Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[way2muchcoffee]

Alternatively, if the coup hadn't happened we would probably have Thaksin managing an economic mess and probably hanging on for dear life politically. He would have pushed ahead with privatisation, the unions would be livid, a lot of people would feel very wronged by now. Abhisit would probably be gearing up for an earned spell as PM with a coalition minus Newin.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, supposition about terrible things that didn't happen even better.

Again. You might be right. Or scorecard might be right. I guess we'll never know. I do agree that Abhisit's ascendancy to the role of PM was premature. Unfortunate for him, and for the country.

Edited October 23, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

Alternatively, if the coup hadn't happened we would probably have Thaksin managing an economic mess and probably hanging on for dear life politically. He would have pushed ahead with privatisation, the unions would be livid, a lot of people would feel very wronged by now. Abhisit would probably be gearing up for an earned spell as PM with a coalition minus Newin.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, supposition about terrible things that didn't happen even better.

Again. You might be right. Or scorecard might be right. I guess we'll never know. I do agree that Abhisit's ascendancy to the role of PM was premature. Unfortunate for him, and for the country.

Discussing what may have happened is subject to conjecture. I may be right, I may be wrong, but I don't think my "story" is to fanciful to be impossible.

The reality is 4 or 5 years of hassle, and the outcome is ultimately, unfortunate; for Abhisit and the country.

With the added bonus of no real end in sight to this mess.

A woman scorned and an Asian losing face with a 2bn USD caveat. Thaksin will hang on until the absolute bitter end.

[way2muchcoffee]

Discussing what may have happened is subject to conjecture.

Indeed.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but I don't think my "story" is to fanciful to be impossible.

Not at all fanciful. Entirely plausible. Same with scorecard's analysis. As nearly as I can tell it could have gone either way. Or perhaps it would have gone in a way that nobody today can possibly predict. We'll never have the opportunity to find out.

The reality is 4 or 5 years of hassle, and the outcome is ultimately, unfortunate; for Abhisit and the country. With the added bonus of no real end in sight to this mess.

Yes. Very unfortunate.

A woman scorned and an Asian losing face with a 2bn USD caveat. Thaksin will hang on until the absolute bitter end.

Agreed. Hopefully it won't be too bitter. Unfortunately, my gut is telling me that this won't go well for Thailand at all, particularly in light of other unmentionable events that are certain to happen in the not so distant future.

Edited October 23, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

Agreed. Hopefully it won't be too bitter.

Could it politically get any worse?

Red marching here, yellows marching there, governments neutered by rabbles, Sondhi shot, PM's car assaulted, Cambodians offering shelter to ex-PM's who are running around the world, SET running up and down on obvious rumours, FDI plummeting, trains on strike, FDI held up due to constitutions being spirited every few years, Newin holding all the aces.

You couldn't sit in a dark room and write a saga like this in a thousand years of trying.

Oh well, at least the sky won't fall on my family's head tomorrow.

Great people, great country but Thai politics and democracy has been exposed and laid bare for us all to see. Abhisit truly has his work cut out, if he can hang in there, which I doubt. Is there a plan other than politicians/governments hanging on by their fingernails?

So back to (the) square one?

[way2muchcoffee]

Red marching here, yellows marching there, governments neutered by rabbles, Sondhi shot, PM's car assaulted, Cambodians offering shelter to ex-PM's who are running around the world, SET running up and down on obvious rumours, FDI plummeting, trains on strike, FDI held up due to constitutions being spirited every few years, Newin holding all the aces.

You couldn't sit in a dark room and write a saga like this in a thousand years of trying.

....Is there a plan other than politicians/governments hanging on by their fingernails?

Christ. Stated like that, I feel saddened and depressed.

[scorecard]

Alternatively, if the coup hadn't happened we would probably have Thaksin managing an economic mess and probably hanging on for dear life politically. He would have pushed ahead with privatisation, the unions would be livid, a lot of people would feel very wronged by now. Abhisit would probably be gearing up for an earned spell as PM with a coalition minus Newin.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, supposition about terrible things that didn't happen even better.

Again. You might be right. Or scorecard might be right. I guess we'll never know. I do agree that Abhisit's ascendancy to the role of PM was premature. Unfortunate for him, and for the country.

I accept 'Thaiatheart's' suggested scenario, certainly a possibility.

But, given the history of the man (including what he's doing right now), I repeat my earlier comments that "it frightens me.....".

If he had continued, I agree there would be quite an economic mess (I suggest his economics look good in the short term but certainly not credible in the long term), and I suggest he would have gotten pretty nasty in trying to cling to power in any way possible, including lots of intimidation and very bad and very blatant money politics.

I also agree that Abhisit has likely been thrust into the PM role far too early. On the other hand, if he can learn quickly he has the opportnity to be the man who guided Thailand around the corner to a better and more equitable future.

We wait and see.

[Thai at Heart]

Red marching here, yellows marching there, governments neutered by rabbles, Sondhi shot, PM's car assaulted, Cambodians offering shelter to ex-PM's who are running around the world, SET running up and down on obvious rumours, FDI plummeting, trains on strike, FDI held up due to constitutions being spirited every few years, Newin holding all the aces.

You couldn't sit in a dark room and write a saga like this in a thousand years of trying.

....Is there a plan other than politicians/governments hanging on by their fingernails?

Christ. Stated like that, I feel saddened and depressed.

Well at least there is never a dull moment and things can definitely only get better. But then again...............

Edited October 23, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[tomahawk]

Thailand seemed to be doing much better when Thaksin was PM than before. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not spent much time with the common people. Does anyone believe that if Thaksin were to run for reelection today and the people were allowed to vote, that he wouldn't win? And whoever said the military is all upset by the corruption must be joking. Vote buying and corruption are just the facts of life here. I am not saying this is right I am just saying that is the way it is. Could anyone become a leader in this system at this time and be totally clean? Would he be allowed to achieve the leadership if those who put him in power knew they would be prevented from capitalizing on the practices by which they achieved wealth and power in the first place? It is good to be idealistic but it is terribly naive.

[jayboy]

I am not sure about the airplane and the pilot or whatever, but I am just saying what I am saying. Thaksin was elected by people but removed by military, not by the people or by any sort of legal process.

Elected by the people? Sorry. In a parliamentary system the PM is elected by the MPs, who represent the people. Moreover, Thaksin removed himself from the position of PM by dissolving parliament and then found himself unable to conduct a proper vote for a new parliament. His solution to the dilemma was to concoct a scheme of fraudulent elections, so that his beloved party could maintain control of parliament, and then formally re-elect him as PM.

At the time of his removal he was a caretaker prime minister. He had no mandate. He was never directly elected to this position by the people. He had already claimed to be leaving politics. He just had a bit more work to do, to the tune of 75 billion baht to his personal bank accounts. At about that the time many people, especially the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from this 'caretaker' role.

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

Still at least one good laugh in it and that is to be commended, namely the military acting to stop "grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth".

[way2muchcoffee]

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

The usual hyberbole and ad hominem attacks that fail to address anything, but serve only to inflame and incite. Please address points and do not attack the poster.

[animatic]

I am not sure about the airplane and the pilot or whatever, but I am just saying what I am saying. Thaksin was elected by people but removed by military, not by the people or by any sort of legal process.

Elected by the people? Sorry. In a parliamentary system the PM is elected by the MPs, who represent the people. Moreover, Thaksin removed himself from the position of PM by dissolving parliament and then found himself unable to conduct a proper vote for a new parliament. His solution to the dilemma was to concoct a scheme of fraudulent elections, so that his beloved party could maintain control of parliament, and then formally re-elect him as PM.

At the time of his removal he was a caretaker prime minister. He had no mandate. He was never directly elected to this position by the people. He had already claimed to be leaving politics. He just had a bit more work to do, to the tune of 75 billion baht to his personal bank accounts. At about that the time many people, especially the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from this 'caretaker' role.

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

Still at least one good laugh in it and that is to be commended, namely the military acting to stop "grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth".

He threw away his mandate and that's a fact.

He ONCE had one but squandered it, and a grotesquely PURCHASED mandate in too many ways.

Calling way2muchcoffee's short and sweet summation hysterical doesn't make it wrong.

It just shows your bias in stark relief.

Prosecution 1 point,

Defense rests and makes 0 points.

[rixalex]

Does anyone believe that if Thaksin were to run for reelection today and the people were allowed to vote, that he wouldn't win?

For one, it's an irrelevant question. Thaksin was tried and convicted of a crime. Criminals, especially criminals who flee from justice, are by law unable to serve in office. To those who question the court's verdict, i would say that Thaksin happily respected their previous verdicts when they have found in his favour, so he should be dignified and man enough to accept when they don't. Besides which, let's not forget he tried to bribe the courts with a million-baht lunchbox - that act alone would in most courts of law result in a hefty sentence.

And for two, Thaksin's very own nominee party was unable to win an election by majority, and this was before all the mayhem he created over black Songkran. Thaksin undoubtedly remains popular amongst a proportion of the electorate, but whether he would win an election now is i think much harder to predict than some suggest.

[jayboy]

The usual hysterical and inaccurate rant from someone who just can't bear to think Thaksin ever had a mandate.Not worth responding to as all the points have been covered umpteen times before.

The usual hyberbole and ad hominem attacks that fail to address anything, but serve only to inflame and incite. Please address points and do not attack the poster.

Hyperbole ! Have you read your own post!

You don't make any new points, just rehash old and discredited ones already debated to death.Your point is that Thaksin never had a mandate and was removed by the noble military for excessive corruption.If you wish to believe in fairy stories that's your prerogative.

But anyway thanks for the laugh on the miltary's motivation.

[rixalex]

Your point is that Thaksin never had a mandate

Having a mandate wasn't the problem for Thaksin, it was what he thought that mandate gave him the authority to do.

[Ricardo]

Does anyone believe that if Thaksin were to run for reelection today and the people were allowed to vote, that he wouldn't win?

Yes, his parties have been winning a steadily-declining share of the vote for several years now, the days of the overwhelming TRT-monopoly are clearly gone.

And as a convicted on-the-run criminal, with several other cases outstanding, he won't be running for re-election anytime soon.

[animatic]

Don't cry for me Rachisima by Madonawatra

It won't be easy, you'll think I'm stranger

When I try to explain how I feel

That I still need your love after all that I've done

You won't believe me

All you will see is a PM you once knew

Although I'm dressed up to the nines

All '60's and 70's to you

I had to let it happen, I had to rearrange

Couldn't stay so belly up to the trough

Looking out of penthouse, staying out of the light

So I chose freedom

Taking a runner, escaping anew

But some thing depressed me ; my fall

I never expected it true.

Don't cry for me Rachisima

The truth I never told you

All through my blunders

My mad resistance

I kept my profits

Don't take your taxes.

And as for fortune, and as for face

They have been stolen

Though it's known to the world they were all I desired

They were just illusions

I've no solutions I'd promised to thee

The answer I've hidden is crime

I love you and hope you love me

Don't cry for me Ratchisima

The truth would only bore you

I took large percentage

Stifled resistance

I want my money

So drop your sentence

Have I said too much?

There's no truths more I can think of to say to you.

But all you have to do is look at me to know

That every word is true

Don't cry for me Rachisima

The truth I never told you

All through my blunders

My mad resistance

I kept my profits

Don't take Oak's taxes

[jayboy]

Your point is that Thaksin never had a mandate

Having a mandate wasn't the problem for Thaksin, it was what he thought that mandate gave him the authority to do.

That's a very fair point.

[jasreeve17]

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

Frankly, I think you're completely off your rocker on this one. I don't know anybody who doesn't think think going after Prem is the last stroke of political suicide for Thaksin. The words "he's gone too far now" have been heard from several people.

But that's just my blinkered, uninformed based on the opinion of the people I work and socialise with.

I like your last line, but you're entitled to your views and differences of opinion are fine...

I've never met a Thai person (of any class group or educational background) who believes Prem is not involved in politics at a very high level. Is this illegal or legal under Thai law?

It's a thin line to clearly state the truth here for obvious reasons... Suffice to say Prem acts, 'allegedly', outside of the boundaries of Thai law, and at a higher level than elected governments. He symbolizes a group of people who are a rich minority, and who run the country for themeleves... The idea that they uphold a higher set of morals for the good of the Thai people, who are otherwise to stupid to run their own affairs, is an argument that history left behind hundreds of years ago...

[jasreeve17]

SteveR wrote: "I would not quite agree...

My own opinion: the red shirts do not have the support of the middle class which is why PPP gets its votes from rural N and NE Thailand and not the cities as was the case for TRT in 2005; just as many Dems hate the yellow shirts a large number of the Puea Thai voters are pro Thaksin but may not really care much about democracy other than what it is now that they get to vote - reducing everything down to 2 categories of people is nonsensical which is why politicians love to do it."

I agree.

More thoughts would be, the middle class in Thailand is very small. That's the way the army and Prem want to keep it. MrT really doesn't care how big or small the middle classes are, as long as he can steal as much money as possible for himself. Ideologically speaking, or, if you like, for the sake of the nation's and individual Thais' development, MrT (or any freely elected politician who acts outside the control of the army and Prem) is a far better option.

Basically MrT was elected by going around and paying for all the politicians likely to get elected in each region to join his party; hey presto, a few months later he has a huge majority. At that time (probably less so now, but still true to a large degree) Thais voted for people, not parties, hence MrT's ploy worked well.

I don't like MrT, I don't like the red shirt leaders, I don't fundamentally dislike the Dems, PAD or anyone else.'

The fact remains that MrT is just another corrupt Thai politician - that's not good! The army lot and Prem are a very much worse alternative of nationalistc, 'moralistic' so and so's who work outside of the law are are able to do so because of a subject we cannot discuss - very convenient for them... As we know, that will soon change...

Edited October 24, 2009 by jasreeve17

[jasreeve17]

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

In a while Prem is going to have a very very important job and one that will mean his work is over. PTP/Thaksin want him out of the way now so he cant do that job. After he has his position will be cemented although he may change roles. Hope this aint too blunt.

It's speculation Hammered. Nobody knows what will happen, but we have all heard that the senior army leaders are pretty much split down the middle...

And, if I understand you correctly, it's 100% illegal under Thai law too.

The role of the privy council is very clear under Thai law. If we were outside of Thailand we could discuss how they work in reality and how this conflicts, or not, allegedly, or not, with Thai law... Thais know this, and are sick of it. One man stands head and shoulders above. Only one, not two...

[hammered]

If Prem lives on for a good few years longer, he's in very big trouble... History, and the Thai people will demonize this man.

In a while Prem is going to have a very very important job and one that will mean his work is over. PTP/Thaksin want him out of the way now so he cant do that job. After he has his position will be cemented although he may change roles. Hope this aint too blunt.

It's speculation Hammered. Nobody knows what will happen, but we have all heard that the senior army leaders are pretty much split down the middle...

And, if I understand you correctly, it's 100% illegal under Thai law too.

The role of the privy council is very clear under Thai law. If we were outside of Thailand we could discuss how they work in reality and how this conflicts, or not, allegedly, or not, with Thai law... Thais know this, and are sick of it. One man stands head and shoulders above. Only one, not two...

I think you misunderstand me. the Head of the privvy council has a very important role during the transition. No more no less. It is laid out in the constitution and even reversion to 1997 leaves the role the same. Thaksin would much rather a different person was head. However, it looks like this end is not achievable and even if it were to be the assumed next would not be to Thaksin's favour either.

The army leaders may be split on whether it should be overseen by a favoured elected government or a coup one. Other things they may be split on...well thankfully I dont know and doubt we could discuss them, but there is time for a cemeted position to be worked out. I doubt they will want Thaksin or the reds around while this all takes place. However, when things are settled I am sure there will be opportunity for all.

By the way, all the manouvers of the past month and particularly PTP ones in the last week or so were gambling on something

All imho

[hammered]

SteveR wrote: "I would not quite agree...

My own opinion: the red shirts do not have the support of the middle class which is why PPP gets its votes from rural N and NE Thailand and not the cities as was the case for TRT in 2005; just as many Dems hate the yellow shirts a large number of the Puea Thai voters are pro Thaksin but may not really care much about democracy other than what it is now that they get to vote - reducing everything down to 2 categories of people is nonsensical which is why politicians love to do it."

I agree.

More thoughts would be, the middle class in Thailand is very small. That's the way the army and Prem want to keep it. MrT really doesn't care how big or small the middle classes are, as long as he can steal as much money as possible for himself. Ideologically speaking, or, if you like, for the sake of the nation's and individual Thais' development, MrT (or any freely elected politician who acts outside the control of the army and Prem) is a far better option.

Basically MrT was elected by going around and paying for all the politicians likely to get elected in each region to join his party; hey presto, a few months later he has a huge majority. At that time (probably less so now, but still true to a large degree) Thais voted for people, not parties, hence MrT's ploy worked well.

I don't like MrT, I don't like the red shirt leaders, I don't fundamentally dislike the Dems, PAD or anyone else.'

The fact remains that MrT is just another corrupt Thai politician - that's not good! The army lot and Prem are a very much worse alternative of nationalistc, 'moralistic' so and so's who work outside of the law are are able to do so because of a subject we cannot discuss - very convenient for them... As we know, that will soon change...

Pretty good summation although I try to stay away from the moral realtivity of who is worse than who. Bad is bad. Unfortunatley one upshot of everything is that the short to medium term choices will be bad as the bad remain bad and the good if there were any are all tainted by silly side taking stuff.

The middle class is growing by the way particulclalry outside Bangkok. That cannot be stopped by anyone now.

[jasreeve17]

Hammered said: "I think you misunderstand me. the Head of the privvy council has a very important role during the transition. No more no less. It is laid out in the constitution and even reversion to 1997 leaves the role the same. Thaksin would much rather a different person was head. However, it looks like this end is not achievable and even if it were to be the assumed next would not be to Thaksin's favour either.

The army leaders may be split on whether it should be overseen by a favoured elected government or a coup one. Other things they may be split on...well thankfully I dont know and doubt we could discuss them, but there is time for a cemeted position to be worked out. I doubt they will want Thaksin or the reds around while this all takes place. However, when things are settled I am sure there will be opportunity for all.

By the way, all the manouvers of the past month and particularly PTP ones in the last week or so were gambling on something

All imho"

That's true and fine. But, what difference does it make if Prem is involved or not? We know who comes next and we know what this entails. Why should MrT care less? The actual transition is clear. Prem may have some ceremonial input, so what?

The mystery is what thappens afterwards. Nobody knows. With regard to MrT, wouldn't his lot get better rather than worse, bearing in mind the personal relationships involved?

I think the reds just want to keep Abhisit unbalanced. It's the general way they all play; when not in power try to stop the government from doing anything and cemmenting their position. My feeling is that after the transition MrT will be in a much stronger position; Prem, on the other hand, will not.

Again, IMHO, we're speculating aren't we...

[jasreeve17]

SteveR wrote: "I would not quite agree...

My own opinion: the red shirts do not have the support of the middle class which is why PPP gets its votes from rural N and NE Thailand and not the cities as was the case for TRT in 2005; just as many Dems hate the yellow shirts a large number of the Puea Thai voters are pro Thaksin but may not really care much about democracy other than what it is now that they get to vote - reducing everything down to 2 categories of people is nonsensical which is why politicians love to do it."

I agree.

More thoughts would be, the middle class in Thailand is very small. That's the way the army and Prem want to keep it. MrT really doesn't care how big or small the middle classes are, as long as he can steal as much money as possible for himself. Ideologically speaking, or, if you like, for the sake of the nation's and individual Thais' development, MrT (or any freely elected politician who acts outside the control of the army and Prem) is a far better option.

Basically MrT was elected by going around and paying for all the politicians likely to get elected in each region to join his party; hey presto, a few months later he has a huge majority. At that time (probably less so now, but still true to a large degree) Thais voted for people, not parties, hence MrT's ploy worked well.

I don't like MrT, I don't like the red shirt leaders, I don't fundamentally dislike the Dems, PAD or anyone else.'

The fact remains that MrT is just another corrupt Thai politician - that's not good! The army lot and Prem are a very much worse alternative of nationalistc, 'moralistic' so and so's who work outside of the law are are able to do so because of a subject we cannot discuss - very convenient for them... As we know, that will soon change...

Pretty good summation although I try to stay away from the moral realtivity of who is worse than who. Bad is bad. Unfortunatley one upshot of everything is that the short to medium term choices will be bad as the bad remain bad and the good if there were any are all tainted by silly side taking stuff.

The middle class is growing by the way particulclalry outside Bangkok. That cannot be stopped by anyone now.

I like your last line: hope for the future. Not sure I'll be around to see it flip the balance, but the sooner the better.

Bangkok cenralization (of everything) is another massive problem for the nation.

[tomahawk]

Thaksin was not removed from office following a criminal trial. If he were , then I would have no objection. He was removed by a coup. The main point I think most people miss in this whole thing is that this is not America, or UK or even France. It is Asia and too many people are arguing all this political stuff from the whole western democratic point of view. The people here have a way of doing things since forever and that is the way Thaksin did it and probably everyone else in government , no matter which political party they are affiliated with. To say this guy or that guy was involved in some patronage scheme or favoritism or any of these other examples we think of as corruption and therefore should be removed from office is ridiculous from the historical perspective. Whoever the anti-Thaksin people want to be the leader is innocent of all these things? Is some poor farmer from Isaan going to be the next PM now? I think the smart idea is to have someone who does the best good for the people and the country. Not who foreign people think they should have. As for buying the PM job, people have been buying political positions, even the big ones, forever also. Is Thaksin the first, or the last? I don't think so.

[rixalex]

Thaksin was not removed from office following a criminal trial. If he were , then I would have no objection.

If you don't mind me saying, it's very naive of you to think that Thaksin could have been tried and convicted whilst he was actually in power. That was never going to happen. He wouldn't have let it.

[jasreeve17]

Thaksin was not removed from office following a criminal trial. If he were , then I would have no objection.

If you don't mind me saying, it's very naive of you to think that Thaksin could have been tried and convicted whilst he was actually in power. That was never going to happen. He wouldn't have let it.

There is nothing naive about Tomahawk's comments IMO. Taking a line out of context and spinning it doesn't help your argument either...

[rixalex]

Taking a line out of context and spinning it doesn't help your argument either...

I took one of his points and responded to it. There was nothing out of context about it at all.

Tomahawk accuses others of applying Western democratic standards to a Thai situation, and yet he says that he would have had no objections had Thaksin been removed from office after being convicted. Trying and convicting a serving Prime Minister might be possible in some of the world's more mature democracies that are lucky enough to have bodies and agencies that manage to remain free of interference and meddling, but he should know that here in Thailand that is not that case, and especially wasn't whilst Thaksin was in office. So what he is suggesting, as wonderful as it would have been, and as preferable as it would have been to a coup, just was never going to happen.

Edited October 24, 2009 by rixalex

[jasreeve17]

It looked to me that you took Tomahaws's idea of a coup being the vehicle of an equally corrupt Thai group, and spun it into an anti-Thaksin rant. His line that you used contained the word Thaksin, though his key point was not about Taksin, but the corrupt nature of Thai politics generally.

This spinning is a boring and non-stop vocation of some members, if this was not your intention then please accept my appology...

With regard to Thai / Western comparisons, it's a really tough area isn't it? Thailand is a developing nation, they use British law as a basis for their legal system, and they big-up a British bred and educated PM as a huge political leap forward. The top lawyers, teachers and businessmen have mostly been educated in Western countries. The army are based on the British / French models where the Rama kings studied and brought back the ideas - the Sorbonne is a favourite.

It is impossible not to mix Western and Thai ideas and ideals when that is exactly what the Thais do themselves.

I'm not saying that your point is right or wrong, I don't know, but it's a very grey area and an area that the Thais in power abuse; one minute they are Western and spohisticated the next minute they are Thai and traditional - all depending on how they will most benefit at any given moment...

[Publicus]

as subscriber for almost 20 years you should know it:

The Economist is a newspaper. The Economist is not a "zine". it won't hurt to read The Economist .

it is nonsense that The Economist is in favour and a voice for Thaksin. look into the archive. read.

The Economist isn't a fan boy of any team here, the newspaper keeps it 'the economist line' and checks who and what looks worrying or promising or rational in a 'the economist wise' sense.

The Economist continues to prefer to call itself a newspaper, which is what it was when it began, but presents itself in a glossy magazine format and has done so for a long time. The point anyway is obtuse, picayune and immaterial to the discussion.

The Economist has criticized both Thaksin and core institutions of Thai civilization. Distribution of the zine in Thailand has been prohibited by the Thai government at least twice during the past five or so years because of topic sensitivity.

The zine has a point of view and simultaneously can and does hammer either side of a given issue wherever.

I'd thought we left this matter behind on this thread a while back.