.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
mumbu
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by mumbu
-
-
Poster (mumbug) claims it is obvious the courts would be bias to the junta. Hogwash.
And with that the rest of the post falls flat.
I typically do not respond to messages like that but you clearly lying here. I did not say that courts
biased to junta. I did say that Constitutional court is biased against PPP and its allies. Again, I usually do not respond to BS like that but your BS iis too obvious to ignore. I,of course, will ignore your posts in the future.
-
one more option: Government collapse, the King is asked for help. He appoint a government which works for 2 years and make a new election.
Meanwhile Thaksin and his cronies go in jail.
At this: "creating monstrous Election commissions with a power of inquisition", they are still not powerful enough. vote buying was everywhere in Thailand again. Something must be done. And it can't be that super rich people like Thaksin can do what they want, doing crimes without punishments.
Look into the ministers, almost every minister has some very dark sides....bought degrees, Chalerms son killed a policemen and get into the army again. That government is the worst of Thai society and must be kicked out by any means.
I do not know to what extent the vote buying took place and who bought more votes. What strikes me with the posts like that is that the poster tries to demonize one side and exonerate the other.
It is quite obvious that Election commission appointed by junta is biased so is Constitutional court. But no matter how much power one gives to any of these institutions or various other commissions, they are absolutely in no position to eliminate the corruption. Those of us who were brought up on fairy tales like to be on the side of angels. There are no angels on Thai political stage. You simply ask yourself what side
have a chance to put Thailand to the right course: elimination of poverty, economic growth, rising living standards and the answer is a no brainer:Thaksin side. He proved it. There is solid statistics supporting significant progress in all these directions during his tenure as Thai PM. In fact, this progress is unprecedented in Thai history.
Regarding comments of another poster:comparison with Chile is interesting but hardly pertinent here.
Why would not you want to compare the situation in Thailand and other countries in the region which made a significant progress in fighting corruption and how they achieved it?Or, if you bring Chile why, for example, you do not bring Brasil? Brasilian society is quite corrupt with president Lula and some of his associates were accused of that, yet the country made a tremendous progress during Lula years.
The reality is that the typical path out of corruption is that the country simply outgrow it, get rid of it
as a kind of child desease but it does not happen automatically. It happens through economic growth,attraction of foreign investments,hard work. At certain stage, that requires certain degree of transperancy and established rules of economic game. That is where corruption become a real obstacle to further progress and gets contained (it is hardly can be eliminated altogether).
Returning to Chile example, Alende Marxist economic policies start hurting not only very rich but the population of the country as a whole. The only way out was a military coup. Do not get me wrong,
I am not supporting mass violations of human rights under Pinochet but I suspect at the time they had no other option as a coup and Pinochet was the man in charge of military.
Where is the analogy with Thailand here? By the way, thre are examples of "good military coups" and one of them (favorite of retired general Sonthi) is the last Portugese coup which got rid the country of the dictatorship and paved the way to the democracy. I, however, would never compare Sonthi coup with Portugese one.
Economic progress needed to eliminate corruption is possible under various types of political regimes starting from military juntas and ending up with socialist-like democracies(like in Brasil). The end point is not necessarily a democracy in the Western sense of the word (e.g. Singapore). In fact, a political organization of the society may not be a crucial factor in fighting corruption, since it is mostly economic phenomenon.
From Western viewpoint the choice between two sides in Thai tectonic struggle is no-brainer either.
Just think about the whole bruhaha regarding Cambodian temple: it is already riched the point where Constitutional court almost seems ready to accuse current FM in violating territorial integraty of the country. What is next?
Bush is going to visit Thailand in August to meet Samak and hopefully show his support. In this case, he will definately show on what side the West is.
-
Consider recent events:
1. Court announces that verdict will be rended on Pojaman tax evasion trial on July 31
2. Thaksin banned from leaving the country
3. Samak reports about possible plot to arrest upon return to Thailand on Monday (landing is planned on military airbase)
4. EC renders guilty verdict for a Puana Pandin official bringing total number of possible dissolutions
of coalition parties to 4
5. PDA essentially ignores court injunction regarding their protest site
I have a strange feeling that the country come very close to crucial confrontation
While typical forecast in this situation would be a military coup, I am inclined to believe that another development is possible. The reason for that is quite open attacks of PDA on leading figures in Thai Army
(except for Air force commander) which seem to indicate that top brass is not inclined to be involved in another coup. But if not coup, then what?
I think the plausible scenario is emergency decree which is possible under present constitution and which gives emergency powers to PM and top military leadership. Why military would want to be involved in that? Well, I guess, some incentives could have been provided... This is, of course, a total speculation
but I do not see other way out under present circumstances...
Arguebly, the current government far from being the best in Thai history but banning 111 most capable Thai politicians definitely takes its toll.
For those who is thisty for Thaksin blood, I would say this. There is no precedent in the history of manking when writing and rewriting constitutions, staging military coups, setting up Asset examination committees,
appointing senators, creating monstrous Election commissions with a power of inquisition, allowing a group
of huligans to terrorize the capital of a big country etc. ever solved the problem of corruption.
Only economic growth, rising living standards of population, raising salaries to governmet employees to decent levels can resolve this issue. Look at the examples in the region: Japan, South Korea,Singapore, HK, Taiwan they all went trough this process. There is no other way.
Thailand needs stability, rule of law, conditions which allow government to do its job efficiently.
It is, of course, only anecdotal evidence, but the rise of violent crime against foreigners in places like Pattaya seem to indicate that current situation in BKK started spill over to other areas. And, indeed, how
one expects the citizens to abide the rules when the mob in BKK terrorize the government, some elements in the Army act as if they are above the law (and de facto they are), ignoring arrest warrants, acting as protectors of certain individuals and seem to inviting an open confrontation with police and security forces.
I have to admit it is extremely difficult to forecast political developments in Thailand but I have this strange feeling...
-
quote]
The current discussion about what BOT will or will not do makes no sense to me. Thailand is too small player to effect US dollar-Thai baht exchange rate. Thus, strengthening or weakaning US dollar versus Thai baht reflects general strengthening or weakaning US dollar. There is a strong anti-correlation between the strength of dollar and price of oil. Thus, no matter in what direction Thai baht moves, it does not effect a price of oil in Thai baht terms (at least for now) and consequently a real level of inflation.
Actually, the government of Thailand is too small a player to affect the value of the USD vis a vis currencies other than the THB. It is not, however, too small a player to affect the value of THB/USD exchange rate and has been doing so for many, many years. Like all rates, this exchange rate depends on supply and demand and if a central bank is intervening, it affects the value. It is the same principal when the G8 steps in to support one of their currencies.
I don't understand your comment concerning the soaring price of oil and its impact on headline inflation. If the price of oil changed exactly as the USD/THB exchange rate, then it would be easier to understand. Please explain.
Thai government was not able to stop a demise of Thai baht in 1997, nor it was able to stop baht appreciation from 45 to dollar to 31 to dollar during the last couple of years. In both cases they tried but failed. They may be under the illusion that they can effect the echange rate but in reality they cannot and never did. Now we see the reverse of the course again and no matter what they do they cannot change the very powerful trends. Even bigger players like South Korea cannot do anything about their own exchange rate. One needs to be something like China or Japan to be able to do that.
On the contrary, Singapore can effectively control its exchange rate due to huge currency reserves
(they have one of the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world), so does HK and Taiwan.
Of course, Thailand can simply fix its exchange rate but the price will be nonconvertibility of Thai baht(Malaysia did it in 1997). On the contrary, HK fixed its exchange rate to US dollar but can maintain this fix through market mechanisms (again because of huge currency reserves).
The facts simply do not confirm your statement: Thailand never was able to control its exchange rate.
In case of dramatic decline of Thai baht, the government can interfere to exchange markets with a better chance to succeed than in 1997 due to significantly higher currency reserves. Yet, this reserves are nowhere close to the levels necessary to maintain exchange rates through market mechanisms.
Another difference with 1997 is that Thai government debt is mostly Thai baht denominated which significantly decreases the possibility of default.
Regarding your second question.
Today is a good example: Dollar is down, price of oil is up. Thai baht may strengthen somewhat versus US dollar but oil is also up in dollar terms. Both effects somewhat compensate one another. Of course, it does not mean that the price of oil is fixed in baht terms. It simply shows that whatever Tarisa does will not effect the price of oil and hence (to significant extend) the level of inflation in Thailand. Again, South Korea is a good example. Much bigger player than Thailand but its rates are on hold. They understand that whatever they do will not influence their inflation level.
At the end of the day, it looks like we are discussing shades of the same thing. Thailand's floating exchange rate is considered a managed float not a free float because the BOT intercedes in the market from time to time and tweaks the THB/USD exchange rate. This does not stop large swings, but when the currency's fluctuations are minor, they can and have for many years interceded in the market to manage their currency.
While in 1997, the THB was not fixed per se, it was tied to a basket of currencies that was roughly 79 - 80% USD, followed by the DM and then the Yen (i.e. their main trading currencies at the time). For many years they achieved a very stable USD/THB exchange rate despite the THB being freely convertible. Hence, a currency does not need to be non-convertible to be stable. However, this type of basket will no longer work for a country like Thailand given their limited reserves to defend themselves which is why Tarisa has been talking with other Asian nations about setting up a fund to help each other if their currencies are attacked (by speculators). Their inability to defend this basket was shown in 1997 when hedge funds shorted the THB.
On the oil prices, there is no 1:1 ratio between any exchange rate and oil prices. That is what I thought you originally said, but your explanation of "somewhat compensating" shows me you understand it isn't a 1:1 relationship and there is simply way too many other factors at play in exchange rates. It would be nice if it was a 1:1 relationship though.
Note, when you say "whatever Tarisa does will not affect the price of oil", that is exactly correct. Central banks do not affect the prices of oil or food, hence they use core inflation as their measure. Governments use (or should use) headline inflation (includes oil and food prices) because their policies can affect this. In Thailand, Tarisa acts as the government spokesperson for things she has no control over. The BOT no longer has the autonomy it once had.
You are wrong. BOT never had the ability to maintain the stable exchange rate. If there were periods of relative stability, it is due to market conditions and fundamentals rather than "Hercules" efforts of BOT.
Indeed, qualitative behavior of various currencies in the region (Phil. Peso, Mal. ringit, Ind. rupiayh, Korean won) is quite similar despite the fact that corresponding governments use quite different tools to manage their exchange rate. When you refer to speculators, you, in fact, refer to market mechanism which among other things serve the purpose to find equilibrium in exchange rates.
You are also wrong when you are saying that managing currency exchange rates by targeting a basket of currencies is impossible under present market conditions. In fact, that is precisely what Singapore is currently doing. They manage to do that with a target which takes into account the level of inflation. In fact, MOS (Monetary Authority of Singapore which plays a role of Central bank over there) does not use interest rates as their monetary tool at all. Singapore dollar is freely convertible and tradable offshore.
It is, of course, possible only due to huge currency reserves and good fundamentals (trade surpluses, rate of growth etc).
The recent rise of Thai baht is a good example of total impotence of BOT. All their "measures" did nothing to stem it but did hurt Thai economy. Malaysia did nothing with essentially the same results. In the end of the day appreciation of regional currencies proved to be a positive thing in light of current threat of inflation. "Speculators" had nothing to do with that (as well as with crash of 1997 which objectively was unavoidable) as reasonable people like Badawi said all along .
-
quote]
The current discussion about what BOT will or will not do makes no sense to me. Thailand is too small player to effect US dollar-Thai baht exchange rate. Thus, strengthening or weakaning US dollar versus Thai baht reflects general strengthening or weakaning US dollar. There is a strong anti-correlation between the strength of dollar and price of oil. Thus, no matter in what direction Thai baht moves, it does not effect a price of oil in Thai baht terms (at least for now) and consequently a real level of inflation.
Actually, the government of Thailand is too small a player to affect the value of the USD vis a vis currencies other than the THB. It is not, however, too small a player to affect the value of THB/USD exchange rate and has been doing so for many, many years. Like all rates, this exchange rate depends on supply and demand and if a central bank is intervening, it affects the value. It is the same principal when the G8 steps in to support one of their currencies.
I don't understand your comment concerning the soaring price of oil and its impact on headline inflation. If the price of oil changed exactly as the USD/THB exchange rate, then it would be easier to understand. Please explain.
Thai government was not able to stop a demise of Thai baht in 1997, nor it was able to stop baht appreciation from 45 to dollar to 31 to dollar during the last couple of years. In both cases they tried but failed. They may be under the illusion that they can effect the echange rate but in reality they cannot and never did. Now we see the reverse of the course again and no matter what they do they cannot change the very powerful trends. Even bigger players like South Korea cannot do anything about their own exchange rate. One needs to be something like China or Japan to be able to do that.
On the contrary, Singapore can effectively control its exchange rate due to huge currency reserves
(they have one of the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world), so does HK and Taiwan.
Of course, Thailand can simply fix its exchange rate but the price will be nonconvertibility of Thai baht(Malaysia did it in 1997). On the contrary, HK fixed its exchange rate to US dollar but can maintain this fix through market mechanisms (again because of huge currency reserves).
The facts simply do not confirm your statement: Thailand never was able to control its exchange rate.
In case of dramatic decline of Thai baht, the government can interfere to exchange markets with a better chance to succeed than in 1997 due to significantly higher currency reserves. Yet, this reserves are nowhere close to the levels necessary to maintain exchange rates through market mechanisms.
Another difference with 1997 is that Thai government debt is mostly Thai baht denominated which significantly decreases the possibility of default.
Regarding your second question.
Today is a good example: Dollar is down, price of oil is up. Thai baht may strengthen somewhat versus US dollar but oil is also up in dollar terms. Both effects somewhat compensate one another. Of course, it does not mean that the price of oil is fixed in baht terms. It simply shows that whatever Tarisa does will not effect the price of oil and hence (to significant extend) the level of inflation in Thailand. Again, South Korea is a good example. Much bigger player than Thailand but its rates are on hold. They understand that whatever they do will not influence their inflation level.
-
The MPC will not meet before its scheduled meeting on July 16 because it considers that rising inflation is still "not too urgent" an issue, and the market and the public could over-react if a special meeting is held, she said.
It's good to be a big ostrich (or a turkey...) , with the head into the sand.
You'll notice the "not too urgent". It's just urgent, but... not too much.
Very thai.Even when the BOT will be totally toasted (like in 97, but for other reasons), Miss Tarisa will continue to care about "over reaction of people", her face and probably her makeup and her hairstyle too.
The current discussion about what BOT will or will not do makes no sense to me. Thailand is too small player to effect US dollar-Thai baht exchange rate. Thus, strengthening or weakaning US dollar versus Thai baht reflects general strengthening or weakaning US dollar. There is a strong anti-correlation between the strength of dollar and price of oil. Thus, no matter in what direction Thai baht moves, it does not effect a price of oil in Thai baht terms (at least for now) and consequently a real level of inflation.
Like previous idiotic measures of BOT (control of capital inflows) made no sense and hurt investments and real estate in Thailand, I hope Teresa will not repeat this mistake (definitely induced by previous idiotic goverment) and will go with regional flow. The difference between 1997 and now is that Thailand has significant currency reserves and is in position to prevent volatile movements of Thai baht and thus prevent a deep crisis.
What is interesting in current situation is clear decoupling of Chinese Yuan (which continue to appreciate)
and most of other regional currencies. Of course, China has huge currency reserves and is in position to do whatever it wants with its currency. Probably, only Taiwan and Singapore are in similar position right now. Other regional currencies seems to go down (in line with growing trade deficits).
-
I would like to comment here about the idea that commodity speculators hurt the prices. Senator Liberman come up with a "brilliant" idea to ban big financial institutions from future commodity trading.
I have not seen the details of his proposal but if it leads to ban on commodity ETF this will hurt individual investors quite badly. People invest in commodities to hedge the inflation. If one bans corresponding ETFs,
then the only real way to hedge for small investors will be to buy physical gold or silver. For American investors it will probably mean keeping physical gold in private vaults outside the country taking into account US history (FDR in thirties made illegal for Americans to own physical gold except for jewelries and collectible coins). One can easily predict that the price of gold will sky rocket if senator Liberman prevail.
From general economic viewpoint the proposed ban makes no sense. Big financial institutions buy ,say, future contracts on oil but they do not consume it. In other words, they eventually sell them. In middle fifties Milton Friedman argued in favor of currency free exchange rates determined by markets and showed that the role of speculators is essentially to smooth out exchange rates. Much of his arguments can be carried over to other types of trades including commodities. The price of commodities is essentially determined by supply and demand and the only real effect speculators may have is to make the disbalances visible and acute right now rather than 5 years later. In other words, they essentially encourage governments into thinking about alternative forms of energy supply sooner rather than later.
You would not see senator Liberman (or any other politician for that matter) arguing against Bernanke throwing freshly printed money from helicopter cause it is much easier to blame speculators for everything negative.
-
No doubt, inflation is a global problem but at the moment it is very difficult to preserve wealth or just savings. Many people blame the price of oil but the real culprit is the policy of Fed which (starting from Mr Greenspan) cannot stop printing money. This thread is hardly appropriate place for a detailed economic analysis. As was suggested by Mark Faber, mr Bernanke could be a perfect chief of Reserve bank of republic of Zimbabwe but he is hardly appropriate to be the chief of Fed.
It is also very difficult to come up with a good practical advice. May be cash in USD. But do not forget that interest rates in US are below inflation. Thus, if one puts all savings in USD, it is guaranteed that principal will go down in real terms. May be gold. But that is about it.
Forget about stocks, bonds. At the current level of deleveraging it is a sure recipe to loose money. A lot of wealth is going to disappear worldwide due to many years of irresponsible Fed policies...
Thus people who want to spend right now, while the money still have some value may be not that crazy after all...
-
\Wow, I completely agree with Plus! I also partially agree with ColPyat.Maybe they should really look at Chechnya and how Russians deal with it. There are many similarities, and Russians seem to be close to solving their problem.They don't mess around, mean business, and are prepared to take a lot of heat. In the end those who were really fighting were eliminated, and those who were not, got the point.
There are muslims and muslims. Thais should seriously consider more cooperation with the government of Abdullah Badawi who is very reasonable man. It does not make any sense to ask Badawi to mediate in negotiations with terrorists. It presumes that he has any influence on them. He does not. In fact, Northern Malaysia is under the strong influence of muslim fundamentalists and they are not exactly Badawi friends. But surely Badawi has much better intelligence information
about the region. I recall that some time ago Thais publicly accused Malaysians that there are training camps for terrorists in Northern Malaysia. While it could be even true, the best way is to work privitaly with Malaysian government and try
to establish the trust between corresponding military and intelligence agencies.
In fact, insurgency is a potential problem for the central government in Malaysia
and they seriously afraid that it can spill over to its territory.
-
Mumbu, I'm sure they were polite to you because they haven't read what you said about Thailand on this forum. And please don't spread you lie about Thai students (especially the most patriotic ones?) don't wanna go back to Thailand. A bunch of my friends just went back over the last year or so. Typical BS.
The most patriotic Thai students in the US don't wanna go back to Thailand? What an oxymoron.
And what did I say about Thailand that could upset Thai students?
Can you quote. please? I think you went too far. I do not think anybody will take you seriously from now on. You just rude, stupid jerk and quite obviosly not Thai.
Most probably on junta payroll to spread all this nonsense and lies.
-
Yields are in inverse proportion to the price of bonds. In other words, investors wanted lower price and higher return on government bonds. Put it simply: investors are no longer interested in financing Thai government debt.
Thailand Scraps Bond Sale After Yields Surge, Central Bank Says
By David Yong
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Thailand canceled a scheduled 5 billion baht ($152.4 million) bond sale today because investors demanded too high a yield at the auction, the bank said.
The government scrapped the sale of debt maturing in 2024 after yields surged to 4.9 percent, Yanyong Damrongsiri, a central bank spokesman said in a phone interview from Bangkok. The securities yielded 4.555 percent at the previous sale on May 29 and 4.169 percent at an auction on May 23.
The central bank manages debt auctions on behalf of the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Yong in Kuala Lumpur at [email protected] .
Last Updated: June 6, 2007 03:02 EDT
What a load of crap. Pathetic attempt to spin things. The simple truth of the matter is that BoT is not willing to pay 4.9% in yields. That's all. What a load of spin BS.
Are you for real? I already mentioned that you have no idea about economics. However, I can say now more. I do not believe that you are Thai. First of all, I know many Thai students and have my own doing Ph D under my supervision.
I do not believe that any of them ever use the language that you allow yourself. Secondly, very few Thais would be interested in participating in farang dominated message boards. Thirdly, you would be the first Thai I bumbed into who is open antisemite ( I refer to one of your previous posts) unless, of course, you are a kind of radical muslim.
In any case, just wacko with bizzare agenda. Case closed.
I have to agree with you M. I know of a Thai proffesor, PhD, lived in the states over 15 years, married to a non-Thai, and she couldn't write a 4 word sentence without any mistakes. She is still in the states, and every once in a while I get one of her PPT presentations and she still dots them with English errors.
There is something fishy about this TG, metaphorically speaking. I do not mean he is smelly or slimey or would eat his own young or something.
Dakhar,
What I mean here is that TG is not polite (to put it mildly) which is highly nontypical for Thais. Plenty of them (especially after staying for a long time in an English-speaking country) speak very good English. Interestingly, NONE of our Thai students want to go back (and especially the most patriotic ones). But if they are on Thai government scholarship,
they have to go back. I have over here regular conversations with a student from Hat Yai (South)and his views are somewhere between TG and Plus (minus their anti-semitism, of course). Otherwise, sweet Thai guy.He obviously was very upset about recent bombings in Hat Yai. We wanted to keep here for one more year (in fact, they can stay for two more years after getting Ph D if they are on Thai government scholarship) but, unfortunately, we do not have any visiting positions. Thus, he goes back to Hat Yai...
-
Yields are in inverse proportion to the price of bonds. In other words, investors wanted lower price and higher return on government bonds. Put it simply: investors are no longer interested in financing Thai government debt.
Thailand Scraps Bond Sale After Yields Surge, Central Bank Says
By David Yong
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Thailand canceled a scheduled 5 billion baht ($152.4 million) bond sale today because investors demanded too high a yield at the auction, the bank said.
The government scrapped the sale of debt maturing in 2024 after yields surged to 4.9 percent, Yanyong Damrongsiri, a central bank spokesman said in a phone interview from Bangkok. The securities yielded 4.555 percent at the previous sale on May 29 and 4.169 percent at an auction on May 23.
The central bank manages debt auctions on behalf of the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Yong in Kuala Lumpur at [email protected] .
Last Updated: June 6, 2007 03:02 EDT
What a load of crap. Pathetic attempt to spin things. The simple truth of the matter is that BoT is not willing to pay 4.9% in yields. That's all. What a load of spin BS.
Are you for real? I already mentioned that you have no idea about economics. However, I can say now more. I do not believe that you are Thai. First of all, I know many Thai students and have my own doing Ph D under my supervision.
I do not believe that any of them ever use the language that you allow yourself. Secondly, very few Thais would be interested in participating in farang dominated message boards. Thirdly, you would be the first Thai I bumbed into who is open antisemite ( I refer to one of your previous posts) unless, of course, you are a kind of radical muslim.
In any case, just wacko with bizzare agenda. Case closed.
Without acknowledging that the Thai economy is going to generate much lower tax revenues due to its precipitous decline caused by the coup and its aftermath, the Cabinet has approved raising the deficit for 2008 to 165 Billion baht, which is a whopping 45 Billion more than was budgeted just a few months ago in February.
According to the reports: "Government spending is expected to rise by Bt25 billion from the initial budget projection, to Bt1.660 trillion, while revenue collection is expected to fall short of the previous target by Bt20 billion to Bt1.495 trillion."
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30036093
It is not the question what BOT willing or not willing to pay. They need to cover the growing budget deficit and it is for market (through the action of investors) to decide what THEY NEED TO PAY. It would be a huge event if US treasurey needed to scrap the auction of US bonds due to lack of buyers.
-
Yields are in inverse proportion to the price of bonds. In other words, investors wanted lower price and higher return on government bonds. Put it simply: investors are no longer interested in financing Thai government debt.
Thailand Scraps Bond Sale After Yields Surge, Central Bank Says
By David Yong
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Thailand canceled a scheduled 5 billion baht ($152.4 million) bond sale today because investors demanded too high a yield at the auction, the bank said.
The government scrapped the sale of debt maturing in 2024 after yields surged to 4.9 percent, Yanyong Damrongsiri, a central bank spokesman said in a phone interview from Bangkok. The securities yielded 4.555 percent at the previous sale on May 29 and 4.169 percent at an auction on May 23.
The central bank manages debt auctions on behalf of the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Yong in Kuala Lumpur at [email protected] .
Last Updated: June 6, 2007 03:02 EDT
What a load of crap. Pathetic attempt to spin things. The simple truth of the matter is that BoT is not willing to pay 4.9% in yields. That's all. What a load of spin BS.
Are you for real? I already mentioned that you have no idea about economics. However, I can say now more. I do not believe that you are Thai. First of all, I know many Thai students and have my own doing Ph D under my supervision.
I do not believe that any of them ever use the language that you allow yourself. Secondly, very few Thais would be interested in participating in farang dominated message boards. Thirdly, you would be the first Thai I bumbed into who is open antisemite ( I refer to one of your previous posts) unless, of course, you are a kind of radical muslim.
In any case, just wacko with bizzare agenda. Case closed.
-
Thailand Asks Abbott, Merck, Sanofi to Cut Prices (Update2)
By Suttinee Yuvejwattana and Beth Jinks
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Thailand's health ministry will buy patented AIDS and heart drugs from Abbott Laboratories, Merck & Co., and Sanofi-Aventis SA if they cut prices to 5 percent more than the cost of buying or making copies, an official said.
Meetings between the pharmaceutical companies and Thai health officials to prevent the country from making and buying generic copies ``haven't reached any conclusion,'' Siriwat Thiptharadol, director-general of Thailand's Food and Drug Administration and chief negotiator, told a press conference in Bangkok today. Merck, of Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, and Paris-based Sanofi offered additional supplies, he said.
Thailand says copying the drugs will allow the government to provide free medicine to a larger share of its poorest citizens. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug industry trade group, says taking that step would remove the incentive to invest in research, and that its members would retaliate by not introducing new drugs in Thailand.
``We are open for any negotiations,'' Siriwat said. ``If the drug firms agree to cut prices or offer interesting packages, we can always buy from them.''
The country, Southeast Asia's second-largest economy is considering buying generic versions or issuing licenses allowing the Government Pharmaceutical Organization to copy AIDS drugs Kaletra and its updated version Aluvia, made by Abbott, and efavirenz, marketed as Stocrin by Merck and as Sustiva by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. It may also make clopidogrel, the heart medicine sold under the name Plavix by Bristol-Myers and France's Sanofi-Aventis SA, and cancer medicines.
Poorest Patients
The discounted medicines will only be provided to the poorest patients who cannot afford the patented originals, Siriwat reiterated.
Sanofi offered to sell Plavix at 27 baht (78 U.S. cents) per tablet with an added incentive of supplying 3.4 million tablets for the cost of 1 million, Siriwat said. Merck offered to sell its AIDS medicine for 726 baht per patient per month, and to supply a free liquid form of the drug for 2,500 HIV- infected children a year. Merck also offered to cover their diagnosis costs and train health workers in treating youngsters.
``Merck remains committed to finding a mutually acceptable agreement to help the country achieve its objective of treating people with HIV and AIDS,'' Merck spokeswoman Amy Rose said in a telephone interview today.
Third Reduction
Abbott, of Abbott Park, Illinois, has maintained its offer to supply Aluvia at $1,000 per patient per year, Siriwat said.
``This was our third price reduction in eighteen months of our own accord,'' said Abbott spokeswoman Jennifer Smoter in a telephone interview today. She also noted that the price of Aluvia had been cut by more than half from its original $2,200.
Thailand's health ministry will be ``flexible'' in considering the offers, Siriwat said. If the government runs short of needed drugs during negotiations it will ``order generic versions from India,'' he said. The supplies of AIDS drugs are expected to run out as early as July, Siriwat said.
Thailand has threatened to invoke a World Trade Organization provision called compulsory licensing which allows nations to break patents. The country this year joined China and 10 other nations on the U.S. government's list of the world's worst infringers of intellectual property rights, which could make it easier for aggrieved U.S. industries to argue Thailand should lose some trade privileges.
Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla met with Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John K. Veroneau last month in an effort to avoid trade retaliation. He said the U.S. government didn't relent on their opposition to the compulsory licensing plan.
A spokesman for Bristol-Myers referred calls to Sanofi's U.S. office. Sanofi's U.S. spokesman referred calls to its corporate office in Paris. A call to the corporate office wasn't immediately returned.
To contact the reporters on this story: Suttinee Yuvejwattana in Bangkok at [email protected] ; Beth Jinks in Bangkok at [email protected]
Last Updated: June 6, 2007 16:51 EDT
-
Yields are in inverse proportion to the price of bonds. In other words, investors wanted lower price and higher return on government bonds. Put it simply: investors are no longer interested in financing Thai government debt.
Thailand Scraps Bond Sale After Yields Surge, Central Bank Says
By David Yong
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of Thailand canceled a scheduled 5 billion baht ($152.4 million) bond sale today because investors demanded too high a yield at the auction, the bank said.
The government scrapped the sale of debt maturing in 2024 after yields surged to 4.9 percent, Yanyong Damrongsiri, a central bank spokesman said in a phone interview from Bangkok. The securities yielded 4.555 percent at the previous sale on May 29 and 4.169 percent at an auction on May 23.
The central bank manages debt auctions on behalf of the government.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Yong in Kuala Lumpur at [email protected] .
Last Updated: June 6, 2007 03:02 EDT
-
This thread mirrors the older one where I made a long post and I do not want to repeat it here.
Here are some more points:
1. Sanofi-Aventis is French, Roche is Swiss, Bristol and GK are Brittish. These are the names of companies mentioned on this thread. Thus, it is not just American patents are broken or considered to be broken by Thai junta installed government.
2. This year junta increased a military budget by more than one billion dollars. Only a very small fraction of this amount
could easily cover the cost of Aids medications in question. Judging from junta's successes in the deep South, the only justification for the increase of the military budget I can imagine if they plan to launch a war with Singapore (to return Thai satellites back).
3. The cost of inventing new drugs is getting much higher. Many new technologies are going to be involved which will make reproduction of new treatments very difficult (stem-cells research and other biotechnological breakthroughs).
That is where short-sighted actions of Thais (Brazilians who followed example of Thailand and broke the patent on eferenza) may back-fire. The drug companies may stop sharing forthcoming more advanced technologies with countries like Thailand and Thailand will not be able to reproduce it or buy generics.
4. In the shorter run US government already took some measures which will allow US to imposed tariffs on various Thai goods as a possible retaliatory measure.
I do not see how Thailand is going to win in the long run.
One hypothetical example. Thre is a fear that existing technologies for producing influenza vaccine may not be fast enough to track mutations of some potentially pandemic viruses like Bird flu. I know that thre is a government sponsored program in US to develop new technologies. I can imagine that such programs exist elsewhere.
What if US governmant will decide not to share such technologies with countries like Thailand? I am not expert here but what I am trying to say is that Thailand put itself in very dangerous waters. Thre are ways to punish it and temptation to do it very high taking into account the impudence with which junta is acting.
-
-
After some hesitation, I have decided to post this quite long article about khun Thaksin. The article, in my opinion,
provides quite objective picture and will help to object to a lot of absolute bulshit posted here by various Thaksin haters. It also shows a significant degree of controversy surronded his days in the office of PM.
<H1 class=firstHeading>Thaksin Shinawatra</H1><H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>Jump to: navigation, search“Thaksin” redirects here. For other uses, see Thaksin (disambiguation).
Wikinews has news related to: Thaksin ShinawatraThaksin Shinawatraทักษิณ ชินวัตร
23rd
Prime Minister of ThailandIn office
9 February 2001 – 19 September 2006Preceded byChuan LeekpaiSucceeded bySurayud ChulanontBornJuly 26, 1949 (1949-07-26) (age 57)
San Kamphaeng, Chiang MaiNationalityThaiPolitical partyThai Rak Thai (formerly)[1]SpousePotjaman ShinawatraReligionBuddhismThaksin Shinawatra (help·info) (Thai: ทักษิณ ชินวัตร, IPA: [tʰáksǐn tɕʰinnawát]; (Chinese: 丘達新; pinyin: Qiū Dáxīn), born July 26, 1949 in Chiang Mai, Thailand), Thai businessman and politician, is the deposed Prime Minister of Thailand and the former leader of the populist Thai Rak Thai party. He is married to Potjaman Shinawatra, and has one son, Panthongtae and two daughters, Pintongtha, Peathongtarn.
Thaksin started his career in the Thai Police, and later became a successful entrepreneur, establishing Shin Corporation and Advanced Info Service, the largest mobile phone operator in Thailand. He became one of the richest people in Thailand. Thaksin entered politics by joining the Phalang Dharma Party in 1994, and later founded the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party in 1998. After a landslide election victory in 2001, he became Prime Minister of Thailand.
Thaksin's distinctive economic, public health, education, energy, drug, politics, and international relations policies made him the first elected Prime Minister in Thai history to complete his term in office, and helped him win a landslide re-election in 2005. Thaksin's policies were particularly effective at alleviating rural poverty (poverty fell by half in 5 years) and at increasing access to affordable health care. His main support base has been the rural poor. Under his government, Thailand's standing on major indices of corruption improved substantially.[2][3][4]
However, his government was frequently challenged with allegations of corruption, dictatorship, demagogy, treason, conflicts of interest, human rights offenses, acting undiplomatically, the use of legal loopholes and hostility towards a free press. A controversial leader, he was also the target of allegations of lèse-majesté, treason, selling domestic assets to international investors, and religious desecration.[5][6] He has been subject to several alleged assassination attempts.
On 19 September 2006, a military junta overthrew his government in a bloodless coup. The junta warned him against returning to Thailand. His diplomatic passport was revoked after the junta accused him of engaging in political activities while in exile. Thai embassies were ordered not to facilitate his travels and all Thai media reporting his activities abroad were been banned or censored. Numerous pro-Thaksin and anti-coup websites were also blocked or shut down.[7] His political future is uncertain.
Contents
[hide]
- <LI class=toclevel-1>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-3>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
- <LI class=toclevel-2>
[edit] Family background
Thaksin's great-grandfather Seng Sae Khu (surname 丘）was a Hakka Chinese immigrant from Meizhou, Guangdong who arrived in Siam in the 1860s and settled in Chiang Mai in 1908. His eldest son, Chiang Sae Khu, was born in Chanthaburi in 1890 and married a Thai woman, called Saeng Somna. Chiang's eldest son, Sak, adopted the Thai surname Shinawatra ("does good routinely") in 1938 because of the country's anti-Chinese movement and the rest of the family also adopted it.
Thaksin's father, Lert, was born in Chiang Mai in 1919 and married Yindi Ramingwong. In 1968, Lert Shinawatra entered politics and became an MP for Chiang Mai and deputy leader of the now-defunct Liberal party. Lert Shinawatra quit politics in 1976.[8]
Thaksin's great-grandfather Seng Sae Khu made his fortune through tax farming and rackateering colecting protection money from gambling dens in China. The Khu/Shinawatra later founded Shinawatra Silks and then by moving into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop, grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district, and opened two movie theatres, a gas station, and a car and motorcycle dealership. By the time Thaksin was born, the Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential families in Chiang Mai.
[edit] Early life
Thaksin was born in San Kamphaeng, Chiang Mai. As a young boy, Thaksin helped his father brew and serve coffee. Thaksin grew up in the village of Sankamphaeng until he was 15, after which he moved to Chiang Mai city to study at Montfort College. At 16, he helped run one of his father's cinemas.[9]
[edit] Police career
Thaksin attended the 10th class of the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School.[10] He then attended the Thai Police Cadet Academy and upon graduation, he joined the Royal Thai Police Department in 1973. He later went on to obtain a master's degree in criminal justice from Eastern Kentucky University in the United States, in 1975. In 1978 he received a doctorate in criminal justice at Sam Houston State University in Texas with a dissertation on "An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Criminal Justice Educational Process and the Attitude of the Student Toward the Rule of Law."[11] Returning to Thailand, he reached the position of Deputy Superintendent of the Policy and Planning Sub-division, General Staff Division, Metropolitan Police Bureau. He married Potjaman Damapong, the daughter of a police general, in 1980.[12] Thaksin quit the police force in 1987, having ascended to the rank of a Lieutenant-Colonel.
[edit] Business career
Thaksin and his wife ventured into several businesses while Thaksin was still in the police force. These included opening a silk shop, opening a movie theatre, and developing an apartment building. All of these ventures were failures, and left him over 50 million Baht in debt. He established ICSI in 1982, which leased computers to government agencies and was a modest success. However, later ventures in security systems (SOS) and public bus radio services (Bus Sound) were failures.[13][14] In April 1986, he founded Advanced Info Service (AIS), which started off as a computer rental business.[15]
In 1987, after resigning from the police force, he marketed a Thai romance drama called "Baan Sai Thong",[16] which became a popular success in theaters.[17] In 1988 he joined with Pacific Telesis to operate and market the PacLink pager service, which was a modest success, although Thaksin later sold out his stake in PacLink to establish his own paging company.[13][18] In 1989 Thaksin launched IBC, a cable television company, which lost money and was later acquired by the CP Group's UTV.[13][19] In 1989, Thaksin established a data networking service, Shinawatra DataCom, which was a failure.[13] It is today known as Advanced Data Network, and is owned by AIS and the TOT.[20]
In October 1990, Advanced Info Service launched analog mobile phone services after receiving a concession from the Telephone Organization of Thailand. AIS was listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in November 1991. AIS became the largest mobile phone operator in Thailand.
The Shinawatra Computer and Communications Group was founded in 1987 and listed in The Stock Exchange of Thailand in 1990.
In 1990, Thaksin founded Shinawatra Satellite, which has developed and operated a total of four Thaicom satellites.
In 2000, Thaksin acquired the ailing iTV television station from the Crown Property Bureau, Nation Multimedia Group, and Siam Commercial Bank.[21][22]
[edit] Entry into politics
[edit] Political debut as Foreign Minister in the first Chuan government
Thaksin entered politics in late 1994 under the invitation of Chamlong Srimuang, who had just reclaimed the position of Palang Dharma Party (PDP) leader from Boonchu Rojanastien. In a subsequent purge of Boonchu-affiliated PDP Cabinet ministers, Thaksin was appointed Foreign Minister in December 1994, replacing Prasong Soonsiri.[23][24]
The PDP soon withdrew from the government over the Sor Por Kor 4-01 land reform corruption scandal, causing the government of Chuan Leekpai to collapse.
[edit] PDP leader and Deputy Prime Minister in the Banharn government
Chamlong, strongly criticized for mishandling internal PDP politics in the last days of the Chuan-government, retired from politics and hand-picked Thaksin as new PDP leader. Thaksin ran for election for the first time in July 1995, winning a parliamentary seat from Bangkok. However, the weakened and internally divided PDP won only 23 seats, compared to 46 in the 1992 elections.
Thaksin joined the government of Banharn Silpa-acha and was appointed Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Bangkok traffic. In May 1996, Thaksin and 4 other PDP ministers quit the Banharn Cabinet (while retaining their MP seats) to protest widespread allegations of corruption, prompting a Cabinet reshuffle. Many have claimed that Thaksin's move was designed to help give Chamlong Srimuang a boost in the June 1996 Bangkok Governor elections, which Chamlong returned from retirement to contest.[25] Chamlong lost the election - he and incumbent Governor former PDP-member Krisda Arunwongse na Ayudhya were defeated by Pichit Rattakul, an independent.
Chamlong's failure to buttress the PDP's failing power base in Bangkok amplified internal divisions in the PDP, particularly between Chamlong's "temple" faction and Thaksin's faction. Soon afterwards, Chamlong announced he was retiring again from politics.
Thaksin and the PDP pulled out of the Banharn-government in August 1996. In a subsequent no-confidence debate, the PDP gave evidence against the Banharn government. Soon afterwards, Banharn dissolved Parliament in September 1996.
[edit] Fall of the PDP
Thaksin announced that he would not run in the subsequent November 1996 elections, but would remain as leader of the PDP. He claimed that he wanted to devote his energies to campaigning for political reform and supporting other PDP candidates. Some speculated that Thaksin wanted to resign from the party leadership. The PDP suffered a fatal defeat in the elections, winning only 1 seat in Parliament. The PDP soon imploded, with most members resigning. However, the PDP is still in existence, with a different leadership and an insignificant presence in the political sphere.
Although there was much controversy about the root causes of the fall of the PDP, most agree that it was due to internal divisions in the party. Particularly divisive were conflicts between the Chamlong "temple" faction and subsequent generations of outsiders, including Thaksin.
[edit] Deputy Prime Minister in the Chavalit government
On 15 August 1997, Thaksin was invited to become Deputy Prime Minister in Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's government. This occurred soon after the Thai Baht was floated and devalued in 2 July 1997, sparking the Asian Financial Crisis. Thaksin held this position for only 3 months, leaving on November 14 after Chavalit resigned.
During an unsuccessful censure debate on 27 September 1997, Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban accused Thaksin of profiting on insider information about the government's decision to float the Baht.[26] However, this accusation was not investigated during the subsequent Democrat or TRT governments[27] During 1997, Thaksin's flagship company AIS suffered 1.8 billion THB in foreign exchange losses and saw its debt more than double due to the devaluation. However, critics have alleged that Thaksin's businesses suffered much less from the devaluation than rival companies.[28]
[edit] Formation of the Thai Rak Thai Party and the 2001 elections
Thaksin founded the Thai Rak Thai ("Thais Love Thais" - TRT) party in 1998 along with Somkid Jatusripitak, PDP ally Sudarat Keyuraphan, Purachai Piumsombun,[29] and 19 others.
With a populist platform often attributed to Somkid, TRT promised universal access to healthcare, a 3-year debt moratorium for farmers, and 1 million THB locally-managed development funds for all Thai villages.
After Prime Minister Chuan dissolved parliament in November 2000, TRT won a sweeping victory in the January 2001 elections, the first election held under the People's Constitution of 1997. It was called the most open, corruption-free election in Thai history.[30] Thai Rak Thai won parliamentary 248 seats (more than any other party previously) and needed only 3 more seats to form a government. Nonetheless, Thaksin opted for a broad coalition with the Chart Thai Party (41 seats) and the New Aspiration Party (36 seats), while absorbing the smaller Seritham Party (14 seats).[31]
[edit] Prime Minister of Thailand
As Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra initiated many distinctive policies affecting the economy, public health, education, energy, drugs, and international relations. He gained two landslide re-election victories.[32] Thaksin's policies have been particularly effective at alleviating rural poverty[33] and at providing affordable health coverage to the people. Because of this, his main support base has been the rural poor.[34]
His Cabinet was packed with academics, former student leaders, and former leaders of the Phalang Dharma party, including Prommin Lertsuridej, Chaturon Chaisang, Prapat Panyachatraksa, Surapong Suebwonglee, Somkid Jatusripitak, Surakiart Sathirathai, and Sudarat Keyuraphan.
However, his government has been frequently challenged with allegations of dictatorship, demagogy, corruption, conflicts of interest, human rights offences, acting undiplomatically, the use of legal loopholes and hostility towards a free press. A controversial leader, he has also been the target of numerous allegations of lèse-majesté, treason, usurping religious and royal authority, selling assets to international investors, religious desecration, and siding with the forces of darkness.[35][36]
[edit] March 2001 airplane bomb
On 3 March 2001, a semtex/white phosphorus bomb exploded on a Thai Airways International 737 jet minutes before new Thaksin was scheduled to board. The explosion caused a firestorm which consumed nearly the entire airplane on the ground, killing one airline staffer. At the time of the blast, Thaksin was walking with about 150 other passengers toward the plane at the start of a trip to attend a narcotics conference in Chiang Mai. Officials initially tried to attribute the explosion to a spontaneous explosion in the gas tank of the plane, but most observers saw it as an attempt to assassinate Thaksin.[37][38][39][40][41]
[edit] Economic policies
see also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Economic and health policies and Thaksinomics. Thaksin's government had designed its policies to appeal to the rural majority, initiating programs like village-managed microcredit development funds, low-interest agricultural loans, direct injections of cash into village development funds (the SML scheme), infrastructure development, and the One Tambon One Product (OTOP) rural small and medium enterprise development program.
Together called Thaksinomics, many feel that these policies were responsible for bringing about Thailand's economic recovery from the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and substantially reducing rural poverty. The GDP grew from THB 4.9 trillion to THB 7.1 trillion. Thailand repaid its debts to the International Monetary Fund 2 years ahead of schedule. Between 2000 and 2004, income in the poorest part of the country, the Northeast, rose 40 per cent while nation-wide poverty fell from 21.3 per cent to 11.3 per cent.[42] The Stock Exchange of Thailand outperformed other markets in the region. After facing fiscal deficits in 2001 and 2002, Thaksin balanced the national budget, producing comfortable fiscal surpluses for 2003 to 2005. Despite a massive program of infrastructure investments, balanced budgets were projected for 2006 and 2007.[43] Public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in 2001 to 41% in September 2006.[44][45] Foreign exchange reserves doubled from US$30 billion in 2001 to US$64 billion in 2006.[46]
Critics claim that Thaksinomics is little more than a Keynesian-style economic stimulus policy re-branded as something new and revolutionary. Economists from the Thailand Development Research Institute argue that other factors, such as a revival in export demand, were the primary cause behind the economy's recovery.[47] Others claimed that the policies got the rural poor "hooked on Thaksin's hand-outs."[48] Critics also pointed out that Thaksin's OTOP program, which encouraged rural entrepreneurialism, was not aligned with King Bhumibol Adulyadej's advocacy for a rural self-sufficient economy.[49] Thaksin's supporters have countered that no other democratically-elected Prime Minister has reduced poverty by as much as Thaksin.
Thaksin helped bring Thailand's massive underground lottery system into the legal fold by operating a successful numbers game (Thai: หวย) run by the Government Lottery Office. Lottery sales of approx. 70 billion THB (2 billion USD) are used for social projects, including the "One District, One Scholarship" program which provided one student from a low-income family in each district with a scholarship to study overseas. Soon after Thaksin was deposed, the junta banned the lottery, claiming it was a social vice, luring the poor to become addicted to gambling, instead of working. The scholarship program was also stopped.[50][51][52][53][54][55] The junta also claimed that Thaksin used the mischievously spent the proceeds.[56]
The Thaksin government reduced the state's control of the media by privatizing MCOT, a large television and radio broadcaster.[57]
After the 2006 Thailand coup, the military junta rebranded Thaksin's SML scheme as the "sufficiency village development scheme." Villagers wishing to draw down funds from the scheme were required to draft projects based on the King's self-sufficient economy principles.[58]
[edit] Healthcare policies
Thaksin initiated two key healthcare policies: subsidized universal health care and low-cost universal access to anti-retroviral HIV medication (ARVs). Thaksin's 30-baht/visit universal healthcare program won the applause of the general public, but was criticized by many doctors and officials.[59][60] Prior to the program's introduction, a large portion of the population had no health insurance and limited access to healthcare. The program helped increase access to healthcare from 76% of the population to 96% of the population.[61] The program also increased workloads for healthcare employees, and caused many doctors to switch to higher paying careers. It has been criticized for being underfunded. The program led some hospitals to seek alternative sources of income, leading to a boom in the medical tourism industry, with 1.3 million foreign patients earning Thailand 33 billion THB (approx. 800 million USD) in 2005.[62][63]
Junta-appointed Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla called the 30-baht program a "marketing gimmick" and claimed that the government would "very soon" stop charging patients any fees for visits to state hospitals.[64]
During the Thaksin government, the number of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as the overall prevalence rate noticeably declined.[65] Although successful in expanding access to HIV medication, there have been concerns that a free trade agreement with the US could endanger Thailand's ability to produce generic HIV treatments.[66]
Thaksin also initiated a radical shift in funding away from major urban hospitals in order to build up primary care in rural areas.[67]
Thaksin allowed the estimated 2.3 million migrant workers in Thailand to register and seek health coverage under the Thai national healthcare system. They were also eligible for work permits at the end of the registration period, entitling them to full labor protection. Democrat Party Labour Group Committee Pongsak Plengsaeng criticized the move, claiming that it would lead to unemployment amongst Thais. Pongsak also claimed that alien workers in Thailand have a higher tendency to commit crimes. Thailand's unemployment rate at the time was 1.9%.[68][69][70]
[edit] Anti-drug policies
See also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Anti-drug policies Thaksin initiated several highly controversial policies to counter a boom in the Thai drug market, particularly in methamphetamine. After earlier anti-drug policies like border blocking (most methamphetamine is produced in Myanmar), public education, sports, and promoting peer pressure against drug use proved ineffective, Thaksin launched a multi-pronged suppression campaign that aimed to eradicate methamphetamine use in 3 months. The policy consisted of changing the punishment policy for drug addicts, setting provincial arrest and seizure targets, awarding government officials for achieving targets, targeting dealers, and "ruthless" implementation.
Over the next seven weeks, press reports indicate that more than 2,700 people were killed.[71] The Government claimed that only around 50 of the deaths were at the hands of the police. Human rights critics say a large number were extrajudicially executed.[72] The government went out of its way to publicize the campaign, through daily announcements of arrest, seizure, and death statistics.
King Bhumibol, in his 2003 birthday speech, supported the approach, although he did request the commander of the police to categorize the deaths between those killed by police and those killed by fellow drug dealers.[73] Interpretations of his speech differ. A Bangkok university poll conducted in February 2003 revealed 92% of respondents backed the approach. The same survey did show, however, that seven out of 10 people feared being shot by police themselves.[74]
According to the Narcotics Control Board, the policy was effective in reducing drug consumption, especially in schools, at least until 2006.[75] But a 2005 Assumption University opinion poll found that 62% percent believed that drug abuse had increased from 2004 to 2005 and that 68% did not trust the government to solve the drug problem.[76]
[edit] Reducing corruption
Despite repeated allegations of corruption, the Thaksin government reportedly improved Thailand's ability to control corruption. A 2006 World Bank study from 2002-2005 found that Thailand's regulatory quality and ability to control corruption improved twice as much as it had during the 1996-2002 period.[77]
Transparency International reported that Thailand's reputation for transparency among business executives improved during the years of the Thaksin government. In 2001, Thailand's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was 3.2, whereas in 2005, the CPI was 3.8.[78][79][80]
[edit] Education policies
See also: Policies of the Thaksin government#Education policies Thaksin implemented a series of educational reforms during his government. Chief among those reforms was school decentralization, as mandated by the 1997 People's Constitution.[81] Decentralization would have delegated school management from the over-centralized and bureaucratized Ministry of Education to Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAOs). The plan met with massive widespread opposition from Thailand's 700,000 teachers, who would be deprived of their status as civil servants.[82] There was also widespread fear from teachers that TAOs lack the skills and capabilities required to manage schools. In the face of massive teacher protests and several threats of school closure, Thaksin compromised and gave teachers whose schools were transferred to TAO management two years to transfer to other schools.[83]
Other reforms included learning reform and related curricular decentralization, mostly through greater use of holistic education and less use of rote learning.[84]
To increase access to universities for lower income people, Thaksin initiated the Student Loan Fund (SLF) and Income Contingency Loan (ICL) programs. The ICL granted loans regardless of financial status, and required recipients to start repayments when their salaries reach 16,000 Baht a month, with an interest rate equivalent to inflation from the day the loan was granted. The SLF had an eligibility limit on family income but carried interest of 1%, starting one year after graduation. The programs were merged and the income limit modified after Thaksin's government was overthrown.[85]
Thaksin also initiated the controversial "One District, One Dream School" project, aimed at developing the quality of schools to ensure that every district has at least one high-quality school. The project was criticized, with some claiming that the only beneficiaries were Thaksin and companies selling computers and educational equipment. Many schools also fell deeply into debt in implementing the project, receiving less than adequate financial support from the central government.[86][87]
In addition, Thaksin altered government state university entrance system. Whereas the former system relied exclusively on a series of nationally standardized exams, Thaksin pushed for a greater emphasis on senior high-school grades, claiming this would focus students on classroom learning rather than private entrance exam tutoring.
Thaksin initiated the Income Contingency Loan program to increase access to higher education. Under the program, needy students may secure a loan to support their studies from vocational to university levels. Thai banks had traditionally not given education loans. Thaksin made Thailand one of the first supporters of Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, with the Thai Ministry of Education committing to purchase 600,000 units.[88]
[edit] Energy policies
See also:Policies of the Thaksin government#Energy policies and Energy Industry Liberalization and Privatization (Thailand) In energy policy, the Thaksin government continued the Chuan Leekpai government's privatization agenda, but with important changes. Whereas the Chuan government's post-Asian financial crisis policies sought economic efficiency through industry fragmentation and wholesale power pool competition,[89] Thaksin's policies aimed to create national champions that could reliably support economic growth and become important players in regional energy markets.[90] Elements of the Thaksin energy liberalization policy included:
- Privatization of the state-owned oil and gas company PTT
- Attempted privatization of the integrated state-owned electricity company EGAT, without separating the generating and transmission businesses
- Attempted establishment of an independent regulating agency (traditionally, EGAT had been both an operator and a regulator)
[edit] South Thailand insurgency
See also: South Thailand insurgency A resurgence in violence began in 2001 in the three southernmost provinces of Thailand, which all have a Muslim ethnic Malay majority. There is much controversy about the causes of this escalation of the decades long insurgency. Attacks after 2001 concentrated on police, the military, and schools, but civilians have also been targets. Thaksin has been widely criticized for his management of the situation, in particular the storming of the Krue Se Mosque, the deaths of civilian protestors at Tak Bai, and the unsolved kidnapping of Muslim-lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit.[91] In October 2004, 84 Muslim human rights protesters were killed at Tak Bai when the Army broke up a peaceful protest concerning the mistreatment. [92] After receiving criticism from human rights groups, Thaksin announced escalation of military and police activity in the region.[93] After the 2006 coup, the Army dropped all charges related to the Tak Bai incident. In July 2005, Thaksin enacted an Emergency Decree to manage the three troubled provinces. Several human rights organizations expressed their concerns that the decree might be used to violate civil liberties.[94] However, the emergency decree was overwhelmingly popular with both Bangkokians and people in the three southernmost provinces.[95]
In March 2005, Thaksin established the National Reconciliation Commission, chaired by former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun to oversee efforts to bring peace to the troubled South. In its final report released in June 2006, the commission proposed introducing Islamic law and making Pattani-Malay (Yawi) an official language in the region. The Thaksin administration assigned a government committee to study the report, while Muslims urged the government to act faster in implementing the proposals.[96] On the other hand, some elements of the proposals soon met with much criticism. The President of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's Privy Council, Prem Tinsulanonda, stated "We cannot accept that [proposal] as we are Thai. The country is Thai and the language is Thai. We have to be proud to be Thai and have the Thai language as the sole national language".[97]
[edit] Administrative reform
[edit] Ministerial restructuring
One of the most visible of Thaksin's administrative reforms was the restructuring of government department and ministries, labeled the "big bang." It was hailed as a "historic breakthrough" and "the first major reorganization of ministries since King Chulalongkorn set up Thailand’s modern system of departmental government in 1897." Such a restructuring had been studied for years as a means of undermining the perceived rigidities and inertia of the old system, but was never implemented until the Thaksin government.
The restructuring was designed to streamline the bureaucracy and focus it on performance and results. New ministries were carved out in Social and Human Security Development, Tourism and Sports, Natural Resources and Environment, Information and Communication Technology, and Culture. The restructuring caused an unprecedented re-shuffling of senior bureaucrats and underwent intense scrutiny in parliamentary committees.
[edit] CEO-governors
Thaksin transformed the role of provincial governors from ceremonial supervisors of ministry officials to active managers of government policy. Historically, central government ministries operated in the provinces through field offices headed by senior officials, who reported back to Bangkok. The Ministry of Interior appointed provincial governors whose role was largely ceremonial.
A key component of Thaksin's administrative reform policy, "CEO-governors" epitomized Thaksin's "transformation of the operating style of the traditional bureaucracy into a more results-oriented instrument that would be responsive." Piloted in 2001 and introduced in all provinces in October 2003, CEO-governors were put in charge of planning and coordinating provincial development and became accountable for overall provincial affairs. The "CEO governors" were assisted by "provincial CFOs" from the Ministry of Finance who reported directly to each governor. The CEO-Governors were authorized to raise funds by issuing bonds and were given an intensive training course. CEO-governors no longer passively signed off state funds to local bodies, but also coordinated their use and ensured that they met explicitly-set performance agreements.[98][99] After the coup, the junta reverted the role of governors.
[edit] Foreign policies
Thaksin was fiercely attacked for tasking diplomats with supporting domestic economic programs, e.g., promoting OTOP products. Surapong Jayanama, former ambassador to Vietnam claiming that Thaksin's policies were "demeaning" and would do little to enhance Thailand's international stature.[100]
Thaksin also initiated negotiations for several free trade agreements with China, Australia, Bahrain, India, and the US. This policy was also criticized, with claims that high-cost Thai industries could be wiped out.[101]
However, the FTAs may have had a major role in the fast growth of Thai exports. Exports to Australia, Eastern Europe, China and Latin America increased 27-30% in 2006.[102]
Thailand joined George W. Bush's multinational coalition in the invasion of Iraq, sending a 423-strong humanitarian contingent. It withdrew its troops on 10 September 2004. Two Thai soldiers died in Iraq in an insurgent attack.
Thaksin has also announced that Thailand would forsake foreign aid, and work with donor countries to assist in the development of neighbors in the Greater Mekong Sub-region.[103]
Thaksin has also been attacked by influential former diplomats for acting undiplomatically with foreign leaders. Kasit Pirom, former Thai ambassador to Japan and the United States, noted at an anti-Thaksin rally "When Khun Thaksin went to the United Nations to attend a joint UN-Asean session, he did not behave properly when addressing the session, which was co-chaired by the UN secretary-general and the Malaysian premier. In his address Thaksin did not mention the name of the Malaysian premier".[104]
Thaksin has also been attacked for his support of Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai's campaign to become UN Secretary General.[105][106][107][108]
Under the slogans "Four Years of Repair — Four years of Reconstruction" and "Building Opportunities", Thaksin and the TRT won landslide victories in the February 2005 elections, sweeping 374 out of 500 seats in Parliament. The election had the highest voter turnout in Thai history and was noted for the marked reduction in vote-buying compared to previous elections.[109][110][111]
[edit] Suvarnabhumi Airport
After 40 years of planning and debate, the Thaksin government completed the construction of the new Suvarnabhumi Airport. The airport was officially opened a week after a military junta overthrew the government. At the time of completion, it was one of the world's largest airports.
Some members of Thaksin's government were accused of corruption while overseeing the construction of Suvarnabhumi Airport. However, no accusations were directly made at Thaksin, and to-date, no Thai government, US government, police, or Auditor-General in the investigation has shown any corruption or collusion in the project. The junta attempted to use allegedly shoddy construction at the airport as one of the justifications for its coup.[112] However, a junta-appointed panel of engineers assigned to inspect the airport noted that damage to the airport was "minute", and "common." This was contrary to accusations made by the junta that the airport was seriously damaged after only 4 months of operations. A spokesman for British Airways, also said that "Everything is normal", and that "We haven't heard any complaints from the staff."[113] Other international airline representatives have also maintained that they are confident in Suvarnabhumi's safety. A two-week investigation led by Tortrakul Yomnak, a chief engineer for Airports of Thailand and prominent supporter of the anti-Thaksin movement, found that the runway was safe, and that cracks could be repaired in as little as a few hours.[114] At the beginning of the investigation, Tortrakul had warned that the airport might need to be closed for three years.[115] Other investigations found that the cost of fixing every identified problem at the airport would be less than 1% of the total airline cost, and that 70% of the problems would be fixed within 2007. 20 of the 60 problems were successfully fixed by February 2007.[116]
Critics noted that junta-led investigations were unlikely to reveal an impartial picture of the airport's shortcomings. "Problems are normal for any new airport. In our case it's made more complex because everybody wants to run down the former prime minister," noted Sumet Jumsai, a leading Thai architect.[117] Other leading engineers were sharply divided over the root causes of problems faced by the new airport.[118]
[edit] Other criticisms
There have also been complaints that Thaksin appointed relatives to senior positions in the civil service and independent commissions, for example by elevating his cousin, General Chaiyasit Shinawatra, to Army commander-in-chief. In August 2002, he was promoted from Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces Development Command to become Deputy Army Chief. Both General Chaiyasit and Defense Minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh denied charges of nepotism at the time. General Chaiyasit replaced General Somthad Attanan as Army commander-in-chief.[119] However, General Chaiyasit was replaced by General Prawit Wongsuwan in August 2004, after only a year in office. His replacement was in response to an escalation of violence in southern Thailand. Prawit was succeeded by Sonthi Boonyaratglin in 2005.[120][121]
Thaksin was also accused of interference after the Senate appointed Wisut Montriwat (former Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance) to the position of Auditor General, replacing Jaruvan Maintaka. The Constitutional Court has earlier found Jaruvan's nomination illegal and unconstitutional;[122] however, she refused to acknowledge her ouster without a direct order from the King. Her refusal was highly controversial and sparked a public debate into the role of the King in Thai politics. The Constitutional Court, Senate and State Audit Commission are technically independent and non-partisan bodies.
Respected former Thai ambassador to the UN Asda Jayanama, in an anti-Thaksin rally, claimed that Thaksin's two state visits to India were made in order to negotiate a satellite deal for Thaksin's family-owned Shin Corporation. The accusation was countered by Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon.[123]
Thaksin's government has been accused of exerting political influence in its crackdown on unlicensed community radio stations.[124]
Thaksin has also been accused of being superstitious. His supporters have countered that he is in fact jestful.[125]
Thaksin often faced harsh comparisons. Social critic Prawase Wasi compared him to AIDS, Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda and Senator Banjerd Singkaneti compared him to Hitler, Democrat spokesman Ong-art Klampaibul compared him to Saddam Hussein, and the newspaper The Nation compared him to Pol Pot.[126][127][128]
Thaksin has been engaged in a series of lawsuits against American businessman William L Monson regarding a cable-television joint venture the two partnered in during the 1980s.
[edit] Political crisis of 2005-2006
See also: Thailand political crisis 2005-2006
[edit] Accusations by Sondhi Limthongkul
The political crisis was catalyzed by several accusations published by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, a former Thaksin supporter. These included accusations that Thaksin:
- Committed lèse-majesté against the King
- Usurped the Royal powers of the King (see Temple of the Emerald Buddha incident)
- Restricted press freedom by suing Sondhi after Sondhi printed a sermon by a controversial monk (see Luang Ta Maha Bua incident)
- Masterminded the desecration of the Erawan shrine (see Phra Phrom Erawan Shrine incident)
[edit] Sale of Shin Corporation
Main article: Sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek HoldingsOn January 23, 2006, the Shinawatra family sold their entire stake in Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings. The Shinawatra and Damapong families netted about 73 billion baht (about US$1.88 billion) tax-free from the sale, using a regulation that individuals who sell shares on the stock exchange pay no capital gains tax.[129]
The Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the transaction. "The investigation concluded that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his daughter Pinthongta are clear from all wrongdoing", said SEC secretary-general Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala on February 23, 2006.[130] However, the SEC did find that Thaksin's son, Panthongtae, committed minor infractions with regard to information disclosure and public tender offers in transactions between 2000 and 2002. He was fined 6 million THB (about 150,000USD).[131] Allegations of insider trading by other Shinawatra family members, Shin Corporation Corp executives, and major shareholders were also investigated. No irregularities were found. In 2006, Revenue Department director-general Sirot Sawadpanish testified to the military junta Assets Examination Committee that the sale was not taxable.[132]
The transaction made the Prime Minister the target of accusations that he was selling an asset of national importance to a foreign entity, and hence selling out his nation. The Democrat party spokesman compared him to Saddam Hussein: "Saddam, though a brutal tyrant, still fought the superpower for the Iraqi motherland".[133]
Supporters, however, counter that Thailand's mobile phone industry is highly competitive, and that little criticism was raised when the Norwegian firm Telenor acquired the country's second largest mobile operator. There was also no criticism when Temasek-owned DBS bought a large stake in Siam Commercial Bank (majority owned by King Bhumibol Adulyadej). Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva had earlier criticized Thaksin for not sufficiently opening up the Thai telecom sector to foreigners. Democrat Party deputy leader Korn Chatikavanij noted "I have always said Shin [Corporation] was safer in Singapore hands than in Thaksin's hands".[134] Supporters further counter that the complete sale of Shin Corporation by the Shinawatra-Damapong families had been a long-standing demand of some public groups,[135] as it would allow Thaksin to undertake his duties as Prime Minister without accusation of conflicts of interest.
[edit] Anti-Thaksin and pro-Thaksin rallies
See also: Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 Thaksin faced pressure to resign following the sale of Shin Corporation to Temasek Holdings.
Anti-Thaksin protestors, led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), consisted mainly of middle-class Bangkokians. They also included prominent socialites (dubbed the "Blue Blood Jet Set" by the Bangkok Post) and members of the Thai royal family.[136]
Media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul was a prominent leader of the protests. These were joined by academics, students, supporters of the controversial Santi Asoke Buddhist sect (led by Thaksin's former mentor Chamlong Srimuang) and followers of the controversial monk Luang Ta Maha Bua. State enterprise employees opposed to privatization followed, even though most EGAT employees had supported privatization in early 2005. Protestors camped out for months outside Government House.
The protests were divisive. The controversial Dharmakaya Buddhist sect came out in support of Thaksin. Massive pro-Thaksin rallies were held in Bangkok and several provinces, including a Bangkok rally where an estimated 200,000 attended.[137]
King Bhumibol's Privy Council President asked protestors to seek a peaceful resolution to the situation.[138] In response to Sondhi Limthongkul's "We Fight For the King" battle-cry, Supreme Commander General Ruengroj Mahasaranond said "Rivals should not involve the monarch in their quarrels".[139]
On 14 January 2006, hundreds of protestors headed by Sondhi Limthongkul, former senator Pratin Santiprapop, Klanarong Chantik, and Democrat MP Kalaya Sophonpanich stormed into Government House at half past midnight, overwhelming security forces. They occupied the building for twenty minutes before regrouping outside and continuing their protest.[140]
On 4 February 2006, Thaksin said in an interview that if the King even whispered for him to resign, he would. That very evening, Sondhi spoke at an anti-Thaksin rally, saying, "Where is the army? This talk is enough to bring Thaksin to the execution post." At 9pm that evening, Sondhi visited the Bureau of the Royal Household to petition Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda to remove Thaksin from the position of Prime Minister. The Bureau's offices were still open to receive his petition.[141]
[edit] House dissolution and the April 2006 Legislative Election
Main article: Thailand legislative election, April 2006
[edit] House dissolution
Thaksin announced a House dissolution on 24 February 2006, in a bid to end the political crisis. General elections were scheduled for 2 April. In his weekly radio address following the announcement of his decision, the prime minister promised a series of new populist measures, including an increase in the minimum wage and debt relief for farmers.[142] The opposition Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon parties announced a boycott of the election on 27 February.
Thaksin was criticized for calling the snap elections. In an editorial, The Nation noted that the election "fails to take into consideration a major fallacy of the concept [of democracy], particularly in a less-developed democracy like ours, in which the impoverished, poorly informed masses are easily manipulated by people of his ilk. And Thaksin's manipulation has been well documented.."[143]
[edit] Anti-Thaksin protestors call for royal intervention
On March 24, 2006 in front of a rally of 50,000,[144] Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva demanded that Thaksin resign and asked for the King Bhumibol to appoint a replacement.[144] The People's Alliance for Democracy's (PAD), the Law Society of Thailand, and the Press Council of Thailand also called for royal intervention.[145][146]
The King himself on 26 April dismissed the notion, saying that such an action would be unconstitutional. "Asking for a Royally appointed prime minister is undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational."[147]
[edit] Election results
Thaksin's TRT Party won a victory in the boycotted elections, with 462 seats in Parliament with ratio of voters to no-voters of 16-10.[148]
However, by-elections were needed for 40 TRT candidates (mostly from the Democrat-dominated south) who failed to win the minimum required 20% in an uncontested vote.[149][150] The Democrat Party refused to contest the by-elections[149] and, along with the People's Alliance for Democracy, petitioned the Central Administrative Court to cancel them.[151] Chamlong Srimuang declared that the PAD would ignore the elections and "go on rallying until Thaksin resigns and Thailand gets a royally-appointed prime minister".[152]
[edit] By-elections
Boycotted by-elections in 40 constituencies on 25 April resulted in the TRT winning 25 of the constituencies and losing in 2 constituencies. Yet another round of by-elections on 29 April was scheduled for 13 constituencies. The Thai Rak Thai Party was later accused of hiring smaller parties to contest the election, while the Democrat Party was later accused of hiring smaller parties to not contest the election. According to the 1997 Constitution, uncontested election winners must win at least 20% of registered voters. These by-elections were suspended by the Constitution Court while it deliberated whether or not to disqualify the elections.
[edit] Invalidation of the April elections
In a speech on 25 April, King Bhumibol urged the judiciary to find a way out of the political crisis. In 8 May 2006, the Constitutional Court ruled 8-6 to invalidate the April elections based on the awkward positioning of voting booths. The ruling was called a landmark case in judicial activism.[153]The Democrat Party, which had boycotted the April elections, said they were now ready to contest a October election.[154]
A new election was ordered, later set for 15 October. The Court pressured the Election Commissioners to resign. However, when they did not, the Court found them guilty of malfeance in their management of the April election and jailed them. The 15 October election was cancelled when the military seized power on 19 September.
[edit] After the April 2006 election
[edit] Thaksin proposes reconciliatory panel
On 3 April 2006, Thaksin Shinawatra appeared on television to declare victory in the 2006 election, propose a government of national unity, and proposed the creation of an independent reconciliatory commission to decide whether he should remain Prime Minister.[155][156] The Democrat Party and the PAD immediately rejected the reconciliation panel. "It's too late for national reconciliation", said Chamlong Srimuang.[157]
[edit] Break from politics
After an audience with King Bhumipol, Thaksin announced on April 4, 2006 that he would not accept the post of Prime Minister after the Parliament reconvenes, but would continue as Caretaker Prime Minister until then.[158]
"My main reason for not accepting the post of prime minister is because this year is an auspicious year for the king, whose 60th anniversary on the throne is just 60 days away...I want all Thais to reunite", said Thaksin in a nationally televised speech.[159]
He then delegated his functions to Caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Wannasathit, moved out of Government House, and went on vacation.
Thaksin's announcement provoked mixed reactions. A Bangkok poll taken 3 weeks after Thaksin's announcement found that TRT policies were still overwhelmingly popular in Bangkok, with 54% preferring TRT policies versus 8% for the Democrats.[160]
However, a poll conducted in late May found that only 43% percent of Bangkokians wanted Thaksin back as premier while 57% percent believed Thaksin should not return as prime minister. But in the other 20 provinces surveyed in the same poll, 55% percent of respondents favored Thaksin's return as prime minister while 45% percent were opposed.[161]
The Democrat Party at first welcomed the decision and promised to cooperate to resolve the political crisis. However, they continued their boycott of the April 2006 by-elections. In a celebration on 7 April, PAD leaders announced their new goal was the eradication of the "Thaksin regime".[162][163] and subsequently formed the Mass Party.[164] The Law Society of Thailand filed a suit with the Supreme Administrative Court, later rejected, alleging that Thaksin's leave was illegal[165][166][167]
Thaksin returned to work on 19 May 2006, in the wake of the Constitutional Court's nullification of the April elections and catastrophic flooding in the North.[168] However, political tension remained high. On 22 May, Pairoj Vongvipanon, former dean of the Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, warned Thaksin of assassination: "Thaksin must be careful or else he might be killed. Don't think that assassinations cannot occur in Thailand."[169]
[edit] "Finland Plan" controversy and the "charismatic individual"
Main article: Finland PlotOn the eve of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's 60th anniversary celebrations, the Manager newspaper and website published several articles on the "Finland Plan",[170][171][172][173] an alleged conspiracy designed by Thaksin and other Thai Rak Thai co-founders aimed at overthrowing the King and seizing control of the country.[174][175][176] Evidence substantiating the existence of such a conspiracy has never been presented in public. After seizing power, the military junta refused to investigate any of the claims.
Democrat Party deputy secretary-general Thaworn Senniam (Thai: ถาวร เสนเนียม) commented that the Finland Plan was "obviously true".[177] In retaliation, Thaksin and the TRT sued the owner of the Manager daily Sondhi Limthongkul, its editor, a columnist and two executives for libel.[178] The Finland Plan accusations were strongly criticized by some in the media for baselessly inflaming hatred.[179]
On 29 June 2006, Thaksin noted that the political crisis was aggravated "because charismatic people and some organisations outside those sanctioned by the Constitution are trying to overthrow the government, rules and laws, Constitution and democracy."[180] This prompted speculation that the unnamed "charismatic individual" he was referring to was either royal Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda or King Bhumibol Adulyadej.[181] Any criticism of the King is illegal and highly frowned upon by the Thai public. Thaksin refused to clarify his remarks, provoking fierce criticism.
[edit] August 2006 car bomb
On 24 August 2006, a car containing 67 kilograms of explosives was stopped near Thaksin's residence in Thonburi. Metropolitan Police Bureau Commissioner Lt-General Wiroj Jantharangsee noted that the explosives in the car were completely assembled, equipped with a remote unit sensor and ready to be detonated, and would have a blast radius of around one kilometre.[182] Pol Major Kamthorn Ooycharoen, head of the police bomb-disposal squad at the scene, also noted that the bomb was live and ready for detonation.[183] The bomb was composed of sticks TNT, M-8 military fuses, TNT, C4 plastic explosives, a remote control unit, and nine plastic containers containing ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO).[184][185] The car was driven by Lieutenant Thawatchai Klinchana, former personal chauffeur of Pallop Pinmanee, Deputy Director of Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC). Police found that the car had left ISOC headquarters earlier that morning.[186] Thawatchai was immediately arrested and Pallop was released from his position.
Pallop denied all involvement, noting that "If had wanted to do it, I would have done it more subtly...In my career, I have lead death squads. If I had wanted to kill him, the Prime Minister would not have escaped."[187][188][189] He also claimed that "the explosives were being transported, they were not assembled to be detonated."[190] Government critics claimed that the car bomb was a government conspiracy.[191] Five army officers were later arrested for their role in the plot.[192] Three officers, including Thawatchai, were released after the military overthrew the Thaksin government.[193]
[edit] September 2006 Coup
Main article: 2006 Thailand coup d'étatIn the evening of 19 September 2006, while Thaksin was visiting New York City, USA to attend a United Nations summit and to speak at the Council on Foreign Relations, a military junta took control of Bangkok. Inside Government House, close to 50 soldiers ordered approximately 220 policemen in the complex to lay down their weapons. Troops also surrounded the Thaicom satellite receiving station and state-run television station Channel 11. By the morning of 20 September, tanks and military vehicles armed with machine guns were stationed at Government House, the Royal Plaza and government units along Rajdamnoen Avenue.[194]
Troops participating in the coup were from the 1st and 3rd Army Regions, the Internal Security Operations Command, the Special Warfare Centre and Army units in Nakhon Ratchasima and Prachin Buri provinces and sections of the Navy.[195] According to coup leader Army Commander General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the coup leaders had arrested Deputy Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit and Defense Minister Thammarak Isaragura na Ayuthaya.[196] Troops who refused to take part in the coup took mainly a neutral stance and did nothing to prevent the coup.
The military, originally calling itself the Council for Democratic Reform under the Constitutional Monarch (CDRM), issued a statement citing the government's alleged lèse majesté, corruption, interference with state agencies, and creation of social divisions as reasons for the coup.[197] It declared the king of Thailand the head of state, and said elections will be held soon to return democracy to the country. Shinawatra later arrived in Britain, where he has family and are currently staying at the Dorchester Hotel in London.
[edit] Aftermath of the coup
After the coup, Thaksin remained a controversial figure. Despite being in exile and having all mention of him censored by all television stations, he still retained significant popularity among the public. All websites showing any support for Thaksin were shut down or blocked by the junta.[198] A public opinion poll released by Bangkok University on 26 December 2006 showed he was ranked as the third most admired person in Thailand, behind General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont.[199]
[edit] Thai Rak Thai party
Many Thai Rak Thai party members were reported to have resigned from the party in the aftermath of the coup. These included Somsak Thepsuthin and 100 members of the Wang Nam Yom faction. It was not clear whether Suriya Jungrungreangkit, another influential member of the faction would also resign. Sonthaya Kunplome also was reported to have led 20 members of the Chonburi faction in resigning from the party. Fear that the party would be dissolved by the junta and its members banned from politics fueled the defections.[200][201]
On 2 October 2006 Thaksin Shinawatra and his former deputy Somkid Jatusipitak resigned from the Thai Rak Thai Party.[202][203] Chaturon Chaisang took over as party head. Chaturon later claimed that Thaksin called him and told him that he would stop his political activities.[204] On 2 February, junta-chief Sonthi Boonyaratkalin noted that the TRT would probably be dissolved.[205]
Meanwhile, court cases against the Thai Rak Thai and Democrat parties regarding election fraud in the April 2006 elections continued. In February 2007 witnesses in the case told the Constitution Tribunal that Election Commission investigators forced them to frame the TRT. Boonchoo Soonsuwan, an MP candidate for the Thai Ground Party, testified that he didn't personally know Trairong Intaratat and Phadungsak Klansanoh (both figures close to TRT leaders) but EC panel members, including Police Captain Manoon Wichiennit, told him to say they did and promised they would protect him. Fandy Pasu, another candidate for the Thai Ground Party, also testified that the EC forced him to lie. Both men had previously told the EC that Trairong and Phadungsak hired to run in the April 2006 legislative election.[206]
[<A title="Edit section: 2006 Bangkok New Year's Eve bombings" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thaksin_Shinawatra&action=edit§ion=45">edit] 2006 Bangkok New Year's Eve bombings
Main article: 2006 Bangkok bombingsOn 31 December 2006 and 1 January 2007, several bombs exploded in Bangkok. Thaksin later went on CNN to deny any involvement in the bombings.[207]
[edit] Travels
The junta repeatedly warned Thaksin from returning to Thailand.[208] Thaksin travelled to China and attempted to meet military-appointed Premier Surayud Chulanont, who was in China for the ASEAN-China Summit. However, Surayud refused to meet him.[209] Surayud later denied Thaksin the opportunity to return to Thailand to contest in elections, and said that the appropriate time for him to return would be "after a year", when a newly elected government was already in place.[210] In April 2007, during an interview where reporters asked Premier Surayud what he would say to Thaksin if he could meet him in person, Surayud responded, "I would say please don't ever come back."[211]
Thaksin was assaulted while eating at a Thai restaurant in London. A Thai woman threw a glass at him - it was not known whether he was injured.[212]
His diplomatic passport was revoked in 31 December 2006 after the junta accused him of engaging in political activities while in exile. Thai embassies were ordered not to facilitate his travels. Traditionally, all former prime ministers and foreign ministers of Thailand were permitted to hold on to their diplomatic passport for life.[213]
In a subsequent trip to Russia to receive an honourary degree in science from the Plehanov Academy of Economics, Thaksin's passport and suitcase were stolen when he was eating at a McDonalds. The Thai Embassy in Moscow was willing to provide him a new travel document.[214]
In January, Thaksin visited Singapore and had a personal meeting with S. Jayakumar, Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister. The Singapore government claimed the meeting was purely social and private. However, the Thai military government withdrew an invitation to Singapore's foreign minister to visit Thailand, cancelled a civil servant exchange program, and reviewed Singapore's use of Thai territory for military training exercises. Junta-head Sonthi later announced that the mobile phone calls of junta leaders were being bugged by the Singapore government.[215] During the Singapore trip, Thaksin also gave an interview to CNN, in which he announced that he was quiting politics. He also denied the junta's accusation that he was behind the 2006 Bangkok bombings. The interview was censored in Thailand, as were interviews with the Asian Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Economist, and Time.[216] Junta leader Sonthi Boonyaratkalin claimed to the Thai public that Thaksin insulted and was disrespectful to King Bhumibol and the royal family in his interviews.[217][218]
Speaking before a group of 1,000 local politicians and government officials in February, junta assistant secretary general Saprang Kalayanamitr noted, "The traitor is slated to be banished to live forever in the jungle because there is no place in society for a deceitful politician." Although he did not mention Thaksin's name, the media assumed he was referring to Thaksin.[219]
[edit] Legal charges
The junta established several bodies to investigate criminal charges against Thaksin and members of his deposed government. As of November 2006, none of the bodies had concluded their investigations or found substantial evidence of corruption, despite offers of immunity for potential witnesses.[220] As of March 2007, the bodies failed to reveal evidence of wrongdoing to the public, although they did cite findings from initial investigations that concluded that Thaksin violated the law.[221] All charges of lèse majesté against Thaksin were dropped by public prosecuters.[222]
In January 2007, the Financial Institutions Development Fund complied with an Assets Examination Committee request to file a charge against Thaksin and his wife over their purchase of four 772 million baht plots of land from the FIDF in 2003. The charge was based on alleged violation of Article 100 of the National Counter Corruption Act, which specificies that government officials and their spouses are prohibited from entering into or having interests in contracts made with state agencies under their authorisation. However, Article 4 of the Act indicates that persons committing malfeasance must be direct supervisors of the damaged party - in this case, the FIDF. At the time, Bank of Thailand Governor Pridiyathorn Devakula directly supervised the FIDF, not Thaksin.[223] Article 29 of the Bank of Thailand Act of 1942 stated that the Prime Minister did not have jurisdiction to oversee the FIDF, because those managing the fund had sole authority for policies, control, oversight and regulations governing the agency.[224] Pridiyathorn's testimony to the court occurred in secret - Thaksin's legal team was not allowed in the room. The FIDF later noted that the land was sold to the Shinawatras at a price greater than its appraised value.[225]
The Assets Examination Committee also accused Thaksin of issuing an unlawful cabinet resolution approving the spending of state funds to buy rubber saplings. However, it did not accuse him of corruption.[221]
In March 2007, the Office of the Attorney-General charged Thaksin's wife and brother-in-law of conspiring to evade taxes of 546 million baht (US$15.6 million) in a 1997 transfer of Shin Corp shares. At the time, the Shinawatra family had asked for advice from the Revenue Department on the matter and were told that they were not liable for taxes. The advice was given by tax official Bencha Louischaroen, and was repeated two top colleagues testifying before a Senate investigation panel as well as department head Sirot Sawasdipanich. The junta found Sirot guilty of malfeasance.[226]
The Assets Examination Committee rule that Thaksiin was guilty of malfeasance for obstructing competition by passing an executive decree that imposed an excise tax for telecom operators. Thaksin's Cabinet approved an executive decree in 2003 that forced telecom operators to pay an excise tax of 10% on revenues for mobile phone operations, and 2% for fixed-line operations. Amounts paid in excise taxes could be deducted from concession fees that the operators had to pay to state-owned telecom operators. Most operators had to pay a concession fee of 25% of revenues; however, the 1997 Constitution stipulated that Thaksin-founded Advanced Info Services was exempted from the concession fee because it was founded before the 1997 Constitution was promulgated. The AEC ruled that the executive decree obstructed free competition in the telecom sector. [227]
[edit] Post-coup criticisms
Thaksin came under harsh criticism from a variety of fronts in the months after the coup. In April 2007, it was revealed that the junta had paid several politicians and academics to discredit the deposed premier. The chief contractor of the campaign was Chienchuang Kalayanamitr, brother of vocal Thaksin critic General Saprang Kalayanamitr. Politicians hired to criticize Thaksin included Chat Pattana party leader Korn Dabbaransi, Democrats Korn Chatikavanij, Alongkorn Palabutr and Korbsak Sabavasu, Prapat Panya-chatraksa, a key Thai Rak Thai member who defected to the Chat Thai party, plus ex-senator Kraisak Choonhavan. Academics hired by the CNS included Wuttipong Piebjriya-wat, Sophon Supapong, Narong Phet-prasert, and Somkiat Osotspa.[228]
After a bomb was exploded outside of Chitrlada Palace in early May 2007, junta leader Sonthi Boonratkalin claimed that the "old power group", a common euphamisn for the Thaksin-government, was behind it.[229]
[edit] Post-coup actions
[edit] February 2007 statement on Australian television
Thaksin gave an interview during a brief visit to Australia. It was broadcast on Australia's public broadcaster ABC on 13 February 2007 during the program "Foreign Correspondent"[230]. Thaksin has been travelling the world, playing golf, shopping, hiring a public relations firm, and investing in real estate.
Thaksin stated that he is not planning to return to Thailand in the near future. "I’m not considering going back yet because I have to worry about my safety and I also should not add any more confusion to the situation in Thailand now."
Thaksin insisted that he is not engaged in international lobbying against the military junta running Thailand. And though he wants the country to return to democracy, he’s finished with politics forever. "You will not see me in politics, not just the next generation, but for life. I want to devote myself to charitable activities and some kind of research."
Mr Thaksin says the military have no reason to fear him and he struck a distinctly conciliatory tone with the men who tossed him out of power. "I would urge everybody concerned not to worry about me. I’m not going to create any problems as a former PM. I’m mature enough, I have to be very constructive for my country. I have to be sure that anything I say might have an impact on my own country."
[edit] Professional Golf Association of Thailand leadership
On 30 April 2007, the Professional Golf Association of Thailand (PGAT) elected Thaksin to be the new president of the organization. Outgoing president Pongsak Ruktapongpisal, who had met Thaksin while he was visiting Beijing, noted that Thaksin had two messages for PGAT members. "First, he intends to wash his hands of politics. Second, he plans to use some of his money from the Thai Com Foundation, which has approximately Bt2 billion in its coffers, to help improve education and sports," said Pongsak. When asked how Thaksin would run the association while in exile, Pongsak said a team would be set up on Thaksin's behalf to run his policies.[231]
[edit] Bid to buy Manchester City Football Club
In early May 2007, there were widespread reports that Thaksin was on the verge of taking over Manchester City Football Club. The People cited a possible purchase price of 100 million pounds, while The Sunday Mirror reported a price of 130 million pounds. The Sunday Mirror also reported that Thaksin planned to approach to Parma coach Claudio Ranieri to replace Stuart Pearce. Pearce's leadership had led to poor performances by the team during the 2006-07 season, where it had scored only 10 home goals, a record low in top flight English football history.[232][233]
[edit] May 2007 statement on Thai radio
Thaksin made his first post-coup statement on Thai broadcast media when he called in to a Bangkok community radio station on 16 May 2007. The interview was relayed to Confidante Radio, Saturday Voice against Dictatorship and Taxi Driver Community Radio. In the unannounced 15 minute call, Thaksin urged quick elections and said the junta did not have to worry about him as he would not travel near the region. He also expressed concern over the scaling down of government scholarships and urged needy children to contact the Thaicom Foundation. He also enquired after people's well being after a 6.1-magnitude earthquake was felt earlier in the day. "They (The junta) get scared all the time, although I have done everything as an ordinary citizen. I just want to tell them that they don't need to be paranoid. The best way to win people's trust is to come up with good work. The more they are paranoid, the more they will lose," he said.
In January 2007, the junta had issued a specific warning to Thai broadcasters not to carry statements by Thaksin.[234] The day after Thaksin's phone call, officials from the junta, the Public Relations Department (PRD), and the Internal Security Operations Command raided the community radio station. The station then went off the air. Bavorn Techa-in, chief of the National Broadcasting Commission, said the station had been set up unlawfully, but denied to the Bangkok Post that there was any order to shut down the station. However, The Nation reported that Bavorn told the station director to go off the air. PRD Director-General Pramote Ratvinij said in an interview that he ordered his officials to "punish" the station for undermining national security. Two station employees were arrested and charged with operating without a licence, a crime that carried a maximum sentence of five years in jail and/or a 100,000 baht (US$2,860) fine.[235][236][237][238] The day after the shutdown, the junta launched a crackdown on some 3,000 community radio stations across the kingdom. "The Public Relations Department is checking content on every community radio station to see whether it violates our national security," noted the PRD Deputy Director General.[239] The crackdown silenced every broadcaster found to be criticising the government, and was the the biggest censorship blitz since the September 2006 coup.[240][241] Numerous anti-junta and anit-coup websites were also shut down.[242]
[edit] Dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai Party
On 30 May 2007, a junta-appointed Constitutional Tribunal dissolved the Thai Rak Thai Party and banned over 100 of its executives, including Thaksin, from politics for 5 years. The ruling was based on charges that two Thai Rak Thai party executives (Defense Minister Thammarak Issarangkura na Ayudhya and Pongsak Raktapongpaisarn) bribed a smaller party to stand in the April 2006 election. One of the judges was quoted as saying the Tribunal would “apply the spirit ” of the coup-makers in making their rulings. The Tribunal ruled unanimously on the guilt of the two, despite the fact that it found that the alleged amount of money paid was so small it didn't make sense, video evidence had been edited, and that there was no evidence that anyone actually received the money. The Tribunal admitted that circumstantial evidence was key to determine whether the party's guilt. The party was banned for breaching sections 66(2) and section 66(3) of the 1998 Organic Act on Political Parties, namely "an act which may be adverse to the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under the Constitution" and "an act which may endanger the security of the State, or may be contrary to law or public order or good morals or democratic regime of government." Applying a junta ruling declared after the April 2006 election, the Tribunal handed down a 6-3 verdict banning the entire TRT executive team from politics for five years.[243][244][245][246]
In the letter read to the public by his lawyer in Bangkok, Thaksin wrote, "I, as the founder and leader of the party up until the coup, apologise to all party members, executives and supporters that met with this unexpected fate... As party leader, I humbly accept the ruling and I want to urge the CNS and government to hold general elections as soon as possible."[247][248] However, the junta's Internal Security Operations Command claimed that more than 5,000 Thai Rak Thai supporters were expected to rally at Sanam Luang on the afternoon of the 31st.[249] Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva criticized the ban, saying, “If that actually happens, I believe the elections will be somewhat meaningless. Politically, it is a bad idea. You are depriving people of choice.”[250]
Commentators were mostly critical of the ruling. "The verdict on Wednesday was the conclusion of the two-year battle for political power. If the 19 September coup d'etat was aimed at toppling Thaksin, then the last chapter the coup makers," said political historian Thamrongsak Petchlert-anan. Pitch Pongsawat, of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science, said the ruling was "rule by law" - rather than the "rule of law". Law professor Prasit Piva-vatthanapanich, of Thammasat University, said that five-year ban was "too much" and doubted if the rule of law existed in Thailand as the judgement was based on the order issued by the Council for National Security. However, scholar Chaiyan Chaiyaporn defended the ruling, saying, "I don't think the coup totally destroyed democracy."[251] Political scientist Thitinan Pongsudhirak noted of the verdict, "It appears as though the law in Thailand is more about political configurations and power dynamics rather than justice. Justice just depends on who has the power."[252] The verdict was criticized by the Asian Human Rights Commission, which called it a "farce" which "caused immense damage to already diminished judicial institutions, with far-reaching consequences."[253] On the morning of the Tribunal's ruling, junta leader Sonthi Boonyaratklin met with Tribunal judge Ackaratorn Chularat. Sonthi later denied that he lobbied the Constitution Tribunal to ban the Thai Rak Thai executive team.[254]
[edit] Miscellaneous
- In January 2006, Thaksin staged Back Stage Show: The Prime Minister, a reality show about his work on solving poverty in Amphoe At Samat, Roi Et Province.
- Thaksin is commonly referred to by the press and his critics as "Na Liam" (Thai: หน้าเหลี่ยม - "square face") and "Maeo" (Thai: แม้ว - a derogatory term for the Hmong people).
- In Chinese-language media, Thaksin's name is given either as Qiu Daxin (丘达新; pinyin: Qiū Dáxīn), or Taxin (他信). Qiu is the surname of Thaksin's great grandfather and Daxin is a transliteration of Thaksin. The Chinese Wikipedia article on Thaksin uses the name "塔信·欽那瓦", which is a direct transliteration of Thaksin's Thai name.
- During his tenure as a doctoral student at Sam Houston State University between 1975-78, Thaksin worked at Burger King and got up every morning at 3 a.m. to deliver the Houston Chronicle newspaper.[255]
[edit] See also
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Thaksin Shinawatra- List of Prime Ministers of Thailand
- Thailand political crisis 2005-2006
- Thaksin Get Out
- Thaksinomics
- Sondhi Limthongkul
- People's Alliance for Democracy
- Constitution of Thailand
[edit] Notes
- <LI id=_note-0>
[edit] External links
- Thaksin Shinawatra’s official website, in Thai
- Short biography at the website of the Thai embassy to the USA
- Thaksinomics
- Screenshots of Thaksin in Back Stage Show, a reality show
- High tension in Thailand - a chronology of events in the political crisis of 2005-2006
- (English) NewMandala, some good up-to-date commentary on Thaksin and the coup.
- Thaksin's 15 January 2007 interview on CNN, censored by the military junta
- Satire: "Mr T" interview
Chuan LeekpaiPrime Minister of Thailand
2001–2006Succeeded by
-
Seems like there's been a lot of misinformation getting passed around over this issue of amnesty. Need to go back and trace these articles from their source as Sonthi never initiated the proposals and says he was misquoted in reports attributing the idea to him. Instead, it came from various NLA members.
"Gen Sonthi, according to a source, said a certain individual, whom he refused to name, had recommended the amnesty idea to him. Could the amnesty idea be the CNS' response to a verdict which defied its expectations?" BKKPost
"For the sake of national reconciliation, I support the idea of giving them amnesty," Sonthi said. "The CNS as a whole agrees with the idea," Sonthi said, referring to the Council for National Security, as the coup leaders call themselves." Channel 11 television Interview
"Surayud said Council for National Security's chief Gen Sonthi Bunyaratglin raised the idea with him during a meeting on Saturday morning.
"He asked me whether it is ok if he told the public about it. I told him that it is fine because it is still an idea and his own idea," Surayud said in a news talk television program.
I went back and traced.... Sounds to me like it was General S who initiated the idea or possibly after someone who he would not name whispered it to him. He came out with it on TV11 in an interview, it's hard to be misquoted when they have it on tape.
there is only one person with this much influence.....
...who has nothing to do with the rumour of amnesty.
And how do you know that? You seem to like to make various sweeping, higly biased statements without ever bothering to justify them. Whether several members of TRT be pardoned or not, is really of no importance. The major damage is done by dissolution of TRT and nobody in current leadreshio seem to question that.
What is important here is a clear rift between CNS and Sirayut.
I presume. Sirayut is gone within a couple of weeks. Though on the surface he is against the pardon and Sohnti initiated it, in reality that would be bad for any chance of having elections as scheduled and probably will mean further strengthening of junta.
-
The fallacy is to think that Thaksin would have let it go. It would have been exactly the same as Stalin consolidated his power, jailed or killed his internal party oppostion, and eventually turned the country into Gulag.
That is a big pile of paranoid rubbish.
He would have had ample time to do all you alleged, but he didn't. Compare him with Berlusconi, or even Bush, but please, get a grip on reality.
He was elected PM for 5 years. He did extend more than a few democratic rules, but what you accuse him of here is absolutely baseless and counter any study even highly critical of him, even exceeds the idiotic Finland declaration conspiracy.
I'm not accusing him of anything, certainly not on a scale of Stalin, I'm making comparisons. Once Stalin had a taste of power, nothing and nobody could stand in his way. There were some decent people among his peers even by western standards but he left no prisoners, everyone had to go.
Many of TRT's original party founders have left competely disillusioned, too. Take this Purachai, he used to be TRT no 2 and then got unceremoniously fired and exiled to New Zealand. Not quite like Stalin's purges, but the principle is the same.
There's no denying that Thaksin didn't allow anyone within his party to appear as equal to him and it was pointed out many times.
If you don't like comparison to communists of Russia, how about any other communists regime - when did they ever allow any political challenge to their rule?
Never.
Thaksin clearly stated that he wanted TRT to rule for twenty years at least without any serious opposition. What makes you think he would change his mind?
You really should brush up on your history before making such comical comparisons. Stalin did in the civil war head some of the most brutal militias, responsible for uncounted deaths and genocide already then.
Thaksin managed cleverly the many different factions of powerful vested interests that stood behind TRT, by playing each other out against each other, and making concessions when needed. Your fallacy is that you believe that TRT was a monolithic structure led by the fuhrer principle, or similar to one of the communist regimes gone insane.
people trying to compare thaksin to stalin or mao truly astound me. communism in the last century has to be one the biggest failures in history. in their attempt to convert everybody to communism, the communists in the last century killed over 100+ million people.
thaksin is an angel compared to hitler, stalin or mao.
In his blind and paranoidal hate to khun Thaksin, Plus fails to see the obvious: Thaksin tried to steer Thailand towards Singapore model.
Of course, Singapore is not exactly the democracy. But if you ask me where I would prefer to live: in "democratic " Iraq or "totalitarian" Singapore, you can easily guess my answer.
-
Well that's good news. Purachai was always very popular, and is widely recognized for being tough on corruption. Not sure if he could get an actual party together as massive as TRT.
Wasn't Purachai the idiot who tried to rush through all the social order campaigns including shutting all nightlife down by 10pm?
Soundman.
Purachai is far from an idiot, but he is known to be highly inflexible which in the past has caused him difficulties with other party members.
Irrespective of his actual intellect, to try & push through a radical law that will only create an illegal industry (industries) that service public discontent is absolute idiocy & lunacy.
Soundman.
Whether we agree with his policies or not his name does come up more and more now that many he didn't get along with were among the banned 111. Still, going forward his political future will depend on his ability to be flexible and historically, this hasn't been one of his strong suits. Personally, I hope he fades, but probably that won't be the case.
Purachai is an absolute jerk uncapable of doing any concrete job. He has no future in Thai politics.
-
Indeed, amnesty seems very strange just a few days after the ruling. Something fishy going on that has nothing to do with reconciliation, maybe renumeration.
It is all very simple. General Sonthi is navigating his way to PM position.
Would you want to retire in three month if you have basically unlimited power? And are guys ever stop talking about court decision and other bulshit? General Sonthi is currently in charge. He decides. All other stuff is just pure decorations.
-
Hey, just thought I'd give my 2(or maybe more) cents worth. I hope people aren't annoyed by my rehashing of so many of the events of the past 7 years in my post.
I'm surprised to hear all of the support for Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. It seems very clear that he was undemocratic and corrupt on a vast scale, and a huge human rights violator. I'm pleased with this verdict.
Since day one he should never have been allowed to hold office. In 2001, he clearly violated the rules of the Assets Examination Committee. The only reason he was able to hold office was that a number of the members abrogated their duty as one of the checks and balances of democracy and abstained from voting out of a misguided desire to not go against the results of the election when their votes would have ruled him out of holding office.
Thaksin consistently said that he had no respect for democracy and was in favor of a more dictatorial style of rule, with his CEO style of management. He clearly wanted to set himself up as the head of a parliamentary dictatorship like his friends, the Lees, ran in Singapore. He only held himself of as a the light of democracy in Thailand when it was clear that the middle class and political elite had turned against him with his massively corrupt and self interested governance of the country. If things are to be believed, the military only struck first the day before TRT supporters were to attack a massive PAD rally, which Thaksin would use as a pretext for passing an emergency decree. It seemed as if that was eventually the plan with the treatment earlier protestors got from hired security; imagine kicking a 70 year old man in the head in front of Siam Paragon (or was it world trade)
While he was within his rights to call the snap elections, the reason for doing so, to avoid the debate of his hugely corrupt sale of Shin telecom to Temasak, was completely unacceptable. Yes, he wanted to show that he had a mandate to run the country. However, the fact that a huge proportion of the rural poor were willing to accept what he was doing does not make it appropriate or acceptable for a head of state. In my view, the Democrats rightfully boycotted the election. Thaksin went ahead with the election anyway to try and create a one party rubber stamp parliament, hardly the decision of a democratic party or champion of democracy.
Some have said that all politicians are corrupt in Thailand, which is essentially true. However, the corruption under Thaksin was on an unheard of scale and was correctly dubbed industrial corruption due to its huge scale. Imagine-a 2 billion dollar tax free sale of his company, this from a person whose administration had been squeezing the tax baht out of all of his opponents and the middle class. He had said that anyone who uses an offshore company was unpatriotic and then went ahead, and did the same thing to get cash on a huge scale with his sale of Shin. The middle class and Bangkok elite were rightfully outraged.
The charges of electoral fraud against him and the TRT leadership were clearly valid in the case which was used to bar the party. Even before the coup, the Supreme Court's decision against the electoral commission of electoral malfeasance on this same issue made it clear that if TRT was eventually charged with it, they would be found guilty. It was simply a matter of time if Thaksin lost power.
Some have said how well run the country was under Thaksin, but I didn't see that. The human rights abuses under his rule were rampant. Maybe if you were one of the many innocents killed during the war on drugs, you would feel otherwise. The figure during the war on drugs is actually closer to 7-8,000. Two to three thousand were killed in the first phase, and then there were another 5,000 in the second phase, which Thaksin managed to keep out the press, a shocking instance of censorship, an example of which has not even happened under the leadership of this junta(censorship yes, but to hide an action on this scale-I don't think so). This only recently came to light with the end of Thaksin's rule.
Thaksin seems to be the one primarily responsible for the unrest in the South. He was the one who declared that there was no terrorism in the South and dissolved the special administrative region which the army had used to keep the region calm; all because he wanted to promote tourism in Thailand. Then when there was the robbery of an arsenal, he gave the military one week to find the people responsible. He gave the military carte blanche to run around and torture just as he had given the police carte blanche to kill in the war on drugs, a carte blanche which was exacerbated by his deadlines for certain numbers of drug dealers to be "eliminated" within a certain time period, guaranteeing that people who were not drug dealers would be snuffed. He or one of his cronies had the one lawyer who would represent any of these people kidnapped and murdered. His ham handedness fueled the fire of Islamic extremist hatred in the South and made the unrest grow and grow.
His conflict of interest and abuse of power were clearly evident in how he pumped up the value of his company and knocked down all of his competitors. Does anyone remember how Orange was treated? Is it any surprise that he was one of the biggest tax evaders in Thai History? Do people remember how, at the start of his first term, the main state's witnesses in the tax evasion case against Shin Telecom, the accountant whistleblower, was murdered and the police gave every possible reason for his murder except his involvement in the case? The case was quickly dropped and disappeared from the papers. It has since been reopened. Certainly he manipulated the law to make sure that he obeyed all of the legal technicalities, but this conflict of interest should never be allowed in any responsible governance of a democratic country.
It really feels as if Thaksin and all of his accomplices in the TRT leadership have finally gotten their comeuppance. It is important that no elected official is seen to be above the law. In the US Richard Nixon was hugely popular, and won one of the biggest landslide victories in US history against McGovern, but he was still held accountable for his illegal activities. Certainly the Republican Party wasn't banned, but the dissolution of the party and the banning of the execs from political activity is the penalty under Thai law. The 14 or however many million who voted for TRT can still participate in the next elections as can the rest of the TRT party hierarchy, in whatever new party/parties they organize.
It is shame that the rural poor are once again left out in the cold. Let's hope that in the future the person who champions their legitimate needs is not a self-serving demagogue, but someone of real integrity. Interestingly enough, for all the things Thaksin gave them, he did not try to educate them. Under his leadership, the deadline for universal secondary education came and went with nary an attempt to bring it into being. It seemed that he would only give them things which would make them beholden to them and nothing that would truly empower them(remember his campaign tour for his second term when he told people that those provinces which voted against him would be the last to receive any state aid). Maybe if they were educated they could see through his web of deceit, something Thaksin would not have accepted. I believe that in the long run the enormous debt he was giving them would hurt them as well although maybe many of them could not afford the luxury of such long term thinking. Let hope that the Democrats and the elite of Thailand see this as a wake up call and try to do something to help them.
I supported the coup as a necessary evil to remove this blight on the Thai political landscape. Some think that it would have eventually been corrected by the electoral process, but I don't agree. He was intending to fully ensconce himself in power and change all the laws along the way so it would all be legal just as he had been doing all along.
However, I do not support the way the CNS is running the country. I'm really not sure which is worse, and clearly hope that some of the elements of the new constitution are retracted. This decision to make the TRT leadership accountable seems to be a step in the right direction for a better future for Thailand. Corruption and electoral fraud ruin democracies.
I do admit that my knowledge of pre-1998 Thai democratic politics is weak since I did not arrive in the LOS until then and didn't really start to take notice until around 2000.
The problem with posts like yours is that you throw so many things simultaneously that it may impress everyone who has no idea what you
are talking about.
But closer inspection reveals only a bunch of unsubstantiated statements.
I am frankly sick and tired of posts like that and will not analyse it in full detail.
But:
1. The sell of Shin Corp to Temasek was perfectly legal. I have to admit that I am not expert on that but I did discuss it with a number of experts and they assured me that apart of minor technicalities the deal is perfectly legal.
2. To say that Thaksin is responsible for the violence in the South is a total absurd. While you are correctly indicate that he (more precisely Purachai as an interior minister at the time) made initially some mistakes,
he proved to be a fast learner. The statement is completely nonsensical.
In one of my posts above in this thread you may learn about the role of general Sonthi in the situation in the South.
Just because of the post like yours (which summarily execute Thaksin without giving any proof of guilt), I consider the participation in the discussions with certain number of members as a complete waist of time.
-
TRT rule was not what i consider democratic, but it could have been a stepping stone to a people's democracy a few years down the line.
I bet that was what Russians thought when bolsheviks first came to power. Few years down the line dictatorship by the proletariat will end and every one will live happily ever after in a democracy the communists initially promised.
The comparison is valid - both parties relied on underclasses as their political base, both parties run socialist programs, both parties didn't tolerate any dissent, both parties resorted to extreme violence to achieve their political goals, and both parties pitched their voters against the "elites".
TRT's populist platform was written by former Communist Party of Thailand comrades.
I am gob smacked.
Truly at a loss for words with such a ridiculously faulty comparison.
I will go now, the discussion has now moved into the absurdly surreal again.
Thanks for the comic relief.
I have to completely agree with you, Colpyat. It is hardly can be more nonsensical then to call khun Thaksin communist or socialist. Well, I would be very interested to know why so many expats hate Thaksin so much.
I know, I know: early bar closings... but what else?
Very thai.
PAD Lay Siege On Government House, NBT TV Station
in Thailand News
Posted
In my view, the only way to resolve the crisis is to act decisevely against the PAD reactionary mob. Slim manority acts with unprecedented impudence and nobody seems to have stomach to act. PPP should bring activists from Isaan who were able to finish PAD rallies in NorthEstern provinces pretty quickly. PAD should be taught lesson or two. The criminals should be arrested and taken to court. Punishments should be harsh. The longer anarchy and chaos imposed by slim minority continues the more chances of military intervention or worse.
Inability to act is kind of unprecedented here...