How Corrupt Is Thaksin Himself - In Tv-posters' Opinion ?

[Ricardo]

Regardless of your view of TRT, and whether they were trying to involve ordinary Thais in the democratic process or improve their lives, how do TV-posters generally view Thaksin himself ?

Was he in power only to enrich himself & his family/friends, did his fortunes rise only because the who economy did better, did he get smeared by the old elite from which he sprang, was he truly running the country only for the interests of the poor, just how true was it when he said he was taking personal control of the Suwanapoom-project to ensure that it remained free from all corruption ?

What is your opinion of the man himself, as shown by his words & his deeds ?

[Ricardo]

It will be interesting to see the current 2008-view, from this poll, and to compare with the other 3-year-old thread just revived, which was very interesting because it predated Thaksin's re-election/troubles/resignation/3rd-election/coup era and problems.

[Pakboong]

In light of the absolute fact that the new government turned over every rock more than once, looking for grounds to prosecute, it is safe to say, he is/was no more corrupt than the next guy if that.

[camerata]

Was he in power only to enrich himself & his family/friends

He was in it for power and money. The answer can be found in books like Duncan McCargo's The Thaksinization of Thailand.

[OlRedEyes]

In light of the absolute fact that the new government turned over every rock more than once, looking for grounds to prosecute, it is safe to say, he is/was no more corrupt than the next guy if that.

Some would say that people in glass houses would be extremely careful of throwing stones.

[asiaworld]

Small mistake .. i voted AS corrupt, as any other, but afterthought , shouldv'e defenitely voted LESS corrupt , due to the major difference>> He HAD already made his fortune, as an etrepreneur by the time he was elected !> so as opposed to others, he didn't NeedeD to enrich himself from public funds, in the first place, hence leavin more fund available for his initiatives to help the poor , like 30 B medicare etc.. think & think again .. Defenitely Much Less Corrupt.. one of the reasons for the coup >> to rlease the honeypot to the generals

[Ping]

Pass.

[whatsupdoc]

Small mistake .. i voted AS corrupt, as any other, but afterthought , shouldv'e defenitely voted LESS corrupt , due to the major difference>> He HAD already made his fortune, as an etrepreneur by the time he was elected !> so as opposed to others, he didn't NeedeD to enrich himself from public funds, in the first place, hence leavin more fund available for his initiatives to help the poor , like 30 B medicare etc.. think & think again .. Defenitely Much Less Corrupt.. one of the reasons for the coup >> to rlease the honeypot to the generals

Since when is having a lot of money already making people less corrupt? I think it is pretty much the opposite; the more money (or power) people have the more they want (and are able to get it).

Generalization of course, but I can think of enough former leaders who didn't really need more money but were nevertheless very corrupt.

[Donnyboy]

Regardless of your view of TRT, and whether they were trying to involve ordinary Thais in the democratic process or improve their lives, how do TV-posters generally view Thaksin himself ?

Was he in power only to enrich himself & his family/friends, did his fortunes rise only because the who economy did better, did he get smeared by the old elite from which he sprang, was he truly running the country only for the interests of the poor, just how true was it when he said he was taking personal control of the Suwanapoom-project to ensure that it remained free from all corruption ?

What is your opinion of the man himself, as shown by his words & his deeds ?

are we allowed to say it here?

[Citra]

My opinion is two-fold:

On the corruption side, and keeping in mind all the various factions under TRT he had to keep happy, he was as corrupt as everything before him, and anything about to succeed him in government.

On the effective governance side, I think he was way ahead of Thailand's time, actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

Overall, I like him. One of the better PM's Thailand ever had.

Of course that's just my personal opinion; in the end it's the vote that matters (or should matter).

[jumnien]

My opinion is two-fold:

On the corruption side, and keeping in mind all the various factions under TRT he had to keep happy, he was as corrupt as everything before him, and anything about to succeed him in government.

On the effective governance side, I think he was way ahead of Thailand's time, actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

Overall, I like him. One of the better PM's Thailand ever had.

Of course that's just my personal opinion; in the end it's the vote that matters (or should matter).

Sums it up pretty well!

[meadish_sweetball]

actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

I agree he had some excellent skills when it comes to making people repeat slogans and spin doctoring - 20 baat raksaa took roke (20 baht healthcare scheme) OTOP (One tambon - one product) etc.

But you seem to forget or disregard he actually also promised things like "Thailand will be drug free within 3 months", "Thailand will not have any poor people in 4 (or 3 or 5 or some other very low figure, I forget exactly) years.

How are those time lines realistic?

[plachon]

actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

I agree he had some excellent skills when it comes to making people repeat slogans and spin doctoring - 20 baat raksaa took roke (20 baht healthcare scheme) OTOP (One tambon - one product) etc.

But you seem to forget or disregard he actually also promised things like "Thailand will be drug free within 3 months", "Thailand will not have any poor people in 4 (or 3 or 5 or some other very low figure, I forget exactly) years.

How are those time lines realistic?

The writing was on the wall well before he became PM. When Deputy PM, under Chavalit, he claimed he would solve BKK's traffic jams in 6 months.

He also claimed he would be PM and the TRT would be the dominant party for the next 20 years a year or two after coming to power first time.

[plachon]

Small mistake .. i voted AS corrupt, as any other, but afterthought , shouldv'e defenitely voted LESS corrupt , due to the major difference>> He HAD already made his fortune, as an etrepreneur by the time he was elected !> so as opposed to others, he didn't NeedeD to enrich himself from public funds, in the first place, hence leavin more fund available for his initiatives to help the poor , like 30 B medicare etc.. think & think again .. Defenitely Much Less Corrupt.. one of the reasons for the coup >> to rlease the honeypot to the generals

Way more corrupt than anything Thailand has known in the last 30 years at least, because he removed all the checks and balances in the system and established a parliamentry dictatorship under a very closely governed kleptocracy, where family and friends were the principle beneficiaries. He was a plonker really, as he could have remained the richest man in Thailand and the PM for a long time to come, but his absolute greed and cynicism with the people of Thailand, were his ultimate downfall. He used Thailand as his own personal little fiefdom, hiding behind a cloak of democracy, which in the end slipped leaving him bare and exposed. Ironically, exile has allowed him to pull up his Little Emperor's cloak once more and pull the wool over people's eyes once more. Buying Man City is one good example.

[sonnyJ]

Small mistake .. i voted AS corrupt, as any other, but afterthought , shouldv'e defenitely voted LESS corrupt , due to the major difference>> He HAD already made his fortune, as an etrepreneur by the time he was elected !> so as opposed to others, he didn't NeedeD to enrich himself from public funds, in the first place, hence leavin more fund available for his initiatives to help the poor , like 30 B medicare etc.. think & think again .. Defenitely Much Less Corrupt.. one of the reasons for the coup >> to rlease the honeypot to the generals

Way more corrupt than anything Thailand has known in the last 30 years at least, because he removed all the checks and balances in the system and established a parliamentry dictatorship under a very closely governed kleptocracy, where family and friends were the principle beneficiaries. He was a plonker really, as he could have remained the richest man in Thailand and the PM for a long time to come, but his absolute greed and cynicism with the people of Thailand, were his ultimate downfall. He used Thailand as his own personal little fiefdom, hiding behind a cloak of democracy, which in the end slipped leaving him bare and exposed. Ironically, exile has allowed him to pull up his Little Emperor's cloak once more and pull the wool over people's eyes once more. Buying Man City is one good example.

I disagree with asiaworld as well. I understand that pure numbers and statistics can show him more corrupt than ever before. I think every new one will be more corrupt than the ones before. It's so stuck in the way thinks work here and the change will be slow. Thaksin did manage more positive improvements as well, more than the ones before him who usually are just all about money.

add:

I think we can't separate politics from personal life when talking about ex-PM. How corrupt is your personal life? Do you steal from yourself frequently?

Edited January 6, 2008 by sonnyJ

[Ulysses G.]

He also claimed he would be PM and the TRT would be the dominant party for the next 20 years a year or two after coming to power first time.

If he wasn't illegally driven from power, he very well might have been right!

[Prakanong]

My opinion is two-fold:

On the corruption side, and keeping in mind all the various factions under TRT he had to keep happy, he was as corrupt as everything before him, and anything about to succeed him in government.

On the effective governance side, I think he was way ahead of Thailand's time, actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

Overall, I like him. One of the better PM's Thailand ever had.

Of course that's just my personal opinion; in the end it's the vote that matters (or should matter).

Pretty close to my opinion actually - people forget just how high and low corruption is embedded in the country and have thise rosey tinted view as well as many only really knowing the Thaksin era being pretty much Johnny Come Lately's and are often those who shout the loudest on here.

[Citra]

actually formulating clear targets with a realistic timeline for many of his policies.

I agree he had some excellent skills when it comes to making people repeat slogans and spin doctoring - 20 baat raksaa took roke (20 baht healthcare scheme) OTOP (One tambon - one product) etc.

But you seem to forget or disregard he actually also promised things like "Thailand will be drug free within 3 months", "Thailand will not have any poor people in 4 (or 3 or 5 or some other very low figure, I forget exactly) years.

How are those time lines realistic?

Those are 'aggressive' time lines.

Ok, you're right of course on that. Though I have to say that getting rid of the complete abundance and ubiquity of drugs in society was a result that neither friend nor foe expected.. Just objectively looking around, drugs got hit so hard that the price went up enough for people to actually stop or reduce drug use. I wonder if such a result has been achieved anywhere else in the world.. In any case, many people in Thailand respect Thaksin for that. (Even though I personally don't agree with the methods used, but I'm analyzing, not cheering)

[plachon]

He also claimed he would be PM and the TRT would be the dominant party for the next 20 years a year or two after coming to power first time.

If he wasn't illegally driven from power, he very well might have been right!

In your opinion only. I don't even hear Thaksin claiming legal arguments for his power loss. I do hear that he is wanted in court for several charges of corruption and abuse of power though, but has so far failed to show up; so he's the one with the legal problems right now.

[mogoso]

Oops sorry, was scrolling down page and somehow a reply got posted.

I seem to detect having wealth it itself as reason for some to cry for corruption. Was he a good PM, I think he wasn't bad. Although I certainly wasn't high on how he reduced drug use, it did work while he was in power, and from start of it on TV many were against it as they have a more progressive idea on drug use and are against any control of these substances. The programs to help the poor were working, some better than others, yet those out of power were very unhappy, how can you defeat a larger voting base.

Those in BKK have a sense of entitlement, as afterall they have more education and are more deserving of the countries resources. Why give money to some dumb hick in Issan.

What makes Thaksin so bad in comparision to an African leader banking most of the aid money coming into his country from big hearted western countries. Those hundreds of millions ending up in Swiss banks surely could help their countries. Some of the comments from years past make Pol Pot sound like gentleman in comparision to Taksin. Oft I think a sense of history is needed.

Do I think Thaksin wanted power, absolutely. Do I think Hillary Clinton wants power, if you think Owlgore melted down, watch how Hilllary reacts and her attacks on Osama in the next few months.

Did Thaksin enrich himself while in office, sure he did. But he would've enriched himself if hadn't been elected. He would've kept doing what made him rich in the first place. Heck not bothered by running a country he'd probably been even wealthier.

No what he really did wrong was irritate the King. He should have worked closer with the King on many projects, many programs. The King has his peoples welfare as his number one priority, and I think Thaksin with a more deferrential attitute to his Majesty and a closer working arrangement would've gotten less criticism in the press. A press he wouldn't have repressed etc

He's no Mother Teresa neither is he Mao, he could've done better, but he could've been worse... much worse.

[Heng]

It's all relative. IMO there's a little corruption in everyone, it's just that most people just suck at it. They don't know how to position themselves to make their dishonest/bribery type practices actually count, having each act multiply and build upon itself until it's an unstoppable machine. They cut it at visa running, bribing a traffic policeman 100 Baht, not paying their taxes in full, giving a bouncer a $20-$50 backhand to not have wait in line, watering their lawns at night during water conservation time periods, etc. It's the same moral flaw in principle, it's just that they practice it in a way that doesn't do them much financial benefit.

In a way, a lot (not all of course) of Thaksin haters are likely just the losers of the corruption world.

[Citra]

He also claimed he would be PM and the TRT would be the dominant party for the next 20 years a year or two after coming to power first time.

If he wasn't illegally driven from power, he very well might have been right!

In your opinion only. I don't even hear Thaksin claiming legal arguments for his power loss.

Thaksin is not the one to dwell on the past or keep beating dead horses; the coup is done, and as a good businessman he's looking at future opportunities, most of which depend on not rubbing the upper echelon the wrong way.

So that just leaves me finding it interesting and remarkable, that any educated foreigner can seriously argue that a military coup to overthrow a civillian elected government can possibly be legal anywhere in the world. Oh well.

[ EDIT: Though under Thailand's new, military drafted constitution, future coups might actually be legal... ]

Edited January 7, 2008 by Citra

[Citra]

It's all relative. IMO there's a little corruption in everyone, it's just that most people just suck at it. They don't know how to position themselves to make their dishonest/bribery type practices actually count, having each act multiply and build upon itself until it's an unstoppable machine. They cut it at visa running, bribing a traffic policeman 100 Baht, not paying their taxes in full, giving a bouncer a $20-$50 backhand to not have wait in line, watering their lawns at night during water conservation time periods, etc. It's the same moral flaw in principle, it's just that they practice it in a way that doesn't do them much financial benefit. In a way, a lot (not all of course) of Thaksin haters are likely just the losers of the corruption world.

What a depressing message, depressing enough that it essentially might be true..

I shall go ponder it this morning, over a cup of coffee.

I will report back shortly. My initial response though is that 'corruption' is essentially 'dishonesty': One is obliged by promise or position to act in a certain way, but instead for personal gain one goes against these promises or obligations and acts in self-serving manner.

Of course everyone always acts in a self-serving manner which is fine, however when in a position of responsibility that others depend upon and that you have vowed to hold that position, then it becomes dishonest, and therefore potentially illegal and punishable by law.

To not have an issue with corruption is to not have an issue with dishonesty, and malfeasance of duty to the point where others are hurt, die or at the very least are deprived of living their lives to their full potential, all because the 'corruptor' thought his self-gain more important than the rights of others.

This is why societies that are relatively free of corruption are also the most SUCCESSFUL societies, especially for smart entrepreneurs. The ones that rank high in corruption are the ones that remain stuck in third world (oops: "stuck perennially emerging without actually manage to emerge to any significant degree") status.

Ok, now for that coffee.. I expect to be thinking more clearly in 20 minutes, I apologize for the above.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Citra

[Citra]

20% into my coffee:

Of course it's not a black and white issue.. Just like one can state that 'lying is bad', there is such a thing as a white-lie, and nowhere are there more shades of that particular white than in Thailand.

Take for example Dr. Thaksin's liberalization of the airline industry. You might construe this as corrupt, because he used his power to chaneg the law so that it would become possible for his own company (Thai Air Asia) to get a foothold in a lucrative market.

However, you can also argue that the existing situation was hurting Thailand, granting Thai Airways PLC an unfair monopoly on all major domestic routes. Thai Aiways is of course an organization that's ALSO corrupt to the core, with unqualified but high-class daughters being shoved into high paying FA positions, for starters.

So, liberalizing the domestic airline industry was an important, urgent and ultimately successfull policity to re-invigorate the Thai airline industry, of which even TG benefitted as they were forced to 'shape up'. But yeah, Thaksin was the first to jump at the opportunity with Thai Air Asia..

Corruption...? you be the judge but whether saying yes or no I can have no argument with your position.

[Prakanong]

It's all relative. IMO there's a little corruption in everyone, it's just that most people just suck at it. They don't know how to position themselves to make their dishonest/bribery type practices actually count, having each act multiply and build upon itself until it's an unstoppable machine. They cut it at visa running, bribing a traffic policeman 100 Baht, not paying their taxes in full, giving a bouncer a $20-$50 backhand to not have wait in line, watering their lawns at night during water conservation time periods, etc. It's the same moral flaw in principle, it's just that they practice it in a way that doesn't do them much financial benefit.

In a way, a lot (not all of course) of Thaksin haters are likely just the losers of the corruption world.

Most people are losers in the corruption world - its an unofficial additional tax and it is taken int account in FDI decisions.

However, I am more into "Realpolitik" (or cynical) than most and can see its with us to stay in various countries.

[Ricardo]

My initial response though is that 'corruption' is essentially 'dishonesty': One is obliged by promise or position to act in a certain way, but instead for personal gain one goes against these promises or obligations and acts in self-serving manner.

I think you just about sum it up !

As PM, you are required to do what is best for Thailand, not what is best for yourself or your own family & friends. And passing laws to suit your family businesses, or selling government-owned land at a discounted-price to your own wife, is clearly not in the national interest.

I admit that I'm amazed that, as of right now, 2 people voted for Thaksin being totally clean, not even a little besmirched ?

[torrenova]

He's as corrupt as hel_l and should be locked up.

[jumnien]

By definition, politicians around the world are obliged to be motivated by self-interest. I think folks are getting confused between the requirements for a politician and the requirements for a saint. Wake up! You'll find few saints on the ballot.

[aaaaaa]

Regardless of your view of TRT, and whether they were trying to involve ordinary Thais in the democratic process or improve their lives, how do TV-posters generally view Thaksin himself ?

Was he in power only to enrich himself & his family/friends, did his fortunes rise only because the who economy did better, did he get smeared by the old elite from which he sprang, was he truly running the country only for the interests of the poor, just how true was it when he said he was taking personal control of the Suwanapoom-project to ensure that it remained free from all corruption ?

What is your opinion of the man himself, as shown by his words & his deeds ?

Ricardo

I think it would be more interesting to make a Poll like:

WHO of Thai PMs was NOT corrupt?

or

WHO was more (or most?) corrupt?

so far I've heard good words only about Anand Panyarachun

[Ricardo]

Regardless of your view of TRT, and whether they were trying to involve ordinary Thais in the democratic process or improve their lives, how do TV-posters generally view Thaksin himself ?

Was he in power only to enrich himself & his family/friends, did his fortunes rise only because the who economy did better, did he get smeared by the old elite from which he sprang, was he truly running the country only for the interests of the poor, just how true was it when he said he was taking personal control of the Suwanapoom-project to ensure that it remained free from all corruption ?

What is your opinion of the man himself, as shown by his words & his deeds ?

I think it would be more interesting to make a Poll like:

WHO of Thai PMs was NOT corrupt?

or

WHO was more (or most?) corrupt?

so far I've heard good words only about Anand Panyarachun

I'd tend to agree with what you say, about Anand, although that was before I moved here, so I can't say at first-hand. If his failure was due to being too honest, perhaps Thailand has moved forwards, since then ? For which the Thaksin/TRT-era can perhaps take some of the credit. I certainly think it will be intersting to see how Abhsit copes with the establishment-elite, when he eventually becomes PM, which I don't think is just yet.

Perhaps you might like to set such a poll up ? Could be educational and interesting.