jayboy

The fact that Sino-Thai businesses tend to employ family members in the most prominent positions isn't a criticism.It's simply a reality in Thai business life.It is a system that has both strengths and weaknesses.

It has it strengths?

For the family intent of holding onto its power, i can see the advantages, From a purely business point of view though... well let's just say, i'm not sure how many business gurus would be rushing to make a case for promoting staff for reasons beside merit and aptitude.

Yes it certainly does have strengths.It's clear from the last few posts that some members simply don't have knowledge of the Sino-Thai business world.Of course the family business structure has strengths as well as weaknesses, and this has been the subject of a great deal of research.I have already pointed out that family dullards are shunted to peripheral positions, and there is rarely mindless nepotism.One also has to understand that children from these families are educated to be businesslike from an early age.There is also increasingly the tendency to bring in some professional managers from outside but these are rarely at the decision making apex.(Think the management arrangements in the Godfather with the Irish born consigliere.)Certainly there is the very visible but I think quite rare tendency for the rich grandchildren to go off the rails.Remember that in most reasonably sized Sino-Thai businesses the family is usually only a few generations away from sweltering in the paddy fields of Southern China, in conditions worse than the most depressed Isaan peasants experience.This breeds a determination and capacity for hard work, absolutely admirable and the driving force of Thailand's rise to relative prosperity.Great challenges ahead for family businesses but as I say the structure has real strengths as well as the more obvious weaknesses.

I see the Thaksin haters are suggesting that because we don't know how Yingluck performed in the business, we should assume mindless nepotism, to repeat the phrase.Nothing could be further from the truth and all the evidence (her bright confidence and obvious intelligence) indicate otherwise.The same old speculative slurs from the usual sources...can one sense perhaps the signs of panic?

An example of a brilliant interview, not a step out of place and tone perfect.Jeez, it's refreshing to see polish and intelligence in a Thai politician.He also has a likeably easy manner which frankly his boss doesn't.

Having said that the reports of Korn himself being a plausible candidate were always unrealistic, not least because he doesn't yet have the necessary experience.

Thaksin deserves the credit for sure - I think farangs using the system is pretty cheapskate

We pay taxes. Why not use the services that those taxes provide?

The Ministry of Health deserves the credit, the plan was already in the research stage. Thaksin took it and ran with it and did some damage to the hospital system in the process.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/13/universal-coverage-in-thailand/

an interesting (quite academic) article on how the various healthcare schemes have benefitted people in Thailand

http://www.equitap.org/publications/wps/EquitapWP16_2005.06.28.pdf

(note --- UC is free for Thais if you read the two links above you will see that the number of uninsured has dropped to about 4%, I assume ethnic minorities but I would have to do more research than I care to mess with to be sure --- the system used by foreigners is NOT free and is in fact an insurance that is being paid for)

One has to laugh at this post, the writer being determined to deny Thaksin the major credit for the rural health initiative.Even the documents he attaches don't suggest that, and in fact one of them indicates major benefits accrued by rural people as a result of Thaksin's schemes.Of course there were issues and complications as there always are.One could say the same about Britain's NHS but few Brits deny the vision and the morality of the scheme.Equally of course civil servants come up with proposals - that's their job.But it requires politicians to implement and that what Thaksin did, followed by his successors who certainly improved the scheme.But the Thaksin haters can't bring themselves to admit Thaksin's major contribution in this area.Even Abhisit recognises this.

As to your point about employment of family being a given with the Sino-Thais....

What a rich man i would be if i got a penny for every time i heard a valid and fair criticism of the Shinawatra clan being defended or downplayed by the old "well he's not the only one.... they all do it" chestnut.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

The fact that Sino-Thai businesses tend to employ family members in the most prominent positions isn't a criticism.It's simply a reality in Thai business life.It is a system that has both strengths and weaknesses.

As to our lack of knowledge how she performed in that business that is certainly true.My experience is that the less talented family members were given peripheral positions and not ones that had much impact on the P and L account.All the evidence siggests that Yingluck is bright and personable so I doubt she falls into that category.

Anyway one thing is for sure - she has more business experience than Abhisit - because he has none.

For a great read ---- google Thailand Incorporated Crispin ---- some great predictions in there, almost as if Crispin and Trasker (the authors) had a crystal ball

It is a good article I agree.I remember thinking so at the time and as you say it's perceptive.Of course both Crispin and Tasker have good cause to be hostile to Thaksin as readers of the excvellent old F.E.E.R will remember.

One part of the article caught my eye:

"The vote for Thaksin was just as much a vote against the Democrats,"

says Duncan McCargo, senior lecturer in Thai politics at Leeds

University in Britain. "The Democrats' open contempt for the plight of

the common Thai set off a revenge vote against the party."

That still is relevant today, and explains why the Peua Thai and the redshirts have so much traction - namely the contempt many middle class Thais have for ordinary people.To be fair to Abhisit he has tried quite hard to change the image but I fear the reality may be difficult to alter.This is of course a familiar Sino-Thai position - remember the racist abuse levelled by Sondhi and his people at the PAD rallies.

To also get your "elected" statement into perspective .... Thaksin was elected twice .. dissolved parliament years early in 2006 and was caretaker PM, publicly resigned the caretaker PM position and finally returned to that position even though there was no constitutional way for him to do so.....

To get this into perspective, this member has long been peddling this unhistorical piffle - for reasons which are obscure since whatever interpretation is accepted, it doesn't excuse the criminality of the coup makers or the disastrous events it triggered.The fact is Thaksin's administration was overthrown, nobody else's.Any respected newspaper or commentator at the time was under no doubt about this.

Even you should understand that if it costs more to collect 30 baht than you get its much better to make it free except of course you do not have hordes of administrators who loose their non jobs. If your local eatary spends more on cashier wage and other costs purely associated with bill payment then yes if they decide to continue it would be cheaper for then and better to not charge for the meal. That is a very silly comparison. The only argument for charging when it costs more to collect charge than you get is to maybe make people think twice before using service on constant visits for the most trivial complaints or to discourage more people not to use it at all. So you prefer to charge really poor do you ??? Come on get a brain and grow up please

You're both squabbling about what is in some senses a technicality.Thaksin provided the vision and pioneered the scheme.If he hadn't taken this action I doubt whether the Democrats would have adopted it.Nevertheless they did and if they made it administratively better and more cost effective, than that's to the good.The ordinary people of Thailand, for whom the scheme is designed - not the Gaysorn Plaza set - have benefited.That is something all surely can agree is very positive (except of course for the Thaksinophobes but they lost control of rhyme and reason long ago)

I am puzzled how jdinasia manages to get onto the free medical system, have you become a Thai citizen?

I am a taxpayer.

So am I and also qualify but being reasonably well off and a foreigner don't make use of it, believing this is a resource for less well off Thai people.Most of my Thai friends, mostly professionals, take the same view.

But it's interesting that a foreign Thaksin hater feels happy to use a scheme the Great Satan pioneered.

But hey.... some people seem to happily accept violence from their favored side ....

In your case being the army and its murder of unarmed civilians.Or did they murder themselves: your constantly evolving position is wearisome to monitor.Anyway we have the authoritative HRW report now which skewers the lies.

I don't favour violence on any side but if a group of thugs (whether PAD or Reds) come into an area - known to be unfriendly politically - with the specific intent of provoking trouble, I'm not going to complain if one or two get their bottoms kicked.

My point was really just referring to thuggish quasi fascist groups like PAD deliberately stirring up trouble and provoking violence.The same would apply if the more aggressive of the redshirt factions headed for Nakhon Sri Thammarat.

Perhaps we could put your continued misrepresentation of an event that you admittedly are un-knowledgable about to bed if you showed any evidence that Kwanchai's Gang was provoked.

Or not.

The presence of fascists is provocation enough.

would this ayboy theory apply to any political parties who dared to campaign in the red heartland?

by campaigning on a different ticket than Red and daring to disagree are they provoking violence?

would it be ok for Abhisit to get ''knocked around a little''' while on the campaign trail?

Thanks (seriously) for raising this because it subsequently occurred to me as an issue.

To remove all doubt I feel strongly that all mainstream political parties should be free to campaign anywhere in the Kingdom.Thus I strongly disapprove of say Khun Abhisit being unduly harassed in the red heartland (or any politician campaigning in a generally "unfriendly" area.

My point was really just referring to thuggish quasi fascist groups like PAD deliberately stirring up trouble and provoking violence.The same would apply if the more aggressive of the redshirt factions headed for Nakhon Sri Thammarat.

It's not censored. If it was, then no one could view it. But if you prefer to blame it on gremlins, have at it.

As with anytime when one is unfamiliar with an event such as you apparently are, I would encourage you to find the information you seek through whichever outlet you choose.

By all accounts it was unprovoked.

The burning and looting occurred with lighters and benzene I imagine. It occurred after the victims fled the park and their possessions as depicted in the 2nd and 3rd videos.

It's censored because it has the MICT red stamp on it and is unviewable.Anyone else's experience please?

So you really have no idea ("by all accounts" "I imagine" etc) what went on in the incident.Sounds like the PAD thugs got a well deserved drubbing.Good.

It's not blocked and it's not censored. Sounds like you have ISP issues. Are you on dial-up?

The attack was completely unprovoked. I'm surprised you are seemingly unaware of such a well known event.

Excusing mob violence, burning, and looting a "learning experience" is disturbing to say they least, but not unsurprising.

No I'm on a high speed True broadband connection.Still censored by the goons at the Ministry.Never mind.

Thanks for the additional information you were present to observe the unprovoked attack.How did the looting and burning happen? Did the PAD thugs have property or assets in Udon Thani? Seems a little unlikely since they were presumably there from out of town to provoke violence and trouble (as is their custom).

Sometimes fascist thugs need to get a taste of their own medicine.If the redshirts managed this that's heroic not disturbing.

Any how why is this behaviour unacceptable in your eyes while the murder of unarmed civilians by the army is ok?

I don't see that her relationship to Thaksin within the family makes any difference.

Guess it makes her familiar with nepotism.

You might as well make the same accusation against Rupert Murdoch or any family business (and that includes most businesses in Thailand)

They show Kwanchai's proclivity to be the opposite of what he is proclaiming now.

Not sure what you mean by "the first cannot be viewed" as it can be viewed just fine and show Kwanchai's legions attacking others.

The second and third video show that after the beatings, Kwanchai's men looted, burned, and destroyed property.

To characterize people getting critically injured as "silly" reflects a rather disturbing sense of fair play and "democratic spirit" that out-on-bail Kwanchai now speaks to.

I checked again and the first video is blocked on my server anyway.Are you using a proxy server to avoid the government's political censorship?

Thanks for the explanation on the background.It wasn't apparent earlier that these were the PAD thugs causing provocation in the red heartland, much like Oswald Mosley's fascist blackshirts marching on London's East End to incite violence.The blackshirts generally got the worst of it, and I hope the PAD fascists learned their lesson too.If one or two got knocked around a little, I dare say that contributed to their "learning experience".

That's where the 40 days will come into play. A lot can happen in that time. Particularly when it involves proxies and those involved in a clan with multiple characters with proven culpability.

See my post above.Repetition of speculation.No evidence.Just more slurs.

Yingluck is Thaksin's sister, not his daughter. She wasn't brought up with the expectations of running the family company.

All she's done is work in high positions in her brother's companies. Has she actually worked for anyone/anything else?

I don't see that her relationship to Thaksin within the family makes any difference.

She hasn't as far as I know worked for any other organisation.That's entirely typical of the Sino-Thai business tradition, where equally the employment of family is a given.

however, with her family associations, it won't be surprising if something untoward is discovered about her... and very likely from her own inexperienced hand or slip of the tongue.

40 days can be a very long time to maintain oneself under the microscope, which is something that all politicians go through.

In other words you have no knowledge or evidence of any wrong doing, and this is just more baseless speculation on your part.

Given the above and Yingluck's claims she hopes to win by using her femininity (which although shares the same root word as feminists is actually opposite in meaning by context) and Yingluck's work history of getting employment only by means of her surname and not by her own talents and merit, it's no wonder that feminists are less than enthusiastic about this potentially first female PM.

Forgive me but I don't accept Buchholz as a guru on feminist thinking.

You could make the same tired slur about Rupert Murdoch's children.The reality is that they are outstandingly talented.Actually if one reads the Thai press carefully one will see there is no serious questioning of Yingluck's intelligence and appetite for hard work.In terms of business experience she completely outstrips Abhisit.What she doesn't have of course is Abhisit's political experience

I'm not sure that those who were assaulted or who had their possessions torched and looted and destroyed would necessarily ascribe to suspected terrorist out on bail Red Shirt Leader Kwanchai's description of his Udon Thani Red Shirts.

And I'm not sure that these Youtube clips show anything relevant.The first cannot be viewed because it has been censored by the men from the ministry.The second shows a bunch of redshirts milling around.

Expect more of this kind of silly stuff as the campaign progresses, and as the bitterness at Yingluck's popularity becomes increasingly evident.

As for the overall Bangkok poll, it's worthless when well over half are undecided.

It's true that the polls are not very reliable, but if it is true that over half are undecided in Bangkok, that itself is a very significant indicator.

What is at issue here is not just about a change in the political order, but importantly to demonstrate that those convicted of offences can accept the punishment metered out to them, irrespective to their rank in life.

There is a great reluctance in Thailand to accept responsibility for any wrong doing, Neither is there much remorse. Thailand has a culture of fleeing from the Law be it from road accidents or in the case of the Former Prime Minister from Justice by going abroad. Those who flee from justice should be additiionally charged with that offence and serve longer periods of sentence.

The acceptance of the Law - crime and punishment - is essential to establishing this Third World Country as a modern functioning democracy - Currently it's a long way behind that.

Clearly nothing here with one could disagree, except that some of the greatest crimes have not been charged at all because they were committed by members of an untouchable elite which when necessary manipulated or directed the judicial system.The list is long of these crimes - illegal coups, murder of Southern Muslims, murder of unarmed civilians in Bangkok etc etc.

Before continuing with the 'etc., etc.' I'd like to insert some crimes maybe not committed by 'elite', like 'disrupting an international meeting', 'lobbing grenades on police/army/civilians', 'torching buildings and city halls'. Now let the 'etc., etc.' follow.

We only talk about the 2006 - now period for which PTP ponders an amnesty. That means of course the exclusion of 'murder of southern Muslims' under PM Thaksin (Krue Se Mosque and Tak Bai incidents in 2004). That part of 'list of crimes' should be removed for this topic

I'm not sure disrupting an international meeting is a crime.Frankly I find your comments on redshirt activism a bit naive.May as well charge the Paris citizens for storming the Bastille - you have rather lost the plot mate.

It doesn't matter whether there is an amnesty before or after 2006.The Thai army is not accountable for its crimes, and therefore I guess is indifferent to an amnesty.

What is at issue here is not just about a change in the political order, but importantly to demonstrate that those convicted of offences can accept the punishment metered out to them, irrespective to their rank in life.

There is a great reluctance in Thailand to accept responsibility for any wrong doing, Neither is there much remorse. Thailand has a culture of fleeing from the Law be it from road accidents or in the case of the Former Prime Minister from Justice by going abroad. Those who flee from justice should be additiionally charged with that offence and serve longer periods of sentence.

The acceptance of the Law - crime and punishment - is essential to establishing this Third World Country as a modern functioning democracy - Currently it's a long way behind that.

Clearly nothing here with one could disagree, except that some of the greatest crimes have not been charged at all because they were committed by members of an untouchable elite which when necessary manipulated or directed the judicial system.The list is long of these crimes - illegal coups, murder of Southern Muslims, murder of unarmed civilians in Bangkok etc etc.

No need... there's more than enough money to go around for all concerned.

A couple of Billionairesses...

Sure they are very rich as are Abhisit, Suthep, Korn etc.

Their wealth (the girls I mean) is explained by virtue of a very successful private sector background.

Actually Abhisit's and Korn's wealth is legit as well.

Just as a simple reminder for some people ......

Thaksin wasn't legally elected anything when he was deposed ...... adding "I think" doesn't change that one.

http://www.economist.com/node/6767105

Thaksin quits

Thailand’s prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will be replaced by his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya. The dramatic move comes a few days after Mr Thaksin won a strong but reduced mandate in a snap election that the main opposition boycotted. But political certainty is not yet assured

In his resignation speech, he said he would remain as caretaker prime minister until parliament was convened, within 30 days. However, his ever-suspicious opponents objected to this, and by Wednesday he had announced that his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya—another former policeman—would immediately take over as acting prime minister.

I think The economist is probably legitimate enough for most people You can find the same story all over.

The usual special pleading from the military cheerleader faction, trying to excuse the criminals who launched the 2006 coup on the grounds Thaksin was a caretaker PM.

If we are quoting The Economist , which I agree is reliable on Thai politics, let's see what it said at the time of the coup itself

http://www.economist.com/node/7942244

From which it is quite clear see that the military gangsters launched their coup against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin.