Is Thaksin Planning A Juan Peron-style Comeback?

[rixalex]

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?

If there is a percentage, why have they only just surfaced? The military haven't just started interfering in politics - they've been doing it for a very long time. And as far as dubious court decisions are concerned, there were plenty of those during Thaksin's time in charge, they didn't just suddenly start after he was removed. So why take to the streets now?

Nobody buys this crap so i don't know why people are still trying to sell it.

[rixalex]

One point to note is that many of the posts very accurately describe the Thaksin years.

And another point to note is that none of Thaksin's supporters on this forum even bother trying to defend him these days. Lost cause it would seem. Their efforts now concentrate on those who toppled him. Says a lot.

[Livinginexile]

Thaksin is Thailands only hope of freedom, equality and democracy.

All the farangs on this thread that are anti-Thaksin are afraid that he will drive Thailand to a better and more prosprous future.

Think about it for a minute....why the hel_l else would they be so anti-thaksin? Because his vision and policies would drive 95% of your sexpats out of Thailand!!

I for one suport him 100%. I can't wait for his return.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Livinginexile

[Insight]

Thaksin is Thailands only hope of freedom, equality and democracy.

All the farangs on this thread that are anti-Thaksin are afraid that he will drive Thailand to a better and more prosprous future.

Think about it for a minute....why the hel_l else would they be so anti-thaksin? Because his vision and policies would drive 95% of your sexpats out of Thailand!!

I for one suport him 100%. I can't wait for his return.

I'll bite.

I'm no sexpat and I doubt many of the contributors on here are either, from either side. Thaksin's "vision" as you call it was riddled with greed - very few people deny that. Whatever "pure" (read - press grabbing) ideas he had were overshadowed by his blind ambition to boost the wealth of himself and his circle. One single action nearly everybody I work with enough people to take to the streets to protest against, which ultimately lead to his downfall.

Now you've made your opinion felt I hope you stick around to read a few more...

"freedom, equality and democracy" - Laughable.

[Livinginexile]

Thaksin is Thailands only hope of freedom, equality and democracy.

All the farangs on this thread that are anti-Thaksin are afraid that he will drive Thailand to a better and more prosprous future.

Think about it for a minute....why the hel_l else would they be so anti-thaksin? Because his vision and policies would drive 95% of your sexpats out of Thailand!!

I for one suport him 100%. I can't wait for his return.

I'll bite.

I'm no sexpat and I doubt many of the contributors on here are either, from either side. Thaksin's "vision" as you call it was riddled with greed - very few people deny that. Whatever "pure" (read - press grabbing) ideas he had were overshadowed by his blind ambition to boost the wealth of himself and his circle. One single action nearly everybody I work with enough people to take to the streets to protest against, which ultimately lead to his downfall.

Now you've made your opinion felt I hope you stick around to read a few more...

"freedom, equality and democracy" - Laughable.

I'm here....I'm waiting....

Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that the majority rule?

Or are you one of those that feel that the rural poor are to stupid to have an equal vote in the election of their government?

Right or wrong...democracy works like this.

Or do you feel that democracy is only good for YOUR country and not Thailand?

I will bet you a million dollars that if Thailand was prosporous, free and equal you would not even have a look in at the local girls.

You feel threatened and so you should.

[jayboy]

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.

You say it's complete nonsense and I agree this is quite a widely held view among those who are ignorant of or who prefer to ignore the underlying anger of millions of Thais, specifically that there is nothing more to the Red movement than a pro-Thaksin mob.Some of the reasons for this anger are set out in the quote above. from Pasuk/Baker.You can ignore all of this and say the Reds are just Thaksin's hired hands.However for most observers, whether sympathetic or not, that position is not only wrong but deeply facile.It's certainly not Abhisit's view.

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

[rixalex]

Thaksin is Thailands only hope of freedom, equality and democracy.

All the farangs on this thread that are anti-Thaksin are afraid that he will drive Thailand to a better and more prosprous future.

Think about it for a minute....why the hel_l else would they be so anti-thaksin? Because his vision and policies would drive 95% of your sexpats out of Thailand!!

I for one suport him 100%. I can't wait for his return.

For you of all people to be throwing stupid labels around really does astound me. Is that the best you can offer?

[Insight]

Thaksin is Thailands only hope of freedom, equality and democracy.

All the farangs on this thread that are anti-Thaksin are afraid that he will drive Thailand to a better and more prosprous future.

Think about it for a minute....why the hel_l else would they be so anti-thaksin? Because his vision and policies would drive 95% of your sexpats out of Thailand!!

I for one suport him 100%. I can't wait for his return.

I'll bite.

I'm no sexpat and I doubt many of the contributors on here are either, from either side. Thaksin's "vision" as you call it was riddled with greed - very few people deny that. Whatever "pure" (read - press grabbing) ideas he had were overshadowed by his blind ambition to boost the wealth of himself and his circle. One single action nearly everybody I work with enough people to take to the streets to protest against, which ultimately lead to his downfall.

Now you've made your opinion felt I hope you stick around to read a few more...

"freedom, equality and democracy" - Laughable.

I'm here....I'm waiting....

Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that the majority rule?

Or are you one of those that feel that the rural poor are to stupid to have an equal vote in the election of their government?

Right or wrong...democracy works like this.

Or do you feel that democracy is only good for YOUR country and not Thailand?

I will bet you a million dollars that if Thailand was prosporous, free and equal you would not even have a look in at the local girls.

You feel threatened and so you should.

Interesting how you have to resort to baseless insults. The rest of your comments have been covered many times before and are hardly worthy of my time.

Threatened? Closer to pity right now TBH.

[rixalex]

You can ignore all of this and say the Reds are just Thaksin's hired hands.

Yes i will ignore that nonsense. Both the reds and the yellows are driven by very basic and very obvious reasons. If some people want to try and read much more into it than there is then fine, but all they are reading is a reflection of their own grievances.

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

Ok, give me a second..... alright, i've done that.

[rixalex]

Threatened? Closer to pity right now TBH.

Without wishing to flame or make things personal, as Livinginexile pathetically attempted to do so, i will say that he does seem to have some serious issues in his life and probably pity is the right way to feel about him.

[scorecard]

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 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.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE: ""Especially from 2008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup, the resurgence of military power,...."

I cannot agree with this. The red shirts started with an aim to help there 'savior' - Thaksin. It was some time after they started that very suddenly they started to talk about being anti-coup.

My belief is that many of the red shirts are incapable of coming up with this new (anti-coup) 'warcry'. However Thaksin, who if nothing else, is a clever strategist, and it's been said many times that he employs or has employed several very high profile global strategy firms and PR firms are capable of coming up with a clever strategy, and I suggest this is where the 'anti-coup' warcry came from. (Let's be honest, the clever strategy and PR firms can easily turn black into white.)

On a different slant of the Thaksin 'anti-coup' stance I suggest there is another point which doesn't get discussed. If Thaksin is so strongly anti-coup and wants the clock turned back, and if he's sincere about this then he must accept that every coup be removed from the history books and the clock rolled back to the parliamentray picture before the first coup.

Additionally, Thaksin conveniently forgets that he was suddenly given the gift of a telecoms licence from General Sunthorn who was a key leader of the coup in 1992-3. This was a coup which also ousted a PM (Chatichai Choonhaven, who was seen as massively unusually wealthy). The generals involved had no hesitation to murder hundreds of unarmed members of the public.

QUOTE FROM ABOVE: "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."

And other posters have make comments something like 'giving the rural people a voice', 'raising their awarenes that they have a voice in running the country' etc.

I see something different. In his first election Thaksin did win quite a few metropolitan seats, and like in many elections, people simply wanted a change, many liked Chuan Leek Pai and saw him as Mr. Clean, but were fed up with his snail pace to look at anything.

However the mass numbers of parliamentary seats won were in the North and North East. With absolute respect to these people I suggest that even today they are very poorly educated and largely still quite unaware of the political process.

They don't have the luxury of thinking about long term strategies or policies etc. They need to think about surviving today and the next few weeks. This is what Thaksin traded on. They became aware that by putting there X in the right place there was a guaranteed regular 'gift'.

What's also not been said is that deliberately building and reinforceing such a large welfare based society is unsustainable and in a way divides Thailand into two groups, this is quite unhealthy.

[henryalleman]

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

Peron came to power because of his 2 wifes (Eva and Isabella). I don't see T's wife has the same abbility's

And don't forget Peron took Argentina 2 times to an economic catastrophy, not yet tomention the human rights violations

Edited October 27, 2009 by henryalleman

[rixalex]

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

Furthermore, what was it you were saying earlier in this thread concerning the writings of historians? Something i seem to recall about them often having an agenda and not being balanced i think?

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.

Seems to me then we are best off coming to our own conclusions from the evidence available, and not paying too much attention to what the self-proclaimed experts would like us to believe, don't you think? Or are you one of those experts? You certainly have the right tone.

[samran]

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.

2001 to 2003 wasn't even that great, and like you imply, was great marketing. The privatisation of PTT at the end of 2001 was a joke from start to finish, and which derailed gaining any public support for reform of the rest of the 60 odd SOE's out there. Advice was ignored that certain infrastructure shouldn't be sold off which was later confirmed by the administrative court ruling that certain assets needed to be returned to the state.

They promised shares to the public - I remember the general public was quite excited in becoming 'owners' of PTT shares, lining up at banks for days, only to find on the morning applications opened there were no more left. Why? Cause lists had gone around Ministries in the weeks before, to friends and family etc allowing them the inside running on PTT shares before the general public were. I signed on to one of those lists at the MOF and got my hands on 30,000 bahts worth of shares (yes...naughty me), but that was peanuts compared to what I saw being allocated with people being alloted shares worth millions on the same list i had put my name down on.

The NTC was a debacle...the selection process of that was another joke....stacking the selection panel who would chose the comissioners..that whole process fell over quite a few times and took more than a few years to get the NTC up and running.

The deregulation of the aviation sector was a classic also. A number of proposals to let competition into the market were blocked....and we all thought entry of new players was dead and buried, until, suprisingly, Air Asia came on to the market.

That he managed to get away all of this spoke alot for his charisma though. He is a charmer. I've met very intelligent senior officials who despite their best attempts couldn't help but fall for his charms. One man in particular I know - one of the best fiscal and public debt minds in Thailand - went through a love affair stage with Thaksin, even his wife didn't understand what had bought this about. A couple of one on one lunches and he was charmed and extolling Dear Leaders virtues (this wore off though...he later served in the coup ministerial line up...)

The answer is simple though, Thaksin in meetings, one on one, would act and sound like he would do what you wanted, even though he was planning to do the actual opposite.

[awd]

One point to note is that many of the posts very accurately describe the Thaksin years.

And another point to note is that none of Thaksin's supporters on this forum even bother trying to defend him these days. Lost cause it would seem. Their efforts now concentrate on those who toppled him. Says a lot.

I think you missed my point which was that the very fact that criticism of Thaksin is so freely available and one risks nothing in offering it and that criticism of Thaksin's enemies is not tolerated gives strength to Thaksin in the long run. It has allowed people to do this anti-Thaksin dance for years now without addressing the core issue.

[RegularReader]

One point to note is that many of the posts very accurately describe the Thaksin years.

And another point to note is that none of Thaksin's supporters on this forum even bother trying to defend him these days. Lost cause it would seem. Their efforts now concentrate on those who toppled him. Says a lot.

I think you missed my point which was that the very fact that criticism of Thaksin is so freely available and one risks nothing in offering it and that criticism of Thaksin's enemies is not tolerated gives strength to Thaksin in the long run. It has allowed people to do this anti-Thaksin dance for years now without addressing the core issue.

In saying that it looks like you don't read blogs such as New Mandela, where the opposite seems to apply.

Edited October 28, 2009 by RegularReader

[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?

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.

Thank you. Will go and look for it at Kinokuniya.

[jayboy]

You need to come to terms with the fact that two of the most respected contemporary historians of Thai politics (and resolutely hostile to Thaksin personally ) hold a completely different view to yours.

Furthermore, what was it you were saying earlier in this thread concerning the writings of historians? Something i seem to recall about them often having an agenda and not being balanced i think?

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.

Seems to me then we are best off coming to our own conclusions from the evidence available, and not paying too much attention to what the self-proclaimed experts would like us to believe, don't you think? Or are you one of those experts? You certainly have the right tone.

Actually I agree that one should be independent minded, and be very sceptical about received wisdom.On the other hand, I don't believe that one man's opinion is as good as another, rather that value should be placed on education, intelligence, analytical ability and of course relevant knowledge.Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".That doesn't mean one should accept everything they have to say about Thai politics.It's open to all to come up with different perspectives, but to be taken seriously these need to be reasoned and backed by evidence.

[plachon]

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

Peron came to power because of his 2 wifes (Eva and Isabella). I don't see T's wife has the same abbility's

And don't forget Peron took Argentina 2 times to an economic catastrophy, not yet tomention the human rights violations

Thaksin came to immense wealth and some might say power because of his first wife (Pokemon), but you are correct to say there is no clear candidate for a Thai Eva, since Lydia jumped from the sinking DLS Thaksin, closely followed by the mia luang. I'm not sure who he rates as as current No 1 or 2 in the mia stakes, but I for one could picture buxom Mai doing a tasty rendition of "Don't cry for me pratet Thai".

And don't forget Thaksin almost took Thailand to a second economic catastrophe with his spendthrift megaprojects and rampant cronyism and corruption, not to mention nearly 3,000 extra-judicial killings in the War on Drugs and deaths & disappearances of many hundreds, including human rights lawyers and activists, in the Southern conflict.

Parallels with Argentina? I can see them, but just can't figure out a happy ending where Thaksin returns from self-enforced exile.

[rixalex]

Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".

I wonder if possibly the high-regard you hold for these historians has anything to do with the fact that their opinion on a number of issues happens to match yours?

Easy to hold people in high-esteem and place great value on what they say, when what they are saying pleases your ears, don't you think?

[animatic]

Whomever is by his side or in concubinage with him, it's not going to be pretty if he gains control...

If he does regain control, there is every chance of pogroms ala Peron,

for those Thai's well set against him. And likely more than a few farangs getting the boot,

as if THAT would shut them up here and other world wide access boards.

But it might shut them up on the ground in Thailand.

This little talking points deal with Hun Sen, that Chavalit brokered, points to the utter lack of

scruples of those involved, I really find it incredible he would suddenly sprout a heart

filled with forgiveness on regaining the controls of the state, and having cowed or co-opted the military.

His M.O. for 20+ years was always been to stick it to those who didn't go The Thaksin Way,

in both revenge and vindictiveness, but also to reduce competition and chances of being taken down again.

This of course has produced mirror image the likes of Sondhi.... et al.

[samran]

Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".

I wonder if possibly the high-regard you hold for these historians has anything to do with the fact that their opinion on a number of issues happens to match yours?

Easy to hold people in high-esteem and place great value on what they say, when what they are saying pleases your ears, don't you think?

in other words, critical review which is in fact a form of peer group pass-the-parcel

Edited October 28, 2009 by samran

[jayboy]

Pasuk/Baker aren't self proclaimed experts: they are experts and what is more without arrogance or "side".

I wonder if possibly the high-regard you hold for these historians has anything to do with the fact that their opinion on a number of issues happens to match yours?

Easy to hold people in high-esteem and place great value on what they say, when what they are saying pleases your ears, don't you think?

You have no idea what pleases my ears or not.My guess is that Pasuk/Baker have a number of opinions which match yours.So what.

Try dealing with the issues for a change rather than personalising.

[hammered]

I always found this Baker quote from the FCCT interesting:

Baker: Thaksin = reds = the masses? It’s gone beyond that. There is a new feeling of resentment in the country, and many of these people won’t put on a red shirt.

[steveromagnino]

I think you missed my point which was that the very fact that criticism of Thaksin is so freely available and one risks nothing in offering it and that criticism of Thaksin's enemies is not tolerated gives strength to Thaksin in the long run. It has allowed people to do this anti-Thaksin dance for years now without addressing the core issue.

Do you mean that you aren't allowed to criticise people in power similar to the years of TRT where ABAC poll was shut down for giving a negative result; where social activists and media were sued/bribed via advertising budget/bought or given cabinet seats to ensure they only were writing positive things; where websites were shut down and where a number of people were shot or mysteriously went missing; a period where virtually every government watch dog was converted/subverted to being under the control of the govt?

Are you referring to the period where the 'ITV rebels' were fired for reporting objectively (subsequently cleared by the judiciary, during the TRT years) and without reason simply because they weren't sufficiently pro Thaksin?

Are you talking about the period where Thailand fell from being a top 20 country in terms of media freedom to outside the top 100?

Or perhaps you mean in 2006/early 2007 where once regaining control, members of the state owned media were interrogated individually by the PM's office on what reporting they had done pro/anti Thaksin and keeping or losing their jobs as a result?

Because it sure seems to me that the red shirts and Peua Thai have had no problem at all singling out and speaking out a their rallies about exactly who they feel is responsible for the coup. Right now mostly aimed at a particular senior statesman.

Were they to move their guns and words further as might be implied by one particular article by Duncan McCargo which I am sure you are aware of, then I would suspect that the popularity of doing so would be in freefall; just because it might be economically correct to state that healthcare should be applied using a cost benefit analysis which means at certain points someone might be left to die; in fact a doctor will wisely usually say 'we are doing all we can sir for your dad' because to say otherwise would be rather less popular.

There's a reason that despite attending the function at Wat Prakaew, despite the pictures in certain attire, despite arranging the grand invitation even though it was not asked for nor requested (indicated by the empty barge seat), despite his statement regarding resigning from politics followed by the snap election and naming a certain extra constitutional figure (if I recall his language correctly) being at fault even pre coup, that Thaksin repeatedly says he is pro-monarchy.

The waters have been tested to go further by Jakapop and Da Torpedo....ain't no votes pushing further. He's smart and he does research on what people want and think - I know this part of the former TRT machine quite well.

So perhaps you can tell me now then......if a red shirt wishes to criticise whoever they feel is responsible for life in general....in what way is life significantly different between now and 6 years ago, other than the very real fact that it is acceptable to criticise the current govt (and many do so) in the mass media, an opportunity certainly not available in 2003? All other laws were basically much the same then as now; I'm not saying they are the right laws, but they were there then, and TRT didn't do anything to change them, and they are there now; in the meantime PPP also not doing anything to change them either.

I consider anything written by Pasuk/Baker to be worth reading; I don't actually agree with some of what they write, but disagreement is on another level from hearing 'Thaksin is a clever business man, he's the best PM Thailand ever had because he's the first to help the poor and he's rich so he never did corruption stuff' or 'all politicians are corrupt, so we should let Thaksin come back' type statements.

I'm still not brave enough to show up at a red shirt rally with my Thaksin go to jail GO DEMOCRACY shirt just yet :-)

Edited October 28, 2009 by steveromagnino

[Samuian]

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.

2001 to 2003 wasn't even that great, and like you imply, was great marketing. The privatisation of PTT at the end of 2001 was a joke from start to finish, and which derailed gaining any public support for reform of the rest of the 60 odd SOE's out there. Advice was ignored that certain infrastructure shouldn't be sold off which was later confirmed by the administrative court ruling that certain assets needed to be returned to the state.

They promised shares to the public - I remember the general public was quite excited in becoming 'owners' of PTT shares, lining up at banks for days, only to find on the morning applications opened there were no more left. Why? Cause lists had gone around Ministries in the weeks before, to friends and family etc allowing them the inside running on PTT shares before the general public were. I signed on to one of those lists at the MOF and got my hands on 30,000 bahts worth of shares (yes...naughty me), but that was peanuts compared to what I saw being allocated with people being alloted shares worth millions on the same list i had put my name down on.

The NTC was a debacle...the selection process of that was another joke....stacking the selection panel who would chose the comissioners..that whole process fell over quite a few times and took more than a few years to get the NTC up and running.

The deregulation of the aviation sector was a classic also. A number of proposals to let competition into the market were blocked....and we all thought entry of new players was dead and buried, until, suprisingly, Air Asia came on to the market.

That he managed to get away all of this spoke alot for his charisma though. He is a charmer. I've met very intelligent senior officials who despite their best attempts couldn't help but fall for his charms. One man in particular I know - one of the best fiscal and public debt minds in Thailand - went through a love affair stage with Thaksin, even his wife didn't understand what had bought this about. A couple of one on one lunches and he was charmed and extolling Dear Leaders virtues (this wore off though...he later served in the coup ministerial line up...)

The answer is simple though, Thaksin in meetings, one on one, would act and sound like he would do what you wanted, even though he was planning to do the actual opposite.

"The answer is simple though, Thaksin in meetings, one on one, would act and sound like he would do what you wanted, even though he was planning to do the actual opposite."

...good wrap up - and yes, it is indeed his signature!

I don't know about Charm and Charisma - but he and later his TRT Agents have certainly used it to achieve what he wanted

he and many within his entourage have earned a PhD in deceiving the people!

Say: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure!" Until people smile and believe you and then get what you want and close the door shut!

Boiler room tactics?

The bad news is that very few have understood this yet, that he still going on with his act of deceit!

Edited October 28, 2009 by Samuian

[tomahawk]

I am against most of the things the anti-Thaksins or yellowshirts or whatever you wish to call them stand for. The military assuming control of the government. Denying the common people a say in their government. Holding the economy and the infrastructure as a hostage to get their way. Removing the elected government without a trial. The elites as they are called, in my opinion, have practically destroyed my home country and now will do it to Thailand if they have a chance. By the elites I mean lawyers and academics. This whole discussion is full of statements as usual which contain lots of information but little common sense. I know personally Thai people who are not fans of Thaksin personally but still support red movement because they want to have some say in their own government. Many of the founding fathers of America were farmers and non-lawyers. Did that make them stupid? I believe it is true what one of the previous respondents here said. I believe at least some of the farangs here are so obsessed with Thaksin because his administration was not favorable to their own personal agenda.

[hammered]

One point to note is that many of the posts very accurately describe the Thaksin years.

And another point to note is that none of Thaksin's supporters on this forum even bother trying to defend him these days. Lost cause it would seem. Their efforts now concentrate on those who toppled him. Says a lot.

I think you missed my point which was that the very fact that criticism of Thaksin is so freely available and one risks nothing in offering it and that criticism of Thaksin's enemies is not tolerated gives strength to Thaksin in the long run. It has allowed people to do this anti-Thaksin dance for years now without addressing the core issue.

There is a thriving red media right now which dont seem to be holding punches on criticising anyone they want judging form the last few relases which seem available at many kiosks. Sure there is also plenty of anti-Thaksin stuff too. Unfortunatley we are also victim of the cult of celebrity which has swept the world and where person, personality and parsonal action are more improtant than what some would argue are the substantive issues

Right now there is criticsm of eveybody and little if any suggestion of a way forward. We are in a vicious cycle of negativity

[jayboy]

I consider anything written by Pasuk/Baker to be worth reading; I don't actually agree with some of what they write, but disagreement is on another level from hearing 'Thaksin is a clever business man, he's the best PM Thailand ever had because he's the first to help the poor and he's rich so he never did corruption stuff' or 'all politicians are corrupt, so we should let Thaksin come back' type statements.

It would be interesting to hear a bit more about where you disagree with Pasuk/Baker.They've written so much that it's helpful to be precise

Does anybody apart from some of the more simple minded upcountry Thaksin supporters actually think or say the kind of things you indicate? (ok one or two members of this forum as well !).

Actually there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest Thaksin is or was anti-monarchy.It was part of the PAD template I know (and encouraged by their shadowy backers), like many other aspects of their platform designed to raise the temperature to a feverish level.

I'm not sure that it's possible to criticise the senior statesman you refer to openly now.Isn't that covered by the way the PC is appointed, raising difficult LM issues?

[hammered]

I consider anything written by Pasuk/Baker to be worth reading; I don't actually agree with some of what they write, but disagreement is on another level from hearing 'Thaksin is a clever business man, he's the best PM Thailand ever had because he's the first to help the poor and he's rich so he never did corruption stuff' or 'all politicians are corrupt, so we should let Thaksin come back' type statements.

It would be interesting to hear a bit more about where you disagree with Pasuk/Baker.They've written so much that it's helpful to be precise

Does anybody apart from some of the more simple minded upcountry Thaksin supporters actually think or say the kind of things you indicate? (ok one or two members of this forum as well !).

Actually there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest Thaksin is or was anti-monarchy.It was part of the PAD template I know (and encouraged by their shadowy backers), like many other aspects of their platform designed to raise the temperature to a feverish level.

I'm not sure that it's possible to criticise the senior statesman you refer to openly now.Isn't that covered by the way the PC is appointed, raising difficult LM issues?

The news stands are currently covered in red media productions criticizing the person you mention in no uncertain terms. They havent been banned, so it seems criticism is OK