Former Thai PM Thaksin: "I'm Calling It Quits"

[wintermute]

my question was:

Mr Thaksin, do you take any personal responsibility for your current situation, and if so to what degree?

It's more complicated than that when everyone is complicit in corruption in some way or another. It's just that Thaksin got too big for his britches and decided to openly transact his shady dealings instead of keeping it under the table in the typical Thai face saving fashion. In the west we're used to seeing things as "corrupt" and "non corrupt" or "good" and "bad" in Thailand it's degrees of bad and degrees of corrupt.

[Siripon]

my question was:

Mr Thaksin, do you take any personal responsibility for your current situation, and if so to what degree?

It's more complicated than that when everyone is complicit in corruption in some way or another. It's just that Thaksin got too big for his britches and decided to openly transact his shady dealings instead of keeping it under the table in the typical Thai face saving fashion. In the west we're used to seeing things as "corrupt" and "non corrupt" or "good" and "bad" in Thailand it's degrees of bad and degrees of corrupt.

Not quite, Mr Thaksin was the innovator of 'policy corruption' whereby laws were changed, often by decree, to suit his own financial benefits. As you say completely blatant, and indeed shameless.

But there have been previous Thai leaders that weren't corrupt, such as Chuan Leekpai and Khun Anand.

The present PM has a good record, as does the new Chief of Police.

[ColPyat]

But there have been previous Thai leaders that weren't corrupt, such as Chuan Leekpai and Khun Anand.

The present PM has a good record, as does the new Chief of Police.

Chuan Leekpai had more than a few extremely corrupt people in his party, and led coalitions with extremely corrupt parties. Does it matter that he personally was not corrupt, when under his rule corruption flourished, and the rural poor had hardly any development?

Anand was never elected, and his short term did not make any impact whatsoever other than that many people can say that he was the best PM ever. And yes, he never stood ever for elections.

The present PM has a good record... well, we still though did not yet get to read the investigations into the may '92 incident, in which the troops he (and Gen. Sonthi under him) commanded were taken part in the massaker. We only have his own word "that he did not give the order to shoot".

Before i believe anything i want to read the report.

[hammered]

But there have been previous Thai leaders that weren't corrupt, such as Chuan Leekpai and Khun Anand.

The present PM has a good record, as does the new Chief of Police.

Chuan Leekpai had more than a few extremely corrupt people in his party, and led coalitions with extremely corrupt parties. Does it matter that he personally was not corrupt, when under his rule corruption flourished, and the rural poor had hardly any development?

Anand was never elected, and his short term did not make any impact whatsoever other than that many people can say that he was the best PM ever. And yes, he never stood ever for elections.

The present PM has a good record... well, we still though did not yet get to read the investigations into the may '92 incident, in which the troops he (and Gen. Sonthi under him) commanded were taken part in the massaker. We only have his own word "that he did not give the order to shoot".

Before i believe anything i want to read the report.

What so many seem to miss is that the degree of corruption was always limited under a coalition government. In coalitions if one of the partners got too corrupt they were ousted and replaced by another from the opposition. If the main party got too corrupt they were abandoned by one or two other coalition members and an election held. After the election a new coalition was formed not including the main party. When Thailand opted for a new constitution that aimed at empowering large parties over coalition governments the western idea of checks and balances came to the for to keep corruption in check. Unfortunately these had never worked in Thailand before and nobody had thought how these institutions could be immunized from government interference. In that change was created the opportunity for excessive uncontrolled corruption and/or ethical abuse that would previously have been checked by automatically by a coalition. Now we find the debate finally being had over how can checks and balances be kept immune from interference or is there a need to insure future governments will always be coalitions. I think to assume corruption will disappear is probably naive as there stil remains coruption in very old democracies. The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit it as much as possible. For this a case study of the Thaksin government is needed whetheryou consider what he did corruption (that may or not be provable in a court) or ethically questionable like changing laws to give you personal business advantage.

[ColPyat]

What so many seem to miss is that the degree of corruption was always limited under a coalition government. In coalitions if one of the partners got too corrupt they were ousted and replaced by another from the opposition. If the main party got too corrupt they were abandoned by one or two other coalition members and an election held. After the election a new coalition was formed not including the main party. When Thailand opted for a new constitution that aimed at empowering large parties over coalition governments the western idea of checks and balances came to the for to keep corruption in check. Unfortunately these had never worked in Thailand before and nobody had thought how these institutions could be immunized from government interference. In that change was created the opportunity for excessive uncontrolled corruption and/or ethical abuse that would previously have been checked by automatically by a coalition. Now we find the debate finally being had over how can checks and balances be kept immune from interference or is there a need to insure future governments will always be coalitions. I think to assume corruption will disappear is probably naive as there stil remains coruption in very old democracies. The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit it as much as possible. For this a case study of the Thaksin government is needed whetheryou consider what he did corruption (that may or not be provable in a court) or ethically questionable like changing laws to give you personal business advantage.

What though was also very limited under Thai style coalition governments was development for the areas that needed it most.

And yes, a proper study of the Thaksin government would be very useful, but under the present political climate any impartial study is hardly possible.

[Barney_the_Dinosaur]

For those interested in reading a serious dissertation about Thai Government corruption, how it has changed and how is has stayed the same, I recommend the following dowloadable PDF.

Corruption, Governance and Globalisation

Lessons from the New Thailand

by Dr Pasuk Phongpaichit

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51987

[Old Man River]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

[ColPyat]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

The Thai style coalition governments only enabled a populist authoritarian like Thaksin to be elected in the first place. These forms of governments worked pre crises for one reason only - people had hope that their shitty situation will improve. The '97 crises destroyed that hope.

But the old parties who benefitted from a sytem that did not give any substantial improvements to most of the North and North East did not see the sign of the times, and continued as before, while Thaksin's TRT was the only party that campaigned on a policy platform, and has introduced the first real changes and improvements for the millions of rural and urban poor. I do not see any indicator that the old parties have any feasable national plan or policies, and only rely on a disfunctional status quo.

Going back to this system is a step back that will only lead to continued mismanagement which has led to Thaksin, and will only lead to another Thaksin, or even worse. It will not lead to development, it hasn't in the past either.

It is already clearly visible that the drive for nationalism and sufficiency economy does not convince the mass of the poor. These sectors of society expect policies that improve their life, policies that tackle issues.

[Barney_the_Dinosaur]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

A bag of rice and a sack of bananas and my vote is yours.

Oh hello, TRT is back at the helm again.

[ColPyat]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

A bag of rice and a sack of bananas and my vote is yours.

Oh hello, TRT is back at the helm again.

TRT did actually a bit more than that, to the dismay of the opposition. TRT actually not just promised to spend government funds on those ghastly upcountry folks, but even dared to spend that money on them, and was subsequently re-elected. Very unfair tactics!

What did the villagers care about Thaksin's personal business and 'policy corruption' as long as they have seen improvements of their situation? Before they have seen the usual suspects enriching themselves as well, but have seen no improvements for themselves.

What do they see now? The military buys its toys, and the next elections promise to be the same old parties with hastily founded small regional godfather parties which will be the necessary coalition partners in any future government. And everybody sells false hopes.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going to lead a few years down the line.

[Old Man River]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

A bag of rice and a sack of bananas and my vote is yours.

Oh hello, TRT is back at the helm again.

On the bag of rice..., that may well be the case. Time will tell. On the TRT, I can't see the military allowing any party to get that kind of control again. Do you?

[Old Man River]

The question and a very real one is what is the best way to limit corruption as much as possible.

I agree a move back to coalition governments will be a step forward to where the country was under Thaksin. Corruption has been part of Thai society for hundreds of years and won't change for a long time. Going forward, I expect the military will maintain a unified presence via ISOC and will allow a resurgence of the coalition governments as long as they don't feel the monarchy threatened. This will be the checks and balances, Thai style. It is from this base that we can hope that political parties include real benefits for those upcountry as they seek their votes.

A bag of rice and a sack of bananas and my vote is yours.

Oh hello, TRT is back at the helm again.

TRT did actually a bit more than that, to the dismay of the opposition. TRT actually not just promised to spend government funds on those ghastly upcountry folks, but even dared to spend that money on them, and was subsequently re-elected. Very unfair tactics!

What did the villagers care about Thaksin's personal business and 'policy corruption' as long as they have seen improvements of their situation? Before they have seen the usual suspects enriching themselves as well, but have seen no improvements for themselves.

What do they see now? The military buys its toys, and the next elections promise to be the same old parties with hastily founded small regional godfather parties which will be the necessary coalition partners in any future government. And everybody sells false hopes.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going to lead a few years down the line.

So Colpyat, easy to say what we want to happen, but real world, what do you think will happen? As I have said, personally, I don't see any white knights on the horizon.

[Tony Clifton]

Bring back beheadings also part of Thai culture for centuries, the ultimate loss of face. Watch many more "Call it quits".

[ColPyat]

On the bag of rice..., that may well be the case. Time will tell. On the TRT, I can't see the military allowing any party to get that kind of control again. Do you?

I can't see the military keeping their power forever without serious opposition in the population. Their support under the urban middle classes stems from the fact that they ousted Thaksin, and promised a quick return to democracy. If they keep the necessary amount of control to dominate the political scene, their support under those classes might wear thin rather fast.

The last word about the coup has not been spoken yet.

Also, the military is not monolithic, and the endemic infighting between fractions is maybe even worse than in politics here.

[Old Man River]

On the bag of rice..., that may well be the case. Time will tell. On the TRT, I can't see the military allowing any party to get that kind of control again. Do you?

I can't see the military keeping their power forever without serious opposition in the population. Their support under the urban middle classes stems from the fact that they ousted Thaksin, and promised a quick return to democracy. If they keep the necessary amount of control to dominate the political scene, their support under those classes might wear thin rather fast.

The last word about the coup has not been spoken yet.

Also, the military is not monolithic, and the endemic infighting between fractions is maybe even worse than in politics here.

Forever is a long time for anyone to keep control (except my wife, of course). Still, the military has kept control for hundreds of years in one way or another, and with ISOC in place in its present form, it doesn't look like things will change anytime soon. Remember, it has been the monarchy (supported by the military) that has been this country's stabilizing force for many years. At some point that may change, but let's hope it doesn't.

[younghusband]

Bring back beheadings also part of Thai culture for centuries, the ultimate loss of face. Watch many more "Call it quits".

I think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment for the junta leaders, even though they did illegally seize power from an elected government.It would merely establish them as martyrs in certain eyes and in any event I think capital punishment is morally wrong.Perhaps a spell of exile or imprisonment would be sufficient, but my personal preference would simply to strip them of the uniform they have dishonoured and bar them from all political activity.But I do understand your frustration.

Any other candidates for beheading you would like to share with us?

[ColPyat]

So Colpyat, easy to say what we want to happen, but real world, what do you think will happen? As I have said, personally, I don't see any white knights on the horizon.

Yes, no white knights. And i don't believe in white knights, i believe in slow but steady improvements.

What will happen in the real world?

I beleive the most likely scenario is a sort of a compromise that will shift the inevitable trouble here for a few years down the line. But basically - i do not think that the present situation has much to do with 'democracy', or how Thaksin has subverted 'democracy', and the 'good' forces having taken over. I believe that the present situation is a simple power struggle between different networks of power. None of these do spend too much time and thought on real development of the country. Thaksin introduced the first changes because he had to in order to solidify his power base that came through elections, while the military derives its power from guns, and sells an ideology of how they believe Thai society should be.

In the end though the decades of mismanagement and resulting problems that were swept under the carpet will come to full effect one day soon, within a few years time, and then maybe the social chaos will be an incentitive to substantially do something about it, and not just continue with basically ineffective face solutions and populist crap.

Yes, whatever happens now, i believe that we are steadily sailing into very stromy waters here. One of the last chances would have been not to do a coup, let the elections go on, have a more substantial opposition, let Thaksin dig his own grave (wouldn't it have been lovely to see Thaksin as PM when the airport desaster came out in the open?), give the opposition time to formulate policies, and then, maybe next elections, move to a more working democracy in which people actually have power.

But that is the basic problem here - none of the viable options would consider handing power over to the people. That though will change one day, it always happens, one way or the other.

[ColPyat]

sorry, but on second thought it's better to stay away from that subject.

Edited February 7, 2007 by ColPyat

[blaze]

For those interested in reading a serious dissertation about Thai Government corruption, how it has changed and how is has stayed the same, I recommend the following dowloadable PDF.

Corruption, Governance and Globalisation

Lessons from the New Thailand

by Dr Pasuk Phongpaichit

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51987

Thanks for posting that, Barney

[Old Man River]

What will happen in the real world?

I beleive the most likely scenario is a sort of a compromise that will shift the inevitable trouble here for a few years down the line.

So, in essence, for the time being you see the return to coalition governments as both Hammered and I see happening. After that (whenever after that is), who knows? Maybe one of the fortune tellers can tell us.

Thaksin would never have allowed anyone to publicly see the airport's problems and he would have sued anyone who wrote or publicly spoke about it. Remember he was going to turn the airport ++ into a separate economic entity where he and his cronies would run it for 8 years before allowing a city election to take place (if then).

[Barney_the_Dinosaur]

If I was in charge i'd be inclined to scrap the army anyway, just have a coastal navy and airforce. All the Thai army does is cause problems.

Whose going to invade Thailand? ......Singapore?

Its not as if the Thai army fight anyway, take WW2 for example.

[ColPyat]

What will happen in the real world?

I beleive the most likely scenario is a sort of a compromise that will shift the inevitable trouble here for a few years down the line.

So, in essence, for the time being you see the return to coalition governments as both Hammered and I see happening. After that (whenever after that is), who knows? Maybe one of the fortune tellers can tell us.

Thaksin would never have allowed anyone to publicly see the airport's problems and he would have sued anyone who wrote or publicly spoke about it. Remember he was going to turn the airport ++ into a separate economic entity where he and his cronies would run it for 8 years before allowing a city election to take place (if then).

Of course i see very little alternative to Thai style coalition governments, but i do not call that progress. I call that a devastating step back resulting from a completely unnecessary coup.

Oh, well, as things are at the moment with the airport, he would have not much of a chance other than facing the music. You can only get away with some amount of media censorship. Don't forget - the Supinya case was solved in her favour while before the coup, as was the re-instatement of the fired ITV personal.

And, if elections would have come through in november - Thaksin would most definately not have had the majority he had after the tsunami elections in which he benefitted from two main reasons:

1) Banjat as Democrat candidate completely incompetent

2) his carefully orchestrated propaganda of how well he dealt with the tsunami (before tsunami his popularity rankings were rather low).

He could not have controlled the media enough to silence the airport desaster.

[Mid]

Whose going to invade Thailand?

Burma , regularly ..........................................

[ColPyat]

Its not as if the Thai army fight anyway, take WW2 for example.

You are very mistaken, dear sir!

In '89 Thailand did fight a war over Romklao against Laos...

...well, and lost miserably...

[slimdog]

For those interested in reading a serious dissertation about Thai Government corruption, how it has changed and how is has stayed the same, I recommend the following dowloadable PDF.

Corruption, Governance and Globalisation

Lessons from the New Thailand

by Dr Pasuk Phongpaichit

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51987

Thanks for posting that, Barney

concur, good post Barney.

[Tony Clifton]

Bring back beheadings also part of Thai culture for centuries, the ultimate loss of face. Watch many more "Call it quits".

I think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment for the junta leaders, even though they did illegally seize power from an elected government.It would merely establish them as martyrs in certain eyes and in any event I think capital punishment is morally wrong.Perhaps a spell of exile or imprisonment would be sufficient, but my personal preference would simply to strip them of the uniform they have dishonoured and bar them from all political activity.But I do understand your frustration.

Any other candidates for beheading you would like to share with us?

I actually do not believe in capital punishment, one should suffer the consequences of his acts for the rest of his life. Sending one to oblivion by execution only causes criminals to really feel and face guilt and panic for a too short time, moments before departure , then ridding them instantly and forever from suffering.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Tony Clifton

[Plus]

I think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment for the junta leaders, even though they did illegally seize power from an elected government.

Technically it was not an elected government, it was a care taker government, if the constitution wasn't scrapped, Surayud's would only be another caretaker government, and elections postponed by a year instead of by two months.

Besides, what is illegal in Thailand? The victors write the laws here more than anywhere else. The coup has been declared legal. You can't punish generals by existing laws, you'd need to rewrite the laws again (after you win).

If we judge them by some absolute notion of right and wrong, many people think that Thaksin's government has been illegal from the start and the coup corrected this injustice.

Re. Thailand's future - any challenge to existing power structures is unthinkable. We all sort of agree that Thaksin, in fact challenged it, but please note that he never ever dared to declare so publicly, he'd have lost all support in a matter of seconds and probably lynched.

<snip>

Edited February 7, 2007 by Jai Dee
Comments about Thai Royalty deleted

[younghusband]

I think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment for the junta leaders, even though they did illegally seize power from an elected government.

Technically it was not an elected government, it was a care taker government, if the constitution wasn't scrapped, Surayud's would only be another caretaker government, and elections postponed by a year instead of by two months.

Besides, what is illegal in Thailand? The victors write the laws here more than anywhere else. The coup has been declared legal. You can't punish generals by existing laws, you'd need to rewrite the laws again (after you win).

If we judge them by some absolute notion of right and wrong, many people think that Thaksin's government has been illegal from the start and the coup corrected this injustice.

Re. Thailand's future - any challenge to existing power structures is unthinkable. We all sort of agree that Thaksin, in fact challenged it, but please note that he never ever dared to declare so publicly, he'd have lost all support in a matter of seconds and probably lynched.

<snip>

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.That's why even from the perspective of the elite's interests, the coup was such a dreadful mistake.Insiders -and I would include most educated Thais - know exactly what the coup makers were trying to achieve, but it (which cannot be mentioned) and the reassertion of premocracy was almost certainly counter productive.Nothing will happen quickly barring an event representing very bad fortune for us all.Then things might change very quickly indeed. I can certainly agree any challenge to the existing repeat existing power structure is unthinkable.But history will judge.

[Plus]

I don't know how to say that without getting clipped again, but the general idea of Thainess drilled in from the very young age - "land, religion, king", is not going to disappear no matter who is in power. The only difference will be whether any paticular government adheres to it sincerely or not. Cheats will be punished when they are found out. Thaksin is an example.

[Siripon]

I think capital punishment is not an appropriate punishment for the junta leaders, even though they did illegally seize power from an elected government.

Technically it was not an elected government, it was a care taker government, if the constitution wasn't scrapped, Surayud's would only be another caretaker government, and elections postponed by a year instead of by two months.

Besides, what is illegal in Thailand? The victors write the laws here more than anywhere else. The coup has been declared legal. You can't punish generals by existing laws, you'd need to rewrite the laws again (after you win).

If we judge them by some absolute notion of right and wrong, many people think that Thaksin's government has been illegal from the start and the coup corrected this injustice.

Re. Thailand's future - any challenge to existing power structures is unthinkable. We all sort of agree that Thaksin, in fact challenged it, but please note that he never ever dared to declare so publicly, he'd have lost all support in a matter of seconds and probably lynched.

<snip>

I'm not sure about your last paragraph.That's why even from the perspective of the elite's interests, the coup was such a dreadful mistake.Insiders -and I would include most educated Thais - know exactly what the coup makers were trying to achieve, but it (which cannot be mentioned) and the reassertion of premocracy was almost certainly counter productive.Nothing will happen quickly barring an event representing very bad fortune for us all.Then things might change very quickly indeed. I can certainly agree any challenge to the existing repeat existing power structure is unthinkable.But history will judge.

Nearly every educated Thai was, and is still, sick of Thaksin's greed, arrogance and boorishness.

To keep referring to a certain other factor as the not so young husband does, is actually to miss the point.

The educated and informed had sussed out his greed and destructiveness, all that mattered after that was who controlled the army.

Thaksin knew that but he miscalculated when he went to New York.