Decline In Thaksin's Popularity

[Hardback]

The Nation wants to make out that the reds are all about Thaksin, this stifles debate. There is much more to the reds than just one man.

It depends on which reds you talk to. The fact that for some reds it is only about Thaksin stifles what could be a more potent movement.

You don't see the reds mobilising at local level in support of the low-key small-scale demonstrations that occur locally and come to Bangkok. There was no attempt to carry the red momentum into the recent local elections. The reds just get mobilised to show support for Thaksin. Hopefully something that can genuinely offer more to the people will eventually emerge.

I totally agree. For some, the Thaksin issue detracts from their very real concerns regarding disenfranchisement and military interference in the democratic process. Outspoken (and now fugitive) former Chulalongkorn University professor Giles Ungpakorn is one "red" who has no love for Thaksin and is in fact a very loud critic of him.

Ji also diverges from the majority of the Reds in his Trotskyist political orientation, his membership in the International Socialist Tendency (IST, led by the Socialist Workers Party) and his outspoken opposition to the Thai monarchy.

Hardly a unifying figure among the Reds' rank and file, I would think.

http://www.istendency.net/

Yes and I agree with your point, I merely mentioned him to back up my original point that the reds are not all pro-Thaksin.

( with regard to Ungpakorn's political stripes,I take it that you are also aware of the background of Chaturon Chaisang who is a unifying, very popular and hugely influential member of the Thaksin team)

[brahmburgers]

The OP paints a picture of a rather flaccid movement. If there are any tigers among the Reds, they're chomping with gums.

Whether they admit it or not (some do, some don't) Thaksin is their patron saint. If T told them all to go jump in a mud hole and sing 'Country Roads', they'd do it without a second thought.

[rixalex]

the reds are not all pro-Thaksin.

True, but what sort of a percentage do you think we are talking about?

And what reaction do you think you would get if you turned up to a reds rally and spoke out against Thaksin?

[LawnGnome]

Yes they are.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

For some, the Thaksin issue detracts from their very real concerns regarding disenfranchisement and military interference in the democratic process.

Do you really think that the issue of military interference is the concern for most of these people?

Suppose that tomorrow the military interfered to oust Abhisit and install Thaksin as the PM. Would their protests continue do you suppose?

If I can answer that for myself: hel_l yes! I think it would have been more proper for Abhisit to get his own mandate, but there's no doubt that his government is completely legal and came about under democratic parliamentary process. Interferance from non-democratic forces is in fact my main gripe. I think most of the Thai news sources and political activists I follow would agree with that.

But there's also no doubt that a whole lot of Red supporters would think this to be just fine. I'm not one of them.

[Siripon]

For some, the Thaksin issue detracts from their very real concerns regarding disenfranchisement and military interference in the democratic process.

Do you really think that the issue of military interference is the concern for most of these people?

Suppose that tomorrow the military interfered to oust Abhisit and install Thaksin as the PM. Would their protests continue do you suppose?

Chaiyasit, Thaksin's cousin, called for a militery coup just a few weeks ago.

[hammered]

For some, the Thaksin issue detracts from their very real concerns regarding disenfranchisement and military interference in the democratic process.

Do you really think that the issue of military interference is the concern for most of these people?

Suppose that tomorrow the military interfered to oust Abhisit and install Thaksin as the PM. Would their protests continue do you suppose?

If I can answer that for myself: hel_l yes! I think it would have been more proper for Abhisit to get his own mandate, but there's no doubt that his government is completely legal and came about under democratic parliamentary process. Interferance from non-democratic forces is in fact my main gripe. I think most of the Thai news sources and political activists I follow would agree with that.

But there's also no doubt that a whole lot of Red supporters would think this to be just fine. I'm not one of them.

I think Thaksin would think it fine too. Interesting idea actually as it would maybe be the catalyst that caused the split between Thaksin reds (big group) and the left reds (small group) or at least some of the left reds.

[Siripon]

I would say the ratio of left reds to Thaksin lovers is less than one in ten.

[hammered]

I would say the ratio of left reds to Thaksin lovers is less than one in ten.

I wouldnt disagree

edited to add: which is why first him then us idea is a niave idea. well also historically it has shown to not work too.

Edited November 18, 2009 by hammered

[rixalex]

I would say the ratio of left reds to Thaksin lovers is less than one in ten.

I wouldnt disagree

My money would be on more like one in a hundred. In fact, i reckon if you polled reds at a rally you would be lucky to even find one soul ready to speak out against Thaksin. Bit like going to a PAD rally and looking for someone to speak out in favour of Thaksin - just not going to happen.

Some people on this forum are a little too anxious to try and show that the reds have some real grievances that go beyond their master being booted out on his ear. They don't. If there was a coup tomorrow and Thaksin was installed as PM the reds would go as quickly as they came (to be replaced of course by the yellows).

(P.S. Not saying there aren't real issues/problems that go beyond Thaksin in Thailand, i'm just saying that the reds don't actually care about them - providing their man wins the day they'll be happy campers.)

Edited November 18, 2009 by rixalex

[hansnl]

Thaksin and TRT "knew" before, that they will have an uncompromisable majority

In the last elections TRT (Thaksin owned) did not reach the majority.

The party became the biggest, but needed other parties to form a coalition government.

[Pearl]

Well, that is a wishful-thinking article if I ever saw one. But I have been told repeatedly on this board not to be so dam_n naiive...all media everywhere is biased in one direction or the other. I could parse this article and come up with any number of bias-loaded references, ie the use of the word 'boss', etc., but never mind.

The two references however, that struck me as being most at odds with reality were:

> Someone from the Pheu Thai being quoted as suggesting an election is far off. I read yesterday in another Domestic media source that the UDD is planning a humongous rally in BKK at the end of the month. They are expecting over 1-million to turn out with the express purpose of finally eliminating this non-representative Government. Doesn't sound to me that elections are a distant thing.

>suggesting that recent actions somehow has affected Mr. Thaksin detrimentally. That is not the impression I get. Quite the opposite, it is the recent actions of the powers-that-be which show a degree of desparation. Everyone knows that the staged explosion at the PAD/Democrat Party rally and this fabricated kefuffle with Cambodia is all geared to generate the notion of external enemies and internal crisis. This age-old tactic by insecure Govts. is well known and no-one is fooled this time.......unless you are the PAD...they are true believers and follow this line of reasoning with enthusiasm. But they are the only ones and they are the minority.

I was amused by the travails of a local politician embroiled in all this stuff. There is a large UDD rally planned for this area this weekend, as there are in many other places, gearing up for the trek to BKK. As you know, successful Politicians are those who find the biggest crowd and get in front of it. That is easy to do in this largely non-ideological political world. This guy is in one of the splinter groups. I think Newin's, but I'm not sure. He really wants to participate in this local UDD rally and has been invited on stage. He knows it is the biggest crowd for the future. But he also doesn't want to shit on the bed where he now lies. Poor guy is between a rock and a hard place.

And before any of you jump all over this notion of politicians getting in front of the biggest crowd, suggesting that Thaksin is doing the same thing, keep in mind this IS his crowd. He created it. These are the people who gave him all those electoral pluralities. People are just trying to take it away from him with this orchestrated demonization campaign. Trying to get at him with this recent Nationalism effort just doesn't fly with this crowd. They see through it clearly.

And because this is my only post of the day, let me also anticipate a challenge to my reference to the non-representative nature of the Govt. I have read some of you defend the process that happened. And I agree in part, that technically speaking, there was an air of legitimacy to the parliamentary procedures which created the current situation. But lets kid our friends, but not each other.....everyone knows that behind the scenes the 'books were cooked' extensively, and covered with this thin veneer of parliamentary procedures. Bottom line....this is a non-representative Govt., and until they win an election, that will remain the case.

Awright, enough of this drivel...again. I'm outta here.

"Everyone knows that behind the scenes the 'books were cooked' extensively................"

That happens in any Parliamentary procedure anywhere. There are always extensive political manueverings behind "Parliamentary procedures"

I suppose if you had to differentiate, the military wouldn't be involved in mature Democracy's.

Regardless, elections would solve a lot of things.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Pearl

[geriatrickid]

Nuggets of insight are often buried in TV.

'Samuian' observes that He want's his revenge, it's his nature.

And it would seem to be an accurate portrayal and may be his downfall. Revenge is a dish best served cold as they say.

'SpoliaOpima says Impossible. As he himself has admitted on occasion, his worst enemy is his own mouth. Sad, but accurate.

And then there is the quote perhaps inspired by adult films that the industry refers to as granny porn, from brahmburgers The OP paints a picture of a rather flaccid movement. If there are any tigers among the Reds, they're chomping with gums. Not a very pretty image, but again one that seems apropos.

[Publicus]

Is it me being naive, but it seems if Mr. Thaksin shut his yap for a bit, kept a low profile and only offered platitudes, his popularity might grow with time?

If one looks at past history with world leaders, it seems to work. Recent examples are Richard Nixon. A true guttersnipe, yet with time people many people forgave him or forgot what he did. Edward Heath's fiascos were forgiven, Francois Mitterand's cosying up to African despots ignored and of course Ronald Reagan, the man that gave the USA its biggest deficits and set the path to the current economic crisis is now lauded as a great man. Perhaps with time, Mr. Thaksin too will be adored. However, he needs to hush first.

Impossible. As he himself has admitted on occasion, his worst enemy is his own mouth.

Lacking character, breeding and bearing, he always falls flat on his face even after rigging his biggest successes. Where discretion is the better part of valour, he has none.

On the other hand the more he becomes the underdog, the more chance he has to pull himself up. Poor guy, I noticed recently he has slipped in the Forbes rankings and is now only the 14th richest Thai citizen.

Do any among the Red-leaning members here really think he has the guts lead a Red March from Cambodia through Isan, as recently promised?

Indeed, contrast Aung San Suu Kyi to any leader Thailand has put forward throughout the 20th century. Further, Thailand ushered in the 21st century by putting Thaksin into government.

Suu Kyi would lead such a march, as she has done and which is why she's been under house arrest for going on eight years. Thaksin would lead such a march on Bangkok only via his mobile from a safe distance.

The reference to Chairman Mao is not precise but may be one well worth considering. Think of Thaksin back in power turning his Thai Rouge loose throughout the land and for the same reason Mao did, ie, to reassert his power and authority.

The guy dangerously lacks grace or class so we can expect only the worst.

[otherstuff1957]

( with regard to Ungpakorn's political stripes,I take it that you are also aware of the background of Chaturon Chaisang who is a unifying, very popular and hugely influential member of the Thaksin team)

Those of you who were here in 2006 may remember that Chaturon was acting PM for a few months when Thaksin 'stepped aside' from politics during the Temmasak/Shincorp fiasco. Of course, after being out of the limelight for a while Thaksin reminded everyone that he 'hadn't really resigned, he'd just been resting' & it was out with the acting PM and back into the driver's seat for Thaksin!

I've noticed that Chaturon has been quite quiet since then. It could be, that as a relatively honest man, he just doesn't have the resources to stay involved in politics, or perhaps Thaksin doesn't want a popular, honest party leader in the forefront of the reds while Thaksin is in exile himself.

[zzaa09]

Really good and article, and so objective, honest and factual!

Sure. Consider the source

[zzaa09]

There is much more to the reds than just one man.

Are you sure about that? Seems to me that the reds are totaly about that one man...

....as are their counterparts, the yellow faction.

[Publicus]

( with regard to Ungpakorn's political stripes,I take it that you are also aware of the background of Chaturon Chaisang who is a unifying, very popular and hugely influential member of the Thaksin team)

Those of you who were here in 2006 may remember that Chaturon was acting PM for a few months when Thaksin 'stepped aside' from politics during the Temmasak/Shincorp fiasco. Of course, after being out of the limelight for a while Thaksin reminded everyone that he 'hadn't really resigned, he'd just been resting' & it was out with the acting PM and back into the driver's seat for Thaksin!

I've noticed that Chaturon has been quite quiet since then. It could be, that as a relatively honest man, he just doesn't have the resources to stay involved in politics, or perhaps Thaksin doesn't want a popular, honest party leader in the forefront of the reds while Thaksin is in exile himself.

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Publicus

[Publicus]

regardless of the Nation's standpoint, let's call a spade a spade here: if Thaksin had pulled this stunt in any sane and mature democracy ...

In no sane and mature democracy an democratically elected leader is overthrown by a military coup.

In no sane and mature democracy the police and army will refuse to obey to a democratically elected government.

Let's call a spade a spade here : the rules of a sane and mature democracy don't apply to Thailand since the 2006 coup

The rules you reference didn't apply to Thailand for long before the 2006 coup either. TiT always and apparently forever.

[h90]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

[Hardback]

The great deal of insight and informed discussion of Mr Thaksin that is being achieved on this thread is extremely refreshing to see and be a part of. I only hope that in the future the Thai people themselves will be able to reasonably discuss this man and the Pandora's box of issues that surround him. It's just simply awful for a country be polarized to such a degree that in public the only opinion you can voice about him is that he is either "good" or "bad" or that people can be either red or yellow. Thankyou to all of the posters on this thread who are building something truly democratic, informed and reasonable debate.

[Publicus]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

How can you compare the situation of Thailand with the situation in Burma, South Africa or Poland ? Have you ever visited those countries ? You're absolutely ridiculous.

While Mahathir produced the Petronas Tower of dubious utility, Thaksin was able to achieve a much needed international airport which was such a "in your face" achievement that for a while it seemed that the only goal of the military coup was to close this new airport.

And when you add Mahathir and Lee Kwan Yew managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties ... whatever you're taking, please stop !

Thaksin is incapable of governing Thailand under any circumstance, whether a multi party democracy or a one party 'democracy'. <snip>

As in the past, Thailand presently is incapable of producing the transformative leader(s) it desperately needs at this critical time. I'm discussing a society's ability to produce transformational leaders who are unifiers rather than dividers, polarizers. There's no one in sight in Thailand, nor has there ever been.

Tragic but true.

[Publicus]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

Comparing and contrasting Thaksin the Great Leader to other leaders of the region is instructive, as even when viewed by the standards of regional political cultures Thaksin is not only a dismal failure, but is a complete disaster. Of course Suu Kyi never ruled, but she was genuinely elected by a huge mandate and is a Nobel Peace Laureate. Surely Suu Kyi would have been a leader head and shoulders above them all, Thaksin especially and in particular. Where is Thailand's Suu Kyi?

Thailand did well under Thaksin's leadership? Thaksin himself is the most destablizing force Thailand has seen in many years, if not many decades. Thaksin is a divider. He polarizes. He's obsessed. Thaksin too spoke of ruling for 20 years but flamed out in a short time. Thaksin during his rule and since has harmed Thailand, perhaps irreparably.

[Steve2UK]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

Singapore is a city state, so I don't see why it can't be compared with the others - smaller area and population but the same principle applies. That said, I have friends there who'd be surprised to hear that their civil liberties are not tightly controlled and curtailed. Not "crushed"..... but then that also seems a rather extreme and emotive term for anything that has happened in Thailand except during multiple periods of coup-enforced rule.

[Publicus]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

Singapore is a city state, so I don't see why it can't be compared with the others - smaller area and population but the same principle applies. That said, I have friends there who'd be surprised to hear that their civil liberties are not tightly controlled and curtailed. Not "crushed"..... but then that also seems a rather extreme and emotive term for anything that has happened in Thailand except during multiple periods of coup-enforced rule.

Thaksin the leader is compared and contrasted to other recent leaders and nations of the region, given they share a common political culture which is that of the strongman leader. While therefore there isn't any need to focus on any one other country of the region or its leader, we well know that Singapore had the great benefit of not having a rural population or countryside to incorporate into its development, nor did Singapore have to reconcile the contradictions between urban and rural populations. That said, Thaksin surely would have mucked up Singapore too.

[h90]

Thailand is self-retarding in its absence of any capability to produce a leader such as Aung San Suu Kyi or a Mandella

or a Lech Walesa etc etc. Former Malaysian PM Mahathir ruled for 20 years based on one party control and among other things produced the Petronas Towers while Thaksin, as has been pointed out, has mucked up even his greatest 'successes'. Lee Kwan Yew led Singapore for 22 or so years while also effectively having a peaceful one party 'democracy'. These leaders managed one party rule without crushing civil liberties or without stealing the state blind. Thaksin's one party rule was a bull in the china shop.

We can find transformative leaders in many places who propititously came forward to successfully remake their social and political landscape peacefully and without long periods of sharp and bitter division. It is an unhappy fact that Thailand hasn't any such figures nor could Thailand produce even a one. None at all.

Thailand instead makes its path to a transformation in the most difficult and trying ways imaginable or possible.

Aung San Suu Kyi never ruled. What is so special on the Petronas Towers? Hardly anything that helps people. If you look history every of the long term leaders where mostly dictators. Of course a dictator can change everything. To the better or to the worse. Having such a leader is a great risk. Why do you think many country can elect their president just 2 terms?

If you compare Thailand with Myanmar (had strong leader), Lao (I don't know), Cambodia (had strong leader), Indonesia (had strong leader) or Philippines (had strong leader), Thailand did well. You can't compare Thailand with a single city (Singapore).

Singapore is a city state, so I don't see why it can't be compared with the others - smaller area and population but the same principle applies. That said, I have friends there who'd be surprised to hear that their civil liberties are not tightly controlled and curtailed. Not "crushed"..... but then that also seems a rather extreme and emotive term for anything that has happened in Thailand except during multiple periods of coup-enforced rule.

how many percent of farmers has Singapore? What is the percentage of foreigner in Sing? How many miles of road, copper, glass fiber do you need in average to connect everyone to electric, street internet in Thailand in compare to Thailand? Or how would have Sing done it if they are not on the seaside like Chang Mai?

Speak with Singaporeans about politics! Most will change the topic immediately. Maybe no punishment but everyone know "Don't touch it" In Thailand everyone never was afraid to tell their opinion. "coup-enforced rule" what do you mean with that? Suchinda?

[gregb]

However, the poor and neglected of Thailand will get nowhere unless and until they decidedly and clearly separate themselves from Thaksin. Thaksin is eternally divisive. He's a dangerous strongman who is the antithesis to the more ligitimate democracy the peasants claim they seek. Thaksin has served their purposes. The fact has been true for some time already. Thaksin back in power would resemble the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution.

Yep. The fact is if we assume that there truly is more to the reds than just one man, then we also have to simultaneously assume they are the most ignorant people on the planet. The fact is, nobody despises the policies they represent. The people despise Thaksin. They lend support to the PAD and the current government, and speak out against the reds because they hate that one man.

Any rational, thinking red supporter would immediately realise that he could eviscerate the PAD and government power base by simply extricating their movement from Thaksin. So, we must either accept that the red policy really is predominantly about one man, and that any other grievances are minor in comparison, or else they are not rational, thinking people. Either way they are not good for Thailand.

[Publicus]

However, the poor and neglected of Thailand will get nowhere unless and until they decidedly and clearly separate themselves from Thaksin. Thaksin is eternally divisive. He's a dangerous strongman who is the antithesis to the more ligitimate democracy the peasants claim they seek. Thaksin has served their purposes. The fact has been true for some time already. Thaksin back in power would resemble the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution.

Yep. The fact is if we assume that there truly is more to the reds than just one man, then we also have to simultaneously assume they are the most ignorant people on the planet. The fact is, nobody despises the policies they represent. The people despise Thaksin. They lend support to the PAD and the current government, and speak out against the reds because they hate that one man.

Any rational, thinking red supporter would immediately realise that he could eviscerate the PAD and government power base by simply extricating their movement from Thaksin. So, we must either accept that the red policy really is predominantly about one man, and that any other grievances are minor in comparison, or else they are not rational, thinking people. Either way they are not good for Thailand.

For as long as the reds continue to make clear they are willingly intoxicated by the cult of personality, they cannot be taken seriously by anyone, Thai or farang, who is comitted to democracy or in promoting the cause of the poor and neglected getting their fair shake/share. Should Thaksin finagle a return to power, his army of blind Thai Rouge followers would be at his disposal for any purpose or whim. Given that Thaksin has shown us repeatedly that his evil brain needs a post mortem examination for the good of humanity, the prospect of his returning to power would need to be prevented as the highest priority.

The reds' counter argument, first Thaksin then us, holds no water historically as has been pointed out by another well versed forumist.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Publicus

[Steve2UK]

how many percent of farmers has Singapore? What is the percentage of foreigner in Sing? How many miles of road, copper, glass fiber do you need in average to connect everyone to electric, street internet in Thailand in compare to Thailand? Or how would have Sing done it if they are not on the seaside like Chang Mai?

Speak with Singaporeans about politics! Most will change the topic immediately. Maybe no punishment but everyone know "Don't touch it" In Thailand everyone never was afraid to tell their opinion. "coup-enforced rule" what do you mean with that? Suchinda?

h90, regarding your first couple of lines (the bit between "how" and "Chang Mai") I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about; farmers - who mentioned them?; foreigners - who mentioned them?; let me know the road/copper/glass fiber figures when you find out - but who mentioned them?; "on the seaside like Chang Mai"? - I guess it's late and you didn't check the map?

By "coup-enforced rule" - I mean "coup-enforced rule". What's not clear about that? You want a list of generals? Here's a few since 1971:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...19/20060919/%5D

Further back than that, you can do your own research.

[Steve2UK]

Given that Thaksin has shown us repeatedly that his evil brain needs a post mortem examination for the good of humanity, the prospect of his returning to power would need to be prevented as the highest priority.

Careful now - you'll have some folk thinking that you'd really prefer the brain dissection to be ante mortem.