Thai Airways to sue the PAD

[Wesley]

The ones that were stuck there will never forget and likely never be back, I wouldn't if it had happend to me, not with a many grreat plces in the world there are to vacation and still play around. Good thing I went early, I had orginally planned a later visit. Good thing I went early. All the Publicity can't be good for future business for years to come, I would think.

Wes

But I guess I have more faith in tea leaves than what one can expect from the Thai system...

Ditto, Bob, particularly as Chamlong Srimuang, the co-leader, was technically out on bail at the time (and still is).

Did the PAD cost the country more than Thaksin supposedly did?

Thaksin arguably "cost the country" up to 11 billion baht in unpaid taxes. Over 50 billion baht of his assets in Thailand are frozen.

I think less people died from the PAD's actions than from Thaksin's 'war on drugs'

True, but the latter was hardly for selfish or purely political reasons, while the former undeniably was.


Blaming Thaksin personally for the PAD's actions is easy and even convincing (not all the PAD can be either paid or stupid), but it cannot hide the PAD's primary aim - the end of Thai democracy. While previous political groups bought the rural vote with a plastic bucket or a bag of rice Thaksin had the intelligence to realise that health care, education and favourable policies for the poor would generate far more support and make them aware that their vote genuinely chose the government - that is what the PAD and their supporters and backers hate and fear above all else.

[Beachlover]

I wonder how much will now be lost in the tourist dollar category, I took Bali years after the bombings, I wonder how long before tourists forget the Bangkok airport disaster.

Bali recovered very quickly. The damage wasn't as bad... and they (both Bali and its Australian patrons) seem to have gotten used to frequent incidents... it'a almost as if, "Oh usually it's fine to go to Bali but I think we'll give it a miss next month as they're executing the bombers/just been another bombing/another warning from the government etc etc."

In Thailand, the tourism loss will be the most immediate loss... but it will recover. Maybe not to its complete former glory, but it will recover.

The biggest hit for Thailand will be long term infrastructure, investment and business opportunities, which will be lost. This loss is almost incalculable. It's like looking a the difference between a wealthy country like Singapore or Australia... and a piss poor country like Vietnam or Malaysia.

One way to see the gravity of it, is to look at the difference in wealth between Singapore and Malaysia.

50 years ago Singapore had little hope... it was abandoned by Britain, had little skilled labour and no natural resources. Today it's is one of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world. It did this by presenting itself as a stable, reliable and safe destination to successfully attract enormous foreign investment. It's a major transport hub for air passengers and cargo. It's one of the world's biggest shipping and refinery ports. It's a major destination for business travelers and corporate regional head offices. Money pours into Singapore like rain.

But Malaysia is still a 3rd world country... poor, and struggling to compete. Internal civil unrest meant didn't work as hard as Singapore to present a safe, stable and attractive destination for investment in Asia. While Malaysia competes with its developing 3rd world country neighbours, Singapore operates in a completely different league.

Airlines will hesitate to make Bangkok its stop over destination/regional hub. Transport logistics companies will do the same. Businesses will be hesitant to base operations in Thailand. Tourists will think twice about visiting. The damage done is enormous.

I don't have an opinion on whether PAD's cause was justified. But I'm certain it was justified enough to do this kind of damage to its own people and its nation. Maybe they were too unintelligent to realise the damage they would cause. Or maybe they were so driven by their cause, they were willing to pursue any means to achieve it, while showing complete contempt for the victims of the side effects.

I'm also certain it had no right to hold 350,000 foreigners hostage, disrupt their plans enormously and make them fork out more money than they were planning to spend in Thailand, with complete disregard for their rights and needs.

50 years ago Singapore had little hope... it was abandoned by Britain, had little skilled labour and no natural resources. Today it's is one of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world. It did this by presenting itself as a stable, reliable and safe destination to successfully attract enormous foreign investment. It's a major transport hub for air passengers and cargo. It's one of the world's biggest shipping and refinery ports. It's a major destination for business travelers and corporate regional head offices. Money pours into Singapore like rain.

But Malaysia is still a 3rd world country... poor, and struggling to compete. Internal civil unrest meant didn't work as hard as Singapore to present a safe, stable and attractive destination for investment in Asia. While Malaysia competes with its developing 3rd world country neighbours, Singapore operates in a completely different league.

An alternative explanation is that Singapore was led out of the Federation by the leader of a particular community that has a strong work ethic, whilst power was clung to, at least once in the face of widespread bloody rioting, in Malaysia by another group asserting to be the indigenous (bumiputera) population. Singapore is a tiny city state with a ruthless approach to development. "Wealthiest per capita" is not that impressive if you are tiny anyway. For a long time the community in power was able buy ample cheap labour from its immediate neighbours but nowadays prefers to buy in low cost labour from it's ancestral roots.

As to being "abandoned by Britain"; most historians believe they were chucked out by the Japanese with Thai complicity. During the liberation of the Pacific, Britain was able to seize back Hong Kong because Churchill tricked the Americans who wanted a Pacific devoid of European influence. Singapore flounced from the Federation sometime after Malaysian independence by being awkward in the extreme, tricking the world into believing they were expelled by TAR. It was never "abandoned by Britain".

The last two 'Taksin' front governments have been sacked by the courts for vote buying and other illegal activities. Not exactly democratic either.

Agreed - but hardly unusual either! And Samak's insistence on continuing his TV appearances on Cooking and Grumbling, which resulted in his sacking, were really unwise rather than undemocratic.

but surely its another sign that the laws are now starting to be applied to people at all levels of society?