jayboy

Additionally, the ex-PM mentioned in the previous post who was removed from office for forgery and perjury is also banned from politics from his involvement as a Party Executive with Thaksin's proxy People Power Party. He awaits the final appeal on his previous conviction and prison sentence on another case as well as still facing a littany of other criminal cases in the process of adjudication.

Get real with the "forgery and perjury", as though they wouldn't have been brushed off if Samak's case hadn't been scripted from the beginning.We're not half witted children.In any case I didn't say Samak wasn't a typical Thai politician:his dreadful record is well known.My point was that the judicial system can move very rapidly when directed to do so.

The Oxford boy may have to distance himself from Newin.As far as I can remember he was ,as also in many other shady deals, involved quite a bit.In this case the coalition might become a bit shaky.

Newin is not in the government if there is a case against high ranking politician everything will need another 5-10 years due to the inefficient legal system.

So not much danger for the coalition at the moment.

That is a slander against the efficiency, transparency and honesty of the Thai legal system.The judicial process can move at the speed at light to take an example at random, dismissing a Prime Minister who accepts an honararium for appearing on a television cooking show.

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

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

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

Ah so you fall into the trap.

Perhaps I was quoting another...

Sooooo, By adding the word POLITICAL it is OK to throw out the rule of law,

but remove it and crimes are still crimes. Righty O!

The impasse is caused by some old school pols not liking certain laws that limit their ability

to use graft as a daily method of enrichment. A long history of this crew doing this is public record.

Ignoring the rule of law only exacerbates the basic cause of all this trouble.

So you are equating the 70 years of Ireland's "Troubles" to Thailand's political impasse now?

You mean Thaksin is one kind of Buddhist godhead, and Abjhisit is from another sect?

Or the fight by Mandela and his supporters in South Arfrica

to Thaksin and the Redshirts fight for his power and money?

Maybe a trifle closer of you say rich Chinese Thais and poor native Thais,

still quite a stretch.

There's no doubt that the driving force behind the campaign to neutralise Thaksin is mostly political, and that it involved a criminal military coup, dubious and directed court decisions, support financially and morally from a shadowy elite, a rigged constitution and an attempt to undermine an election.All this is a matter of record.Why is a matter for debate but in simple terms the elite was unhappy with its privileged position being challenged and the awakened politicisation of the Thai people, especially the rural majority.They were helped in this effort by taking on board a largely urban Chinese middle class grouping,led by a unusually creepy set of oldsters but initially with a rank and file comprising decent people sickened by Thaksin's corruption and authoritarianism.

As implied none of this alters the fact that Thaksin was a terrible influence, and there's a spectacular irony that he has come to represent democratic ideals.

To suggest however that this is all about Thaksin's graft is kindergarten politics.

Ultimately a deal will be done either with Thaksin or some successor.

To those who talk about Abhisit being a military puppet and still talk about appointing national police chief - how can you possibly ignore the fact staring in your face - Abhisit pushed for his candidate AGAINST the army preferred choice?

Hi Plus

And failed to carry the day! Yet again ! This is becoming habitual with the well intentioned but obviously very weak, Abhisit. This thread is not debating the amount of control the Army chooses to exhibit over Abhisit (occasionally he is permitted to put forward his own wishes ... as they are so easily changed at the behest of the real power.)

don't feed the troll. he has left the building.

Rubbish.Plus is far from being a troll (though I hardly ever agree with him) and he is bang right on Abhisit's position on the police appontment.

You have no idea what pleases my ears or not.

I think i have some idea. Perhaps you are not quite the complex individual you like to think you are.

My guess is that Pasuk/Baker have a number of opinions which match yours.So what.

Exactly - so what. I am not the one pushing them forward.

Try dealing with the issues for a change rather than personalising.

Good advice.

As i've said to you before, this is probably something you've been doing for so many years you are unaware of it, but barely a post of yours goes by without you questioning the intellect and depth of understanding of other members.

Assuming that you are smarter than people you actually know very little about is an ugly and an arrogant trait that detracts from the rest of what you have to say, which though i might not agree with, is usually well-reasoned and interesting.

I'm baffled by what you say, and can only suggest (again) that issues are dealt with rather than forum members personalities.

I consider anything written by Pasuk/Baker to be worth reading; I don't actually agree with some of what they write, but disagreement is on another level from hearing 'Thaksin is a clever business man, he's the best PM Thailand ever had because he's the first to help the poor and he's rich so he never did corruption stuff' or 'all politicians are corrupt, so we should let Thaksin come back' type statements.

It would be interesting to hear a bit more about where you disagree with Pasuk/Baker.They've written so much that it's helpful to be precise

Does anybody apart from some of the more simple minded upcountry Thaksin supporters actually think or say the kind of things you indicate? (ok one or two members of this forum as well !).

Actually there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest Thaksin is or was anti-monarchy.It was part of the PAD template I know (and encouraged by their shadowy backers), like many other aspects of their platform designed to raise the temperature to a feverish level.

I'm not sure that it's possible to criticise the senior statesman you refer to openly now.Isn't that covered by the way the PC is appointed, raising difficult LM issues?

Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".

I wonder if possibly the high-regard you hold for these historians has anything to do with the fact that their opinion on a number of issues happens to match yours?

Easy to hold people in high-esteem and place great value on what they say, when what they are saying pleases your ears, don't you think?

You have no idea what pleases my ears or not.My guess is that Pasuk/Baker have a number of opinions which match yours.So what.

Try dealing with the issues for a change rather than personalising.

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

Furthermore, what was it you were saying earlier in this thread concerning the writings of historians? Something i seem to recall about them often having an agenda and not being balanced i think?

Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

Seems to me then we are best off coming to our own conclusions from the evidence available, and not paying too much attention to what the self-proclaimed experts would like us to believe, don't you think? Or are you one of those experts? You certainly have the right tone.

Actually I agree that one should be independent minded, and be very sceptical about received wisdom.On the other hand, I don't believe that one man's opinion is as good as another, rather that value should be placed on education, intelligence, analytical ability and of course relevant knowledge.Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".That doesn't mean one should accept everything they have to say about Thai politics.It's open to all to come up with different perspectives, but to be taken seriously these need to be reasoned and backed by evidence.

To quote from the Pasuk/Baker book, "Thaksin made ordinary people more aware of the potential of their vote and their voice to overcome the state's persistent neglect of their interests in the past."

I think this is absolutely true. Before Thaksin, politicians in Thailand were lazy and complacent. Most of them got by simply by having the right connections and the right surname. Many of them won elections not by really offering anything to the people they were supposed to be serving, but just by knowing the right people and greasing the right palms. Of course sadly that type of politics is still alive and well. But there has been some change. Politicians were shown by Thaksin the power of making the electorate feel cared about. And the electorate woke up to the fact that they can have a voice and that they should expect more from their leaders.

"Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalists, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attacks on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, the patent unfairness of some judicial rulings, and the challenge to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally."

This however is complete nonsense, and the last sentence especially so. The red movement exists solely because of one man - he is the driving force both spiritually and financially. Suggesting that there are reds involved in the movement in spite of, rather than because of their feelings for Thaksin, makes you wonder how these individuals accept all the time that is devoted to aiding this one man's cause. I'm sorry but i don't buy it, and i don't think anyone outside of the red movement does either.

You say it's complete nonsense and I agree this is quite a widely held view among those who are ignorant of or who prefer to ignore the underlying anger of millions of Thais, specifically that there is nothing more to the Red movement than a pro-Thaksin mob.Some of the reasons for this anger are set out in the quote above. from Pasuk/Baker.You can ignore all of this and say the Reds are just Thaksin's hired hands.However for most observers, whether sympathetic or not, that position is not only wrong but deeply facile.It's certainly not Abhisit's view.

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

All this and the rise of Red power is dealt with succinctly and intelligently in the revised version of the Pasuk/Baker "Thaksin" published recently.

Jayboy, is this a revised version of the 2004 book? If so, does it just have additional chapters or is it more comprehensively revised?

Hi Xangsamhua

Just taking information from the preface, the first seven chapters dealing with his rise to power, his impact on economy, society and politics: and his family business are the same as in the first edition.Part 2 is new covering mid 2004 to early 2009, and there's a new conclusion.

Back to Thaksin, isn't the interesting question the last comment you made.How can such an appalling person (who had no truck for real democracy himself) have ended up perceived as a saviour of democracy?

It is an interesting question but one i think that Steve answered in his comments about Thaksin's early years in office. It was that period of about two years which cemented his place in the hearts of many and after that he could do no wrong in the eyes of those followers.

It's like the relationship you have with a son or a daughter. They can do the terribilist thing, but all you see is there good side.

No, that's only part of it.

To quote from the Pasuk/Baker book, "Thaksin made ordinary people more aware of the potential of their vote and their voice to overcome the state's persistent neglect of their interests in the past."

and

"Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalists, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attacks on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, the patent unfairness of some judicial rulings, and the challenge to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally."

As a slight digression, Pasuk/Baker make a fascinating observation on Thaksin's performance in the Songkran uprising.

"The incongruity of a super rich tycoon calling for a revolution came through in his video addresses when he often seemed to be miming a script.Possibly he was as shocked as any by the rage against injustice revealed among the red shirts.In the aftermath, he was reduced to calling on the King to intervene - just as PAD and his enemies had done".

Of the major TRT initiatives, you cannot take it away from TRT, they promised 3 things - 30b healthcare (replacing the democrat lead healthcare scheme which was a graduated payment system but not (as always) well explained); debt forgiveness for farmers (basic standard vote buy) and TAMC - the asset management program to recover the NPL situation and the reason why they ALSO swept Bangkok in the first election.

They did all 3. Within the first 100 days or so in office.

Is it any wonder that this could have been the beginning of a dynasty?

So simple - promise 3 simple things that people want (known through a good market research program). Deliver them. Promote yourself. It shows the extremely sad state of Thai politics that while others had done plenty for the poor (Pramote for instance) it went mostly unmarketed so that ground to claim to be the saviour of the poor had space to grow. No one had previously bothered to look at a mature democracy to see the role of marketing and delivering the promise that is winning elections 101. And I still suspect he is the only one to 'get it' since then PPP, Dems, Puea Thai, BJP - they are hopeless the lot of them.

However, late 2004 onwards.... things started to turn, a few things for the worse, then within a year is was a total mess

But now he's the saviour of democracy. How lucky are we!!

Very interesting and I think rather accurate post (but was Thaksin ever in the Finance Ministry?) and grounded in personal knowledge which is a refreshing change after all those other "what the taxi driver said" posts.

Kukrit's "tamboon" policy in 1976 was only partially successful and was attacked at the time by some as "pro-communist", rather as "populist" is used as abuse now.He was ahead of his time and in my view a truly great man.

Back to Thaksin, isn't the interesting question the last comment you made.How can such an appalling person (who had no truck for real democracy himself) have ended up perceived as a saviour of democracy?

All this and the rise of Red power is dealt with succinctly and intelligently in the revised version of the Pasuk/Baker "Thaksin" published recently.

Steve, excellent as usual!

Let's do lunch.

Having witnessed the TRT " budget queue" in action,

and nearly been drowned in avoidable flooding caused by

lack of finances for public services, I soon changed my original

like of Thaksin, to distrust. He never regained any trust from me.

From there has the 2006 election debacle played out, and he showed

clear signs of mental instability under pressure, I took a line from

Lewis Carol " Never more, never more, said the raven."

The quote is from Edgar Alan Poe I think.

I think it's important to stress the outrage felt locally - such as it was - was not the war on drugs itself, which had the support of the vast majority of Thais from the highest to the lowest (drug criminals apart of course) - but the extra judicial killings of innocents.I don't think there's much outrage even now at the extra judicial killings per se, and most Thais would probably say most of those who died deserved their fate.Of course both Thais and foreigners who hate Thaksin saw it quite rightly as the most damning crime to pursue him with, but the anti-Thaksin Thais who understand these things better dropped the matter quite quickly given the powerful supporters of the campaign.No serious attempt has ever been made to pursue Thaksin on this matter.A few foreigners like yourself still witter on about Thaksin's war on drugs but politically it's dead.Pity really because my sympathies as a Western liberal are similar to yours.

Funnily enough i pretty much agree with all of that.

For me though it makes no difference if the entire population of the globe voiced their support for killing people without trial. It's something i will never agree with and will continue to "witter on about", regardless of the good it does.

I agree and and apologise for using the word "witter"".It was inappropriate.

it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Of course the families of those thousands who were killed because of Thaksin's war on drugs might not agree with that, but i guess if Thaksin tarmaced a few local roads and gave us mobile phones we can forgive him of that, eh?

I think it's important to stress the outrage felt locally - such as it was - was not the war on drugs itself, which had the support of the vast majority of Thais from the highest to the lowest (drug criminals apart of course) - but the extra judicial killings of innocents.I don't think there's much outrage even now at the extra judicial killings per se, and most Thais would probably say most of those who died deserved their fate.Of course both Thais and foreigners who hate Thaksin saw it quite rightly as the most damning crime to pursue him with, but the anti-Thaksin Thais who understand these things better dropped the matter quite quickly given the powerful supporters of the campaign.No serious attempt has ever been made to pursue Thaksin on this matter.A few foreigners like yourself still witter on about Thaksin's war on drugs but politically it's dead.Pity really because my sympathies as a Western liberal are similar to yours.

Your point is that Thaksin never had a mandate

Having a mandate wasn't the problem for Thaksin, it was what he thought that mandate gave him the authority to do.

That's a very fair point.

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

The usual hyberbole and ad hominem attacks that fail to address anything, but serve only to inflame and incite. Please address points and do not attack the poster.

Hyperbole ! Have you read your own post!

You don't make any new points, just rehash old and discredited ones already debated to death.Your point is that Thaksin never had a mandate and was removed by the noble military for excessive corruption.If you wish to believe in fairy stories that's your prerogative.

But anyway thanks for the laugh on the miltary's motivation.

I am not sure about the airplane and the pilot or whatever, but I am just saying what I am saying. Thaksin was elected by people but removed by military, not by the people or by any sort of legal process.

Elected by the people? Sorry. In a parliamentary system the PM is elected by the MPs, who represent the people. Moreover, Thaksin removed himself from the position of PM by dissolving parliament and then found himself unable to conduct a proper vote for a new parliament. His solution to the dilemma was to concoct a scheme of fraudulent elections, so that his beloved party could maintain control of parliament, and then formally re-elect him as PM.

At the time of his removal he was a caretaker prime minister. He had no mandate. He was never directly elected to this position by the people. He had already claimed to be leaving politics. He just had a bit more work to do, to the tune of 75 billion baht to his personal bank accounts. At about that the time many people, especially the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from this 'caretaker' role.

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

Still at least one good laugh in it and that is to be commended, namely the military acting to stop "grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth".

Consider three incontrovertible facts and then form your own conclusion.

1) Wealthy Thais don't allow Thai doctors who haven't studied and practised in the US or another Western country to cut them up.

Neither do/would I.

Really? I had assumed that "home grown" Thai doctors practising at the top Bangkok hospitals would be acceptable.If you think otherwise that's really worth knowing.

I think one of the things we have to remember is that there is a difference between the quality of a doctor and the perception of "foreign" doctors (in this case meaning Thai doctors since the question was about Thai doctors and world standards). The best general practitioner I ever had was from Pakistan. Unbelievably knowledgeable, excellent bedside manner, knew the right balance of going far enough but not too far in terms of testing. Yet, my friends didn't want to try a Pakistani doctor because he wouldn't be up to world standards. No matter that his residency was in a leading American hospital or that he had all the necessary licenses and several uncommon honors. He was Pakistani...yuck!

Well that says more about your racist and ignorant friends than anything else.Most people couldn't care less about the ethnicity of a doctor provided he has the right background and experience.

More a criticism on the kind of wanke_r the british establishment choose as an ambassador imho, but then working class socialists like me usually get ignored in albion Not like I wanna be an ambassador or any tossy job like that

I'm hoping Hammered is joking here.If this post from a guy who is usually rather thoughtful was taken at face value it would be truly depressing.

Perhaps this kind of language passes for normal in some circles

It does. Internet forums is one such circle. You hadn't noticed?

but it would be very unusual at a reputable university

Which would be revelant, were this discussion actually being held at a university. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not.

Fair point but even on an internet forum language like:

"critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial"

gives plenty of information about the source.

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Actually that's exactly what one would expect of what people like you and Samran rather revealingly describe as "academic writings".Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

Jayboy, a word of advice. Your attempts to question the intelligence of other posters as well as the veracity of our thought process only reflects badly on you my friend. Arrogance very rarely gets you anywhere, and you seem to want to dish it out in spades anytime you get near a keyboard.

As for academic writings...do you not think we don't know what traditional academic writings look like? Or are condencending enough to believe that other posters on this thread consider the back of a wheatbix box classic prose, and as a result, our views, expressed however briefly, are not somehow as worthy as yours?

In any case, my contention that this is 'academic writing' if that is what you want to call it comes from the creaters of the site themselves. The call it on their front page "interactive online discussion in scholarly work"...which is exactly what traditional journals do, except this does it in real time.

"When it works well an academic website such as New Mandala can provide something approaching almost instantaneous peer review" they say. Tell me, what are they peer reviewing? Their writings and ideas of course.

You seem extemely thinned skinned to any critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial, and others who simply have an agenda. Their claims to understand 'Thailand' fall far short of what I'd call a complete understanding of the sensitivities of the place, which if ever the writings on the site- and the blunt manner in the way they are delivered perhaps more importantly - got wide coverage in Thailand, would quite easily succeed in pissing off all 60-odd million Thai's without fail...and not just one section of society like I think they are targeting themselves against...the so called elites.

It is tabloid journalism dressed up with an air of academic respectability. It is the web equivelent to Fox News vs PBS.

I have much more respect for Thai academics, even the "controversial" ones like Ji Ungpakorn, who have made their case in Thailand and in the Thai context. People outside, are the academic equivelent people pissing on a burnt man rather than wanting to take him to hospital.

Now I'm sure you now how have a smart arse reply which you think will show how academically superior you are, but which frankly, will only go to show prove (again) your intellectual arrogance and particularly fragile ablilty to accept that there are any views worth considering that don't require a 20,000 word thesis.

I have never questioned anybody's intelligence, and don't really understand what you mean by "veracity of thought processes": on the face of it, it's meaningless expression but I will respond if you explain.

I do wonder whether you have close familiarity with academic debate given your use of language like " critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial".Perhaps this kind of language passes for normal in some circles, but it would be very unusual at a reputable university.To be honest, while you accuse me of being thin skinned about NM (odd because I have no connection with it at all), your comment that it is like dressed up Fox News tabloid journalism is simply deranged.

So ignoring the ranting and muddled thinking, it's clear that there is something about NM that deeply disturbs you and the 60 million Thais you apparently feel entitled to speak for.As you imply, there is a definite theme on NM on questioning the greed, incompetence and selfishness of a self serving elite.What you seem to be repeating is that weary old canard that foreigners however knowledgeable and perceptive cannot possibly understand the sensitivities of Thailand.You also talk about the blunt manner in which opinions are articulated to the point that, if more widely circulated, would anger all Thais.I don't really understand what you are getting at but my friend, since you so kindly addressed me in that manner, I suggest you get out more.You'd be surprised how many millions of Thais don't believe fairy stories any more.

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Actually that's exactly what one would expect of what people like you and Samran rather revealingly describe as "academic writings".Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

It was quite common to release slaves. Not all of the very well known founding fathers did so, but many did. I cannot recall exact names off the top of my head but I remember reading/making lists in American History in High School. If I recall correctly, Jefferson was one of the very few who never did release his slaves up until his death.

No Jefferson didn't but Franklin and Hamilton for example did.I think you are right that most thought it morally wrong but the reality is that the founding fathers didn't abolish the "peculiar institution".What I don't understand is your comment that some of the founding fathers gave up everything (sic) for the principles they believed in - "money, property, potentially their lives".They didn't give up much at all and despite their scruples did almost nothing to solve the problem of slavery.

Every nation filters its history and the US certainly attributes some liberal characteristics to Americans in the late eighteenth century that just weren't there..One good example is the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the slaves are depicted as supporting the rebellious colonists.In fact black Americans tended to support -if they had a choice in the matter -the loyalists, and many fled to Canada to escape what they perceived (correctly in my view) the overt racism in the U.S.