Gen Chaovalit Appointed As Supreme Commander Of People's Army Of Thailand

[hammered]

Let's revisit your neat little timeline for a moment:

2001 Election- TRT wins 40.6% of the votes, defeating Chuan Leepkai's Democrats with only 26.6% of the votes. This is known as a landslide victory. Thaksin goes on to serve the only full four year term for a PM in Thai history.

100 - 40.6 = 59.4% of the voting population that did NOT vote for TRT.

During that 4 year term much of the rest of thou country learns what

living under a tyrant is like. The following margin of victory is even smaller

and closer by far to the Dems percentages. And this before the Temasek Sale

that gave all Thailand a black eye, and presaged Thaksins downfall for hubris..

Actually the amount that didnt vote for them would be higher as there are always 30% or so who cant be arsed voting;)

Hey soon there will be the technology for direct democracy. Its already there in the west. Then we can do away with all these parties and addled representatives and dirtectly vote on every issue ourselves. Oh wait a minute bet the politiicans will find a reason to not allow that

[animatic]

100% - 30% = 70%

40.6% of actual voters = 28.42% of eligible voters

or 5% less than one third of the nations voters.

Now add up

59.4% of the voting population that did NOT vote for TRT

Plus the don't care for anyone vote

equates approximately to

71.52 percent of eligible Thai voters didn't vote for Thaksin.

Not exactly a resounding mandate on his best day,

especially allowing for the slight of hand of

pre-purchasing allies like Banharn, Newin and Sanoh...

Geeze Louise, sounds like Shysters law partners!

[rainman]

100 - 40.6 = 59.4% of the voting population that did NOT vote for TRT.

According to your own math, that would be:

- 59.4% that did NOT vote for TRT.

That leaves:

- 73.4% that did NOT vote for the Democrats.

So that's why we have the "Democrats" (which is really a mini dictatorship) in power? Makes sense.

[animatic]

100 - 40.6 = 59.4% of the voting population that did NOT vote for TRT.

According to your own math, that would be:

- 59.4% that did NOT vote for TRT.

That leaves:

- 73.4% that did NOT vote for the Democrats.

So that's why we have the "Democrats" (which is really a mini dictatorship) in power? Makes sense.

Actually the Dems are a large part of that 'did not vote for for TRT segment',

plus the 30% non voters and all the little fiefdom and special interest parties

needed to make a coalition and form a government.

No matter how Thaksin apologists try to slice it, TRT was no more than a coalition government,

with pre-purchased supporters from fiefdom parties in the re-election.

TRT itself didn't come close to that suprious 60% number bandied about with disregard to reality.

At best

just under 1/3 of the electorate couldn't give a rats patootie for any politicians

just under 1/3 of the electorate voted for TRT or PPP on their best days including all inducements

Same goes for the Dems but most of their support is siphoned off by little special interests partis.

Take those out of the mix and the 2 big parties would be a toss up patch in general.

The main difference being how badly theirn supporters act in the run ups to elections,

or during their tenures at the trough.

So far the Dems are looking much more circumspect

about graft and corruption and blindly protecting their membership against charges.

They no longer hold off the political / legal visigoths at the gate, but cut loose the dead weight.

Not much like classic TRT /PPP /PTP; stall as long as possible S.O.P.

and consequently have come up in the eyes of many Thais.

[Siripon]

er... which the PPP won? and were then thrown out by yet another yellow-military How far you have fallen for your moral compasses to have become so utterly broken.

How did Thaksin come to power from Palang Tham a very small party?

He bought all the MPs in NAP, Chart Pattana and other small parties. Bingo! He had a working majority of MPs.

He became very popular due to his populist policies, but undermined every pillar of democracy- no checks and balancies allowed, he dissolved Parliament to avoid grilling about Themasek.

Popularity is everything he thinks.

But it's not in a true democracy- honesty, transparency, fairness are essential qualities which he lacks. He's totally unsuitable as a leader, morally and legally.

So why don't Pheua Thai get over him, find leaders who are decent, honest and care for the nation?

[animatic]

er... which the PPP won? and were then thrown out by yet another yellow-military How far you have fallen for your moral compasses to have become so utterly broken.

.... So why don't Pheua Thai get over him, find leaders who are decent, honest and care for the nation?

Not much profit in that; might be the correct answer.

[johncitizen]

Step out of your yellow bunker for a minute and start looking at the issue with a clear head.

Thaksin was as corrupt as any past leader of Thailand has been (although thanks to Victors Justice, he is the one with the heat on him), and was equally as ambitious as he was naive. Yet he is also the only PM to have EVER made it to the end of his first term, and win not one but two general elections AND a snap election. Call it what you like, but it was certainly an important step in Thai political history (if only a baby step.)

Now, for an instant there the PAD held the moral highground and was doing a good job in holding the TRT to account for (some of) their wrongdoings, but instead of working within the democratic system and settling for hard-hitting opposition and building a legitimate support base for the next election, they handed power back to the military-aristocracy and set Thai democracy back a good decade or two.

And thus they continued the cycle of military rule-> civilian uprisng -> burgeoning democracy -> disenfranchised elite -> military coup that has defined this nation since 1932.

And so for most of the Reds Thaksin represents a missed opportunity at what could have been, (not necessarily to do with the man himself or even his policies, but simply the fact that he was their man, and they put him in there.) He is the closest they have ever come to having real democracy for themselves.

Don't be fooled by the Nation and the PAD propaganda- there are many within the Redshirt movement who do not support Thaksin or what he stood for (including Leftists as well as academics and activists who previously supported the Yellows up until the coup), but they grudgingly accept that he is a necessary unifying figure and an integral part of the Red narrative.

I don't believe that Thaksin has a place at the head of the Redshirt movement, no matter what comes to pass in the coming months- nor do I believe that the Reds intend to have him as such. Because the Red movement has become more than a disenfranchised TRT support base- it is truly a grassroots movement seeking democracy and the restoration of the Peoples Constitution of 1997.

There are of course (as there are in any political parties) hardline or loyalist factions who would see power regained just as it was taken away from them, but I assure you they are part of a dwindling minority. The Reds have already tasted the sweet victory of dancing and singing together in defiance of the rain, the police, the military and the hateful establishment that seeks to destroy them. They have shown those who control the armed forces that they will not fight, but just the same that they would not give in.

And the realization is growing stronger every day that by sticking to these tactics they will win.

[animatic]

The red shirts are completely factionalized and disorganized,

and not the monotheistic democracy movement it pretends to be.

One hand doesn't know that the other is doing, and it shoots itself in the foot almost daily.

Sadly those who truly want more democratic say in Thjailand are co-opted by a supurious leadership

that is more interested in power and control than any democratic ideals.

Oh and are also cynical enough to embrace Thaksin for the profit center he represents.

john Q :

hardline or loyalist factions who would see power regained just as it was taken away from them,

Well finally you state the obvious.

This is a fight over POWER, not about the democratic ideals.

The multiple Thaksin mis-steps lost the Red Side it's power and control of the coffers

they want the power back, so must gin up PHILOSOPHICAL reasons

to create public dissention and disturbences. Charade upon deceit's.

Other wise they have to WAIT.. Oh god forfend,

till the regular election cycle comes about again.

No profit in that course. Wait...

To the streets, fight injustice, man the barricades!

Edited February 9, 2010 by animatic

[johncitizen]

Such factionalism and disorganization are natural in a movement so large, I'm afraid. And that's precisely why Thaksin is still so important to them- because he is the unifying force. And he will continue to be such until the Reds can find another leader as popular (but that won't come until after they win government, I suspect.)

EDIT: And if you are going to quote me, please do me the courtesy of quoting full sentences.

But seriously, is politics itself not a struggle over power? At the moment it lies in the hands of those with the biggest guns and wallets. In a democracy it lies in the hands of the common people.

Edited February 9, 2010 by johncitizen

[animatic]

If it were possible for Thailand to create a organized system

so large as the reds claim to be it would work, but still be factionalized.

But wait it is there around a central pillar.

But the Reds want to deny it's validity using code words. Very classy.

Thaksin doing time in his minds eye as King Taksin would replace that icon,

with his own ego. A none starter for most all right thinking Thais.

Other wise Red land is just the usual pastiche of small special interests and fiefdoms

scrabbling for a few more scraps of profit or kow tow power ego assuagements.

Thaksin as figure head and unifying force???

Wait I thought he was just there as a player

and the fight for true Democracy was the unifying force.

Oh wait I guess it is Thaksin all along.

Tell that to Chavalit this week. I bet he feels very unified...

May the Farce be with you.

There are of course (as there are in any political parties) hardline or loyalist factions who would see power regained just as it was taken away from them, but I assure you they are part of a dwindling minority.

The Reds have already tasted the sweet victory of dancing and singing together in defiance of

the rain, the police, the military and the hateful establishment that seeks to destroy them.

They have shown those who control the armed forces that they will not fight, but just the same that they would not give in.

I feel truly assured that the violent factions in red land are dwindling...

must be because the money is dwindling.

~Certainly adding the rest of the line doesn't diminish my point,

it is about power and control of the coffers.

Oh yes the Red defy mother nature and dance in the rain...

what a great platform for running the country!

Ah yes 'hateful establishment' code words for anyone not handing PTP the reigns of government.

and then kow towing to them indefinitely.

They have shown the have not the numbers nor the will to fight, so they dance in the rain.

Ah, but they don't give in. Very useful, for what I'm not sure.

Edited February 9, 2010 by animatic

[johncitizen]

Dancing in the rain is a little more than symbolism for the red shirts.

It f**king pours down every time there is a major red shirt rally, no matter what season it is, often for hours on end. As Thailand is noted for its rainmaking technology, currently in the hands of the military, there are more than a few theories running through their ranks about just how natural these rains really are.

[animatic]

BIGGEST LAUGH OF THE WEEK.

Thailand is noted for it's rainmaking technology....

What a hoot, they actually think this is the usage...

"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

Or maybe;

Mother Nature just doesn't like you!

~I thought all the propitious dates and numbers and good luck would hold.

Edited February 9, 2010 by animatic

[way2muchcoffee]

Thaksin was as corrupt as any past leader of Thailand has been (although thanks to Victors Justice, he is the one with the heat on him), and was equally as ambitious as he was naive. Yet he is also the only PM to have EVER made it to the end of his first term, and win not one but two general elections AND a snap election. Call it what you like, but it was certainly an important step in Thai political history (if only a baby step.)

Yes, enfranchising rural voters was a very good step for Thai politics. Unfortunately for Thailand Thaksin was extremely corrupt, destroyed the checks and balances that are the pillars of any functional democracy, engaged in human rights violations on an unprecedented scale, and engaged in massive vote fraud. None of this is acceptable. No matter how much positive work he did, he must be held accountable for his criminal actions.

Now, for an instant there the PAD held the moral highground and was doing a good job in holding the TRT to account for (some of) their wrongdoings, but instead of working within the democratic system and settling for hard-hitting opposition and building a legitimate support base for the next election, they handed power back to the military-aristocracy and set Thai democracy back a good decade or two.

Yes, the PAD held the moral high ground. They lost it with the airport takeover. I don't understand the point you are making when you say the PAD handed power to the military-aristocracy. The PAD didn't have the power to hand over. The military had the power it always has in Thailand, no matter what government is in control.

And so for most of the Reds Thaksin represents a missed opportunity at what could have been, (not necessarily to do with the man himself or even his policies, but simply the fact that he was their man, and they put him in there.) He is the closest they have ever come to having real democracy for themselves.

Unfortunately when the pillars of democracy are systematically weakened or destroyed, what remains can no longer be called a democracy.

I don't believe that Thaksin has a place at the head of the Redshirt movement, no matter what comes to pass in the coming months- nor do I believe that the Reds intend to have him as such. Because the Red movement has become more than a disenfranchised TRT support base- it is truly a grassroots movement seeking democracy and the restoration of the Peoples Constitution of 1997.

If the red shirts are not beholden to Thaksin, and they are truly after democracy, then they should show it. I would like to hear calls from them for the imprisonment of Thaksin for his criminal behavior. Until they can completely sever the ties to Thaksin they will never be a legitimate democracy movement.

Therein lies the problem. They will not do this. Perhaps some time in the future, but as of now the primary aim of the red shirts and PTP is to secure Thaksin his money, exonerate him of his criminal acts, and perhaps reinstall him to a position as head of government. This is unacceptable to a great many Thai people. This position thoroughly undermines the claims of the PTP and red shirts as a democracy movement. When they come to this realization and act on it they may find themselves in a position of moral authority.

Edited February 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Insight]

BIGGEST LAUGH OF THE WEEK.

Thailand is noted for it's rainmaking technology....

What a hoot, they actually think this is the usage...

"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

Or maybe;

Mother Nature just doesn't like you!

~I thought all the propitious dates and numbers and good luck would hold.

The pro-Thaksin side should learn how to seed credibility

It was all but destroyed last week when Sae Daeng, Palop and Arrisman went to visit their master in Dubai, immediately declaring the start of a "People's Army" on their return, only for their Master to completely U-Turn on the decision after the person they appointed as leader was very quick to distance himself from it - soon followed the other red shirt leaders not involved in the trip.

This isn't "factionalism and disorganization", it's nothing less than a catastrophic lack of judgement.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Insight

[johncitizen]

Yes, enfranchising rural voters was a very good step for Thai politics. Unfortunately for Thailand Thaksin was extremely corrupt, destroyed the checks and balances that are the pillars of any functional democracy, engaged in human rights violations on an unprecedented scale, and engaged in massive vote fraud. None of this is acceptable. No matter how much positive work he did, he must be held accountable for his criminal actions.

REPLY: Victors justice is no justice, and when one side of the conflict gets the chop when the other walks away scott free (as is apparently the case under the Supreme Courts SOP's, you get resentment and reduced legitimacy). I would support a fair and balanced, independent truth commission set up by a third party, but we both know that isn't going to happen.

Yes, the PAD held the moral high ground. They lost it with the airport takeover. I don't understand the point you are making when you say the PAD handed power to the military-aristocracy. The PAD didn't have the power to hand over. The military had the power it always has in Thailand, no matter what government is in control.

REPLY: The PAD had the goodwill and moral support of much of the international community, not to mention the Thai intelligensia and civil society, behind it. And then they became a cheer squad for military takeovers and the nations greatest vested interests.

Unfortunately when the pillars of democracy are systematically weakened or destroyed, what remains can no longer be called a democracy.

REPLY: The pillars of democracy were not even complete yet, and the PAD never gave it a chance to get off the ground. All democracies have faced crises before in which governments were accused of corruption- and these governments were brought to justice through sustained opposition and criticism, followed by a groundswell of civil activism and then ultimate victory at the polling booth. The PAD could have had this, but instead they chose to dash any hopes of democracy taking its course and gave the green light for a military coup.

Imagine if the US Democrats staged a military coup after Watergate... how would that have served the cause of democracy in the US?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't just isolate the PAD here, because I'm really talking about the Yellow shirt movement in general, including the so-called "Democrats." (ie. "Not ready for an election yet.")

If the red shirts are not beholden to Thaksin, and they are truly after democracy, then they should show it. I would like to hear calls from them for the imprisonment of Thaksin for his criminal behavior. Until they can completely sever the ties to Thaksin they will never be a legitimate democracy movement.

REPLY: As I have said before, Thaksin is needed for now as a unifying force for what is otherwise a loose collection of Thai's from a variety of different political, regional and socioeconomic backgrounds. Hence the UDD as an "umbrella organisation." He also represents the potential for democracy that Thailand had and then squandered.

Therein lies the problem. They will not do this. Perhaps some time in the future, but as of now the primary aim of the red shirts and PTP is to secure Thaksin his money, exonerate him of his criminal acts, and perhaps reinstall him to a position as head of government. This is unacceptable to a great many Thai people. This position thoroughly undermines the claims of the PTP and red shirts as a democracy movement. When they come to this realization and act on it they may find themselves in a position of moral authority.

REPLY: What the UDD wants is to go back to the time when they thought the days of military interference, coups and "third hands" were over. Give them their constitution back, give them their elections, and call for justice for sides then. But justice by a military-installed Supreme Court, observed by a military-controlled media, under a government backed by the military, is not justice. And you know it.

[way2muchcoffee]

JohnCitizen:

A simple yes or no please:

1) Did Thaksin engage in corruption during his time in office?

2) Did Thaksin engage in criminal behavior during his time as PM?

3) Did Thaksin abuse his authority in order to further enrich himself?

4) Did Thaksin initiate an anti-drug campaign that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial deaths?

5) Did the party that Thaksin represented engage in massive electoral fraud during his time in office?

6) Did Thaksin use his money and power to silence voices of his opposition and the media during his time in office?

7) Did Thaksin misrepresent his assets when assuming a role in government?

8) In the last year or two has Thaksin made any public calls for revolution?

9) If they were to assume control of government, would the PTP whitewash Thaksin of any criminal activity he may have engaged in?

10) Have red shirt organizations used violence to prevent opposition politicians from speaking in Northern/Northeastern cities?

11) Have red shirt leaders threatened violence to judges, politicians, or any other citizens?

12) If elections were held next month, would every politician of every party be able to freely campaign everywhere in Thailand without fear of violence or personal harm?

One last thing. My impression was that the King of Thailand appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Thailand. Do you have any references or evidence for your claim that the current judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by the military? I am not saying you are incorrect, but I have not read any credible source of information that either refutes or supports your claim.

Edited February 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jdinasia]

Such factionalism and disorganization are natural in a movement so large, I'm afraid. And that's precisely why Thaksin is still so important to them- because he is the unifying force. And he will continue to be such until the Reds can find another leader as popular (but that won't come until after they win government, I suspect.)

EDIT: And if you are going to quote me, please do me the courtesy of quoting full sentences.

But seriously, is politics itself not a struggle over power? At the moment it lies in the hands of those with the biggest guns and wallets. In a democracy it lies in the hands of the common people.

Sorry .. but "movement so large?" I fail to see a very large movement these days with the Reds. Thaksin's anti-democracy stance certainly doesn't add any credibility to the call from them for democracy. Their call for his return weakens them even further.

The facts that they have a General threatening judges and Thaksin forming a "People's Army of Thailand" doesn't help much either.

BTW ---- What judges did the coup install?

[jdinasia]

100 - 40.6 = 59.4% of the voting population that did NOT vote for TRT.

According to your own math, that would be:

- 59.4% that did NOT vote for TRT.

That leaves:

- 73.4% that did NOT vote for the Democrats.

So that's why we have the "Democrats" (which is really a mini dictatorship) in power? Makes sense.

Conveniently missing the fact that 2001 was being discussed?

2007

[animatic]

JohnCitizen:

A simple yes or no please:

1) Did Thaksin engage in corruption during his time in office?

2) Did Thaksin engage in criminal behavior during his time as PM?

3) Did Thaksin abuse his authority in order to further enrich himself?

4) Did Thaksin initiate an anti-drug campaign that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial deaths?

5) Did the party that Thaksin represented engage in massive electoral fraud during his time in office?

6) Did Thaksin use his money and power to silence voices of his opposition and the media during his time in office?

7) Did Thaksin misrepresent his assets when assuming a role in government?

8) In the last year or two has Thaksin made any public calls for revolution?

9) If they were to assume control of government, would the PTP whitewash Thaksin of any criminal activity he may have engaged in?

10) Have red shirt organizations used violence to prevent opposition politicians from speaking in Northern/Northeastern cities?

11) Have red shirt leaders threatened violence to judges, politicians, or any other citizens?

12) If elections were held next month, would every politician of every party be able to freely campaign everywhere in Thailand without fear of violence or personal harm?

One last thing. My impression was that the King of Thailand appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Thailand. Do you have any references or evidence for your claim that the current judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by the military? I am not saying you are incorrect, but I have not read any credible source of information that either refutes or supports your claim.

Ah yes, the Thaksin 12 Step Program to win profits,

influence everybody and bring the country to its knees before him.

Maybe it's time he went to TA

Tyrants Anonymous...?

[johncitizen]

I'm referring to the Constitutional Court of Thailand, which is the "highest court" in the land. The Court was dissolved following the coup, and wiki reports that the new court was junta appointmed, but I can't find anything in English about the current composition of the court or how they are elected.

And you know that yes or no questions like that are absolute bull- firstly, because you get to frame the questions to your benefit, and secondly because it disregards equal culpability by the other side.

As I've said, Thaksin is guilty of a trend of dodginess in Thai politics that neither began nor ended with him- the problem is he is the only one that is on the receiving end of such "justice."

[way2muchcoffee]

I'm referring to the Constitutional Court of Thailand, which is the "highest court" in the land. The Court was dissolved following the coup, and wiki reports that the new court was junta appointmed, but I can't find anything in English about the current composition of the court or how they are elected.

If you do, please let me know. I am genuinely curious about this. I spent a couple of hours trying to research it on the internet and came up empty handed.

And you know that yes or no questions like that are absolute bull- firstly, because you get to frame the questions to your benefit, and secondly because it disregards equal culpability by the other side.

Yes, I know. Guess that dog won't hunt. LOL

So how about addressing those questions one by one in whatever way you fancy? As long as you do answer and don't dissemble, I would like to know your thoughts.

As I've said, Thaksin is guilty of a trend of dodginess in Thai politics that neither began nor ended with him- the problem is he is the only one that is on the receiving end of such "justice."

No. He is not the only one on the receiving end of such justice. PM's have been jailed in the past. Politicians of all stripes have been investigated, and some charged and convicted.

Edited February 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[animatic]

"Guilty of a trend"

Woe is me. Clearly a fate worse than death...

of course how can someone be guilty of a trend?

[ballpoint]

As I've said, Thaksin is guilty of a trend of dodginess in Thai politics that neither began nor ended with him- the problem is he is the only one that is on the receiving end of such "justice."

A trend increasingly followed by his supporters here when asked to answer some simple questions.

Another question for you: As you have compared Thailand's voting system with that of Australia's in a number of posts, would an Australian with a similar past to Thaksin's ever be elected in that country? If he was elected and carried out any of Thaksin's self enriching policies - lending money to foreign governments so they could buy equipment from his company; allowing his wife to buy government land in a non transparent, or indeed, any manner; changing (telecommunications) laws to benefit his company; using a loophole to avoid paying millions of dollars in tax, whether it was done "legally" or not - would he have been able to serve a full term? I'd imagine he'd resign, if not be investigated by the serious crimes / fraud squad. And, let's not forget, we're talking about Australia, that great paragon of democracy where a legally elected PM may be kicked out by the UK Queen's representative (or was it the CIA?).

[hammered]

I'm referring to the Constitutional Court of Thailand, which is the "highest court" in the land. The Court was dissolved following the coup, and wiki reports that the new court was junta appointmed, but I can't find anything in English about the current composition of the court or how they are elected.

And you know that yes or no questions like that are absolute bull- firstly, because you get to frame the questions to your benefit, and secondly because it disregards equal culpability by the other side.

As I've said, Thaksin is guilty of a trend of dodginess in Thai politics that neither began nor ended with him- the problem is he is the only one that is on the receiving end of such "justice."

The court you are reffering to was not the highest in the land. It didnt have the power to overturn supreme court final decisions

By the way, the history of who was selected and how and who was kept off is an interesting read. The whole court from its inception to end was quite controversial and showed turf wars between judiciary and activists on one side and senate on the other and the make up was always intweresting with a majority of politcal appointees over those of legal background. This was always a point criticised in the 1997 constitution.

[johncitizen]

As Highly Caffeinated has nominated me the Defense Council for Thaksin, I will endeavor to answer his/her questions.

1) Did Thaksin engage in corruption during his time in office?

There certainly were a lot of shady business dealings going on- but many of them can be attributed to Newin Chidchob, who later switched to the Dems. But then, business like this has always been the norm in Thailand and was even attributed to the "Asian Tiger" phenomenon by the international community (called "Asian Capitalism) up until the 1997 financial crisis. But was he ever convicted of corruption? The most the courts ever convicted of was the land case involving his wife... and as we have seen from recent events, land appropriations by high profile members of the Thai community are by no means unusual (although convictions based on them seem to be.)

2) Did Thaksin engage in criminal behavior during his time as PM?

Refer to my above answer, unless you are referring to the rape of the Democrats at every election

3) Did Thaksin abuse his authority in order to further enrich himself?

Refer to my first answer.

4) Did Thaksin initiate an anti-drug campaign that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial deaths?

Did he initiate the anti-drug campaign? Or was he merely facilitating the behavior and agendas of hardliners within the military? This does not excuse the role he had to play in the events- but it might be worth noting that the campaign was endorsed by the Buddhists (including the Santi Asoke sect, who are now central to the PAD but were once strong supporters of Thaksin) and received a very high degree of support amongst the Thai community as a whole. Perhaps what we are now seeing is an attempt by the Thai elites to shed themselves of guilt for their complicity in the matters and to externalize them onto Thaksin himself?

5) Did the party that Thaksin represented engage in massive electoral fraud during his time in office?

So the (until I find a direct source I'll say "allegedly") Constitutional Court found- although similar and widely substantiated claims against the Democrats have been dismissed.

6) Did Thaksin use his money and power to silence voices of his opposition and the media during his time in office?

I think you'll find that the Bangkok Post and the Nation were just as negative about him prior to his being sacked as they are now. Well, perhaps not quite. But since the coup, Thailand's place on the International Press Freedoms table has gone backward, not forward, with hundreds of radio stations shut down, censorship and self-censorship in the press, the results of polls being edited, the military influence over state media and telecommunications networks and the politicization of the Monarchy through the Lese Majeste laws.

7) Did Thaksin misrepresent his assets when assuming a role in government?

Did he? Last I read he was acquitted of that prior to the coup.

8) In the last year or two has Thaksin made any public calls for revolution?

Peaceful revolution. Kinda like the Green revolution, Saffron revolution and Orange revolutions of the past. Do you oppose those as well?

9) If they were to assume control of government, would the PTP whitewash Thaksin of any criminal activity he may have engaged in?

I would hope that he receives equal justice.

10) Have red shirt organizations used violence to prevent opposition politicians from speaking in Northern/Northeastern cities?

Have some sensitivity. They are referred to as "Thaksin's dogs" by the PM's spokesman, lampooned as "uneducated and corrupt" in the national press, had their democratically elected PM and constitution taken away, are terrorized by the military and have their radio stations shut down, and you tut-tut them for not giving the Democrats a "fair go?" Level the playing field across the board, and they will play ball.

11) Have red shirt leaders threatened violence to judges, politicians, or any other citizens?

Hang on, who's the ones with the military backing them?

12) If elections were held next month, would every politician of every party be able to freely campaign everywhere in Thailand without fear of violence or personal harm?

See question 10. There are a lot of sore wounds in the country at the moment. This country literally stands on the brink of civil war- and if there is going to be any peaceful solution, it will need to be mediated by a third party and ideally enforced by an international peacekeeping force. No, I'm not joking.

[johncitizen]

Another question for you: As you have compared Thailand's voting system with that of Australia's in a number of posts, would an Australian with a similar past to Thaksin's ever be elected in that country? If he was elected and carried out any of Thaksin's self enriching policies - lending money to foreign governments so they could buy equipment from his company; allowing his wife to buy government land in a non transparent, or indeed, any manner; changing (telecommunications) laws to benefit his company; using a loophole to avoid paying millions of dollars in tax, whether it was done "legally" or not - would he have been able to serve a full term? I'd imagine he'd resign, if not be investigated by the serious crimes / fraud squad. And, let's not forget, we're talking about Australia, that great paragon of democracy where a legally elected PM may be kicked out by the UK Queen's representative (or was it the CIA?).

To be honest I wouldn't put it past our country at the moment. And don't worry, I'm just as sore about Whitlam's sacking as you are- but that's exactly the point here. But you still can't compare it to Thailand, because he that kind of activity is essentially mandatory to get anywhere in politics- which is exactly why you can't legitimately put the blowtorch on Thaksin without doing the same to all the others.

[way2muchcoffee]

johncitizen.

Thank you for taking the time to address some of the questions. Opposing views are always welcome, indeed necessary for a healthy forum or discussion. The point isn't to agree, but to offer our unique interpretation of events so that others may be better informed to make their own conclusions.

Edited February 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[RegularReader]

As Highly Caffeinated has nominated me the Defense Council for Thaksin, I will endeavor to answer his/her questions.

1) Did Thaksin engage in corruption during his time in office?

There certainly were a lot of shady business dealings going on- but many of them can be attributed to Newin Chidchob, who later switched to the Dems. But then, business like this has always been the norm in Thailand and was even attributed to the "Asian Tiger" phenomenon by the international community (called "Asian Capitalism) up until the 1997 financial crisis. But was he ever convicted of corruption? The most the courts ever convicted of was the land case involving his wife... and as we have seen from recent events, land appropriations by high profile members of the Thai community are by no means unusual (although convictions based on them seem to be.)

2) Did Thaksin engage in criminal behavior during his time as PM?

Refer to my above answer, unless you are referring to the rape of the Democrats at every election

3) Did Thaksin abuse his authority in order to further enrich himself?

Refer to my first answer.

4) Did Thaksin initiate an anti-drug campaign that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial deaths?

Did he initiate the anti-drug campaign? Or was he merely facilitating the behavior and agendas of hardliners within the military? This does not excuse the role he had to play in the events- but it might be worth noting that the campaign was endorsed by the Buddhists (including the Santi Asoke sect, who are now central to the PAD but were once strong supporters of Thaksin) and received a very high degree of support amongst the Thai community as a whole. Perhaps what we are now seeing is an attempt by the Thai elites to shed themselves of guilt for their complicity in the matters and to externalize them onto Thaksin himself?

5) Did the party that Thaksin represented engage in massive electoral fraud during his time in office?

So the (until I find a direct source I'll say "allegedly") Constitutional Court found- although similar and widely substantiated claims against the Democrats have been dismissed.

6) Did Thaksin use his money and power to silence voices of his opposition and the media during his time in office?

I think you'll find that the Bangkok Post and the Nation were just as negative about him prior to his being sacked as they are now. Well, perhaps not quite. But since the coup, Thailand's place on the International Press Freedoms table has gone backward, not forward, with hundreds of radio stations shut down, censorship and self-censorship in the press, the results of polls being edited, the military influence over state media and telecommunications networks and the politicization of the Monarchy through the Lese Majeste laws.

7) Did Thaksin misrepresent his assets when assuming a role in government?

Did he? Last I read he was acquitted of that prior to the coup.

8) In the last year or two has Thaksin made any public calls for revolution?

Peaceful revolution. Kinda like the Green revolution, Saffron revolution and Orange revolutions of the past. Do you oppose those as well?

9) If they were to assume control of government, would the PTP whitewash Thaksin of any criminal activity he may have engaged in?

I would hope that he receives equal justice.

10) Have red shirt organizations used violence to prevent opposition politicians from speaking in Northern/Northeastern cities?

Have some sensitivity. They are referred to as "Thaksin's dogs" by the PM's spokesman, lampooned as "uneducated and corrupt" in the national press, had their democratically elected PM and constitution taken away, are terrorized by the military and have their radio stations shut down, and you tut-tut them for not giving the Democrats a "fair go?" Level the playing field across the board, and they will play ball.

11) Have red shirt leaders threatened violence to judges, politicians, or any other citizens?

Hang on, who's the ones with the military backing them?

12) If elections were held next month, would every politician of every party be able to freely campaign everywhere in Thailand without fear of violence or personal harm?

See question 10. There are a lot of sore wounds in the country at the moment. This country literally stands on the brink of civil war- and if there is going to be any peaceful solution, it will need to be mediated by a third party and ideally enforced by an international peacekeeping force. No, I'm not joking.

I don't agree 100% with all that John says in response to the questions, but they do make sense.

Around early 2002 when Thaksinmania was at its height, I was defending him to a friend of mine in Hong Kong, saying much the same as John (must be something in the Australian waters?). My friend who is very well connected in HK legal/financial circles, then sighted a report he had been privvy to, from one of the big financial houses(I think this report actually ended up being openly published).

I have always remembered him saying that whilst Thailand and many of its leaders/elites had a reputation for corruption, none had ever come close, to the level found in this study, about the current (at the time) TRT and Thaksin.

I don't think there is any argument about Thailand's leaders and elites (from all sides) having a strong streak of corruption running through them. But, Thaksin crossed the boundary with the level and forced a showdown (which is still taking place) by wanting it all.

Personally, I felt/feel let down by someone, who I hoped would be able to help Thai people, atain a proper level of democracy, but more importantly, a better chance in life, for ALL. One could argue, that he was on they way to helping Thai achieve the "better chance" goal.

The "better chance" - but hopefully at a more sustainable level - can be seen by the current government's continuation of most of the so called populist polices, intiated during his time and the open attention now being paid - at least in words - to helping the poor communitees.

But, I don't think he was on the way to helping make Thailand a more democratic society. And today, he and some of his gang, abuse the word "democracy" in persuit of their own goals. Yes, perhaps, after all they are as you say, just politicians.

[johncitizen]

That's what democracy is all about!

Thank you.

EDIT: To way2much.

Edited February 9, 2010 by johncitizen

[jdinasia]

JohnCitizen:

A simple yes or no please:

1) Did Thaksin engage in corruption during his time in office?

2) Did Thaksin engage in criminal behavior during his time as PM?

3) Did Thaksin abuse his authority in order to further enrich himself?

4) Did Thaksin initiate an anti-drug campaign that resulted in thousands of extrajudicial deaths?

5) Did the party that Thaksin represented engage in massive electoral fraud during his time in office?

6) Did Thaksin use his money and power to silence voices of his opposition and the media during his time in office?

7) Did Thaksin misrepresent his assets when assuming a role in government?

8) In the last year or two has Thaksin made any public calls for revolution?

9) If they were to assume control of government, would the PTP whitewash Thaksin of any criminal activity he may have engaged in?

10) Have red shirt organizations used violence to prevent opposition politicians from speaking in Northern/Northeastern cities?

11) Have red shirt leaders threatened violence to judges, politicians, or any other citizens?

12) If elections were held next month, would every politician of every party be able to freely campaign everywhere in Thailand without fear of violence or personal harm?

One last thing. My impression was that the King of Thailand appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Thailand. Do you have any references or evidence for your claim that the current judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by the military? I am not saying you are incorrect, but I have not read any credible source of information that either refutes or supports your claim.

To sum up Johncitizen's answers -----

1-7 ----"Yes, but ..."

8-------"No" Johncitizen seems to be the only person not thinking that the People's Army of Thailand and Sae Daeng are not a threat of violence

9---- he doesn't answer ("I would hope that he receives equal justice" is not an answer) Since they are calling for all charges to be dropped and the charter to be changed to protect

Thaksin and the TRT/PPP stooges

10 ----- almost a "yes but" --- instead what he does here is give excuses for the violence

11---- didn't answer because the question was far too damning

12 --- gives the same answer as 10 ---- which is to now excuse further violence