Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[samran]

edit: debating lesson 2: Question the opponents intellecutal capability, focus on that, and their apparent lack of thoughful consideration on a matter. Then ignore any other question was asked for you.

Are you giving me advice or suggesting this is a debating rule I follow? All a bit "intellecutal" for me, I'm afraid.

a spelling pedant as well!

Going for my grammar next?

[rixalex]

How many issues of The Sun newspaper would you be required to read to form a reasonably accurate opinion on its content and value?

So you can't tell the difference between a brain dead tabloid and NM?

*sigh*

My point (if it really required spelling out?) was not that there is no difference between The Sun and NM, but that it's not always necessary to have read from a source numerous times to have formed a reasonably accurate opinion of it.

[rixalex]

On the precise relationship between ANU and NM, I have no idea

Makes a change.

but I would be surprised other than the university providing a platform it went any further.

"Providing a platform" ??? Could you be any more vague?

[jayboy]

On the precise relationship between ANU and NM, I have no idea

Makes a change.

but I would be surprised other than the university providing a platform it went any further.

"Providing a platform" ??? Could you be any more vague?

If this is such an exciting and absorbing topic for you why don't you ask the ANU or NM? ANU is a major university by any standards so it's highly unlikely it would allow NM to speak for it.I'm satisfied on that point.If you're not, just ask the institutions involved.

[jayboy]

How many issues of The Sun newspaper would you be required to read to form a reasonably accurate opinion on its content and value?

So you can't tell the difference between a brain dead tabloid and NM?

*sigh*

My point (if it really required spelling out?) was not that there is no difference between The Sun and NM, but that it's not always necessary to have read from a source numerous times to have formed a reasonably accurate opinion of it.

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

[jayboy]

edit: debating lesson 2: Question the opponents intellecutal capability, focus on that, and their apparent lack of thoughful consideration on a matter. Then ignore any other question was asked for you.

Are you giving me advice or suggesting this is a debating rule I follow? All a bit "intellecutal" for me, I'm afraid.

a spelling pedant as well!

Going for my grammar next?

And neatly dodging my question I see.

Spelling and grammar is not as unimportant as you apparently think.They provide useful insights into the clarity or otherwise of thought processes.

[samran]

edit: debating lesson 2: Question the opponents intellecutal capability, focus on that, and their apparent lack of thoughful consideration on a matter. Then ignore any other question was asked for you.

Are you giving me advice or suggesting this is a debating rule I follow? All a bit "intellecutal" for me, I'm afraid.

a spelling pedant as well!

Going for my grammar next?

Spelling and grammar is not as unimportant as you apparently think.They provide useful insights into the clarity or otherwise of thought processes.

maybe it is just me, but shouldn't the fourth word in your reply be "are"?

Edited October 22, 2009 by samran

[Rumfoord]

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.

One here among us at the least, likely a small handful more. The forumist above already pointed out in his post the caliber of global readership the Economist has. I've been a subscriber for almost 20 years, I know the zine's point of view and its weaknesses and strengths which all contribute some to my own thinking. I welcome the Economist and its broad, varied reportage as a reference point relative to the rest of the world. The zine focuses well on Thailand so I commend it.

It's still a free country so go ahead and gripe. As we used to say in the army, it's every soldier's Right to gripe.

as subscriber for almost 20 years you should know it:

The Economist is a newspaper. The Economist is not a "zine".

with The Economist you are on the save site with the The italicised and capitalise like you would do it with Le Monde or Die Zeit.

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.

[rixalex]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

[Rumfoord]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

more annoying is the lack of substance with some arguments here.

and you would have that chance to communicate your problem over there, and write comments in that blog or not?

and a blog isn't obligated to represent or deliver what some reader define as balance.

if you can challenge somebody with a discussion on an academic level, do it. will be a win win for all sides.

[hammered]

Sorry, I just assumed you would have given sufficient time to NM to give a reasonable basis to such strongly strongly expressed opinions.

How many issues of The Sun newspaper would you be required to read to form a reasonably accurate opinion on its content and value?

So you can't tell the difference between a brain dead tabloid and NM? Dare I say that's your problem not mine.

On the precise relationship between ANU and NM, I have no idea but I would be surprised other than the university providing a platform it went any further.If you are genuinely interested suggest ask ANU or NM.

When NM was using PASD to name the PAD and Democrats except when they..... they were no different from the sun. Unfortuantely they still carry this to this day although they have improved

[hammered]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

more annoying is the lack of substance with some arguments here.

and you would have that chance to communicate your problem over there, and write comments in that blog or not?

and a blog isn't obligated to represent or deliver what some reader define as balance.

if you can challenge somebody with a discussion on an academic level, do it. will be a win win for all sides.

You can but you have to respond to loads of asian studies 101 students who dont know anything but are trying to cruise into a decent degree (fair enough) and always come out with stuff like while i repsect ajarn....... I.........., or ajarn ... makes a good...., or ajarn ..... views on.......

Anyway academic sites are usually an abject waste of time as anyone who has worked in academia will know if honest I'm enjoying this one tbh

[jayboy]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Actually that's exactly what one would expect of what people like you and Samran rather revealingly describe as "academic writings".Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

[tomahawk]

Regardless of one's opinion of Thaksin, the fact is he was elected by the people and removed by the military. This is not democracy. Also, it is pretty obvious that if he were to return and an election were held today, he would be re-elected. Shouldn't the wishes of the people count for something? Now a certain other group of people decide that the people are too stupid to know what is best for them, so they will decide who runs the country. From what I have seen Thaksin has done a great deal of good for the poor people. This is my opinion, but so what? The fact is I am a farang and a guest of Thailand. I cannot vote and have no say in the government of Thailand and the same is true for everyone else on this forum. Although the actions and policies of the administration do affect my life here, there is nothing I can do about it, so why worry?

[samran]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Actually that's exactly what one would expect of what people like you and Samran rather revealingly describe as "academic writings".Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

Jayboy, a word of advice. Your attempts to question the intelligence of other posters as well as the veracity of our thought process only reflects badly on you my friend. Arrogance very rarely gets you anywhere, and you seem to want to dish it out in spades anytime you get near a keyboard.

As for academic writings...do you not think we don't know what traditional academic writings look like? Or are condencending enough to believe that other posters on this thread consider the back of a wheatbix box classic prose, and as a result, our views, expressed however briefly, are not somehow as worthy as yours?

In any case, my contention that this is 'academic writing' if that is what you want to call it comes from the creaters of the site themselves. The call it on their front page "interactive online discussion in scholarly work"...which is exactly what traditional journals do, except this does it in real time.

"When it works well an academic website such as New Mandala can provide something approaching almost instantaneous peer review" they say. Tell me, what are they peer reviewing? Their writings and ideas of course.

You seem extemely thinned skinned to any critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial, and others who simply have an agenda. Their claims to understand 'Thailand' fall far short of what I'd call a complete understanding of the sensitivities of the place, which if ever the writings on the site- and the blunt manner in the way they are delivered perhaps more importantly - got wide coverage in Thailand, would quite easily succeed in pissing off all 60-odd million Thai's without fail...and not just one section of society like I think they are targeting themselves against...the so called elites.

It is tabloid journalism dressed up with an air of academic respectability. It is the web equivelent to Fox News vs PBS.

I have much more respect for Thai academics, even the "controversial" ones like Ji Ungpakorn, who have made their case in Thailand and in the Thai context. People outside, are the academic equivelent people pissing on a burnt man rather than wanting to take him to hospital.

Now I'm sure you now how have a smart arse reply which you think will show how academically superior you are, but which frankly, will only go to show prove (again) your intellectual arrogance and particularly fragile ablilty to accept that there are any views worth considering that don't require a 20,000 word thesis.

Edited October 23, 2009 by samran

[jayboy]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Actually that's exactly what one would expect of what people like you and Samran rather revealingly describe as "academic writings".Debate is ideally a constant iterative process of argument, often with an agenda and not necessarily balanced.Over time as concepts, facts and ideas are thrashed out some improved understanding hopefully develops - and by that I don't mean a consensus.Historic events rarely produce one set of perceptions.Thus the French and Russian revolutions for example are still fiercely argued over by historians of different stripes.

Jayboy, a word of advice. Your attempts to question the intelligence of other posters as well as the veracity of our thought process only reflects badly on you my friend. Arrogance very rarely gets you anywhere, and you seem to want to dish it out in spades anytime you get near a keyboard.

As for academic writings...do you not think we don't know what traditional academic writings look like? Or are condencending enough to believe that other posters on this thread consider the back of a wheatbix box classic prose, and as a result, our views, expressed however briefly, are not somehow as worthy as yours?

In any case, my contention that this is 'academic writing' if that is what you want to call it comes from the creaters of the site themselves. The call it on their front page "interactive online discussion in scholarly work"...which is exactly what traditional journals do, except this does it in real time.

"When it works well an academic website such as New Mandala can provide something approaching almost instantaneous peer review" they say. Tell me, what are they peer reviewing? Their writings and ideas of course.

You seem extemely thinned skinned to any critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial, and others who simply have an agenda. Their claims to understand 'Thailand' fall far short of what I'd call a complete understanding of the sensitivities of the place, which if ever the writings on the site- and the blunt manner in the way they are delivered perhaps more importantly - got wide coverage in Thailand, would quite easily succeed in pissing off all 60-odd million Thai's without fail...and not just one section of society like I think they are targeting themselves against...the so called elites.

It is tabloid journalism dressed up with an air of academic respectability. It is the web equivelent to Fox News vs PBS.

I have much more respect for Thai academics, even the "controversial" ones like Ji Ungpakorn, who have made their case in Thailand and in the Thai context. People outside, are the academic equivelent people pissing on a burnt man rather than wanting to take him to hospital.

Now I'm sure you now how have a smart arse reply which you think will show how academically superior you are, but which frankly, will only go to show prove (again) your intellectual arrogance and particularly fragile ablilty to accept that there are any views worth considering that don't require a 20,000 word thesis.

I have never questioned anybody's intelligence, and don't really understand what you mean by "veracity of thought processes": on the face of it, it's meaningless expression but I will respond if you explain.

I do wonder whether you have close familiarity with academic debate given your use of language like " critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial".Perhaps this kind of language passes for normal in some circles, but it would be very unusual at a reputable university.To be honest, while you accuse me of being thin skinned about NM (odd because I have no connection with it at all), your comment that it is like dressed up Fox News tabloid journalism is simply deranged.

So ignoring the ranting and muddled thinking, it's clear that there is something about NM that deeply disturbs you and the 60 million Thais you apparently feel entitled to speak for.As you imply, there is a definite theme on NM on questioning the greed, incompetence and selfishness of a self serving elite.What you seem to be repeating is that weary old canard that foreigners however knowledgeable and perceptive cannot possibly understand the sensitivities of Thailand.You also talk about the blunt manner in which opinions are articulated to the point that, if more widely circulated, would anger all Thais.I don't really understand what you are getting at but my friend, since you so kindly addressed me in that manner, I suggest you get out more.You'd be surprised how many millions of Thais don't believe fairy stories any more.

[rixalex]

Perhaps this kind of language passes for normal in some circles

It does. Internet forums is one such circle. You hadn't noticed?

but it would be very unusual at a reputable university

Which would be revelant, were this discussion actually being held at a university. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not.

[rixalex]

I have never questioned anybody's intelligence

You do it with pretty much every word you utter. Perhaps it's just a reflex that after years of condescension you have become unaware of.

[jayboy]

Perhaps this kind of language passes for normal in some circles

It does. Internet forums is one such circle. You hadn't noticed?

but it would be very unusual at a reputable university

Which would be revelant, were this discussion actually being held at a university. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not.

Fair point but even on an internet forum language like:

"critisism of a site full of wannabe academic blowhards (in my opinion), some who are trying to be controversial for the sake of being contraversial"

gives plenty of information about the source.

[wayfarer108]

And your reasonably accurate opinion is?

That NM has an agenda and lacks balance, which as Samran has commented, is not something you expect of so called "academic" writings.

Precisely.

[rixalex]

he was elected by the people and removed by the military

For the purposes of making simple summations, stating what happened at the very beginning and what happened at the very end of a story, whilst omitting the really big important bit in the middle, sure makes life easy, but the downside is that it doesn't tell the full story.

If Thaksin's time in office was a plane flight with him as the pilot, you are simply stating the details of take off and then skipping straight to the plane crash that occured some five years later, without any mention of what happened during the flight or the events that led to impact. That's important information to be neglecting.

[tomahawk]

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.

[way2muchcoffee]

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.

Edited October 23, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[scorecard]

he was elected by the people and removed by the military

For the purposes of making simple summations, stating what happened at the very beginning and what happened at the very end of a story, whilst omitting the really big important bit in the middle, sure makes life easy, but the downside is that it doesn't tell the full story.

If Thaksin's time in office was a plane flight with him as the pilot, you are simply stating the details of take off and then skipping straight to the plane crash that occured some five years later, without any mention of what happened during the flight or the events that led to impact. That's important information to be neglecting.

You wrote: "...he was elected by the people..."

That statement is not the actual truth. He bought two elections and that's well documented.

Addditionally several elections commissions were convicted of malfeasance.

[Thai at Heart]

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 formally re-elect him.

At the time of his formal 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. About that the time people, especially the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from his 'caretaker' role.

True enough, but the Dems did fail to pitch. Or do we forget that small issue.

[way2muchcoffee]

True enough, but the Dems did fail to pitch. Or do we forget that small issue.

Yes. They did 'fail to pitch'. There is nothing illegal about that at all. They made a principled stand. There was, however, a great deal of illegality involved in Thaksin's solution to this particular problem. His actions over this issue ultimately resulted in the dissolution of his party.

Edited October 23, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

True enough, but the Dems did fail to pitch. Or do we forget that small issue.

Yes they did. Nothing forgotten. There is nothing illegal about that. They made a principled stand. There was, however, a great deal of illegality in Thaksin's solution to this particular problem. His actions ultimately resulted in the dissolution of his party.

True, but it was one of the stranger events in electioneering. Nothing illegal; yes, principled; I don't think so, but then when was Thai politics ever a paragon of principles.

Some believe that Thaksin's faults and the conduct of his party was the only reason for their demise, or some look at it as a long drawn out process with many players to remove a controversial and probably corrupt (as though all others are whiter than white) party from politics and an individual from society.

I tend to think both are valid and this saga will not come to a head until Thaksin deems it worthwhile and safe enough to come back to the country or he is desperate and will go for broke. I don't think he is going to stay away for ever.

[scorecard]

Thaksin removed himself from PM by his shenanigans relating to a dissolved house followed by fraudulent elections. At the time of his formal removal he was a caretaker prime minister. Something like a regent, when a king has yet to be crowned. 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. About that the time people, including the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from his 'caretaker' role.

I see another point: some may agree, others not.

Thai politics has advanced very little since 1932 when absolute monarchy rule finished. In all that time Thai politics has been dominated by corruption and has mostly attracted people who have no interest in building a civil society with equal justice etc etc for all Thais, and mostly attracted people with little capability of actually building a civil society.

Additionally, the numerous constitutions have mostly focused on building a 'framework' which ultimately built opportunity for ill-gotten wealth and far too much power.

Unfortunately the few controls which existed were sidelined and intimidated. Even more unfortunately is that there were zero controls to stop one person gaining far too much power.

Rightly or wrongly the military has often* played the watchdog role and pulled the plug when the greedy leeches got too powerful and too blatant. (* I'm not saying that the military are perfect and let's not forget what happened with the suchinda group).

Somehow, I wonder whether the 2006 coup in fact (in the very long term) did Thailand a favor.

The 2007 constitution in fact included a number of fairly new or strongly enhanced items to install checks and balances. And it's unfair to say it was written by the military, I personally know one very balanced academic who was actively involved in writing the suggested 2007 constitution and he will tell you very clearly that it was not dictated by the military.

A couple of times I've heard people suggest to him that the 2007 constitution was dictated by the military. His response (in part) is: 'Do you really believe that the military could totally control every person who formed the committee which wrote the constitution'? And from memory this was about 80 people: academics and people from all walks of Thai life. And more to the point, not one of the 'writers' up to today has ever claimed that they were 'forced' to write the suggested constitutiuon in any way or in any specific direction.

I suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with establishing government agencies which investigate corruption, etc. All advanced societies have such bodies and most if not all advanced countries would probably vote for these agencies to be enhanced and certainly not to be cancelled.

If we did not have the 2006 coup then it frightens me where Thailand would be today, probably moving towards a Burma situation with an out of control dictator at the helm who has shown before that he has no hesitation to conduct serious crimes against humanity against his own people. And lets not forget, in T's time in 'power' he listened to nobody and punished anybody who dared to even attempt to question his actions or policies, etc.

Further, I suggest that until we have a constitution which establishes checks and balances which make corruption close to impossible and with very severe penalties, and very severe punishment for vote buying, then the highly capable and sincere Thai people (and there are many) will not even try to enter politics. These are people with values and sincerity, they don't want to joint the 'clubs' which currently exist and which we call political parties.

[way2muchcoffee]

True, but it was one of the stranger events in electioneering. Nothing illegal; yes, principled; I don't think so, but then when was Thai politics ever a paragon of principles.

Some believe that Thaksin's faults and the conduct of his party was the only reason for their demise, or some look at it as a long drawn out process with many players to remove a controversial and probably corrupt (as though all others are whiter than white) party from politics and an individual from society.

I tend to think both are valid and this saga will not come to a head until Thaksin deems it worthwhile and safe enough to come back to the country or he is desperate and will go for broke. I don't think he is going to stay away for ever.

You might be right. I do, however, think that Abhisit is a principled man. I believe he has the intelligence and the ethics to lead Thailand out of its malaise. Unfortunately, I think it is precisely because of his honesty and his principles that he is alienated from others in society, power, and politics. Even in his own party. His decency and his conviction will ultimately be his downfall.

Edited October 23, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksin removed himself from PM by his shenanigans relating to a dissolved house followed by fraudulent elections. At the time of his formal removal he was a caretaker prime minister. Something like a regent, when a king has yet to be crowned. 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. About that the time people, including the military, got fed up with his grotesque raping and pillaging of the country's wealth. So, yes, he was removed from his 'caretaker' role.

I see another point: some may agree, others not.

Thai politics has advanced very little since 1932 when absolute monarchy rule finished. In all that time Thai politics has been dominated by corruption and has mostly attracted people who have no interest in building a civil society with equal justice etc etc for all Thais, and mostly attracted people with little capability of actually building a civil society.

Additionally, the numerous constitutions have mostly focused on building a 'framework' which ultimately built opportunity for ill-gotten wealth and far too much power.

Unfortunately the few controls which existed were sidelined and intimidated. Even more unfortunately is that there were zero controls to stop one person gaining far too much power.

Rightly or wrongly the military has often* played the watchdog role and pulled the plug when the greedy leeches got too powerful and too blatant. (* I'm not saying that the military are perfect and let's not forget what happened with the suchinda group).

Somehow, I wonder whether the 2006 coup in fact (in the very long term) did Thailand a favor.

The 2007 constitution in fact included a number of fairly new or strongly enhanced items to install checks and balances. And it's unfair to say it was written by the military, I personally know one very balanced academic who was actively involved in writing the suggested 2007 constitution and he will tell you very clearly that it was not dictated by the military.

A couple of times I've heard people suggest to him that the 2007 constitution was dictated by the military. His response (in part) is: 'Do you really believe that the military could totally control every person who formed the committee which wrote the constitution'? And from memory this was about 80 people: academics and people from all walks of Thai life. And more to the point, not one of the 'writers' up to today has ever claimed that they were 'forced' to write the suggested constitutiuon in any way or in any specific direction.

I suggest there is absolutely nothing wrong with establishing government agencies which investigate corruption, etc. All advanced societies have such bodies and most if not all advanced countries would probably vote for these agencies to be enhanced and certainly not to be cancelled.

If we did not have the 2006 coup then it frightens me where Thailand would be today, probably moving towards a Burma situation with an out of control dictator at the helm who has shown before that he has no hesitation to conduct serious crimes against humanity against his own people. And lets not forget, in T's time in 'power' he listened to nobody and punished anybody who dared to even attempt to question his actions or policies, etc.

Further, I suggest that until we have a constitution which establishes checks and balances which make corruption close to impossible and with very severe penalties, and very severe punishment for vote buying, then the highly capable and sincere Thai people (and there are many) will not even try to enter politics. These are people with values and sincerity, they don't want to joint the 'clubs' which currently exist and which we call political parties.

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.

I remember the first night of the coup very clearly and sat around wondering if these guys would actually give up power..... Next stop Burma although with the added bonus of electricity.

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