Have Your Feelings Towards Thaksin Changed

[Jingthing]

Yes, that is a big difference in this poll. It is not a I love him or hate him question, it is about any change in attitudes as a result of the recent events.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Jingthing

[Oberkommando]

I have to support him for many reasons, doesn't mean I like the man personally, although having met him, he seems pleasant and approachable.

Hopefully, he'll be the catalyst for the real change Thailand badly needs. Yet to be seen if he will be or not.

Took Pridi a while to see the light as well.

He annoys the expats that post on this site until they are blue in the face so that's an additional bonus.

[Jingthing]

Hopefully, he'll be the catalyst for the real change Thailand badly needs.

Do you actually believe he will EVER take power now after all that has gone down? Of course, anything is possible, but the odds are now really against that ever happening. He could have faced his trial and maybe done some time and come back legally and ethically. Not this way.

BTW, I do sincerely believe the results of this poll on this expat board are very similar to the feeling on the Thai street. Thaksin's recent adventurism has really seriously, probably fatally wounded his political career. The change in sentiment towards the negative against him is massive, dramatic and palpable. Red is out.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Jingthing

[Oberkommando]

Hopefully, he'll be the catalyst for the real change Thailand badly needs.

Do you actually believe he will EVER take power now after all that has gone down? Of course, anything is possible, but the odds are now really against that ever happening. He could have faced his trial and maybe done some time and come back legally and ethically. Not this way.

BTW, I do sincerely believe the results of this poll on this expat board are very similar to the feeling on the Thai street. Thaksin's recent adventurism has really seriously, probably fatally wounded his political career. The change in sentiment towards the negative against him is massive, dramatic and palpable. Red is out.

I said catalyst for change, not take power again.

Big difference.

[khunjamespittman]

This topic is intended to be a little different, Tex. Specifically, about whether the recent events changed peoples feelings, or not.

Jing, I am more positive towards Thaksin now. Even after all the foolish accusations about him, he was/is the best economic and fininancial mind in Asia in my life time. If it were not for the relentless campaign to destroy him, he would most likely would today be the leading financial and economic consultant to all the Asian nations, a post that was being created with him in mind before this destructive campaing against him began.

It is a shame that you are unable to purge your obvious bias and accept the post by Tex as a very positive post.

Please get over it. You can disagree with some of Thaksin's methods if you like but it is just plain stupid not to recognize his talents with regard to economic and financial matters.

[Jingthing]

Jing, I am more positive towards Thaksin now

I hear that you already liked the man BEFORE.

But you didn't bother to explain why his role in stirring up the sheit to attack the Asean summit and to create street anarchy/violence in Bangkok made you support him more? I can only guess that you think he is so good that the means justify the end, and you are happy he was so desperate he resorted to massively illegal/violent/destructive tactics. If you don't explain, I can only assume, so what is it then? BTW, if you are going to claim he was an innocent bystander in these recent events, don't bother, the world knows that is the true foolishness, IT WAS ON TV.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Jingthing

[khunjamespittman]

Jing, I am more positive towards Thaksin now

I hear that you already liked the man BEFORE.

But you didn't bother to explain why his role in stirring up the sheit to attack the Asean summit and to create street anarchy/violence in Bangkok made you support him more? I can only guess that you think he is so good that the means justify the end, and you are happy he was so desperate he resorted to massively illegal/violent/destructive tactics. If you don't explain, I can only assume, so what is it then? BTW, if you are going to claim he was an innocent bystander in these recent events, don't bother, the world knows that is the true foolishness, IT WAS ON TV.

<snip>. You ask for an opinion then you first expound on what your believe are Thaksin's faults and ask why the person didn't agree with your assertions.

If you want an opinion then just ask for it. Don't berate a person for giving their opinion. If you don't want their opinion don't aske for it.

It's like asking someone if they enjoy beating their wife without allowing a response that says your assertion is infantile. Is this a grammar scholl assignment?

Edited May 9, 2009 by soundman
Removed flame.

[Texpat]

jesus wept.

[soundman]

As far as I'm concerned, hating Thaksin is just sooooo yesterday.

[Samuian]

Yeah I remember talking to an Isaan friend of mine back then. He loved Thaksin, of course. He asked me what I thought. I told him I had a bad feeling about him. He said well he is a very rich man, he is so rich that he will not be corrupt because he doesn't need any more money.I replied well it is not only money he wants but total power.

yep, that was the common sales-tag!

I became suspicious in the time of the "asian-financial-crises" when there where rumors that shin.corp had shifted massive amounts of money to Singapore and HK!

And he was closely acquainted with Chavalit who was in Office from November 25, 1996 – November 8, 1997 to become once more Deputy in October 7, 2008, we all know what made him resign then!

........ there is a long red thread.... connecting him and Chavalit as one was Minister of Defense, the other one Minister for Telecommunications & Transport, wasn' this incidentally the same time frame when the thai-army got "their" first satellite and some telecommunications Company the monopoly of the "public channels"?

and there is much, much more to it..

[Pakboong]

I can never get over the simple fact that after every public official in the country turned over every rock and found very little, Actually quite petty stuff by any standard. Surly, if Thaksin was any where near as bad as many who write here think he is/was, finding him out would not have taken such an effort. He is not afraid of scrutiny. That is a symptom normally of something positive. He is not necessarily looking for forgiveness, he is looking to find what he has done that was so wrong as seen through the eyes of others. If he ordered somebody murdered or tortured like George Bush has obviously done, why does he not fear being found out?

I am pretty certain that he is picking his fights and using his resources to get the most bang for the baht. Bringing the Thai government down from inside is his approach. He will work both sides and he will attack and retreat as he needs to in hopes of preserving his resources. Bin Laden for example never had more than $250,000,000 at any one time and is holding up against the west quite easily. Thaksin has over 75 billion baht on hold in Thailand and he still has plenty. It is a game of chess for him. The thrill of the contest seems to be spurring him on ward.

[rixalex]

I can never get over the simple fact that after every public official in the country turned over every rock and found very little,

Completely untrue. They have found plenty. There is a back-log of cases against him that have been stalled by his disappearing act.

[Ricardo]

I have to support him for many reasons, doesn't mean I like the man personally, although having met him, he seems pleasant and approachable.

Did you count your fingers, after shaking hands, farang businessmen don't seem to have much luck when they do deals with him ?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Ricardo

[MiG16]

post has been deleted.

I suggest to please stay on topic and not go off course. certainly personal attack against each other is not welcome.

the thread is not an area to discuss whether the thread should or should not exist. if you think any posts, or topic is against forum rules, you are welcome to hit the report button, so that MODs and ADMINs can then take actions if appropriate.

however, if you simply dont like the topic, rather than debate whether it should exist, wouldnt it be better to simply skip the topic and move on to something else that is of interest to you?

there should be plenty to keep everyone engaged on thaivisa

or start your own if something of your interest doesnt currently exist on the board

have a great weekend everyone

[MiG16]

great!

Ive now deleted another post

this board does NOT condone violence, and will not allow such thoughts to be expressed here. poster has been given a warning, and any repeat by anyone will be dealt with severely.

you can have whatever political views and dislike whoever, but do NOT use thaivisa to express views of hate and violence. please make yourself familiar with forum rules

[mrtoad]

The mans contempt for the country in his own quest to recover his ill gotton gains, by inciting people to riot is a disgrace. I disliked him before, but even more so now.

[Pierrot]

Yes, that is a big difference in this poll. It is not a I love him or hate him question, it is about any change in attitudes as a result of the recent events.

There is no change. People who didn't like him at the first place now vote they dislike him more (same % with your other polls). But they didn't like him at the first place so what difference does it make ? They never voted for him anyway, so only the twisted mind can deduct Thaksin is losing ground.

But I want to thank you for keeping Thaksin's flame alive. I'm honestly a bit bored with the same arguments over and over again. Luckily, with guys like you, we are sure Thaksin will never be forgotten.

[SpoliaOpima]

Had there been the option, I would have voted 'I am just as negative on Thaksin now as I was when he was prime minister.' Personally he disgusted me in every way starting about two years into his first term. Like many people, including his closest advisers, he seemed like the way forward in the beginning. The honeymoon collapsed quickly with his gross mishandling of security in southern Thailand (I would lay most of the resurgence in violence there squarely on his shoulders, even before Tak Bai, in the way he took out the military command and replaced them with inept police cronies), thinly veiled corruption and repression of human rights, media freedom, etc. As each of his closest advisers, legal counsels, and even two deputy prime ministers, divorced themselves from his agenda, it became clear he had a knack for alienating people around him, the likes of which Thailand had not seen since they had to bag Taksin the Great.

Nothing Col Thaksin has done since the honeymoon was over has surprised me. It's all in keeping with the two dominating characteristics that most Thais I know assign to the man, baa aamnaat (power-crazy) and baa leuat (crazy for blood). As one of his lawyers told me, before the colonel fled with his tail between his legs, and long before the Battle of Songkran, 'I used to respect him so much. Now I think he's the most dangerous man in Thailand.'

[SpoliaOpima]

I would guess nobody here on this thread gets to vote.

If the Thais were allowed to vote tomorrow, Thaksin would win ... again.

It's that sticky trouble with democracy -- one poor farmer's vote carries the same weight as a privileged, blue-hair, pompous hiso. And there are a lot more farmers, thankfully, than arrogant, snooty folks. The current PM is a tool installed by another institution.

Thaksin has the mandate of the Thai people, not this knob.

On what do you base that opinion? All surveys and opinion polls I've seen contradict that notion, as does every major Thai and English-language newspaper.

The political landscape has changed since 2002, alliances have changed, reputations have hit the basement, and there is no way either Col Thaksin or his cronies have a mandate.

[LadyHeather]

I've never been pro or anti either way, I have no real stake in what happens here, it just happens to be a place I make my home from time to time. But I have to say, watching Thaksin's interviews on television over the Songkran riots, the man is a very poor liar. Since he is going to lie, he should at least try to make it a bit more convincing.

[Jingthing]

If you want an opinion then just ask for it. Don't berate a person for giving their opinion. If you don't want their opinion don't aske for it.

khunjames ...

I just did ask it!

Again, you didn't respond directly. I simply asked WHY the recent actions of Thaksin made you much more positive which you didn't state at first, and then didn't state again when directly asked (as that is the topic of this thread, the change in attitudes after Songkran). I know it can be frustrating to be "read" but if you write, expect to be read. If you don't want to respond to a direct question directly on topic to the thread, may I humbly suggest not posting at all rather than trying to do a boomerang?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Jingthing

[SpoliaOpima]

Yes, that is a big difference in this poll. It is not a I love him or hate him question, it is about any change in attitudes as a result of the recent events.

There is no change. People who didn't like him at the first place now vote they dislike him more (same % with your other polls). But they didn't like him at the first place so what difference does it make ? They never voted for him anyway, so only the twisted mind can deduct Thaksin is losing ground.

A false generalisation with counterexamples in news reports, man-on-the-street interviews and so on. Many people who not only liked Thaksin but who worked closely with him have since lost all respect for the man.

In my own experience, most people I know - Thai and foreign alike - who now feel negatively towards Thaksin once supported him (myself included). I know several Thais who worked on his staff as TRT believers. Not a single one has much good to say about him now.

Then of course there are those who saw through him much earlier. I was a bit late myself

But I want to thank you for keeping Thaksin's flame alive. I'm honestly a bit bored with the same arguments over and over again. Luckily, with guys like you, we are sure Thaksin will never be forgotten.

'If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.' George Bernard Shaw

[flying]

If you want an opinion then just ask for it. Don't berate a person for giving their opinion. If you don't want their opinion don't aske for it.

khunjames ...

I just did ask it!

Again, you didn't respond directly. I simply asked WHY the recent actions of Thaksin made you much more positive which you didn't state at first, and then didn't state again when directly asked (as that is the topic of this thread, the change in attitudes after Songkran). I know it can be frustrating to be "read" but if you write, expect to be read. If you don't want to respond to a direct question directly on topic to the thread, may I humbly suggest not posting at all rather than trying to do a boomerang?

Perhaps it is not frustrating being read but actually a comprehension problem...

His post seems quite clear...........When he said Even after or when he said..

he was/is the best economic and financial

All seems quite clear & he speaks to the before & after quite well. (aka: his own way )

Mai Bpen Rai

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Feelings-Tha...05#entry2721505

Edited May 9, 2009 by flying

[Jingthing]

Had there been the option, I would have voted 'I am just as negative on Thaksin now as I was when he was prime minister.'

There is an option: NO CHANGE. The same option as for people who loved him lots before, and love him lots now. That is the point I have been trying to make, this poll and topic were indeed designed differently for a specific purpose, to feel out the IMPACT of the recent Pattaya Asean/Bangkok Songkran events on public opinion of Thaksin,

BTW, the current results here are indeed very dramatic:

Over 50 percent feel more negatively towards Thaksin since the events.

About 20 percent feel more positively.

No surprise at all but striking nonetheless.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Jingthing

[MiG16]

The honeymoon collapsed quickly with his gross mishandling of security in southern Thailand (I would lay most of the resurgence in violence there squarely on his shoulders, even before Tak Bai, in the way he took out the military command and replaced them with inept police cronies),

I try my best to refrain from engaging in political discussions/debates on here

BUT

with that above aspect you mentioned spolia, I do ahve to inject something.

Im not going to debate Thaksin, good, bad etc.

but

I do have a question for you. Do you have any idea how the local people in 3 southern provinces feel about the military presence there?

I can certainly tell you that they are not happy. its a complicated situation, and one that based on various theories and complexities, I would argue against blaming it on Thaksin. and to claim that it should be FULLY attributed to him says that you need to perhaps familiarise yourself with the various complexities of the problem a lot more?

[timekeeper]

Had there been the option, I would have voted 'I am just as negative on Thaksin now as I was when he was prime minister.'

There is an option: NO CHANGE. The same option as for people who loved him lots before, and love him lots now. That is the point I have been trying to make, this poll and topic were indeed designed differently for a specific purpose, to feel out the IMPACT of the recent Pattaya Asean/Bangkok Songkran events on public opinion of Thaksin,

BTW, the current results here are indeed very dramatic:

Over 50 percent feel more negatively towards Thaksin since the events.

About 20 percent feel more positively.

No surprise at all but striking nonetheless.

another successful poll Jing

Thaksin is a spent force politically

if only he would realise it himself............

[SpoliaOpima]

The honeymoon collapsed quickly with his gross mishandling of security in southern Thailand (I would lay most of the resurgence in violence there squarely on his shoulders, even before Tak Bai, in the way he took out the military command and replaced them with inept police cronies),

I try my best to refrain from engaging in political discussions/debates on here

BUT

with that above aspect you mentioned spolia, I do ahve to inject something.

Im not going to debate Thaksin, good, bad etc.

but

I do have a question for you. Do you have any idea how the local people in 3 southern provinces feel about the military presence there?

I can certainly tell you that they are not happy. its a complicated situation, and one that based on various theories and complexities, I would argue against blaming it on Thaksin. and to claim that it should be FULLY attributed to him says that you need to perhaps familiarise yourself with the various complexities of the problem a lot more?

I've spent about three decades writing and reporting on the situation in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat. Before Thaksin took office, the army was in charge of security in the south, not in terms of army troop presence - which increased after T took office (it had to, once he opened Pandora's box by putting the police in charge) - but in terms of who was in charge of regional security.

Separatist violence in those provinces dates to around 1959 and the founding of PULO although there were incidents even before that. It reached a peak in the 1970s and 1980s (pre-Thaksin peak, that is; it's much worse now). Policies put in place by Gen Prem during and after his premiership began to bear full fruit after 1989 or so, after which we saw a huge drop in violent incidents.

I knew the commanding officer of the Southern Security Command (not via reporting but through family connections; he himself is a southerner, from Krabi) who served through the late 90s, and he explained the delicate balance of power the army had gradually been able to manage, and which had kept the three provinces relatively peaceful. I happened to talk with him a few months after Thaksin had relieved the Southern Security Command of all responsibility for security and put it in the hands of the police. At the time he informed me of the news (I don't think it was even reported in the local news), he was very worried that the police generals put in charge - cronies of T placed there apparently for political reasons rather than because of any expertise with southern unrest - would not be able to contain the situation long. It turned out he was right.

In other words it is no coincidence that southern unrest grew exponentially during the Thaksin regime. He destabilised the situation by replacing the army - who had things more or less under control (not through human rights repression, rather through identifying black market conduits for arms, rewarding local leaders with black market concessions on rice smuggling, and so on) - with the police. It's pretty much a given that Thailand's national police force is less experienced and less capable than the army when it comes to these kinds of movements. It's also pretty much a given that they're more corrupt. Of course both forces are rife with corruption but the army tend to know their limits in terms of alienating local sensitivities through longterm experience with the armed communist movement, etc.

Under Prem, Chatichai, Chuan and assorted other premiers pre-Thaksin, the situation was steadily improving as the army kept all the local alliances running smoothly. I think any political analyst who knows the separatist movement in southern Thailand will make the same argument, that Thaksin's turning over of southern security to the police re-stoked the embers smouldering in the south.

Once the violence erupted in the south, Thaksin called in troops to try and contain the situation but it was too late, and the police remained in charge at higher levels. And of course with Thaksin's mismanagement of Tak Bai, the Kreu-Se massacre, and so on, the flames were fanned even hotter. I think optimistically it will take another 20 years to bring violence back to pre-Thaksin levels, and that's assuming the power structure in place pre-Thaksin can be re-established in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat.

With all due respect, MiG16, I have done my homework. Have you?

Edited May 9, 2009 by SpoliaOpima

[SpoliaOpima]

Michael Vatikiotis argues the same in his Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 28.1 (2006) 27-47.

He also notes the added aggravation/destabilisation caused by the 'drug wars' in the deep south.

After Thailand successfully subdued the first secessionist movement of the 1960s, a fractured separatist movement was fairly active in the 1970s and 1980s and then subsided in the 1990s.

The latest outbreak of violence, which dates back to 2001, appears to have been fuelled at the grassroots level by the Thai government's imprudent handling of local security, cultural, and political issues. ⁸ There are three commonly cited causes for growing popular discontent. First, there was the nationwide war against drugs launched by Thaksin Shinawatra in 2002. Many of the more than 2,200 alleged drug dealers found dead were from the South. Thai police have consistently denied conducting these killings. Second, the structure of security in the region was changed, dismantling a long-established Southern Security Command (SOPB), and replacing military-led management with the use of police. This resulted in a disruption of well-established contacts between local communities and security authorities. Thirdly, there were policy pronouncements such as promising scholarships funded by local lotteries that opposition politicians from the South say offended local Muslims.

[Oberkommando]

I can certainly tell you that they are not happy. its a complicated situation, and one that based on various theories and complexities, I would argue against blaming it on Thaksin. and to claim that it should be FULLY attributed to him says that you need to perhaps familiarise yourself with the various complexities of the problem a lot more?

Key word = sovereignty.

The Thaksin administration, after their prior mishandling of the situation in the South, had some forward thinking solutions to solve some of the problems, and took into account why there was so much dissatisfaction in the Southern Provinces.

Before there could be a decision to implement some of these changes they were rejected out of hand by Prem and the Privy Council.

[MiG16]

spolia

my question was, have you talked to people in those provinces and heard what they think?

another question is - do your amy general friends tell you how much the military/army budget was increasedunder claims its needed to tackle the unrest in the south?

or that those working in ISOC were requesting a budget increase for their salary , as in requesting a double claim to salary (and denied under Thaksin rule)

you dont think any of these things have any correlation as to why the army would want to claim that they were doing a great job but were blockaded by Thaksin to continue to do their work properly?

anyhow, I seem to be taking the topic off track, so I might end it here.

ohhh, I may not have the academic credentials to back my knowledge, but I can assure you...I do know my south thailand

I wont say for how long as I dont want to be alluding to my age