Prime Minister Abhisit Opposed To Amnesty For Thaksin

[caf]

.... While some coups have had the collusion of advanced democracies due to geopolitics,

the 2006 coup was yet another typical coup as it was entirely motivated by internal factors -

corruption, money and power being at the center of it all,

not to mention tradition, custom and culture.

Pretty well sums up the Thailand equasion.

We can't bitch too loudly, because this is the slow but steady road they tread.

I think the internet will be the only route by which Thailand changes it's culture,

and that is still a generation's time off for any substantive repair to the culture,

long hamstrung by a 30-50's style school culture of nationalist mind control.

It will eventually happen as the older Phu Yai generations die off

and the newer world viewing people come in to power.

I think, regardless of his accent modus, that Abhisit is the tip of a rising iceberg towards the future.

Add also Kunying Dr Porntip Rojanasunan,

another future outward looking voice and role model for Thailand.

She just made cnn's front page

http://edition.cnn.com/

With a link leading here :

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/none/dr-pornt...ce-death-995617

You and Publicus are making some good points here. Whether the new generations will be so different I am not so sure. And none of us can see into the future. We and the Thais can hope of course, they deserve better.

I am not so convinced about Abhisit but I don't really undersatnd what you are saying. I am not being pedantic I really do not know what an accent modus is. And by the tip of a "rising" iceberg are you suggesting a coup or trouble in the future of which he is the tip?

We all have our writing styles and I understand and in fact agree with the bulk of the two posts. Please help to understand the last bit.

caf

[hammered]

Despite the weaknesses and shortcomings of Abhisit as a PM, many people whether Thai or farang just don't expect the same or similar negatives of him that we got from Thaksin 2001 into 2006 and which we since have been getting from him in spades. Abhisit and the Dems are establishment elite types who are rooted in the 1932 origins of Thai democracy. They, like all the political groupings, simply want their time in power, their slice of the pie, and to basically continue to go with the flow domestically and internationally/globally.

Conversely and from the outset, Thaksin and his group set out to remake Thailand so a new guy would bestride the country from atop a new pinnacle of political power, to include creation of a new corporate domestic empire of Thaksin-Thailand Inc, and who would become a regional leader during a transformational time when regional geographic groups are being accepted as necessary due to evolving economics both domestically and globally, with a concomitant expanding reach of political power and influence for its leaders.

Thaksin clashed with the steady as we go elites who haven't any such radically different ego and appetite for so much in riches and political power. A major difference is that to achieve his ends Thaksin had to incorporate the dispossed rural agrarian poor into his planned journey, but only because they were the one segment of the population which was ripe for the pickings during the new age of the mobile phone, slick new motorcycles, electronic gadgets of all make and manner, color/cable tv etc etc.

Abhisit and the ordinary sociopolitical groupings would plod along in the usual ways with democracy and economic development in Thailand plodding along with them. Thaksin was eviscerating democracy, undermining traditional institutions and morphing the country's economy into new classes of the super-super rich who by the way would provide a new standard of living for the peasantry, a new standard of living however that is dependent on handouts and giveaways by the ever paternalistic and otherwise self serving new political elite.

Thaksin in his greed and meglomania simply took on too much.

Thaksin was right and his early moves were on the right lines.Thailand does need to be remade but his own greed and meglomania got in the way, a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions.As far as Thaksin's support for the rural majority is concerned your remarks reflect bile and ignorance.The reality is that he was just a supreme politician and saw how mobilising the rural majority would support his political platform.That's what democratic politicians do whether Sarkozy, Obama or Blair.The steady as you go elites as you describe them are not less greedy than Thaksin, just less competent and more reliant on brute force.I agree Thaksin took on too much but if you just ascribe his motives to personal aggrandisement you completely miss out on the big picture.I am afraid very few of you post indicate a rounded comprehension.It can't be very intellectually or morally satisfying to be a standard bearer for the gruesome collection of soldiers, monopolist capitalists and fading aristocrats that dominate Thailand now.Their marginalisation is of course not an "if" but a "when" question.Abhisit could be the great catalyst but does he have what it takes, not least to cut the military interest down to size?

A pretty good summary of things imho. Thaksin in my experience also remains popualr upcountry but I get the sense as fondly remembered uncle who maybe has seen better days and has made some unsavoury friends/started mixing in the wrong circles. Thaksin is still powerful poltically and his influence will I think effect the outcome of an election although to what degree remains moot (The Mahasarakham swing wasnt the result his alliance expected).

Abhisit is still an enigma. He remains the most popular member of the government and maybe the only one with any public resonance, but maybe that is a reflection of how Thaksin changed politics more into a cult off celebrity too with only one man running things. Anyway Abhisit has at times stood against those that engineered the conditions for his rise - police chief and he seems to be hanging strong on Manit - while at other times seeming to tow the line - initial statements on new southern strategy redrawn etc. My guess is that he as a person isnt overly happy with the hand he has accepted to play but as he accepted it is tied to it although willing at times to still resist a thing or two. The flip side of it is that those who engineered his rise are probably not very happy with Abhisit too. However, they dont have a viable altrnative if the Chuan Democrats remain behind Abhisit. Around Songkhran time the alternative candidate was mooted but it was clear a return to dry faceless ineer circle characters was not going to go down easily, so they are stuck with Abhisit (who is no inner circle man) for now, which strengthens Abhisit's hand potentially. This almost forced (not?) simbiotic relationship will endure for a while or at least until coup (unlikely), revolution (unlikley), disolution of the Dems (there are those in the anti-Thaksin elite who would like this), election (after Mahasrakham it will be interesting to see who pushes for this), coalition breakup over dividing the cake (always likely in Thailand). To see what Abhisit was really like as a PM we would likely need to see him head up a coalition after an election and hence be free or at least freer of extra-parliamentary forces. However, that may be something we never get to see.

The coup as we know removed Thaksin and disadvantaged his party to a lesser extent. However, what many miss is that the Dems were reforming/modernising with an eye to seriously contesting the election after the next one when th ecould occurred (the next would have been around 2009) ie 2012 or 2013. The coup also left the Dems only half reformed and potentially very divided between the old and new. That situation hasnt much changed and we witness it now. Another hypothetical would have been if there were no coup would the Dems have achieved their reformation and electoral success as planned linke dof course to the other hypotheticla about would the people have turned on TRT and Thaksin as more corruption etc stuff came out. All good stuff for an academic debate but now we are stuck with the mess that is.

[caf]

...

Come on now, there must have been at least some 'behind the scenes wrangling going on before the tanks were rolled down the streets in Bangkok in Sept '06.

...

I recall reading in the newspapers months before the coup (as early as May, maybe before) that military brass were practically waiting in line at the palace, each telling the King "we're here to do your will" (can't recall the exact words from B. Post, but I understood it to mean "we're ready to throw the bum out").

I think that the whole game plan was laid out out well in advance, contingent on him being out of the country. New York is about as far away as you can get from Thailand (12 time zones). I truly appreciated the way he was made to lose face the way his speech was canceled at the UN after his arrival in NYC.

I think the next uprising is crucial, and if it doesn't gain him anything that's it, no more money for loyalty. Maybe reality TV is his next move. Something he has in common with Donald Trump (or so I hear) is that the most dangerous place in the world is between him and a TV camera -- let them have at eachother.

"military brass were practically waiting in line at the palace, each telling the King "we're here to do your will" "

Had not read that myself and surprised the BB made a comment involving His Majesty. Are you sure?

Given the amount of baggage loaded on his departing plane I think it would be naive to believe he did not think something was afoot. Other stories I heard seem to corroborate that.

It was Thaksin himself who cancelled the speech.

caf

[animatic]

Watch what you say, because someone will parse it to death, or at least the nth degree.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3238358

------------------

and still others for simple the joy winning a point against a rival in any way possible,

Game, set, match, retired your side.

-------------------

Projection

Description

When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.

Projection may also happen to obliterate attributes of other people with which we are uncomfortable. We assume that they are like us, and in doing so we allow ourselves to ignore those attributes they have with which we are uncomfortable.

* Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself.

* Complementary projection is assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/beha.../projection.htm

On one level touché, yes I tried to make sense of mis-used words.

Since the simple words used didn't make the point clear, without adding definitions.

On another level you just make my point quite clearly.

Like I had dialed up an example and it appeared like magic!

Adding the ad hominum of ' neurotic projection' doesn't add to your argument one whit,

or add wit.

[Davidusaf99]

or nit wit?

[LaoPo]

With a link leading here :

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/none/dr-pornt...ce-death-995617

Thanks for the link!

However, I couldn't resist to have a look at that page's: YOU MAY ALSO LIKE:

And, if you click there, there's a lot more: You may also Like

LaoPo

[Publicus]

Despite the weaknesses and shortcomings of Abhisit as a PM, many people whether Thai or farang just don't expect the same or similar negatives of him that we got from Thaksin 2001 into 2006 and which we since have been getting from him in spades. Abhisit and the Dems are establishment elite types who are rooted in the 1932 origins of Thai democracy. They, like all the political groupings, simply want their time in power, their slice of the pie, and to basically continue to go with the flow domestically and internationally/globally.

Conversely and from the outset, Thaksin and his group set out to remake Thailand so a new guy would bestride the country from atop a new pinnacle of political power, to include creation of a new corporate domestic empire of Thaksin-Thailand Inc, and who would become a regional leader during a transformational time when regional geographic groups are being accepted as necessary due to evolving economics both domestically and globally, with a concomitant expanding reach of political power and influence for its leaders.

Thaksin clashed with the steady as we go elites who haven't any such radically different ego and appetite for so much in riches and political power. A major difference is that to achieve his ends Thaksin had to incorporate the dispossed rural agrarian poor into his planned journey, but only because they were the one segment of the population which was ripe for the pickings during the new age of the mobile phone, slick new motorcycles, electronic gadgets of all make and manner, color/cable tv etc etc.

Abhisit and the ordinary sociopolitical groupings would plod along in the usual ways with democracy and economic development in Thailand plodding along with them. Thaksin was eviscerating democracy, undermining traditional institutions and morphing the country's economy into new classes of the super-super rich who by the way would provide a new standard of living for the peasantry, a new standard of living however that is dependent on handouts and giveaways by the ever paternalistic and otherwise self serving new political elite.

Thaksin in his greed and meglomania simply took on too much.

Thaksin was right and his early moves were on the right lines.Thailand does need to be remade but his own greed and meglomania got in the way, a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions.As far as Thaksin's support for the rural majority is concerned your remarks reflect bile and ignorance.The reality is that he was just a supreme politician and saw how mobilising the rural majority would support his political platform.That's what democratic politicians do whether Sarkozy, Obama or Blair.The steady as you go elites as you describe them are not less greedy than Thaksin, just less competent and more reliant on brute force.I agree Thaksin took on too much but if you just ascribe his motives to personal aggrandisement you completely miss out on the big picture.I am afraid very few of you post indicate a rounded comprehension.It can't be very intellectually or morally satisfying to be a standard bearer for the gruesome collection of soldiers, monopolist capitalists and fading aristocrats that dominate Thailand now.Their marginalisation is of course not an "if" but a "when" question.Abhisit could be the great catalyst but does he have what it takes, not least to cut the military interest down to size?

That's quite a scolding.

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted. 

I've never said Thaksin wasn't a good politician in identifying a new constituency and in developing it. I did say that the rural agrarian poor were the only constituency available to Thaksin. He seized it while the other elites continued to snooze in their complacency and infifference.

Further, it's true Thaksin did nothing substantive to provide education - Thaksin ran through education minister after education minister, placing the ministry in a rudderless confusion which at one point was compounded by Thaksin assigning the education portfolio to himself, but only so he could sit on it. Thaksin did little fundamentally to advance the "rural majority" when he could have begun providing long term assistance that would cause the rural majority to become economically independent and thus not long term reliant on the largess of his handouts and control from Bankok. 

You're dead wrong to think I am the "standard bearer for the gruesome collection of soldiers, monopolist capitalists and fading aristocrats" that dominate Thailand now. Although you didn't go so far as to mention it,  neither am I in favor of vampires or evil spirits descending on or permeating Thailand (you stopped just short of making that similar claim).

You clearly would be amazed that I share the view Thailand needs to be radically changed, but that from my standpoint Thaksin is not the guy to make or lead those changes, this despite the fact you've read so many of those reasons so many times by so many posters to so many threads, reasons I myself have stated many times at many threads.

All the same, do keep me posted from up there on high as to my intellectual and moral satisfaction in these discusions. 

Edited January 7, 2010 by Publicus

[jayboy]

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted.

I'm afraid your response was to me at least completely incoherent.If it's an attempt at sarcasm I'm afraid it passed me by together with your reference to vampires and spirits.On an important point of detail Thaksin's support covered far more social groups than poor peasants.Baker/Pasuk have plenty of background on this.It also bears repetition that Thaksin's significance lies in his role as a catalyst, not so much in his populist measures.This is why the grisly elite you are apparently so attached to fear and hate him so much.

[Thai at Heart]

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted.

I'm afraid your response was to me at least completely incoherent.If it's an attempt at sarcasm I'm afraid it passed me by together with your reference to vampires and spirits.On an important point of detail Thaksin's support covered far more social groups than poor peasants.Baker/Pasuk have plenty of background on this.It also bears repetition that Thaksin's significance lies in his role as a catalyst, not so much in his populist measures.This is why the grisly elite you are apparently so attached to fear and hate him so much.

Correct. They believe Thaksin may have lit a blue touch paper and they have been stamping on anything resembling smoke ever since. It's irrelevant from the outside looking in as to whether he delivered on all that he promised. The issue is did enough of the electorate believe that he did.

[Publicus]

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted.

I'm afraid your response was to me at least completely incoherent.If it's an attempt at sarcasm I'm afraid it passed me by together with your reference to vampires and spirits.On an important point of detail Thaksin's support covered far more social groups than poor peasants.Baker/Pasuk have plenty of background on this.It also bears repetition that Thaksin's significance lies in his role as a catalyst, not so much in his populist measures.This is why the grisly elite you are apparently so attached to fear and hate him so much.

Correct. They believe Thaksin may have lit a blue touch paper and they have been stamping on anything resembling smoke ever since. It's irrelevant from the outside looking in as to whether he delivered on all that he promised. The issue is did enough of the electorate believe that he did.

I've made posts numerous times that Thaksin is significant in that he stirred the the rural poor out of the moribund despair the standard elites have always placed them in. Even if tomorrow Thaksin disappeared on a plane flight Thailand is a different place because of him and his party and isn't going to revert to the past. You guys ought to read more carefully and develop your memory as to who posts what here. Doing so could lead to toning down some of the rhetoric and reduce accusations based on, shall we say, misperceptions. (I won't use the "i" word.)

 

[animatic]

However it's so way off the mark that it draws more attention to your post than to anything I posted.

I'm afraid your response was to me at least completely incoherent.If it's an attempt at sarcasm I'm afraid it passed me by together with your reference to vampires and spirits.On an important point of detail Thaksin's support covered far more social groups than poor peasants.Baker/Pasuk have plenty of background on this.It also bears repetition that Thaksin's significance lies in his role as a catalyst, not so much in his populist measures.This is why the grisly elite you are apparently so attached to fear and hate him so much.

Reads coherently enough. You just don't like the content ideologically.

It doesn't fit your neat, down with the elites, philosophy for moving forward faster,

so you belittle any dissenting thoughts as 'supporting grisly elites' and other denigrations.

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Certainly Thaksin was a catalyst, but at the end of the day it was a catalyst for

a grandly overarching negativity in Thailand society, he is responsible for a greater

split than ever existed, even as the country has tried to grapple with a very recent

total change in it's demographics, communications and social structuring.

And yes financial disbursement across societal strata.

Of course he had business elites and those hangers on and employees of business,

on his get rich with Team Thaksin political party. Thailands complete Political Kulture

had been overrun by business interests for the last 25 years,

and Thaksin represented the culmination of the change.

But not for the positive. He clearly, in hindsight shows up as the probable nadir

of that successful 90% take over of the political machinery by business interests

and/or professional politicians and the business interests they represent.

Thaksin was the CEO of the downfall of that trend, just because he took it all way, way too far.

He was the fool that opened Pandora's box, and then can't get the lid back down.

Doesn't make him a great profit, savior or a leader, just means he went over the edge

before anyone else did, and paid the price for his precipitousness.

Even if that trend can't be reversed in a generation, the corner has been turned,

and the inevitable combination of internet and electronic communication,

and the die off of earlier generations of political dinosaurs, will finally bring

the changes you seek. We all seek.

But your obvious philosophical preference of a greatly accelerated path of change,

leads all to often historically to chaos and anarchy, because it is too fast for most peoples,

and the Thai people especially. Too fast to properly build NEW institutions to replace

the ones your demand for incautiously accelerated changes will inevitably make collapse

too quickly. People need to learn what must be, if they have been generations out of step,

they must learn by observing things that have worked, this isn't overnight it's generational change.

Generational change can't be forced intra-generationally because of the great disruptions it causes

for all, and most often especially for the poorest.

Change takes time, were humans are naturally involved, unlike mother natures forces,

rapid change causes more problems, and often unexpected problems,

and usually delays the good parts of inevitable change even longer.

It takes no philosophical litmus test to know Thaksin has had an effect, fingers are blue,

it is more useful to try a calibrated PH test and see just how sourly acidic it has turned from his touch.

Thailland needs balance to keep functioning and improve for ALL Thais,

Ying AND Yang, not an despotic excess of either.

Edited January 7, 2010 by animatic

[slimdog]

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Just for reference..

Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..

Edited January 7, 2010 by slimdog

[Maestro]

An off-topic post discussing the origin of the term "Far East" and the eight replies to it have been deleted.

--

Maestro

[animatic]

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Just for reference..

Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..

Yes indeed,

one of the things that makes The Nation worth getting.

I await his next book of clear observations on where this has all gone,

I suspect he is waiting to find out where it has gone..

[animatic]

.... While some coups have had the collusion of advanced democracies due to geopolitics,

the 2006 coup was yet another typical coup as it was entirely motivated by internal factors -

corruption, money and power being at the center of it all,

not to mention tradition, custom and culture.

Pretty well sums up the Thailand equasion.

We can't bitch too loudly, because this is the slow but steady road they tread.

I think the internet will be the only route by which Thailand changes it's culture,

and that is still a generation's time off for any substantive repair to the culture,

long hamstrung by a 30-50's style school culture of nationalist mind control.

It will eventually happen as the older Phu Yai generations die off

and the newer world viewing people come in to power.

I think, regardless of his accent modus, that Abhisit is the tip of a rising iceberg towards the future.

Add also Kunying Dr Porntip Rojanasunan,

another future outward looking voice and role model for Thailand.

She just made cnn's front page

http://edition.cnn.com/

With a link leading here :

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/none/dr-pornt...ce-death-995617

You and Publicus are making some good points here. Whether the new generations will be so different I am not so sure. And none of us can see into the future. We and the Thais can hope of course, they deserve better.

I am not so convinced about Abhisit but I don't really undersatnd what you are saying. I am not being pedantic I really do not know what an accent modus is. And by the tip of a "rising" iceberg are you suggesting a coup or trouble in the future of which he is the tip?

We all have our writing styles and I understand and in fact agree with the bulk of the two posts. Please help to understand the last bit.

caf

Just re-read this, and so will answer your question:

accent = rise to power, modus is method.

Method of rise to power.

Like the phrase; 'Modus operandi' or method of working.

I have gotten sick of seeing the same stock anti-Abhisit phrase endlessly repeated over and over,

so I worded it differently for a change. Change is good.

Edited January 8, 2010 by animatic

[Steve2UK]

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Just for reference..

Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..

Yes indeed,

one of the things that makes The Nation worth getting.

I await his next book of clear observations on where this has all gone,

I suspect he is waiting to find out where it has gone..

For further reference - the second edition came out in summer 2009. To quote from the back cover:

"This book was first published in 2004. Four new chapters provide a detailed account of the turmoil of Thai politics over the subsequent five years".

[caf]

.... While some coups have had the collusion of advanced democracies due to geopolitics,

the 2006 coup was yet another typical coup as it was entirely motivated by internal factors -

corruption, money and power being at the center of it all,

not to mention tradition, custom and culture.

Pretty well sums up the Thailand equasion.

We can't bitch too loudly, because this is the slow but steady road they tread.

I think the internet will be the only route by which Thailand changes it's culture,

and that is still a generation's time off for any substantive repair to the culture,

long hamstrung by a 30-50's style school culture of nationalist mind control.

It will eventually happen as the older Phu Yai generations die off

and the newer world viewing people come in to power.

I think, regardless of his accent modus, that Abhisit is the tip of a rising iceberg towards the future.

Add also Kunying Dr Porntip Rojanasunan,

another future outward looking voice and role model for Thailand.

She just made cnn's front page

http://edition.cnn.com/

With a link leading here :

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/none/dr-pornt...ce-death-995617

You and Publicus are making some good points here. Whether the new generations will be so different I am not so sure. And none of us can see into the future. We and the Thais can hope of course, they deserve better.

I am not so convinced about Abhisit but I don't really undersatnd what you are saying. I am not being pedantic I really do not know what an accent modus is. And by the tip of a "rising" iceberg are you suggesting a coup or trouble in the future of which he is the tip?

We all have our writing styles and I understand and in fact agree with the bulk of the two posts. Please help to understand the last bit.

caf

Just re-read this, and so will answer your question:

accent = rise to power, modus is method.

Method of rise to power.

Like the phrase; 'Modus operandi' or method of working.

I have gotten sick of seeing the same stock anti-Abhisit phrase endlessly repeated over and over,

so I worded it differently for a change. Change is good.

Thanks animatic. Understand "accent modus" now.. Had not seen it before.

caf

[jayboy]

I've made posts numerous times that Thaksin is significant in that he stirred the the rural poor out of the moribund despair the standard elites have always placed them in. Even if tomorrow Thaksin disappeared on a plane flight Thailand is a different place because of him and his party and isn't going to revert to the past.

Well you seem to be slowly getting there.The French historian and political philosopher de Tocqueville pointed out that revolutions take place when things are getting better.The concept of the rural poor in moribund despair is a hopelessly out of date one, possibly more applicable in the 1960's and before but even then I'm doubtful.Thaksin didn't lead a rising of the poor and brutalised peasantry, and in any case I don't think traditional elites had any interest other than in a contented countryside - feudal perhaps but in no sense malevolent.Thaksin's contribution was the politicisation of millions of Thais who had been becoming better off and better educated.But you are right in noting Thaksin has changed the political landscape forever.

[animatic]

Phongpaichit and Baker's analysis ends at 2004,

we now have 5+ more years of data, and analysis of

greater amounts of older data, to work with.

Just for reference..

Chris and his wife do political analysis of the current political situation frequently, and can be found every couple of weeks in The Nation under the by-line "Chang Noi". Always worth a read..

Yes indeed,

one of the things that makes The Nation worth getting.

I await his next book of clear observations on where this has all gone,

I suspect he is waiting to find out where it has gone..

For further reference - the second edition came out in summer 2009. To quote from the back cover:

"This book was first published in 2004. Four new chapters provide a detailed account of the turmoil of Thai politics over the subsequent five years".

Ah thank you, good to know, my copy is older,

maybe I will find a newer and reread it.

Edited January 8, 2010 by animatic

[plachon]

Thaksin was the CEO of the downfall of that trend, just because he took it all way, way too far.

He was the fool that opened Pandora's box, and then can't get the lid back down.

Doesn't make him a great profit, savior or a leader, just means he went over the edge

before anyone else did, and paid the price for his precipitousness.

Is this the Americanised spelling of prophet? Or is it a Freudian slip, given the obscene profits Takki made during his term of office out of his position?

You make some sage observations in the rest of your post about the Thaksin rise, fall, failure and severe collateral damage caused to Thailand by this megalomaniac. It's a pity that when he went over the edge (of sanity?), he had to take much of the nation down with him.

[Dustybin]

Don't American Presidents over-rule the courts and give pardons to people.

So that must set a precedent in democracies.

Mostly only to their friends, but then the other side pardon their pals..

[animatic]

Plachon a bit of both. LOL

I would guess the jury is still out on his 'realized profits'.

They seemed a lot, coming in, but heck, if you can't hold on to them...

We'll know more soon in this winter of his discontent, I imagine.

And I won't try to be too prophetic on this subject, here.

Edited January 8, 2010 by animatic

[jayboy]

Thaksin was the CEO of the downfall of that trend, just because he took it all way, way too far.

He was the fool that opened Pandora's box, and then can't get the lid back down.

Doesn't make him a great profit, savior or a leader, just means he went over the edge

before anyone else did, and paid the price for his precipitousness.

The trouble with the kind of fairly mindless vitriol above is that it doesn't give the context that makes Thaksin's failure so bitter and in some ways a tragedy through an opportunity lost

A friend sent me the following extract from a Q and A provided by a well connected Thai investment manager.If I identified who it was I would be betraying a confidence.Suffice it to say the manager is very well connected.

Q: What is your view on the current political situation?

A: Thailand remains a country in transition as we struggle for a political and peaceful solution to a rift between the rural population in the North and North East and the bourgeoisies in Bangkok and central area. Fortunately, this is not a racial or ideological battle, therefore it is not entirely unfixable, in my view. It's a rift that was caused by decades of neglect and exploitation by the former at the hands of the latter. There are no short- term solutions and in fact we must not look for one. It will take years of prudent and caring governing by whichever party that comes to power.

Q: You must be fed up with being asked about Thaksin. But there is no denying of his popularity and refusal to disappear quietly.

A: He is exceptionally clever and charismatic personality and could have been, or should have been a great leader. He received blessing from a majority of people, including a large section of Bangkok voters. He quickly saw the ripen situation mentioned above as an opportunity to win the hearts of the previously neglected by launching national health care and village micro finance, while such schemes were dismissed by previous people in power. They had a spectacular impact in changing people's lives for the better and he got his unshakable political base. His popularity did not come from merely vote buying as often suggest. Tragically for Thailand, he was undone by extraordinary personal greed and ego."

I think Thaksin has burnt his boats completely with people of this class.However for anyone who is genuinely interested rather than just hurling abuse the extract provides an indication of what Thaksin promised, a man of great talent - but ultimately undone by his own weaknesses and meglomania.

[animatic]

Not vitriol much as you love to lable it so.

I know you don't like my thoughts on the matter,

But I will still maintain what I believe is going on.

But neither is it unattributable hagiography either,

such as your missive from an unnameable source.

...launching national health care and village micro finance,

while such schemes were dismissed by previous people in power.

They had a spectacular impact in changing people's lives for the better

and he got his unshakable political base.

We know his 'national healthcare' scheme ruined much of the nations public hospitals.

Just ask the staff's there about before and after.

What was 100 baht for care was now 30 baht, but Thaksin's plan never made up the

70% of costs covered before, and so services declined, waiting time grew onerous,

and in the end it fell apart, because at root it was unsustainable.

But some people liked getting it, so he won, in the short term.

And those that came after get blamed for the financial damage it caused.

And it ran off most of the good doctors, who later had to

be legislated into working shifts in the public sphere,

and gave rise to a lucrative private hospital industry,

that many of Thaksin's TRT cronies have bought large shares in.

While the public hospitals are languishing and a horror to be sent to.

Better than NO HOSPITAL... of course.

Yes, the less well off NOW have cellphones, pick up trucks, motorbikes and lots of debt to service too.

Brought the poor into the modern age of living on credit, and thus more base for bankers to work with.

And took that debt from local loan sharks working for local phu yais

and gave it to a national level of loan shark only asking for political support

in return for occasional slackening of a never ending debt load.

But certainly his implosion, based on being too clever by half an ego's worth,

was a spectacular display to watch.

Vitriol you say,

but then again, we know your politics from your sleaves.

Edited January 9, 2010 by animatic

[Publicus]

I've made posts numerous times that Thaksin is significant in that he stirred the the rural poor out of the moribund despair the standard elites have always placed them in. Even if tomorrow Thaksin disappeared on a plane flight Thailand is a different place because of him and his party and isn't going to revert to the past.

Well you seem to be slowly getting there.The French historian and political philosopher de Tocqueville pointed out that revolutions take place when things are getting better.The concept of the rural poor in moribund despair is a hopelessly out of date one, possibly more applicable in the 1960's and before but even then I'm doubtful.Thaksin didn't lead a rising of the poor and brutalised peasantry, and in any case I don't think traditional elites had any interest other than in a contented countryside - feudal perhaps but in no sense malevolent.Thaksin's contribution was the politicisation of millions of Thais who had been becoming better off and better educated.But you are right in noting Thaksin has changed the political landscape forever.

As a republican I've noted that the countryside historically had been pleased and eternally grateful for their occasional irrigation project, innovative fresh water shrimp farming and one off agricultural demonstration projects and the like. However, the Bt 1 million per village program instantaneously trumped that. This left the elites resentful, hostile, under what they considered to be provocations and, ultimately, aggressive. 

Indeed, Thai elites always have promoted a contented and subservient countryside, which is why Thailand needs shaking up, from top to bottom - a complete shaking up side down. So thanks for pronouncing and declaring that I am "slowly getting" to this kind of point of view when, in fact, it is my inherent point of view since my arrival in Thailand because as a republican and a democrat, it has been my long held inherent point of view towards Third World countries per se. 

Kuhn Thaksin could have been a transformative leader had he not, for instance, made public declarations that corruption is an inherent part of Thai culture; had he not systematically and by design stripped the 1997 constitution and its balance of powers but especially its system of check and balances. Etc etc. The '97 constitution was an effort to improve democracy in Thailand and over the longer term to make rule of the people, by the people and for the people a more viable aim, target and goal. The '97 constitution was an important and significant document to the rising and expanding middle class.

Perhaps corruption is inherent to Thai culture. But this is one doozie of a public statement - made boastfully and repeatedly - solely in order to try to justify massive and radically new corporate corruption on an unprecedented scale, was promoted while simultaneously hiding behind the cover of working to elevate the poor agrarian dispossed mass of the population. 

The contemporary world is not in the age of Juan Peron or of anyone like him - it's just not acceptable any more, especially in a developing democracy such as Thailand where people take their democracy seriously (despite flowers in the barrels of tank artillery). Thaksin and his crowd missed this about Thai democracy but, again, also ran into the brick wall of the entrenched traditions, customs, culture of the country and the instilled practice of the ancient values by the decrepit elites.

The elites operate a culture that not only is passe', but is decrepit. Thaksin's alternatively failed answer was to try to establish a new culture of a new corporate Thaksin-Thailand Inc elite joined with the peasantry as their dependant constituency which, in return of their support of Thaksin, would have the goods delivered to their doorstep. From the beginning, this was a recipe for guaranteed conflict. It also constituted nothing more than a revision and reorientation of traditional and customarily decrepit values and beliefs. 

This is not the approach of transformative leaders such as Suu Kyi, Mandella and so many others I've cited at the various threads. It instead is the approach of Thais who would introduce radical change to the society to their own benefit while demolishing democracy and thereby seriously alienating the middle class.

Yes, by alienating the middle class. 

Yes by alienating the middle class, which was evolving towards good (better) government and improved business practices. So once Thaksin lost the middle class, consigning it to presumed impotence and insignificance, he lost both the better half of himself who was interested (perhaps cynically, perhaps not) in the peasantry, and the other half of him, the half with a devil on his shoulder repeating the mantra that corruption is inherent to Thai culture. 

A significant error of Thaksin's divisive approach to trying to transform the country was his ignoring of and his alienating the middle class. Game over.    

Edited January 9, 2010 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Thaksin substantially omitted the middle class from his calculations to win power in Thailand. By dismantling democracy and by focusing on the poor and dispossesed, Thaksin and his gang sent the overt message to the middle class that they mattered little, if at all, in Thaksin's schemes. The leader of a developing country such as, but in particular Thailand, cannot dismiss the middle class, especially out of hand.

Thaksin ignored the middle class and their great efforts and hard work to achieve their rising and improving status. Thaksin and his gang ignored the orientation of the middle class towards better democracy, better government, better education, better corporate practices etc. 

Sonhdi and others saw this opening against Thaksin and seized on it. Predictably, regardless of the particular leader of the Thaksin opposition, the middle class responded. One can understand how and why the middle class, predicated on their middle class values of democracy, education, economic opportunity, rewards for sincere efforts to self improve, felt separated and alienated from Thaksin's focus on the agrarian poor to the utter dismissal of the concerns, values and priorities of the rising and increasing middle class.

Had Thaksin not demolished democracy, had Thaksin not redistributed the middle class's hard earned wealth willy nilly without any consideration or compensatory offerings to the middle class, perhaps the middle class would not have responded so well to a clown such as Sondhi, or to the coup. 

[Dustybin]

difficult to see how any of these views about democracy can be credible in a military state.

how do all the military coups fit in.

Seems to me the military call the shots, politically and literally military.

[Tenchu]

It's who controls the military that matters.

Anyway, a lot of criticism of Thaksin here. It was a good piece about how he ignored the middle class, but I don't see how that fits in when the following was the middle/upper class takes over only to ignore the lower class.

But you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Thaksin did not favor the lower class, he favored votes. That's why his system was so beautiful and better democracy. You see, Thaksin was no idealist; everyone knows that. He was for sale. He wanted money and power. This may sound like a bad thing, but as I'll explain later, he's better than the idealists that followed.

So, Thaksin would listen to what majorities wanted and serve them best, as this was his way of keeping power. All in all, Thaksins ears were opened to anyone who had a good deal for him. You could offer him votes, he'd pass their policies. Offer him cash, he'll help in business. There was nobody Thaksin would not listen to. It was real democracy. An open eared leader.

But then the idealists came along. When the PAD conquered Suvarnaphumi, they tried to say they were an independant group. In other words, they were a minority? A very small one. How does a small group of individuals manage to conquer an international airport? They're not small. They had backing everywhere, not just government, but police and army. Hence why they were not stopped. Everyone knew what they were doing and who was going to benefit. What really happened was the disease of the idealist; the idea that it's okay to break the law and do whatever you want, so long as the cause is just. This has no place in democracy, because everyone believes they have the just cause and the true way, and everyone will do illegal things to succeed. So theirs is a truly bad way that must be eradicated. Yet they ended up in power.

Now, Thailand has an idealist government. The difference between Abhisit and Thaksin is Abhisit is not for sale. He will not listen to buy votes. He is not open to your ideas. He's an idealist; he already believes he knows what is good for Thailand. He believes he knows what will work for the people (without even having asked them). He believes he knows the direction Thailand must take, and he believes his job is to take Thailand in that direction.

So, where Thaksin would have asked the people what he should be doing, Abhisit is telling the people what must be done. This is not democracy. He believes his job is to make you want what he wants, and it shows in the media.

Given the upper class holding the mainstream media supports Abhisit, they've got exclusive propaganda rights. Now their job is to get you to want what they're selling, instead of Thaksin who would sell you what they want. Not much different than a company; KFC does not ask you if it likes its chicken, it employs psychologists to make you believe you like its chicken. Where as Thaksin owned a supermarket who would sell you any food, Abhisit owns a fast food chain trying to brainwash you into buying its goods.

Telling you what freedom is and then using propaganda to make you believe that's what freedom is is not real freedom, it's not real democracy. This is why the idealist makes a bad government; they can not assimilate the needs of the wider community. They can only understand what they think, and the only way these people will be able to stay in power is by using psychology through media to make weak minded people believe they want them in power to get votes. Wouldn't it be much better they just do their job and give us what we want instead of telling us?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Tenchu

[jayboy]

One can understand how and why the middle class, predicated on their middle class values of democracy, education, economic opportunity, rewards for sincere efforts to self improve, felt separated and alienated from Thaksin's focus on the agrarian poor to the utter dismissal of the concerns, values and priorities of the rising and increasing middle class.

Had Thaksin not demolished democracy, had Thaksin not redistributed the middle class's hard earned wealth willy nilly without any consideration or compensatory offerings to the middle class, perhaps the middle class would not have responded so well to a clown such as Sondhi, or to the coup.

That's the standard PAD tag line although it's ironic that the middle class values you encapsulate were wrapped up in a quasi-fascist, racist, intolerant, undemocratic package.I'm afraid your proposition is unsustainable and in fact the middle class would have prospered under a Thaksin banner - do you really believe an uber capitalist espoused a redistributive socialism? Many decent middle class people were genuinely shocked by facets of Thaksin's rule but the underlying fear was that of greater political and economic influence of the Thai people as a whole.Over and above this a fearful and greedy elite fed the middle class indignation.But when the PAD attack dog had served its purpose or perhaps showed signs of independence, it was swiftly marginalised.

Thaksin was right that the middle classes would have to pay more attention to the majority, a policy continued by the present government.And why on earth should there be compensatory offerings to the middle class.They have had a very good run and will continue in their largely Chinese tradition to prosper, but they hold no veto power any more and ultimately the majority (with suitable checks an balances) will call the shots.Get used to it.

There was and remains a case for giving the majority a fairer deal, a process that took place in Europe decades ago.Are you one of those that feel Thais shouldn't have such a deal?

[Publicus]

Despite the weaknesses and shortcomings of Abhisit as a PM, many people whether Thai or farang just don't expect the same or similar negatives of him that we got from Thaksin 2001 into 2006 and which we since have been getting from him in spades. Abhisit and the Dems are establishment elite types who are rooted in the 1932 origins of Thai democracy. They, like all the political groupings, simply want their time in power, their slice of the pie, and to basically continue to go with the flow domestically and internationally/globally.

Conversely and from the outset, Thaksin and his group set out to remake Thailand so a new guy would bestride the country from atop a new pinnacle of political power, to include creation of a new corporate domestic empire of Thaksin-Thailand Inc, and who would become a regional leader during a transformational time when regional geographic groups are being accepted as necessary due to evolving economics both domestically and globally, with a concomitant expanding reach of political power and influence for its leaders.

Thaksin clashed with the steady as we go elites who haven't any such radically different ego and appetite for so much in riches and political power. A major difference is that to achieve his ends Thaksin had to incorporate the dispossed rural agrarian poor into his planned journey, but only because they were the one segment of the population which was ripe for the pickings during the new age of the mobile phone, slick new motorcycles, electronic gadgets of all make and manner, color/cable tv etc etc.

Abhisit and the ordinary sociopolitical groupings would plod along in the usual ways with democracy and economic development in Thailand plodding along with them. Thaksin was eviscerating democracy, undermining traditional institutions and morphing the country's economy into new classes of the super-super rich who by the way would provide a new standard of living for the peasantry, a new standard of living however that is dependent on handouts and giveaways by the ever paternalistic and otherwise self serving new political elite.

Thaksin in his greed and meglomania simply took on too much.

Thaksin was right and his early moves were on the right lines.Thailand does need to be remade but his own greed and meglomania got in the way, a tragedy of Shakespearian proportions.As far as Thaksin's support for the rural majority is concerned your remarks reflect bile and ignorance.The reality is that he was just a supreme politician and saw how mobilising the rural majority would support his political platform.That's what democratic politicians do whether Sarkozy, Obama or Blair.The steady as you go elites as you describe them are not less greedy than Thaksin, just less competent and more reliant on brute force.I agree Thaksin took on too much but if you just ascribe his motives to personal aggrandisement you completely miss out on the big picture.I am afraid very few of you post indicate a rounded comprehension.It can't be very intellectually or morally satisfying to be a standard bearer for the gruesome collection of soldiers, monopolist capitalists and fading aristocrats that dominate Thailand now.Their marginalisation is of course not an "if" but a "when" question.Abhisit could be the great catalyst but does he have what it takes, not least to cut the military interest down to size?

We need to return for a moment to my post quoted above and the unfortunate response to it.

The response fails to recognize a fairly and reasonably balanced, reasonably objective, presentation of some of the basic factors that have been in play since 2001. By no means is my post a comprehensive analysis of people, places and events since 2001.

Neither however is my post loaded or ladled with or by the value judgements that Jayboy ascribes to it. Jayboy's reaction overstates what it written. The overstatements are predicated on Jayboy's own set of  assumptions but, worse, on his presumptions about the writer. Rather than jump off a cliff, Jayboy, just read what's there for what it is - An interpretive summary survey of certain players, certain events and developments, and certain events in a frame of time. 

Yes the piece I wrote has an attitude, voice and is interpretive. No, however, it does not advocate or defend any "gruesome" collections of anyone, to include soldiers, monopoly capitalists, aristocracy or aristocrats - or vampires, witches or evil spirits. Nor do I defend social inequality, hierarchy, greed, corruption etc etc.

My later posts relative to Thaksin and the middle class are my views and interpretations, and mine alone. Kindly do not try to associate my interpretative views with those of any other group or organization of whatever color, perceived purpose or ideological hue. And don't try to project one's own ideological baggage onto me or my own statements or interpretations. I am a republican (do note the lower case 'r' ) whose ancestors migrated to the United States to free themselves and their posterity of European monarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, inequalities of opportunity, social injustice, fascists, tyrants, despots and the like. In addition to motherhood and the flag, I advocate social justice European style but balk at certain of its excesses, object to state-monopoly economics of any hue, avocate a regulated market and a rational globalized world. 

My views are my own and in a nutshell, and at a discussion forum, my views relative to the topic of this thread are that Thaksin is undeserving of any amnesty or pardon, but neither do I have much respect for those who hold the power and authority of decision making  in the matter.