Samak Sundaravej was elected

[steveromagnino]

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to win an absolute majority?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected AGAIN?

That, to me, is a quantifiable measure of success for any politician anywhere.

The answer to all your statements is they/he didn't win anything. They/he bought all victories with proceeds of currupt money making schemes at the expense of all the poor people of Thailand.

although you do have to admit the cleverness of buying the votes with government money, then pretending/implying it came from him personally; or of using government money to buy services from his own companies, then giving that away to imply it came from his companies.

It certainly made him look better than anyone else.

BTW in answer to this question, one has to understand faction politics, and to that I would say that clearly there are some politicians that have been in power even longer (perhaps not as PM but certainly as trough feeders)

Banharn** Long live the eel

Sanoh** Pa Noh is definitely the king deal maker - and back in again I see

Suriya

Chalerm** Sadly ruined by his kids, but he still has come back, now that all is forgiven, what a nice guy

Chavalit - finally put out to pasture, having almost bankrupted the country, although the alledged short selling he and Thaksin did will long be remembered as a kind and gracious lesson on the importance of capital controls as recommended by Soros (who of course TRT villainised when he was going to come out here, just in case anyone asked, 'how come AIS didn't hold USD debt like all their competitors?')

The wonderful Khunpleum family - lovely guy

While I realise this is a dream team of fine outstanding gentlemen whose credentials are beyond question and whose ethics cannot be questioned, suggesting that TRT was 'kit mai tum mai' when you have these loons involved was, to use the language of the dek inter 'koht rubbish innit'

In other words, they didn't really get more votes and an absolute majority in being more popular, rather they just embraced all the factions that used to win anyway, and that's how they got the votes.

Bangkok in what, 2000/2001 was the only time you really saw a genuine change in voting patterns when TRT swept the seats with kit mai tum mai. We all know how they slumped next time around, once people realised that the new blood like Purachai were merely the sacrificial lambs to get Bangkok,and the real power was back with our dream team listed above.

but then again.....

[A_Traveller]

journals of record

If I read that one more time from the same cadre of posters I think'll scream, even the magazine itself does not and has never described itself as such. It was, in part, created as the reaction to the Corn Laws in Britain in the mid 1800's. The Economist makes no apology for having a point of view, and being combative in presenting it. Therefore let's understand that anyone who perceives the magazine as a scholarly archive of fact is living under a delusion, one to which the editors, and contributors, themselves, have never subscribed.

Regards

Edit from--- form...

Edited January 30, 2008 by A_Traveller

[traveller5000]

My position has been consitently the same. Thaksin was a crook and needed to be gotten rid of. I never liked him admittedly, even back to the Palang Dharma days.

That's a fair and valid opinion in itself. Where I start to place question marks is when people are so extremist in their hatred of a successful politician

sorry, I don't think it is correct in describing Thaksin as a 'successful politician'. Politicians are first and foremost leaders of the country and this Thaksin character led the country into a hole and a mess in more ways than one. 'Failed politician' would be a better description.

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to win an absolute majority?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected AGAIN?

That, to me, is a quantifiable measure of success for any politician anywhere.

You have mistakenly equated political success with election victory. So.... now that Samak has gotten into power, he could for example totally neglect the country, leisurely carry on with his cooking show, make a total fool of himself in front of the international media, drive and divide the country further downwards, and for the short time he is PM, according to your definition based on election victory, at least in some small way you would regard him as being politically successful?

I consider political success to be about directing the country properly with good political leadership, bringing the country up. Just look at the dark hole Thaksin lead the country into and how could you ever call that a success ?

Sorry, but being loose with labels like that is why I stopped reading your post after that sentence.

Edited January 30, 2008 by traveller5000

[younghusband]

journals of record

If I read that one more time from the same cadre of posters I think'll scream, even the magazine itself does not and has never described itself as such. It was, in part, created as the reaction to the Corn Laws in Britain in the mid 1800's. The Economist makes no apology for having a point of view, and being combative in presenting it. Therefore let's understand that anyone who perceives the magazine as a scholarly archive of fact is living under a delusion, one to which the editors, and contributors, themselves, have never subscribed.

Regards

Edit from--- form...

You are quite correct and I apologise for using the term loosely.What I meant was that the Economist is one of the first journals that the serious minded and well educated look to for opinion and comment, though the fact checking process is very thorough indeed.One, to repeat the point, would be in error to suppose that the Economist as a journal of opinion is slapdash in verifying its material.At the same time I accept it would be a mistake to rely entirely on the Economist for opinion.

[ando]

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; -- as we all do at home any way. Lets not forget that at the moment we have 50% of the Thai population (rural peasant class) producing 10% of GDP. That's a terrible waste of human resources. Its like running a company where half your workers come in and do virtually nothing productive. Getting the rural agricultural peasant class to become more productive is going to require some investment before results appear. Most developed countries get by quite comfortably with 1 to 2% of the population involved in agriculture, and even manage to export surplus food.

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Bringing 50% of the countries population into more productive employment is not something that is going to happen overnight. It will take education, infrastructure and investment. Even then, results will be generational as the kids grow up into a changing way of life. You ain't going to turn a 50 year old peasant rice farmer with a grade 5 education into an accountant or bassister by throwing money at him. But you can change the way they do business on the farm and the chances the kids might have by gradually introducing change through better education.

There are plenty of people here who mock any government attempts to give a helping hand up to the poor. The 30 baht health care scheme, educational loans, and rural development loans to name a few. Maybe these schemes haven't been as successful as hoped and indeed have been abused in some instances. But does that mean that Thailand should abandon any attempt to make their country more productive and prosperous? Certainly not!

Thailand can stand still and maintain the status quo with half their population living in poverty and undertaking employment practices that benefit neither themselves nor the country, or they can move ahead with other developing countries and enjoy the bounties of increased production and wealth for all as we ourselves have done in our own western countries.

Thaksin, for all his faults, was the first to offer the rural poor a helping hand up. Perhaps it was primarily for selfish reasons simply to get the most votes in a democratic system? Or perhaps it was because Thaksin realized that the development of the previously abandoned rural poor over the next few decades was the key to Thailand's prosperity in future years? Or, more likely it was a mixture of the two in the classic Asian political style whereby the political leader enriches himself while at the same time leading the country into prosperity.

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

Edited January 30, 2008 by ando

[soundman]

That's a terrible waste of human resources. Its like running a company where half your workers come in and do virtually nothing productive. Getting the rural agricultural peasant class to become more productive is going to require some investment before results appear.

Not too far from the mark this one. Spot on observation of the quality of the labor pool in Thailand.

And one of the reasons for this is that they think they can get "free money" from Taxin & because they are told & believe the rhetoric "he will save us".

My personal feeling is that if no actual money paid for votes or promissed cheap loans were on the election menu - the current shambles of a government would be vastly different, & probably be a benneficial to the poorer cross section of the Thai's.

Soundman.

[Plus]

Younghusband, what was wrong with Chuan's dealing with economic crisis? He had a very capable economic team that fully implemented what was thought as right policies at that time and achieved some tangible results.

There were LOTS of people who lost big time then, they are they ones who regularly blame it on Chuan, naturally. Anyone else?

Ando, what Thaksin did was the opposite of investing in infrastructure, education, or increasing productivity. Giving money to farmers is better than not giving anything at all, but hooking 50% of population on government handouts has a devastating effect in the long term. I hope you understand this point.

>>>>

So far only one publication expressed optimism about PPP economic performance, based solely on an interview with Surapong, and that is very misleading to their readers, not to mention severly damaging to their journalistic standards. Quick look at academic and professional circles paints a rather gloomy picture, with some openly protesting against Surapongs incompetence, something the magazine chose not to include in their report.

And it was Asian Wall Street Journal, supposedly business publication.

Economist didn't say much about economy but it surely celebrated PPPs political victory. The fact that the cabinet gets to be filled with assorted family members of banned politicians instead of capable professionals doesn't ring any bell at The Economist. Their pro-Thaksin stance, and naive believe that he represented the "power of people", is mind boggling, though easy to understand if one abandons assumptions about their journalistic integrity.

[ray08]

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; -- as we all do at home any way. Lets not forget that at the moment we have 50% of the Thai population (rural peasant class) producing 10% of GDP. That's a terrible waste of human resources. Its like running a company where half your workers come in and do virtually nothing productive. Getting the rural agricultural peasant class to become more productive is going to require some investment before results appear. Most developed countries get by quite comfortably with 1 to 2% of the population involved in agriculture, and even manage to export surplus food.

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Bringing 50% of the countries population into more productive employment is not something that is going to happen overnight. It will take education, infrastructure and investment. Even then, results will be generational as the kids grow up into a changing way of life. You ain't going to turn a 50 year old peasant rice farmer with a grade 5 education into an accountant or bassister by throwing money at him. But you can change the way they do business on the farm and the chances the kids might have by gradually introducing change through better education.

There are plenty of people here who mock any government attempts to give a helping hand up to the poor. The 30 baht health care scheme, educational loans, and rural development loans to name a few. Maybe these schemes haven't been as successful as hoped and indeed have been abused in some instances. But does that mean that Thailand should abandon any attempt to make their country more productive and prosperous? Certainly not!

Thailand can stand still and maintain the status quo with half their population living in poverty and undertaking employment practices that benefit neither themselves nor the country, or they can move ahead with other developing countries and enjoy the bounties of increased production and wealth for all as we ourselves have done in our own western countries.

Thaksin, for all his faults, was the first to offer the rural poor a helping hand up. Perhaps it was primarily for selfish reasons simply to get the most votes in a democratic system? Or perhaps it was because Thaksin realized that the development of the previously abandoned rural poor over the next few decades was the key to Thailand's prosperity in future years? Or, more likely it was a mixture of the two in the classic Asian political style whereby the political leader enriches himself while at the same time leading the country into prosperity.

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

Very Good post , and agreed Thaksin made himself richer along with driving the company , the Junta looked after themselves and done nothing and the Democrats just sat quite and watched from my view almost were hoping to get in by default

[ando]

That's a terrible waste of human resources. Its like running a company where half your workers come in and do virtually nothing productive. Getting the rural agricultural peasant class to become more productive is going to require some investment before results appear.

Not too far from the mark this one. Spot on observation of the quality of the labor pool in Thailand.

And one of the reasons for this is that they think they can get "free money" from Taxin & because they are told & believe the rhetoric "he will save us".

My personal feeling is that if no actual money paid for votes or promissed cheap loans were on the election menu - the current shambles of a government would be vastly different, & probably be a benneficial to the poorer cross section of the Thai's.

Soundman.

So do you honestly believe that if the central government does nothing to elevate the status of the rural poor, they will somehow miraculously transform themselves into middle class Thais?

[steveromagnino]

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; --

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

I've edited down a bit of what you said; from my point of view, if I was some Isaan peasant of course I would vote TRT as I got so much stuff for free. However, I might not know what I need, but I know what I want. And hold up, the 500 odd people in the village my family owns much of and employs, that is their exact view - this guy stood up to the foreigners, he loves Thais, and he cares about the poor.

An educated person might shoot down all of those as untrue, but it doesn't matter, for better or worse TRT marketing and marketing research (very sophisticated I might add) knows which buttons to press to get their votes in the North East.

If you were a southern peasant, you might feel ENTIRELY differently.

There is VERY little difference in wealth distribution between Thailand and USA, the Lorenz curve, GINI index and other measures of wealth distribution are very very similar. I think you mean heavily taxed socialist type systems in Europe perhaps rather than the western world's largest economic power perhaps?

I have no idea where you thought that the military junta did any less for the poor than TRT did; at least over the last year and a half. Other than unsustainable giveaways (including 30b healthcare which is completely unsustainable and set up to profiteer if you are a medicine importer such as the former health minister's family) I see nothing that TRT have done or are promising to do as PPP that is significantly different to any one else.

Far from trying to keep the poor down, you could argue that TRT/PPP have acheived even better; the poor want to stay down now and be the lap dogs of the new elite, who have given them some scraps while they feast on the govt coffers that could have provided education and genuine advancement.

You'll note there has been virtually no check on the amount of prostitution for instance, or on white liquor or any of the other aspects of rural Thailand that seem so bad; just the war on drugs which acheived something I suppose, although 2000+ families of people involved might ask 'at what cost'

With a mandate imagine what a true leader could do.

Then look at the reality of these f&*king morons. As for your 'military keeping the rural poor down at gunpoint' obviously you are referring to TRT's policy in the south...or perhaps you feel Newin should be entitled to keep paying people to come to BKK and create civil disorder in public places???!

You are indeed right, TRT do indeed have more than 50% of the vote, because one person one vote. Fair enough. Doesn't mean I have to like PPP or him though; unlike most here I've had to work with TRT people, so I see through the facade; no doubt others said that before about Mugabe, Marcos, Estrada, etc etc.

Ya gets who ya vote for, and dammit we've ended up with Ai-Mak.

[Ricardo]

With a mandate imagine what a true leader could do.

One line I suspect we all would sign up to.

Where such a leader might emerge from, how they would raise the finance to gain power, and how to restrain them from power-mania when necessary, remain more problematical.

Sadly Thaksin, after an encouraging start, wasn't that man.

[steveromagnino]

With a mandate imagine what a true leader could do.

One line I suspect we all would sign up to.

Where such a leader might emerge from, how they would raise the finance to gain power, and how to restrain them from power-mania when necessary, remain more problematical.

Sadly Thaksin, after an encouraging start, wasn't that man.

Supachai is our man. Anand would have worked too. Sadly, I think they turned down the offer to lead the country during the coup year, as did most of the other obvious choices.

I agree, it was an encouraging first 6 months, followed by several years of hel_l.

ah well, deja vous. All over again.

[ando]

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; --

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

I've edited down a bit of what you said; from my point of view, if I was some Isaan peasant of course I would vote TRT as I got so much stuff for free. However, I might not know what I need, but I know what I want. And hold up, the 500 odd people in the village my family owns much of and employs, that is their exact view - this guy stood up to the foreigners, he loves Thais, and he cares about the poor.

An educated person might shoot down all of those as untrue, but it doesn't matter, for better or worse TRT marketing and marketing research (very sophisticated I might add) knows which buttons to press to get their votes in the North East.

If you were a southern peasant, you might feel ENTIRELY differently.

There is VERY little difference in wealth distribution between Thailand and USA, the Lorenz curve, GINI index and other measures of wealth distribution are very very similar. I think you mean heavily taxed socialist type systems in Europe perhaps rather than the western world's largest economic power perhaps?

I have no idea where you thought that the military junta did any less for the poor than TRT did; at least over the last year and a half. Other than unsustainable giveaways (including 30b healthcare which is completely unsustainable and set up to profiteer if you are a medicine importer such as the former health minister's family) I see nothing that TRT have done or are promising to do as PPP that is significantly different to any one else.

Far from trying to keep the poor down, you could argue that TRT/PPP have acheived even better; the poor want to stay down now and be the lap dogs of the new elite, who have given them some scraps while they feast on the govt coffers that could have provided education and genuine advancement.

You'll note there has been virtually no check on the amount of prostitution for instance, or on white liquor or any of the other aspects of rural Thailand that seem so bad; just the war on drugs which acheived something I suppose, although 2000+ families of people involved might ask 'at what cost'

With a mandate imagine what a true leader could do.

Then look at the reality of these f&*king morons. As for your 'military keeping the rural poor down at gunpoint' obviously you are referring to TRT's policy in the south...or perhaps you feel Newin should be entitled to keep paying people to come to BKK and create civil disorder in public places???!

You are indeed right, TRT do indeed have more than 50% of the vote, because one person one vote. Fair enough. Doesn't mean I have to like PPP or him though; unlike most here I've had to work with TRT people, so I see through the facade; no doubt others said that before about Mugabe, Marcos, Estrada, etc etc.

Ya gets who ya vote for, and dammit we've ended up with Ai-Mak.

What the fuc_k are you smokin?

[soundman]

So do you honestly believe that if the central government does nothing to elevate the status of the rural poor, they will somehow miraculously transform themselves into middle class Thais?

I honestly believe that this central government has absolutely no intention of enhancing the education and financial position of rural or poverty stricken Thai's past the point where they gain entry into office.

The only thing that will be enhanced is their net worth when they leave office or end up in prison (highly un-likely unless the current abomnation administration is booted out).

If anyone out there believes otherwise please feel free to enlighten the board, citing reasonable government policy and agenda.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[baanthale]

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; -- as we all do at home any way. Lets not forget that at the moment we have 50% of the Thai population (rural peasant class) producing 10% of GDP. That's a terrible waste of human resources. Its like running a company where half your workers come in and do virtually nothing productive. Getting the rural agricultural peasant class to become more productive is going to require some investment before results appear. Most developed countries get by quite comfortably with 1 to 2% of the population involved in agriculture, and even manage to export surplus food.

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Bringing 50% of the countries population into more productive employment is not something that is going to happen overnight. It will take education, infrastructure and investment. Even then, results will be generational as the kids grow up into a changing way of life. You ain't going to turn a 50 year old peasant rice farmer with a grade 5 education into an accountant or bassister by throwing money at him. But you can change the way they do business on the farm and the chances the kids might have by gradually introducing change through better education.

There are plenty of people here who mock any government attempts to give a helping hand up to the poor. The 30 baht health care scheme, educational loans, and rural development loans to name a few. Maybe these schemes haven't been as successful as hoped and indeed have been abused in some instances. But does that mean that Thailand should abandon any attempt to make their country more productive and prosperous? Certainly not!

Thailand can stand still and maintain the status quo with half their population living in poverty and undertaking employment practices that benefit neither themselves nor the country, or they can move ahead with other developing countries and enjoy the bounties of increased production and wealth for all as we ourselves have done in our own western countries.

Thaksin, for all his faults, was the first to offer the rural poor a helping hand up. Perhaps it was primarily for selfish reasons simply to get the most votes in a democratic system? Or perhaps it was because Thaksin realized that the development of the previously abandoned rural poor over the next few decades was the key to Thailand's prosperity in future years? Or, more likely it was a mixture of the two in the classic Asian political style whereby the political leader enriches himself while at the same time leading the country into prosperity.

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

The poor peasants of Issarn have been cast as villains here by many, simply because they voted for someone who offered them the best political deal; --

The current situation with this exceptional division in wealth between the rich and poor (by western standards) suits the wealthy elite very well as it sustains cheap labour to sustain their high standard of living. But is it really in the countries best interests to have half the population living in conditions not too much better than the stone age? OF COURSE NOT!

Take a look at the political forces opposing Thaksin. A military junta which has shown itself to be incompetent in managing the countries economy. A military junta which rather than cultivating and developing the countries greatest asset of 50% of the population in the rural agricultural sector, surrounded them with soldiers under martial law in an attempt to keep them down.

The good thing about Thailand is that at the moment at least, they have a voting majority of poor who can legitimately influence the course of democracy. In the coming decades as the rural poor become much less of a voting bloc and the urban middle class increase in numbers, things may change. Right now, Thaksin or his nominees have the support of sufficient numbers of voters to hold power under a democratic system.

I've edited down a bit of what you said; from my point of view, if I was some Isaan peasant of course I would vote TRT as I got so much stuff for free. However, I might not know what I need, but I know what I want. And hold up, the 500 odd people in the village my family owns much of and employs, that is their exact view - this guy stood up to the foreigners, he loves Thais, and he cares about the poor.

An educated person might shoot down all of those as untrue, but it doesn't matter, for better or worse TRT marketing and marketing research (very sophisticated I might add) knows which buttons to press to get their votes in the North East.

If you were a southern peasant, you might feel ENTIRELY differently.

There is VERY little difference in wealth distribution between Thailand and USA, the Lorenz curve, GINI index and other measures of wealth distribution are very very similar. I think you mean heavily taxed socialist type systems in Europe perhaps rather than the western world's largest economic power perhaps?

I have no idea where you thought that the military junta did any less for the poor than TRT did; at least over the last year and a half. Other than unsustainable giveaways (including 30b healthcare which is completely unsustainable and set up to profiteer if you are a medicine importer such as the former health minister's family) I see nothing that TRT have done or are promising to do as PPP that is significantly different to any one else.

Far from trying to keep the poor down, you could argue that TRT/PPP have acheived even better; the poor want to stay down now and be the lap dogs of the new elite, who have given them some scraps while they feast on the govt coffers that could have provided education and genuine advancement.

You'll note there has been virtually no check on the amount of prostitution for instance, or on white liquor or any of the other aspects of rural Thailand that seem so bad; just the war on drugs which acheived something I suppose, although 2000+ families of people involved might ask 'at what cost'

With a mandate imagine what a true leader could do.

Then look at the reality of these f&*king morons. As for your 'military keeping the rural poor down at gunpoint' obviously you are referring to TRT's policy in the south...or perhaps you feel Newin should be entitled to keep paying people to come to BKK and create civil disorder in public places???!

You are indeed right, TRT do indeed have more than 50% of the vote, because one person one vote. Fair enough. Doesn't mean I have to like PPP or him though; unlike most here I've had to work with TRT people, so I see through the facade; no doubt others said that before about Mugabe, Marcos, Estrada, etc etc.

Ya gets who ya vote for, and dammit we've ended up with Ai-Mak.

Very good post from Ando before, and yes indeed, there in not much differens in wealth distribution between US and Thailand today Thats why Ando wants to see Thailand to do better then now

[sriracha john]

I just wanted to point out that this is a time everyone’s eyes are on Samak, but we need to be watching Thaksin too as what he is doing. He has been know to take advantages of diversions.

In keeping with steveromagnino-inspired non-naming incognito referencing , the man that no one can take their eyes off, for obvious reasons, is....

[jbowman1993]

My position has been consitently the same. Thaksin was a crook and needed to be gotten rid of. I never liked him admittedly, even back to the Palang Dharma days.

That's a fair and valid opinion in itself. Where I start to place question marks is when people are so extremist in their hatred of a successful politician

sorry, I don't think it is correct in describing Thaksin as a 'successful politician'. Politicians are first and foremost leaders of the country and this Thaksin character led the country into a hole and a mess in more ways than one. 'Failed politician' would be a better description.

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to win an absolute majority?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected?

Which other Thai politicians or parties do you know of that managed to get re-elected AGAIN?

That, to me, is a quantifiable measure of success for any politician anywhere. The mess Thailand is in is entirely the making of the ruling elite / military, in any case you can't blame an elected politician for being ousted at gun point. Next you'll be calling Salvador Allende a failed politician for getting ousted/killed in a coup. (Could go on with examples but then people will be blaming me for comparing Thaksin to elected-but-overthrown politicians in other countries. ( like, call Nelson Mandela failed as a leader because he got himself locked up. ) Anyway, such a list would get the sparks flying off keyboards across the nation so I'll leave with that I consider election results the primary measure of success; What you added is opinion.

What other Thai politician manipulated an entire business sector for his personal gain, thereby increasing his net worth 500 % before he left office?

What other Thai politician was directly or indirectly responsible for 2,500 deaths during his so called "War on Drugs"

What other Thai politician promised more and delivered less? (1 million cows promised - delivered 10,000, 1 million elite cards purchased in the first year - actual number less than 3,000, etc, etc, etc)

What other Thai politician DIRECTLY oversaw the construction and mismanagement of the new airport, resulting in huge losses, bribes, substandard construction, etc on a scale never before seen in this nation?

What other Thai politician lied under oath about assets that he still controlled in his companys?

What other Thai politician put Thailand's burden of debt so high by foolishly trying to subsidize oil prices?

What other Thai politician so freely bullied and harrassed the media, causing Thailand's Freedom of Press rating to go from a high point in 1999 to a low in 2006 (which the generals certainly kept that way)?

What other Thai politician was capable of so competely polarizing the country, to a degree never before seen in this nation's history?

I'm not sure how many more of Thakin's "successes" this country could have suffered through. Don't label me pro coup. I think the generals were competely wrong in there actions as well. But defending this man so zealously bespeaks some other motive. Can we see a copy of your bank statements Lil? Sure there are not any "unexplained transactions from Hong Kong" that need accounting for? (this is called libel - another one of Thaksin's favorite tools to control and suppress the free press - feel free to sue me for 100 billion baht now. That is what Thaksin would do)

[John K]

So do anyone have the information available how long each previous PM lasted in office?

[Tony121]

Im not sticking up for TRT but they do more for the poor then just give them the 30bt healthcare there are government worker's in Issan helping farmer's with changing there crop's from rice to rubber which in 4 to 7 years will increase the wealth of a lot of Issan people.

what you've got to ask is what did other government's do to help the people of Issan?

[samran]

I'm not sure how many more of Thakin's "successes" this country could have suffered through. Don't label me pro coup. I think the generals were competely wrong in there actions as well. But defending this man so zealously bespeaks some other motive. Can we see a copy of your bank statements Lil? Sure there are not any "unexplained transactions from Hong Kong" that need accounting for? (this is called libel - another one of Thaksin's favorite tools to control and suppress the free press - feel free to sue me for 100 billion baht now. That is what Thaksin would do)

Oh goodie. Thai visa has its first TRT member.

[John K]

Keep your nose out of our sign language'

A welfare group has called for hands off over how deaf people should describe politicians - in particular the prime minister - in sign language.

The Council of Disabled People of Thailand claimed yesterday any interference in the way deaf people communicate with their hands "would not be appropriate".

Council chairman Wiriya Namsiriphongphan was responding to queries from PPP members on the way deaf people referred to party leader and Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej in sign language.

During a recent televised parliamentary session, translators touched their noses when Samak's name was mentioned. The prime minister's nose is widely acknowledged as the most prominent feature on his face.

Many PPP members were reportedly upset when they saw the sign.

However Wiriya insisted yesterday: "This is not to mock or to humiliate him. It's just the sign that deaf people can understand."

At the mention of Demo-crat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva's name, translators moved their hands around their faces and gave a thumbs up. This sign referred to his initials and also indicated they thought he was good looking.

Wiriya said if the PPP wanted to change the way deaf people referred to Samak, it would need to pay for a seminar to determine how best to refer to the prime minister with another sign.

"Is it worth holding such a big seminar for just one person?" he said.

Wiriya said sign language for the deaf was constructed naturally and any attempt to interfere would mean a fabricated language.

The Nation

Well if Samak does get involved in this I guess the deaf will end up pointing to their

[sriracha john]

Im not sticking up for TRT but they do more for the poor then just give them the 30bt healthcare there are government worker's in Issan helping farmer's with changing there crop's from rice to rubber which in 4 to 7 years will increase the wealth of a lot of Issan people.

what you've got to ask is what did other government's do to help the people of Issan?

You are referring to yet another of Thaksin's monumental corruption cases. 90 millions saplings... inferior ones that when they didn't die off quickly were unable to produce rubber... 1.5 BILLION Baht siphoned... with Thaksin and Newin at the top with leading roles in the scam and Somkid in the supporting cast.

Everything Thaksin touched was tainted. Every program to "help the poor" only enriched him and his cronies.

the history of rubber sapling scam program (courtesy of the ever-helpful thaivisa search engine)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?ac...bber+%2Bsapling

[McPhong]

Everything Thaksin touched was tainted. Every program to "help the poor" only enriched him and his cronies.

That's why "the poor" kept voting en mass for him right? And continue to essentially.

I'm new and not disagreeing with you, but the observable past and current election results suggest you know something they dont?.

Edited January 30, 2008 by McPhong

[sriracha john]

Everything Thaksin touched was tainted. Every program to "help the poor" only enriched him and his cronies.

That's why "the poor" kept voting en mass for him right? And continue to essentially.

I'm new and not disagreeing with you, but the observable past and current election results suggest you know something they dont?.

I'm honored by your first post on Thaivisa...

The poor get just enough grains of spilled rice onto the roadway from the 18-wheeled truck over-loaded with bulging sacks of rice that was being delivered to his warehouse, that they supported the great and humble "Man of the People"... might be an adequate description.

That or one of the 3-card Monty dealer who allows his victims to win the first few hands.

His deception of them could be considered his worst crime.

His vastly declined vote from earlier could be an indicator that that perhaps, on a nation-wide basis, people were becoming aware of his methods.

[younghusband]

Everything Thaksin touched was tainted. Every program to "help the poor" only enriched him and his cronies.

That's why "the poor" kept voting en mass for him right? And continue to essentially.

I'm new and not disagreeing with you, but the observable past and current election results suggest you know something they dont?.

I'm honored by your first post on Thaivisa...

The poor get just enough grains of spilled rice onto the roadway from the 18-wheeled truck over-loaded with bulging sacks of rice that was being delivered to his warehouse, that they supported the great and humble "Man of the People"... might be an adequate description.

That or one of the 3-card Monty dealer who allows his victims to win the first few hands.

His deception of them could be considered his worst crime.

His vastly declined vote from earlier could be an indicator that that perhaps, on a nation-wide basis, people were becoming aware of his methods.

As a newcomer let me also welcome you.Over time you will get a good feel for the quality and sound judgement of contributors by virtue of the posts they make.You will for example no doubt make up your own mind on the quasi-racist insults to the new PM (the context being of course his closeness to Thaksin).You will note more significantly there are major differences between members on the significance of the Thaksin regime though as far as I'm aware there are very few who are undiluted admirers of the former PM.

Actually you are quite correct that the lot of the poor improved significantly under Thaksin though it would be a mistake to believe this was the result of selfless benevolence.But then when did "pork barrelling" anywhere reflect much other than opportunistic politicking? Nevertheless Thaksin, for whatever reason, did politicise the rural majority and they can never again be patronised and ignored in the same old way by the elite.This is what paranoid anti-Thaksin group actually resent though of course never admitting it.You will note many comments about the stupidity, corruption (vote buying) and lack of patriotism among rural voters.No doubt you will make up your own mind whether this reflects reality or is hypocritical, hateful and dishonest propaganda.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as Alexander Pope pointed out.Many of the one note anti-Thaksinite foreigners on this forum have enough knowledge to understand the damage Thaksin did to the country but not enough to appreciate how the Thai elite actually works and the inevitability of a deal which will see Thaksin back in the heart of the establishment.Expect much wriggling and squirming over the next few months.

Edited January 31, 2008 by younghusband

[jbowman1993]

Everything Thaksin touched was tainted. Every program to "help the poor" only enriched him and his cronies.

That's why "the poor" kept voting en mass for him right? And continue to essentially.

I'm new and not disagreeing with you, but the observable past and current election results suggest you know something they dont?.

I'm honored by your first post on Thaivisa...

The poor get just enough grains of spilled rice onto the roadway from the 18-wheeled truck over-loaded with bulging sacks of rice that was being delivered to his warehouse, that they supported the great and humble "Man of the People"... might be an adequate description.

That or one of the 3-card Monty dealer who allows his victims to win the first few hands.

His deception of them could be considered his worst crime.

His vastly declined vote from earlier could be an indicator that that perhaps, on a nation-wide basis, people were becoming aware of his methods.

As a newcomer let me also welcome you.Over time you will get a good feel for the quality and sound judgement of contributors by virtue of the posts they make.You will for example no doubt make up your own mind on the quasi-racist insults to the new PM (the context being of course his closeness to Thaksin).You will note more significantly there are major differences between members on the significance of the Thaksin regime though as far as I'm aware there are very few who are undiluted admirers of the former PM.

Actually you are quite correct that the lot of the poor improved significantly under Thaksin though it would be a mistake to believe this was the result of selfless benevolence.But then when did "pork barrelling" anywhere reflect much other than opportunistic politicking? Nevertheless Thaksin, for whatever reason, did politicise the rural majority and they can never again be patronised and ignored in the same old way by the elite.This is what paranoid anti-Thaksin group actually resent though of course never admitting it.You will note many comments about the stupidity, corruption (vote buying) and lack of patriotism among rural voters.No doubt you will make up your own mind whether this reflects reality or is hypocritical, hateful and dishonest propaganda.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as Alexander Pope pointed out.Many of the one note anti-Thaksinite foreigners on this forum have enough knowledge to understand the damage Thaksin did to the country but not enough to appreciate how the Thai elite actually works and the inevitability of a deal which will see Thaksin back in the heart of the establishment.Expect much wriggling and squirming over the next few months.

Thankfully, we have people to enlighten us on this issue. Frankly, I think anyone who does claim to understand how the Thai elite actually work, especially a non-Thai, is suspect.

Edited January 31, 2008 by jbowman1993

[steveromagnino]

I just wanted to point out that this is a time everyone’s eyes are on Samak, but we need to be watching Thaksin too as what he is doing. He has been know to take advantages of diversions.

In keeping with steveromagnino-inspired non-naming incognito referencing , the man that no one can take their eyes off, for obvious reasons, is....

Absolute GOLD

Younghusband

I will kindly guess that your 'one-note anti-Thaksin' tirade is therefore not aimed at Samran or my good self being that we are both part Thai right?

I agree with you on one point; Thaksin has proved that actually appearing to do something for the poor is political gold (not as golden as the sign above, but mighty gold nevertheless). He has raised hopes among the poor that they will get a better treatment than before. Of course the protesters are all paid to come in to the airport/ BKK etc, and he has his faction leaders like Newin to help him, but I think someone smart could possibly step right over the regional MFs (MFs because they are perhaps some of the nastiest people you will ever meet in life) who currently control how people vote, and get people making a decision for themselves, based on genuine help and upgrading.

Ignoring the obvious FACT that there have been countless politicians that have also been very generous to the poor (Kukrit, Chatichai, etc), the cult of personality that surrounds THaksin should be the model on which any politician can build a viable voting platform.

I have great hopes that an Isaan voting block based on actually helping the poor (rather than giving a few crumbs as per the Sriracha John example) rather than talking about it will hold a major sway in the next government 2 years from now (when the current coalition of factions collapses) and will actually do some positive things for the poor.

But pretending that giving away underrate compost, saplings, cows and government land while simultaneously shafting other farmers (open system chicken farmers, anyone dealing with CP, anyone who grows crops now part of the extremely one sided FTA with China) is actually helping the rural agricultural sector is a joke.

So to keep the charade going, if you were going to pretend to help, you better have good control of the media and all checks and balances including parliamentary censure and independent anti corruption agencies as well the government auditors.

Hmmmm....why did this all seem so familiar?

[chownah]

Thaksin has proved that actually appearing to do something for the poor is political gold

So, how did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically....could it be that politics before Toxin completely ingnored the poor and did not even create a false appearance of helping them?...I think so. Not only did Toxin make the appearance....he actually created programs to help. Not all of the programs were successful and money did get siphoned off by local officials but some of it actually got to farmers and some even to poor farmers. There was alot of talk about programs similar to the 30 baht health care program before Toxin....and most of the talk was at election time....but no one actually created the program...until Toxin.

Toxin is no angel.

Chownah

[steveromagnino]

Thaksin has proved that actually appearing to do something for the poor is political gold

So, how did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically....could it be that politics before Toxin completely ingnored the poor and did not even create a false appearance of helping them?...I think so. Not only did Toxin make the appearance....he actually created programs to help. Not all of the programs were successful and money did get siphoned off by local officials but some of it actually got to farmers and some even to poor farmers. There was alot of talk about programs similar to the 30 baht health care program before Toxin....and most of the talk was at election time....but no one actually created the program...until Toxin.

Toxin is no angel.

Chownah

All well said... but not quite true. First off not ONE of the programs is sustainable and/or successful.

I would not swallow TRT PR in one chunk; they would have you believe this is the first messiah to listen to the poor. I disagree, almost every PM has done stuff for the poor, they just never shouted about it nearly this much; after all if we are to believe TRT as the villagers do, he has also stopped foreigners buying the country and paid back the IMF so we owe the world nothing!

The reality is they sold off state and private assets to foreigners including illegal sales of land and shares far beyond the law, didn't pay tax on it and IMF repayments were all thanks to the frugality of the Dems. But we can forget that, as according to Thaksin and his mates, Chuan is laughable as he is quite poor.

\So...let's take a look at whether TRT really were first at anything....

Healthcare - done already by the Dems Dr Arthit's program was sustainable, cost effective and poorly commuciated. FACT - it was in place prior to the election and TRT took it away

Debt foregiveness - ongoing by various, to cover up the FACT that there are too many farmers, not enough land

Free land - done throughout the past to secure votes

roading - Kukrit did a bunch of infrastructure, so did Chatichai; Kukrit's was almost all done with no graft at all; as I recall TRT have done sweet FA in this area

Reality TV shows, free taxis, free cows, 1m village fund for parties and free trees aside which admittedly were indeed a new first low in the level of how can we pointlessly use govt money to get people to like us - what exact programs are you referring to? OTOP - already in place, just not branded, sales have increased about 6% meaning it has a negative ROI; Bangkok fashion city, failure; hubs of this and that owned by TRT (e.g. medical hub dominated by hospital ownership by Thaksin/Sudarat; car hub dominated by various car parts manufacturers, etc) were already in place under BOI anyway; sorry but I really struggle to think of much else; after all the harebrained scheme to buy Liverpool and finishing the airport are hardly things that we could be proud of - except of course according to rural Thailand the new airport is the best and only Thaksin could make it happen....

Reality, anyone could make it happen for the price we paid for it....and it doesn't work yet! Plus 50% of the work had been done already.

Or are we talking megaprojects and chicken for aircraft to keep CP sales up??? Or lying for the birdflu? Yes I guess those are new. not sure how they help people....but,......

Anyone can give government money for free to the poor. If you think this is, in any way, 'help' to upgrade their lives, then please advise the Beer Chang family, the motorcycle industry and the CP family that this massive increase in their sales once the 1m baht village fund and various other giveaways kicked in was from someplace else, and they should have saved their bribes and payments for something else.

Incidentally, look at NESDB figures; the amount of gambling money and debt plus loan sharking increased, not decreased, with the rural poor during TRT - are you in favour of giving the poor even more tools to make themselves broke? After all the lottery is essentially a poor tax. Rather than get rid of it, TRT legalised it and then used the proceeds to make themselves more popular.

And...explain this to me. The MPs in most rural areas, let's take Buriram or Chachengsao, are EXACTLY the same people as before. When they became part of TRT, what epiphany do you think they had; was it that suddenly they should do something different in their neighbourhood....or was it about securing the same graft they had before?

Finally, please advise; everyone keeps talking about the rural poor and it is right we should as they make up more than 50% of the country; what exactly has TRT done for the rural poor in the areas they could not win, e.g. the deep south?

Not counting introducing the state of civil emergency, slaughters and poverty of course, which while presumably very pleasing to many of the people in Isaan, is perhaps not so pleasant for the villagers in the south.

SUMMARY

With a background of running a successful marketing led company, Thaksin has created a marketing lead political machine - it uses market research to find out what customers want, gives them some of that and uses PR to make itself look good. His customers are poor and uneducated, so he sells them bravado and hope. He is like a boiler room share broker, selling the world to his clients....and delivering an atlas.

Until now, they still have a monopoly on this, and even the old dinosaurs of Thai politics either suck up and put up with less power but at least some power, or get wiped out by it.

The opposition don't understand this...until they do, they will get to warm seats on the wrong side of the house.

As for the godfather system still in place now.... the Who comes to mind when thinking of TRT and kit mai tum mai

'meet the new boss.....same as the old boss'

one day maybe we can think of this line instead

'we won't get fooled again'

or perhaps in thinking of THaksin and his alleged relationship with Lydia and Mai

'He's a (pin)ball(ing) wizard'

Edited January 31, 2008 by steveromagnino

[Plus]

....Thaksin, for whatever reason, did politicise the rural majority and they can never again be patronised and ignored in the same old way by the elite...

What do you mean? Don't tell me you never noticed that Thaksin is viewed by those villagers as the supreme patron saint himself.

Or do you mean than being patronised by Thaksin is better than being patronised by the elites?

I don't think the elite ever showed up in the villagers to patronise anybody, nor do I think that villagers swtiched their allegiances from their local pooyais (who have nothing to do with "elites") to Thaksin. It was simply more of exactly the same.

TRT was in effect "Pooyais United". Before that sainthood status was localised - Banharn in Supanburi, Sanan in Phichit, Chidchobs in Buriram etc. Thaksin has managed to bring them all under one roof, TRT.

At no point in time they evey contemplated doing away with patron-client relationships they feed on, never.

All the talk about TRT empowering people is nonsense. They were better patrons than anyone else, that's it, and I'm glad that if Democrats didn't join the same game or I'd have to change my opinion of them as a party.