Thaksin 'fears Economic Recovery Will Shut Him Out'

[tig28]

Of course corruption, all of it, or at least as much as possible needs to be done away with whoever is involved. That imho will be aprt of the future: less corruption, more democracy, less or no coups, a slightly better distribution of wealth, greater opportunity for all to some degree and a larger middle class. That is the medium to long term future. The short term remains problematic though.

Hear! Hear!

The article of the OP was a "puff" of the first degree. Thaksin may as well claim to be able to solve all and any problems of the economic crisis .... why not? ...... he has as much chance of being able to do so any other goose --- which is precisely none!

For most expats in Thailand the effects of the global crisis have either missed them entirely or had only a very small impact on their life. I know, I know --- I also lived 3 months when the Thai baht increased in value by more than 50% over the currency I must live on. But realistically the overall effects for most in Thailand have been small.

With exactly as much chance of being correct as any economist I boldly predict that the crisis

is largely at an end and can now fade into the same place in history as:

The Y2k bug. .(remember ????)

SARS.

Q.A. (quality assurance)

Nuclear fall-out shelters.

The reality though is that when things are tough we all gird our loins and learn to endure hardship --- any bad effects of the crisis shall have no bearing on the political direction of the next 6 months or so and even the most powerful spin doctors shall find it difficult to lay the blame at the feet of any particular Thai.

Oh ... hang on there a bit .... I do know a couple on TV who will be able to prove that Thaksin actually caused the crisis !!!

[Jingthing]

For most expats in Thailand the effects of the global crisis have either missed them entirely or had only a very small impact on their life.

I don't believe that at all.

[tig28]

I acknowledge that many expat currencies "tanked" against the baht --- but most have recovered to near their pre-crash state --- so what aspects do you feel are still causing expats in Thailand problems?

[Jingthing]

Global real estate/asset depreciation. Global stock market declines. Those in tourism related businesses here impacted by sharp downturn. Those in export, ditto. Obviously not everyone has been impacted but if you think exchange rates are the only aspect of this, well, you are mistaken.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Jingthing

[MaiChai]

Thought you could only be prime minister twice in Thailand, so how would Taksin return (or would he change the laws to allow himself)? There is a very good reason for doing this; it prevents one person from ruling forever and corrupting the whole system to their benefit. This is what happened in the Philippines and other countries where one person has been in charge for a long time. This was what was happening here. On the basis that I would like Thailand to become more democratic and fair, like western countries, and less corrupt, I cannot see any good in Taksin (or his family) being in charge again, or for that matter anyone forever.

Now if Taksin has not be ousted, imagine what kind of place Thailand would be now, on the basis of what it was like before he was ousted? It would be a dictatorship, where there is no press freedom, and the only way to improve your situation would be to align yourself with the ruling party. Taksin would not listen to anyone, and it would be akin to Germany under the nazies or Italy under Mussolinie. Anyone who cannot see this would happen must be blind. So what happened was for the greater good, irrespective of whether you agree with coups and say its not democratic.

Thus if you look at the whole situation, Taksin regaining power would be worst thing that could happen.

[tig28]

Global real estate/asset depreciation. Global stock market declines. Those in tourism related businesses here impacted by sharp downturn. Those in export, ditto. Obviously not everyone has been impacted but if you think exchange rates are the only aspect of this, well, you are mistaken.

You are quite correct --- I was looking at the matter too narrowly.

Edited October 29, 2009 by tig28

[Scott]

An improvement of the economy will be bad for Thaksin. It makes no difference who is in power, they take the flak for things when the economy is bad. Once it improves, people are willing to overlook a lot of things.

[animatic]

U, V or mirror image L, there will be an improvement and Thaksin will not be better off for it.

The pressure is surely on him to make a move. And that bodes poorly for Thailand 2010.

[Gary A]

Once again I am sorely disappointed that the government is punishing the police who tried to do their jobs by controlling the yellow shirt mob. Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction to punish and fire the incredibly corrupt cops rather than the ones who tried to do their jobs? Amazing Thailand!!!!!!!!

[Scott]

Let's stick to the topic.

[Ricardo]

Oh ... hang on there a bit .... I do know a couple on TV who will be able to prove that Thaksin actually caused the crisis !!!

Funny, I was just thinking, there must be at least a couple of TV posters who would seriously claim, the global crisis was induced by the Thai military, in order to be able to blame it on Thaksin. Or perhaps they're no longer with us, in their current incarnations, at least.

Whatever, since Thaksin claims to care most about the poor, he must surely welcome any improvement in the local economy, even if it doesn't serve his own personal political or business ends ?

[Insight]

Thought you could only be prime minister twice in Thailand, so how would Taksin return (or would he change the laws to allow himself)? There is a very good reason for doing this; it prevents one person from ruling forever and corrupting the whole system to their benefit. This is what happened in the Philippines and other countries where one person has been in charge for a long time. This was what was happening here. On the basis that I would like Thailand to become more democratic and fair, like western countries, and less corrupt, I cannot see any good in Taksin (or his family) being in charge again, or for that matter anyone forever.

Now if Taksin has not be ousted, imagine what kind of place Thailand would be now, on the basis of what it was like before he was ousted? It would be a dictatorship, where there is no press freedom, and the only way to improve your situation would be to align yourself with the ruling party. Taksin would not listen to anyone, and it would be akin to Germany under the nazies or Italy under Mussolinie. Anyone who cannot see this would happen must be blind. So what happened was for the greater good, irrespective of whether you agree with coups and say its not democratic.

Thus if you look at the whole situation, Taksin regaining power would be worst thing that could happen.

You would imagine that Thaksin's thirst for power, after all these years, would be enough of a character trait to make his most ardent supporters to question his motives...

[Publicus]

So if one big event happens between now and February, the election would be called off.

Given the paucity of Thai talent in politics and government, I'd like to see Abhisit get the time he would need to show all of us that he is the leader we'd like to think he can be. If he can have a strengthened economy and stable sociopolitics, he could have the necessary conditions to show he can govern and lead in new ways. Abhisit's new ways wouldn't be as new or as broad as we may like, but a few significant changes such as less corruption as a starter would be highly beneficial to the country's well being and renewed development.

Who knows what would happen in the case you mention. However, the prosepct does overshadow everything whether we like it or not.

Consdiering the nature of his cabinet I dont think Abhisit can control or limit corruption even if he wants to. I dont doubt Chaun Leekpai was the cleanest PM Thailand ever had (even most of his opponents concede this) but he couldnt limit corruption and it led to the downfall of his first government. Abhisit may well be in a similar position.

So where then does that leave Thailand? If any and every leader we can name or ID for time immemorial cannot or will not even make a dent in the old ways of politics and government, the TiT ways we always shrug our shoulders at, how could we conceivably take any encouragement that the increasingly mad ways that are driving the country into the ground can be arrested and tossed like a bad lunch?

Who and what is the agent of transformational change in and for Thailand? If the answer includes a name or organization we already know then the answer would be wrong. Correct? Dead wrong indeed.

[JustinCredible]

Pardon the cynicism but on the last point in the article, populist policies, the government should throw money at the peasants of the North until they forget about Thaksin.

Then the government could make adjustments to whatever populist policies it might have devised to get through this emergency.

You "stuck up" muppet. Do you think that there are no "PEASANTS", as you describe them, in Central or Southern Thailand? There are numerous very wealthy Thai people in the north and north east.

[Publicus]

Pardon the cynicism but on the last point in the article, populist policies, the government should throw money at the peasants of the North until they forget about Thaksin.

Then the government could make adjustments to whatever populist policies it might have devised to get through this emergency.

You "stuck up" muppet. Do you think that there are no "PEASANTS", as you describe them, in Central or Southern Thailand? There are numerous very wealthy Thai people in the north and north east.

Thanks for stating the obvious. To fruther remind you, Thaksin focused on those in the North and Northeast whose income is USD$2 a day or less. Just in case you missed it, the well to do up there are not our focus. Neither are the peasants the focus of the wealthy Thai people of the region.

[JustinCredible]

I missed nothing. I have lived in the North East for several years.

My objection is to the term "PEASANTS". You really do need an attitude lesson.........

Most people in the North and North East are poor in comparison to Bangkok residents, but I would bet that they have a better quality of life than most.

There really is NO NEED to refer to them as "Peasants". It is insulting to them, and embarassing to a lot of Farangs who have to read it.

Edited November 1, 2009 by JustinCredible

[Jingthing]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[featography]

If you go by the laws on the books, the government IS legitimate.

Hi animatic

This has become one of your favorite themes here .... but one with which I must disagree.

The lack of legitimacy of the current government comes not from the coalition they formed to achieve power (however unsavory) .... but rather from the circumstances created to allow them to actually do so!!

After failing to secure power in elections in 2001, again in 2005 and watching in relief as a coup prevented yet another rout in 2006 (only weeks before scheduled national elections) The Democrats once again faced the electorate after every possible road-block had been placed in front of their oponents by the Junta ... and in December 2007 ...... oh well .. you know........ Shock !! Horror !!

Remembering that in this election the PPP was (I think) 14 seats short of an outright majority and after yet another electoral slaughter of the Democrats I find it pretty difficult to describe The Democrats as a "legitimate" Government of anywhere. The PPP had won against all the odds (and expectations of their enemies) then had to endure the non-righteous indignation of the perennial losers --- this -- with some help from their powerful and desperate friends----- drove the truly legitimately elected Government into the wilderness.

Now the Democrats-- who have not won an election in living memory ----- were able to finally grasp power.

Legitimate ?????

Doing it in ways that help the 'N. & N.E. people' is a good idea ANYWAY,

It is the right thing to do whatever the reasons.

Be nice if they helped the Hill Tribe peoples too.

Hear ! Hear !!

By the way .... doesn't this statement look classy when compared to something like this:

the government should throw money at the peasants of the North until they forget about Thaksin.

Greetings Tig28. What you wrote is exactly what my wife has been saying all along. I am bewildered as to why so many have forgotten this or are unaware of the reality.

[featography]

Awesome!

Any particular reason you seem compelled to repeat this word in every post you make?

If you are trying to be sarcastic, fine, but could you at least vary it up a bit.

ohh, i talked with an other member about the etymological origin of a certain britisch english word. he said it's norse, my position was it is more likley that the norse word in question is just a Cognate.

i wrote also a more abstrac entry and to demonstrate cultural difference in historiography and histories of histories i worte a little bit about the history of historical linguistics studies and the use of different term for the same thing. indo-european languages vs. indo-germanic languages and so on.

but than came the '76 peacecorps and declared everything for BS. after this i just let a tumbleweed roll through the intellectual defoliated steppe.

in an other case i stumbled across the following line: Thai culture and civilization are utterly incapable of producing ... an Obama. posted by a board member.

my reply using the word hubris got deleted. okay hubris is of greek origin an not british english. i ask members of the super team for an advice and what what would be the appropriate choice of words for a reply and their answer was somewhat Zen, oracularly and quickly.

i conclude i should rely more on the optimistic branch of Bokononism.

and i think awesome is a good choice. it has something rabelaisian in it, almost. it is a fell good message. it is awesome. it is also US-american. and the US-american viewpoint, attitude is never wrong at this webforum. the risk of a delete for whatever reason is less.it will be never off topic. if i write more than 3 lines the risk that it goes off-topic is much higher.

so what is your problem with that? other forum characters spend their whole time with posting repetitive and redundant comments since years. 4,5,6 sometimes words and a smiley. knee-jerk reactions. unamusing. the usual.

i still offer a mixture in the style of my comments. that Abhisit is awesome is the mainstream opinion here, so i cheer a lot of people up.

what the H#$$ he say?!?!?!

[JustinCredible]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

Thank you for the English lesson.

I still insist that it is insulting to generalise, as the OP did, that all people in the North are categorised as peasants. The majority of the wealthy in this area also voted for Thaksin. I am not supporting this, nor condeming.

It is nice to know that I, along with thousands of other foreigners, am married to a peasant, and have produced even more peasants in our children.

[Jingthing]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

Thank you for the English lesson.

I still insist that it is insulting to generalise, as the OP did, that all people in the North are categorised as peasants. The majority of the wealthy in this area also voted for Thaksin. I am not supporting this, nor condeming.

It is nice to know that I, along with thousands of other foreigners, am married to a peasant, and have produced even more peasants in our children.

OK, then. I checked the text you complained about:

Pardon the cynicism but on the last point in the article, populist policies, the government should throw money at the peasants of the North until they forget about Thaksin.

Let me take this opportunity to point out that in the above sentence, nowhere did that poster assert that all residents in Northern Thailand are peasants. He said throw money at the peasants of the North, which most readers would interpret are a SUBSET of all the residents of the north. Surely you aren't saying that there isn't a huge population of poor rural rice farmers there, now are you? Cheers.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[JustinCredible]

Let me take this opportunity to point out that in the above sentence, nowhere did that poster assert that all residents in Northern Thailand are peasants. He said throw money at the peasants of the North, which most readers would interpret are a SUBSET of all the residents of the north. Surely you aren't saying that there isn't a huge population of poor rural rice farmers there, now are you? Cheers.

Jingthing, I am not trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else. If you look at one of my posts I concede that that many people in the North and North East are "poor" in comparison to many in Bangkok.

I take exception to the term "Peasant" when many other words could have been used. e.g. "poorer people", 'Farmers", "village folk" etc.

IMHO the OP was using a phrase that is insulting to the majority of Thai people north of Bangkok. If they are a "subset" why are so many people concerned about the voting powers that they have? (No, that is not a question to debate with you, it is merely a comment to ponder).

I personally feel that what the OP says has it's merits, but it will never happen as Thaksin was the first to recognise them. I am also seeing that the more "anti Thaksin" shown on the news, seems to strengthen their resolve to get him back, but once again, I do not want to enter a discussion about that.

Without staging a "Poll" we will never how the majority of people would interperate the comments of the OP. I STILL find them offensive.

Sorry if I am causing you a problem, but sometimes it is very hard to read a post and "bite your lip whilst counting ten".

Happy Moderating

[Publicus]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

Thank you for the English lesson.

I still insist that it is insulting to generalise, as the OP did, that all people in the North are categorised as peasants. The majority of the wealthy in this area also voted for Thaksin. I am not supporting this, nor condeming.

It is nice to know that I, along with thousands of other foreigners, am married to a peasant, and have produced even more peasants in our children.

1) "the peasants of the North" not 'all people in the North are peasants'.

2) A peasant is a poor person of low social status who works the land in a country where farming is still a common way of life.

3) More than 40% of the population of Thailand earn their income in agriculture (which contributes 12% of GDP).

4) "farang" is a slang word

5) The word "peasant" is an intellectually respectable word which appears in everything from history books to sociological dissertations to economics to current events and affairs publications...

Also, given that you've managed to mention Thaksin in your indignant post, I'll mention Thaksin too.

[JustinCredible]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

Thank you for the English lesson.

I still insist that it is insulting to generalise, as the OP did, that all people in the North are categorised as peasants. The majority of the wealthy in this area also voted for Thaksin. I am not supporting this, nor condeming.

It is nice to know that I, along with thousands of other foreigners, am married to a peasant, and have produced even more peasants in our children.

1) "the peasants of the North" not 'all people in the North are peasants'.

2) A peasant is a poor person of low social status who works the land in a country where farming is still a common way of life.

3) More than 40% of the population of Thailand earn their income in agriculture (which contributes 12% of GDP).

4) "farang" is a slang word

5) The word "peasant" is an intellectually respectable word which appears in everything from history books to sociological dissertations to economics to current events and affairs publications...

Also, given that you've managed to mention Thaksin in your indignant post, I'll mention Thaksin too.

AH, another English lesson. It's a shame that you do not understanding how offensive your "Grammitically Correct" word is, when used as you did.......

As for mentioning Thaksin, surely that is what the thread is headed isn't it. You really cannot see how it offends, can you.

Subject now closed as far as I am concerned. I intend to spend the rest of the evening socialising with my peasant wife.

[Jingthing]

Let me take this opportunity to point out that in the above sentence, nowhere did that poster assert that all residents in Northern Thailand are peasants. He said throw money at the peasants of the North, which most readers would interpret are a SUBSET of all the residents of the north. Surely you aren't saying that there isn't a huge population of poor rural rice farmers there, now are you? Cheers.

Jingthing, I am not trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else. If you look at one of my posts I concede that that many people in the North and North East are "poor" in comparison to many in Bangkok.

I take exception to the term "Peasant" when many other words could have been used. e.g. "poorer people", 'Farmers", "village folk" etc.

IMHO the OP was using a phrase that is insulting to the majority of Thai people north of Bangkok. If they are a "subset" why are so many people concerned about the voting powers that they have? (No, that is not a question to debate with you, it is merely a comment to ponder).

I personally feel that what the OP says has it's merits, but it will never happen as Thaksin was the first to recognise them. I am also seeing that the more "anti Thaksin" shown on the news, seems to strengthen their resolve to get him back, but once again, I do not want to enter a discussion about that.

Without staging a "Poll" we will never how the majority of people would interperate the comments of the OP. I STILL find them offensive.

Sorry if I am causing you a problem, but sometimes it is very hard to read a post and "bite your lip whilst counting ten".

Happy Moderating

I reckon most Thais don't even know the English word peasant so I hardly think the people called peasants will feel insulted. Again, subset does not imply the degree of the portion of the whole, small or large. In this case, it is very large subset, as we are talking about a huge farming region, the rice basket to the world really. I will agree there are more polite ways of putting out the idea about the peasants of the north but on the other hand as previously stated the word itself is rather neutral but can be offensive depending on context. In this case, I really don't think it was used offensively; apparently you disagree.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[animatic]

I married a peasant lady, she likes to grow our food herself.

I think it is a strong practical ability in agriculture, and not a cultural slight.

She is from as far north as you can get pretty much.

I wouldn't be offended if she was called a peasant by someone with no ill intent in the usage.

She does come from good peasant stock, with native smarts and a willingness to tend the land.

No slight, no foul.

It is akin to Proletariat, AKA Proles, meaning the common working folk, making a living

at whatever they do. Some are offended, but often those seem to want to be upwardly mobile for status,

rather than the general well being of all. Some others hate the idea of being common too.

Pick a word and apply it to any ten persons, and one likely will have someone object.

Same same.

[Rumfoord]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin
   
   
   America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social
   
   
   rank.
   
   
2. a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of
   
   
   little financial means.
   
   

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peasant

(accessed: November 01, 2009).

[Samuian]

so lets hope the economy will recover soon!

and maybe lets open a new thread about peasants of isaan....

[Jingthing]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin
   
   
   America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social
   
   
   rank.
   
   
2. a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of
   
   
   little financial means.
   
   

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peasant

(accessed: November 01, 2009).

Obviously we have been talking about the primary meaning of this word. You have proven what exactly by posting the secondary one?

[animatic]

He seems to want to prove that those arguing against him

are all somewhere on that list he posted above.

Only one person here purports belief in the purity of self same's soul

in only that singular personage. All others must be below muster

and of ill intent for even deign to disputing his positions.

Contrarian to the very end.

Unsophisticated

might be applied to 90% or the worlds population with little shame for anyone.

Many in the US midwest look with disdain and disgusted at the sophisticated east and west coasters.

Uneducated and of little means... levels of education vary greatly world wide.

What is uneducated in one country is well educated in another.

Locally cultural references apply 100%

Of little means,

can apply to artists in development and students.

I have met a few stone cold geniuses who were so wrapped up in their

mental pursuits that they barely maintained a pot to piss in.

Boorish, well I have found very few in the North of Thailand boorish,

but more than a few TVF members have fit that description rather closely.

And many of those same give pretense to excellent educations.

Low social rank, well not much you can do about that.

And either you like your friend's or you don't. If you don't find better friends,

but not based on their bank balances...

Self-made millionaires are also often noted as boorish,

no matter how far their social climbing has led them,

nor the numbers of medals, awards and accolades bestowed.

You can take Somchai out of the cassava field,

but not the cassava field out of Somchai.

But I have met simple back country folk that acted with finesse and class towards all,

and well dressed high ranking boors with a rough and harsh attitude to even their closest kin.

The primary meaning takes precidence here.

Edited November 1, 2009 by animatic