"what Thaksin Had Done Wrong"

[JacknDanny]

There is only person that we are not allowed to discuss. In your plural usage of more powerful people phrase, then there must be others that are not covered by the rules of this forum. Who are they?

I said already that i will not go any further. Please don't bait me into moving into topics that are beyond the scope of this forum.

If you are really interested in some of the backgound of the Thai complexities, which could easily be misunderstood and misconstructed, then read up the topic i advised you, especially also the book i mentioned. You will then understand my hesitation of being too detailed in this place.

ColPyat, your standard answer when on the back foot and when obviously beaten in a debate, is always telling people to read this book and that book!!!!

Can you not for once realise that you have met your match and a person with higher intelligence and more resources than your library in Ubon Wherever, has nailed your colours to the wall

[ColPyat]

ColPyat, your standard answer when on the back foot and when obviously beaten in a debate, is always telling people to read this book and that book!!!!

Can you not for once realise that you have met your match and a person with higher intelligence and more resources than your library in Ubon Wherever, has nailed your colours to the wall

I am very sorry that reading anything beyond a cartoon is too difficult for some posters here, and therefore beerhall piss contests are mistaken for discussions.

Please forgive me for citing resource material and the use of big words.

Edited February 24, 2007 by ColPyat

[JacknDanny]

ColPyat, your standard answer when on the back foot and when obviously beaten in a debate, is always telling people to read this book and that book!!!!

Can you not for once realise that you have met your match and a person with higher intelligence and more resources than your library in Ubon Wherever, has nailed your colours to the wall

I am very sorry that reading anything beyond a cartoon is too difficult for some posters here, and therefore beerhall piss contests are mistaken for discussions.

Please forgive me for citing recource material and the use of big words.

You mean resource material??

Tut tut.

No need to get upset, I am just stating the obvious ColPyat

[ColPyat]

You mean resource material??

Tut tut.

No need to get upset, I am just stating the obvious ColPyat

Oh, are we now going into spelling again?

This is getting a bit silly now.

Don't you have anything to add to the topic, or are you just in the mood to have another thread deteriorate?

[sriracha john]

There is only person that we are not allowed to discuss. In your plural usage of more powerful people phrase, then there must be others that are not covered by the rules of this forum. Who are they?

I said already that i will not go any further. Please don't bait me into moving into topics that are beyond the scope of this forum.

If you are really interested in some of the backgound of the Thai complexities, which could easily be misunderstood and misconstructed, then read up the topic i advised you, especially also the book i mentioned. You will then understand my hesitation of being too detailed in this place.

I'm not trying to bait you into anything other than asking for you to explain what you yourself brought up. There's only one topic that is beyond the scope of this forum, but that doesn't explain the plural usage of your term "people."

All I've asked for are simply names... names that you could simply quote from your reference.

If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps it's best not to not even mention them, as you did, in the first place. Otherwise to make a statement on any topic, cite a reference, but then not be willing to quote from it sets a rather misleading precedent.

Edited February 24, 2007 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

I'm not trying to bait you into anything other than asking for you to explain what you yourself brought up. There's only one topic that is beyond the scope of this forum, but that doesn't explain the plural usage of your term "people."

All I've asked for are simply names... names that you could simply quote from your reference.

If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps it's best not to not even mention them as you did in the first place. Otherwise to make a statement on any topic, cite a reference, but then not be willing to quote from it sets a rather misleading precedence.

This topic is very sensitive. I am going out here on a stretch to stay well within the rules, to bring neither me nor you into trouble by mistakingly moving into an area that cannot be discussed anymore.

That is why i have to be a bit cryptic, and can only advise you to read books where these topics are described well, and with all their implications and complexities.

This is not a topic that can be solved here, it is not about "winning" a debate, at least not for me, but about access of information. It is up to you or anyone here to take advantage of that, or like another poster here prefers, to simply take the piss.

[younghusband]

Thailand hasn't clanged or evolved since 1976? The courts are comprised of the same people from 30 years ago? Isn't there much more media presence and coverage today than there was back then? More informed citizens expecting and waiting for answers, results from investigations and punishments? People have had it and doesn't the present government know it? Thai people are the junta are not stupid to the point of paving the way for history to roll in again and repeat itself, give or take a small percentage of lizards who only care about their own personal interests.

Many want George Bush and his circus impeached, even jailed. Does that mean they want all military personnel that is and has been involved in Iraq found guilty and thrown in jail as well? No, only the decision makers, the ones who , by their decisions, involve all who work under them whether they are partial or not.

Saddam was found guilty along with a few others, has the entire National Guard been thrown in jail as well? Would that make any sense? No. Some are even part of the new government today.

You are treading very sensitive ground since open statements of support for the drug war at various high levels -most notably in December 2003-are on the record not withstanding a measure of backtracking after the international protests.This is why few clued up Thais would support this charge against Thaksin, despite the views of many on this forum including myself.

[sriracha john]

I'm not trying to bait you into anything other than asking for you to explain what you yourself brought up. There's only one topic that is beyond the scope of this forum, but that doesn't explain the plural usage of your term "people."

All I've asked for are simply names... names that you could simply quote from your reference.

If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps it's best not to not even mention them as you did in the first place. Otherwise to make a statement on any topic, cite a reference, but then not be willing to quote from it sets a rather misleading precedent.

This topic is very sensitive. I am going out here on a stretch to stay well within the rules, to bring neither me nor you into trouble by mistakingly moving into an area that cannot be discussed anymore.

That is why i have to be a bit cryptic, and can only advise you to read books where these topics are described well, and with all their implications and complexities.

This is not a topic that can be solved here, it is not about "winning" a debate, at least not for me, but about access of information. It is up to you or anyone here to take advantage of that, or like another poster here prefers, to simply take the piss.

I'm not trying to win anything. You made a statement... I asked for clarification... You cited a reference... I asked for clarification of the reference... and for some melodramatic reason, you won't provide it.

I'm simply trying to access information as you say. Do I need to go out and buy a book for the few words of information I'm looking for when I'm assuming you have the book yourself and could provide it?

If it's so dangerous to even discuss the contents of this book here, then that makes me extremely jittery of trying to purchase it. Perhaps if you could just cite a few of the page numbers of your reference with the sought-after names on them, then I could stealthily slide into the Chula bookstore, nonchalantly pick up the book in question making sure I wasn't watched, then quickly thumb to the cited pages to obtain the rather simple information I've asked for here before making a covert and undetected exit from the bookstore.

[A_Traveller]

I'm not trying to bait you into anything other than asking for you to explain what you yourself brought up. There's only one topic that is beyond the scope of this forum, but that doesn't explain the plural usage of your term "people."

All I've asked for are simply names... names that you could simply quote from your reference.

If you're unwilling to do so, then perhaps it's best not to not even mention them as you did in the first place. Otherwise to make a statement on any topic, cite a reference, but then not be willing to quote from it sets a rather misleading precedent.

This topic is very sensitive. I am going out here on a stretch to stay well within the rules, to bring neither me nor you into trouble by mistakingly moving into an area that cannot be discussed anymore.

That is why i have to be a bit cryptic, and can only advise you to read books where these topics are described well, and with all their implications and complexities.

This is not a topic that can be solved here, it is not about "winning" a debate, at least not for me, but about access of information. It is up to you or anyone here to take advantage of that, or like another poster here prefers, to simply take the piss.

I'm not trying to win anything. You made a statement... I asked for clarification... You cited a reference... I asked for clarification of the reference... and for some melodramatic reason, you won't provide it.

I'm simply trying to access information as you say. Do I need to go out and buy a book for the few words of information I'm looking for when I'm assuming you have the book yourself and could provide it?

If it's so dangerous to even discuss the contents of this book here, then that makes me extremely jittery of trying to purchase it. Perhaps if you could just cite a few of the page numbers of your reference with the sought-after names on them, then I could stealthily slide into the Chula bookstore, nonchalantly pick up the book in question making sure I wasn't watched, then quickly thumb to the cited pages to obtain the rather simple information I've asked for here before making a covert and undetected exit from the bookstore.

Remember John, and I shall say this only once, "the cows fly backwards over the moon"

Regards

PS Sorry but the posting on the Jomthien thread is just getting to me

[ColPyat]

If it's so dangerous to even discuss the contents of this book here, then that makes me extremely jittery of trying to purchase it.

It's not dangerous to purchase the book, just to discuss its contents and implications. I don't know if it is available at Chula, but i got my copy at amazon.com, such as many other books that are not available locally that easily, which though are still advisable to read.

I am afraid though that it will not be enough to just pick a few pages, it's a very proper anthropological study on the Village Scout movement, which is very <deleted> hard work to read.

But it is well worth buying.

[mumbu]

I would point out the relevance of Surayud's Tak Bai apology occurring within a couple of months as a more positive step toward addressing the Southern situation than Thaksin accomplished in nearly six years of tyrannical rule, but I won't as I think one topic per post is a good way of staying as focused as one can in such a diverse topic as Thaksin's misdoings.

I would disagree with that. I spent some time trying to understand what is going on in the South. What we see on the ground is a rapid deterioration of the situation over there. Obviously, neither apology

nor some other very timid steps by the government changed anything to the better. And I pretty much doubt that Badawi (though I personally like him) will be able to mediate in the conflict efficiently.

Of course, Thaksin's tactic in the South (after he finally got proper intelligence and removed demagogue Purachai from interior minister position) was highly unpopular but I think it is one good example when we will be able to see (based on real facts not debates) that he was right with his hard line approach.

[endure]

If any of you folks want a looooong holiday it can very easily be arranged. Any more personal insults will result in time off. You have been warned.

[Siripon]

1. The junta is a military government, not a militia.

I thing you got something wrong there. I never mentioned the junta being a "Militia". I said that they are right wing. You don't need to be militia in order to be right wing. By your rather patriotic posts and your support for the military i would classify you clearly as right wing, for example. Though i doubt that you are a member of a militia.

2. So the extent of Khun Surayud's involvement in Black May is he was allegedly in charge of 16 soldiers who when entering The Royal Hotel kicked and beat some protestors. An enormous crime against humanity.

Astonishing. General Surayud as commander of Special Warfare Command, whose troops were involved in the killing, who according to the statement was even himself descending to the scene is excused from his personal involvement in one of the more memorable Thai human rights violations because you feel that this is not bad enough to warrant any criticism?

3.October people, a term loved by the media. There were thousands involved, first on October 14 1973 and later on October 6 1976. Most never became famous even though they performed acts of selflessness far more than the people who later became politicians.

How many October people remain with Thaksin and how credible are they?

The present leader, Chaturon has been in so many parties, he joined TRT under his father's 'suggestion', do you know how much money he paid for the dowry in his rather recent wedding?

Prapat, the icon of the October generation whose photo wielding a large stick against armed forces remains the ultimate symbol of idealism against might, ended up with an enormous orange plantation in the north, accused of encroaching. Even he left Thaksin.

Please tell me which credible figures still support Thaksin?

Didn't you read my post. I said the ones i admire are the ones who chose neither side, and oppose both.

I did read your post and you said many (October people) had stayed with Thaksin, I'm still wondering which ones. I apologise for the reference to militias, indeed you did not say the present junta was.

I think you need to be more careful bandying about terms such as right and left though.

For instance are you saying Thaksin is from the left? Comparisons with history can be enlightening but there are also fundamental differences, for example the students in the mid- 70s who were trying to improve farmers' lives can be compared with present day NGOs who have shown long term commitment to the poor, but what did Thaksin ever do to help them?

Do you remember the Pakmoon dam saga? Thaksin couldn't wait to drop those villagers,The Forum Of the Poor.

16 or 17 NGOs murdered under Thaksin' watch, no arrests.

The violent overthrow of the government and killings of leftists in 1976 was a right wing reaction to a fear of communism and a rise of socialism in Thailand but the coup against Thaksin was a reaction against abuse of power. Many of those who opposed Thaksin were\are leftists sickened by Thaksin's use of the poor for electoral gain. That's why all his supporters from the left left him!

So you admire those who choose neither Thaksin nor the junta.You have said you think Thaksin would have eventually lost at the ballot box, I can't share your optimism there, his financial clout and interference in every sector would have made that impossible.

That's why so many middle-class supported the coup, not because they're right wing, but because they saw no other way out, and that's why so many shake their heads at people like Dr Weng, (a man for every cause if it puts him in the news) and Giles, living in his library, to borrow one of Thaksin's jibes of academics.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Siripon

[ColPyat]

I did read your post and you said many (October people) had stayed with Thaksin, I'm still wondering which ones. I apologise for the reference to militias, indeed you did not say the present junta was.

I think you need to be more careful bandying about terms such as right and left though.

For instance are you saying Thaksin is from the left? Comparisons with history can be enlightening but there are also fundamental differences, for example the students in the mid- 70s who were trying to improve farmers' lives can be compared with present day NGOs who have shown long term commitment to the poor, but what did Thaksin ever do to help them?

Do you remember the Pakmoon dam saga? Thaksin couldn't wait to drop those villagers,The Forum Of the Poor.

16 or 17 NGOs murdered under Thaksin' watch, no arrests.

The violent overthrow of the government and killings of leftists in 1976 was a right wing reaction to a fear of communism and a rise of socialism in Thailand but the coup against Thaksin was a reaction against abuse of power. Many of those who opposed Thaksin were\are leftists sickened by Thaksin's use of the poor for electoral gain. That's why all his supporters from the left left him!

So you admire those who choose neither Thaksin nor the junta.You have said you think Thaksin would have eventually lost at the ballot box, I can't share your optimism there, his financial clout and interference in every sector would have made that impossible.

That's why so many middle-class supported the coup, not because they're right wing, but because they saw no other way out, and that's why so many shake their heads at people like Dr Weng, (a man for every cause if it puts him in the news) and Giles, living in his library, to borrow one of Thaksin's jibes of academics.

There indeed is a difficulty with separating "left" and "right", especially when the component of 'Nationalism' comes into play. What we consider as the extreme right worldwide, the Nazis, and fascism, is an idea that grew out of the left. As opposed to 'socialist internationalism' you get 'nationalist socialism'.

Apart from a few individuals in their libraries, most people in Thailand who care about or are involved in politics are different shades of the right as compared to many other countries, from social conservatives to socialists with a very strong infusion of nationalism.

Thaksin definately is not from the left. He used ideas of the left in order to gather support of the rural and urban poor, but that's about it. I guess he later on also believed in his own speaches, public admiration is a very strong drug. Don't mistake me for a Thaksin supporter, please, i am not.

I was already accused of optimism when i pointed out my believe that Thaksin would in the end have been defeated in the ballot box. But i think that all points to that.

TRT was a conglomerate of vastly different vested interests that was already in the process of collapse. As you said, most oktober people have left him, the right was also in the process of leaving him (Chamlong and Sondhi), several of the godfathers have already distances themselves from him. And also several of the business clans were in the process of distancing.

It would have taken a bit more time, a few more years. I do beleive in the people here. Since the '80s and '90s people have made huge steps forward. I don't think that the vote buying had that much effect, i believe much more effect had TRT's policy based campaign, and the lack of policies by the other parties.

As soon as the democrats would have developed their own policies, things would have gradually changed towards a more democratic system.

TRT was a hickup on the way to democracy. Thaksin was elected by people who believed in policies. One day they would have realised themselves that he used them. But i think the important part was the policies people believed he represented.

I believe the coup was not about democracy. The coup leaders have no track record of democracy, on the opposite. I believe one overlooked thing was behind the coup - and that is that they could not bear with the idea that Thaksin was fiddling with the military, and they were horrified of the idea that Thaksin could have been in power when the succession crises finally hits Thailand.

It was, IMHO, a sign of desperation, a panic reaction to protect the status quo. They need to be firmly in power during this event, which will come in the not too far future.

This though is a very short sighted view by the old elites. I believe the only thing that can protect Thailand from the inevitable disturbances that this event will cause is not a firm hold onto power by the military traditionally riddled with infights, but a strong system of checks and balances, and modern political parties based on policies.

And i think exactly that was hindered by the coup. It is already clear that the military will reserve itself power far beyond parliamentary control, and it will leave weak political parties without much power, and very little popular support.

There will be no checks and balances when the military has so many tools that are not responsible to anyone other than themselves.

And yes, i am of course aware of the treatment of the Pak Moon protestors, and the assembly of the poor. The Chuan government did not treat them much better. His tactic was to just wait them out until the planting season starts because then they anyhow had to return to their villages. Thaksin was just a bit more blunt in his tactics of ignoring their demands.

The new book by Giles has a very interesting chapter on the NGOs and other activists. It is very interesting how he criticises and analyses them, their ideals and theoretical background. I would recomend you to read that, there are some very novel ideas. Even if you don't share his very socialist background (which i don't, at least not in that extend), it still is very fascinating.

I think you don't do justice to Giles and Dr. Weng with your comments. Giles of course is very theoretical, but he is also very involved in the more practical aspects such as the Unions and the Social Forum.

Dr. Weng is not just out for being in the news, he does very strongly believe in what he stands for.

[sriracha john]

AEC to charge 46 over 2- and 3-digit lotteries

The Assets Examination Committee (AEC) yesterday moved to incriminate 30 political office-holders and 16 officials for causing the state to lose Bt15 billion in taxes from the two- and three-digit lotteries.

AEC subcommittee chairman Udom Fuangfung said his panel would next Tuesday recommend to the AEC that it set up a committee to probe the suspects for violating the criminal code and the Offences Committed by State Officials Act of 1959.

Value-added, gambling and income taxes on lottery winners were waived by the Thaksin Shinawatra Cabinet, but the lottery was not for charity, he said.

The Nation

[sriracha john]

Lottery probe wrapped up, 46 to be charged for misuse of revenue

A group of 30 politicians and 16 officials are implicated in the misuse of 15 billion baht in revenue generated from the two and three-digit lottery scheme, initiated by the Thaksin Shinawatra government in 2003, according to a chief investigator of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC). ''We've found that the decision to use the money is unlawful,'' said Mr Udom. A source close to the sub-panel said the 46 accused people included former Education Minister and current TRT Party leader Chaturong Chaisaeng and members of his committee, members of the Thaksin cabinet in 2003, the GLO board under the chairmanship of Somchainuek Engtrakul and GLO executives including former director Surasit Sangkhapong. The probe team found that the cabinet resolution which provided tax exemption for revenue generated by the digit-lottery scheme was unlawful. This was because the law only allowed this tax benefit for the charity lottery; the category which did not apply to the digit-lottery scheme, he said. He added the resolution had caused the state to lose revenue from four tax categories: the Value Added Tax, gambling tax, lottery income tax, and the income tax generated by the reduction of lottery ticket prices for sale agents. Mr Udom disagreed that the Thaksin administration's issuing of the resolution which contradicted the law should be regarded as an administrative misstep.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/28Feb2007_news04.php

[sriracha john]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

[stavros]

sorry but i think all goverments around the world are same same.....i not trust any kind of politics.....nobody cares for the good of the public....anyway

[jumnien]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

Is the Nation really referring to it as "corrubtion" now?

[sriracha john]

Corruption was so pervasive in the last administration that even the English language wasn't immune in its detailing of it.

[Old Man River]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

[John K]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

I think that is because it’s the kids debt. Don’t forget the are his version of the human shield.

[Old Man River]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

I think that is because it’s the kids debt. Don’t forget the are his version of the human shield.

Agreed, but still no tax fraud case. One would have thought that the very case that started this whole thing would be at the forefront of the accusations. Perhaps this isn't as easy to prove as they first thought.

[John K]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

I think that is because it’s the kids debt. Don’t forget the are his version of the human shield.

Agreed, but still no tax fraud case. One would have thought that the very case that started this whole thing would be at the forefront of the accusations. Perhaps this isn't as easy to prove as they first thought.

There are enough other things to nail Thaksin on and they will get the money back one way or another no maters who’s name Thaksin puts on it, even that we all know it is Thaksin’s anyway.

[sriracha john]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

For that particular case, the Shinawatra's have been utilizing their considerable resources to delay, postpone, and slow down the investigators and court proceedings with their continuances, no-shows, and stalling techniques, which I think the AEC is finally getting less tolerant of their shenanigans. Irregardless, for updates on the case, there's the thaivisa thread:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...c=91769&st=

[ColPyat]

For the latest updates on all the various aspects of "What Thaksin Had Done Wrong"... the convenient

Corruption Probe Watch provides it in one location:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/corrubtion/

I find it interesting that none of the cases presented involve taxes owing on the 2006 SHIN sale to Temasek, which at one time was the main issue.

One interesting thing that has always been missing on reporting on that sale is who were the other share holders who benefited from the tender offers.

[John K]

If it was me;

No show? guilty case closed! I think that may encourage their attendance. They should be eager to prove their innocence and not delay.

[John K]

Thaksin impolite to King: Sonthi

Council for National Security chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin has told Time magazine the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra regime was "disrespectful" of His Majesty the King and the Royal Family.

In an interview published in the latest Asia issue of Time, Sonthi says: "There are many cases in which the previous government was impolite to the Royal Family and to the King himself.

"The Thai people cannot and will not tolerate anybody who shows even slight disrespect to the King or his family."

Sonthi led the September 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin and his government.

He defended his action on the grounds that the Thaksin regime failed to deliver true democracy. The military had to step in, he said.

"There was interference with many organisations, especially the independent organisations established to oversee and scrutinise the government's actions. The previous government wanted to control the whole system.

"That [led to] large-scale corruption [and] vote-buying during local and general elections. The people knew about these things, and they could not accept it. As far as the army staging a coup, we could not just do it on our own. We needed the consent of the people to help us preserve democracy," he said.

Meanwhile, Thaksin on Friday delivered a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He called the address "Democracy at a Crossroads".

The former prime minister also told reporters that he wants to help in the political reconciliation process in Thailand and hopes the Council for National Security, which ousted his previous adminsitration, would be successful in returning the country to normalcy.

In his speech, Thaksin ironically talked about the values of democracy in national development.

Thaksin said effective participation, voting equality and free, fair and frequent elections were requirements inherent in the democratic process.

He added that freedom of expression, access to different and alternative sources of information and freedom of association were essential too.

The Nation

[JacknDanny]

Thaksin impolite to King: Sonthi

Council for National Security chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin has told Time magazine the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra regime was "disrespectful" of His Majesty the King and the Royal Family.

In an interview published in the latest Asia issue of Time, Sonthi says: "There are many cases in which the previous government was impolite to the Royal Family and to the King himself.

"The Thai people cannot and will not tolerate anybody who shows even slight disrespect to the King or his family."

Sonthi led the September 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin and his government.

He defended his action on the grounds that the Thaksin regime failed to deliver true democracy. The military had to step in, he said.

"There was interference with many organisations, especially the independent organisations established to oversee and scrutinise the government's actions. The previous government wanted to control the whole system.

"That [led to] large-scale corruption [and] vote-buying during local and general elections. The people knew about these things, and they could not accept it. As far as the army staging a coup, we could not just do it on our own. We needed the consent of the people to help us preserve democracy," he said.

Meanwhile, Thaksin on Friday delivered a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He called the address "Democracy at a Crossroads".

The former prime minister also told reporters that he wants to help in the political reconciliation process in Thailand and hopes the Council for National Security, which ousted his previous adminsitration, would be successful in returning the country to normalcy.

In his speech, Thaksin ironically talked about the values of democracy in national development.

Thaksin said effective participation, voting equality and free, fair and frequent elections were requirements inherent in the democratic process.

He added that freedom of expression, access to different and alternative sources of information and freedom of association were essential too.

The Nation

Thaksin talks about freedom of expression I still remember the trick with the cross when he didnt want to answer a question, the sacking of certain newspaper editors, the purchase of certain media outlets that gave a real balanced outlook.

Freedom of expression? What a joke. Thaksin has more front than Harrods

[Mid]

IMHO it's the wrong road to be following ,

i suggest that corruption / human rights would yield greater harvests ,

of course that may be the stumbling block ...............................