I found this one from blogs at oknation.net

This is a blog

I have been watching with interest the web reaction to ‘The Times’ interview with Thaksin on some of the local forums, and am amazed that few people actually get it……. and that, perhaps, includes the author.
The interview by Richard Lloyd Parry was indeed a

Thaksin reminisces about his days in London

scoop. It was the first time Thaksin laid his cards on the table to such an extent to the foreign press, and even though nobody else from the foreign press seemed to want to chase this particular scoop, Parry got full access and then a tape recorded interview – the transcripts which were apparently provided by Thaksin’s staff themselves.

So Thaksin went into this interview eyes wide open and obviously expecting some political capital out of it.
Now take a look at the news story and look at the actual transcript of the interview.
Well actually you can’t check the news story now if you are in Thailand, unless its posted somewhere else, because that has been blocked, well, so says the man you cannot gag in ‘The Times’.
Actually the interview has not been blocked which is quite surprising, or it it? No not really, because it is the news story more than the interview, which has caused the offence.

Enter the conquering hero
Actually the author has missed the bottom line on this story and that it is quite simply: Thailand is going to the dogs but Thaksin says will come back to power in Thailand by hook or by crook with Puea Thai after the next election, his sins will be wiped, he will be found not guilty, and he then can put the country together again and save us all.
If he wants to march in, he will march in from the north, but he wants to avoid bloodshed, he says, thankfully for once.
Richard Lloyd Parry, in the interview labours a lot on, and questions, the role of the Monarchy and or institution thereof. That is all perfectly valid. But Thaksin Shinawatra is very careful in his answers, whether we believe him or not. He has said nothing against the monarchy, but criticised advisors to the monarchy and even suggested they tried to ‘assasinate him’. In fact the Times claims that Thaksin wants the monarchy reformed, but that comes from a question by RLP and Thaksin is answering ‘Yes, Yes’ to reforms of institution around the monarchy.

So actually the interview does not stand up the story but perhaps could have done had he asked the appropriate questions and we have to assume the ‘ Times’ has not censored the interview.

Actually anyone reading the interview might gather that the interviewee thinks he is one step short of canonisation. So blood has already been drawn there intentionally or otherwise.

But in fact what ‘The Times’ has done is to use the interview to convey a certain set of circumstances, and relationships, which have been widely talked about in journalistic and diplomatic circles in Bangkok, and London, and get them into a news story.
It would be inappropriate for me to spell out what that conspiracy, real or imagined, is.

That ‘Times’ agenda seems to be confirmed by a follow-up story by Richard Lloyd Parry headed: ‘The interview that dared to break Thai Royal taboo’.

I have always seen, rightly or wrongly, Richard Lloyd Parry, as a closet supporter of Thaksin, even though he once described him as unsavoury he has painted, the current Prime Minister, as much more of an ogre. I took ‘The Times’ to task about it about earlier in this year. See this for example ‘The charmer making a mess of his country’.

Richard, who lives in Tokyo, as a journalist has never had to live under Thaksin and things like the ’War on Drugs’ and media suppression and men with baseball bats at the FCCT.

The possibility that Thaksin could actually be guilty of the crimes brought against him have been given half hearted acceptance in ‘The Times’ if any at all.

The fact that he was democratically elected it seems is enough. This is about a threat to democracy. Of course democratically elected leaders can have their own agenda as Adolf did.

The newspaper was silent about his critics when Thaksin took over Manchester City. If you wanted to see criticism of Thaksin you had to look to the sports pages of the Daily Mail and Guardian.

Anyway I voluntarily parted company with ‘The Times’ earlier this year to return to my old friends at the ‘Evening Standard’ (or rather ’Eenie Stannit’ according to comedian Eric Morecombe).

By that time I was concerned about ‘The Times’ and went public about why, and after 10 years, they were suddenly equally concerned about my byline appearing in ‘numerous other newspapers’.

Though I have since written for them, I do not want to represent them. They would be foolish to disagree.
Anyway, who am I to say Thaksin is not a democract and a man of the people which he described himself in the interview, agreeing he had some similarities to Aung San Suu Gyi? Well they were both democratically elected and removed from power for example.

Needless to say Thaksin is a lot friendlier with Burma’s ruthless military junta, with whom he does business, so you wont see him chanting in support of democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi.

(And ‘Man of the people’ ? Well he was not exactly brought up in the fields of Issan. He comes from a long line of Thai Chinese Royal tax collectors (ironically) and muleteers doing something along the Thai Burma border and dealing with whatever used to cross there)

On November 9th Richard also wrote this.”Mr Thaksin is a paradox. While in office, he was feared and loathed by many Thais, especially the educated middle-class, as an opportunist and authoritarian who trampled on human rights, the media and independent institutions in the pursuit of power. For the rest of the population he was — and remains — Thailand’s most adored leader, re-elected repeatedly and forced out by a naked military coup.

“After the generals returned power to elected politicians Thais voted for Mr Thaksin’s supporters and proxies who were subsequently forced out of power not at the ballot box, but through a series of questionable court decisions.”

That’s one way of looking it (though I am not sure what a naked coup is) and clearly Richard thinks the courts were rigged in all the Thaksin cases. So lets not talk about what his new buddy Hun Sen in Cambodia is doing to his people and their land and homes, which he is bulldozing selling to foreigners, Thaksin included. Thaksin will not be talking about it, as he is now economic advisor to the Cambodian government.

What it means though is that, if and when Thaksin comes back into town on his white charger, and Thai courts become honest again and find him innocent, I’ll be following British public schoolboy Abhisit and paddling my own canoe out of town and heading for retirement like that other ex-British public schoolboy and former excellent but unelected Thai PM, Anand Panyarachun.

So why can’t former British public schoolboys rule Thailand?

I guess we are of touch with the common man.

–  Andrew Drummond at So Richard,Why can’t British public schoolboys rule Thailand?