Is Avoiding Chiang Mai A Good Idea?

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As Love Chiang Mai 51 group is still going to go ahead with their demonstration rally this weekend, it might be best to avoid the area, at least until this violent group is brought under control.

O-kay.. Here are some pictures of a small gatherting today. Honestly..

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Red-Shirts-D...24#entry3170424

[WinnieTheKhwai]

There are actually far nicer places in the North of Thailand than Chiang Mai and maybe the lunatic extremists of LCM51 will cause a redistribution of tourists to these other venues that in general could better do with the tourist baht.

If and where there are nicer places in the North is a debate that will never come to a conclusive result, but your statement seems to imply that Red Shirt protests are somehow limited to Chiang Mai, and then even the city of Chiang Mai, which is largely the same sort of urban middle class demographic that often go Democrat.

Anyway, Mae Hong Son and Phrae are nice places. I'm visiting Nan myself for the upcoming holiday, indeed they're very nice places!

Edited November 28, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[TAWP]

There are actually far nicer places in the North of Thailand than Chiang Mai and maybe the lunatic extremists of LCM51 will cause a redistribution of tourists to these other venues that in general could better do with the tourist baht.

If and where there are nicer places in the North is a debate that will never come to a conclusive result, but your statement seems to imply that Red Shirt protests are somehow limited to Chiang Mai, and then even the city of Chiang Mai, which is largely the same sort of urban middle class demographic that often go Democrat.

Anyway, Mae Hong Son and Phrae are nice places. I'm visiting Nan myself for the upcoming holiday, indeed they're very nice places!

Unless you are trying to tell us that all red shirts are violent thugs, his point was that LCM51 was restricted to the Chiang Mai area and hence you could travel to other locations for your vacation etc.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

That's true; either way, they're a tiny group. I thought for a second that he was advocating to avoid a particular area because some of the people held particular views. There's no shortage of Yellow/Democrat leaning people in Chiang Mai (Town). ( Including my wife, come to think of it. )

Edited November 28, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[justanothercybertosser]

Sorry, but the "creation of no-go areas" for prime ministers of Thailand has begun with the PAD and their Democrat Party collaborators, when Somchai was blocked from going to many southern provinces, where airports have been blocked last year on the news of his arrival, and his motorcade has been attacked. This is here is just a logical development of an existing and yet unsolved conflict scenario where hardly anyone has the moral high ground, especially not Abhisit.

Sorry, but finding excuses for the actions of the CM 51 group is hilarious!

And why does Abhisit lack morallity, please explain!

There is a massive difference between 'excuses' and 'explanations'. I have delivered the latter, not the former. And if you ask me - many of the actions of the Chiang Mai 51 have been quite despicable.

Abhisit has no moral high ground as he has supported the PAD during all the turmoil last year (and given his public appearances at ASTV events - he still is uncomfortable close to that bunch for a PM that has promised to be a PM that brings reconciliation, yet has miserably failed in that point).

Edited November 28, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Jingthing]

Sorry, but the "creation of no-go areas" for prime ministers of Thailand has begun with the PAD and their Democrat Party collaborators, when Somchai was blocked from going to many southern provinces, where airports have been blocked last year on the news of his arrival, and his motorcade has been attacked. This is here is just a logical development of an existing and yet unsolved conflict scenario where hardly anyone has the moral high ground, especially not Abhisit.

Sorry, but finding excuses for the actions of the CM 51 group is hilarious!

And why does Abhisit lack morallity, please explain!

There is a massive difference between 'excuses' and 'explanations'. I have delivered the latter, not the former. And if you ask me - many of the actions of the Chiang Mai 51 have been quite despicable.

Abhisit has no moral high ground as he has supported the PAD during all the turmoil last year (and given his public appearances at ASTV events - he still is uncomfortable close to that bunch for a PM that has promised to be a PM that brings reconciliation, yet has miserably failed in that point).

Great, lets talk moral ground.

I agree Abhisit occupies an ambiguous moral ground. He is to a certain extent damaged goods.

But, get real, it's all relative. Compared to Takki, he's Mother Theresa. Takki's moral ground has become quicksand long ago ... he is completely and utterly discredited.

[justanothercybertosser]

Sorry, but the "creation of no-go areas" for prime ministers of Thailand has begun with the PAD and their Democrat Party collaborators, when Somchai was blocked from going to many southern provinces, where airports have been blocked last year on the news of his arrival, and his motorcade has been attacked. This is here is just a logical development of an existing and yet unsolved conflict scenario where hardly anyone has the moral high ground, especially not Abhisit.

Sorry, but finding excuses for the actions of the CM 51 group is hilarious!

And why does Abhisit lack morallity, please explain!

There is a massive difference between 'excuses' and 'explanations'. I have delivered the latter, not the former. And if you ask me - many of the actions of the Chiang Mai 51 have been quite despicable.

Abhisit has no moral high ground as he has supported the PAD during all the turmoil last year (and given his public appearances at ASTV events - he still is uncomfortable close to that bunch for a PM that has promised to be a PM that brings reconciliation, yet has miserably failed in that point).

Great, lets talk moral ground.

I agree Abhisit occupies an ambiguous moral ground. He is to a certain extent damaged goods.

But, get real, it's all relative. Compared to Takki, he's Mother Theresa. Takki's moral ground has become quicksand long ago ... he is completely and utterly discredited.

That is a difference of opinion - Thaksin is ambiguous as well. He has a lot of blood on his hands, and has most definitely been involved in corruption (yet the real cases will never come to court), but on the other hand he has created opportunities for the poor that no other PM in Thailand has managed to do before.

Abhisit has (almost) no blood on his hands, the corruption cases he personally is rumored to have been involved in (some little stuff with grammy early on in his career) have been very minor, yet as a PM he has been mostly ineffectual, has only excelled by grinning on the world stage and holding speeches in a better English than any other Thai PM before him.

It is all a question of perception, and from which side of society one comes from here in Thailand.

Edited November 28, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Jingthing]

You just proved my point. Anyone reading your post objectively would see that.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Anyone reading his post would say "Agreed." But that's hard, isn't it?

[Jingthing]

Anyone reading his post would say "Agreed." But that's hard, isn't it?

Irrelevant really to the line of the discussion.

To further illustrate my point --

Abhisit is damaged goods.

Takki is ruined goods.

[Publicus]

Anyone reading his post would say "Agreed." But that's hard, isn't it?

Seeing common ground on which to agree in the posts of jinthing and justanothercybertosser is the easy part. The four of us sitting down to a round of brews and to 'chat' would be the more interesting aspect.

[koosdeboer]

That is a difference of opinion - Thaksin is ambiguous as well. He has a lot of blood on his hands, and has most definitely been involved in corruption (yet the real cases will never come to court), but on the other hand he has created opportunities for the poor that no other PM in Thailand has managed to do before.

Abhisit has (almost) no blood on his hands, the corruption cases he personally is rumored to have been involved in (some little stuff with grammy early on in his career) have been very minor, yet as a PM he has been mostly ineffectual, has only excelled by grinning on the world stage and holding speeches in a better English than any other Thai PM before him.

It is all a question of perception, and from which side of society one comes from here in Thailand.

What kind of opportunities did Taksin create for the poor? Like how he created opportunities for Man city?

Read this from the guardian:

he sage

Signing of the week: Thaksin Shinawatra, appointed "economic advisor" to Cambodia's government. Thaksin's finest economic moments to date: tripled pre-tax Man City losses to £32.6m; borrowed millions to pay wages; halved assets; plus took a £30m loan to fund transfers. "There is no problem," said Thaksin in 2008, "simply a negative cash flow."

[hammered]

There are actually far nicer places in the North of Thailand than Chiang Mai and maybe the lunatic extremists of LCM51 will cause a redistribution of tourists to these other venues that in general could better do with the tourist baht.

If and where there are nicer places in the North is a debate that will never come to a conclusive result, but your statement seems to imply that Red Shirt protests are somehow limited to Chiang Mai, and then even the city of Chiang Mai, which is largely the same sort of urban middle class demographic that often go Democrat.

Anyway, Mae Hong Son and Phrae are nice places. I'm visiting Nan myself for the upcoming holiday, indeed they're very nice places!

I make a distinction between red groups. Chiang Mai is unforunately stuck with LCM51 who are a violent and facist group. Most other red ghroups are not like this. It is unforunate for Chiang Mai.

Nan is indeed nice have a nice holiday.

[justanothercybertosser]

What kind of opportunities did Taksin create for the poor? Like how he created opportunities for Man city?

Read this from the guardian:

he sage

Signing of the week: Thaksin Shinawatra, appointed "economic advisor" to Cambodia's government. Thaksin's finest economic moments to date: tripled pre-tax Man City losses to £32.6m; borrowed millions to pay wages; halved assets; plus took a £30m loan to fund transfers. "There is no problem," said Thaksin in 2008, "simply a negative cash flow."

No, like how he introduced the first national health coverage in Thailand (open to improvements, but it did work), the many different micro-loan systems (they have worked quiet well) - all things that were long talked about, but never done before. Also, as bloody the drug war was, it was under the by the drugs most affected sectors of society (and not only there) one of the most popular policies during his time.

These are reasons why Thaksin is still enormously popular. So far this government has done nothing along those lines. Local corruption (that is the sort of corruption most westerners rarely see, but people are directly affected by) has been rising enormously, they have not introduced one single pro-poor policy at all, and the drug situation worsened considerably.

When talking about morals, there is also a moral problem when a government does not do what it is supposed to do - represent the people, and support them. This government is as ineffectual as every single Democrat led government has been. They put presentable faces in the front, have a great PR machine to create the right impression, but achieve nothing.

Can you tell me what this government has achieved in real terms in the past year?

[Old Man River]

What kind of opportunities did Taksin create for the poor? Like how he created opportunities for Man city?

Read this from the guardian:

he sage

Signing of the week: Thaksin Shinawatra, appointed "economic advisor" to Cambodia's government. Thaksin's finest economic moments to date: tripled pre-tax Man City losses to £32.6m; borrowed millions to pay wages; halved assets; plus took a £30m loan to fund transfers. "There is no problem," said Thaksin in 2008, "simply a negative cash flow."

No, like how he introduced the first national health coverage in Thailand (open to improvements, but it did work), the many different micro-loan systems (they have worked quiet well) - all things that were long talked about, but never done before. Also, as bloody the drug war was, it was under the by the drugs most affected sectors of society (and not only there) one of the most popular policies during his time.

These are reasons why Thaksin is still enormously popular. So far this government has done nothing along those lines. Local corruption (that is the sort of corruption most westerners rarely see, but people are directly affected by) has been rising enormously, they have not introduced one single pro-poor policy at all, and the drug situation worsened considerably.

When talking about morals, there is also a moral problem when a government does not do what it is supposed to do - represent the people, and support them. This government is as ineffectual as every single Democrat led government has been. They put presentable faces in the front, have a great PR machine to create the right impression, but achieve nothing.

Can you tell me what this government has achieved in real terms in the past year?

Let me throw these questions your way.

First, if somehow a deal is done with Thaksin and he gets a sizable amount of his fortune back, do you think he will want to risk losing again to help the people of the northeast? Second, if he does not help the people of the northeast (i.e. was only in it for the money), do you think the Red Shirts are separate from Thaksin to where they will continue their demonstrations regardless of whether Thaksin ever gets involved again?

[justanothercybertosser]

What kind of opportunities did Taksin create for the poor? Like how he created opportunities for Man city?

Read this from the guardian:

he sage

Signing of the week: Thaksin Shinawatra, appointed "economic advisor" to Cambodia's government. Thaksin's finest economic moments to date: tripled pre-tax Man City losses to £32.6m; borrowed millions to pay wages; halved assets; plus took a £30m loan to fund transfers. "There is no problem," said Thaksin in 2008, "simply a negative cash flow."

No, like how he introduced the first national health coverage in Thailand (open to improvements, but it did work), the many different micro-loan systems (they have worked quiet well) - all things that were long talked about, but never done before. Also, as bloody the drug war was, it was under the by the drugs most affected sectors of society (and not only there) one of the most popular policies during his time.

These are reasons why Thaksin is still enormously popular. So far this government has done nothing along those lines. Local corruption (that is the sort of corruption most westerners rarely see, but people are directly affected by) has been rising enormously, they have not introduced one single pro-poor policy at all, and the drug situation worsened considerably.

When talking about morals, there is also a moral problem when a government does not do what it is supposed to do - represent the people, and support them. This government is as ineffectual as every single Democrat led government has been. They put presentable faces in the front, have a great PR machine to create the right impression, but achieve nothing.

Can you tell me what this government has achieved in real terms in the past year?

Let me throw these questions your way.

First, if somehow a deal is done with Thaksin and he gets a sizable amount of his fortune back, do you think he will want to risk losing again to help the people of the northeast? Second, if he does not help the people of the northeast (i.e. was only in it for the money), do you think the Red Shirts are separate from Thaksin to where they will continue their demonstrations regardless of whether Thaksin ever gets involved again?

In this scenario, deal being done, Thaksin would lose people very quickly if he would step back on his pro-poor stand. I doubt that he could afford that. Thaksin's only angle is the support of these regions and sectors, if he would lose that - he has no position to deal with left.

In case he would actually do that, it would be a major blow to the Red Shirt movement. But the issues would not disappear as they are far beyond Thaksin (when one actually takes the time and listens to what is said during rallies on and off the stage, it is rather clear that this is so). There are people in the Red Shirt movement (and also in Puah Thai Party) that have been involved in those sort of politics long before Thaksin ever decided to play politics. They have managed to politicise the people now to an extend that i can't see them simply disappearing back into their huts. These things will continue. The Red Shirt movement is an incredibly multi-layered mass movement, and not, as some try to make it out, just a group whose only aim is to bring Thaksin back to power.

Look at the PAD - they were supposed to shut it after the installation of this government. But they still opened their mouths. It culminated in an assasination attempt against Sondhi and even the PAD did not point their finger at the Red Shirts or Thaksin as the responsible party. And the PAD is still there, as we can see.

No, this is not just about personalities, but more about strong issues of system change or adaption. Thailand is caught in massive historical mechanisms, and there is no stepping back. One can only wish that this will proceed with the least amount of blood spilled, leading one day to negotiations and a new social contract in Thai society (nobody can win this by a continuation of confrontation). Right now though i can't see this happening yet, especially not with this government, and with certain parts of the military so entrenched into the powergame.

[brahmburgers]

You'll be fine in Chiang Mai ...unless you're wearing a yellow shirt. In that case, don't come stand near me!

If you're insunuating that anyone found wearing a yellow shirt in C.Mai may be attacked, then there's something very wrong with that picture. 'Fine' is not a word that comes to mind when picturing a city where thugs can roam unhindered, and cause physical harm with no repercussions.

What are the cops doing? Is there a governor? If so, what is he doing to try and rid his city of roaming/threatening hoodlums?

[brahmburgers]

Thaksin would lose people very quickly if he would step back on his pro-poor stand.

Of course T would never 'step back on his pro-poor stand.' That would be like him saying he hates children, pets and flowers. There's a big difference between what a politician says and what he does. T is a prime example. He says a lot of the right things, but delivers nearly nothing. What foundations (that benefit Thais) does he support? When have you ever heard of him giving more than Bt.1,000 of his own money to the poor? I say 'more than Bt.1,000' because there's a well-publicised photo-op where he gave a Bt.1,000 bill to poor old woman. He made sure there were a bunch of reporters all around with their cameras ready. This was weeks before his Temasak deal came through. He must have known for weeks/months beforehand that he and his thug family were coming in to billions of dollars of tax free money at that time. He had been busy setting up shell companies, and frantically transferring stocks to and fro within his family and other 'straw men'. He even quipped, at that time, that 'I'm not really a rich man' ....ha ha ha, all the reporters and 'yes men' within earshot chuckled obligatorily at that funny statement.

No, T will never ever say he's against helping the poor. That would be just plain a stupid thing to say. The key is to ascertain what he does, rather than what he says. There's a world of difference between the two.

[Publicus]

We seem to be looking at two critical questions: Can a deal be struck, and could Thaksin keep his end of the deal?

Whatever the specifics of any deal that might be agreed, money and power would be at the core of a deal.

Give Thaksin his loot back - all, most or some of it. Assuming Thaksin would be satisfied with the money amounts, Thaksin would then have to agree to stay away from Thailand and sever all of his connections to politics or government. Takki would have to swear off Thai politics and government forever or 'indefinitely' (semantics).

The key to the power aspect of any deal is whether Thaksin in his heart of hearts and in his soul - in every bone in his body - can agree to stay away from his homeland indefinitely and never again to involve himself in sociopolitics, government and power.

Assuming he can, the reds, without the strong personal leadership of Thaksin - and his money - would become rudderless or would subdivide into even more factions than they already have. Given that Thailand is incapable of producing a 'man of the hour' genuine leader, the red sociopolitical movement, if there is one, would fragment into groups controlled by local or regional barons and wouldn't be any better off than they ever had been.

So what could or would a deal accomplish? Thaksin stay away from Thailand indefinitely, or disconnect himself from sociopolitics and government power?

Don't see it hapening, not in a million reincarnations.

[Jingthing]

Agreed with above. If there is one thing that you can certain of, any "promise" made by Takki to quit politics will never be kept as long as he lives. That can't be negotiated because that can never be believed. Too much of a record of lies.

As far as the people of Thailand being incapable of producing a people power leader with any kind of moral authority (Takki has none), that may be true or it may not be true. It seems to me if the legitimately frustrated masses can't do better than Takki, they had best work harder on that problem if they sincerely want a better country (rather than some kind of sick red blood lust resulting in something even worse than they have now). I think they do need a charismatic transformational leader but that putting all their hopes on the likes of Takki was a huge mistake.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jingthing

[justanothercybertosser]

No, T will never ever say he's against helping the poor. That would be just plain a stupid thing to say. The key is to ascertain what he does, rather than what he says. There's a world of difference between the two.

And that is why he still is so popular: people look at what he did - and that was introducing the first national health care program worth speaking off, the first major scale micro loan schemes which actually worked, and he reduced drugs.

The Democrats have never yet been able to match this - they talk much, but do little.

[justanothercybertosser]

I think they do need a charismatic transformational leader but that putting all their hopes on the likes of Takki was a huge mistake.

Why was it a mistake?

Who else at the time had policies which people needed? Can you name anyone?

What Thailand ideally would need is not a "charismatic leader", but a system that works. Thaksin abused the system (but people benefitted more than under any other PM), the military wrecked the system by staging a coup, and this government abuses the by the system as well (and people do not benefit).

Edited November 29, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[hammered]

I think they do need a charismatic transformational leader but that putting all their hopes on the likes of Takki was a huge mistake.

Why was it a mistake?

Who else at the time had policies which people needed? Can you name anyone?

What Thailand ideally would need is not a "charismatic leader", but a system that works. Thaksin abused the system (but people benefitted more than under any other PM), the military wrecked the system by staging a coup, and this government abuses the by the system as well (and people do not benefit).

Agree that a workable system is what is needed. It doesnt look like it will be easy to get there though. I would prefer a deal to some massive outbreak of violence but it rerally looks as if the latter is more likely.

The charismatic leader and knight on white horse and angels and demons that have been part of Thai politcs since I have been here have only really served to hide things and ensure genuine change didnt happen.

Funny thing now is that I thionk the eventual change will be more than if Thaksin had been left in place and just carried on with his own business cronies and little polticiiastion.

[justanothercybertosser]

Agree that a workable system is what is needed. It doesnt look like it will be easy to get there though. I would prefer a deal to some massive outbreak of violence but it rerally looks as if the latter is more likely.

The charismatic leader and knight on white horse and angels and demons that have been part of Thai politcs since I have been here have only really served to hide things and ensure genuine change didnt happen.

Funny thing now is that I thionk the eventual change will be more than if Thaksin had been left in place and just carried on with his own business cronies and little polticiiastion.

ditto

[Jingthing]

No, major change won't happen here by magical thinking. Coherent, focused, non-violent, ethical leadership is needed to move this country out of this mess. Takki cannot provide that, at least not anymore. I don't think Abhisit can either and I don' t see anyone on the horizon who can. Abhisit may have been a great leader in a different time, but he is too constrained and compromised by the current political circumstances and yes by the appearances of how he came into power in the first place. So yes things will probably get worse and some amount of violence is probable. Look at other Asian so called democracies. They don't progress without strong leaders. Of course most of the hard core reds are still (literally?) banking on Takki, but he has lost the support of a huge portion of the silent majority.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

If Takki had remained in power there now would be a Chairman Thaksin. He could call himself president, as we call the leader of the PRC, but in the PRC the person in the position is always called 'chairman.'

Given the rag-tag meandering of post war Thai civilization, Thaksin is the only possible 'light' the rural agrarian dispossed could have got. There wouldn't have been anyone else, there couldn't have been anyone else. Thaksin the Sino-Thai outsider from Chiang Mai is it, objectively the only one. The peasantry is stuck with him, necessarily and unavoidably so (and so are we).

Abhisit would be the SOS rag-tag Thai establishment leader regardless of the time or circumstance. It's only now that Abhisit looks good or relatively better than anyone on offer past or present, or anyone who could present him/her self as on offer at any point in the future.

It's an unpleasant but real fact that Thailand without a Lee Kwan Yew, a Mahathir or having been a colony of Britain is consigned by its own nature to muddle and muck its way through the present mess and into a more of the same future. At the core of the problem is that Thailand generations ago took the wrong institutional route to the future.

Sorry to say and disappointing to hear, consider or to conclude but I'm afraid it's more true and accurate than not.

[Jingthing]

What you said makes sense, but doesn't mean that some bright young Thai people coming up can't agitate for real change. It seems clear things are going to get worse before they get better here, but I wouldn't say there is absolutely no hope for the future either. Sometimes both countries and people have to hit absolutely rock bottom before they get motivated to make the needed painful changes.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jingthing

[hammered]

If Takki had remained in power there now would be a Chairman Thaksin. He could call himself president, as we call the leader of the PRC, but in the PRC the person in the position is always called 'chairman.'

Given the rag-tag meandering of post war Thai civilization, Thaksin is the only possible 'light' the rural agrarian dispossed could have got. There wouldn't have been anyone else, there couldn't have been anyone else. Thaksin the Sino-Thai outsider from Chiang Mai is it, objectively the only one. The peasantry is stuck with him, necessarily and unavoidably so (and so are we).

Abhisit would be the SOS rag-tag Thai establishment leader regardless of the time or circumstance. It's only now that Abhisit looks good or relatively better than anyone on offer past or present, or anyone who could present him/her self as on offer at any point in the future.

It's an unpleasant but real fact that Thailand without a Lee Kwan Yew, a Mahathir or having been a colony of Britain is consigned by its own nature to muddle and muck its way through the present mess and into a more of the same future. At the core of the problem is that Thailand generations ago took the wrong institutional route to the future.

Sorry to say and disappointing to hear, consider or to conclude but I'm afraid it's more true and accurate than not.

I dont think Thaksin could have gone that far. Sure he was popular and he had bought a lot of MPs but his popularity was declining and th eparty was creaking. There is also the question of whether he would have also stepped aside for another TRT honcho to take the reins as pressure mounted. If as some thin he had really turned the the forest guys on the PAD and killed people that would have hurt him too. What a lot also forget is that the Dems were reforing an drebuilding the party after the disastrous Banyat period and that when the coup cam ethey were only half way through whihc is probbaly why they are divided today. They were planning on being competetive at the election after the next one (ie after 2010) imho when Thaksin was in power.

The coupo it can be argued and what came after has actually resurrected Thaksins popualrity and power when it was receding. Of course in retrospect things are easy to see but few now think the coup was a success or even a good idea

By the way some maintain that Thaksin was Thailand Lee or Mahatir or Suharto

[brahmburgers]

Let's not forgot that it was the Yellows who paved the way for Thaksin to get pushed out of power. The Yellows may not have wanted a coup, at least not during the months they started their campaign, but they (and like-minded people like myself) were relieved when the coup happened, because T was simply too awful.

As for striking some sort of deal. I'm all against it. Striking a deal assumes the Reds are strong. They're not. Their earlier strength was based on numbers and the fact that some of them could readily turn violent. Currently, their numbers are dwindling, so that just leaves pockets of agitators in places like Chiang Mai.

Plus, striking a deal which might involve some sort of promise(s) from T is ridiculous. He is a liar. Nothing he says or promises can be believed.

No, T will never ever say he's against helping the poor. That would be a stupid thing to say. The key is to ascertain what he does, rather than what he says. There's a world of difference between the two.

And that is why he still is so popular: people look at what he did - and that was introducing the first national health care program worth speaking off, the first major scale micro loan schemes which actually worked, and he reduced drugs. The Democrats have never yet been able to match this - they talk much, but do little.

The glass half full or half empty, depending on one's perspective.

Some people and their communities benefited from T's policies. Much of that is debatable, though the money which was transferred to pu yai bans (headmen), was sent to regions that gave T the most votes. Very subjective. Plus, it's likely much of that money was lottery proceeds which were administered by a 3-man committee headed by T himself (guess who made the decisions at that time?). In essence, there was one man, T, who could funnel billions of baht to wherever he chose. It's no surprise that many Issanites and Chiang Mai residents like T, as that's where most of the money got funneled. They see a resurgence of T as a way to turn the money spigot back on.

[KireB]

[

Thaksin abused the system (but people benefitted more than under any other PM), the military wrecked the system by staging a coup, and this government abuses the by the system as well (and people do not benefit).

The people were stolen more money from than they've ever had been before you mean!

The military saved the democratic system just before it was wrecked and this government is trying to get it back on its feet!

Edited November 29, 2009 by KireB