Thaksin Interviewed In Time Magazine

[otherstuff1957]

"Chaos and civil war'. There won't be a civil war in Thailand unless Thaksin starts one.

He made some valid points in the interview, but he conveniently forgot how his dishonesty and blatant corruption brought most of his troubles upon himself. It really is a shame that he is such a flawed character. In many ways he was the best PM that Thailand ever had. If he could have just controlled his greed and egomania he would still be running the country.

[slapout]

I see and hear people supporting this former PM, saying he did good, he was best of PM's, he had support of majority??? of people,etc. I have asked this question and never seem to get a specific answer. What project, undertaking, change in law, business, etc has this man had a hand in that does not have the stench of corruption associated with it? It would appear that his whole way of doing business, went with him into his political playground, and as normally happens, it caught up with him. I Guess on his way to obtaining a doctors degree he may have overlooked or ignored a lot of history, regarding leaders of various countries. Most become too greedy to quite while their are ahead and still can, thus becoming one of many who step on their own d..k. At least many of these pi..heads were man enough to take the blame for their and their henchmen actions and not blame dark forces, bad luck. star alignment, etc.

[stumonster]

Last September, protesters upset that elections had ushered in a pro-Thaksin government, even took over Bangkok's international airport for a week,

The TIME reporter either incredibly doesn't know some of the facts, or was reluctant to bring them up (oddly) as is standard in professional journalism.

this was organised by his PR firm.

[ilyushin]

He really is desperate.

I prefer the first interview.

[TPI]

Last time you spoke with TIME in January 2007, you said you were finished with politics and that you would retire. What changed?

[My political opponents] have been bullying me politically nonstop since then. I already declared that I wanted to retire. I wanted to spend my life with my family. But they were bullying me. The rule of law is not there [in Thailand]. The democratic process is not there. That is too much. All of my supporters urged me: 'you have to come and fight back politically.' They want [Thailand] to come back to a mature democracy.

Hope someone is clear why he has to fight.

Koo, you & Thaksin forget, when he was removed, Thailand was anything but a "mature democracy". In fact he had been steadily dismantling the limited-democracy which he had taken over. Who said "Democracy is not my aim" ? Was he lying then, or is he lying now, you tell us ?

If the democratic process is weak, or "the rule of law is not there", when will he accept any of the responsibility for the situation, which he himself helped to create ? For the division in Thai society ? He has a twisted view of history.

He didn't declare that he "wanted to retire", he said "I have quit", was he lying then, or is he lying now ? If he has quit, why does he fund nominee-parties, and place his family amongst the leadership of the latest one ?

All his supporters urge him to come and fight back except, he conveniently forgets to mention, the ones who have deserted him to help put the current government in power. No wonder he trusts only his family now.

We all want Thailand to grow into a democracy, the question is whether he has anything further to contribute, in moving towards it. Most of us, observing from the sidelines, think not. His legacy was, to have made the poor people slightly more important, in Thai politics. Witness the Democrats now continuing with populist measures.

In continuing to fight, and to try to damage the country's reputation overseas, he is also damaging his own reputation, which is sad. He should keep quiet, negotiate the return of most of his frozen-assets, and accept that the world has moved on.

Hear, hear! Well put.

[Oberkommando]

The real criminals are the Thai military.

Has always been so throughout modern Thai history, and nothing has changed.

How many coups is it now? 17?

[Ricardo]

If someone drives me away from my home, I won't keep quiet and won't negotiate.

Nobody has driven Thaksin away, he is in self-imposed exile, the current PM has asked him to return but he won't. Why not ?

The world has moved on but someone still jumps on his back and gives him 2 years in jail. Why? His wife bought a land with no fault and no corruption and he signed ok for her to buy according to the law. But another law does not allow him to do this. Criminal of the century!

All the other cases would proceed, if he were here, to face the charges. Perhaps more-important guilty-verdicts await him, who knows, as long as he continues to dodge the courts ?

He ought to have known, as a fighter for justice, that his wife should not be buying land from a government-body, whose value might then shoot up, if the right planning-permission were given. This gives the appearance, at the very least, of corruption. It's not just aimed at him, these laws apply to any senior politician, he should know this.

Criminal of the century ? Who knows ? But as long as he runs from justice, or his lawyers hand out lunch-boxes, the world will suspect that he has much to hide.

The world all watch Thailand where a PM was down because of his cooking shows and a whole bunch who slept 3 months in Government House, had violent protest in front of Parliament House and finally slept a week in 2 main airports are still free and has set up concerts (meetings?) here and there in Thailand.

(my comments in red above)

Samak got caught taking payments from a company, when they might expect to do very well, if he favoured them. Then he tried to lie about it to the court. OK it was a bizarre way to get thrown out, but so what, the people have the right to expect their top politicians to avoid this sort of conflict-of-interest.

And the law is proceeding, slowly as it often seems to here, against the PAD.

[animatic]

Last time you spoke with TIME in January 2007, you said you were finished with politics and that you would retire. What changed?

[My political opponents] have been bullying me politically nonstop since then. I already declared that I wanted to retire. I wanted to spend my life with my family. But they were bullying me. The rule of law is not there [in Thailand]. The democratic process is not there. That is too much. All of my supporters urged me: 'you have to come and fight back politically.' They want [Thailand] to come back to a mature democracy.

Hope someone is clear why he has to fight.

If this is the case it is solely in the anti-matter world.

In this one he is bringing it all on himself.

If 'bullying' means not letting him keep his

ill gotten gains from policy corruption pending litigation

then he should just come back and use his unfrozen boat load of money

to prove he is innocent. But he dare not.

Let's not forget for a minute this IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...

Potjamen is being a good girl, low profile and silent

and will likely get back much of her share.

She knows were her bread is buttered.

His slice seems to be landing in the sand butter down...

Edited March 7, 2009 by animatic

[Oberkommando]

Let's not forget for a minute this IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...

Potjamen is being a good girl, low profile and silent

and will likely get back much of her share.

She knows were her bread is buttered.

His slice seems to be landing in the sand butter down...

It has little if anything to do with money now. It is about power, control and influence.

I doubt if Thaksin will ever struggle with money despite what the bias Thai media would have you believe.

[animatic]

Last September, protesters upset that elections had ushered in a pro-Thaksin government, even took over Bangkok's international airport for a week,

The TIME reporter either incredibly doesn't know some of the facts, or was reluctant to bring them up (oddly) as is standard in professional journalism.

this was organised by his PR firm.

Of course it was,

he has paid for a very well connected transnational- american firm to fill ears for him.

They no doubt picked a reporter who was hungry for another story,

and told him do this one and we'll give your the juicy one quid pro quo

[Steve2UK]

this was organised by his PR firm.

Says who?

[ballpoint]

Let's not forget for a minute this IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...

Potjamen is being a good girl, low profile and silent

and will likely get back much of her share.

She knows were her bread is buttered.

His slice seems to be landing in the sand butter down...

It has little if anything to do with money now. It is about power, control and influence.

I doubt if Thaksin will ever struggle with money despite what the bias Thai media would have you believe.

I agree, he would obviously like his money back, but what he craves most is power. He could be living the life of a billionaire anywhere in the world right now, but that's not enough for him. The problems he has are entirely of his own making, yet he still lashes out like a rabid dog blaming anyone he can for his situation. Until he actually takes responsibility for his own actions and has the balls to face up to the law, he should be treated only as the convicted criminal on the run that he is.

[Journalist]

The TIME reporter either incredibly doesn't know some of the facts, or was reluctant to bring them up (oddly) as is standard in professional journalism.

Do you know what the standard operating terms are to get a Q&A ?

No. maybe you don't.

Because you aren't in journalism. You biz is classified ads, (something you happen to accomplish very well I think).

Would you like to know? If you are, i'm happy to enlighten everyone about the way the profession works.

[rixalex]

The TIME reporter either incredibly doesn't know some of the facts, or was reluctant to bring them up (oddly) as is standard in professional journalism.

Very good post b&s. Agree with it all.

I too am bemused as to why Western journalists go easy on him. I can only guess that Thaksin's advisors vet all the questions before they are asked and make sure he's not going to be argued into a corner from which he can't get out of.

Professional journalism? I think not. Shameless publicity more like.

[rixalex]

Would you like to know? If you are, i'm happy to enlighten everyone about the way the profession works.

Well i for one would like to understand why a journalist would avoid asking difficult questions of their subject.

Before you enlighten us all though, might help if you stated your own background and what it is that qualifies you to speak as an authority.

[Journalist]

^Ok let me explain rixalex

To get a q&a's with certain people, you have to concede quote checks. I.e you submit the draft transcript and that is subject to FULL amendment

That is the ONLY way you get the i/v

If you say 'no' - they pass.

Now, I have done q&a's with heads of state - who don't ask for quote checks.* I have done q&a's with HSBC and Citi employees who do.

But thats the game. Its not about professionalism, there is no obligation to run it, so , its ultimately about whether the Editor thinks the end-story is worthwhile or not.

Without limitation one would ask numerous follow ups - about say his evasion of the royal question. Its obvious here that the journalist was hamstrung by his conditions.

Its not lack of journalist's professionalism, its about the ground rules of his people and his reluctance to go on the record and shoot straight.

* Ps I respect George W Bush - who was ALWAYS on the record on camera - no wonder he said daft things from time to time - its incredibly hard not to get tongue tied and muddled. I defy anyone to do better than him, even though he goofed sometimes. Unlike Thaksin, he couldn't apply conditions and quote checks as a rule!!!!

Edited March 7, 2009 by Journalist

[rixalex]

Thanks for the answer Journalist. I'm still a bit confused though.

If the person you interview amends the draft transcript to the point where the piece has become a one-sided bit of propoganda, wouldn't a professional journalist be against that going to press? Or am i being naive and do journalists not care that much, providing their work is getting published?

[animatic]

^Ok let me explain rixalex

To get a q&a's with certain people, you have to concede quote checks. I.e you submit the draft transcript and that is subject to FULL amendment

That is the ONLY way you get the i/v

If you say 'no' - they pass.

Now, I have done q&a's with heads of state - who don't ask for quote checks.* I have done q&a's with HSBC and Citi employees who do.

But thats the game. Its not about professionalism, there is no obligation to run it, so , its ultimately about whether the Editor thinks the end-story is worthwhile or not.

Without limitation one would ask numerous follow ups - about say his evasion of the royal question. Its obvious here that the journalist was hamstrung by his conditions.

Its not lack of journalist's professionalism, its about the ground rules of his people and his reluctance to go on the record and shoot straight.

* Ps I respect George W Bush - who was ALWAYS on the record on camera - no wonder he said daft things from time to time - its incredibly hard not to get tongue tied and muddled. I defy anyone to do better than him, even though he goofed sometimes. Unlike Thaksin, he couldn't apply conditions and quote checks as a rule!!!!

I have heard clips of Thaksin speaking.

There is not chance in hel_l this was said coming out of his mouth unscripted.

And questionable that he actually spoke the printed text.

He was carefully coached if the interview even took place face to face.

A professional journalist brings stories to his editor that are picked and printed.

Then he gets paid; that is the professional part.

Burn too many interviewees live and they eventually stop returning your calls

and the word goes out he'll sandbag you ignore the S.O.B.

In these parts money IS power, and the gauge of power is how much money

you wield to repay or extract favors.

This is ALL about the frozen assets of the Shin Corp sale,

and Thaksin's loss of face at getting caught and losing them.

Lose of face being inextricably tied into POWER.

I don't think Bush was bright enough to not talk off the cuff.

Edited March 7, 2009 by animatic

[dominique355]

In continuing to fight, and to try to damage the country's reputation overseas, he is also damaging his own reputation, which is sad. He should keep quiet, negotiate the return of most of his frozen-assets, and accept that the world has moved on.

"damage the country's reputation overseas"?

The ones who damage the country's reputation is the Army who made a coup in 2006 and those who are protecting PAD now. What are the reasons they don't arrest PAD?

In a true democracy system, Army will protect the country from emergency, not to make coups.

If someone drives me away from my home, I won't keep quiet and won't negotiate.

The world has moved on but someone still jumps on his back and gives him 2 years in jail. Why? His wife bought a land with no fault and no corruption and he signed ok for her to buy according to the law. But another law does not allow him to do this. Criminal of the century!

The world all watch Thailand where a PM was down because of his cooking shows and a whole bunch who slept 3 months in Government House, had violent protest in front of Parliament House and finally slept a week in 2 main airports are still free and has set up concerts (meetings?) here and there in Thailand.

Did I get that wrong or you? I was under the impression that Thaksin himself introduced a law according to which members of the government were barred from making deals with government agencies. Then the government owned land on Rajadaphisek road came up for sale with a value of about 2 billion THB. Khunying Pojaman (Thaksin's wife) made a bid for 700 Million THB and Thaksin gave his nod to the deal.

No corruption? No, only 1.3 Billion THB profit for Thaksin. Although the real scandal IMO is that the court let Pojaman keep the land.

[animatic]

Thanks for the answer Journalist. I'm still a bit confused though.

If the person you interview amends the draft transcript to the point where the piece has become a one-sided bit of propoganda, wouldn't a professional journalist be against that going to press? Or am i being naive and do journalists not care that much, providing their work is getting published?

The editor still expects to see it, and it's his call to publish or not.

[Journalist]

Thanks for the answer Journalist. I'm still a bit confused though.

If the person you interview amends the draft transcript to the point where the piece has become a one-sided bit of propoganda, wouldn't a professional journalist be against that going to press? Or am i being naive and do journalists not care that much, providing their work is getting published?

Yes, if they change the transcript radically, to the extent that it is all PR speak, then that's beyond the pail ! I tell people they can't just change things totally into corp-speak, else I won't submit even to my Subbies and bin the story.

However, if they say it on tape - then well, so be it.

What is Thaksin going to be asked?

Whaddaya you think of the royal role?

Whaddaya think of PAD?

Do you think you got screwed in court?

i.e not many questions for him to rehearse for. And if you can't really ask follow ups (esp, if you are doing the interview by e mail!!) then he can pull off a fairly innocuous propaganda-ish coup !

Would I do this? No, not if it was an e mail jobbie, I wouldn't bother to give him a platform, but if I got to have lunch with Thaksin then yeah, i'd make some major concessions. I'm not the New York Times.

[henryalleman]

Pheu Thai has to find prominent party leaders that can solve the problems of the country now. If we can find those types of people, then we can win. There are many good people in Thailand but we have to recruit them.

Above is the most important sentence in his interview. By saying this he confirm that

1- He is the one who control and finance the party, just look the number af family members playing an important role in it.

2- He is saying that the present leaders of Pheu Thai are incompetent and a bunch of losers.

The rest of the interview only proves that he is living in a virtual world and reality. In fact he became a kind of Don Quichote.

[henryalleman]

the media in Thailand should just block Thaskin related news, its about as useful as the crap I take everyday. He is gone, he will not come back so forget him. He will never spend time in jail, he will die a rich man and his family will live a very comfortable life. End of. Forget the prick

Not at all, they should broadcast it and have a debate about it. And dissect all his wild allegations, this is how it would be dun in any western democracy. Its the only way to show the public what kind of pathetic liar he is.

[henryalleman]

Taxin may not be a saint but the fact that he still has very strong support in the villages is down to his social policies that gave the poor hope, something that is now in very short supply since the yellow shirt coup. The country has to accept one person one vote and stop appointing unelected oligarchs!

His kind of social politics put the people in the villages deeper in debt

http://web.nso.go.th/indicator/eco/ind_eco08.htm

[jumnien]

the media in Thailand should just block Thaskin related news, its about as useful as the crap I take everyday. He is gone, he will not come back so forget him. He will never spend time in jail, he will die a rich man and his family will live a very comfortable life. End of. Forget the prick

Not at all, they should broadcast it and have a debate about it. And dissect all his wild allegations, this is how it would be dun in any western democracy. Its the only way to show the public what kind of pathetic liar he is.

While he is a pathetic liar he is also a truth-teller that exposes the biggest lie of all in Thai society. While others have exposed the lie as well, they don't have his power to fight the right-wing ultra-conservatives that have seized power from the people.

[monkfish]

In continuing to fight, and to try to damage the country's reputation overseas, he is also damaging his own reputation, which is sad. He should keep quiet, negotiate the return of most of his frozen-assets, and accept that the world has moved on.

"damage the country's reputation overseas"?

The ones who damage the country's reputation is the Army who made a coup in 2006 and those who are protecting PAD now. What are the reasons they don't arrest PAD?

In a true democracy system, Army will protect the country from emergency, not to make coups.

If someone drives me away from my home, I won't keep quiet and won't negotiate.

The world has moved on but someone still jumps on his back and gives him 2 years in jail. Why? His wife bought a land with no fault and no corruption and he signed ok for her to buy according to the law. But another law does not allow him to do this. Criminal of the century!

The world all watch Thailand where a PM was down because of his cooking shows and a whole bunch who slept 3 months in Government House, had violent protest in front of Parliament House and finally slept a week in 2 main airports are still free and has set up concerts (meetings?) here and there in Thailand.

Did I get that wrong or you? I was under the impression that Thaksin himself introduced a law according to which members of the government were barred from making deals with government agencies. Then the government owned land on Rajadaphisek road came up for sale with a value of about 2 billion THB. Khunying Pojaman (Thaksin's wife) made a bid for 700 Million THB and Thaksin gave his nod to the deal.

No corruption? No, only 1.3 Billion THB profit for Thaksin. Although the real scandal IMO is that the court let Pojaman keep the land.

Lol thanks for reminding us of that!

Thaksins wife went down on a law applying ONLY to government officials.

How is that?

[Journalist]

"Although the real scandal IMO is that the court let Pojaman keep the land."

She kept the land?! My stars. What a farce this whole thing is.

By discussing it ad nauseam and seeking an equitable resolution, really, the joke is on us!

[stumonster]

this was organised by his PR firm.

Says who?

me - as per the quote name

that's beyond the pail !

which is required to hold the chunder

[monkfish]

"Although the real scandal IMO is that the court let Pojaman keep the land."

She kept the land?! My stars. What a farce this whole thing is.

By discussing it ad nauseam and seeking an equitable resolution, really, the joke is on us!

Yes a real farce because she was not guilty and could not of even been guilty.

"The provisions of paragraph one shall apply to spouses of the State officials under paragraph two.

For this purpose, the activities carried out by the spouse shall be deemed as the activities carried out by the State official.

That is why they let here keep the land.

[tranquillize]

It's amazing to see how much hate Thaksin gets. Some people tend to forget that he did a lot for the poor. Of course, it's easy to "forget" about the poor when you're sitting in your air conditioned home, in front of your new computer, typing a forum message about how terrible Thaksin is.

No politician is a saint. But at least he was able to do some good for the people that need it.