Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[rixalex]

Now the plane has landed and there is dancing.

Are metaphors and analogies such a foreign concept where you come from you have repeatedly titter at them?

[rixalex]

There was no trial for Thaksin because there could be no fair trials when Thaksin was PM, according to Rix, but now he is gone everything is great and so all the trials are fair. What makes anyone think that if when Thaksin was in power he could make the trial go however he wanted, but in the new order here the government cannot do the same. No matter who is in charge, this is still Thailand.

Somewhere in that lot i think finally i read an acceptance that Thaksin couldn't have been tried whilst he was in power.

Perhaps then now is the time to admit that your oft-repeated statement:

I think there should have been a trial before he was removed from office.

was a pointless thing to say as it never could have happened.

Edited October 26, 2009 by rixalex

[sbk]

Rude insulting remarks and their responses have been deleted.

The next inflammatory or insulting post WILL result in immediate suspension. I really hope that I am clear enough on this matter. If you cannot discuss without resorting to abuse, then you won't be posting at all.

[animatic]

Steve, excellent as usual!

Let's do lunch.

Having witnessed the TRT " budget queue" in action,

and nearly been drowned in avoidable flooding caused by

lack of finances for public services, I soon changed my original

like of Thaksin, to distrust. He never regained any trust from me.

From there has the 2006 election debacle played out, and he showed

clear signs of mental instability under pressure, I took a line from

Lewis Carol " Never more, never more, said the raven."

The quote is from Edgar Alan Poe I think.

tis true tis true.

I beg fatigue, from work related causes.

Still it's a great quote.

And Poe and Carol are both dead and they don't care.

[brahmburgers]

There was no trial for Thaksin because there could be no fair trials when Thaksin was PM, according to Rix, but now he is gone everything is great and so all the trials are fair.

Who said 'everything is great and all trials are fair'? That's a childish retort. It's not a black and white situation as might be viewed by an 9 year old. When Thaksin was in power, any litigation against him would be quixotic. Indeed, the litigation involving him were mostly suits that he instigated - repeatedly slapping 'anti-defamation' suits - such as the big money lawsuit against a young woman who had the audacity to write a non-flattering article about him.

What makes anyone think that if when Thaksin was in power he could make the trial go however he wanted, but in the new order here the government cannot do the same. No matter who is in charge, this is still Thailand.

You're first sentence asks two questions, but neglects to add a question mark.

In point of fact, Thaksin could make trials go his way. He proved it right from the get-go of his PM stint when the Supremes voted to allow him to hide his assets with his butler and chauffeur, even though the top judges could see the overwhelming proof that this was illegal.

Skewed legal judgments happened before T's time at the helm, and they will continue long after. So what's you're point? 'Everyone else is stealing hubcaps from cars, so if my buddy Thaksin robs the hubcap factory, then it's ok.' (?)

[tomahawk]

Metaphors are analogies are not foreign concept where I am from, but neither is a sense of humor. Anyway, analogies and metaphors should have something to do with the subject. I do not know that Thaksin could necessarily make trial go his way. Perhaps so. Perhaps the government could still make trials go their way. perhaps not. I think the problem with your argument is that when it suits you, you talk as if this were an ideal world and somehow now that Thaksin is gone there is no more corruption. This seems to me more of the thinking of a 9 year old. I never said Thaksin never did anything corrupt. I only know what I read, same as everybody else. What I am saying is that i think the country was better off with Thaksin inpower than since. That is my point. Not that he is innocent or never did anything wrong. Is their any politician who is lily white? Here or anywhere else? I doubt it. As for stealing the hubcaps(here we go again), if you have one guy in charge stealing hubcpas or another guy in charge stealing hubcaps, then keep the hubcap stealer who is doing the best job. Even 9 year oldfs can understand this. Some people are so focused on hating Thaksin, they are blind to everything else. Nothing is more dangerous than the army in a country that is not at war. Also sorry I forgot question mark.

[way2muchcoffee]

What I am saying is that i think the country was better off with Thaksin inpower than since. That is my point.

Can you be detailed and specific please? If this is your point, please tell us why you think this is true.

Perhaps if we debate real issues, interpretations, beliefs, and ideas we might actually learn from one another.

[tomahawk]

Yes that is a good point. What I am talking abuut are things like the thirty baht health care for poor people. Loans for farmers. Cell phones and internet. And while I am not in favor of extra-judicial killing, I do believe the country was safer and drugs were less readily available than today. As I said before, I am not a political expert. I only know these things from talking to Thai people. I think what I really object to has nothing to do with Thaksin, it is the idea of the elite ruling class or whatever you want to call them deciding they are the only ones capable of deciding who runs the country. Namely them. They want to take away the peoples' right to choose their own leaders. And the idea that this group is somehow less corrupt than Thaksin I also think is ridiculous.

[rixalex]

I think the problem with your argument is that when it suits you, you talk as if this were an ideal world and somehow now that Thaksin is gone there is no more corruption.

When have i said that? When has anyone on this thread said that?

Whether or not corruption exists now (i believe it does), or whether or not the judicial process is completely fair now (i believe it's not), has nothing to do with what i have been repetitively taking issue with you for the last 4 or 5 pages, and what you are obviously incapable of getting your head around.

[samran]

Yes that is a good point. What I am talking abuut are things like the thirty baht health care for poor people. Loans for farmers. Cell phones and internet. And while I am not in favor of extra-judicial killing, I do believe the country was safer and drugs were less readily available than today. As I said before, I am not a political expert. I only know these things from talking to Thai people. I think what I really object to has nothing to do with Thaksin, it is the idea of the elite ruling class or whatever you want to call them deciding they are the only ones capable of deciding who runs the country. Namely them. They want to take away the peoples' right to choose their own leaders. And the idea that this group is somehow less corrupt than Thaksin I also think is ridiculous.

Thirty baht health was around before Dr T's time, it was simply re-branded under his administration. Hospitals were bought by nominees of Thaksin, as a result, government funds were flowing into his hands.

Loans for farmers...need to look at studies again, but seem to recall that access to easy credit has led to higher levels of indebteness amongst these communities resulting in disposession of land that they once owned. One study I did myself definetly suggested that.

Cell phones and internet: How? It is a global phenomenon. Thailand, if anything, is behind on this front.

Problem is talking to 'the people' you'll only get one side of the story. Nothing wrong with that but as to who really benefited from all of these schemes...that is the question that is regularly asked.

Like I love saying to the taxi drivers who like to bang on about Dear Leader. I always ask them if he was so good why didn't he raise meter fares once in his time as PM. Gets them thinking and shuts them up.

[Publicus]

I think the problem with your argument is that when it suits you, you talk as if this were an ideal world and somehow now that Thaksin is gone there is no more corruption.

When have i said that? When has anyone on this thread said that?

Whether or not corruption exists now (i believe it does), or whether or not the judicial process is completely fair now (i believe it's not), has nothing to do with what i have been repetitively taking issue with you for the last 4 or 5 pages, and what you are obviously incapable of getting your head around.

As everyone can see, yours is a thankless task. And apparently intermnible.

[rixalex]

What I am talking abuut are things like the thirty baht health care for poor people. Loans for farmers. Cell phones and internet. And while I am not in favor of extra-judicial killing, I do believe the country was safer and drugs were less readily available than today.

I agree that Thaksin did accomplish some good things during his time in office. As it happens though, i think the examples you have chosen are some of his weaker and more suspect achievements. Putting farmers in debt for one might have been good short-term, long term, perhaps not. As for cell phones and the internet, i don't really think we can credit Thaksin for that. The extra-judicial killings you seem to agree was a bad thing, so regardless of the outcome, should never have happened.

A better example of a good thing that Thaksin did was initiating populist policies, which woke politicians up to the idea of actually doing something of benefit to their constituents. The trick now is to implement populist policies that are sustainable and long term - something that Thaksin never seemed to worry about.

Perhaps the next generation of politicians might improve in this area, although let's not hold our breaths!

Anyway, with regard to the good that Thaksin did, Publicus summed it up best:

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.

[TAWP]

thirty baht health care for poor people.

Underfounded and poorly implemented, a stolen idea that wasn't properly executed since they had no clue as to how to properly do it while maintaining quality healthcare and not having the doctors flee to private practises.

And let me not start with the care given under this scheme by many government hospitals, including giving aspirin (headache pills) for insecticide poisoning instead of performing a proper test and diagnose the real cause of the illment. His daughter (friend of my wife) found him on the floor of his house and ended up taking him to a private hospital. (He had been eating fruits growing wildly that was heavily sprayed with insecticides since the field wasn't under direct growth of the fruits at the time...)

Loans for farmers.

Loans without any care as to how to repay them which lead people to buy things not needed as those below:

Cell phones and internet.

How did Thaksin help with these? Besides giving loans to farmers that might have been mis-spent on luxery items instead of upgrading their tools etc.

A cell-phone so you can call your friends and talk about the latest soap will not make your harvest bigger...or enable you to even pay back that loan in itself.

[animatic]

30 baht health care bankrupted most of the hospitals and the best docs split for private hospitals.

The health care system is still recovring from that Thaksin rejiggered implementation of an existing

but limited plan. The bottom line was the money from other sources to suplliment the reduced fee

structure NEVER materialized and service well only 30 baht became close to pathetic.

[mca]

In point of fact, Thaksin could make trials go his way. He proved it right from the get-go of his PM stint when the Supremes voted to allow him to hide his assets with his butler and chauffeur, even though the top judges could see the overwhelming proof that this was illegal.

Yeah that bloody Diana Ross has a lot to answer for.

[steveromagnino]

30 baht health care bankrupted most of the hospitals and the best docs split for private hospitals.

The health care system is still recovring from that Thaksin rejiggered implementation of an existing

but limited plan. The bottom line was the money from other sources to suplliment the reduced fee

structure NEVER materialized and service well only 30 baht became close to pathetic.

actually, if you look back there were 12 (I think) Ua Arthorn projects ranging from free cows, to cheap computers, to cheap rubber trees, to housing to even proposals for cheap aircon etc.

Most did not get off the ground or had to be scaled back.

Of the major TRT initiatives, you cannot take it away from TRT, they promised 3 things - 30b healthcare (replacing the democrat lead healthcare scheme which was a graduated payment system but not (as always) well explained); debt forgiveness for farmers (basic standard vote buy) and TAMC - the asset management program to recover the NPL situation and the reason why they ALSO swept Bangkok in the first election.

They did all 3. Within the first 100 days or so in office.

Is it any wonder that this could have been the beginning of a dynasty?

So simple - promise 3 simple things that people want (known through a good market research program). Deliver them. Promote yourself. It shows the extremely sad state of Thai politics that while others had done plenty for the poor (Pramote for instance) it went mostly unmarketed so that ground to claim to be the saviour of the poor had space to grow. No one had previously bothered to look at a mature democracy to see the role of marketing and delivering the promise that is winning elections 101. And I still suspect he is the only one to 'get it' since then PPP, Dems, Puea Thai, BJP - they are hopeless the lot of them.

Of course, you could argue that 30b healthcare was indeed almost farcical in how it was implemented; the RFP for the IT system for administering it was hilarious in that they wanted a system but did not yet at that point know quite what and how it was supposed to work; simultaneously the exodus of good doctors to the private sector just coincidentally happened to be right at the time that TRT and Thaksin himself had bought up Phayathai and bunch of other hospitals...then used govt money to launch the medical hub scheme - so really it could be cynically viewed as profiteering. There are also the ongoing rumours that senior TRT officials namely Khunying Sor had a family distributing medicine that was a major supplier to the 30b program as only certain medicines were allowed and so there was rampant profiteering in the supply of drugs in this typically TRT monopoly situation.

Debt forgiveness, village fund, etc etc - there is a lot of evidence on both sides to suggest it has not actually helped; microcredit (which was the original aim of the village fund) is a noble one and the one really worthwhile thing as an idea; however it was poorly implemented so didn't really work, at least not that I've seen in any study; as a number of red shirt academics have told me, great idea, a lot harder to do well than a simple announcement and launch though; microcredit takes time and effort to make it work. This is the one that I would have hoped that other politicians would tweak and make work, because access to credit is a key component of long term sustainable development.

TAMC - just a wonderful opportunity to grab up cheap assets at bargain prices; only a few got to the front of the queue though. Land in Ratchada type locations a similar situation. Back then (but not any more) many of the big business elite families - if ever you want to point a finger at the families who run and select governments people like the CP, Channel 3, Thaisummit, Noble, Land and House etc families are the ones to look at - were all pro TRT so tended to work on collusion as required - the Ratchada land bid being a prime example.

Anyhow, first 2 years, pretty decent; delivered 150% returns to his own family I recall and the rest of the big TRT families as well mostly in the sharemarket in 2003 which was the big year for L&H etc. Some might say it was pent up demand but even so.....he made plenty of people rich.

No wonder he swept the next election.

However, late 2004 onwards.... things started to turn, a few things for the worse, then within a year is was a total mess

- corruption mega projects

- hopeless old school cabinet

- diesel subsidy mess

- lying then getting caught with chicken flu

- badly performing stockmarket

- local economy stuttering, so no money to fund the megaprojects

- beginning of fiddling everything to punish non TRT areas - south, BKK with the BTS attempted privatisation to buy up the BTS & MRT themselves

- no further new policies

- war on drugs and southern Thailand aftermath

- the fallout of some of the dodgy TRT funding - Picnic, etc

- the fall of Thailand's reputation abroad with damning reports on media freedom, human rights abuse

- widespread corruption charges relating to using govt time and money for personal gain (exim bank in Burma, india sattellite deal, Australian FTA, etc)

- growing belief that some of this schemes were simply odd or dodgy or both (seriously, buying liverpool using tax payer money?)

- shifting PTT and state owned enterprises into TRT personal hands - the 30 second sell out of PTT at what, 35b worth over 100b within a few months was classic Thaksin

I consider it was basically once he had got off breaching the constitution at the trial he allegedly fiddled, he basically realised now he could do what he wanted, and so he did.

It was almost like a different party as all the kit mai tum mai guys like Purachai got pushed aside for the old standards - the same twits who had rooted Thai politics since the early 90s plus the big heavy weight families took over the reigns to feather their own nests. And TRT basically gained control of much of the armed forces, the police and media as well as the senate. So to suggest this 'elite system' is the root of all evil is kind of rich, when TRT had no problem at all using the exact same system to destroy the concept of the constitution in 1997.

And now people start talking about TRT like it was the first 2 years all over again. Let's face it, 2 half decent years with a lot of new ideas tried (some working, some not so much) then the remainder of time in power from about late 2004 just either freebie giveaways with no real benefit; a few half baked corrupt mega projects like the airport and that was about it.

I recall even his own consultants suggesting he hadn't listened to them since 2003.

As for telecommunications; he killed the CDMA network; used policy to basically hamstring the fixed line operators and other mobile operators; prevented the NTC from ever getting started; complained like crazy when TAC became DTAC and started a price war on handsets and minutes; never got mass coverage for broadband or invested in IT infrastructure; started the culture of media censorship and blocking websites.........where exactly in this is a guy who is pro telecommunications? The period 2001-2006 is like the lost 5 years where everyone else in the world went high speed.....and Thailand sat back and let everyone talk on AIS using WAP browsing.

I do have to say though, having spent a little time (not much) with the man himself, I can see exactly why he was able to get that power. He has the Kennedy-like ability to make you want him to like you. I can only feel this is part of the reason that he was able to build his empire.

Well that and starting off with a nice big fortune courtesy of being formerly in the finance ministry and coincidentally being one of the few entreprenuers who had converted his US debt to baht just months prior to the deregulation by Chavalit that caused the Asian Crisis. Great to see that they are once again great pals now. If memory serves correctly, Chavalit and Chalerm granted Thaksin his monopolies for sattellite and mobile telephony and paging service.

Not that they would have tipped him off of course. Guys that honourable don't do stuff like that.

But now he's the saviour of democracy. How lucky are we!!

Edited October 27, 2009 by steveromagnino

[tomahawk]

These are very informative and knowledgeable people on this subject, no doubt. I cannot argue with these statistics and do not follow politics as closely as many people here. But last time I was in bangkok the taxi driver told me has a yaa baa addict before Thaksin and when he was in office could not even get any, and for that he felt grateful. I know other people; quite a few in fact, who have done quite well with loan money and were able to pay it back and now are grateful for better life. I am also regualr working man, now retired, but whether here or in US I and most people I know judge the leaders on how they have made our lives better. Personally I believe most politicians everywhere are out for themselves anyway. I believe whether or not Thaksin could have gotten a fair trial, there should have been a trial or impeachment proceeding, or wait for the next election. Anything would have better for Thailand than the coup and the whole circus that has gone on here since. The occupation of government buildings, the seizure of the airport, the ASEAN convention screwup and all the division of the country, loss of tourism and violence that has occurred since then just was not worth it.

[jayboy]

Of the major TRT initiatives, you cannot take it away from TRT, they promised 3 things - 30b healthcare (replacing the democrat lead healthcare scheme which was a graduated payment system but not (as always) well explained); debt forgiveness for farmers (basic standard vote buy) and TAMC - the asset management program to recover the NPL situation and the reason why they ALSO swept Bangkok in the first election.

They did all 3. Within the first 100 days or so in office.

Is it any wonder that this could have been the beginning of a dynasty?

So simple - promise 3 simple things that people want (known through a good market research program). Deliver them. Promote yourself. It shows the extremely sad state of Thai politics that while others had done plenty for the poor (Pramote for instance) it went mostly unmarketed so that ground to claim to be the saviour of the poor had space to grow. No one had previously bothered to look at a mature democracy to see the role of marketing and delivering the promise that is winning elections 101. And I still suspect he is the only one to 'get it' since then PPP, Dems, Puea Thai, BJP - they are hopeless the lot of them.

However, late 2004 onwards.... things started to turn, a few things for the worse, then within a year is was a total mess

But now he's the saviour of democracy. How lucky are we!!

Very interesting and I think rather accurate post (but was Thaksin ever in the Finance Ministry?) and grounded in personal knowledge which is a refreshing change after all those other "what the taxi driver said" posts.

Kukrit's "tamboon" policy in 1976 was only partially successful and was attacked at the time by some as "pro-communist", rather as "populist" is used as abuse now.He was ahead of his time and in my view a truly great man.

Back to Thaksin, isn't the interesting question the last comment you made.How can such an appalling person (who had no truck for real democracy himself) have ended up perceived as a saviour of democracy?

All this and the rise of Red power is dealt with succinctly and intelligently in the revised version of the Pasuk/Baker "Thaksin" published recently.

Edited October 27, 2009 by jayboy

[steveromagnino]

Very interesting and I think rather accurate post (but was Thaksin ever in the Finance Ministry?) and grounded in personal knowledge which is a refreshing change after all those other "what the taxi driver said" posts.

Yes, my mistake, I should have said formerly well connected in the finance ministry, referring to his good pal Thanong Pidaya who became his finance minister replacing Somkid IIRC as the economy and policies started to struggle a bit from mid 2005 until the coup in 2006.

Thanong is the former exec of TMB, which as most people are aware, was an acquisition target for the Shinwatra family and widely known (TMB) for 'odd' management techniques.

For some reason, mental block; Dr T was deputy PM, not deputy finance minister of course leading up to the coup.

I'll check out the article; haven't seen that yet ;-)

thanks.

[rixalex]

Back to Thaksin, isn't the interesting question the last comment you made.How can such an appalling person (who had no truck for real democracy himself) have ended up perceived as a saviour of democracy?

It is an interesting question but one i think that Steve answered in his comments about Thaksin's early years in office. It was that period of about two years which cemented his place in the hearts of many and after that he could do no wrong in the eyes of those followers.

It's like the relationship you have with a son or a daughter. They can do the terribilist thing, but all you see is there good side.

[Xangsamhua]

All this and the rise of Red power is dealt with succinctly and intelligently in the revised version of the Pasuk/Baker "Thaksin" published recently.

Jayboy, is this a revised version of the 2004 book? If so, does it just have additional chapters or is it more comprehensively revised?

[plachon]

Nice summary of the TRT debacle Steve. You have a great memory of some of their policy failures. Two omissions though (but hinted at tangentally) were his disastrous handling of the Southern situation by putting his cousin in charge and totally upsetting the apple cart with regards to lines of control between the security forces, plus secondly, his human rights abuses through the infamous War on Drugs. While the former policy ostracised him from the Deep South for the remainder of his term, the latter perversely, actually won him some domestic supporters - e.g. the taxi driver mentioned in the next post.

[jayboy]

Back to Thaksin, isn't the interesting question the last comment you made.How can such an appalling person (who had no truck for real democracy himself) have ended up perceived as a saviour of democracy?

It is an interesting question but one i think that Steve answered in his comments about Thaksin's early years in office. It was that period of about two years which cemented his place in the hearts of many and after that he could do no wrong in the eyes of those followers.

It's like the relationship you have with a son or a daughter. They can do the terribilist thing, but all you see is there good side.

No, that's only part of it.

To quote from the Pasuk/Baker book, "Thaksin made ordinary people more aware of the potential of their vote and their voice to overcome the state's persistent neglect of their interests in the past."

and

"Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalists, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attacks on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, the patent unfairness of some judicial rulings, and the challenge to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally."

As a slight digression, Pasuk/Baker make a fascinating observation on Thaksin's performance in the Songkran uprising.

"The incongruity of a super rich tycoon calling for a revolution came through in his video addresses when he often seemed to be miming a script.Possibly he was as shocked as any by the rage against injustice revealed among the red shirts.In the aftermath, he was reduced to calling on the King to intervene - just as PAD and his enemies had done".

Edited October 27, 2009 by jayboy

[jayboy]

All this and the rise of Red power is dealt with succinctly and intelligently in the revised version of the Pasuk/Baker "Thaksin" published recently.

Jayboy, is this a revised version of the 2004 book? If so, does it just have additional chapters or is it more comprehensively revised?

Hi Xangsamhua

Just taking information from the preface, the first seven chapters dealing with his rise to power, his impact on economy, society and politics: and his family business are the same as in the first edition.Part 2 is new covering mid 2004 to early 2009, and there's a new conclusion.

[plachon]

Apologies Steve - a reread of your post shows they were in there on the same line no less!

[Ricardo]

I believe whether or not Thaksin could have gotten a fair trial, there should have been a trial or impeachment proceeding, or wait for the next election.

Unfortunately when that election arrived, in April 2006, it had to be annulled by the Electoral-Commission shortly afterwards, because it had been so blatantly rigged by, erm ... guess who ?

[RegularReader]

In the English language blogosphere on Thai politcs, there seems to be a general opinion, that posters to Thai Visa, are innocent lightweights. I'm sure that might be true of some, but several contributors to this topic are talking about things that most of these apparently "knowledgable" sites, hardly mention or comment on - certainly not in such a forthright manner, about the lies and hypocracies of the TRT/Thaksin years.

But, given the slightest opportunity, they will be like rabid dogs, tearing at those, who they see, as the "elite" and "usurpers of one man's idea of democracy"

It is a pity, that (what seems to be) informed opinion being given air on this topic, will almost certainly be ignored by these "intellectual boosters" on sites such as ....well anyone who follows Thai politics will have a fair idea of who I mean.

Please keep at it.

Thanks

[rixalex]

To quote from the Pasuk/Baker book, "Thaksin made ordinary people more aware of the potential of their vote and their voice to overcome the state's persistent neglect of their interests in the past."

I think this is absolutely true. Before Thaksin, politicians in Thailand were lazy and complacent. Most of them got by simply by having the right connections and the right surname. Many of them won elections not by really offering anything to the people they were supposed to be serving, but just by knowing the right people and greasing the right palms. Of course sadly that type of politics is still alive and well. But there has been some change. Politicians were shown by Thaksin the power of making the electorate feel cared about. And the electorate woke up to the fact that they can have a voice and that they should expect more from their leaders.

"Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalists, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attacks on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, the patent unfairness of some judicial rulings, and the challenge to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally."

This however is complete nonsense, and the last sentence especially so. The red movement exists solely because of one man - he is the driving force both spiritually and financially. Suggesting that there are reds involved in the movement in spite of, rather than because of their feelings for Thaksin, makes you wonder how these individuals accept all the time that is devoted to aiding this one man's cause. I'm sorry but i don't buy it, and i don't think anyone outside of the red movement does either.

[Thai at Heart]

To quote from the Pasuk/Baker book, "Thaksin made ordinary people more aware of the potential of their vote and their voice to overcome the state's persistent neglect of their interests in the past."

I think this is absolutely true. Before Thaksin, politicians in Thailand were lazy and complacent. Most of them got by simply by having the right connections and the right surname. Many of them won elections not by really offering anything to the people they were supposed to be serving, but just by knowing the right people and greasing the right palms. Of course sadly that type of politics is still alive and well. But there has been some change. Politicians were shown by Thaksin the power of making the electorate feel cared about. And the electorate woke up to the fact that they can have a voice and that they should expect more from their leaders.

"Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalists, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attacks on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, the patent unfairness of some judicial rulings, and the challenge to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally."

This however is complete nonsense, and the last sentence especially so. The red movement exists solely because of one man - he is the driving force both spiritually and financially. Suggesting that there are reds involved in the movement in spite of, rather than because of their feelings for Thaksin, makes you wonder how these individuals accept all the time that is devoted to aiding this one man's cause. I'm sorry but i don't buy it, and i don't think anyone outside of the red movement does either.

I agree that the reds only came into existence to support Thaksin. Who knows if there is a percentage of them who are acting against the military, the courts, etc?

I do believe however that the last 10 years has changed the expectations of the electorate. They elected a man who deceived to deliver, however, this expectation that a government should deliver is still there. Expectations of what a government should do have undoubtedly been raised.

[awd]

In the English language blogosphere on Thai politcs, there seems to be a general opinion, that posters to Thai Visa, are innocent lightweights. I'm sure that might be true of some, but several contributors to this topic are talking about things that most of these apparently "knowledgable" sites, hardly mention or comment on - certainly not in such a forthright manner, about the lies and hypocracies of the TRT/Thaksin years.

But, given the slightest opportunity, they will be like rabid dogs, tearing at those, who they see, as the "elite" and "usurpers of one man's idea of democracy"

It is a pity, that (what seems to be) informed opinion being given air on this topic, will almost certainly be ignored by these "intellectual boosters" on sites such as ....well anyone who follows Thai politics will have a fair idea of who I mean.

Please keep at it.

Thanks

One point to note is that many of the posts very accurately describe the Thaksin years. They are perfectly free to write and discuss Thaksin. Anyone who connects the dots, names names, or gives strong hints at who was behind the coup, who set up the present govt, etc. will end up quite quickly in jail or otherwise silenced. Keep up the criticism of Thaksin, fair enough. But realize that much of his support comes from those that realize that they will never have the right to discuss the truth of Thai politics without going into exile.