Thaksin Ain't No Fool

[Ulysses G.]

ABHISIT IS DEMOCRATICALLY CHALLENGED

Mr Abhisit can talk about democracy all he wants to and opinions can be slanted in his favour, but the most salient point about democracy is that it has to be majority rule. The Thai Rak Thai were voted into office and Thaksin was the ranking man within that party. He went to New York in Sept 2006 and the army took over. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to come back with a renegade army obviously running the country either.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...ter-not-alcohol

This letter is in today's Bangkok Post and makes some excellent points.

[Pierrot]

Nothing new here. But I'm afraid as long as some people keep on thinking Abhisit when we talk about a democratically elected leader, we will have to repeat over and over the same things.

[DP25]

After the last general election, Mr Abhisit and the Democrats paid off former PPP leader Newin Chidchob and a sufficient number of his cronies to switch over to their side to gain a majority in parliament.

Former anti Thaksin parties were paid off to join with the PPP. Them coming back to the democrats is only natural, and abiding with their campaign promises to never side with a Thaksinist party. The fact is, over 60% of Thai people voted for parties that claimed to be anti Thaksin.

So, in effect, not one single vote was cast for Mr Abhisit in the general election

Quite a few votes for him, since he was elected as an MP. Also shows a basic misunderstanding of how parliamentary democracy works. NO ONE recieves votes to be PM, the PM is chosen by the party or coaliation that has enough MP to do so.

What makes it even funnier, he boycotted an election not long ago because he knew he could not win it.

The election was boycotted, but not because of that. Thaksin called a snap election because he was under heavy pressure from corruption allegations. Members of his own party were beginning to turn on him, and he needed to purge them before he got thrown out. Thailand has a minimum rule, where you must be a member of a party for a certain amount of time before you are allowed to run for office. Thaksin set the deadline for the election before this, in order to prevent unloyal party members from switching sides, as he knew he could not win the election without cheating. The whole thing was a farce.

[BigSnake]

yep give the devil his dues

[rixalex]

ABHISIT IS DEMOCRATICALLY CHALLENGED

The Lone Wolf

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...ter-not-alcohol

This letter is in today's Bangkok Post and makes some excellent points.

Are we to refer to you as The Lone Wolf from now on Ulysses?

Edited March 22, 2009 by rixalex

[Jimjim]

This letter is in today's Bangkok Post and makes some excellent points.

Except that Abhisit was elected by the people of his district to be a member of Parliament. And the people don't vote for PM, the MPs do after the election. It's up to them to vote for the majority party or form a coalition that becomes a majority. In the case of PPP (Phue Thai now?) they were not the majority in the last election, merely the plurality. They had to form a coalition to have their PMs, who did piss-poor jobs and now you see the Democrats with their own coalition that was legally formed (legal as you get in Siam; as if Thaksin didn't buy votes?). So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Jimjim

[rixalex]

Except that Abhisit was elected by the people of his district to be a member of Parliament. And the people don't vote for PM, the MPs do after the election. It's up to them to vote for the majority party or form a coalition that becomes a majority. In the case of PPP (Phue Thai now?) they were not the majority in the last election, merely the plurality. They had to form a coalition to have their PMs, who did piss-poor jobs and now you see the Democrats with their own coalition that was legally formed (legal as you get in Siam; as if Thaksin didn't buy votes?). So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

Indeed.

I can't help wondering whether our friend The Lone Wolf wrote any letters to the Bangkok Post to complain at how Somchai made his way to the top - or should i say was foisted?

[ballpoint]

The only point the letter makes is the inability of many people, particularly Americans, to understand how a parliamentary democracy works. No matter how many times it is explained to them. Telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it any more truthfull.

[Oberkommando]

My sig line pretty much sums it up.

It took a military coup and subsequent junta, mass banning of political rivals from a bias judicial system (the Democrats, widely accused of the same practices have thus far escaped and punishment) plus paramilitary and civilian protests shutting down the country's main airport which damaged the country's reputation and economy irreparably to get to the "fair selection" of Abhisit and the "parliamentary democracy" his supporters seem to cling to.

Of course it's a stacked deck, but don't expect the rabid and fanatical anti-Thaksin mob on here to acknowledge it.

Both sides are guilty, both sides are detrimental to the country and both sides are no going to give up.

While one side has the support of the rural electorate another has the support of the institution and the elites so we are at stalemate yet again.

If the military stopped interfering in politics perhaps all this mess could have been avoided.

[Ulysses G.]

So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

How about the ones you ignored?

1. The Thai Rak Thai were voted into office and Thaksin was the ranking man within that party. He went to New York in Sept 2006 and the army took over. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to come back with a renegade army obviously running the country either.

2. So then, the court in his absence finds him guilty of corruption. I don't know too many people who would go back home and face a deck so obviously stacked against them, unless they are total fools.

3. Not only that, when elections were held, the Thaksin-supporting People Power party (PPP) was the clear winner, and, once again, the elected government was forced out of office by the People's Alliance for Democracy, this time with the army looking the other way.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[ballpoint]

So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

How about the ones you ignored?

1. The Thai Rak Thai were voted into office and Thaksin was the ranking man within that party. He went to New York in Sept 2006 and the army took over. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to come back with a renegade army obviously running the country either.

2. So then, the court in his absence finds him guilty of corruption. I don't know too many people who would go back home and face a deck so obviously stacked against them, unless they are total fools.

3. Not only that, when elections were held, the Thaksin-supporting People Power party (PPP) was the clear winner, and, once again, the elected government was forced out of office by the People's Alliance for Democracy, this time with the army looking the other way.

1. The TRT did indeed win elections, but were later found to be acting illegally and disbanded. There is currently no such political party.

2. Thaksin fled with his wife after she was found guilty in a tax avoidance case and skipped bail. He didn't have the balls to stand up in a court room and fight his charges of corruption and so was tried inabsentia. The facts of his case are freely available, and I would suggest that any fair western court would have come to the same verdict given the facts presented. The fact that his legal team tried to bribe the judges, and the afore mentioned lack of cajones tend to back this up.

3. The PPP were forced out of office by another court verdict. They were not budging when the PAD were holding the airports and government house. Their entire term of office was spent trying to get Thaksin pardoned, to the detriment of the country at a time when it needed strong leadership. They also lost the support of the civil and military powers, a situation in which any true democratic government would have stepped down.

Lone wolf? Seems more like a dead dog.

[eljeque]

The thousands of people killed in Thaksin's so-called War on Drugs were never given the opportunity to see a court room as Thaksin was. The majority of them had nothing to do with the drug business. No tears for Thaksin here.

He may have given some crumbs to the rural poor, but he also cheated, lied, and stole for himself, and killed many.

He did not share his booty with enough of the other leading families, and they showed their resentment with the coup.

[Koo82]

When you said he "cheated, lied, and stole for himself, and killed many", why don't people bring him to account? Why is it only one land case is judged after almost 3 years? And what? Corruption? Where? Buyer and seller are both right. Land belongs to his wife. He's in jail 2 years for being her husband and PM at the same time? Do you know the whole world is laughing at Thailand for having such a long and detailed Constitution Law to knock political parties and PM easily? And written by those who made and supported a coup in order to knock him.

Those who want to bring Khun Thaksin down say bad things about him but how many of these are true?

Shame for those who used a coup and lies to knock Khun Thaksin. If they want to be PM, be politicians. If they want to win elections, love and care for majority of Thais, not only for noble people which are small % in Thailand. It's just that simple.

What about many others who paint themselves to look good?

[eljeque]

I do not think any of them are good, but that does not mean that Thaksin is innocent.

They all lie cheat steal and are corrupt, but no one ever gets in trouble or they will all get in trouble. For once, the law is being enforced. It should be enforced all of the time, but once is a start. and yes, I know why it is being done this time.

[ballpoint]

I do not think any of them are good, but that does not mean that Thaksin is innocent.

They all lie cheat steal and are corrupt, but no one ever gets in trouble or they will all get in trouble. For once, the law is being enforced. It should be enforced all of the time, but once is a start. and yes, I know why it is being done this time.

More importantly, it sets a precedant. In the past, the victors always gave a blanket pardon to the vanquished, meaning they could do the same crimes and expect a pardon of their own later on. By actually convicting someone previously in power, they are drawing a line in the sand and effectively saying that they too will be able to be judged in the same way at the end of their terms. Sure, it's not perfect, they're not going after his human rights abuses yet because of the can of worms that will open up for some still in power, but it's a start. It's more than any other government has done, and it's about time that tired old argument, favoured by the Thaksinista's, that he shouldn't be judged because those before him got away with the same crimes, is exposed for the flimsy excuse it is.

[Ulysses G.]

it sets a precedant. In the past, the victors always gave a blanket pardon to the vanquished, meaning they could do the same crimes and expect a pardon of their own later on. By actually convicting someone previously in power, they are drawing a line in the sand and effectively saying that they too will be able to be judged in the same way at the end of their terms.

That is how you are interpreting it, but I bet that those in power are not. They will expect to get off the same as always, and considering their friends, they probably will.

[Ricardo]

Why is it only one land case is judged after almost 3 years?

Surely the reason that only one court case has reached a conclusion, is that Thaksin's lawyers have done their best to delay every case, and the continuing deliberate absence in self-imposed exile of Thaksin himself, which delays these cases ?

You know this, we all know this, so why does it come as such a surprise ?

[Livinginexile]

When you said he "cheated, lied, and stole for himself, and killed many", why don't people bring him to account? Why is it only one land case is judged after almost 3 years? And what? Corruption? Where? Buyer and seller are both right. Land belongs to his wife. He's in jail 2 years for being her husband and PM at the same time? Do you know the whole world is laughing at Thailand for having such a long and detailed Constitution Law to knock political parties and PM easily? And written by those who made and supported a coup in order to knock him.

Those who want to bring Khun Thaksin down say bad things about him but how many of these are true?

Shame for those who used a coup and lies to knock Khun Thaksin. If they want to be PM, be politicians. If they want to win elections, love and care for majority of Thais, not only for noble people which are small % in Thailand. It's just that simple.

What about many others who paint themselves to look good?

Well said Koo

You will find that the reason the fanatical rabid anti Thaksin posters on this forum hate K Thaksin so much is because they are so scared that he will give power to the poor people of Thailand.

The anti Thaksin farangs hate him because it threatens the farangs little lifestyles they have in Thailand.

What the farangs are really scared of is the thought that the poor people will be empowered and that will mean the end of cheep sex and cheep love.

That is what it's all about with them.

I personally believe he will return one day and carry on his good work.

And then...

Viva le revolution.

[clausewitz]

By actually convicting someone previously in power, they are drawing a line in the sand and effectively saying that they too will be able to be judged in the same way at the end of their terms. Sure, it's not perfect, they're not going after his human rights abuses yet because of the can of worms that will open up for some still in power, but it's a start. It's more than any other government has done, and it's about time that tired old argument, favoured by the Thaksinista's, that he shouldn't be judged because those before him got away with the same crimes, is exposed for the flimsy excuse it is.

And you believe that? I just ask becuase the new constitution, written by the appointees of the military coup in 2006, specifically says that the coup leaders can never be tried for any misdoing when they seized power by guns.

You see in some countries invading parliament with tanks would get you a very long stay in prison. At least here they are strict if you sign your name on a legal land-deal done by your wife- that will get you years in jail.

[geriatrickid]

If the military stopped interfering in politics perhaps all this mess could have been avoided.

Not perhaps, but most definitely.

2. So then, the court in his absence finds him guilty of corruption. I don't know too many people who would go back home and face a deck so obviously stacked against them, unless they are total fools.

Have you noticed that the same people that will complain about the slow pace of justice or its ineptness in Thailand, are the first to claim that Thaksin had a fair judicial process?

[hansnl]

When you said he "cheated, lied, and stole for himself, and killed many", why don't people bring him to account? Why is it only one land case is judged after almost 3 years? And what? Corruption? Where? Buyer and seller are both right. Land belongs to his wife. He's in jail 2 years for being her husband and PM at the same time? Do you know the whole world is laughing at Thailand for having such a long and detailed Constitution Law to knock political parties and PM easily? And written by those who made and supported a coup in order to knock him.

Those who want to bring Khun Thaksin down say bad things about him but how many of these are true?

Shame for those who used a coup and lies to knock Khun Thaksin. If they want to be PM, be politicians. If they want to win elections, love and care for majority of Thais, not only for noble people which are small % in Thailand. It's just that simple.

What about many others who paint themselves to look good?

Well said Koo

You will find that the reason the fanatical rabid anti Thaksin posters on this forum hate K Thaksin so much is because they are so scared that he will give power to the poor people of Thailand.

The anti Thaksin farangs hate him because it threatens the farangs little lifestyles they have in Thailand.

What the farangs are really scared of is the thought that the poor people will be empowered and that will mean the end of cheep sex and cheep love.

That is what it's all about with them.

I personally believe he will return one day and carry on his good work.

And then...

Viva le revolution.

You really think Mr T would give power to the poor people of Thailand?

Are you serious?

Maybe, just maybe, some farangs come from countries where you learn to take everything politico's do or say with a big bag of salt.

Most of us are very aware of the fact that NEARLY ALL politicians are in there for the power, and sometimes also for the money.

And maybe Mr T was very transparent in his deeds.

Don't ever believe that when poor people get "power" that they will also get a better life.

There are very many examples in the world where "power to the people" meant more poverty and repression.

I am just a guest here, live here well, spend some money every year, and I have to admit, I like it here.

I just look around, see what is happening, and I sincerely hope for the Thai people that Mr T does not come back.

A clash between the two sides could easily result in a lot of trouble for the country and for the people.

Good works done by Mr T, really?

Revolution, have you ever been in one?

You really want this for the Thai people?

Rabid Anti Thaksin crowd on Thai Visa.

No, just realistic people.

[KhaoNiaw]

What the farangs are really scared of is the thought that the poor people will be empowered and that will mean the end of cheep sex and cheep love.

Like a mega-wealthy Chinese Thai like Thaksin is going to empower the people.

[ballpoint]

What the farangs are really scared of is the thought that the poor people will be empowered and that will mean the end of cheep sex and cheep love.

Like a mega-wealthy Chinese Thai like Thaksin is going to empower the people.

Well, he did make his maid and gardener temporary millionaires. I often wonder what would have happened had they taken the money and ran. It was legally theirs at the time.

[TPI]

What the farangs are really scared of is the thought that the poor people will be empowered and that will mean the end of cheep sex and cheep love.

Like a mega-wealthy Chinese Thai like Thaksin is going to empower the people.

Well, he did make his maid and gardener temporary millionaires. I often wonder what would have happened had they taken the money and ran. It was legally theirs at the time.

Maybe we should activly encourage all maids and drivers/gardeners to run when their "owners/employers" give them large sums of money to hide?? The court cases should be a million laughs...and if they kill them then they would have to fight ALL the relatives

[WinnieTheKhwai]

So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

How about the ones you ignored?

1. The Thai Rak Thai were voted into office and Thaksin was the ranking man within that party. He went to New York in Sept 2006 and the army took over. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to come back with a renegade army obviously running the country either.

The army was not and is not and has not been in the past 60 years or so been 'renegade'. They are very much obeying orders, just not from the political system. [Refer to General Prem's speech on who owns the horse and who may get to take it for a ride for a couple laps]

Many of the anti-Thaksin mob will actually argue that's a good thing. (A valid point of view that I can respect, whilst not agreeing with it)

2. So then, the court in his absence finds him guilty of corruption. I don't know too many people who would go back home and face a deck so obviously stacked against them, unless they are total fools.

Chances are he'll be back at some point in the future, looking at Thailand's history: every time polticians were ousted by the military they eventually came back to power/politics.

3. Not only that, when elections were held, the Thaksin-supporting People Power party (PPP) was the clear winner, and, once again, the elected government was forced out of office by the People's Alliance for Democracy, this time with the army looking the other way.

Well actually that was the courts. 'Same same' possibly, but hey.

[Jimjim]

The only point the letter makes is the inability of many people, particularly Americans, to understand how a parliamentary democracy works. No matter how many times it is explained to them. Telling the same lie over and over doesn't make it any more truthfull.

You'll notice by my previous post that I understand quite well how it works, being an American. But then again, I was a history major.

[bungy007]

So, makes some excellent points? Not really. Pretty hazy, confused points mostly.

How about the ones you ignored?

1. The Thai Rak Thai were voted into office and Thaksin was the ranking man within that party. He went to New York in Sept 2006 and the army took over. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to come back with a renegade army obviously running the country either.

2. So then, the court in his absence finds him guilty of corruption. I don't know too many people who would go back home and face a deck so obviously stacked against them, unless they are total fools.

3. Not only that, when elections were held, the Thaksin-supporting People Power party (PPP) was the clear winner, and, once again, the elected government was forced out of office by the People's Alliance for Democracy, this time with the army looking the other way.

1. The TRT did indeed win elections, but were later found to be acting illegally and disbanded. There is currently no such political party.

2. Thaksin fled with his wife after she was found guilty in a tax avoidance case and skipped bail. He didn't have the balls to stand up in a court room and fight his charges of corruption and so was tried inabsentia. The facts of his case are freely available, and I would suggest that any fair western court would have come to the same verdict given the facts presented. The fact that his legal team tried to bribe the judges, and the afore mentioned lack of cajones tend to back this up.

3. The PPP were forced out of office by another court verdict. They were not budging when the PAD were holding the airports and government house. Their entire term of office was spent trying to get Thaksin pardoned, to the detriment of the country at a time when it needed strong leadership. They also lost the support of the civil and military powers, a situation in which any true democratic government would have stepped down.

Lone wolf? Seems more like a dead dog.

I can't believe that people are still trying to defend the old rogue. The Thais have bent over backwards to give him chance after chance. They even allowed him to leave the country when on bail - how trusting is that? And, guess what, true to form he broke the terms of that contract, too!

By rights, he shouldn't have been allowed to be PM in the first place as he was done for hiding assets (putting them into the names of kids/maids etc). Some may say that the judges found him not guilty. Errrh no! Check out the story on that one. Another political fudge! If that isn't a red flag as to his moral compass then I suggest his supporters are colour blind and confused it with green.

His terms were riddled with corruption/murder/political shinanigans/conflict of interests et al.

Next thing, you'll be saying we need him for his obvious business acumen - anyone can make millions when given a state controlled and issued monooly!

[TAWP]

When you said he "cheated, lied, and stole for himself, and killed many", why don't people bring him to account? Why is it only one land case is judged after almost 3 years?

Guess you don't know how the judicial process works here either... they will proceed with other cases when he is in the country and an answer to them.