Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[webfact]

MUST READ

Is Thaksin planning a Juan Peron-style comeback?

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

Published on October 20, 2009

Judging by his phone-in on Saturday, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra is gearing up for his comeback through popular support and votes.

Thaksin has made it crystal clear he remains a key player in politics regardless of his conviction and life in exile.

He spells out his return will be through the ballot box and not a royal pardon.

Friends and foes of Thaksin ought to think about the long-term consequences to the country instead of trying to settle old scores. Otherwise the polarisation will persist and deepen.

Thaksin's ambition is evident and he is very direct about achieving his political aspirations.

If the legendary populist Juan Peron of Argentina could manage to return to power after 18 years in exile, then there is no reason to doubt Thaksin's resolve to bide his time.

Peron was 60 and in his second presidential term when he was ousted from power by the coup in 1955. He staged a triumphant return in 1973.

Thaksin saw an abrupt ending of his second term by the power seizure in 2006. He was 57.

Though circumstances differ greatly, Thaksin and Peron share a common trait - both are hugely popular and at the same time, a catalyst for polarisation.

In light of Peron's successful comeback, Thaksin has every reason to remain optimistic for fate to smile on him.

In Argentina and Thailand, the crusade to promote democracy and oppose military intervention has been used as a springboard to grab power.

Although Thaksin and Peron both thrive on popular votes, it is ironic their brand of populism has brought about unprecedented polarisation which leads, in turn, to military intervention.

Even after Peron's death from natural causes in 1974, his populism brought about another power seizure in 1976. To this day, the populist legacy of Peron is still a factor in Argemtina's political divide.

Will Thailand repeat a similar polarisation as the one lasting for almost half a century in Argentina?

More importantly, the crucial question is whether Thaksin's return, if it happens, will trigger a new round of power seizures.

All concerned parties are obligated to think hard when charting a course for Thai politics. Knee-jerk reaction and opportunistic ploys to ride on Thaksin's coattails will likely harm democracy rather than advance it.

The pro-Thaksin camp appears to have no qualms about placing the political system second to the individual interests of Thaksin. Thaksin too has the audacity to put his country at risk in order to resolve his issues.

The political divide will remain so long as parties concerned are willing to allow the game to revolve around one player - Thaksin.

The yellow shirts see Thaksin as the biggest threat to the country's political system. The red shirts are determined to reinstate Thaksin to power.

Instead of trying to find a common ground to foster compromise, the rival camps are surging full steam to defeat one another by working either through street protests, or election victory, or a combination of the two.

Thaksin has given his blessing for the red shirts to try and oust the Abhisit Vejjajiva government by lengthy street protests scheduled to start next month.

He has recruited former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as Pheu Thai chief adviser in order to prepare for a snap election.

He has the backing of former deputy Army chief General Jiradej Kocharat, a newly-appointed trouble shooter to mend fences between the military and the main opposition party.

Jiradej is expected to secure the defence portfolio as a reward if he succeeds in swaying Army chief General Anupong Paochinda and the top brass not to work against Thaksin.

In 2007, the red shirts won the general election. In less than a year, the coalition switch happened in favour of the Democrats.

Thaksin is again beating the war drum to fight his opponents through balloting. The yellow shirts are making full preparations to contest the polls.

How many rounds of fighting to go before the rival camps realise there has never been a vote outcome to end the polarisation?

-- The Nation 2009/10/20

[brahmburgers]

It's an opinion piece, not a news article.

Let's all stand and sing, 'Don't Cry For Me, Sukumwitta'

[mahtin]

Looks like snakes and ladders or monopoly to me.

You are convicted but do not go to jail.

[Somtamnication]

I think he will come back same same the Honduran president. Sneaks in to BKK, goes to a Scandinavian embassy or Swiss, and voilá!

Civil war mah laeo!

[Xangsamhua]

These may be better parallels.

Benazir Bhutto

Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister for the first time in 1988 at the age of 35, but was removed from office 20 months later under the order of then-president Ghulam Ishaq Khan on grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993 she was re-elected but was again removed in 1996 on similar charges, this time by President Farooq Leghari. She went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan on 18 October 2007, after reaching an understanding with President Pervez Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

Nawaz Sharif

He was twice elected as Prime Minister of Pakistan, serving two non-consecutive terms, the first from November 1, 1990 to July 18, 1993 and the second from February 17, 1997 to October 12, 1999.

Corruption conviction

Sharif was charged, and convicted in 2000 for corruption for failing to report and pay taxes on a helicopter worth at least $1 million. The ‎Court sentenced Sharif to fourteen years imprisonment, a fine of 20 million rupees, and barred him from holding public office for twenty-one years.[25]

On June 23, 2008, the LHC ruled that Nawaz Sharif was ineligible to contest by-elections because of previous criminal conviction. Afterwards on February 25' 2009, the Supreme Court not only upheld the ban placed by LHC on Nawaz Sharif from contesting the elections, but also annulled the notification of the Election Commission (EC), declaring Shahbaz Sharif member of the provincial assembly.[51] Providing its detailed judgement in the Sharif brothers’ disqualification case, the Supreme Court (SC) said: "Nawaz was publicly propagating his biased opinion, and was defaming the judiciary and the armed forces of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif was a defaulter of consortium of National Bank of Pakistan, Habib Bank Limited, United Bank Limited, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Muslim Commercial Bank, PICIC, Bank of Punjab and the First Punjab Mudarba and cases for recovery of loans were pending before the Lahore High Court".[52]

Later, when the deposed judges were reinstated, the Supreme Court on May 27, 2009, declared Pakistan Muslim League (N) chief Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif eligible to contest elections and lifted the ban on their holding elected office.[53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif

[MarcoH]

I think he will come back same same the Honduran president. Sneaks in to BKK, goes to a Scandinavian embassy or Swiss, and voilá!

Civil war mah laeo!

I think he will go to Swedish Embassy as Sweds likes all kind of Refugees and give shelter to them

[dunrudin]

Is a bear catholic? Does the pope...?

[koosdeboer]

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...e=hptextfeature

Thaksin Shinawatra

In his own words

Oct 15th 2009

From Economist.com

This is the excerpted transcript of an interview conducted with Mr Thaksin in Dubai, on October 5th 2009. Mr Thaksin discusses his criminal conviction, personal wealth and current business affairs as well as the mass movements roiling Thailand and his view of the prospects for reconciliation or revolution

How has your conviction by a Thai court affected your ability to travel and speak freely? Do you intend to challenge it?

Every country knows this is politically motivated. The essence of the conviction is not a criminal case in other countries. The detail of the conviction is very strange to the whole world…What bothers me is the government, which is the nominee of the coup d’état, are trying to ask co-operation from different countries to not allow me to enter. They are trying to send the verdict to Interpol. This is politically motivated. It’s not a criminal offence. It’s a misdemeanor. They always lie. Even the content that they sent to Interpol is a lie.

The British government revoked your visa.

Yes. I’m very disappointed by the mature-democracy countries. I was ousted by a coup d’état. They should sympathise with governments that are toppled by coup d’états. But they don’t sympathise. They thought that this government really comes from election. Yes, they come from election. But there are smaller parties that managed to become [the] government because of the help of military.

The conviction was for the sale of land to Khun Pojamarn [Mr Thaksin’s ex-wife] while you were the prime minister. The rule states that the spouse of a state official cannot do this.

This is different because it’s a distressed asset under the rehabilitation office, which is an independent agency under the Bank of Thailand. They get rid of the distressed assets by an auction. The two other bidders were public companies. It’s very transparent. Before they award the contract to my wife, the legal department of BOT checked that no problem whatsoever. The National Anti-Corruption Commission at that time ruled that it was not related to Section 100 of the NACC rules. But after the military ousted me they set up a special committee that consists of all my political opponents. They do it by arranging the court. The proceeding system of the court, the special section for politicians, is a one-court system.

This is the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders, the judicial body that convicted you last year?

Yes. It’s a one-court system. You cannot appeal. Then they just follow the interrogation that was done by my political opponents.

That is one case. There are others against you, including the Shin Corp asset case.

They try to allege so many cases and say this is the law of state. For example, the excise tax on telecoms. The state is not losing at all. The state gains more. Those that lost is TOT [the Telephone Organisation of Thailand]. But TOT is 100%-owned by the ministry of finance. And TOT was about to divest the shares to the public. We take the money that TOT should take and go to excise department. The money is moving from left pocket to right pocket. In paying excise tax you must pay in advance. But paying dividends to TOT you must pay six months or one year. So they have more money to put in bank. So private sector lost. The government doesn’t lose…

If it had been a three-court system, I don’t worry at all. But it’s one court and it relied on the interrogation of the AEC [Asset Examination Commission], which consists of all my political opponents there. They’re not observing the rule of law in any interrogation. They threaten witnesses. They even bargain for those who come to witness. If you allege this, you will get this.

How do you know this?

They told me. The witnesses. They said it’s not fair. They feel very sad about what’s happening. So this is why I’m very upset that the mature-democracy countries are not concerned. It’s not like Zelaya [the ousted Honduran president]. Now the US is trying to put him back. I’m the first Thai prime minister in history that first time win half of parliament seats and second time win 76% of parliamentary seats and I was ousted because too popular.

Why do you think Thailand has become so politically unstable? What is the long-term solution?

The problem comes from the allegation that I’m not loyal to the monarchy. That is the root cause. It comes from this paranoia. The people surrounding the palace, that perceive that they’re close to the palace, exercise the power which isn’t in the constitution, because of the clout that they’re close to the monarchy. They thought that I’m not loyal to the monarchy. That’s not true. Look at what I’ve done for monarchy. I initiated the ceremony for His Majesty’s 60 years of ascension to the throne. I invite all the monarchs worldwide to attend. If I’m not loyal, why did I do this?

So where does this paranoia of you not being loyal come from? If you look back, is there something that you said or did that gave the wrong impression?

They thought I was too powerful because I got a too-strong mandate from the people. But isn’t that what democracy is about? Because you do a good job for the people, they trust you, they give you a mandate. When I had that result, they start to worry that I’m too powerful. Better get me out and make politics weak again. That is why we got the 2007 constitution.

You can see that we’re not a real democracy because we allow the people that are appointed by the elite, indirectly by elite, that elite can…sack the government. The check-and-balance is between the people power and the elite.

Define this elite.

Those that do not have the power by constitution but use the clout of being close to the palace and instruct the government official not to obey the politically elected government. If they don’t trust [them]. They can even create any story and sack the government. If you can see how they dissolve the PPP [People’s Power Party]. The Constitutional Court hear the testimony in the morning and hand out the verdict in the afternoon. This is the first court in the whole world that is so efficient.

What can Thailand do? What is the long-term solution to this political instability?

Reconciliation must be there. If you cannot reconcile the difference between the elite that stay behind the scene and the right of the people, that’s going to be forever chaos. It’s time to compromise, to allow more democracy. Those who are stay behind the scenes must hand off and observe the law.

In terms of reconciliation, what role can you play? Are you part of the solution? Some people think that you’re the problem.

No. You have to start with who started it first. I won the election landslide. Did I create the problem? I went by democratic principle. I went by the constitution. And I won the election. After I won, why did they create the yellow [shirts]? To try to instigate for those affected by my policy. For example the underground lottery operators. The drug traffickers and the military who lost the power. They come together. Sondhi [Limthongkul] is the one who ask everything from the government, try to blackmail the government. Then the so-called elite come in and the Democrats help them by sending their supporters to join. The military used that as an excuse to create a coup.

What’s your relationship with the red shirts?

They are my supporters. Every time they get together they ask me to say some words. So I give them moral support. That’s all. Some are my ex-MPs.

Do you give financial support to the red shirts?

I don’t have much money now. My assets have been frozen…You know how the red shirts come? They come by themselves they don’t have much money. They collect money from each other, they come and help themselves, bring sticky rice and papaya salad. They think that I’ve done a lot for them. Now is the time for them to help bring me back and restore justice for me. That’s the concept.

You must give them something.

No. I don’t have much money. Our assets have been frozen in Thailand for two years.

How much money are you worth?

The whole family? We don’t have that much cash. It’s hard to say. [Pause] About 200 million pounds. That’s the cash before we sell the company. In 1994, just before I became foreign affairs minister, Forbes [magazine] estimate me at $2 billion.

Surely you’re worth more now? Lets say you get back your assets.

If I was in business, I would be worth more. Because I enter politics, I stopped doing business. Now, if I were doing business outside Thailand, my worth would increase more quickly.

Are you doing business outside Thailand?

Yes. I do gold mining in Uganda. I start to get a licence. We’re not [doing] direct investment in production. We do exploration company. We set up company there. We have offshore company here for oil and gas.

How effective is the red-shirt movement in Thailand at making a political impact?

They will never give up. Someone said they have no money, will give up. No, will never give up because their hearts is there. They’re very, very disappointed at what’s happening. The more they squish me, the more the red shirts will come out.

But given where power lies in Thailand, can this really make a difference?

I think they will keep bringing truth to the world, to the public. If the world listen to them, it will understand what’s going on. They will sympathise that the majority of people in Thailand, especially those who struggle in life, have been bullied. They bully me, they indirectly bully them because for the first time in their life they’ve been taken care of and helped, they see the light at the end of the tunnel for their life and their children. So they start to see that…

You cannot solve these problems without reconciliation. Why don’t you negotiate, find a solution? You act as if you can squeeze the red shirts, that one day they will get tired of coming out. I don’t believe that. You see elders, middle-aged and young generation. They will not give up.

There is speculation in Bangkok that you are having negotiations with this elite that would allow you to come back and play a different role in society.

I probably cannot say anything. For sake of reconciliation and for people of Thailand I’m ready to help and bring reconciliation. I’m ready to talk to my supporters when the real justice and real democracy come back to Thailand. But if you want to talk to red shirts to stop, but justice and democracy isn’t there, I can’t do it.

It’s difficult to see how you can reconcile and who will guarantee this deal.

In Thailand, overnight it can become like this [snaps fingers]. Just overnight, like in 1992. That is Thailand. Even this, a mess for years, it can become overnight…We have to clap hands with two hands at the same time. It seems difficult but I don’t think it’s difficult.

And reconciliation would mean you moving back to Thailand. To do what?

Definitely. Well, I don’t have to do anything. If I were not to go back to politics, I’m very happy. I have no obligation. But now, the people need me. If someone can help me, say I don’t have to go back to politics, can be international businessman, I’ll be very happy.

Some Thais tell me that if you come back there will be a civil war.

I don’t think so. If the so-called elites hand off and agree with me to let democracy run its course, then there shouldn’t be anything. I don’t think there are too many hard-core yellow shirts, if not being supported by Democrats and by military, and the reason they were supported by military is because the so-called elite instructed them.

So what’s the incentive then for this elite to allow you back and do this deal? They have the upper hand.

Are you sure that they can have the upper hand forever? Time is on my side. I’m 60 and still energetic. But I prefer to live my life peacefully. I don’t have to go into politics if I don’t need to because actually I adjust myself very well outside Thailand.

What happened in April during Songkran created a negative international image of the red shirts. People saw on TV what happened. Do you feel responsible for what happened?

I feel responsible because many people came out. But I didn’t ask them to stage any kind of violence. They’ve been instigated and mistaken for government-sponsored militia. Look at where it started in Pattaya. When red shirts went to present a letter to leaders who attend the meeting. Simply that. But they’ve been infiltrated by [pro-government] blue shirts. The blue shirts hit red shirts and used stones. The next day they shoot at the taxis…

Everything was a plot by the government to announce the royal decree. And then [Abhisit] went to military barrack and stayed there. …The red shirts were the victims. Look at what happened in Din Daeng. The military with full battle uniform with M-16s, with live ammunition, they shoot at the people and dragged the bodies away. They take away all the films and cameras. Now we have injured people. You saw how they dragged the ladies. All the evidence is there.

There were also ordinary people who went out in support of you who were involved in violence.

They’ve been instigated. The violence started from the government side.

You were the one who told them to go out there. You called for a revolution. What is a revolution but violence?

Revolution doesn’t have to be violence. The people’s power should uprise and change Thailand back to full democracy. I quoted Mahatma Gandhi. He said that whenever he despaired he looked back in history and said that the victory attained by violence is tantamount to failure since it isn’t lasting, only momentary. He thinks we should use love and truth to win the fight. And that I quoted in my speech all the time.

Here’s what you said on April 11th. “I’d like to invite everyone to join hands and take the opportunity to make a people’s revolution to get true democracy for the people.”

Yes. But before that I quote Mahatma Gandhi. I never like violence myself. Now I do a lot of meditation. I don’t even kill mosquitoes now…. I’ve changed a lot because I’ve had time to observe Buddhism practice.

What’s your idea of a people’s revolution?

The people that come, there are no weapons. We have no weapons. If you look at October 7th, they come with ping-pong bombs and guns. Our red shirts have no weapons. They grab wood from street. They have no guns…

We keep telling the red shirts, no violence. We can win by peaceful means and truth. You have to continue giving truth to people even if they don’t understand now. The yellows just give lies. We have to counter the lies with truth. When the truth is revealed, things will be better. They will understand us better.

Would the red shirts continue without you? You must think sometimes you’ve had enough of fighting.

The red shirts would continue. But many of those who are supporting me would drop out.

What is your vision for the role of the monarchy in Thailand? In a modern democracy what role should it play?

Our monarchy is a constitutional monarch. His Majesty has dissociated himself from politics and the daily basis of government. But people who surround the palace try to make the people [they] coordinate with perceive that they represent the monarchy [and] give instructions, which is not good and they should stop doing that. They should allow democracy to work.

When you criticise privy councillors and say they should resign, that is seen as an attack on the king.

It’s straightforward. I attack their improper behaviour and meddling in politics. The Privy Council image is that they represent the king, but they’re meddling in politics. I want to make it clear. If the Privy Council has to exist, it should not be involved in politics.

[Xangsamhua]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

[givenall]

I think he will come back same same the Honduran president. Sneaks in to BKK, goes to a Scandinavian embassy or Swiss, and voilá!

Civil war mah laeo!

Thaksin and is supporter are on life support and they are taking the last breath of air. but it is terminal and there are no hope

[wayfarer108]

Even if this were true - and it's not (perhaps Thaksin's memory is failing, or, more likely, he thinks western journalist aren't keeping up, which is a safe assumption) -- what makes him so special? A long list of despots have been turned over by coups in Thailand.

[steveromagnino]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

They have one main correspondent who covers SE Asia and that person's opinions as with any journalism become apparent in the reporting thereafter.

Being staunchly free market and pro democracy they somehow perceive that Thaksin embodies both these things whereas the yellow shirts do not - they do not see Thailand as 3 groups (red yellow and everyone else) but rather just 2 - the red shirts/Thaksin/pro democracy/poor/popular vote and the yellow shirts/Monarchy/elite/middle class. I suppose this is partly because in countries where they have major coverage such as USA there really is only a 2 party system.

Obviously, this has a huge number of flaws, but it was always the TRT approach to invest heavily in PR and media relations, and they are very savvy at managing their image; why do you think much of the world interprets that Thailand has only two types of people - red shirts or yellow shirts?

'But I didn’t ask them to stage any kind of violence.'

except preaching that in a revolution he would return and lead

'For example, the excise tax on telecoms. The state is not losing at all. The state gains more. '

AIS got a revised concession to pay less, then he sold 96% of a company regulated to be majority Thai owned to Singaporeans Tax free

'They thought that this government really comes from election. Yes, they come from election. But there are smaller parties that managed to become [the] government because of the help of military.'

hmmm. You mean how the party he backed needed to ally itself with the same smaller parties to become the government since this is what a coalition is?

'The two other bidders were public companies. It’s very transparent. '

You mean the two TRT backers who competed against his wife, and the fact that virtually every property developer at that time was quite aware they were bidding against the PM's wife and many chose not to bother? And the fact that the bids were all so similar and ALL were low ball bids? Hmmm. Yes very transparent. Or perhaps you mean how transparent the paperwork was in his wife's case that she falsified papers - I guess he got the cases muddled up.

'The detail of the conviction is very strange to the whole world…'

Not to anyone with a brain. The strange one was that Thaksin got off the asset declaration in 2002 when the constitution of 1997 was so clear that he should be banned from office for 5 years - the constitution that TRT currently believes is so good is also the one he completely ignored and cheated on, just like his son caught cheating in that law exam which as PM he got covered up.

'I initiated the ceremony for His Majesty’s 60 years of ascension to the throne. I invite all the monarchs worldwide to attend. If I’m not loyal, why did I do this?'

As I recall Thaksin was not asked to do this, and the fact that the royal barge went down the river empty should be a major signal; nor was he allowed to dress like that in that photo. Additionally, as I recall he gave his word he would stand down from politics then he chose to break his own word - not sure how the words - lying to a person and being loyal to them fit quite together, but that's just me.

'That is why we got the 2007 constitution.'

Ah yes, the constitution voted for by a majority of people but when the majority vote for something, it only counts when Thaksin wants it.

'I went by the constitution. '

yes, the one where he ignored the asset declaration and basically ignored all the checks and balances set up to ensure a free press, non partisan senate and political bodies to provide oversight like the NCCC.

'If you can see how they dissolve the PPP [People’s Power Party].'

I think he means the party fired for deliberately cheating in the election and knowing they did but presuming they would get away with it.

'To try to instigate for those affected by my policy. For example the underground lottery operators....The drug traffickers ...'

If we are to believe some, I think he might be referring to his own close aide Chalerm who is widely alledgedly known to control basically everything on his side of the river in his constituency. As for drug traffickers, perhaps he is referring to his good friend Wattana Asavahame who is banned from USA on the grounds of being a drug trafficker. Or maybe he is just talking about the 2000+ people he killed in his war on drugs without catching a single 'large fish'. Or maybe he is simply suggesting that anyone who would dare oppose him must be elite, military, drug dealers or underground lottery operators. Hmmmmm. I guess the idea that there really are only two sides to the story; his side and the villain side...maybe it comes if you say the same thing often enough?

'If I was in business, I would be worth more. Because I enter politics, I stopped doing business. Now, if I were doing business outside Thailand, my worth would increase more quickly.

'

Wow, a genius. He was able to triple his family's net worth in 5 years in Thailand; that's a huge return. Now is he saying that he is capable to do this at a quicker rate when he isn't changing government policy and building roads in front of his wife's property projects and using govt policy to get FTAs with key markets to ensure they use his sattellite services and in getting soft loans? What a smart guy. He seems capable of outperforming most of the whizz kid hedge fund managers. Just like he was able to turn around Man City I suppose.

'They bully me, they indirectly bully them because for the first time in their life they’ve been taken care of and helped, they see the light at the end of the tunnel for their life and their children.'

Except that basically none of the policies that TRT implemented were new and few were sustainable; now most of those same policies remain intact and they work (sort of).

'The military with full battle uniform with M-16s, with live ammunition, they shoot at the people and dragged the bodies away. '

in 6 months we have yet to see any evidence of the slaughter alledged; every healthcare worker I have spoken to that was administering help not one has said that a slaughter occured - yet here we read about it again - the only shootings I know of were the ones where residents were taking pot shots at the red shirt thugs invading their neighbourhoods

'We keep telling the red shirts, no violence. '

We've heard and seen enough stories to know that what is said is definitely not what is done.

'If the Privy Council has to exist, it should not be involved in politics.'

pretty clear where he sees the future of Thailand.

Total twit, seriously, does anyone feel the need to listen to this moron?

2001- TRT - kit mai tum mai. Interesting to consider the possibilities.......

2009 - Peua Thai - all the old guard are there; we have Chalerm who with the help of TRT and protection of his friends was able to hide his son for a year then get him off murder and is now back as a political force, we have Chavalit the guy who took Thailand into the crisis in 1997 and is widely regarded as senile if not an uneducated idiot to begin with - we've already had Samak who would best be described as 'old school' - so far in the last 2 years have we seen a single evidence that they have a single new idea other than the childish stupid policies that they implemented from 2004 onwards - subsidies, protection, self serving mega projects and a few crumbs giveaways most of which are mired in corruption? Where are these 'kit mai tum mai' policies because I've yet to hear a single fresh and new idea from the people that will make anything happen.

There was a book called Thaksin where are you, written by one of his 'proteges' (also described in Thai sometimes as gik). Maybe, hopefully, sometime soon we can read 'Thaksin, please HTFU and GTFO'.

Not sure economist will ever review that one though ;-0

[Heng]

So what happens now...?

[hammered]

I think he will be back at some point. At the end of the day there are no permanent enemies in politics and there are alwasy strange deals. It will be hard for him to return poltically though as the country has a regional divide and he is too polarising. However, the threat to come back policially may make a deal where he returns but not to politics more likely. There are other big changes coming down the line and a continuance of this power game is not going to be tenable for ever. The trick is getting a deal all sides accept or it wont hold. The other option however we cant rule out is that one of the players crushes another one and their supporters although that will probably only be a short to medium term "victory"

Thaksin is also good at getting people to beleive him. It doesnt in many ways matter if what he says is true or not as if he says it many will believe and he is aware of this so it creates another reason to finalise a deal.

Right now it is about being in place to oversee big change constitutionally and otherwise and to set the groundrules for future "democracy".

[Jingthing]

I think the Thaksin-Peron comparison is spot on. However I predict that Thaksin is a wannabe Peron and will not succeed.

[Xangsamhua]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

They have one main correspondent who covers SE Asia and that person's opinions as with any journalism become apparent in the reporting thereafter.

Being staunchly free market and pro democracy they somehow perceive that Thaksin embodies both these things whereas the yellow shirts do not - they do not see Thailand as 3 groups (red yellow and everyone else) but rather just 2 - the red shirts/Thaksin/pro democracy/poor/popular vote and the yellow shirts/Monarchy/elite/middle class. I suppose this is partly because in countries where they have major coverage such as USA there really is only a 2 party system.

Obviously, this has a huge number of flaws, but it was always the TRT approach to invest heavily in PR and media relations, and they are very savvy at managing their image; why do you think much of the world interprets that Thailand has only two types of people - red shirts or yellow shirts?

'But I didn’t ask them to stage any kind of violence.'

except preaching that in a revolution he would return and lead

'For example, the excise tax on telecoms. The state is not losing at all. The state gains more. '

AIS got a revised concession to pay less, then he sold 96% of a company regulated to be majority Thai owned to Singaporeans Tax free

'They thought that this government really comes from election. Yes, they come from election. But there are smaller parties that managed to become [the] government because of the help of military.'

hmmm. You mean how the party he backed needed to ally itself with the same smaller parties to become the government since this is what a coalition is?

'The two other bidders were public companies. It’s very transparent. '

You mean the two TRT backers who competed against his wife, and the fact that virtually every property developer at that time was quite aware they were bidding against the PM's wife and many chose not to bother? And the fact that the bids were all so similar and ALL were low ball bids? Hmmm. Yes very transparent. Or perhaps you mean how transparent the paperwork was in his wife's case that she falsified papers - I guess he got the cases muddled up.

'The detail of the conviction is very strange to the whole world…'

Not to anyone with a brain. The strange one was that Thaksin got off the asset declaration in 2002 when the constitution of 1997 was so clear that he should be banned from office for 5 years - the constitution that TRT currently believes is so good is also the one he completely ignored and cheated on, just like his son caught cheating in that law exam which as PM he got covered up.

'I initiated the ceremony for His Majesty’s 60 years of ascension to the throne. I invite all the monarchs worldwide to attend. If I’m not loyal, why did I do this?'

As I recall Thaksin was not asked to do this, and the fact that the royal barge went down the river empty should be a major signal; nor was he allowed to dress like that in that photo. Additionally, as I recall he gave his word he would stand down from politics then he chose to break his own word - not sure how the words - lying to a person and being loyal to them fit quite together, but that's just me.

'That is why we got the 2007 constitution.'

Ah yes, the constitution voted for by a majority of people but when the majority vote for something, it only counts when Thaksin wants it.

'I went by the constitution. '

yes, the one where he ignored the asset declaration and basically ignored all the checks and balances set up to ensure a free press, non partisan senate and political bodies to provide oversight like the NCCC.

'If you can see how they dissolve the PPP [People’s Power Party].'

I think he means the party fired for deliberately cheating in the election and knowing they did but presuming they would get away with it.

'To try to instigate for those affected by my policy. For example the underground lottery operators....The drug traffickers ...'

If we are to believe some, I think he might be referring to his own close aide Chalerm who is widely alledgedly known to control basically everything on his side of the river in his constituency. As for drug traffickers, perhaps he is referring to his good friend Wattana Asavahame who is banned from USA on the grounds of being a drug trafficker. Or maybe he is just talking about the 2000+ people he killed in his war on drugs without catching a single 'large fish'. Or maybe he is simply suggesting that anyone who would dare oppose him must be elite, military, drug dealers or underground lottery operators. Hmmmmm. I guess the idea that there really are only two sides to the story; his side and the villain side...maybe it comes if you say the same thing often enough?

'If I was in business, I would be worth more. Because I enter politics, I stopped doing business. Now, if I were doing business outside Thailand, my worth would increase more quickly.

'

Wow, a genius. He was able to triple his family's net worth in 5 years in Thailand; that's a huge return. Now is he saying that he is capable to do this at a quicker rate when he isn't changing government policy and building roads in front of his wife's property projects and using govt policy to get FTAs with key markets to ensure they use his sattellite services and in getting soft loans? What a smart guy. He seems capable of outperforming most of the whizz kid hedge fund managers. Just like he was able to turn around Man City I suppose.

'They bully me, they indirectly bully them because for the first time in their life they’ve been taken care of and helped, they see the light at the end of the tunnel for their life and their children.'

Except that basically none of the policies that TRT implemented were new and few were sustainable; now most of those same policies remain intact and they work (sort of).

'The military with full battle uniform with M-16s, with live ammunition, they shoot at the people and dragged the bodies away. '

in 6 months we have yet to see any evidence of the slaughter alledged; every healthcare worker I have spoken to that was administering help not one has said that a slaughter occured - yet here we read about it again - the only shootings I know of were the ones where residents were taking pot shots at the red shirt thugs invading their neighbourhoods

'We keep telling the red shirts, no violence. '

We've heard and seen enough stories to know that what is said is definitely not what is done.

'If the Privy Council has to exist, it should not be involved in politics.'

pretty clear where he sees the future of Thailand.

Total twit, seriously, does anyone feel the need to listen to this moron?

2001- TRT - kit mai tum mai. Interesting to consider the possibilities.......

2009 - Peua Thai - all the old guard are there; we have Chalerm who with the help of TRT and protection of his friends was able to hide his son for a year then get him off murder and is now back as a political force, we have Chavalit the guy who took Thailand into the crisis in 1997 and is widely regarded as senile if not an uneducated idiot to begin with - we've already had Samak who would best be described as 'old school' - so far in the last 2 years have we seen a single evidence that they have a single new idea other than the childish stupid policies that they implemented from 2004 onwards - subsidies, protection, self serving mega projects and a few crumbs giveaways most of which are mired in corruption? Where are these 'kit mai tum mai' policies because I've yet to hear a single fresh and new idea from the people that will make anything happen.

There was a book called Thaksin where are you, written by one of his 'proteges' (also described in Thai sometimes as gik). Maybe, hopefully, sometime soon we can read 'Thaksin, please HTFU and GTFO'.

Not sure economist will ever review that one though ;-0

Very comprehensive. Thank you.

[tmd5855]

After reading Thaskin prose and Steveromagnino prose. I sit on the fence, both say enough to support each argument.

But?

Who did the majority of the voters vote for and was Thaskin removed from power by the same ballot box.

I look at politicians worldwide, I see in the UK, the late Edward Heath (ex PM) died with a couple of million, yet been in public office or service most of his life. John Major now a millionaire, Tony Blair a kick in the butt off being a millionaire.

If they accumulated riches it was/were by using their public office and connections. Same as Italy's Beresconni (sic) et al.

Still, never seen enough reason or deeds to merit deposing him by a coup de tat. Except for others personal reasons.

I await the flames of righteous indignation!?!?

[crazyswede]

I think he will go to Swedish Embassy as Sweds likes all kind of Refugees and give shelter to them

Maby that´s why some of us wants to get out? 555

[Rumfoord]

I think he will go to Swedish Embassy as Sweds likes all kind of Refugees and give shelter to them

Maby that´s why some of us wants to get out? 555

if you have to go out, where you wanna go? and what makes you think you would be welcome there, if you cannot say welcome to others that came to sweden from somewhere else.

[Publicus]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

The Economist has made clear it is firmly opposed to the Yellows, along with everything the Yellows represent and hold dear. The Economist has been pretty straight with its readers.

[steveromagnino]

After reading Thaskin prose and Steveromagnino prose. I sit on the fence, both say enough to support each argument.

But?

Who did the majority of the voters vote for and was Thaskin removed from power by the same ballot box.

I look at politicians worldwide, I see in the UK, the late Edward Heath (ex PM) died with a couple of million, yet been in public office or service most of his life. John Major now a millionaire, Tony Blair a kick in the butt off being a millionaire.

If they accumulated riches it was/were by using their public office and connections. Same as Italy's Beresconni (sic) et al.

Actually, some politicians have been removed from office either politely or less politely for breaking the law - Nixon for instance or closer to home, Chuwit who was elected but broke the law and therefore was removed - however this requires several checks and balances including but no limited to a free press, respect for the law, a nuetral judiciary and a neutral and effective law enforcement. Had the law been applied non selectively, Thaksin would just be coming out of his ban for giving a false asset declaration about now.

Interestingly he was NOT the elected PM at the time of the coup but rather a caretaker PM which in itself was odd given that he had previously resigned from politics in an official statement earlier in the year. He was not elected, because he had called a snap election giving the opposition 45 days to prepare; they felt the election could not be held like this and so TRT paid tiny parties to stand against them, but even then were unable to meet the 1997 Constitution electoral requirements, since a number of their MPs (27 if I recall correctly) running unopposed were unable EVEN THEN to secure a sufficient number of votes relative to the number of abstentions; a large number of these were in the south and in Bangkok, including good folk like Pimol Srivikorn, Bangkapi, widely renowned for building his image up in Taekwando but actually not known for developing or creating a single meaningful contribution to TKD or Thailand's economy or society in the meantime.

Lest I now be branded as a anti democracy yellow shirt (since that is the usual mode for a Thaksin supporter at this point, either I'm pro democracy pro Thaksin pro poor people, or I'm an elitist wanting to keep the poor down, kill the poor, take a holiday in Cambodia etc etc) ..........I am not in favour of any coup, and believe had he stayed in power another year, the country would have been plunged into deep recession and had he not interferred excessively with the political and military systems, that he would have lost in a subsequent election and been removed from power as the poor suffered when all his dodgy schemes fell over; I make the proviso regarding interference, since there was a lot of speculation at the time of the coup that he was planning to do away with further components of the democratic system beyond just the watchdogs, judiciary, police, army and media which he already had mostly under his control at the time.

The yellow shirts were problematic because they forced the hand of Thaksin, whereas had they just kept going along as a popularist unrest, the airport fiasco where everything didn't work and various other scams like the Ua Athorn and cow and manure and rubber tree etc etc scams would have been so large that even the most staunch TRT reality show watcher in Roet would have seen TRT for the dodgy house of cards that it was.

A democracy requires the checks and balances to work effectively; given that none of the other examples above operated without those checks and balances (except arguably Italy), I don't think to compare heath with a few million is quite the same as a PM whose family increased their worth by billions of dollars as a result of stalling the deregulation of telcom industry then tilting the playing field to allow themselves to sell tax free 96% of a Thai company to foreigners as well as using government policy to basically reward every single one of their businesses is quite the same as 'using public office and connections' - it was creating government policy to reward friends/themselves and punish everyone else.

Former politicians get to work for lucrative private ventures - Major works for Carlyle is that right? Interesting to note that Thaksin instead works with dodgy mines and would not today even pass the fit and proper test probably to own a soccer team in the UK.

But to each their own.

The difference is I guess i don't spend millions of dollars each year on political lobbiests and PR agencies to make myself look like a victim nor would I EVER urge people to take their children to a rally which I arranged remotely, promised to lead, then create violence and mayhem and at the same time not turn up while ensuring all my family were away abroad on holiday while the s&*t storm I created played out on TV destroying the image of my country simply to prove to the world what a great PM I had previously been.

But that's because there are several types of people in the world. One of those groups are people like me. Normal people. I like normal people.

There is another group, best described as egotistical f&*kwads. I don't like them so much.

That's more the group that the former PM belonged to since late 2003 after he was acquitted from his asset concealment charges even though he was quite obviously guilty technically under a four corners reading of the law and the 1997 constitution he professes to love. Prior to that he was ok. That's why TRT swept BKK in the first election, and then lost it the second; by that time people with education were chosing to vote differently; whereas upcountry, he persued a different strategy of buying the right MPs, then offering them a cheaper way to run for office using the TRT machine as long as they didn't object to his way. And he also rewarded them with the various schemes - from rubber trees to free cows to airport supply agreements - to make sure everyone stayed happy.

Fair enough. If you want to run a country really badly. Which he did.

I don't think it is fair to use any of the following phrases which are typically spouted when talking of Thaksin.

They all skim - so what, people die of murder all around the world, so is it ok if I come around to your house and start writing another chapter to SAW?

He's the best so far - so what, healthcare in the middle ages was the best 'so far' and yet we don't see people still continuing to stick leeches on their faces to cure smallpox; that's progress - besides which he isn't the best so far, most of the best so far were dumped in favour of popularist con men pandering to the poor

He's the first to care for the poor - I dispute that he was the first to do policies for the poor; and I dispute he cares; almost every program was a scam

He believes in democracy - then how come he cheated in his asset declaration, wriggled out of it and then proceeded to get rid of all the checks and balances vital to a democracy; how come he has even said things that suggest he doesn't believe democracy to be the most important aspect of politics - how come he only started talking about democracy and a constitution he ignored when in power, once he was kicked out?

He believes in non violence - speak to some red shirts at a mid level; speak to some of the most senior; they aimed at times to create mayhem in any which way; revisit the way he and his goons stamped down on the (for the most part) completely peaceful yellow shirts protests in 2008. <deleted>.

he will won/t return to politics - since he has promised both which to believe?

he and his family are honest - his son cheated twice and got caught in exams; his wife falsified documents to cheat on taxes; the daughters and sons claim to have masterminded the sale of Shin but anyone who knows them knows they think Shin is a bone in their leg - they cheated on their tax in that sale; the daughters both alledgedly cheated to get into Kaset and CU; he's as honest as a used car salesman who dabbles in timeshare

he has new ideas for the country - name some since 2004, other than the diesel subsidy. All the new ideas were from the first 3 years of TRT, after that we got the same petty scams as every govt before it as all the same old faces appeared and the new faces with ideas got shuffled out. And a ton of his new ideas, let's face it, look great on paper - oh yeah OTOP helps the upcountry folk take their products to the world - but in actuality have destroyed previously viable markets while introducing a gatekeeper who profiteers from village enterprise - but basically suck, to use a technical term. And now, seriously, Chalerm, Chavalit, Samak, Banharn - is it possible we can see any more old dinosaurs representing the very worst least talented blood suckers in Thai politics - have been his team????? THIS IS NEW IDEAS? To use a whos who of Thailand's political dregs? Oh great. Of course, we don't need the so called elite that are blamed for everything wrong in Thailand, not when we have this group of heavyweights running things.

Ah well, there will always be guys like my rubber tappers on the family farm who say 'Thaksin was great. When he was in power we got 100b per kg. Now we get 55b. Only he could help us.' And the local red shirt brigade keep telling them this. What a pity there was never any attempt since 2001 to improve education, otherwise right now those same farmers might realise that world commodity prices move up and down. Thaksin rode the uptick and we did not much to prepare for a downturn.

Strangely, the ones with a bit more education in that same farm; one on one they say different things to me. But they don't dare say otherwise to their friends.

Didn't see Economist talk much to the rubber tappers, maybe they can do that article next time around.

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[wilsongbrown]

MUST READ

Is Thaksin planning a Juan Peron-style comeback?

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

Published on October 20, 2009

Judging by his phone-in on Saturday, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra is gearing up for his comeback through popular support and votes.

Thaksin has made it crystal clear he remains a key player in politics regardless of his conviction and life in exile.

He spells out his return will be through the ballot box and not a royal pardon.

Friends and foes of Thaksin ought to think about the long-term consequences to the country instead of trying to settle old scores. Otherwise the polarisation will persist and deepen.

Thaksin's ambition is evident and he is very direct about achieving his political aspirations.

If the legendary populist Juan Peron of Argentina could manage to return to power after 18 years in exile, then there is no reason to doubt Thaksin's resolve to bide his time.

Peron was 60 and in his second presidential term when he was ousted from power by the coup in 1955. He staged a triumphant return in 1973.

Thaksin saw an abrupt ending of his second term by the power seizure in 2006. He was 57.

Though circumstances differ greatly, Thaksin and Peron share a common trait - both are hugely popular and at the same time, a catalyst for polarisation.

In light of Peron's successful comeback, Thaksin has every reason to remain optimistic for fate to smile on him.

In Argentina and Thailand, the crusade to promote democracy and oppose military intervention has been used as a springboard to grab power.

Although Thaksin and Peron both thrive on popular votes, it is ironic their brand of populism has brought about unprecedented polarisation which leads, in turn, to military intervention.

Even after Peron's death from natural causes in 1974, his populism brought about another power seizure in 1976. To this day, the populist legacy of Peron is still a factor in Argemtina's political divide.

Will Thailand repeat a similar polarisation as the one lasting for almost half a century in Argentina?

More importantly, the crucial question is whether Thaksin's return, if it happens, will trigger a new round of power seizures.

All concerned parties are obligated to think hard when charting a course for Thai politics. Knee-jerk reaction and opportunistic ploys to ride on Thaksin's coattails will likely harm democracy rather than advance it.

The pro-Thaksin camp appears to have no qualms about placing the political system second to the individual interests of Thaksin. Thaksin too has the audacity to put his country at risk in order to resolve his issues.

The political divide will remain so long as parties concerned are willing to allow the game to revolve around one player - Thaksin.

The yellow shirts see Thaksin as the biggest threat to the country's political system. The red shirts are determined to reinstate Thaksin to power.

Instead of trying to find a common ground to foster compromise, the rival camps are surging full steam to defeat one another by working either through street protests, or election victory, or a combination of the two.

Thaksin has given his blessing for the red shirts to try and oust the Abhisit Vejjajiva government by lengthy street protests scheduled to start next month.

He has recruited former prime minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as Pheu Thai chief adviser in order to prepare for a snap election.

He has the backing of former deputy Army chief General Jiradej Kocharat, a newly-appointed trouble shooter to mend fences between the military and the main opposition party.

Jiradej is expected to secure the defence portfolio as a reward if he succeeds in swaying Army chief General Anupong Paochinda and the top brass not to work against Thaksin.

In 2007, the red shirts won the general election. In less than a year, the coalition switch happened in favour of the Democrats.

Thaksin is again beating the war drum to fight his opponents through balloting. The yellow shirts are making full preparations to contest the polls.

How many rounds of fighting to go before the rival camps realise there has never been a vote outcome to end the polarisation?

-- The Nation 2009/10/20

Not.Gonna.Happen - Ever. Dies been cast. He's a social and political parahia. Lot's changed since Peron. Though you wouldn't think so from some of the drivel they write in the 'nooze' here ...

[samran]

bit of time on your hands there stevo?

[wilsongbrown]

The Economist seems to pop up all the time, as a voice for Thaksin and a critic of the Thai monarchy. Are these things connected? Is the Economist simply a voice for sweet reasonableness (as it sees it) or has it an axe to grind for other reasons?

The Economist has made clear it is firmly opposed to the Yellows, along with everything the Yellows represent and hold dear. The Economist has been pretty straight with its readers.

Hands up who gives a flying fck what The Economist thinks here, or anywhere.

[steveromagnino]

bit of time on your hands there stevo?

we are selling well; life is good ;-)

Don't write here much, too busy attending the rallies and washing my red shirt.

It doesn't pay that well, but the work has low overheads and I get free somtam and kao neeo ;-)

Apparently to be a real democracy supporter, you 'bring sticky rice and papaya salad. '

Since this is a clear reference to people from Isaan since mostly people from Isaan eat sticky rice and somtam; I guess only they can understand democracy; the rest of us elite in our LPN condos driving our Fino motorcycles and eating Kao Mun Gai; we just want to keep the somtam eaters doooooooooown. WE ARE THE MAN.

How strange. Because the few times I spent time with him and his pals, I never ONCE saw them eat anything Thai; it was always foreign and always expensive. And not washed down with Lao Kao either, but rather some of the most expensive wine I have ever seen.

I guess they must not be real democracy lovers.

Maybe Economist can put in a recipe for Somtam. Just like America had 'freedom fries' we can have 'tum bprachatibatai'

I can sell it for 500 baht baht baht baht baht 5555555555555555555555555555555555

Reading what Thaksin says is a bit like listening to that 45 year old school teacher that tries to be a friend of the kids.

'Wassup class. Yeah are we going to 'hang' class, are we going to kick it? Are we going to get jiggy?'

It just sounds wrong. As wrong as Thaksin pretending to be poor or a man of the people....while he does that reality TV in his fendi dressing gown. What a jip! I bet the PR consultant knows enough to tell him 'yeah yeah, say Somtam, don't say they bring food, say they bring Somtam, it sounds way more authentic krup tahn'

Where's a real PR spokesman, where's Jakapop when you need him? [Oh that's right, up on Lese Majeste charges. Forgot about that one.]

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[Joints]

I think the Thaksin-Peron comparison is spot on. However I predict that Thaksin is a wannabe Peron and will not succeed.

I think a comparison between Thaksin and Alberto Fujimori is even better. Unfortunately Peru seems to care more about HR than Thailand does which explains why Thaksin is not put where he belongs. It doesn't seem very likely that it will ever happen.

[frodo]

Actually, some politicians have been removed from office either politely or less politely for breaking the law - Nixon for instance or closer to home, Chuwit who was elected but broke the law and therefore was removed - however this requires several checks and balances including but no limited to a free press, respect for the law, a nuetral judiciary and a neutral and effective law enforcement. Had the law been applied non selectively, Thaksin would just be coming out of his ban for giving a false asset declaration about now...

...Didn't see Economist talk much to the rubber tappers, maybe they can do that article next time around.

Thank You Steveromagnino! It is so refreshing reading this and always a pleasure reading your other posts.

Note: I took out most of the post for brevity, but wanted to keep a reference point. Hope this is allowed.

[steveromagnino]

Actually, some politicians have been removed from office either politely or less politely for breaking the law - Nixon for instance or closer to home, Chuwit who was elected but broke the law and therefore was removed - however this requires several checks and balances including but no limited to a free press, respect for the law, a nuetral judiciary and a neutral and effective law enforcement. Had the law been applied non selectively, Thaksin would just be coming out of his ban for giving a false asset declaration about now...

...Didn't see Economist talk much to the rubber tappers, maybe they can do that article next time around.

Thank You Steveromagnino! It is so refreshing reading this and always a pleasure reading your other posts.

Note: I took out most of the post for brevity, but wanted to keep a reference point. Hope this is allowed.

thanks - I see you kept the rubber tappers - that's the best bit - I really like the guys (even though we don't see eye to eye politically) - not many could handle waking up at frigging 2am and walking through a forest of trees, scraping bark one by one. And we rely on them to do a good job; makes a big difference in the longevity of the tree and the yield to have guys who are 'good around a blade' the skill hasn't changed much in 100 years.

As the recipient of the other 1/2 of the price though (we split, owner share/tapper share), not exactly ecstatic on the prices these days although not actually me who has to worry about such things; difference is I know why the price dropped; harder to explain to them when they look at the rice farmers getting fat prices thanks to the subsidies.

Technically, in case I get pulled up I did check; Chuwit failed to be part of Chart Thai for 90 days, hence his removal. He didn't exactly break the law in a killing a policeman in a crowded nightclub then running from the law then wriggling out of a murder charge like some children of politicians do, but rather more a technicality.

Obviously he would claim it would be politically motivated....... if he was interviewed by Economist :-)

for the lighter side of politics, this thread is good for a laugh.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Chavalit-loy...em-t307539.html

Edited October 20, 2009 by steveromagnino

[sabaijai]

"They grab wood from street."

And gas trucks, and Molotov cocktails and ...

[frodo]

Actually, some politicians have been removed from office either politely or less politely for breaking the law - Nixon for instance or closer to home, Chuwit who was elected but broke the law and therefore was removed - however this requires several checks and balances including but no limited to a free press, respect for the law, a nuetral judiciary and a neutral and effective law enforcement. Had the law been applied non selectively, Thaksin would just be coming out of his ban for giving a false asset declaration about now...

...Didn't see Economist talk much to the rubber tappers, maybe they can do that article next time around.

Thank You Steveromagnino! It is so refreshing reading this and always a pleasure reading your other posts.

Note: I took out most of the post for brevity, but wanted to keep a reference point. Hope this is allowed.

thanks - I see you kept the rubber tappers - that's the best bit - I really like the guys (even though we don't see eye to eye politically) - not many could handle waking up at frigging 2am and walking through a forest of trees, scraping bark one by one. And we rely on them to do a good job; makes a big difference in the longevity of the tree and the yield to have guys who are 'good around a blade' the skill hasn't changed much in 100 years.

As the recipient of the other 1/2 of the price though (we split, owner share/tapper share), not exactly ecstatic on the prices these days although not actually me who has to worry about such things; difference is I know why the price dropped; harder to explain to them when they look at the rice farmers getting fat prices thanks to the subsidies.

Technically, in case I get pulled up I did check; Chuwit failed to be part of Chart Thai for 90 days, hence his removal. He didn't exactly break the law in a killing a policeman in a crowded nightclub then running from the law then wriggling out of a murder charge like some children of politicians do, but rather more a technicality.

Obviously he would claim it would be politically motivated....... if he was interviewed by Economist :-)

for the lighter side of politics, this thread is good for a laugh.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Chavalit-loy...em-t307539.html

The part about the rubber tree farmers hit a raw nerve for me. My roommates (both Thai) are from the south. I've visited there on different occasions and know first hand about the conditions which exist. It's not just the parents/farmers, but the entire family is out in those trees, and as you said, 2AM. Besides the scraping and sap collection, there's also another process for preparing the rubber for sale. Not an easy task. I've listened many times to my roomies talk about their childhood experiences of working in a tree farm at a very young age. Waking up at 2AM, going home at 6:30AM to get ready for school, and having but a couple of baht for food. How they made through school given these hard conditions, I can only applaud them.

It would be nice if the Economist did interview those in the south for a change. Thaksin was not nice to those folks down there, and there are other voices besides Bangkok, North, and the Northeast. Alas, I don't think they would be interested.