Thailand’s most polarizing family rises again before election

[Neeranam]

On 4/25/2023 at 5:21 AM, Keep Right said:

More proof that Thailand is a third world country hopelessly mired in corruption.

Glad you enjoy living here. 

[Neeranam]

'Polarising' is a word I associate with the USA, Thais are not the same. 

[still kicking]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Glad you enjoy living here. 

So, how do you know he lives here?

[Neeranam]

1 minute ago, still kicking said:

So, how do you know he lives here?

This is an expat forum for Thailand.

[still kicking]

Just now, Neeranam said:

This is an expat forum for Thailand.

So? Most posters on here don't live in Thailand 

[bannork]

5 hours ago, still kicking said:

So? Most posters on here don't live in Thailand 

How do you know that?

[heybruce]

18 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

They are both convicted criminals. Is that not important enough to mention it?

They could list all their crimes and convictions. Then even the people who say this was politically motivated will have problems explaining why their crimes are somehow not crimes.

 

Thaksin's daughter obviously does what he wants. PT is his party and they do what the fugitive want. They party, with the influence of that criminal, should have been banned since a long time.

 

Thaksin wants revenge. How can that be good for Thailand?

But all this is not mentioned. Sad. 

Most people consider staging a coup against a legitimately elected government to be criminal.  Of course the coup leaders pardoned themselves.  You seem OK with that.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Most people consider staging a coup against a legitimately elected government to be criminal.  Of course the coup leaders pardoned themselves.  You seem OK with that.

The coups would not have happened if he would have been prosecuted when he was in power. But nobody dared to do that.

He would probably still be in power if he would not have been so greedy.

The military removed Thaksin because the courts didn't dare to do it at that time.

 

Obviously coups are no good solution. But look at history all over the world. A lot of leaders were removed in coups or violently even if they could claim they were democratically elected. Sometimes it was very good that that happened. Sometimes leader should have been removed any possible way but people didn't dare to do that.

[zzaa09]

10 hours ago, Neeranam said:

'Polarising' is a word I associate with the USA, Thais are not the same. 

So true.

Have to wonder about the observation skills of some.

[zzaa09]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The coups would not have happened if he would have been prosecuted when he was in power. But nobody dared to do that.

He would probably still be in power if he would not have been so greedy.

The military removed Thaksin because the courts didn't dare to do it at that time.

 

Obviously coups are no good solution. But look at history all over the world. A lot of leaders were removed in coups or violently even if they could claim they were democratically elected. Sometimes it was very good that that happened. Sometimes leader should have been removed any possible way but people didn't dare to do that.

If you recall, old Thakky was abroad on a state visit when his power was ceased in a coup.....he was asked not to return or face trumped up charges [which weren't even declared yet]. So much for the ideal of facing prosecution when in power. 

[bannork]

17 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

If you recall, old Thakky was abroad on a state visit when his power was ceased in a coup.....he was asked not to return or face trumped up charges [which weren't even declared yet]. So much for the ideal of facing prosecution when in power. 

But he did return and later violated his bail conditions by flying to the Beijing Olympics and never returning. I think it's fair to assume  the authorities wanted him gone as judging by the amount of luggage he took, it was plain he wasn't coming back soon 

[OneMoreFarang]

13 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

If you recall, old Thakky was abroad on a state visit when his power was ceased in a coup.....he was asked not to return or face trumped up charges [which weren't even declared yet]. So much for the ideal of facing prosecution when in power. 

Yes, I recall he was at the UN at that time. I even remember where I was when the news came out.

 

Before he was gone nobody dared to prosecute him. After he was gone prosecutors and judges were not so scarred anymore. Just look at other disposed leaders around the world, this is not an unusual procedure. Sometimes justified, and sometimes not. In many countries authorities are very reluctant to move against the rich and powerful, not only in Thailand. 

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The coups would not have happened if he would have been prosecuted when he was in power. But nobody dared to do that.

He would probably still be in power if he would not have been so greedy.

The military removed Thaksin because the courts didn't dare to do it at that time.

 

Obviously coups are no good solution. But look at history all over the world. A lot of leaders were removed in coups or violently even if they could claim they were democratically elected. Sometimes it was very good that that happened. Sometimes leader should have been removed any possible way but people didn't dare to do that.

Does anyone dare prosecute the coup leaders?

 

Can you identify times when coups against legitimately elected governments led to positive outcomes for the countries?

[bannork]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Does anyone dare prosecute the coup leaders?

 

Can you identify times when coups against legitimately elected governments led to positive outcomes for the countries?

Amand's government after the coup of 1991 was a massive improvement on Chatchai's corrupt regime .

[GarryP]

10 minutes ago, bannork said:

Amand's government after the coup of 1991 was a massive improvement on Chatchai's corrupt regime .

You mean Chatchai's buffet cabinet? Anand's time was good. There were definitely some positive changes bringing Thailand in line with international agreements and standards. 

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, bannork said:

Amand's government after the coup of 1991 was a massive improvement on Chatchai's corrupt regime .

You approved of the government in charge during Black May?

 

"The 1991 constitution allowed Suchinda Kraprayoon to be appointed as prime minister. That caused 17–20 May 1992 popular protest in Bangkok against the government of Suchinda and the military crackdown that followed. Up to 200,000 people demonstrated in central Bangkok at the height of the protests. The military crackdown resulted in 52 government-confirmed deaths, hundreds of injuries including journalists, over 3,500 arrests, hundreds of disappearances, and eyewitness reports of a truck filled with bodies leaving the city.^[16] Many of those arrested are alleged to have been tortured. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Thai_coup_d'état

[bannork]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You approved of the government in charge during Black May?

 

"The 1991 constitution allowed Suchinda Kraprayoon to be appointed as prime minister. That caused 17–20 May 1992 popular protest in Bangkok against the government of Suchinda and the military crackdown that followed. Up to 200,000 people demonstrated in central Bangkok at the height of the protests. The military crackdown resulted in 52 government-confirmed deaths, hundreds of injuries including journalists, over 3,500 arrests, hundreds of disappearances, and eyewitness reports of a truck filled with bodies leaving the city.^[16] Many of those arrested are alleged to have been tortured. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Thai_coup_d'état

Anand was not responsible for Black May. That was Suchind's greed. If Anand had resigned as PM the military would have replaced him with a right winger.

Anand was held in such high esteem that he was reappointed PM after Suchinda's fall.

But it's sad to see Suchinda to this day still walking the streets freely after the Black May massacre.

[Dan O]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The coups would not have happened if he would have been prosecuted when he was in power. But nobody dared to do that.

He would probably still be in power if he would not have been so greedy.

The military removed Thaksin because the courts didn't dare to do it at that time.

 

Obviously coups are no good solution. But look at history all over the world. A lot of leaders were removed in coups or violently even if they could claim they were democratically elected. Sometimes it was very good that that happened. Sometimes leader should have been removed any possible way but people didn't dare to do that.

As I stated earlier the decision wasn't a military decision or one where the courts weren't acting, the message was from a bit higher up to solidify future actions, which did take place against the constitional charter

[OneMoreFarang]

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

As I stated earlier the decision wasn't a military decision or one where the courts weren't acting, the message was from a bit higher up to solidify future actions, which did take place against the constitional charter

I find it always interesting when some people know why things happened because they heard it from someone who knows someone who has contact to someone in the right position.

Yes, maybe, but maybe not. 

[billd766]

IMHO the biggest polarising family in Thailand is the military.

[zzaa09]

16 hours ago, still kicking said:

So? Most posters on here don't live in Thailand 

Or....don't care to reside here.

Yet, here they are.

 

Odd.

[zzaa09]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

IMHO the biggest polarising family in Thailand is the military.

Yes. In a round about manner.

Remembering why the military exist and their sole purpose - especially as applying to Thailand.

The greater polarising influence comes by way of a deeper tradition. Almost subliminal in nature.

[billd766]

40 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Or....don't care to reside here.

Yet, here they are.

 

Odd.

I retired in Auckland NZ on my 65th birthday 23 May 2009, flew back to Thailand on 26th may and have not left since.

 

Before that I was working in and out of Thailand since May 1993.

 

And I am still here.

 

35 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Yes. In a round about manner.

Remembering why the military exist and their sole purpose - especially as applying to Thailand.

The greater polarising influence comes by way of a deeper tradition. Almost subliminal in nature.

Just why DO the military exist here in Thailand?

 

They are of little use to man nor beast, a vast drain on the economy, of little use defending the country, and a brake on the future.

[bannork]

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

Yes. In a round about manner.

Remembering why the military exist and their sole purpose - especially as applying to Thailand.

The greater polarising influence comes by way of a deeper tradition. Almost subliminal in nature.

Lol, subliminal for sure, zzaa09.

The question is, is that the case now regarding a significantly large percentage of Thais?

And worryingly, as military power has become concentrated, could that lead to catastrophe?

[Neeranam]

On 4/26/2023 at 6:21 PM, still kicking said:

So? Most posters on here don't live in Thailand 

On the sauce again?

[n00dle]

On 4/26/2023 at 11:09 PM, Neeranam said:

'Polarising' is a word I associate with the USA, Thais are not the same. 

Sure the whole red shirt yellow shirt debacle wasnt at all polar.

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, bannork said:

Anand was not responsible for Black May. That was Suchind's greed. If Anand had resigned as PM the military would have replaced him with a right winger.

Anand was held in such high esteem that he was reappointed PM after Suchinda's fall.

But it's sad to see Suchinda to this day still walking the streets freely after the Black May massacre.

Suchind lead the coup and was PM during the protests/massacre.

 

The 1991 coup lead to Suchind and Black May.  If anything you should credit the massacre with Anand becoming PM, not the coup.  Anand was competent, as far as Thai PM's go, but that was a high price to pay for a brief period of competence.  I prefer the democratic approach.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Yes. In a round about manner.

Remembering why the military exist and their sole purpose - especially as applying to Thailand.

The greater polarising influence comes by way of a deeper tradition. Almost subliminal in nature.

The Thai military exists to protect the interest of the Thai elite, including the generals and he who must not be named. 

[bannork]

11 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Or....don't care to reside here.

Yet, here they are.

 

Odd.

Proof you can check out of Thailand but you can never really leave.