from a distance.

 

Enjoy your holidays in other countries, voldemar. I have the distinct impression Thailand will get on perfectly well without you. And since I will no longer take part in discussions involving such looney logic, I bid you farewell.

[KhorTose]

Fountainhall, I am impressed by your powerful arguments against Thaskin. In your arguments you presented facts rather then second hand information, and evidence rather then emotional diatribe. This is the type of argument I will listen to and respond to. After doing a fact check, on your arguments, I am now convinced that Thaskin did as much wrong as he did good, and there is great justification in disliking him.

Where we still may part is the argument that the Red Shirts are just his paid dupes, and this government is any better then Thaskin's was. In fact, I still consider them far worse.

 

They came to power after a coup.

They handpicked the courts judges.

They removed one PMs on trumped up charges using their courts.

They shut down the airport and government house and they did have guns, and use violence against the police

While the airport was shut down they pressured and bribed the smaller partys to join them.

They fired the police chief who tried to clear government house They outlawed a whole party for things this current main government party also did.

They have used lese Majesty charges to silence opponents.

They used the military to kill and wound thousands of protestors for doing what yellow shirts did.

They have shut down all opposition press and radio stations

They are holding the Red Shirt leaders in jail while Sondi and the PAD leaders go free.

Their main platform is to change the constitution so that one man one vote does not apply.

 

And all of the above is only a partial list, hastily typed out from memory. I am sure if I did some digging I could come up with far more then this. Just like you believe that a leader should be an example, I believe that a government that denies human rights and give all appearances of being a government of only the few and privileged is terribly bad news for the people. I also know and believe that the red shirt movement is the largest group of committed people in this country, based on the fact that they won the last two free elections and the current PAD party is reluctant to hold new elections. I also find that the Red shirts are not stupid farmers, not paid dupes, and are willing to die to get a voice in their own government.

You appear to have faith in this government to turn things around, while all I see them doing is trying to change laws and deny freedoms to keep themselves in power. They do not want to correct the wrongs or imbalances in Thailand's society, but set up an armed state where there power will be enforced by the control of all information, the use of the Army when necessary, the teaching of subsistence economics which basically says stay in your place and be happy, and the paid cooperation of the Monks who also emphasize a karma type of caste system. I believe you may see this country heading for anarchy under the red shirts, and I do see this country heading for a Burma solution under the present government. I guess are major difference between us can come down to I freely choose anarchy over dictatorship (Oligarchy).

[Guest fountainhall]

I believe you may see this country heading for anarchy under the red shirts, and I do see this country heading for a Burma solution under the present government

I suggest we are not as far apart as you may think. I won't go over old ground other than to say, in my view, I have no doubt Thaksin has been bankrolling the red shirt movement. Of course without seeing his bank records or those of the red shirts leaders, I have no absolute proof. So it's best we agree to disagree.

 

I do agree that many hundreds of thousands - possibly far more - of the red shirts are committed to the ideals of freedom and democracy expounded by their leaders. As I said in another post recently, I have no doubts that something is happening in this country which will change it sooner or later. There is no way it can be 'put back in the box', as it were. But whereas I saw unity in the red shirt movement when I toured the protest site at Rajaprasong, I saw the movement descend into chaos after the leaders rejected Abhisit's offers. My own feeling is that if the offer had been accepted, unless some rogue generals or police had tried to derail it, the scenario would have played out with a red-shirts party in power after that November election.

 

But just as that deal seemed to be accepted, someone killed it (pardon the pun). My view is that Thaksin did so. For you must surely agree that he is the eminence grise behind the red-shirts movement. Unlike you (I think), I believe he has clear ulterior motives in fanning the flames of the movement. As I again said, he has two objectives - a return to his native land with all charges against him dropped, and the return of that part of his wealth the state has confiscated.

 

Let's speculate for a moment. if the present government were to do an about turn and offer him what he wants in return for total political non-involvement, I believe he would abandon the red-shirts in a nano-second. Of course, having tasted absolute power, he would not stay uninvolved for long, but perhaps long enough for the red-shirts to see what his aims really are.

 

In reality, we know that is not going to happen. As to your comment, I want neither anarchy nor a Burma-type solution for this country. Indeed, it is the Thais themselves who will decide what they want, certainly not me! If the majority believe a red-shirts government should run the country come the next election, of course I'll accept that - with just one caveat. Any successful political party needs sound leadership dedicated to fulfilling the party's platform, whilst also taking into account the fact that, if elected to govern, they have to consider the needs of the country as a whole and not solely of the party. I don't yet see that type of leadership in the movement. Instead I see a hotchpotch of committed democrats surrounded by a flock of vulture-like failed and corrupt politicians (Chaovalit being one of the sleaziest - the one who led the country head-first into the 1997 economic crisis). I think it was you who brought up the French revolution in one post. Well, we all know the chaos that descended on France for the years following 1789. If I could see a red-shirt leadership emerge with the power (yes!) and the skills to take over the reigns of government and avoid any form of major chaos, I might be right in there cheering them on.

[Guest chiangmaidude]

The man sounds like a red shirt, but he can't be, as he is brilliant and now the winner of two international awards.

 

I say this because he says his country (Thailand) is being ran by a bunch of Mafia.

It may surprise you to know that there are many brilliant red shirts. I don't know if this man is a red shirt, but I do know that his brilliant assessment of Thailand as a violent culture is shared by many intellectuals and average middle class people in Thailand...and that these people (along with the poor) are also slowly finding their voice and beginning to question the comforting but delusional psychological womb of denial that suffocates Thailand and keeps it on a dangerous path.

 

The Red Shirt movement has already moved way beyond Thaksin. It is growing into something that Thailand will have to reckon with...one way or another. Let's hope that the powers that be recognize that this movement will succeed, and that it makes choices that prevent rather than create violence.

[Guest fountainhall]

Let's hope . . . that it makes choices that prevent rather than create violence.

I second that.

[KhorTose]

The Red Shirt movement has already moved way beyond Thaksin. It is growing into something that Thailand will have to reckon with...one way or another. Let's hope that the powers that be recognize that this movement will succeed, and that it makes choices that prevent rather than create violence.

 

At last 100% agreement. This, of course, is my fondest hope.

[Guest fountainhall]

At last 100% agreement. This, of course, is my fondest hope.

Alas, not quite! I did agree with the hope that it makes choices that prevent rather than create violence. I omitted the part of the sentence which read "that the powers that be recognise that this movement will succeed." However, I am sure many posters are getting more than fed up with this dialogue. So to end my participation for the time being, I'll accept that ". . ." can mean my agreement included the omitted words. I suspect you are right and it will succeed - hopefully with the sound and responsible leadership I referred to earlier.

[Guest voldemar]

There you go again.

Listen, it is impossible to have a meaningful duscussion with you. It was pretty clear from HK episode. You do not accept quantitative arguments (data from HK censor bureau), you do not accept historical argumens (history of many attempts to quell corruption in HK), you do not accept logical arguments (comparison with other countries).

The starting point of this thread was that you simply tried to twist what happenned in Cannes. You just try to prove impossible that I asked two questions when I asked one.

Whom are you kidding? What is the point? At least I try to understand what is happening in the country, you just try to obscure the facts. You are dangerous demagogue and you misleading the people with your pseudo-expertise on everything. No arguments with you but I will continue to show your lies which you are spewing here with incredible speed.

[Bob]

Please have your meaningless hissy fits somewhere else. Moldor, perhaps.

[Guest fountainhall]

Listen, it is impossible to have a meaningful duscussion with you.

Haha! You know something? I agree with you!

 

And since you have no plans to return to Thailand for your vacations, I have the ideal place for you - the Ulcinj Riviera. Of course, you'll know where that is, don't you - Montenegro. And who knows? You might even bump into a fellow Thai exile there. Happy Holidays!

[Gaybutton]

You are dangerous demagogue and you misleading the people with your pseudo-expertise on everything. No arguments with you but I will continue to show your lies which you are spewing here with incredible speed.

While you're busy showing us all these terrible lies Fountainhall is telling us, would you mind doing it without the name calling? I've asked you to stop doing that. Now I'm warning you. I warn only once, my friend.