Has Thailand Made Progress? Thaksin Taunts

[Plus]

Prosecuting the Thaksin camp is no kind of evidence that justice prevails and influence cannot be bought in Thailand, it is evidence for exactly the reverse.

Thaksin camp has run the country for about six years, ANYBODY prosecuted for corruption or election fraud from those days would be from Thaksin camp.

A few examples from anti-Thaksin camp who got caught in the net are Democrat Apirak for fire-truck scandal, Newin (verdict due today), Banharn - electoral fraud, and Matchima party (thought to the military vehicle to defeat Thaksin in elections).

Those are facts, just as numerous lawsuits against the media and journalists in Thaksin's years. Some say that his downfall was caused by shafting Sondhi's show from Channel 9.

[quiksilva]

I think the number of extra judicial murders and suits against newspapers printing unflattering stories has declined... sounds like progress to me

[puyaidon]

Getting rid of thaksin was probably one of Thailands greatest achievements, any thing else that was to follow pales in comparison.

Once the convicted crimial scumbag realises this the better for all, including himself as he will save heaps of his ill-gotten money.

Hear, Hear, This has been the best post and truest statement made on this thread.

[animatic]

...there is a long standing conspiracy of silence amount some of the upper echeleons of society. Under Thaksin, the noses in the trough changed and the other piggys started to squeal.

If that theory was true, than why piggies who where squeezed out after the coup haven't came up with any substantial accusations?

Actually he just was in cahoots with many of the big piggies,

but burned many as time went by... No end of the dislike for his ways.

It was not so much he displaced people, but burned them in major ways.

There are only so many toes your can grind your heel on in a small world,

before those toes turn to many heels with STOMP on their minds.

[Publicus]

<snip>

This isn't the first or the second valid farang reference to Hitler/Thaksin. The reference has been recurring over time, which is why there is a viability to it. Of course Thaksin isn't out to conquer the world, but for Thaksin Thailand itself will do just fine.

Fallacious proposition. The idea of a flat earth recurred for a very long time, but that didn't turn out to be true. The popularity of a concept does not guarantee its veracity.

We know that sophomores like to pop off regularly and frequently.

So I would state for the record that the longevity or regular occurrance of anything doesn't necessarily mean or indicate it has a validity or veracity. The Big Lie is a good example to support the point.

Indeed, to state that something has "a viability to it" is to offer a limited observation which may be useful to a given discourse.

As deja vu, the era of globalization has a number of academics and geoeconomists saying that the world once again has become flat.

[animatic]

<snip>

This isn't the first or the second valid farang reference to Hitler/Thaksin. The reference has been recurring over time, which is why there is a viability to it. Of course Thaksin isn't out to conquer the world, but for Thaksin Thailand itself will do just fine.

Fallacious proposition. The idea of a flat earth recurred for a very long time, but that didn't turn out to be true. The popularity of a concept does not guarantee its veracity.

We know that sophomores like to pop off regularly and frequently.

So I would state for the record that the longevity or regular occurrance of anything doesn't necessarily mean or indicate it has a validity or veracity. The Big Lie is a good example to support the point.

Indeed, to state that something has "a viability to it" is to offer a limited observation which may be useful to a given discourse.

As deja vu, the era of globalization has a number of academics and geoeconomists saying that the world once again has become flat.

The finesse of parsing phrases so close to the bone

without hitting marrow seems to be lost on oh so many.

And of course a non sequitur used as an ad hominum doesn't further the question.

fallacious –adjective

1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.

2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony.

3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.

The obvious comparisons between Thaksin, and Hitler at various times in his life,

do keep coming up in discussion, so that does mean those parallels are observed

by more than just the one observer, but a series of observers from disparate backgrounds.

That repetition coupled with this disparity of view points, gives the validity to the juxtaposition.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

The obvious comparisons between Thaksin, and Hitler at various times in his life,

do keep coming up in discussion, so that does mean those parallels are observed

by more than just the one observer, but a series of observers from disparate backgrounds.

That repetition coupled with this disparity of view points, gives the validity to the juxtaposition.

Still in there slugging away

Most people make comparisons with Hitler, not because of historical similarities but because of a hysterical wish to express an insult. The connotation of the name Hitler has become so bad that is is almost synonymous with the antichrist.

Comparing anyone with Hitler represents the triumph of emotion over rationalism, it has nothing whatever to do with any actual similarities, and frankly, it is a childish argument to suggest that there are real similarities.

Edited September 21, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[Ulysses G.]

Hitler killed many millions of innocent people for their religious beliefs and for being gay.

Thaksin tried to get rid of a few thousand speed and heroin dealers. The comparisons end there.

Anyone who tries to compare the two leaders is sick in the head.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Let me know when PAD are prosecuted for shutting down the airport last year and I will review the views and beliefs I have today.

The prosecutor cannot act against the PAD until he gets the report from the police, they're waiting for that now.

:D

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Hitler killed many millions of innocent people for their religious beliefs and for being gay.

Thaksin tried to get rid of a few thousand speed and heroin dealers. The comparisons end there.

Anyone who tries to compare the two leaders is sick in the head.

Quite.

[Publicus]

The obvious comparisons between Thaksin, and Hitler at various times in his life,

do keep coming up in discussion, so that does mean those parallels are observed

by more than just the one observer, but a series of observers from disparate backgrounds.

That repetition coupled with this disparity of view points, gives the validity to the juxtaposition.

Still in there slugging away

Most people make comparisons with Hitler, not because of historical similarities but because of a hysterical wish to express an insult. The connotation of the name Hitler has become so bad that is is almost synonymous with the antichrist.

Comparing anyone with Hitler represents the triumph of emotion over rationalism, it has nothing whatever to do with any actual similarities, and frankly, it is a childish argument to suggest that there are real similarities.

We're talking now about the antichrist??

Well, while we're talking anyway about crazy in the head, we have been discussing the more than childish piques and tantrums of the never say die irrational madman Dr. Thaksin and of their effects on Thailand, effects which have been negative in the extreme.

Now we get more madness involving more politicians--and the politicians involved are the usual suspects besides.

[brahmburgers]

In other words, if you like Chavez, you'll love Thaksin.

I'd compare T more with F. Marcos. Limitless greed for ever more wealth and state control. No tolerance for differing ideas. Chavez looks like a teddy bear compared to T.

.....ok, a teddy bear with incisors.

I think the number of extra judicial murders and suits against newspapers printing unflattering stories has declined... sounds like progress to me

Quite. A lessening of abuses is an improvement. Thailand is currently far from being governed by wise and decent people. However, looking back at the sorts who were at the helm during T's time, we're stuck now with a comparatively better bunch.

Currently, there are

>>> less lawsuits being thrown around for unflattering comments about the leader,

>>> less mysterious extra-judicial deaths,

>>> less blatant corruption in government bids, and less no-bid contracts.

>>> less scandals for not paying taxes on large corporate sales.

>>> lower incidence of leaders squirreling away money in numbered accounts overseas.

>>> less promises made to impoverished farmers that the promisers know can never be realized. Example: Forgiveness of debt.

>>> less cover-ups of atrocities, such as the Tak Bai incident, where nearly 100 young Muslim men died while in military custody.

Lessening of bad things = improvements. So, to answer T's question "Is Thailand better off today than it was three years ago?" .....the answer is a resounding "YES!"

If only T had stuck to his word when he declared (several times) "I'm through with politics" then Thailand would have been a lot better off during the past several years, and there wouldn't be the grievous rifts among the population that are on-going. Incidentally, the word on the street is the price for coming to Bkk to wear a red shirt and make noise is up to Bt.500/day. That's about three times minimum wage, so if I was an unemployed so 'n so in Issan, I might consider getting the free meals and payment for showing up. Wouldn't you?

Edited September 21, 2009 by brahmburgers

[mca]

less cover-ups of atrocities, such as the Tak Bai incident, where nearly 100 young Muslim men died while in military custody.

Unfortunately the white wash post mortem inquiry happened while Aphasit was at the helm.

[animatic]

Hitler killed many millions of innocent people for their religious beliefs and for being gay.

Thaksin tried to get rid of a few thousand speed and heroin dealers. The comparisons end there.

Anyone who tries to compare the two leaders is sick in the head.

Well, did you see the "various times in his life", line?

No of course not, or the argument might have made sense to you.

Provided you have more than a cursory knowledge of 'early Hitler'

and not just late Hitler; ie the sweep of his his rise and fall.

These T/H comparisons are from the 30's, not the early 40's.

What Hitler did later is the end lesson of WHY to never let

similar personalities gain total control of a nation.

Hubris and total control with an out of control ego are dangerous,

as Hitler shows so clearly. What direction Thaksin might have gone?...

well fortunately, so far, we won't be subjected to an answer.

But to draw parallels between one who finally went round the twist BEFORE he did,

and one who was prevented from having total control of a nation, while

surrounded by sycophants, and showing mental derangements, is not a useless exercise.

Those who refuse or can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Have a nice life.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

less cover-ups of atrocities, such as the Tak Bai incident, where nearly 100 young Muslim men died while in military custody.

Unfortunately the white wash post mortem inquiry happened while Aphasit was at the helm.

So much for it being Thaksin's fault. The army answers to the owner and feels free to change jockeys when it wishes. This is the house that Jack built.

[Jingthing]

Comparing anyone to Hitler is a red herring. He and Pol Pot are in their own class of horror. It also really gets absurd sometimes. In the US, the right wing "teabaggers" are marching with signs depicting Obama as a Hitlerian fascist, yeah sure thing ...

I think Thaksin is a dangerous man and he has been very divisive and destructive to Thailand, but I still like the Chavez/Peron comparisons best. Chavez who is of course in power now has many fans all over the world and Peronists are still very popular in Argentina. The full story of Thaksin and his influence on Thailand is still a work in progress.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Jingthing

[thailand4tour]

one of the selfish farlang enjoying his life here at the expense of the Thai people.

[mca]

one of the selfish farlang enjoying his life here at the expense of the Thai people.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't have put it better myself. Unfortunately I think you've posted in the wrong section.

[thailand4tour]

The history of Thailand since 1973 has seen a difficult and sometimes bloody transition from military to civilian rule, with several reversals along the way, including the most recent military coup of September 2006. The revolution of 1973 inaugurated a brief, unstable period of democracy, with military rule being reimposed after a bloody coup in 1976. For most of the 1980s, Thailand was ruled by prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda, a democratically-inclined strongman who restored parliamentary politics. Thereafter the country remained a democracy apart from a brief period of military rule from 1991 to 1992. The populist Thai Rak Thai party, led by prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, governed from 2001 until 2006. In 2006 mass protests against the Thai Rak Thai party's alleged corruption prompted the military to stage a coup d'état. A general election in December 2007 restored a civilian government.

Revolution

The Democracy Monument in Bangkok, built in 1940 to commemorate the fall of the absolute monarchy in 1932, was the scene of massive demonstrations in 1973, 1976 and 1992.

The events of October 1973 amounted to a revolution in Thai politics. For the first time the urban middle class, led by the students, had defeated the combined forces of the old ruling class and the army, and had gained the apparent blessing of the king for a transition to full democracy, symbolised by a new constitution which provided for a fully elected unicameral legislature.

However, Thailand had not yet produced a political class able to make this bold new democracy function smoothly. The January 1975 elections failed to produce a stable party majority, and fresh elections in April 1976 produced the same result. The veteran politician Seni Pramoj and his brother Kukrit Pramoj alternated in power, but were unable to carry out a coherent reform programme. The sharp increase in oil prices in 1974 led to recession and inflation, weakening the government's position. The democratic government's most popular move was to secure the withdrawal of American forces from Thailand.

The wisdom of this move was soon questioned, however, when Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to communist forces in 1975. The arrival of communist regimes on Thailand’s borders, the abolition of the 600-year-old Lao monarchy, and the arrival of a flood of refugees from Laos and Cambodia, swung public opinion in Thailand back to the right, and conservatives did much better in the 1976 elections than they had done in 1975.

[edit]A return to military rule

By late 1976 moderate middle class opinion had turned away from the activism of the students, with their base at Thammasat University. The army and the right-wing parties began a propaganda war against student liberalism by accusing student activists of being communists and through formal paramilitary organizations such the Village Scouts and the Red Gaurs. Matters came to a head in October when Thanom returned to Thailand to enter a royal monastery. Student protesters were hung in Nakhon Pathom after protesting the return of Thanom Kittikachorn and being accused of a communist conspiracy. Students in Thammasat University held protests over the violent deaths of the two and staged a mock hanging of the two, one of whom bore a resemblance to the Crown Prince. Some newspapers the following day, including the Bangkok Post, published a doctored version of the photo and suggesting that the students committed lese majeste. Rightist elements began to demand a "cleansing killing" of the students and on October 6, 1976 the army unleashed the paramilitaries, and used the resultant orgy of violence, in which hundreds of students were tortured and killed, to suspend the constitution and resume power. Immediately after the incident, an amnesty was issued to prevent any of those responsible for the massacre from coming to justice.

The army installed Thanin Kraivixien, an ultra-conservative former judge, as prime minister, and carried out a sweeping purge of the universities, the media and the civil service. Thousands of students, intellectuals and other leftists fled Bangkok and joined the Communist Party's insurgent forces in the north and north-east, operating from safe bases in Laos. Others left for exile, including Dr. Puey Ungphakorn, the respected economist and Rector of Thammasat University. The economy was also in serious difficulties, in no part due to Thanin's policies, which frightened foreign investors. The new regime proved as unstable as the democratic experiment had been. In October 1977 a different section of the army staged another "coup" and replaced Thanin with General Kriangsak Chomanand.

By this time, Thai forces had to deal with the situation resulting from the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. There was another flood of refugees, and both Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge forces periodically crossed into Thai territory, sparking clashes along the borders. A 1979 visit to Beijing earned Deng Xiaoping's agreement to end support for Thailand's communist movement; in return, the Thai authorities agreed to give safe haven to the Khmer Rouge forces fleeing west following the invasion of Cambodia. Revelations of the crimes of the defeated Khmer Rouge also sharply reduced the appeal of communism to the Thai public. Kriangsak's position as prime minister soon became untenable and he was forced to step down in February 1980 at a time of economic troubles. Kriangsak was succeeded by the army commander-in-chief, General Prem Tinsulanonda, a staunch royalist with a reputation for being incorruptible.

Vietnamese incursions

Main article: Vietnamese border raids in Thailand

In 1979-88, Vietnamese occupation forces in Kampuchea made incursions into Thai territory, often seeking rebel guerrillas supposedly hidden in refugee camps (where many Laotians and Vietnamese refugees had also settled). Sporadic skirmishes continued along the border... From 1985 to 1988, Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea periodically made raids to wipe out Khmer Rouge border camps in Thailand, which remained, along with China, major supporters of Khmer Rouge resistance.

Coups and elections

Much of the 1980s saw a process of democratisation overseen by the King and Prem. The two preferred constitutional rule, and acted to put an end to violent military interventions.

[edit]The Prem era

In April 1981 a clique of junior army officers popularly known as the "Young Turks" staged a coup, taking control of Bangkok. They dissolved the National Assembly and promised sweeping social changes. But their position quickly crumbled when Prem accompanied the royal family to Khorat. With the King's support for Prem made clear, loyalist units under the palace favourite General Arthit Kamlangek managed to recapture the capital in a bloodless counterattack.

This episode raised the prestige of the monarchy still further, and also enhanced Prem’s status as a relative moderate. A compromise was therefore reached. The insurgency ended and most of the ex-student guerillas returned to Bangkok under an amnesty. The army returned to its barracks, and yet another constitution was promulgated, creating an appointed Senate to balance the popularly elected National Assembly. Elections were held in April 1983, giving Prem, now in the guise of a civilian politician, a large majority in the legislature (an arrangement which came to be known as "Premocracy").

Prem was also the beneficiary of the accelerating economic revolution which was sweeping south-east Asia. After the recession of the mid 1970s, economic growth took off. For the first time Thailand became a significant industrial power, and manufactured goods such as computer parts, textiles and footwear overtook rice, rubber and tin as Thailand’s leading exports. With the end of the Indochina wars and the insurgency, tourism developed rapidly and became a major earner. The urban population continued to grow rapidly, but overall population growth began to decline, leading to a rise in living standards even in rural areas, although the Isaan continued to lag behind. While Thailand did not grow as fast as the "East Asian Tigers" like Taiwan and South Korea, it achieved sustained growth.

Prem held office for eight years, surviving two more general elections in 1983 and 1986, and remained personally popular, but the revival of democratic politics led to a demand for a more adventurous leader. In 1988 fresh elections brought former General Chatichai Choonhavan to power. Prem rejected the invitation offered by major political parties for the third term of premiership.

Prem era also marked the end of violent struggle between the Bangkok government and the communist insurgents by issuing the general amnesty. Former students who fled the cities, joined the communist party, returned eventually.

The NPKC and Bloody May

By allowing one faction of the military to get rich on government contracts, Chatichai provoked a rival faction, led by Generals Sunthorn Kongsompong, Suchinda Kraprayoon, and other generals of Class 5 of the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy to stage a coup in February 1991, charging Chatichai's government as a corrupt regime or 'Buffet Cabinet'. The junta called itself the National Peace Keeping Council. The NPKC brought in a civilian prime minister, Anand Panyarachun, who was still responsible to the military. Anand's anti-corruption and straightforward measures proved popular. Another general election was held in March 1992.

The winning coalition appointed coup leader Suchinda Kraprayoon to become Prime Minister, in effect breaking a promise he had made earlier to the King and confirming the widespread suspicion that the new government was going to be a military regime in disguise. However, the Thailand of 1992 was not the Siam of 1932. Suchinda’s action brought hundreds of thousands of people out in the largest demonstrations ever seen in Bangkok, led by the former governor of Bangkok, Major-General Chamlong Srimuang. Suchinda brought military units personally loyal to him into the city and tried to suppress the demonstrations by force, leading to a massacre and riots in the heart of the capital, Bangkok, in which hundreds died. Rumours spread out as there was a rift in the armed forces. Amidst the fear of civil war, King Bhumibol intervened: he summoned Suchinda and Chamlong to a televised audience, and urged them to follow the peaceful solution. This meeting resulted in Suchinda's resignation.

[edit]Democracy

The King re-appointed the lauren royalist Anand as interim prime minister until elections could be held in September 1992, which brought the Democrat Party under Chuan Leekpai to power, mainly representing the voters of Bangkok and the south. Chuan was a competent administrator who held power until 1995, when he was defeated at elections by a coalition of conservative and provincial parties led by Banharn Silpa-Archa. Tainted by corruption charges from the very beginning, Banharn’s government was forced to call early elections in 1996, in which General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh's New Aspiration Party managed to gain a narrow victory.

Soon after coming into office, Prime Minister Chavalit was confronted by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. After coming under strong criticism for his handling of the crisis, Chavilit resigned in November 1997 and Chuan returned to power. Chuan came to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund which stabilised the currency and allowed IMF intervention on Thai economic recovery. In contrast to the country's previous history, the crisis was resolved by civilian rulers under democratic procedures.

During the 2001 election Chuan’s agreement with IMF and use of injection funds to boost the economy were a cause for great debate, whilst Thaksin’s policies appealed to the mass electorate. Thaksin campaigned effectively against the old politics, corruption, organized crime, and drugs. In January 2001 he had a sweeping victory at the polls, winning a larger popular mandate than any Thai prime minister has ever had in a freely elected National Assembly.

While Thaksin himself owned a large portion of shares in Shin Corporation (formerly Shinawatra Computer and Communications), one of Thailand's major telecommunications companies, he moved his holding to under the names of his servants and driver until his children were old enough to able to hold shares. The shares eventually transferred to family members. The share issue went to court and the court ruled in his favor, acquitting him from the legal clause that a prime minister cannot hold shares. Even though this legally freed him, political opposition parties and many Thai people did not accept the court ruling on this matter.

In power, Thaksin has presided over the rapid recovery of the Thai economy and repaid all debts borrowed from IMF before due time. By 2002 Thailand, and Bangkok in particular, was once again booming. As low-end manufacturing moved to China and other low-wage economies, Thailand moved upscale into more sophisticated manufacturing, both for a rapidly expanding domestic middle class market and for export. Tourism, and particularly sex tourism, also remained a huge revenue earner despite intermittent "social order" campaigns by the government to control the country's nightlife. Thaksin won an even bigger majority at elections in February 2005, securing his second consecutive term.

However Thaksin became one of the most controversial premiers in the democratic Thailand. While he was applauded as an able leader, his critics became more severe. From the very beginning of his power, he was charged with hidden assets. He was 'at war' with journalists. His relationship with Myanmar's junta was also criticized. His policy of 'war on drug' led to the killing of thousands 'suspects', inviting critics from human right groups domestically and internationally. Reports of his abuse of power and the conflict of interest were heralded.

In December 2005 media proprietor Sonthi Limthongkul launched an anti-Thaksin campaign, after his news analysis TV program, sharp critic of Thaksin, was removed from the channel. Sondhi's movement was based on accusations of Thaksin's abuse of power, corruption, human right violation, and immorality. Accusations included the improper handling of privatization of PTT and EGAT, the unfairness of the U.S.-Thailand free trade agreement, the corruption in the Suvarnabhumi Airport project, and conflicts of interest due to the Shinawatra family's continued ownership of Shin Corporation.. In January 2006, the Shinawatra family sold its shares in Shin Corporation, but due to a condition in Thai law, they did not have to pay capital gains tax. Although legal, Sonthi, his Peoples Alliance for Democracy, and the opposition claimed that the tax-free sale was immoral. Sonthi and the PAD held mass protests for months. In February 2006 Thaksin responded by calling a snap election in April. The opposition boycotted the elections, causing the Constitutional Court to later nullify the election results. Another election was scheduled for October 2006.

On September 19, 2006, with the prime minister in New York for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, Army Commander-in-Chief Lieutenant General Sonthi Boonyaratglin launched a successful coup 'd'etat. The October election was cancelled, the 1996 Constitution was abrograted, some key ministers arrested, and Parliament dissolved. King Bhumibol formally approved the junta. Thaksin's diplomatic passport was cancelled, and he took up exile in the UK. The new constitution was promulgated with junta's support. The general election took place in December 2007.

In a general election on 23 December 2007, the People Power Party lead by Samak Sundaravej, Thaksin's loyal, won majority seats in the parliament, and democratic rule was restored.

2008Thai political crisis

In mid-2008, the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) led large protests against the government of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, whom they criticize for his ties to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. On 26 August 2008, the protesters occupied several government ministries, including Thailand's Government House.[1] Samak refused to resign, but also elected not to use force to remove the protestors.[2] Beginning August 29, protesters disrupted air and rail infrastructure.[3]The protests have caused one confirmed death, on September 2.[4] Later that day, Samak declared a state of emergency, banning gatherings and use of media by the PAD.[5] As of September 8, the protesters are still occupying Government House.[6]

On September 9, 2008, the Constiutional Court of Thailand delivered a decision that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej has performed the acts in breach of Section 267 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007) which prevents against the conflict of interest. Sundaravej, while assuming the premiership, has engaged in a cookery show business through being the emcee for two TV show, Chim Pai Bon Pai (Tasting and Grumbling) and Yok Khayong Hok Mong Chao (All Set at 6am). According to the termination of premiership, the entire Council of Ministers was in need to step down together with Sundaravej. However, the ruling did not bar him from standing again for prime minister.[7] All the ministers other than Sundaravej remained in a caretaker position until a new administration is installed. Karn Tienkaew, deputy leader of Samak's People's Power Party, said it planned to propose a parliamentary vote Wednesday on returning Samak to power: "Samak still has legitimacy. The party still hopes to vote him back unless he says no. Otherwise we have many other capable candidates."[8]

On October 5 and 4, 2008, respectively, Chamlong Srimuang and rally organiser, Chaiwat Sinsuwongse of the People's Alliance for Democracy, were detained by the Thai police led by Col. Sarathon Pradit, by virtue of August 27 arrest warrant for insurrection, conspiracy, illegal assembly and refusing orders to disperse (treason) against him and 8 other protest leaders. At the Government House, Sondhi Limthongkul, however, stated demonstrations would continue: "I am warning you, the government and police, that you are putting fuel on the fire. Once you arrest me, thousands of people will tear you apart."[9] Srimuang's wife, Ying Siriluck visited him at the Border Patrol Police Region 1, Pathum Thani.[10][11] Other PAD members still wanted by police include Sondhi, activist MP Somkiat Pongpaibul and PAD leaders Somsak Kosaisuk and Pibhop Dhongchai.

[Publicus]

Author, author!! Come forward please!

Mods ought to take note there are several references in the above post to someone's interpretation of the king taking sides and approving or disapproving this or that person or event, which we know and understand to be contrary to forum rules.

[Plus]

less cover-ups of atrocities, such as the Tak Bai incident, where nearly 100 young Muslim men died while in military custody.

Unfortunately the white wash post mortem inquiry happened while Aphasit was at the helm.

It happened in a small provincial court in Songkla which has nothing to do with Abhisit whatsoever.

[Ulysses G.]

Hitler killed many millions of innocent people for their religious beliefs and for being gay.

Thaksin tried to get rid of a few thousand speed and heroin dealers. The comparisons end there.

Anyone who tries to compare the two leaders is sick in the head.

Well, did you see the "various times in his life", line?

No of course not, or the argument might have made sense to you.

Provided you have more than a cursory knowledge of 'early Hitler'

and not just late Hitler; ie the sweep of his his rise and fall.

These T/H comparisons are from the 30's, not the early 40's.

What Hitler did later is the end lesson of WHY to never let

similar personalities gain total control of a nation.

Hubris and total control with an out of control ego are dangerous,

as Hitler shows so clearly. What direction Thaksin might have gone?...

well fortunately, so far, we won't be subjected to an answer.

But to draw parallels between one who finally went round the twist BEFORE he did,

and one who was prevented from having total control of a nation, while

surrounded by sycophants, and showing mental derangements, is not a useless exercise.

Those who refuse or can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Have a nice life.

Comparing almost any politician to Hitler is just plain stupid.

You can pretend all you want about how he might have turned out, but you don't have a crystal ball. Thaksin has never done anything remotely as evil as Hitler and all indications are that he never would have.

Why don't you call him Darth Vader’s twin brother as long as you are just making things up?

[reallyok]

It's a perfectly reasonable question really..!! Where is Thailand now..??

Agreed, when he was in power the economy was good and Thailand was ticking along quite nicely. However, forget the current economic climate around the world and surely everyone can see that since he has departed this place has gone into full meltdown.

Airport stormed and closed, political turmoil not seen for decades, an inept government (not democratically elected!). The list goes on and on.

Whether you like Thaksin or not, things (in my opinion) were a whole lot better when he was PM.

I laugh at the posts on here, "Thaksin is a criminal", "he's corrupt".. bla, bla, bla. Do you honestly believe that Thailand is in a better social state now..??

Yes, a few dodgy deals here and there, so what's unusual about that in Thai politics. Better the devil you know I say. It's just the elite of Thai society who wanted him out and as is normal they got their way. Money talks!

A lot of the posters on here need to get out of the bars and go and see the "real" Thailand. Ask around and see what the locals think about the state of their country now!!

Well said CG...........would'nt it be great if they could all do that !

[reallyok]

It's a perfectly reasonable question really..!! Where is Thailand now..??

Agreed, when he was in power the economy was good and Thailand was ticking along quite nicely. However, forget the current economic climate around the world and surely everyone can see that since he has departed this place has gone into full meltdown.

Airport stormed and closed, political turmoil not seen for decades, an inept government (not democratically elected!). The list goes on and on.

Whether you like Thaksin or not, things (in my opinion) were a whole lot better when he was PM.

I laugh at the posts on here, "Thaksin is a criminal", "he's corrupt".. bla, bla, bla. Do you honestly believe that Thailand is in a better social state now..??

Yes, a few dodgy deals here and there, so what's unusual about that in Thai politics. Better the devil you know I say. It's just the elite of Thai society who wanted him out and as is normal they got their way. Money talks!

A lot of the posters on here need to get out of the bars and go and see the "real" Thailand. Ask around and see what the locals think about the state of their country now!!

Fully agree. Even though he was crooked and a thief, he has been consistently been the people's democratic choice (when they have been given a democratic choice). He has been tipped out twice by illegal (army coup) or unconstitutional (judicial coup) means. The real anti-democratic scoundrels are the ones who did the tipping out. And everyone in Thailand now knows who that was.

And so do the international community, which is why Thailand has no friends. For goodness' sake, even Burma, Cambodia and Laos look down their noses at Thailand these days. How are the once-mighty fallen.

MEANWHILE !! the PM jaunts off to USA expecting to be overwelmed by investment opportunities.........gotta be joking !

[reallyok]

If Mr T was so good for the country can some one please explain why the powers to be eventually ousted him? He was pretty canny at putting as i see it all his people friends and relatives in top places..what happened?

Simple explanation there ...................They could just see that they were loosing their power basis and thats not for the big business end of town !!

[dr_Pat_Pong]

...there is a long standing conspiracy of silence amount some of the upper echeleons of society. Under Thaksin, the noses in the trough changed and the other piggys started to squeal.

If that theory was true, than why piggies who where squeezed out after the coup haven't came up with any substantial accusations?

and implicate themselves ?

[Siripon]

The coup was welcomed with flowers for the soldiers and people posing with their children on the tanks.

The poll 2 weeks ago showed an overwhelming percentage wanted the present government to carry on.

Thaksin was removed because of his authoritarian rule, the army would not have dared intervene otherwise.

[reallyok]

No one can deny Thailand has been in a downward spiral since the coup three years ago. What this country desperately needs is 'unity', but somehow I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Funny how some folks on here see the Democrat Party as being godsend. You really are blind aren't you? Perhaps being so anti-Thaksin has affected your better judgment. The Democrats are no better than Thaksin, if not worse. Like the previous Governments of Samak and Somchai, the Democrats haven't done diddly-squat since taking office. The only thing their capable of doing it seems, is the relentless pursuit of their political opponents; day in, day out. And to what end??

If the Democrats had any common sense, they'd focus their efforts on running the country. Let's face it: Thaksin is irrelevant; he's been shoved into a corner and has remained cornered for the past 3 years. Why not use this opportunity to impress those who have lost faith in your ability to govern? This country has plenty of problems waiting to be solved. The fact that the Democrats aren't doing their job, doesn't help improve ratings either. Keep this up, they can kiss their chances of being re-elected goodbye come next election.

You raise good points but why bother here, if the Burmese took over this mob would still scream it was better than Taksin as they were shoved to the exit gates.

The question was: "They accused me of not being loyal [to the monarchy], interfering in the media, the independent agencies and failing to solve problems in the three southern border provinces and causing national divisions. Today, are these problems getting solved and is there an improvement?"

The honest answer is no, nothing is being solved and nothing what so ever has improved, except maybe for the army budget. In fact the country is is a much worse condition and more divided, why lie about it and claim all is rosy? Really do need an "I hate Taksin" forum for this mob to vent their spleens daily rather than interject their inane propaganda fed BS into a news forum.

"I HATE THAKSIN" forum ..................amazing, what a good idea ! Come on Mods , it will then put all those mundane postings into one place so that those of us who want rational discussion can relax and not have to be involved in this incessant anti Thaksin drivel, its been going on for years.

Please please consider it, and thank you.

[Ulysses G.]

The coup was welcomed with flowers for the soldiers and people posing with their children on the tanks.

You can say that about almost every coup in the Land of Smiles. It does not prove anything.

[reallyok]

Not so.

But you don't believe what has been seen so no point in listing the good.

And certainly not a god send, but the lesser of many evils in comparison.

A large section of the downward spiral was with PPP at the helm, they set the stage,

and compared to how badly they dropped tha ball things have improved.

The Dems got the helm JUST as the world economy tanked..

PPP or PTP would be totally out of it's depth dealing with it....

It doesn't matter what I believe. Go talk to any Thai (barring hardcore Democrat and Thaksin supporters), chances are they will express dissatisfaction towards the current government. In fact one of the things I here most often is that the government spends too much time pursuing Thaksin instead of governing.

As far economics is concerned, I don't blame the current state on the Thai economy on the Democrats. With the global recession, it was bound to happen regardless of whoever is in power.

In my opinion the govt doesn't spend enough time pursuing Thaksin. If they did, he would be extradited and in jail by now or dealt with in a Mossadian sense. Of course, the greatest mistake in recent history was letting the bugger slip out, in the naive belief he would lay low and accept his dubious place in history with a bit of dignity, instead of trying his damndest to split it and drag it down into the gutter.

One of the main reasons Thailand does find itself in its current unenviable predicament is entirely because of the greed for power and wealth of the subject of this thread, both before and after his fall from grace. And just for the record, Thailand's fundamental credentials in important aspects of a functioning democracy were as bad, if not a whole lot worse, when it was the personal fiefdom of Mr T.

As for your comment "go talk to any Thai...........", all I can report is that the Thais I know cannot stand the man and realise now they made a great mistake in ever giving him the benefit of the doubt in voting him in to power in 2001. He literally has tried to ruin Thailand to feather his own nest, which anyone with a sense of history can see as plain as the red shirts on his drones' backs.

An old saying ...BIRDS OF A FEATHER....FLOCK TOGETHER