Sean Paul-Kelly obviously has not spent much time in Thailand and does not understand the political situation here.  His comments about the King are totally untrue.  The King does not want to be the father of Thailand.  He IS already considered the father of Thailand and is greatly beloved. His birthday is Father's day and the Queen's birthday is mother's day. The King is also an American citizen, having been born in America and having  been  schooled in America.  No other county's citizens have the kind of freedom to operate companies in Thailand as US citizens.  They have a one sided treaty with the US that allows American companies to operate there (the Amity treaty).  The king also has no powers in government, although his words carry great weight since he is so beloved.  Thailand has a constitutional monarchy and the King does not use his position to influence the government.  He has suggested at times things that are considered to be critizisms, such as when Thaksin was  PM, that people should place the country ahead of their own beliefs.  He also suggested that it would be best for the country if people did not get so upset (Thaksin had a terrible temper).  But he does not speak for or against policy until it is presented to him for approval (this is what it is meant by a constitutional monarchy).

In the 10 years that  I have been coming to Thailand, there has  been a tremendous growth in infrastructure that would astound most people unfamiliar with Thailand.  In Bangkok, a toll freeway was built, part of which goes to the airport.  Bangkok has some of the worst traffic in the world.  In a recent Time article, one quote that stuck in my mind was (I am paraphrasing here), traffic is considered bad in Bangkok if traffic doesn't move in an hour and considered really bad if it doesn't move in 2 hours.  It used to take over an hour and a half to to get to the airport.  Now, it takes less than 20 minutes using the toll expressway.  They have also built an elevated rail system that is great (less than 50 cents to get most places) and is above the traffic.  They have also recently completed a below ground subway system.  All this in less than 10 years.  They also have built a new airport (the one that was occupied by protesters).  Personally, I believe that most things were done for the huge potential for graft, but that is beside the point.  In the SF bay area, we have been struggling for 15 years to get BART to the South Bay.

My girlfriend in Thailand used to love Thaksin (the former PM) because of the good things that his government has done.  He was brought down because of his corruption.  The point that I think was the turning point for Thaksin was when he sold his family's company, a telecom company (Shin corp) for over $2B.  In the normally snails pace of things in Thailand, the revenue department ruled the day after a request was submitted, that he did not have to pay taxes on the sale which normally would have been about $800M. In a country where the average yearly wage is about $8-10K, this really caught the person on the street's attention. This was the turning point at which people began to be outraged.  This decision was overturned and his family has been charged with crimes related to this and with paying not only the taxes, but big penalties on top as well. The revenue dept people have also been charged as well with crimes.

Next, his wife purchased land at a government sale.  About two weeks after the land was purchased, the land was appraised at  2-3 times the amount she purchased it for.  (He was convicted of helping her acquire the land).  But if you were to ask, I think that his downfall was the result of the following.  A bomb was found near his office or residence and since it was found to be military grade explosives, he blamed the military and used it as an excuse to start making changes to the military by installing his classmates to key positions. It should also be noted that the bomb was found by a former employee of his. He should have known better, since there have been so many military coups over the last  40 years or so. After that, the military turned against him.

Lastly, during his trial, some of his lawyers delivered a lunch package for the presiding judge at the Supreme court.  New security procedures required opening the package, and lo and behold, it was full of money.  The money was photographed and (unbelievably) returned.  But since the money was photographed, the Supreme court had to act and the lawyers were found in contempt of court and jailed for 6 months.  The police have decided not to charge them with bribery (recent news).  To sum it up, it was corruption that brought Thaksin down.  

The demonstrations and citizen's revolt against the government since Thaksin stepped down have been because the governments since then have been former members of Thaksin's government or close to Thaksin. The PM that just stepped down was Thaksin's brother in law.  I don't agree with the demonstrators shutting down the airport, but they felt they had to escalate the protests since 10 protesters had been killed by police and random attacks on them by government supporters.  My girlfriend used to like Thaksin, but now hates him since she knew one of the women killed in a protest.  The beloved Queen even attended the funeral of one of the women killed which I am sure galvanized the protesters.  Grenades have been thrown at protesters which  killed several people - the perps have never been caught.  The police killed a couple of people by using Chinese made non-lethal tear gas, which are more dangerous than US made tear gas and wound up killing people.  After that, the police have become unwilling to confront the protesters.

That's it for now.  These are my thoughts after hearing Sean Paul-Kelly talk about Thailand.