Samak Sundaravej was elected

[Plus]

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...

Together we can steal more

Edited January 31, 2008 by Plus

[steveromagnino]

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...

Together we can steal more

to which Thaksin replied, let's work as a team and do it my way.

[baboon]

One really has to ask what on earth is going on. Is it really the thing to do electing a 72 year old reactionary as Prime Minister in todays times? Can anyone imagine this man on a state visit to your home country? What an embarrassment to this fine nation.

[steveromagnino]

One really has to ask what on earth is going on. Is it really the thing to do electing a 72 year old reactionary as Prime Minister in todays times? Can anyone imagine this man on a state visit to your home country? What an embarrassment to this fine nation.

Majority of people who voted him in, could not care less how he looks abroad, they like him and his backer too much; a fair few would prefer that these two were running the country more than anyone - elected or otherwise.

Scary stuff, but this is what a democracy is.

[baboon]

One really has to ask what on earth is going on. Is it really the thing to do electing a 72 year old reactionary as Prime Minister in todays times? Can anyone imagine this man on a state visit to your home country? What an embarrassment to this fine nation.

Majority of people who voted him in, could not care less how he looks abroad, they like him and his backer too much; a fair few would prefer that these two were running the country more than anyone - elected or otherwise.

Scary stuff, but this is what a democracy is.

You are dam_n right about the scary part.

[Plus]

Actually TRT circa 2006 was a very different animal from TRT 1999 edition. Back then TRT was a very interesting proposition they promised to revolutionise the country - "think new, act new", bureaucracy reform, crackdown on corruption. They had a core of very forward looking individuals.

In 2000 I even cheered Sudarat to win Bangkok governor elections, mostly to see what TRT would do when in power.

Later that year there was Alpine scandal and share concealment scandal and takeover of ITV. My goodwill towards TRT, and that of many many others evaporated.

After the elections, when they happily absorbed all the dinosaur parties and politicians, they embarked on the way to what they finally became.

Whatever ideals TRT founders had in the beginning couldn't withstand the allure of absolute power.

[sriracha john]

One really has to ask what on earth is going on. Is it really the thing to do electing a 72 year old reactionary as Prime Minister in todays times? Can anyone imagine this man on a state visit to your home country? What an embarrassment to this fine nation.

Majority of people who voted him in, could not care less how he looks abroad, they like him and his backer too much; a fair few would prefer that these two were running the country more than anyone - elected or otherwise.

Scary stuff, but this is what a democracy is.

Factor in what Plus described as Thaksin's superb marketing division... and they can prop and primp up even a Samak into the "free VCD's" that will portray Samak on his world-wide trips as one of this universe's greatest statesman and international mediator to its viewers.

The watchers will end up lamenting that if only Samak was a bit younger that he would be a shoe-in for United Nations Secretary-General after he's completed his eight years in office.

[Plus]

Hmm, that is an idea. Once elected by the "majority" you can get away with anything in Thailand.

[steveromagnino]

Hmm, that is an idea. Once elected by the "majority" you can get away with anything in Thailand.

sadly, under TRT the only check and balance was the military, and after the proposed reshuffle that TRT wanted to do had gone through, that avenue would have closed as well.

But of course 'democracy is the best way' tell that to Singapore 5555555555555555555555555555555555.

[Tony121]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

Also the democrat's are seen as southerner's which also helped the PPP gain vote's.

I feel thai politics are based more locally, vote for him and we can have a concrete road.

or vote for him and they won't build a tesco in our town.

also skimming, bribe's, and back handers by governments go on all around the world including U.S.A and england, and I doubt it will change regardless of who's in charge

You just have to realize he found a huge amount of untapped voters keep them happy and he stay in power.

DON'T HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME !

[Old Man River]

One really has to ask what on earth is going on. Is it really the thing to do electing a 72 year old reactionary as Prime Minister in todays times? Can anyone imagine this man on a state visit to your home country? What an embarrassment to this fine nation.

Majority of people who voted him in, could not care less how he looks abroad, they like him and his backer too much; a fair few would prefer that these two were running the country more than anyone - elected or otherwise.

Scary stuff, but this is what a democracy is.

Factor in what Plus described as Thaksin's superb marketing division... and they can prop and primp up even a Samak into the "free VCD's" that will portray Samak on his world-wide trips as one of this universe's greatest statesman and international mediator to its viewers.

Of course, there is someone standing in the way of all this and that is Samak himself. He never was a diplomat and he never will be.

[steveromagnino]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

Also the democrat's are seen as southerner's which also helped the PPP gain vote's.

I feel thai politics are based more locally, vote for him and we can have a concrete road.

or vote for him and they won't build a tesco in our town.

also skimming, bribe's, and back handers by governments go on all around the world including U.S.A and england, and I doubt it will change regardless of who's in charge

You just have to realize he found a huge amount of untapped voters keep them happy and he stay in power.

DON'T HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME !

Oh yeah, I know we have 3,000 rai of rubber trees that we had to pay for, the guy next door was a mate of Newin so he got his free.

Fertiliser was useless.

Rubber tappers are FOR SURE very happy at the moment.

Key point though...do you really think it is a good idea just to pick one group of people, and give them stuff for NO REASON FOR FREE just so they will vote for you?

Certainly if we weren't fairly large land owners in the area, then we might consider just not saving up money for saplings, fertiliser etc - Uncle Thaksin will give it to us for free so why work and save - just drink chang instead./?!

Of course.... that is the whole point of debt forgiveness and minimum crop prices - get the tax payers to fund these guys to vote for them.

Sadly, I'm the tax payer, not the beneficiary!

With high rubber prices and reasonably strong commodity prices, you'd think Isaan would be doing well, but since the money ran out from the village fund party etc, THaksin's policies have put them in more debt than they were before! (NESDB)

The amount of corruption under TRT was so much larger than any other leader before, when the guy had the mandate to kit mai tum mai....that's why I hate the playa.

Edited January 31, 2008 by steveromagnino

[younghusband]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

Also the democrat's are seen as southerner's which also helped the PPP gain vote's.

I feel thai politics are based more locally, vote for him and we can have a concrete road.

or vote for him and they won't build a tesco in our town.

also skimming, bribe's, and back handers by governments go on all around the world including U.S.A and england, and I doubt it will change regardless of who's in charge

You just have to realize he found a huge amount of untapped voters keep them happy and he stay in power.

DON'T HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME !

Oh yeah, I know we have 3,000 rai of rubber trees that we had to pay for, the guy next door was a mate of Newin so he got his free.

Fertiliser was useless.

Rubber tappers are FOR SURE very happy at the moment.

Key point though...do you really think it is a good idea just to pick one group of people, and give them stuff for NO REASON FOR FREE just so they will vote for you?

Certainly if we weren't fairly large land owners in the area, then we might consider just not saving up money for saplings, fertiliser etc - Uncle Thaksin will give it to us for free so why work and save - just drink chang instead./?!

Of course.... that is the whole point of debt forgiveness and minimum crop prices - get the tax payers to fund these guys to vote for them.

Sadly, I'm the tax payer, not the beneficiary!

With high rubber prices and reasonably strong commodity prices, you'd think Isaan would be doing well, but since the money ran out from the village fund party etc, THaksin's policies have put them in more debt than they were before! (NESDB)

The amount of corruption under TRT was so much larger than any other leader before, when the guy had the mandate to kit mai tum mai....that's why I hate the playa.

Actually according to various respected sources (eg Transparency International etc) corruption was less under Thaksin than his predecessors.(I know they were not saying Thaksin was not personally less corrupt than his predecessors).Your summary of TRT's rural support measures is so crude - "pick one group of people and give them stuff for free etc" - as to discourage a serious discussion.Heaven knows there were mistakes and abuses but from your post a novice would never understand the rural majority had been treated unfairly for decades.Thaksin changed that.

In another post you correctly praised Kukrit for his rural support policies although typically you muddled it up as "infrastructure".In fact the tambon policy in the 1970's was essentially similar to Thaksin's village fund, cash for the poorest communities.Of course rural poverty in Thailand was desperate then but in any case Kukrit's measures didn't last long, killed off by the same unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo that launched the last coup.

And yes the middle class in Thailand probably will start to pay more tax.At some point politics in Thailand will result in the fairer allocation of resources, and the challenge is to make sure this is accompanied by wealth creation and is not just redistribution.

[Tony121]

Why give stuff for free ? to get votes

Im not saying that they are a good party, all I am saying they did what they had to do to get in to

power.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Tony121

[steveromagnino]

Actually according to various respected sources (eg Transparency International etc) corruption was less under Thaksin than his predecessors.(I know they were not saying Thaksin was not personally less corrupt than his predecessors).Your summary of TRT's rural support measures is so crude - "pick one group of people and give them stuff for free etc" - as to discourage a serious discussion.Heaven knows there were mistakes and abuses but from your post a novice would never understand the rural majority had been treated unfairly for decades.Thaksin changed that.

In another post you correctly praised Kukrit for his rural support policies although typically you muddled it up as "infrastructure".In fact the tambon policy in the 1970's was essentially similar to Thaksin's village fund, cash for the poorest communities.Of course rural poverty in Thailand was desperate then but in any case Kukrit's measures didn't last long, killed off by the same unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo that launched the last coup.

And yes the middle class in Thailand probably will start to pay more tax.At some point politics in Thailand will result in the fairer allocation of resources, and the challenge is to make sure this is accompanied by wealth creation and is not just redistribution.

Tax

middle class already pays more than enough tax percentage wiseIMHO; the tax net does need to be expanded to truly cover the entire economy.... Why should we pay more when we formally pay tax and also are the ones providing the welfare via donations and so forth? In fact my viewpoint is very different; a free and open market with solid infrastructure can build a nation of entreprenuers doing business in a sustainable, constructive way. That was my great hope in 2000/2001. The first 6 months looked not too bad...and then it all fell over.

Village fund vs. Tambon Policy

To be honest, i don't know the full ins and outs of this period of Thai history, other than what I've been told; from a variety of sources i have, however, been assured that this Kukrit initiative was quite unique in the low level of graft. it was essentially a development fund and offered decentralised decision making.

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/50/5000212.pdf

Not quite as good as talking to the Pramote family directly, but it will do at a push for a vague idea of what this was all about. I've been told it was to build infrastructure, but being that they are a family describing one of their own rather than a historian, and being that my Thai skills aren't always perfect...let's just say there is room for interpretation. Some certainly did use that for infrastructure, this is a FACT. I see building roads, bridges, etc as examples of infrastructure, and as I recall, this was one component of the funds set aside for the tambon projects; joining villages into the rest of the Thai community - I consider this to be infrastructure as opposed to handouts.

With regards to the Thaksin village fund, this was vote insurance, nothing more nothing less, it stimulated consumer spending almost immediately and according to NESDB articles the results are at best mixed, and at worst, a bit of a waste of money which have resulted in increased levels of debt for villagers. It was not a copy of this program, rather it was an attempt to turn the rural poor into entreprenuers (AFAIK) by offering access to micro credit. It fell over in most places for the same reason as the attempt to create CEO governors fell over - the people didn't have the skills to make decisions on who should get how much and why or why not.

Corruption

Certainly there were major checks in place for the typical corruption one sees in a country; bribes, favouritism, etc. And yet what about say, changing laws for telco foreign ownership; the assignment of government assets and contracts to specific companies; the airport fiasco? And let's bear in mind, with no independent oversight (all watchdogs internally were disarmed as much as possible) much of the graft is only coming out now - how on earth is is their methodology (based on perception primarily of those surveyed if I am not mistaken) going to handle lack of freedom of the press and no watchdogs....but HAVING SAID THAT.... where Thailand is placed in the world rankings are:

1998 61st

1999 68th

2000 60th***

2001 61st

2002 64th

2003 70th

2004 64th

2005 59th***

2006 63rd

now of course we could get into the raw scores and why they are more relevant, but overall the world is improving so of course the scores should improve; that would like like comparing GDP from 50 years ago with GDP now to see if it has improved; better to focus instead on where we are relative the rest of the world I think. (Maybe I am muddled with this one as well).

So... since we now have a clear sample of pre and during TRT, it would seem that the primary tool - the corruption perception index (this tool has so many caveats but I will take it as an ok starting point without listing all the reasons why this score is not reflective of true corruption but only of perception obviously and the impact of that and they make this very clear in the methodology, I've not seen this organisation's work before but I do recall how it riled Thaksin when it didn't show much improvement) - shows a bit of an up and down but pretty much not much change pre and during TRT...from 61st to 63rd in 8 years. nice one TRT, and that was before we even started to see the unfolding scandals of the airport and so on which were not within the perception of the survey respondents at the time.

Speaking of muddles, 'Typically you muddled it up' - interesting choice of words; you make many good points even though we may be at opposite sides; you appear to believe Thaksin did positive things, I don't, but it doesn't mean I don't consider your points; I have always appreciated your reasoning and knowledge of what was going on. Since you say typically, please give me a decent sample range showing all the mistakes and muddles, and correct them. Then I will know:

1. typically I muddle things

2. what the correct answers are for the things I muddle

giving free stuff

Re-read what I wrote about hope; at the end of the day I truly do hope that TRT will usher in a new type of politics that combines the selflessness required of a leader with the care for the poor shown (apparently) by TRT. I just hope it will include all poor, not just the ones that vote TRT - like I said earlier, ask some of the villagers in the south what they think of TRT and the great job TRT has done in ripping them off for their land or causing virtual civil war.

Incidentally, if you cannot be bothered going that far, go to Samet, you can hear the exact same thing there.

I'm sorry, but giving people second grade healthcare, encouraging them to spend more than they earn and a few scraps is not what I would ever consider to be treated fairly - I think they need skills, education, infrastructure, opportunity. TRT think they needed access to easy credit, various free items including saplings and cows, and cheap healthcare.You can describe giving rubber saplings and cows and taxis how you like. Most people I know describe it as 'giving away free stuff so they will vote for us', just a question of whether to do it using their own money (T shirts, 100b at the voting booth) or do it using govt money (during the electoral term).

perception of the poor is mostly that TRT was using Thaksin's own money to do things for them e.g. the taxi initiative.

Edited January 31, 2008 by steveromagnino

[sabaijai]

True. It's an example of electile dysfunction.

[BigSnake]

Wait and see folks just wait and see is about all we can do at this point.

[nothingleftbutfaith]

Actually according to various respected sources (eg Transparency International etc) corruption was less under Thaksin than his predecessors.(I know they were not saying Thaksin was not personally less corrupt than his predecessors).Your summary of TRT's rural support measures is so crude - "pick one group of people and give them stuff for free etc" - as to discourage a serious discussion.Heaven knows there were mistakes and abuses but from your post a novice would never understand the rural majority had been treated unfairly for decades.Thaksin changed that.

In another post you correctly praised Kukrit for his rural support policies although typically you muddled it up as "infrastructure".In fact the tambon policy in the 1970's was essentially similar to Thaksin's village fund, cash for the poorest communities.Of course rural poverty in Thailand was desperate then but in any case Kukrit's measures didn't last long, killed off by the same unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo that launched the last coup.

And yes the middle class in Thailand probably will start to pay more tax.At some point politics in Thailand will result in the fairer allocation of resources, and the challenge is to make sure this is accompanied by wealth creation and is not just redistribution.

Tax

middle class already pays more than enough tax percentage wiseIMHO; the tax net does need to be expanded to truly cover the entire economy.... Why should we pay more when we formally pay tax and also are the ones providing the welfare via donations and so forth? In fact my viewpoint is very different; a free and open market with solid infrastructure can build a nation of entreprenuers doing business in a sustainable, constructive way. That was my great hope in 2000/2001. The first 6 months looked not too bad...and then it all fell over.

Village fund vs. Tambon Policy

To be honest, i don't know the full ins and outs of this period of Thai history, other than what I've been told; from a variety of sources i have, however, been assured that this Kukrit initiative was quite unique in the low level of graft. it was essentially a development fund and offered decentralised decision making.

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/50/5000212.pdf

Not quite as good as talking to the Pramote family directly, but it will do at a push for a vague idea of what this was all about. I've been told it was to build infrastructure, but being that they are a family describing one of their own rather than a historian, and being that my Thai skills aren't always perfect...let's just say there is room for interpretation. Some certainly did use that for infrastructure, this is a FACT. I see building roads, bridges, etc as examples of infrastructure, and as I recall, this was one component of the funds set aside for the tambon projects; joining villages into the rest of the Thai community - I consider this to be infrastructure as opposed to handouts.

With regards to the Thaksin village fund, this was vote insurance, nothing more nothing less, it stimulated consumer spending almost immediately and according to NESDB articles the results are at best mixed, and at worst, a bit of a waste of money which have resulted in increased levels of debt for villagers. It was not a copy of this program, rather it was an attempt to turn the rural poor into entreprenuers (AFAIK) by offering access to micro credit. It fell over in most places for the same reason as the attempt to create CEO governors fell over - the people didn't have the skills to make decisions on who should get how much and why or why not.

Corruption

Certainly there were major checks in place for the typical corruption one sees in a country; bribes, favouritism, etc. And yet what about say, changing laws for telco foreign ownership; the assignment of government assets and contracts to specific companies; the airport fiasco? And let's bear in mind, with no independent oversight (all watchdogs internally were disarmed as much as possible) much of the graft is only coming out now - how on earth is is their methodology (based on perception primarily of those surveyed if I am not mistaken) going to handle lack of freedom of the press and no watchdogs....but HAVING SAID THAT.... where Thailand is placed in the world rankings are:

1998 61st

1999 68th

2000 60th***

2001 61st

2002 64th

2003 70th

2004 64th

2005 59th***

2006 63rd

now of course we could get into the raw scores and why they are more relevant, but overall the world is improving so of course the scores should improve; that would like like comparing GDP from 50 years ago with GDP now to see if it has improved; better to focus instead on where we are relative the rest of the world I think. (Maybe I am muddled with this one as well).

So... since we now have a clear sample of pre and during TRT, it would seem that the primary tool - the corruption perception index (this tool has so many caveats but I will take it as an ok starting point without listing all the reasons why this score is not reflective of true corruption but only of perception obviously and the impact of that and they make this very clear in the methodology, I've not seen this organisation's work before but I do recall how it riled Thaksin when it didn't show much improvement) - shows a bit of an up and down but pretty much not much change pre and during TRT...from 61st to 63rd in 8 years. nice one TRT, and that was before we even started to see the unfolding scandals of the airport and so on which were not within the perception of the survey respondents at the time.

Speaking of muddles, 'Typically you muddled it up' - interesting choice of words; you make many good points even though we may be at opposite sides; you appear to believe Thaksin did positive things, I don't, but it doesn't mean I don't consider your points; I have always appreciated your reasoning and knowledge of what was going on. Since you say typically, please give me a decent sample range showing all the mistakes and muddles, and correct them. Then I will know:

1. typically I muddle things

2. what the correct answers are for the things I muddle

giving free stuff

Re-read what I wrote about hope; at the end of the day I truly do hope that TRT will usher in a new type of politics that combines the selflessness required of a leader with the care for the poor shown (apparently) by TRT. I just hope it will include all poor, not just the ones that vote TRT - like I said earlier, ask some of the villagers in the south what they think of TRT and the great job TRT has done in ripping them off for their land or causing virtual civil war.

Incidentally, if you cannot be bothered going that far, go to Samet, you can hear the exact same thing there.

I'm sorry, but giving people second grade healthcare, encouraging them to spend more than they earn and a few scraps is not what I would ever consider to be treated fairly - I think they need skills, education, infrastructure, opportunity. TRT think they needed access to easy credit, various free items including saplings and cows, and cheap healthcare.You can describe giving rubber saplings and cows and taxis how you like. Most people I know describe it as 'giving away free stuff so they will vote for us', just a question of whether to do it using their own money (T shirts, 100b at the voting booth) or do it using govt money (during the electoral term).

perception of the poor is mostly that TRT was using Thaksin's own money to do things for them e.g. the taxi initiative.

Your last sentence sums it all up very nicely.

All the money Thaksin ever made, from day 1, was through corrupt means.

[Lilawadee]

All the money Thaksin ever made, from day 1, was through corrupt means.

o-kay...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shina...Business_career

Please read that.

[sriracha john]

All the money Thaksin ever made, from day 1, was through corrupt means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shina...Business_career

Please read that.

Good link... looks like his business saviness got him 50 million in hock... then using police connections ventured off into businness that started turning a profit... which looks to support the "money made from day 1" comment

wiki:

Thaksin and his wife ventured into several businesses while Thaksin was still in the police force. These included opening a silk shop, opening a movie theatre, and developing an apartment building. All of these ventures were failures, and left him over 50 million Baht in debt. He established ICSI in 1982 using connections acquired during the period he worked in the police, which leased computers to government agencies and was a modest success.

Edited January 31, 2008 by sriracha john

[simplicius]

Oh yeah, I know we have 3,000 rai of rubber trees that we had to pay for, the guy next door ...

...to cover up the FACT that there are too many farmers, not enough land

Somehow a point has been made here, accidently ...

[sriracha john]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

and lots and lots of unhappy rural people that got stuck with the rip-offs.

What percentage of the rubber saplings turned out to be productive and usable versus how many died or failed to thrive?

Like all his 3-card Monty games called government programs, there were minuscule successes countered by monumental failures within each scammy scheme....

Edited January 31, 2008 by sriracha john

[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

All well said... but not quite true. ...............

...................

.............."

You say that my post is not quite true and then you post alot alot alot of stuff but it never really indicates that what I posted is not quite true....and....you failed to address the main point of my post which is "how did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically". I suggest an answer: "could it be that politics before Toxin completely ingnored the poor and did not even create a false appearance of helping them?..." Now I know that you will probably be able to come up with some example of some politician at some time having done something for a poor person somewhere in Thailand.....perhaps this is what your reference to Dr. Arthit is all about....I don't know as I am not familiar with Dr. Arthit or his program which you say was taken away (as opposed to "was replaced" perhaps?).

I'll pose the question again: "How did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically?" I think it is because previous to Toxin the poor have mostly only been an issue at election time and mostly forgotten when it came to allocating resources for social programs.

Chownah

[John K]

All the money Thaksin ever made, from day 1, was through corrupt means.

o-kay...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin_Shina...Business_career

Please read that.

Lilawadee,

Thaksin ‘101' clearly states nothing is as it seems on the surface and is most likely opposite of how it appears. The NCCC and the AEC are working full time digging down through countless layers of deception all designed to misdirect and keep Thaksin out of jail. When they get close to finding something then Thaksin ‘201' in invoked by Thaksin himself. Thaksin ‘201' is delay, delay, and delay some more until you can implement Thaksin ‘301.'

Thaksin ‘301' says do what you have to do to stay out of jail. That includes sending your wife and children as human shields.

I know you feel you are right, but your newness here is showing. Once again I and others urge you to go back to the threads and you will see every example (and I am very comfortable is saying every example without a disclaimer) shows this to be true.

[chownah]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

and lots and lots of unhappy rural people that got stuck with the rip-offs.

What percentage of the rubber saplings turned out to be productive and usable versus how many died or failed to thrive?

Like all his 3-card Monty games called government programs, there were minuscule successes countered by monumental failures within each scammy scheme....

Recap:

1. Ask a question

2. Don't provide an answer but let people assume an answer.

3. Draw conclusions from the question and the assumed answer.

[simplicius]

The NCCC and the AEC are working full time digging down through countless layers of deception all designed to misdirect and keep Thaksin out of jail.

How unfair that somebody here has actually used the law to enrich himself. This should be illegal. Bad people should not be allowed to stay within the law.

Just imagine - in the future these criminals will have the excuse that they just follwed the law, and we can't do nothing.

Edited January 31, 2008 by simplicius

[sriracha john]

Yes there was a rubber tree scandal that went on, but people still got good saplings the government

also give's them cheap fertilizer for the tree's, 10 rai of land can generate THB 1000 a day when the tree's have matured so scandal or not there's a lot of happy rural people,

and lots and lots of unhappy rural people that got stuck with the rip-offs.

What percentage of the rubber saplings turned out to be productive and usable versus how many died or failed to thrive?

Like all his 3-card Monty games called government programs, there were minuscule successes countered by monumental failures within each scammy scheme....

Recap:

1. Ask a question

2. Don't provide an answer but let people assume an answer.

3. Draw conclusions from the question and the assumed answer.

Better recap:

1. Ask a question which prompts to see which readers reviewed the link provided earlier with threads and posts that should make the question rhetorical.

2. Recap the answer with obvious conclusions based on #1.

Edited January 31, 2008 by sriracha john

[steveromagnino]

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.

....

You say that my post is not quite true and then you post alot alot alot of stuff but it never really indicates that what I posted is not quite true....and....you failed to address the main point of my post which is "how did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically". I suggest an answer: "could it be that politics before Toxin completely ingnored the poor and did not even create a false appearance of helping them?..." Now I know that you will probably be able to come up with some example of some politician at some time having done something for a poor person somewhere in Thailand.....perhaps this is what your reference to Dr. Arthit is all about....I don't know as I am not familiar with Dr. Arthit or his program which you say was taken away (as opposed to "was replaced" perhaps?).

I'll pose the question again: "How did Thailand get into a situation where even the appearance to do something for the poor is powerful politically?" I think it is because previous to Toxin the poor have mostly only been an issue at election time and mostly forgotten when it came to allocating resources for social programs.

The not quite true part I was referring to is the part where you claim Thaksin created programs to help.

Low cost housing, non sustainable healthcare (insert repeat from last post) -to me prove they didn't help at all. In fact, if anything, I would say other than govt giving free money (debt forgiveness, land handouts etc) the rural economy is no stronger now than it was before him, and probably weaker.

I agree with your first comment though; that Thaksin was able to mobilise the rural poor in a way no politician has been able to in the past, by appealing to their wants. Appearance of being 'one of them', appearance of giving out his own wealth (as he is so wealthy he doesn't need to be corrupt), appearance of kit mai tum mai - and just 3 policies:

- debt forgiveness

- 30b healthcare

- TAMC

It wasn't even about appealing to the rural poor; it is political marketing 101 - never before had Thailand had a PR/marketing astute politician, and Thaksin knows exactly how to run things. You think that wikipedia entry doesn't involve a PR agency in USA helping to edit and write his entry? You think that the Taxi drivers all support Thaksin randomly? Far from it, he understands the concept of opinion leaders, and spent more money, actually invested more money, to ensure teachers, media, taxi drivers, or bor dtor/local govt, academics would be on his side. Any oppostion were threatened using the AIS marketing budget, taken to court, or if in the govt/civil service just moved out or sideways.

One thing people don't know about TRT (and I know a little, because I gave some advice on it) - they do massive amounts of market research, exactly like a company. They are constantly polling 'people on the street' about how things are perceived. Exactly like the strategists in the UK, USA and developed democracies, TRT had the ability to present themselves, measure the result, and adjust what they were saying. That's why they had 3 simple policies - 3 key ideas that were easy to communicate and captured them not just the rural vote, but the BKK vote as well.

I don't think we should mistake appealing to the poor as the only thing TRT revolutionised. However, he proved that bravado, attitude and appearing to care could beat vote buying (2nd election he didn't really need to invest nearly as much as he did first time around in illegal vote buying).

BTW I don't believe for a second that other politicians didn't care about the poor; you have roading telephones crop buying schemes, debt forgiveness etc etc and that didn't all happen under TRT; what he did was create the appearance that only he cared about the rural poor and then marketing himself as their saviour; you would be shocked at who the most respected man is in Thailand these days in some rural communities because as I said, they think all these schemes are coming from his own pocket. To add to my previous list, even the low cost housing project is dead in the water; some of the schemes like deisel subsidy and discounted tolls out that side of BKK were blatant vote grabs pre election just like the tactics people claim were the typical way in the past.

I just don't believe he really did care, as none of his programs created anything sustainable other than a massive value add to his party members and his family. They ran the country as their own business with the hand in the till taking our money (our as in tax payers) and not a single check and balance; they were even out to eliminate the last military check and balance with the reshuffle, and were sure they would be able to eliminate/make irrelevant the ultimate check and balance - there is a reason why one of the directors of one of the new Temasak entities after the sale was Thai beyond reproach and yet ended up having to turn down the position; we cannot discuss more here obviously but the relationship is widely known to almost everyone I can think of.

but perception wise? I totally agree - he has proved that marketing yourself as a man of the rural people is the way forward to seize power and screw everyone over/do good (choose one).

[steveromagnino]

Of course rural poverty in Thailand was desperate then but in any case Kukrit's measures didn't last long, killed off by the same unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo that launched the last coup.

And yes the middle class in Thailand probably will start to pay more tax.At some point politics in Thailand will result in the fairer allocation of resources, and the challenge is to make sure this is accompanied by wealth creation and is not just redistribution.

COuldn't help but reread your post, as it has a lot of good stuff in it.

Just wanted to point out that the unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo you referred to in killing off Kukrit's good ideas was in part led by Samak, our new PM. And then again, of course, in 1992 as well as a right hand man of our good pal Suchinda. I think Thaksin has chosen a bridge wisely to get home and get off scott free ;_)

Rereading your second point.... YES wealth creation is where it is at, no redistribution. Bringing the grey economy that our leaders run (well documented in the court cases) and fair taxation policy (e.g. the off market transaction of the Shinawatra kids) are key to that, but also generating true nett new jobs and increased productivity; we've thrown away the last few years since probably 2005 with the economy running on auto and no leaders doing anything; let's hope Samak has what it takes to make some decent decisions about creating some value.

He's all we have right now, might as well hit and hope

Edited February 1, 2008 by steveromagnino

[younghusband]

Of course rural poverty in Thailand was desperate then but in any case Kukrit's measures didn't last long, killed off by the same unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo that launched the last coup.

And yes the middle class in Thailand probably will start to pay more tax.At some point politics in Thailand will result in the fairer allocation of resources, and the challenge is to make sure this is accompanied by wealth creation and is not just redistribution.

COuldn't help but reread your post, as it has a lot of good stuff in it.

Just wanted to point out that the unsavoury feudal-military-protectionist combo you referred to in killing off Kukrit's good ideas was in part led by Samak, our new PM. And then again, of course, in 1992 as well as a right hand man of our good pal Suchinda. I think Thaksin has chosen a bridge wisely to get home and get off scott free ;_)

Rereading your second point.... YES wealth creation is where it is at, no redistribution. Bringing the grey economy that our leaders run (well documented in the court cases) and fair taxation policy (e.g. the off market transaction of the Shinawatra kids) are key to that, but also generating true nett new jobs and increased productivity; we've thrown away the last few years since probably 2005 with the economy running on auto and no leaders doing anything; let's hope Samak has what it takes to make some decent decisions about creating some value.

He's all we have right now, might as well hit and hope

Great, we actually seem to agree on quite a bit.In all honesty however, although I have elsewhere been pleading to give him a chance,I don't have much hope for Samak and his cabinet of mediocrities.I fear that Samak's economic policy will be to favour the same old inward looking clique.I agree there are some peculiar ironies about Samak's current position given his past history.See Thitinan Pongsudhirak's article in today's Bangkok Post.

To be honest I would rather see the country's economic policy directed by a "shackled and bound" Thaksin.But best of all would be to give Khun Abhisit and Khun Korn a chance without the usual baggage of supersized lizards that even decent politicians in Thailand have to live with.It's probably rather politically incorrect to say so but I'm beginning to think we need upper class and upper middle class leadership -because of their confidence and superior education- that's not intimidated by provincial bosses, generals with ideas above their station and thuggish politicians.In other words the attitude of Mom Tao, lately Governor of the BOT.