Before We Can Get Anywhere In These Political Debates

[Ulysses G.]

Or how about your comment, "human rights abuses?" ? Please tell me why that statement needed a question mark? It would seem to suggest you disagree (or at least question) that people being shot in the street without trial is an abuse of ones rights.

P.S. Don't forget to give me the heads-up when your post is ready to be replied to with no further edits to come - wouldn't want to be accused of not having read carefully enough again.

It actually means that I'm not sure how important - in the complete scheme of things - getting rid of a load of heroin and speed dealers is compared to issues like the thousands of missing Thai citizens from the May unrest in 1992, illegal immigrants being towed out to sea with no food and abandoned or the Monks being jailed or starving people in Burma.

I don't agree with killing drug dealers, but I also don't agree with the death sentence for drug dealers who are convicted legally.

It seems to me that most people who go on and on about Thaksin's "human rights abuses" - and ignore much bigger abuses - are just looking for excuses to tar him as a tyrant, when compared to other leaders in this area, he did some good and not all that much bad.

By the way, rather than whining about me editing my posts, you could just wait 15 minutes before you answer. That is the time limit to do so.

[rixalex]

It actually means that I'm not sure how important - in the complete scheme of things - getting rid of a load of heroin and speed dealers is

Ulysses, may i ask you how you come to know that these people were heroin and speed dealers? What information is it you have that the rest of us don't? These people were shot dead in the streets without a trial (sorry to repeat myself but for some it doesn't seem to be sinking in) so the fact is that nobody can categorically say who these people were or indeed how they made their living - it's just speculation.

Are you familiar with the term "innocent until proven guilty"? Do you not believe we all should have that right?

The rest of your post uses a familiar stategy used by all Thaksin admirers it seems - when defending him has become too great a task you simply turn to highlighting other atrocities commited by others and use these examples bizarrely as reasoning for why Thaksin didn't do much wrong.

Going by your logic we can excuse a criminal who has commited one illegal act by finding another who has commited two... and the criminal who has commited two should be let off providing we can find one heinous individual who has commited three - "but wait a minute, there's someone else who has commited four? OK let me take back what i said about about heinous individual with three illegal acts to his name - he's not such a bad guy after all............." do you see where i'm going with this? Nope? Straight over your head? OK, i tried.

By the way, rather than whining about me editing my posts, you could just wait 15 minutes before you answer.

Yes i could do. And here's something you could do - apologise for accusing me of not reading something carefully enough when it was not there in the first place.

[Ulysses G.]

It actually means that I'm not sure how important - in the complete scheme of things - getting rid of a load of heroin and speed dealers is

Ulysses, may i ask you how you come to know that these people were heroin and speed dealers?

I don't think that anyone disputes that most of them were indeed drug dealers. The question is whether they were all drug dealers. I do think that killing hard drug dealers is a human rights abuse, but not nearly as bad as dumping the Rohingya at sea with no food or water or other incidents that I have mentioned that are barely brought up by Thaksin haters.

By the way, how do you know that the police were not telling the truth about the killings? "Police and officials said most of the deaths resulted from warfare between drug gangs who killed one another to silence potential informers and decimate rivals" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ07Ae05.html

[WinnieTheKhwai]

and should Abhisit during his period in office do nothing to look into these deaths, in my opinion he joins the ladder, albeit someway near the bottom

Perhaps he can start by looking into those guys from Burma being sent to their deaths? And perhaps he could look into the cases when Chuan of all people let police officers off the hook who killed people in cold blood? (Surat Thani case for example).

How about good old General Suchinda? What happened to a huge number of middle class protesters for democracy who have been missing for 20 years?

Right. In case any other readers arent' aware, Chuan actually gave Suchinda a medal (or whatever decoration) while he was PM. Nice, that. I completely didn't understand how or why that happened at the time, but I do now, since becoming more aware of the factors that are of influence on the 'Democrat' party.

Edited March 18, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Ulysses G.]

One hears complaints about Thaksin's human rights abuses non-stop - like he is the only one - but all of these other things have been going on forever and no one seems concerned about other Prime Ministers crimes.

What about all the Burmese refugees that were locked in trucks with no oxygen and smothered to

death?

[Ricardo]

I don't think that anyone disputes that most of them were indeed drug dealers.

Didn't the investigatory commission eventually conclude, about half the dead were totally innocent, of any connection with the drugs-trade ? Before disappointingly going on to find that there was insufficient evidence to charge anybody at all for the deaths ?

While many of the dead may have been low-level drug-dealers, the war seemed to fail to catch any of the 'big boys', which is also a cause for concern. Did/do the BiBs really not know who they are ? When encouraged to 'take them out', without any need for due legal process, by the PM ?

[Scott]

During the Thaksin era, I had very little good to say about him. I found him to be scary and seriously saw him as taking over the country--sort of like Mathahir did in Malaysia. His demise was not a sad day for me. The fact that it happened through a coup was sad, however.

He was admired by a great deal of people outside of BKK and he was serious threat to the status quo.

Voters aren't always the wisest people, but it goes with the territory of democratic principles, and once he was gone, it became pretty apparent that democracy took a big step backwards.

The conflict and the divisions in society have to do with the direction of the country. Personally, I am hoping that democratic principles will prevail, and I don't think they will be wearing a yellow shirt.

Once out of power, he was villainized by the status quo and they have left no rock unturned in finding his wrong-doings. Like nearly all politicians, you don't have to dig very deep to find wrong-doing in someone's eyes. The speed in prosecution with him has been rather unprecedented as well, which is suspect.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think that anyone disputes that most of them were indeed drug dealers.

Didn't the investigatory commission eventually conclude, about half the dead were totally innocent, of any connection with the drugs-trade ? Before disappointingly going on to find that there was insufficient evidence to charge anybody at all for the deaths ?

While many of the dead may have been low-level drug-dealers, the war seemed to fail to catch any of the 'big boys', which is also a cause for concern. Did/do the BiBs really not know who they are ? When encouraged to 'take them out', without any need for due legal process, by the PM ?

My first thought is, who was controlling the investigatory commission? Can they be trusted when it comes to judging Thaksin?

As far as no big dealers being caught, I agree that is totally f-ed up, but it seems to be the way of the world in most every country.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[clausewitz]

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

No-one is an actual hard core drug dealer until they've been convicted in a court of law. Thaksin never gave them that opportunity.

Umm so the main divisions in the Thai politics are about the crackdown by Thaksin on drugdealers.

Why does PAD never criticize Thaksin on this issue, whereas any imaginary fault is screeched about on Astv 50 times a day??

Perhaps because Sondhi, the Pad leader, using his massive press empire, was the main cheerleader for killing any drugdealers.

[rixalex]

I do think that killing hard drug dealers is a human rights abuse, but not nearly as bad as dumping the Rohingya at sea with no food or water or other incidents that I have mentioned that are barely brought up by Thaksin haters.

You just can't stop yourself can you? Do you really not see how daft it is to justify one crime by the citing of another, just because you perceive the other crime to be worse? Obviously not i guess.

[Ulysses G.]

When some people act like Thaksin is the only Prime Minister to ever commit a human rights abuse and much worse ones by other PMs are totally overlooked, it points out that his accusers might have another agenda than human rights.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Ok, I'm confident I understand both Ulysses and Rixalex' points of view.

It's noteworthy that among international observers the drug war was by far the biggest thing they opposed in the Thaksin government, where both friend and foe within Thailand more or less agreed with it. That doesn't make it right, obviously.

Let's move on.

[sriracha john]

One hears complaints about Thaksin's human rights abuses non-stop - like he is the only one - but all of these other things have been going on forever and no one seems concerned about other Prime Ministers crimes.

What about all the Burmese refugees that were locked in trucks with no oxygen and smothered to

death?

I wouldn't normally blame the Prime Minister for that, but if wish to throw that onto the stack of misdeeds by the self-professed Thaksin-nominee Samak, I'd understand.

Edited March 18, 2009 by sriracha john

[somluck]

During the Thaksin era, I had very little good to say about him. I found him to be scary and seriously saw him as taking over the country--sort of like Mathahir did in Malaysia. His demise was not a sad day for me. The fact that it happened through a coup was sad, however.

He was admired by a great deal of people outside of BKK and he was serious threat to the status quo.

Voters aren't always the wisest people, but it goes with the territory of democratic principles, and once he was gone, it became pretty apparent that democracy took a big step backwards.

The conflict and the divisions in society have to do with the direction of the country. Personally, I am hoping that democratic principles will prevail, and I don't think they will be wearing a yellow shirt.

Once out of power, he was villainized by the status quo and they have left no rock unturned in finding his wrong-doings. Like nearly all politicians, you don't have to dig very deep to find wrong-doing in someone's eyes. The speed in prosecution with him has been rather unprecedented as well, which is suspect.

This is the best post so far, I agree with almost everything you said except that i like to add that Thaksin and Mathahir did some good during their time and helped their countries progress. I suspect both are republicans as Mathahir did curbed the malaysian royalty powers during his tenure

[rixalex]

When some people act like Thaksin is the only Prime Minister to ever commit a human rights abuse and much worse ones by other PMs are totally overlooked, it points out that his accusers might have another agenda than human rights.

You are right to say that it's highly likely that most Prime Ministers throughout Thai history have commited abuses of one sort of another. For me that's exactly the reason why i wouldn't be standing up for or arguing in favour of any of them, and that certainly includes Thaksin. To be defending a man just because he was in your eyes the best of the worst, or because you feel he did more good than bad is frankly sad. Why do you set the bar so low Ulysses?

[Ulysses G.]

To be honest, I just don't understand why some people hate him so much, and the more that they explain the less I get it.

[rixalex]

To be honest, I just don't understand why some people hate him so much, and the more that they explain the less I get it.

Perhaps you don't get it because you don't want to get it. Love is indeed blind.

You've already agreed that under his tenure, innocent people were killed without trial because of a policy he put in place. And you've already accepted that he broke the law, was corrupt and abused his position of power.

You accept all that and yet you need to ask why people hate him? Incredible!

The more pertinent question surely is why do people love him, especially those who are aware of and accept the bad that he did?

Oh, that's right - you love him because although he did wrong, others have done worse! What sort of twisted logic is that?

The day that Thai people who share your opinion start demanding more from their leader and stop just accepting that innocent people being killed and wide-spread corruption is part and parcel of it all - things that can be forgiven and forgotten providing the leader does some good - that's the day that Thailand might actually have a leader this country deserves.

All the time a large portion of the populace sets the bar so low, what incentive is there for the politicians to raise it themselves?

[Ulysses G.]

I don't "love" him. In fact, I'm not sure that I ever wrote a post about him when he was in power.

I just feel that he was democratically elected and thrown out of office illegally and I can't blame him for wanting to come back to Thailand. It isn't even my country, but I would hate to have to leave.

[rixalex]

I just feel that he was democratically elected and thrown out of office illegally and I can't blame him for wanting to come back to Thailand.

Fair enough, but none of that takes away the bad that Thaksin did and is no reason for you to be standing up and defending him.

Standing up against those who booted him out i could understand - but that shouldn't compel you to stand up for the bad things that the man they booted did.

(And by the way, nobody is stopping Thaksin from returning to his country - he is free to return any time he wishes. He chooses not to do so because he is unable to swing the courts in his favour at this time)

[wayfarer108]

One hears complaints about Thaksin's human rights abuses non-stop - like he is the only one - but all of these other things have been going on forever and no one seems concerned about other Prime Ministers crimes.

What about all the Burmese refugees that were locked in trucks with no oxygen and smothered to

death?

The Thaksin administration's human rights record is a matter of public record. See AI, HWA and other reports. No one in recent decades compares if you go by the recorded facts. Sorry it doesn't fit with your fantasy perception of the man.

[mc2]

so far this exchange between uG and rixalex has centered around the negative aspects of Thaksin,

What about the positives he did ?? can those things be acknowleged by the anti thaksins pls. or are they , as the OP suggests, one sided fanatics ????

[sriracha john]

He's had a positive influence on the book publishing industry.

A comic book, titled " Thaksin's Life", on display in Bangkok, 19 October 2006. Ousted Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who fled to London following last month's coup, is back as a comic book hero with an unfinished mission to help the poor.

Lieutenant Sunisa Lertpakawat, author of ‘Thaksin, Where Are You?’, beams as she shows a copy of her book. She later broke into tears when asked about an investigation into her travel to London to interview Thaksin without proper authorisation.

After a long wait, the public has finally heard from singer Saranrat "Lydia" Wisutthithadato, who stated emphatically: "I'm not Thaksin's gig, 200 per cent." The singer released her book "Lydia … Here I am!" yesterday and met the press for the first time since the news broke about her relationship with Thaksin.

Edited March 19, 2009 by sriracha john

[WinnieTheKhwai]

so far this exchange between uG and rixalex has centered around the negative aspects of Thaksin,

What about the positives he did ?? can those things be acknowleged by the anti thaksins pls. or are they , as the OP suggests, one sided fanatics ????

Well, as much as I appreciated much of what Thaksin accomplished, as well as how much I disliked some other things he did, I don't see the point in doing that discussion over and over again. The usual suspects on this forum (on both sides) always bring up Thaksin in ANY political discussion ad vomitum. Someone said somewhere 'one trick ponies', always whining on about Thaksin.

Just let it go, it's in the past. He raised the bar on many issues for all future governments including the current one who were super eager to put the tried and tested things on the agenda that they previously dismissed as 'populist'.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Edited March 19, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[rixalex]

so far this exchange between uG and rixalex has centered around the negative aspects of Thaksin,

What about the positives he did ?? can those things be acknowleged by the anti thaksins pls. or are they , as the OP suggests, one sided fanatics ????

I don't think there are many who would say that absolutely no good things occured during Thaksin's time in office - i mean he was there long enough that it can't have all been bad. The question we have to ask ourselves though is, did the good things he did make up for the bad? I think that's where the difference of opinion lies.

[Ulysses G.]

Fair enough, but none of that takes away the bad that Thaksin did and is no reason for you to be standing up and defending him.

I don't agree with your logic. If almost every PM is "bad" and someone is the least "bad" and has done the most good, I would prefer to have them in charge to someone who is worse and will F up the country on top of it all - i.e. Banharn and Chavalit. In many ways, Thaksin made Thailand a better place.

Sometimes one has to choose between the best of a bunch of lousy options - especially in a Banana Republic known for corrupt polititions.

[mc2]

The question we have to ask ourselves though is, did the good things he did make up for the bad? I think that's where the difference of opinion lies.

but before you can make a fair and balanced assessment on that, you first need to identify and acknowledge the good things he did. why not show us you are objective and not a one sided fanatic, and give it a go ?

[mc2]

He's had a positive influence on the book publishing industry.

try harder. Thaksin did more than just this.

[rixalex]

Sometimes one has to choose between the best of a bunch of lousy options

Why? Nobody forces you to choose one of the lousy options, much less argue vigourously in their defence.

You can choose to reject them all - and if everyone did so, it might allow a decent individual with some integrity to emerge.

Your thinking serves only to perpetuate the succession of greedy, self-serving and corrupt politicians we have had to date, of which Thaksin was certainly of no exception. Indeed there are many who would say he was the worst. For me though that is academic, whether he was or wasn't, and arguing over that point is a waste of time. Was Thaksin corrupt? We all agree yes. Was Thaksin self-serving? We all agree yes. Did he break the law? We all agree yes. Did Thaksin commit human rights abuses? We all agree yes.

So really, what more is there left to say? He had his shot - he failed. Let's move on.

[Ulysses G.]

Sometimes one has to choose between the best of a bunch of lousy options

Why? Nobody forces you to choose one of the lousy options, much less argue vigourously in their defence.

Because if you don't vote for the best option, you very well might end up with the worst one. This is not just true in Thailand, but all over the world.

[rixalex]

but before you can make a fair and balanced assessment on that, you first need to identify and acknowledge the good things he did. why not show us you are objective and not a one sided fanatic, and give it a go ?

I've already accepted he did good things mc2. If you are looking for me to regale you with a list of them all, i fear i wouldn't do him justice. Besides, i feel i'd be treading on your toes.