Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[rixalex]

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.

Nothing was spun and nothing was ranted. It seems to me that your objection of my comment was purely on the basis of it being anti-Thaksin. Sorry about that. It happens i'm also anti a lot of other things, political groups and people of the establishment in Thailand, and i'm sure we share some of those dislikes, i just don't feel i'm obligated to mention that every time i comment about Thaksin. You can feel free to of course.

Tomahawk started his post with what i considered to be a glaringly false premise that made it difficult to consider the rest of his comments. Perhaps if he (or you, as this is obviously something you feel strongly about) addressed it, it might make it easier to consider the rest of his post.

In case you need reminding, the point was that Thaksin could never have been tried and found guilty whilst he was in power. One only need look at the assets concealment case for proof of that; and that took place early on in his tenure, before he'd really had a chance to fully infiltrate and interfere.

[jasreeve17]

I'll repeat my original thought: this point was yours, not Tomahawks - it's the point you spun his comment into.

I'll await his reply with interest to see if this was indeed his point, or just your spin of it...

[rixalex]

I'll repeat my original thought: this point was yours, not Tomahawks

This was what he wrote. This was his comment. This was one of the points he made.

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

I simply responded to that.

If it was part of a larger point he was making then fine, but that doesn't make that point in isolation some how off bounds from being discussed, and it doesn't mean anything was being taken out of context or spun by discussing that single statement.

[tomahawk]

Perhaps I do not explain myself well. I am not or claim to be a political expert. But I have spent most of my life around Asian people, not only from Thailand, and my main point is that Thaksin is a product of Asian culture as are all other political figures here, and if you look at it from an Asian perspective he was in many ways good for this country. But if he committed a crime, and an opposition group which was sincerely trying to reform the political system of this country took him to trial and he was convicted, then okay that is democracy. But that is not what happened. The army waits until he is out of the country and just takes over. This coup did nothing but make Thailand appear to be a banana republic in the eyes of the world, and in that way hurt the country's image in the same way as airport takeover. And did enerything improve here after this coup? I don't think so. I have had regular Thai people say they felt safer on the streets when Thaksin was in power, and other people who say they lived in poverty before Thaksin and the country was primitive. All the various groups and figures who have been in some sort of power since Thaksin left have not inspired confidence in the poor and working people of Thailand. It seems to be many, but not all, of the people on this forum also believe the Thai people are too stupid to know what is good for them. In Thailand, we must accept the dangerous roadways, pollution and other cultural differences from whatever country we came from. We should also accept that this is their political system and people like Thaksin are and probably always will be part of it. I know this is not popular to say, but Thaksin was far from the worst thing that could happen here. Does anyone really want to live in a country run by the army?

[Insight]

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...

... or have had the volume of their voices repeatedly reduced through erosion of checks and balances and ongoing press intimidation. Do you need reminding (again) of how popular the coup was when it first occurred?

The attempts to demonize Prem have the hallmarks of a desperate last straw. I'm satisfied you haven't attempted to refute my point on how unpopular it's proving to be.

[steven2]

In hindsight, the coup was the huge mistake escalating the political crisis. prem, as the architect of the coup, basically screwed country in one of the biggest stuff ups in the history of thailand.

[Richard W]

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.

No, we don't know for sure who comes next. While there's a favourite, two other adults and a child are also possibles.

[rixalex]

But I have spent most of my life around Asian people

With respect, i don't think that taking on the views of a handful of Asian people is quite the same as actually living and working in an area, speaking the language and seeing things for your own eyes.

For the duration of Thaksin's time in office, were you living here? Your comments suggest otherwise. Like the one below:

But if he committed a crime, and an opposition group which was sincerely trying to reform the political system of this country took him to trial and he was convicted, then okay that is democracy.

The sort of process that you describe and that in an ideal world we would have all loved to have seen abided by, just was not possible whilst Thaksin was in power. How many times does that need to be repeated? Thaksin had made himself untouchable. Anyone who merely thought bad things about him had million baht law-suits slapped on them.

This coup did nothing but make Thailand appear to be a banana republic in the eyes of the world, and in that way hurt the country's image in the same way as airport takeover.

I agree. I'd also throw in there black Songran and the ASEAN summit, which i'm surprised you have left out. Or maybe i'm not.

And did enerything improve here after this coup? I don't think so. I have had regular Thai people say they felt safer on the streets when Thaksin was in power, and other people who say they lived in poverty before Thaksin and the country was primitive.

You seem to be talking about the opinion of some Thais you have met, rather than your own experience, so i'm not sure why you use "I" and not "They". Or is just hearing the opinion of a few citizens enough for you to form an opinion about an entire country?

[tomahawk]

My point is many people, apparently including you, have no regard for the citizens at all. And in fact I was living here during the coup. Then you bring in the ASEAN thing and songkran which is irrelevant to the whole point of what i said which was not the red vs. yellow thing which most people are sick to death of hearing about. My point for once again is that Thaksin was not that bad for Thailand, and that the coup was a bad idea and not the right way of doing things. I have noticed that there are people who have lived here a long time who still have no clue as to the reality of where they are. If you surround yourself with only other farangs and the Bangkok Post, you may as well be in London or New York. Probably you would like Obama to be next PM but it is not happening.

[hammered]

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 it works on a couple of levels:

1. Mr. Thaksin doesnt want a person he thinks removed him from power carrying out a respected duty that would be the culmination of his life. This is a face thing. You screwed my dream so I will screw yours.

2. Your speculation on the future may be true. However, if one side sees it this way the last thing they would want would be a person around who could affect this outcome. Paranoia maybe and we are into mass specualtion but those who want to control the country of all sides are trying to deal in certainties or as near as they can get and that is a difficulty for all of them. If things remain technically unclear, and at the monent they do, then positions are a bit more than ceremonial.

[Insight]

My point is many people, apparently including you, have no regard for the citizens at all. And in fact I was living here during the coup.

- Many of us have family here.

- Then you most likely would of seen the streets of Bangkok and how many people disagreed with your next sentence (highlighted in bold):

Then you bring in the ASEAN thing and songkran which is irrelevant to the whole point of what i said which was not the red vs. yellow thing which most people are sick to death of hearing about. My point for once again is that Thaksin was not that bad for Thailand, and that the coup was a bad idea and not the right way of doing things.

In my circles, this man is now more unpopular than ever. I didn't think it was possible for his popularity to sink further post-2006, but he's broke the mould on this one.

I have noticed that there are people who have lived here a long time who still have no clue as to the reality of where they are. If you surround yourself with only other farangs and the Bangkok Post, you may as well be in London or New York. Probably you would like Obama to be next PM but it is not happening.

Reading BKK Post is a bit of a last resort nowadays given the blatant abuse of the feedback sections. You only need to look at a few utterly impossible poll results to see how much the staff there can be bothered keeping on top of it. I'll consult with my neighbours and colleagues first, thanks.

[tomahawk]

I agree you have a point. I admit to not having talked to people in Bangkok. I was not in Bangkok at time of coup, and in fact rarely go there except to the airport. At least when it is not being occupied. I am talking about the opinions of people I know in northern, central and northeastern Thailand. It is no secret that there is disagreement between people in these areas. it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

[rixalex]

My point is many people, apparently including you, have no regard for the citizens at all.

I have complete regard for them. Just because you've met a few Thais doesn't mean you speak for each and every one of them, or that they all agree with you. Many of them don't i'm happy to report. Many of them don't simply resign themselves to that fact that just because corruption is widespread, that means they have to accept a man like Thaksin.

And in fact I was living here during the coup.

That wasn't my question. My question was, were you living here for the duration of Thaksin's time in office?

Then you bring in the ASEAN thing and songkran which is irrelevant to the whole point of what i said which was not the red vs. yellow thing which most people are sick to death of hearing about.

You brought up the airport occupation. This was a "yellow thing", as you call it.

[sbk]

I agree you have a point. I admit to not having talked to people in Bangkok. I was not in Bangkok at time of coup, and in fact rarely go there except to the airport. At least when it is not being occupied. I am talking about the opinions of people I know in northern, central and northeastern Thailand. It is no secret that there is disagreement between people in these areas. it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Unless you live in the South, which was not only neglected (google thaksin and the Hat Yai floods) but the problems with the Muslims were exacerbated by his heavy hand.

Thaksin did say that those who voted for him would get helped first and went on to prove it by his attitude towards the South. That, to me, does not speak of doing good for the entire country at all much less of good governance at all.

[rixalex]

it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Of course the families of those thousands who were killed because of Thaksin's war on drugs might not agree with that, but i guess if Thaksin tarmaced a few local roads and gave us mobile phones we can forgive him of that, eh?

[tomahawk]

Once again, I believe Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand. I am not claiming he did nothing wrong, and I agree from what I have read he did not do so much for the south, although i believe southern people also benefited from medical programs and other agricultural assistance programs. And as for the airport I only mentioned it to say the coup damaged Thailand's image as much as the airport seizure. Perhaps I was trying to be too diplomatic. The real point is I think the whole notion that Thaksin was removed from power by a punch of patriotic, public-spirited generals and elites is crap. There are rich people who do not like the idea of some guy who is not one of their clique getting a lot of money for himself that they want for themselves. Who really believes there is now a totally honest and self-less group in yellow shirts whose only motive in removing Thaksin was the good of the country. If these people are so concerned about the country, they would not have done it so much damage. At least Thaksin did accomplish something for the average working people and poor people of Thailand. What has been done since he left, and what is being done now except endless debates about paperwork?

[Thai at Heart]

Once again, I believe Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand. I am not claiming he did nothing wrong, and I agree from what I have read he did not do so much for the south, although i believe southern people also benefited from medical programs and other agricultural assistance programs. And as for the airport I only mentioned it to say the coup damaged Thailand's image as much as the airport seizure. Perhaps I was trying to be too diplomatic. The real point is I think the whole notion that Thaksin was removed from power by a punch of patriotic, public-spirited generals and elites is crap. There are rich people who do not like the idea of some guy who is not one of their clique getting a lot of money for himself that they want for themselves. Who really believes there is now a totally honest and self-less group in yellow shirts whose only motive in removing Thaksin was the good of the country. If these people are so concerned about the country, they would not have done it so much damage. At least Thaksin did accomplish something for the average working people and poor people of Thailand. What has been done since he left, and what is being done now except endless debates about paperwork?

I guess it depends if you believe there was even a smidgen of self serving motivation on the part of several groups for removing Thaksin. Some see it this way, others apparently don't.

I for one believe that whilst there was some justification for getting rid of him, I don't believe that the motivation from all those involved was whiter than white either.

[jayboy]

it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Of course the families of those thousands who were killed because of Thaksin's war on drugs might not agree with that, but i guess if Thaksin tarmaced a few local roads and gave us mobile phones we can forgive him of that, eh?

I think it's important to stress the outrage felt locally - such as it was - was not the war on drugs itself, which had the support of the vast majority of Thais from the highest to the lowest (drug criminals apart of course) - but the extra judicial killings of innocents.I don't think there's much outrage even now at the extra judicial killings per se, and most Thais would probably say most of those who died deserved their fate.Of course both Thais and foreigners who hate Thaksin saw it quite rightly as the most damning crime to pursue him with, but the anti-Thaksin Thais who understand these things better dropped the matter quite quickly given the powerful supporters of the campaign.No serious attempt has ever been made to pursue Thaksin on this matter.A few foreigners like yourself still witter on about Thaksin's war on drugs but politically it's dead.Pity really because my sympathies as a Western liberal are similar to yours.

[way2muchcoffee]

Obviously there was self-serving motivation amongst most of the decision-makers responsible for the overthrow of the Thaksin regime. Most of the footsoldiers, however, were motivated by their beliefs, and by the pu yais they trust to make decisions for them.

This is not unlike the redshirt movement. Many of the footsoldiers of the redshirts are motivated by the inequities in Thai society and their desire for a better deal, for all Thais. Many of these footsoldiers are also motivated by the pu yais they trust to make decisions for them. Most of their leadership, however, seems to be motivated by money and power.

It is, as it always has been.

Edited October 25, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

I think it's important to stress the outrage felt locally - such as it was - was not the war on drugs itself, which had the support of the vast majority of Thais from the highest to the lowest (drug criminals apart of course) - but the extra judicial killings of innocents.I don't think there's much outrage even now at the extra judicial killings per se, and most Thais would probably say most of those who died deserved their fate.Of course both Thais and foreigners who hate Thaksin saw it quite rightly as the most damning crime to pursue him with, but the anti-Thaksin Thais who understand these things better dropped the matter quite quickly given the powerful supporters of the campaign.No serious attempt has ever been made to pursue Thaksin on this matter.A few foreigners like yourself still witter on about Thaksin's war on drugs but politically it's dead.Pity really because my sympathies as a Western liberal are similar to yours.

Funnily enough i pretty much agree with all of that.

For me though it makes no difference if the entire population of the globe voiced their support for killing people without trial. It's something i will never agree with and will continue to "witter on about", regardless of the good it does.

[jayboy]

I think it's important to stress the outrage felt locally - such as it was - was not the war on drugs itself, which had the support of the vast majority of Thais from the highest to the lowest (drug criminals apart of course) - but the extra judicial killings of innocents.I don't think there's much outrage even now at the extra judicial killings per se, and most Thais would probably say most of those who died deserved their fate.Of course both Thais and foreigners who hate Thaksin saw it quite rightly as the most damning crime to pursue him with, but the anti-Thaksin Thais who understand these things better dropped the matter quite quickly given the powerful supporters of the campaign.No serious attempt has ever been made to pursue Thaksin on this matter.A few foreigners like yourself still witter on about Thaksin's war on drugs but politically it's dead.Pity really because my sympathies as a Western liberal are similar to yours.

Funnily enough i pretty much agree with all of that.

For me though it makes no difference if the entire population of the globe voiced their support for killing people without trial. It's something i will never agree with and will continue to "witter on about", regardless of the good it does.

I agree and and apologise for using the word "witter"".It was inappropriate.

[ballpoint]

... There are rich people who do not like the idea of some guy who is not one of their clique getting a lot of money for himself that they want for themselves. ...

Here your argument falls down, not that the rest of it is structurally very sound as well. All this talk about the "elite" and the "rich", who don't like to see someone "getting a lot of money for himself". All very well if we're talking about some impoverished farmers son who has started a hugely popular grassroots political party that threatens the established order in the country, but we're not. We're talking about a man who married into one of the established elite families, who used that influence to become the richest man in the country, and who used those riches to buy his way to the PM's office, by buying up popular politicians and whole political parties. Once established as PM he used his position to run the country as a company, keeping some shareholders happy, but ultimately for the consolidation of more money and power for himself. None of the "elite" gave a fig about the money, the trough was big enough for all. What worried them, just as it should have worried every right thinking Thai, was his concerted efforts to acquire more and more power, through police and army shuffles, and his much advertised "CEO" style prime ministership, which effectively meant he was single handedly making major decisions without the balances and checks of a true democracy. In truth, the very "qualities" that make someone such a successful businessman, good at amassing money and power for themselves, by definition make them very poor leaders of countries. Name me one billionaire businessman who has successfully led his country to the aclaim of all? Name me a dozen billionaire businessmen who are now in jail / trouble for white collar crimes? I suspect the second question is easier to answer than the first, it's in the nature of the beast to shortcut laws and trample a few common folk for its own betterment. If you really think Thaksin achieved his wealth and perceived standing in the community without the support of the established order then you are very much mistaken.

[Rumfoord]

I agree you have a point. I admit to not having talked to people in Bangkok. I was not in Bangkok at time of coup, and in fact rarely go there except to the airport. At least when it is not being occupied. I am talking about the opinions of people I know in northern, central and northeastern Thailand. It is no secret that there is disagreement between people in these areas. it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Unless you live in the South, which was not only neglected (google thaksin and the Hat Yai floods) but the problems with the Muslims were exacerbated by his heavy hand.

Thaksin did say that those who voted for him would get helped first and went on to prove it by his attitude towards the South. That, to me, does not speak of doing good for the entire country at all much less of good governance at all.

when did Thaksin said that: 'that those who voted for him would get helped first'?

[Valentine]

I agree you have a point. I admit to not having talked to people in Bangkok. I was not in Bangkok at time of coup, and in fact rarely go there except to the airport. At least when it is not being occupied. I am talking about the opinions of people I know in northern, central and northeastern Thailand. It is no secret that there is disagreement between people in these areas. it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

Unless you live in the South, which was not only neglected (google thaksin and the Hat Yai floods) but the problems with the Muslims were exacerbated by his heavy hand.

Thaksin did say that those who voted for him would get helped first and went on to prove it by his attitude towards the South. That, to me, does not speak of doing good for the entire country at all much less of good governance at all.

when did Thaksin said that: 'that those who voted for him would get helped first'?

I don't think those were the exact words but he made it quite clear that development funds would only go to those constituencies which supported him.

[Publicus]

it is my opinion, based on talking to Thai people and also what I have read, even in the obviously biased Bangkok Post, that Thaksin did a lot of good for Thailand.

This is a vacuuous argument. Anyone trying to make this neutered argument is simply immitating a dog chasing its own tail.

Juan Peron did a number of good things for Argentina, as did Eva Peron. However, they were populist military fascists who enriched themselves to the hilt.

Hitler did good things for Germany by, for instance, giving the German people the Volkswagen. Nixon did some good for the United States but had to resign before the Congress could constitutionally remove him from office. Franco did a number of good things for Spain - he kept Spain out of WWII for instance - but killed an untold number of Spaniards to prevent democracy and freedom breaking out. Kurt Waldheim did much good for humanity as UN Secretary General until it was discovered he was a Nazi operative during WWII.

Any leader can be said to have done a number of good things for the country or its people, or for an expolited/neglected group of a country's people. The test is whether the leader's record is one of honor, duty, fidelity and broad acceptance by respected others based on the norms and range of accepted and acceptable behaviours.

Thaksin did some good for Thailand. There, I said it!

Those who want to argue that Thaksin is deserving because he did good things for Thailand, also try to say as well that that alone, that per se, does not necessarily justify his time in government, nor does it particularly justify his longed for but impossible return.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Publicus

[walkup]

Notwithstanding Tomahawk's whitewashing, Thaksin has only one strategy in mind and that is to fill his family's boots and use the state to do so. Poor attempts by Tomahawk to shroud this in bad sociological cultural referencing is weak at best.

[rixalex]

I agree and and apologise for using the word "witter"".It was inappropriate.

I'm glad we agree for once and thank you for the apology, unnecessary though it was.

[Rumfoord]

Unless you live in the South, which was not only neglected (google thaksin and the Hat Yai floods) but the problems with the Muslims were exacerbated by his heavy hand.

Thaksin did say that those who voted for him would get helped first and went on to prove it by his attitude towards the South. That, to me, does not speak of doing good for the entire country at all much less of good governance at all.

when did Thaksin said that: 'that those who voted for him would get helped first'?

I don't think those were the exact words but he made it quite clear that development funds would only go to those constituencies which supported him.

so is that merely an interpretation. a perception and sentiment coming from somebody who don't like Thaksin, right?

[Thai at Heart]

Unless you live in the South, which was not only neglected (google thaksin and the Hat Yai floods) but the problems with the Muslims were exacerbated by his heavy hand.

Thaksin did say that those who voted for him would get helped first and went on to prove it by his attitude towards the South. That, to me, does not speak of doing good for the entire country at all much less of good governance at all.

when did Thaksin said that: 'that those who voted for him would get helped first'?

I don't think those were the exact words but he made it quite clear that development funds would only go to those constituencies which supported him.

so is that merely an interpretation. a perception and sentiment coming from somebody who don't like Thaksin, right?

I have tried to find the exact quote to no avail for several years. Anyone got it?

I remember it caused a huge stink when he was supposed to have said it. Can't find it though.

[Maestro]

Several off-topic and nonsensical posts have been deleted.

--

Maestro