Thaksin Says Abhisit Has No Leadership

[animatic]

<snip>

Thaksin is divisive, always controversial in the extreme.

<snip>

And still much loved in the north of Thailand.

Which doesn't make him good for Thailand

or even those up north that love him as you propose.

[JetsetBkk]

Loved in denominations of 500 Bt especially.

<snip>

Remember, where there's love who needs money???

It's the people up country you need to convince, not me. No mention of money, 500 baht or otherwise when I talked to them. They love him for what they think he did for them, irrespective of whether he actually did it or not.

<snip>

Thaksin is divisive, always controversial in the extreme.

<snip>

And still much loved in the north of Thailand.

Which doesn't make him good for Thailand

or even those up north that love him as you propose.

I don't propose anything. I talked to them - they want him back and they think Abhisit is no good.

[H20ho]

To me, Thaksin has been the best PM Thailand has ever had. I am not saying I like him or that I do not like him, just my opinion of what I have seen. For arguments sake, let’s hypothetically state he was corrupt, shall we? In his corrupt dealings to line his pockets many Thais benefitted to a greater extent than ever before in Thailand, not only in the sheer amount of baht but the sheer amount of people. His schemes included Thai people. Economically he managed to help stimulate the economy.

In addition, he was elected by the people. Even if he paid for votes and got elected in that manner it is still better than an appointed PM. The fact that he was publically elected, whether corrupt or not, means that over the next 20 years or so political parties will become better and stronger in Thailand. Competition will increase for better politicians and better political parties. Election fraud can and will be dealt with if elections become the norm.

If the only criticism about Abhisit is the appointment of the national police then I think that’s pretty good. Sounds like a nepotism issue to me. Thaksin says it lacks courage, however, I think it is clever. Pushing the issue is probably not the most intelligent or effective stance right now. The economy cannot be blamed on Abhisit yet. Thaksin himself is partially responsible for the current political instability so this sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. The country’s credibility was never pristine.

Having a publically elected official in charge and control of the money that will be commissioned is better than having a non-elected government department controlling it.

Edited October 31, 2009 by H20ho

[Publicus]

Thaksin is divisive, always controversial in the extreme. Thaksin is far too polarizing to govern.

Thaksin is a divider, not a uniter. Abhisit deliberately keeps a low profile because that's the need presently and forward, not to be the center of attention any more than his duties as PM inherently require in placing him before the public. In this manner, Abhisit is showing leadership and more of it than Thaksin can comprehend or understand.

Those who post here to try the impossble dream of making Thaksin into a hero who is the one and only savior of Thailand, there is the reality Thaksin is a fatally flawed figure, that those in the North who demand change are riding the wrong elephant. If Thaksin is their one and only answer to the profound ills that for time immemorial have plagued the country, then there indeed is no hope for the country. If Thailand can't produce a better leader to present the cause(s) of the North, then all that we say and advocate would be a waste of time and lives.

[Thai at Heart]

<snip>

Thaksin is divisive, always controversial in the extreme.

<snip>

And still much loved in the north of Thailand.

He creates cleavage in society.

and that might be why both Thai men and women, and not a small percentage of farangs love him so much.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Publicus]

<snip>

Thaksin is divisive, always controversial in the extreme.

<snip>

And still much loved in the north of Thailand.

He creates cleavage in society.

and that might be why both Thai men and women, and not a small percentage of farangs love him so much.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[hammered]

It seems lots of threads end up well off topic right now.

Guess nobody in these parts has a view on Thaksin/Abhisit and leadership

On the first comment - yes, I agree........ same old knee-jerk tit-for-tat responses recycled ad nauseam.

FWIW, I don't think there has been "leadership" as such since Thaksin's time as PM - which is not intended as a pro-Thaksin statement but merely an objective assessment of what we've seen from the four* figurehead holders of the title in the last three years. General Surayud - front-man installed by the junta; Samak - self-confessed surrogate for Thaksin; Somchai - no such confession that I recall but few doubt that it was more of the same; now Abhisit as titular PM of "his government of custom-made circumstances" in Thitinan's phrasing.

Four figureheads in succession. Sad to say, that leads me to think that "leadership" is low on the list of real-world (realpolitik, if you like) requirements for the post-coup role for the next PM......... certainly lower than being acceptable to - and compliant with the wishes of - the powers-that-be. With notions of at least the desirable appearance of reconciliation in mind, perhaps one should add "looks harmless" and "not too much baggage" to the list. All of which relegates "leadership" to a lowly quality - and maybe even a disqualification for the office.......

* Not counting Chaovarat.

In my analysis, and trying to look at it neutrally, Thaksin was a hands on, go do it, go get em leader. Abhisit is a delegator style manger. There are pros and cons to both styles. It is hard to compare as Thaksin had a whopping parlaimentary majority that were always united behind him while Abhisit has a comfortable majority but one that is based on fractious allies.

The intriguing thing about Abhisit as others have picked up on is the police chief choice. He has opposed extremely powerful people on this and has refused to back down. Why? Does he have backing of anyone powerful?

[Steve2UK]

<snip>

i think that Abhisit's time in office and his ability to lead is a hard thing to judge because of both the circumstances he came to power and the distractions he has had to deal with. If, and a big "if", the distractions disappear and if he can win the next general election, we might get a better idea of his capabilities.

Very big "ifs" (there are two) - and I see very little prospect of either happening. Without wanting to get into philosophical semantics, I think we generally judge "leadership" by results achieved - certainly more than by any number of good intentions. I can see the case for the argument which says that Abhisit's tenure has stopped things getting worse - I just don't agree with it. Reconciliation - much touted as a principled priority last December - is now not so much on the back burner as pushed off the stove. That doesn't surprise me - it was never in the cards dealt to Abhisit that he would be able to get very far with it....... even assuming he genuinely wanted to. For that reason if no other, the "distractions" are unlikely to disappear under his PM-ship.

As to winning the next general election (as and when it's allowed to occur), my view is that the real decision-makers are still re-configuring the usual shiftable power blocs to arrive at a Mk 2 version of a government more to their liking (Mk 3 version if you count the one formed after the 2007 election - very much not the result they were trying to engineer). My take is that Abhisit is not now seen as part of that new configuration - given that he has not delivered and is unlikely to deliver on damping things down sufficiently in readiness for the potential for increased instability that is coming when events take their inevitable and much-anticipated course

In the same way that the lesson was learned by most that the 2006 coup solved little, I believe it has been recognised that there must be at least the appearance of reconciliation underlying the next government to be formed - so as to neutralise more of the divisions that provoke the current distractions. By that stage, I see Abhisit as being too much of a square peg to fit into the round hole that's being prepared. If I'm right, then we're unlikely to see what he could be capable of as a real leader (i.e. with the ability/clout to get done what he wants done) in the foreseeable future.

A grand coalition presentable as a much-needed government of national unity in a time of national crisis seems to me the most likely outcome. In those extraordinary circumstances - and maybe in anticipation of them impending, don't be surprised to see many of the current obstacles to progress/reconciliation (unfreezing enough assets, un-banning enough politicians etc) pushed through and dealt with in quick succession. For leader of such a government, the likely qualifications are mainly as I mentioned above: a relatively harmless figure of sufficient status without too much baggage around whom it will be seen as reasonable to unite - a Prem Mk 2, if you like (and some will think Chavalit, for instance, qualifies). Needless to say, the usual arrangements for sharing out the ministerial spoils will be made - sufficient to buy off participants and give them reason to stay on board once the shockwaves start to subside.

The thought must occur that it will be difficult to ensure that Thaksin stays bought off. Difficult to guarantee that, of course, but I think the calculation is that there will be such a tide of changed circumstances as to sweep away or at least neutralise most of the existing support for him....... it will just seem too parochial in the new scheme of things.

[Steve2UK]

In my analysis, and trying to look at it neutrally, Thaksin was a hands on, go do it, go get em leader. Abhisit is a delegator style manger. There are pros and cons to both styles. It is hard to compare as Thaksin had a whopping parlaimentary majority that were always united behind him while Abhisit has a comfortable majority but one that is based on fractious allies.

The intriguing thing about Abhisit as others have picked up on is the police chief choice. He has opposed extremely powerful people on this and has refused to back down. Why? Does he have backing of anyone powerful?

Looked at neutrally (which I take to mean irrespective of what one thinks of their policies), I largely agree with that comparison. Certainly, Thaksin talked about "Thailand Company" with himself as "CEO PM" and with "CEO diplomats and governors" - part of his "what I did in business I can do in politics" approach. By those lights, ministers were presumably just order-taking department managers with a token presence in cabinet/on the board; and parliament was pretty much an ongoing AGM of minor shareholders with little say in matters - just required to rubber-stamp the CEO's decisions from time to time.

The "delegator style" comment also seems appropriate for Abhisit - some of it just the political necessity of allowing his coalition partners to do the business-as-usual with their ministerial fiefdoms. If only for leaving the appallingly distracted and ill-informed Mrs Ranongruk Suwanchawee in a key position where she has woefully under-performed to the detriment of Thailand's IT needs (never mind her obsession with the LM campaign), the benefits of his hands-off "manager" approach are open to question. As you say, pro's and cons for both styles.

About the police chief issue, I can't see how I can comment meaningfully without breaking forum rules. Suffice it to say that if you have been following Bangkok Pundit and reading between his and commentators' lines, most of the likely answer is there............

Edited November 1, 2009 by Steve2UK

[rixalex]

Reconciliation - much touted as a principled priority last December - is now not so much on the back burner as pushed off the stove.

That might have had something to do with the events in April this year.

[Steve2UK]

Reconciliation - much touted as a principled priority last December - is now not so much on the back burner as pushed off the stove.

That might have had something to do with the events in April this year.

Meaning that now there can't be any reconciliation - and that this government now has a doctor's note absolving them of any ongoing responsibility to try and achieve it? I suspect that that probably is how Abhisit sees it - hence my comments above.

[Publicus]

No one is interested in reconciliation, least of all Chavalit. Chavalit's talk of reconciliation and the possibility of a national unity government is laughable given his machinations last week with Hun Sen and Thaksin during the Hua Hin ASEAN meeting. Beyond Chavalit, no one is positioned to be a national conciliator either, to include Abhisit.

The period of the past several years has been an unavoidable period of tumult and disorder - unavoidable because opposing sides see no room for compromise and completely reject those who disagree. The differences are fundamental in their nature. So the past several years and continuing into the future present an irreconcilable crucible which the country must endure, at least until the natural course of events provides the focal point, at which time the future can be clarified in one way or another.

Neither side is going to share power in government with the other because each side wants to be in charge when the time comes. There are only irreconcilable differences.

[Steve2UK]

No one is interested in reconciliation, least of all Chavalit. Chavalit's talk of reconciliation and the possibility of a national unity government is laughable given his machinations last week with Hun Sen and Thaksin during the Hua Hin ASEAN meeting. Beyond Chavalit, no one is positioned to be a national conciliator either, to include Abhisit.

The period of the past several years has been an unavoidable period of tumult and disorder - unavoidable because opposing sides see no room for compromise and completely reject those who disagree. The differences are fundamental in their nature. So the past several years and continuing into the future present an irreconcilable crucible which the country must endure, at least until the natural course of events provides the focal point, at which time the future can be clarified in one way or another.

Neither side is going to share power in government with the other because each side wants to be in charge when the time comes. There are only irreconcilable differences.

I've yet to see anyone actually identify quite what Chavalit's "machinations" were or are supposed to have been - notwithstanding two opinion pieces on consecutive days from Veera in Bangkok Post which set out to hint at some dark purpose for the visit to Hun Sen without either time managing to say what that purpose was. Care to shed some light on the subject?

Otherwise, it seems we largely agree insofar as I put a figure of four/five on your "several years.... of tumult and disorder" - i.e. from 2005/6 until today - with another looking set to follow and the same "natural course of events" in mind. Where we seem to differ is in the view that reconciliation is impossible. Left to themselves, I also don't see the opposing sides reconciling; my premise throughout is that I don't see them being left to themselves that much longer - too much ongoing harm is being done to others' interests and those stakeholders want to see an end to it sooner rather than later/too late.... and won't want to leave it just to "be clarified in one way or another". On that basis, I would expect appropriate signals to be sent out to let the interested parties know which way the winds are going to be blowing - and that they'd better fall into line if they know what's good for them and want a seat at the new table. Needless to say, from this premise it also follows that both political sides will recognise that neither can be "in charge".

Not the best advertisement for Thai democracy, but a rather less pessimistic view of a less haphazard and more "managed" future than the one you describe - and IMO a logical progression from the unfinished business of September 2006.

[hammered]

In my analysis, and trying to look at it neutrally, Thaksin was a hands on, go do it, go get em leader. Abhisit is a delegator style manger. There are pros and cons to both styles. It is hard to compare as Thaksin had a whopping parlaimentary majority that were always united behind him while Abhisit has a comfortable majority but one that is based on fractious allies.

The intriguing thing about Abhisit as others have picked up on is the police chief choice. He has opposed extremely powerful people on this and has refused to back down. Why? Does he have backing of anyone powerful?

Looked at neutrally (which I take to mean irrespective of what one thinks of their policies), I largely agree with that comparison. Certainly, Thaksin talked about "Thailand Company" with himself as "CEO PM" and with "CEO diplomats and governors" - part of his "what I did in business I can do in politics" approach. By those lights, ministers were presumably just order-taking department managers with a token presence in cabinet/on the board; and parliament was pretty much an ongoing AGM of minor shareholders with little say in matters - just required to rubber-stamp the CEO's decisions from time to time.

The "delegator style" comment also seems appropriate for Abhisit - some of it just the political necessity of allowing his coalition partners to do the business-as-usual with their ministerial fiefdoms. If only for leaving the appallingly distracted and ill-informed Mrs Ranongruk Suwanchawee in a key position where she has woefully under-performed to the detriment of Thailand's IT needs (never mind her obsession with the LM campaign), the benefits of his hands-off "manager" approach are open to question. As you say, pro's and cons for both styles.

About the police chief issue, I can't see how I can comment meaningfully without breaking forum rules. Suffice it to say that if you have been following Bangkok Pundit and reading between his and commentators' lines, most of the likely answer is there............

What is missing form that Bpundit stuff and from Thai webboards that go further is a definitive answer on why Abhisit sticks to his guns over police chief. Ther is some speculation but it doesnt really make sense in real terms. We seem to know who wanted the one Abhisit opposed without really knowing who wanted the guy Abhisit stuck with.

By the way Im not sure a CEO style hands on approach would work any better with a fractious coaliton to be honest. In a fractious coaltion the power rests with many different members and the smaller ones often have disproportionate power compared to the big ones. Maybe Abhisit is a delegator (we know this form the way he runs team Democrat) but in this case maybe it is not so much delegation as just almost continual crisis management or reactive management or balancing. Sticking Abhisit in charge of a big majority sinlge party government would enable a better comaparison with Thaksin or sticking Thaksin in charge of a very fractious coalition otherwise we compare very different things thinking about it. In reality neither test case is likely to be recognized.

Edited to add: I pretty much agree with the analysis driectly above this post by Steve2Uk. A managed future does seem likely. The question though is who does the managing;)

Edited November 1, 2009 by hammered

[Publicus]

I don't readily forsee that a populist/popular mass social movement which has become essentially a way of life to so many people, hugely from a particular region of the country, is going to respect either the signals or the commands of those who are viewed as the problem, and an ages old problem at that.

People feeling their oats after years in the streets suddenly staring into a return to a future at least as bleak as the past may not pass as quietly into the night as certain others may like or expect.

This is not a wish, it is a concern. These folk want their issues addressed.

If the folk are smart they'll completely disconnect from Thaksin, make their loyalties clear, and petition the state for a redress of grievances. If the state is smart, the state will recognize the legitimacy of their concerns and address them one by one.

Under such circumstances, perhaps reasonable electoral processes can continue or dare I say be improved.

[animatic]

The issue of a manage or stage managed future is really what this about.

But one side wnats the big patronage levers all to itself, and has proven

by past actions, to be rather , duplicitous, vicious and selfserving when in control.

Considering the PTP's reps not considering known facts in their daily pronouncements

of ANYTHING potentially dirty, that they can dream of to try and stick to the Abhisit coalition,

regardless of logic or proability, doesn't bode well for their ruling as a clique.

The sum total of their 'Platform Planks' seems to be:

Thaksin can do anything better.

Abhisits coalition can't do anything right.

The people of the north love Thaksin, and so his crimes are not crimes.

Chavalit wants reconciliation, and a home in Cambodia for the boss.

The banned 111+36 need to be unbanned

and given their political positions back with retroactive raises...

PTP wants to control the country.

If THIS is their idea of LEADERSHIP, they are a rudderless ship.

Can ANYONE add anything to the PTP governance position?

Edited November 1, 2009 by animatic

[Samuian]

Take the Saxena Case into the Equation, I think it will send a clear message!

And if Chavalit's move to Malaysia will cause another tremble and I am quite certain that it will,

he will see himself soon in trouble!

The Thaksin-proxies causing way too much unsettling trouble in trying to derail any normalcy!

I can't see a Thaksin returning in the near future, he will rattling his swords from near by, the effect will be much stronger but leading nowhere!

As he says that Abhisit is lacking leadership, but if the economy picks up by turn of the year he will lose.... well there is some truth in there, how could he ever admit that his arch-foe's are good in leading "his" Thailand Incorp.?

[Steve2UK]

I don't readily forsee that a populist/popular mass social movement which has become essentially a way of life to so many people, hugely from a particular region of the country, is going to respect either the signals or the commands of those who are viewed as the problem, and an ages old problem at that.

People feeling their oats after years in the streets suddenly staring into a return to a future at least as bleak as the past may not pass as quietly into the night as certain others may like or expect.

This is not a wish, it is a concern. These folk want their issues addressed.

If the folk are smart they'll completely disconnect from Thaksin, make their loyalties clear, and petition the state for a redress of grievances. If the state is smart, the state will recognize the legitimacy of their concerns and address them one by one.

Under such circumstances, perhaps reasonable electoral processes can continue or dare I say be improved.

Good to see acknowledgement that these people have (presumably well-founded and sincerely-held?) issues and grievances rather than all just being x baht per day "zombies", "morons", "dupes", "rent-a-crowd" etc - which seems to be the repetitive norm for many here.

Petitioning the Thai state for a "redress of grievances" doesn't have a great track record of success for the petitioners - cf. "Assembly of the Poor" and other precedents. IMO the reconciliation pitch (passed down via the power-brokers) will include:

- amnesties all round for offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)

- Thaksin's assets largely unfrozen (i.e "we've sorted out his main gripe - he's OK with that, so drop it")

- measures designed to show promise of increased incomes/benefits for the (mainly rural) poor and near-poor

- panel set up to consider further more meaningful reforms to the 2007 constitution (so as to look and feel more like the 1997 version - but with extra safeguards)

In short - play ball and all the above goodies are yours. The vast majority of those with issues are far from being revolutionaries and are self-interested - and thus IMO can be relied on to buy in to a government (or "state") that they perceive to be genuinely ready to address (most of) their concerns. Democratic process (as it's understood in the West) will be low on the list of their priorities if the rest of the "deal" looks credible to deliver as advertised.

[Publicus]

I don't readily forsee that a populist/popular mass social movement which has become essentially a way of life to so many people, hugely from a particular region of the country, is going to respect either the signals or the commands of those who are viewed as the problem, and an ages old problem at that.

People feeling their oats after years in the streets suddenly staring into a return to a future at least as bleak as the past may not pass as quietly into the night as certain others may like or expect.

This is not a wish, it is a concern. These folk want their issues addressed.

If the folk are smart they'll completely disconnect from Thaksin, make their loyalties clear, and petition the state for a redress of grievances. If the state is smart, the state will recognize the legitimacy of their concerns and address them one by one.

Under such circumstances, perhaps reasonable electoral processes can continue or dare I say be improved.

Good to see acknowledgement that these people have (presumably well-founded and sincerely-held?) issues and grievances rather than all just being x baht per day "zombies", "morons", "dupes", "rent-a-crowd" etc - which seems to be the repetitive norm for many here.

Petitioning the Thai state for a "redress of grievances" doesn't have a great track record of success for the petitioners - cf. "Assembly of the Poor" and other precedents. IMO the reconciliation pitch (passed down via the power-brokers) will include:

- amnesties all round for offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)

- Thaksin's assets largely unfrozen (i.e "we've sorted out his main gripe - he's OK with that, so drop it")

- measures designed to show promise of increased incomes/benefits for the (mainly rural) poor and near-poor

- panel set up to consider further more meaningful reforms to the 2007 constitution (so as to look and feel more like the 1997 version - but with extra safeguards)

In short - play ball and all the above goodies are yours. The vast majority of those with issues are far from being revolutionaries and are self-interested - and thus IMO can be relied on to buy in to a government (or "state") that they perceive to be genuinely ready to address (most of) their concerns. Democratic process (as it's understood in the West) will be low on the list of their priorities if the rest of the "deal" looks credible to deliver as advertised.

Any request or demand for an amnesty/pardon of Thaksin would be an immediate and complete deal breaker. If people have legitimate grievances they'd need to express that convincingly by completely severing all realtions forever with the meglomaniac self-serving Thaksin.

[animatic]

- amnesties all round for offences deemed largely political (regardless of shirt colour - and, of course, uniform)

- Thaksin's assets largely unfrozen (i.e "we've sorted out his main gripe - he's OK with that, so drop it")

- measures designed to show promise of increased incomes/benefits for the (mainly rural) poor and near-poor

- panel set up to consider further more meaningful reforms to the 2007 constitution (so as to look and feel more like the 1997 version - but with extra safeguards)

Non starters in general.

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

If Thaksin's assets are found to be ill gotten, as seems quite logical to happen,

and given that it will take more time unravel, the financial gordian knot he has woven them into,

then why should he deserve them back for a political settlement? There goes Rule Of Law again

Abhisit is already doing things to increase the incomes and benefits for ALL Thais regardless of area.

And doing it in the worst of economic times, and so it isn't instant, because it is long term and reality based.

The 2007 constitution actually does look like 1997 one, - but with extra safeguards.

Those extra safeguards are what PTP wants removed....

Again a non starter.

Edited November 1, 2009 by animatic

[TAWP]

To me, Thaksin has been the best PM Thailand has ever had. /.../

In addition, he was elected by the people. Even if he paid for votes and got elected in that manner it is still better than an appointed PM. The fact that he was publically elected, whether corrupt or not, means that over the next 20 years or so political parties will become better and stronger in Thailand. Competition will increase for better politicians and better political parties. Election fraud can and will be dealt with if elections become the norm.

Wait, you are saying that Thaksin was elected but that Abhisit was appointed? And you expect anyone to listen to your opinion, when you clearly have no respect for facts or understanding of the election process?

Yeah, that'll happen...

[Steve2UK]

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

[JetsetBkk]

To me, Thaksin has been the best PM Thailand has ever had. /.../

In addition, he was elected by the people. Even if he paid for votes and got elected in that manner it is still better than an appointed PM. The fact that he was publically elected, whether corrupt or not, means that over the next 20 years or so political parties will become better and stronger in Thailand. Competition will increase for better politicians and better political parties. Election fraud can and will be dealt with if elections become the norm.

Wait, you are saying that Thaksin was elected but that Abhisit was appointed? And you expect anyone to listen to your opinion, when you clearly have no respect for facts or understanding of the election process?

Yeah, that'll happen...

Respect for facts? So you've forgotten about the "silent coup" already?

[Publicus]

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Yeh, okay, let's have a Truth Commission in Thailand - The Thailand Truth Commission.

And let's make Chavalit the chairman

[Steve2UK]

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Yeh, okay, let's have a Truth Commission in Thailand - The Thailand Truth Commission.

And let's make Chavalit the chairman

Oh - very droll. Well, I guess that's as suitable a post as any to mark the end of anything resembling grown-up, non-knee-jerk discussion on this thread.

"Discussions and analyses such as the recent posts to this thread reflect that it is entirely possible and indeed is the case that an advocate of either side, or one who is aligned but not an advocate, can make a resonably 'neutral' observation or analysis pertaining to either side or to all sides. It's possible and indeed doable to step back occasionally to offer a somewhat detached perspective regardless of one's known and acknowledged leanings. A cooler analysis not only is always welcome, but the more of it the better."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Udon-Thani-G...03#entry3109603

But, of course, that was last month.

[Publicus]

Amnesties for all regardless of crimes or actions... there goes the Rule Of law.

To state the obvious, you of course misquote/misrepresent what I specified.

Amnesties are rare - and tend to happen only in very exceptional circumstances which are seen as calling for trumping the normal "Rule of Law" in order to "move on" past an impasse...... e.g. post-apartheid South Africa, Northern Ireland etc. Always controversial and objected to by some - but the justification is what is seen as the greater good.

Yeh, okay, let's have a Truth Commission in Thailand - The Thailand Truth Commission.

And let's make Chavalit the chairman

Oh - very droll. Well, I guess that's as suitable a post as any to mark the end of anything resembling grown-up, non-knee-jerk discussion on this thread.

"Discussions and analyses such as the recent posts to this thread reflect that it is entirely possible and indeed is the case that an advocate of either side, or one who is aligned but not an advocate, can make a resonably 'neutral' observation or analysis pertaining to either side or to all sides. It's possible and indeed doable to step back occasionally to offer a somewhat detached perspective regardless of one's known and acknowledged leanings. A cooler analysis not only is always welcome, but the more of it the better."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Udon-Thani-G...03#entry3109603

But, of course, that was last month.

And let's call Dr. Thaksin the criminalologist [sic] to be the first presenter of the truth of his premiership and to state his ammends to Thailand. That's something everyone could look forward to.

Who could imagine that such an effort could be viable? For example, Thaksin and Sondhi each laying bare their souls in the greater interest of the common good of Thailand!

[smcs]

Thaksin launches 100 online TV channels

BANGKOK, 2 November 2009 (NNT) – Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has launched 100 television channels online on Sunday with an emphasis to revive products of his initiated One Tambon One Product project.

The first two channels aired are the O channel and the clever channel. The O Channel will promote OTOP goods while the Clever Channel will be for educational purposes. English and mathematic classes are offered by famous tutors with cooperation from the Thaicom Foundation and Shinawatra University.

Speaking via O Channel, the deposed prime minister cited his initiative for the OTOP project and its aim to create more income for farmers. He said the OTOP industry needed to be revived as it currently lacked support from the present administration. Mr Thaksin further stated that the OTOP Channel would provide worldwide access for people to view OTOP products. His programs can be viewed on www.100channelstv.com.

The OTOP project was initiated during Thaksin's administration, as he encouraged each tambon to create their own products to boost income at the grass-roots level.

Edited November 2, 2009 by smcs

[smcs]

The "100" channels are actually 2 and the O channel consists of a couple of short youtube-like video clips while the Clever channel is a couple of videos of badly-instructed English classes. Not exactly "channels," but he shows such great leadership by launching such a huge undertaking.

[TAWP]

To me, Thaksin has been the best PM Thailand has ever had. /.../

In addition, he was elected by the people. Even if he paid for votes and got elected in that manner it is still better than an appointed PM. The fact that he was publically elected, whether corrupt or not, means that over the next 20 years or so political parties will become better and stronger in Thailand. Competition will increase for better politicians and better political parties. Election fraud can and will be dealt with if elections become the norm.

Wait, you are saying that Thaksin was elected but that Abhisit was appointed? And you expect anyone to listen to your opinion, when you clearly have no respect for facts or understanding of the election process?

Yeah, that'll happen...

Respect for facts? So you've forgotten about the "silent coup" already?

Here is a clue: just because you call a carrot a tomato does not turn the carrot into a tomato.

Again, if you want to argue facts, do so. But your assertions are just silly and misinformed.

[Rumfoord]

To me, Thaksin has been the best PM Thailand has ever had. /.../

In addition, he was elected by the people. Even if he paid for votes and got elected in that manner it is still better than an appointed PM. The fact that he was publically elected, whether corrupt or not, means that over the next 20 years or so political parties will become better and stronger in Thailand. Competition will increase for better politicians and better political parties. Election fraud can and will be dealt with if elections become the norm.

Wait, you are saying that Thaksin was elected but that Abhisit was appointed? And you expect anyone to listen to your opinion, when you clearly have no respect for facts or understanding of the election process?

Yeah, that'll happen...

Respect for facts? So you've forgotten about the "silent coup" already?

Here is a clue: just because you call a carrot a tomato does not turn the carrot into a tomato.

Again, if you want to argue facts, do so. But your assertions are just silly and misinformed.

The Wall Street Journal, not your typical yellow pumpkin and green cucumber paper for the silly and misinformed, wrote:

But in the longer term, Mr. Abhisit's coalition is unlikely to resolve the fundamental conflicts

that brought about this month's "silent coup" and may have trouble holding on to its tenuous

grasp on power.

Mr. Abhisit's government has come to power by riding the dangerous wave of antidemocratic

protest that brought the country to a standstill earlier this month. The previous government, loyal to

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was ousted by a combination of violent street

protesters, with whom the military and police were largely complicit, and an activist judiciary

operating under laws written by the military leaders who ruled from 2006-2007.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122937186445607949.html