Amazing Thailand!!

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

Standard practice when the military illegally kicks out a democratically elected anti-military PM.

They think that it justifies the coup.

And sometimes it does justify the coup.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

Name one Thai PM/government for that matter that hasn't either been 'proven' to be criminals or been accused of the same in the last 20 years or so.

Abhisit

[bignok]

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

I haven't really been following the case, were they genuine charges against him or were they Trumped up charges , Trumped up charges to keep him out of Politics and to keep him from running in lections ?

Trumped up like the Trump ones

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, MangoKorat said:

Can I just ask you - and I'm not trying to be clever here, do you really not know why the military turned on Thaksin?

I wrote today in this forum (I don't remember the thread), that I think there are often many components which influence the outcome. It's not: X happened and because of that Y happened.

It's more like: A, B, C happened, and then E happened, and F and G.

Was A the most important factor? Or B, maybe together with C? I don't know.

What I know is the following: When the (for me) first coup happened in Thailand (2006, Thaksin) I wasn't really surprised and many of my friends were not surprised that it happened. It was like: Thaksin got away  with crimes for so long, and he behaved like he is invincible, it was only a question of time before he would be stopped. Exactly who will stop him and how was not obvious. But the fact that it happened was no surprise.

And same for Yingluck. As soon as her government decided to whitewash her brother at 3am, it was obvious the next day that her days were numbered.

Did "the people" decide that it's time for coups? No. But many people, at least in Bangkok where I live, were not surprised and welcomed the coups. 

Were there other reasons? I am sure there were. Did the old elite want to get rid of Thaksin? Sure. But only a combination of things made it possible.

[bignok]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I wrote today in this forum (I don't remember the thread), that I think there are often many components which influence the outcome. It's not: X happened and because of that Y happened.

It's more like: A, B, C happened, and then E happened, and F and G.

Was A the most important factor? Or B, maybe together with C? I don't know.

What I know is the following: When the (for me) first coup happened in Thailand (2006, Thaksin) I wasn't really surprised and many of my friends were not surprised that it happened. It was like: Thaksin got away  with crimes for so long, and he behaved like he is invincible, it was only a question of time before he would be stopped. Exactly who will stop him and how was not obvious. But the fact that it happened was no surprise.

And same for Yingluck. As soon as her government decided to whitewash her brother at 3am, it was obvious the next day that her days were numbered.

Did "the people" decide that it's time for coups? No. But many people, at least in Bangkok where I live, were not surprised and welcomed the coups. 

Were there other reasons? I am sure there were. Did the old elite want to get rid of Thaksin? Sure. But only a combination of things made it possible.

Khun bkk are snobs. They hated Taksin cause he helped farmers

[Nick Carter icp]

13 minutes ago, bignok said:

Trumped up like the Trump ones

At least this thread managed to get to page 2 before Donald Trump go mentioned 

[scottiejohn]

52 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

At least this thread managed to get to page 2 before Donald Trump go mentioned 

So you re-mentioned it!

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But only a combination of things made it possible.

A combination of things that could probably be levelled against any Thai government before and since Thaksin was PM.

 

The military let the people believe the country is democratic (or that's the plan) and allow things to go along, let parties fight, hold elections, take up government bla bla bla - and provided their and the elite's trough is not under threat, they let them get on with it.

 

To greatly assist them in that matter they relied on the people's love of a certain person - someone who despite the many differences across all groups, helped maintain a 'gel' that held the country together.  However, they were fully aware of the frailty of that person and the fact that his probable successor was not held in the same esteem.

 

As Thaksin's popularity grew, he became a major threat to the trough.  At the time he was said to be gaining such popularity, a popularity that was spreading well outside his stronghold of Isaan, that he may end up being more popular than the 'successor' I mentioned earlier.

 

And that is precisley why he, his party and his family had to be dealt with.

 

In this latest chapter of the army's fight to maintain control, they have actually used that popularity to maintain the status quo. Quite a smart move as it turns out.

 

Crimes, prosecutions, wrong doings........since when have they meant anything amongst Thai 'high society? How many have been prosecuted and sentenced for this or that heinous crime and how many of them have actually gone to prison and stayed there?  That goes on right down the line - i.e. police chiefs that get 'moved into a non active position' rather than prosecuted for their crimes.

 

The defendents in many of these cases have every right to cry 'political motivation' because that's exactly what goes on.  That is not to say they are not guilty but in many cases, others carry out exactly the same 'crimes' and never see the inside of a coutroom.

 

If you doubt what I claim - take a look at what's happened to Move Forward and their previous incarnation over the last few years.  They were never going to be allowed to gain power - they represented the biggest threat to the trough that there has ever been.  If they had been allowed into power, Thailand might have actually started to become 'democratic' - and the elite just can't let that happen.

 

As I said before, I am not a Thaksin fan, he bought votes and he encouraged poor people to get into debt - to name but a few faults, I actuallu despised the man. However, his major crime, no matter what the military may disguise it as, was to become way too popular and threaten the trough.

Edited September 1, 2023 by MangoKorat

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Abhisit

Right that's one and one that I have to admit that I know little about or his time in power - at the time of his rise to power I wasn't really interested in Thai politics and when he was deposed I was fighting a serious illness so Thai politics were far from the front of my mind. I really should know more about him - seeing as he's a British Northerner like myself.

 

I do remember liking the man - and rather foolishly thinking that he might bring about real democracy in Thailand.  He supported the poor and promoted equality if I remember rightly.

 

His government was not without accusations of corruption and that lead to several members of his government resigning if I remember correctly.  However, the man himself appears to be clean - given that he was born into a true democracy and educated in the same country, maybe his lack of criminal activity is not too difficult to understand?

 

So why was he deposed, why did his party lose so many votes when they appeared to be on the side of the people.  Getting rid of someone is fairly easy if they've been up to nefarious activity is not too difficult but its not the only way.

 

The question has to be asked, why did someone who appeared to be very much on the side of the people, lose so many votes?  Well, that in itself is not really in the interests of the generals and probably more importantly, he went after the army in launching an investigation into their crackdown on protestors - according to Wikipedia.

 

As I say, I know very little about the man or his government but again, he was one who promoted the rights of the people - not something the military are fans of - they can't be allowed to have real democracy can they?  There is more than one way to skin a cat - judging by his policies, I would have thought he would have stayed in power far longer. Perhaps some 'engineering' took place?

 

I don't know but you've given me a new hobby - find out what happened to Abhisit and how his party seems to have failed so spectacularly at the end.