Anti-thaksin Camp Vows To Launch Counter-campaign

[Tony Clifton]

"I still haven't surrounded myself with a security team. "

Well given the position Thaksin was once in ie PM and that there was a coup etc I think it is perfectly rational for him to have a secirity team.

As you should well know almost any puu yai in Thailand has bodyguards never mind the richest (or close to it).

Even in the likes of the UK an ex-PM has a security detail.

If it is rational for him to have a heavy security team, was it rational on arrival to bunker into a hotel full of innocent people when he owns property all over the country? Is it rational to strut around on golf courses if his life is really in danger? He's about to come out of hiding after the oopplah of his arrival has died down a bit.

How about arriving at the airport with two football players and HIS ONLY SON?

Or maybe there was no danger at all and his whole thing with fearing for his life is but a lie to draw sympathy.

Or maybe there is real danger and he surrounds himself with human shields.

Come on then which one is it?

One minute you are saying because of his security detail it would take an army to get to him

The next you are saying the security is no good as he is seen in public and stays in a public hotel

I think you really do not know what you want to say?

I think you really do not know how to read what I wrote.

I am saying that in the eventuality of an order for his arrest, it will take a small army unit for him to surrender because of his govt. back in power and the Royal Thai police would never betray their old buddy Thaksin, especially after replacing the police chief. That is exactly why he surrounded himself with a security team. Not because he fears for his life, but to evade his eventual arrest.

Next I am saying that all this security is not in place because he fears for his life, that is all but a theater play. If he feared for his life, there is just no way he would have made a celebrity come back at the airport with two of his football players, his only son and family or be planning to play golf out in the open.

[DP25]

If it is often alluded to that certain Thai's in power monitor this board and they are as vindictive as you beleive maybe a really hard crackdown on all those living in the grey area of visa runs and dodgy proxy run companies might come next as a lesson to keep out of politics of another country to which most have a very tenuous connection?

lol. Is this a threat? If foreigners on this board don't start shilling for Thaksin they are going to get it? Newsflash for you, 99% of Thais are unable to read this board. This board is composed of foreigners and a handful of Thai pro Thaksin loyalists. It has absolutely zero political influence in Thailand. No one is interfering with politics by discussing on this board. There are thousands and thousands of English language message boards on the internet, and lots of them have threads discussing Thailand. What they are saying is not good, if Thailand ever wants to repair its reputation it needs to seriously clean up the corruption that seems to be endemic. If they don't care about that, then carry on with Thaksin and Co.

[Prakanong]

If it is often alluded to that certain Thai's in power monitor this board and they are as vindictive as you beleive maybe a really hard crackdown on all those living in the grey area of visa runs and dodgy proxy run companies might come next as a lesson to keep out of politics of another country to which most have a very tenuous connection?

lol. Is this a threat? If foreigners on this board don't start shilling for Thaksin they are going to get it? Newsflash for you, 99% of Thais are unable to read this board. This board is composed of foreigners and a handful of Thai pro Thaksin loyalists. It has absolutely zero political influence in Thailand. No one is interfering with politics by discussing on this board. There are thousands and thousands of English language message boards on the internet, and lots of them have threads discussing Thailand. What they are saying is not good, if Thailand ever wants to repair its reputation it needs to seriously clean up the corruption that seems to be endemic. If they don't care about that, then carry on with Thaksin and Co.

I do not beleive the Thai's monitor this board but some allude to it - I do not think Thai's in power care that much about foreign public opinion in any form unless its a loss of face (or maybe money).

As for cleaning up the corruption - are you saying that is going to start any time soon, that anyone in power from the top down is interested in this?

Lots of message boards discussing Thailand - nah - not that many people interested in a small S E Nation famous for beaches and sex

Edited March 6, 2008 by Prakanong

[pete_r]

PAD are heroes!

for exposing this grotesque, pathetic government for what it is.

Sure. And where they were when we had the "grotesque and pathetic" Junta ?

The little men in their tight uniforms, you remember ? With stupid smile (General Surayud) and without a clue (General Sonthi) ?

Please, tell me ?

Sure. I think they disbanded shortly after the coup, as they had achieved their objectives at the time.

... although, yes I do wish they regrouped and put more pressure on Surayud and Sonthi to bury the Thaksin regime once and for all. They had their chances. A missed opportunity perhaps.

A People Alliance for Democracy that declares its objectives achieved and disbands just after the military seized power. Peculiar...

No. The main reason the military stepped in when it did was to prevent the possibility (probability) of serious violence occurring at Sanam Luang on the eve of the coup and the following day.

Thaksin was planning this - and then this would have given him reasonable grounds for declaring a state of national emergency. In fact - it is no surprise that he was already in New York at the time with the speech for doing so already prepared in advance. The military new of this.

Bringing Thaksin to account was one of the main - if not the main reason - for the coup - so it's not surprising that the PAD immediately ceased their protests and decided on a "wait and see" option.

The intelligent choice.

A military intervention had been required in the interests of public safety.

Ok, I've got to answer to some of the points here.

1 - "The main reason the military stepped in when it did was to prevent the possibility (probability) of serious violence occurring at Sanam Luang on the eve of the coup and the following day."

In other words the military did a pre-emptive strike. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that we never know if they really pre-empted anything, or not. Maybe there was no violence brewing at Sanam Luang, just like there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Iraq, the craddle of the pre-emptive strike theory, or in less PC terms, the "any flimsy excuse will do for striking first" theory).

2 - "Thaksin was planning this - and then this would have given him reasonable grounds for declaring a state of national emergency."

Do you, or anyone else, have any evidence to support this statement? I've read it and heard it again and again since the coup, but I have never seen in any media a shred of evidence that Thaksin was planning a state of emergency. Yes there was going to be an army re-shuffle in October, like there is every year; and yes in this re-shuffle allies of Thaksin were going to get high-ranking positions. I've heard that many times, but I do not see how it is enough to prove that he was going to establish national emergency, even less followed by his own dictatorship. Any explanation more solid than this would be welcome.

3 - "A military intervention had been required in the interests of public safety."

As Prakanong said earlier, the Number 1 excuse for every military coup in every banana republic.

Again, a People Alliance for Democracy that stop their activities when the military seize power should seriously consider changing the name of their movement.

[Tony Clifton]

They stopped their activities but not their observations, even had a few complaints about the junta.

[pete_r]

That's true, thanks for the reminder. At first it seemed all sweet with Sondhi Limthongkul receiving a TV show on Channel 11 shortly after the coup (which may be seen as a reward for his role in bringing about the fall of Thaksin), but just a few weeks later in January or February 2007 he announced quite abruptly the end of his broadcast. So I guess he said or did something to displease the junta, unless it was related to his libel/defamation suits coming in March-April 2007. He continued his speeches on ASTV though.

I don't know about the post-coup activities of the other PAD members.

Still they didn't go after the junta with the same spite they showed against Thaksin, which puts in question their pro-democracy stance.

[pete_r]

They stopped their activities but not their observations, even had a few complaints about the junta.

By the way... What was the nature of their complaints about the junta? Wasn't it that some former allies of Thaksin were selected to be part of the new government, and the PAD didn't approve?

[seonai]

The PAD support the anti Thaksin policies and plans for a better Thailand and I totally support them as opposed to the TRT supporters. Unfortuanately the Thai public, (as with the British public) are uneducated about voting so we can't expect a clear vote...

So the poor ignorant general public are all wrong and voting for the wrong reasons.

OK - lets go that route. How educated should you be - lets take it to the extreme and say you should have a political science undergrad degree (from at least on of the old Uni's) at least to participate and vote in politics - I get my vote

That is quite an arrogant attitude - in the UK cae I suppose its the Labour Govt you do not like as people vote for other than what you want?

Its a very peurile and naive political argument.

Hey Prakanong, not at all. My viewpoint comes from the fact that many Brits, including myself at some point, are not taught how to vote a personal opinion when voting comes around. To be able to vote in any country the least you should have is a basic education in what government means. I never had that in a British education and I am CERTAIN most Thai children don't have it either. So take your peurile and naive arguments and shove them where the sun does not shine

[Prakanong]

The PAD support the anti Thaksin policies and plans for a better Thailand and I totally support them as opposed to the TRT supporters. Unfortuanately the Thai public, (as with the British public) are uneducated about voting so we can't expect a clear vote...

So the poor ignorant general public are all wrong and voting for the wrong reasons.

OK - lets go that route. How educated should you be - lets take it to the extreme and say you should have a political science undergrad degree (from at least on of the old Uni's) at least to participate and vote in politics - I get my vote

That is quite an arrogant attitude - in the UK cae I suppose its the Labour Govt you do not like as people vote for other than what you want?

Its a very peurile and naive political argument.

Hey Prakanong, not at all. My viewpoint comes from the fact that many Brits, including myself at some point, are not taught how to vote a personal opinion when voting comes around. To be able to vote in any country the least you should have is a basic education in what government means. I never had that in a British education and I am CERTAIN most Thai children don't have it either. So take your peurile and naive arguments and shove them where the sun does not shine

You should be taught how to vote a personal opinion - yeah - maybe in a totalitarian state.

The British system must have failed you then

[JacknDanny]

The PAD support the anti Thaksin policies and plans for a better Thailand and I totally support them as opposed to the TRT supporters. Unfortuanately the Thai public, (as with the British public) are uneducated about voting so we can't expect a clear vote...

So the poor ignorant general public are all wrong and voting for the wrong reasons.

OK - lets go that route. How educated should you be - lets take it to the extreme and say you should have a political science undergrad degree (from at least on of the old Uni's) at least to participate and vote in politics - I get my vote

That is quite an arrogant attitude - in the UK cae I suppose its the Labour Govt you do not like as people vote for other than what you want?

Its a very peurile and naive political argument.

Hey Prakanong, not at all. My viewpoint comes from the fact that many Brits, including myself at some point, are not taught how to vote a personal opinion when voting comes around. To be able to vote in any country the least you should have is a basic education in what government means. I never had that in a British education and I am CERTAIN most Thai children don't have it either. So take your peurile and naive arguments and shove them where the sun does not shine

I lke you seonai

[Plus]

1 - "The main reason the military stepped in when it did was to prevent the possibility (probability) of serious violence occurring at Sanam Luang on the eve of the coup and the following day."

In other words the military did a pre-emptive strike. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that we never know if they really pre-empted anything, or not.

Yeah, but there's always "better safe than sorry" argument to that, too.

2 - "Thaksin was planning this - and then this would have given him reasonable grounds for declaring a state of national emergency."

Do you, or anyone else, have any evidence to support this statement? I've read it and heard it again and again since the coup, but I have never seen in any media a shred of evidence that Thaksin was planning a state of emergency. Yes there was going to be an army re-shuffle in October, like there is every year; and yes in this re-shuffle allies of Thaksin were going to get high-ranking positions. I've heard that many times, but I do not see how it is enough to prove that he was going to establish national emergency, even less followed by his own dictatorship. Any explanation more solid than this would be welcome.

Thaksin's return to political life, ambiguous stance regarding his participation in the coming elections, and fake car bomb accident were possibly interpreted as a sign that he wasn't going to step back as promised but instead go all the way in crushing public opposition. Coming military reshaffle also shortened the opportunity window.

[Samuian]

If you think tis government of Thailand or the Thaksin one was the most corrupt or venal you really have a lot to learn and some political history to read.

This is quite some argument, because there have been worse and more corrupt governments in history, makes this one a good one!?

Why not to compare this country and its government with Zimbabwe and Mugabe?

[Prakanong]

If you think tis government of Thailand or the Thaksin one was the most corrupt or venal you really have a lot to learn and some political history to read.

This is quite some argument, because there have been worse and more corrupt governments in history, makes this one a good one!?

Why not to compare this country and its government with Zimbabwe and Mugabe?

Where do i say that because there have been more corrupt governments in Thailand it makes this one a good one?

You really need to learn to read and not jump to silly unfounded assumptions as it makes you look foolish.

PS: Comparitive politics is also an area of study within political science but as you are ignorant of the fact you then went on to make a silly point regarding Zimbabwe - I know book shops are limited on Samui but there is always Amazon.

[Samuian]

....edit....

Well then....I don't see how Samak could have gotten to where he is today if he was JUST a foolish, shameless, lying baboon....seems like he would be smart enough to know that his comments would raise a furor....edit..inquiring minds want to know.

Well, crony ism has got him, and a many others of the bunch through the years...he and others don't need to be smart, they simply can be sure as long as they have the majority - who is going to impeach them sucessfully?

So this is why a public opposition (PAD) had formed, remember Chamlong's role in 1996 an Suchinda?

Then it was trhe complete opposite... he went on a hunger strike to topple the military rule!

This time the military intervened to prevent another 1996 happen!

[Samuian]

If you think tis government of Thailand or the Thaksin one was the most corrupt or venal you really have a lot to learn and some political history to read.

This is quite some argument, because there have been worse and more corrupt governments in history, makes this one a good one!?

Why not to compare this country and its government with Zimbabwe and Mugabe?

Where do i say that because there have been more corrupt governments in Thailand it makes this one a good one?

You really need to learn to read and not jump to silly unfounded assumptions as it makes you look foolish.

PS: Comparitive politics is also an area of study within political science but as you are ignorant of the fact you then went on to make a silly point regarding Zimbabwe - I know book shops are limited on Samui but there is always Amazon.

come on... give me a break - you DIDN'T write that, but it read this way!

you think tis government of Thailand or the Thaksin one was the most corrupt or venal you really have a lot to learn and some political history to read.

What I meant is that it doesn't matter what had been, because it's history, as in past... gone, over...! It matter's what is.... history or not, having read books and studied or studying what ever... is like reading recipes and not knowing how to cook, nay, not even having a kitchen!

besides "political science" sounds to me like an oxymoron!

[Prakanong]

Hmmm - I would still argue that the Thaksin governement, or any government has to be analysed in the context of thail politcs as whole and as a continuim from what had gone previously.

It is still a pretty young democracy ie since 1932 and there has not been much of it since then rally waht with the coup's and military dictatorships.

The Thaksin regime might have been a half way house on the road to somewhere else - time will tell.

Was the Thaksin regime a watershed?

[Plus]

Hmmm - I would still argue that the Thaksin governement, or any government has to be analysed in the context of thail politcs as whole and as a continuim from what had gone previously.

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

[Prakanong]

Hmmm - I would still argue that the Thaksin governement, or any government has to be analysed in the context of thail politcs as whole and as a continuim from what had gone previously.

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

I accept that - well most people's life in Thailand who discuss it.

However, a little research and reading would not go amiss would it - is the only reference we have our personal memory - the world would certainly be a different place would it not?

As an example how could anyone study the British Labour Govt from 1997 onwards without knowing about the Thatcher govt, John Major's govt, Callaghan and Wilson's gvot and the history of British politics from say 1900?

They could do but it would be a pretty shallow analysis

[Plus]

People of my age remember days of Prem.

Naturally anyone who remembers even further back is a dinosaur while those who are younger are greenhorns with milk still on their lips.

[Prakanong]

People of my age remember days of Prem.

Naturally anyone who remembers even further back is a dinosaur while those who are younger are greenhorns with milk still on their lips.

I just found something on October 6 I do not remember reading before

http://www.2519.net/newweb/doc/englisharticle/we.doc

[Samuian]

@prakanong: thanx for that link!

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

i'll sign that!

"Honest lies".... he made the people believe that corruption is o.k. - even the king in one of his speeches mentioned that corruption has become so deeply rooted that nobody really can't tell anymore where it starts and where it end's (if so)....

[Prakanong]

@prakanong: thanx for that link!

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

i'll sign that!

"Honest lies".... he made the people believe that corruption is o.k. - even the king in one of his speeches mentioned that corruption has become so deeply rooted that nobody really can't tell anymore where it starts and where it end's (if so)....

Oh come on - I do not think that Thaksin made the people think corruption is OK at all - that has been deep rooted and seen and mostly accepted as a societal and cultural norm since the day's of tax farming (of which Thaksins family was one).

It is actually said Thaksin lowered the % of bribes required from the usual 10-12% to around 5% because of his buying power though

By blaming absolutely everything on Thaksin that the arguments of the anti-Thaksin brigade weaken their argument - and just because I or anyone esle point out myths and unproven alegations does not make us Thaksin fans.

The discussion needs to be balanced and based on facts.

[Plus]

Corruption was a vice, something people dared not to admit but Thaksin took it in the open. He declared that capable leaders do not need to be honest, just capable.

Currently that's what many Thais accept as a norm. It wasn't like than in the olden days.

As for reducing bribes from 10 to 5 percent - that's not what we heard from posters with real life experience.

We can pull up lots of "facts" to support both sides of the argument. One thing stands clear - Thaksin was the first ever Prime Minister whose corruption brought hundreds of thousands people on the streets.

[chevykanteve]

Hmmm - I would still argue that the Thaksin governement, or any government has to be analysed in the context of thail politcs as whole and as a continuim from what had gone previously.

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

By "most people" you're referring to educated, thinking Thais, who keep abreast of political affairs -- right? If not, please define exactly what you mean by "most people".

[traveller5000]

Also, his alleged corruption brought people on the streets, never though more than 80 000. The statement of 'hundreds of thousands' is a myth that has no proof whatsoever, and is physically simply impossible as a fully packed Sanam Luang does not fit more than 100 000 people at most. Simple mathematics.

I was almost starting to believe you there until I realised Sanam Luang is not a street.

As for the alleged part, didn't Thaksin himself concede that some level of corruption was normal or necessary in Thai politics ? or something along these lines.

[Samuian]

@prakanong: thanx for that link!

On most people's living memory Thaksin was easily the worst offender in terms of corruption and dictatorial streak.

i'll sign that!

"Honest lies".... he made the people believe that corruption is o.k. - even the king in one of his speeches mentioned that corruption has become so deeply rooted that nobody really can't tell anymore where it starts and where it end's (if so)....

Oh come on - I do not think that Thaksin made the people think corruption is OK at all - that has been deep rooted and seen and mostly accepted as a societal and cultural norm since the day's of tax farming (of which Thaksins family was one).

refer to the term I quoted "honest lies" then you'll know what I mean - he has driven this - so far to the very peak! (till now)

It is actually said Thaksin lowered the % of bribes required from the usual 10-12% to around 5% because of his buying power though

......edit.....

The discussion needs to be balanced and based on facts.

Yes, based on facts - which "facts"?

Do you recall (if so) that one of his cabinet members (Sudarat - Health Ministry) was nicknamed Ms.20%?

So far to "lowering" bribes - if he was such an "honest" man why he did all these weird transfers of shares and asset disguising transactions, whilst transferring some to his driver, housekeeper.. gardener a big lot to his son for 1 Baht (value 67!) and so on, why?

Because He was smart? because "everyone" before him "did so"?

Or because he wanted to avoid taxes, which he himself with the help of "his" cabinet, completely wrote off a bit later, changed the laws to then make his move and sell to Themasak Holding...as the Prime Minister... come on..

How does this refer to "TRT"? isn't this a bit much of sarcasm?

I recall that the word "honest" means something rather different then the stunts this guy pulled off!

Edited March 7, 2008 by Samuian

[Tony Clifton]

Corruption was a vice, something people dared not to admit but Thaksin took it in the open. He declared that capable leaders do not need to be honest, just capable.

Currently that's what many Thais accept as a norm. It wasn't like than in the olden days.

As for reducing bribes from 10 to 5 percent - that's not what we heard from posters with real life experience.

We can pull up lots of "facts" to support both sides of the argument. One thing stands clear - Thaksin was the first ever Prime Minister whose corruption brought hundreds of thousands people on the streets.

Do you have an original quote for that statement, please?

As far as i can remember he stated that corruption was normal in Thailand.

Also, his alleged corruption brought people on the streets, never though more than 80 000. The statement of 'hundreds of thousands' is a myth that has no proof whatsoever, and is physically simply impossible as a fully packed Sanam Luang does not fit more than 100 000 people at most. Simple mathematics.

Yet though, not one single courtcase has convicted him of corruption personally, and the one single case presently in the court is the weakest case of all what he was alleged to have done, will be thrown out most definately for simply a lack of evidence.

There are cases possible, but these cases will not be brought to court. Questions do remain for example why the connection of the Temmasek sale and the facilitator - the Siam Commercial bank were never really followed through... .

Several other important facts about the acquirement of ITV never have made into public debate, for good reason...

The problem is simply that all that people accuse Thaksin of - has been committed in active collaboration with certain sectors that cannot be brought to court.

And the so called "anti - Thaksin" camp is as tainted as the TRT government itself. Mostly because it's most outspoken and powerful leaders have been complicit to Thaksin for most of his rule. As so many others seen as the "good" guys here on this forum.

Are you Boredagain the soon to be banned son of banned member Bannedagain?

[traveller5000]

I believe that was the paper i talked about. If it isn't the one - it will be anyhow a good read:

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/searc/WP87_07_MNelson.pdf

Yes it looks like a good read, written in may2007 and about 50 pages long. Thx.

[Plus]

Litmus test - Thaksin's corruption was so bad that even Thais didn't tolerate it.

>>>

Sanam Luang wasn't the only place to demonstrate and it wasn't only on one occasion. Taken altogether with provincial rallies the total number easily goes into hundreds of thousands of people who at least once went out to voice protest against Thaksin's corruption.

[sriracha john]

Can we all please stop replying to colpyat, bannedagain, backagain, boredagain?

The posts are going to be deleted anyway and by enabling this sick individual we are perpetuating his illness.