38 Security Centres Set Up To Maintain Peace In Thailand

[poleax]

RSDM

Random Stupefaction Demoralizing Majority

Ridiculous Stupidities Depress Masses

Rebelious Society Demonises Mainstream

Reprobate Speculator Destroying Motherland

Runaway Sham Democracy Mutilator

Reproduction Socialists Demand Management

very funny Animatic....I love it.

And here I thought RSDM stood for "Red Shirt Democracy Movement"

I'm such an idiot! What the .... do I know!

Edited February 8, 2010 by poleax

[jdinasia]

Interesting point you make. Quoting u directly hammered, "....Thai people....cant be either yellow or red....."

I have difficulty understanding those who make statements of nuetrality between the electoral minority PAD and the electoral majority Red Shirt Democracy Movement.

Sorry ---- Facts do not bear out your claims.

Regarding Thaksin, the Red Shirts and Democracy .......

In fact, everything was so rosy during Thaksin's early days that it afforded him the luxury to declare "Democracy is not my goal". Confronted with growing inquiries about the way he got things done at the expense of democratic principles, he did not hesitate to compare democracy to a Rolls-Royce, which can be useless in certain circumstances.

People advocating for the Reds and Thaksin may wish to review some of the older threads on here

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-demo...Goal-t4293.html

Edited February 8, 2010 by jdinasia

[animatic]

Wouldn't it be easier and more cost-effective to simply decide on a date-certain election

We have that now.

At the end of the current elected Minster of Parliaments terms of office.

Just as the constitution states.

Oh, on your laundry list of wants you COMPLETELY forgot;

Free and fair campaigning in all part of the country

for all candidates that choose to run,

with safety of person and freedom of speech for ALL ideas.

Oh, wait, that risks your side losing... guess you don't want that.

[Bkung]

" I Pray to all the good spirits who guard this Kingdom from any harmful activies that may endanger to the nation and the people "

Edited February 8, 2010 by Bkung

[kikoman]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

That is the best idea I have heard! Social programs for the poor with Thaksin's money. How novel, now the Democracy backers of an elected goverment, have nothing to complain about. The money will go to the poor where it belongs!

Cheers:

[animatic]

RSDM

Random Stupefaction Demoralizing Majority

Ridiculous Stupidities Depress Masses

Rebelious Society Demonises Mainstream

Reprobate Speculator Destroying Motherland

Runaway Sham Democracy Mutilator

Reproduction Socialists Demand Management

very funny Animatic....I love it.

And here I thought RSDM stood for "Red Shirt Democracy Movement"

I'm such an idiot! What the .... do I know!

Ritual Subordination Demeans Mentalities!

Rarely Stifle Demonstrative Mensches

Right Surmise Derives Merriment

Reactionary Slanted Doctrines Martyrize

And especially:

Rigid Supposition Devolves Malthusinan

Edited February 8, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

" I Pray to all the good spirits who guard this Kingdom from any harmful activies that may endanger to the nation and the people "

I'll second this.

[sinplyred]

The reds have 2 goals after Chinese New Year: paralyse Bangkok as per Songkran last year to force the government to dissolve Parliament and secondly to provoke the military to use violence and/ or have a coup.

The government are wise to be prepared.

Not a lot of difference to the yellow shirts then, oh except the yellow shirts paralised Thailand.

Do you not understand they only want thier vote back. They did not elect this prime minister

[animatic]

Can't have your vote back after it's given.

You get who you voted for and their decisions in your name for their term.

There is not global recall mechanism after the EC finalizes an election.

Of course several MPs from both sides have been individual recalled for cheating.

One point quite regularly ignored in the 'new election demands' is that

the ONLY guys they lost were leadership positions, and not that many.

They still have ALL their seats filled for EVERY region and constituency.

There are no empty regional seats in this sitting Parliament.

So if you voted for your local puyai, he is in there, but HIS leadership has changed.

Their beef is that their elected MPs don't have enough clout to be the bosses.

And there is no obvious legal mechanism to change that equation...

so the just keep screaming for a new election... which only benefits their side.

The only two ways a new election real benefits PTP is:

They win 50% or more and that's not likely.

They win enough to be asked to form the first coalition government with other parties.

BUT at that point who can say if they have enough cash to purchase

and keep a suitably mailable partner party. There is enough cash around to

make offers to NOT support PTP, long enough to let vote getter #2 have a chance to

form a multi-party coalition. Of course then PTPs minions will start screaming again.

But if they can't keep a coalition together it isn't an open door forever to keep trying.

Oh, wait that's where we are now.

The PTP couldn't keep it's coalition together and the #2 vote getter of PARTY LIST,

was given the chance to form a coalition...

The elected MPs have a mandate to form a government.

That's how it works.

Edited February 8, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

That is the best idea I have heard! Social programs for the poor with Thaksin's money. How novel, now the Democracy backers of an elected goverment, have nothing to complain about. The money will go to the poor where it belongs!

Cheers:

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

[khunjamespittman]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

This is not a bad idea. Ask Mr. T if he loves his people so much to give all the funds held by the courts to be used to help the rural people. Make schools and hospitals use the money truly to help the people who he took it from. If Mr. T said yes to this I would forgive him on all accounts. Now I would never forget what he has done and the lives lost. But we could all move on and save what is left of our nation.

Since you have this great desire to have someone give up their life's earning, I think it is only fair fair for you to also give up your life's earning and while we are at it why not go all the way and have all of the politicians (either appointed, bought or elected) give up the life's earnings. What's fair for one is surely fair for all. Just a wild guess but I think you would want to make sure that you are given an exemption to such a policy, thus continuing the unequal policy that exists today.

Regards. Maybe you might think about changing your views. You might be surprised and quite unhappy if your suggested policy would apply to you. Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

[animatic]

On the topic of security centers and check points. Well there are hundreds of check points nationally now.

Nothing unusual mostly after drugs or illegal alien trafficking, but based on security ideas none the less.

So if they are organizing them in a better way it's just a reshuffle of their existing system,

rather than some abrupt turn fascist as some imply. If a group with a proven hisoptry of social violence

wasn't actively threatening more of the same, this would have just been a reshuffle behind the scenes.

But it is publicly stated to put the potential trouble makers to more work attempting to circumventing it,

and thus waste more of their time. Makes sense.

Edited February 8, 2010 by animatic

[jdinasia]

This is not a bad idea. Ask Mr. T if he loves his people so much to give all the funds held by the courts to be used to help the rural people. Make schools and hospitals use the money truly to help the people who he took it from. If Mr. T said yes to this I would forgive him on all accounts. Now I would never forget what he has done and the lives lost. But we could all move on and save what is left of our nation.

Since you have this great desire to have someone give up their life's earning, I think it is only fair fair for you to also give up your life's earning and while we are at it why not go all the way and have all of the politicians (either appointed, bought or elected) give up the life's earnings. What's fair for one is surely fair for all. Just a wild guess but I think you would want to make sure that you are given an exemption to such a policy, thus continuing the unequal policy that exists today.

Regards. Maybe you might think about changing your views. You might be surprised and quite unhappy if your suggested policy would apply to you. Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

Would it be OK with you if we just included those politicians that were convicted of gaining the money illegally? If, on 26 Feb the courts find for the defendant (who is STILL a convicted felon what is on the run) I will happily accept the sentence and say "move on". However, if they say the evidence supports keeping some or all of Thaksin's money I will say that I accept it and "Move On". If the return any of his money I would LOVE to see him be required to claim it in person, sadly I doubt that what I want is legal It would solve the little problem of him being on the run from justice though!

[Grey11]

I find this a bit disturbing Control centres sounds like something Hitler set up in the 1940's. Next all Red shirts will be asked to wear an insignia on there shoulder.

Hitler has been dead for 65 years! What in the hel_l has he got to do with this? The Red Shirts perhaps remind you of the Brown Shirts under Hitler? These peasants following their hero, the crooked convicted criminal thaksin, want to overthrow the government with the only way they know - violence. And, as long as Thaksin is alive, there is the threat that these radicals will overthrow the Government to get Thaksin back in there. Thaksin made his billions partly on the back of the poor, threw them a few crumbs and now they are willing to die for him. Lack of education is indeed a dangerous thing & all of Northern Thailand is part of the epidemic.

[peecee]

I find this a bit disturbing Control centres sounds like something Hitler set up in the 1940's. Next all Red shirts will be asked to wear an insignia on there shoulder.

Pretty much like what I was thinking!

Then I got to Post #84 and the new information starts to make the governments position have a hint of desperation about it.

After the 160+ checkpoints are put in place, after the 38 Control Centres are activated, will the new black uniforms with the new insignia be ready in time???

Last time we saw uniform's like those in Siam were at the unveiling of the Victory Monument, there partner's then (Japan & Germany) have since moved on. Thailand however remain's stuck in it's militaristic past, with the NE people looked upon with contempt by the middle classes. These same people have been outraged by there voice being stiffled by the military and are not going to give up democracy without a fight. Most western countries had brutal regemes in there past; both England & France ended up in civil war over the power given to parliment by the people being ignored by the military elite!

[geriatrickid]

The government is acting in a responsible manner with this decision if the intent is to discourage violence. To not make an attempt to keep the peace will allow Thailand to be subject to mobs running amuck. Many people come out for a protest with the sole intent of vandalizing and looting. These people have no interest in politics or democracy. They are not red or yellow or blue, but are idiots intent on having "fun".

The issue is what exactly will these centres do? If they are to harass regular peaceful people, then yes it is wrong. That is the dilemma all nations face when confronted with massive protests. None of the western countries has yet mastered that dilemma when they host a G7 or G20 summit. You need only look at the localized police states that exist in hosting cities. This being Thailand I expect that a few people will be brutalized and maybe even shot. If the Songkran checkpoints intended to enforce safety and drunk driving laws are an indication, I anticipate that this will be all talk and nothing concrete.

Stupidest move was to make this decision public. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[animatic]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

That is the best idea I have heard! Social programs for the poor with Thaksin's money. How novel, now the Democracy backers of an elected goverment, have nothing to complain about. The money will go to the poor where it belongs!

Cheers:

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

Yes he is not the altruistic creature of light he pretends.

Also not the great thinker and Thaksinomics guru/savior.

Some other thoughts on society.

Good bad, indifferent Malthus is but food for thoughts.

REMEDIES OTHER THAN MORAL FOR OVER-POPULATION

- MALTHUS - ON PRINCIPLES OF POPULATION

ALL systems of equality which have been proposed are bound to fail,

because the motive to the preventive check of moral restraint is destroyed by equality and community of goods.

As all would be equal and in similar circumstances, there would be no reason why one person should

think himself obliged to practice the duty of restraint more than another.

And how could a man be compelled to such restraint?

The operation of this natural check of moral restraint depends

exclusively upon the existence of the laws of property and succession;

and, in a state of equality and community of property could only be replaced by

some artificial regulation of a very different stamp, and a much more unnatural character.

No scheme of equality, then, can overcome the population difficulty:

emigration is only a palliative and poor-law relief only a nostrum which

eventually aggravates the evils of over-population.....

...It is the union of the agricultural and commercial systems, and not either of them taken separately,

that is calculated to produce the greatest national prosperity. A country with an extensive and rich territory,

the cultivation of which is stimulated by improvements in agriculture, manufactures and foreign commerce,

has such various and abundant resources that it is extremely difficult to say when they will reach their limits.

There are, however, limits to the capital population of a country-limits which they must ultimately reach

and cannot pass.

Edited February 8, 2010 by animatic

[Dap]

All politics are about money in one way or another ... politics = Money or Power !

So are the UDD protest is to bring back democracy or to save Taksin's money. What the democracy has to do with Mr. T finances. Yeah I am playing it stupid. their politics is all about money

[jayboy]

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

This is dishonest and ignorant nonsense I'm afraid.There's no doubt that there were many positive aspects in Thaksin's efforts to improve rural Thailand's position.It is for that reason that the present Government has retained and in some cases even enhanced benefits provided under the Thaksin Government.Note for the naive: politicians all over the world implement policies to induce voters to lend support.Having said that some of Thaksin's supporters have overstated their case, and the actual results were sometimes surprisingly marginal.But to talk of a dependency cycle manafactured to buy votes is so childish it's not even worth discussing.

For the more serious there's actually quite a lot of evidence now on the impact of Thaksin's populist policies, none of it particularly supporting either side of the political divide.The subject is complex but when demonstrable error surfaces I think it's important to identify it promptly.

[khunjamespittman]

On the topic of security centers and check points. Well there are hundreds of check points nationally now.

Nothing unusual mostly after drugs or illegal alien trafficking, but based on security ideas none the less.

So if they are organizing them in a better way it's just a reshuffle of their existing system,

rather than some abrupt turn fascist as some imply. If a group with a proven hisoptry of social violence

wasn't actively threatening more of the same, this would have just been a reshuffle behind the scenes.

But it is publicly stated to put the potential trouble makers to more work attempting to circumventing it,

and thus waste more of their time. Makes sense.

Where have I hear this before? Oh yeah, it was in a German history book, and several other eastern European history accounts.

I thought history was supposed to make us more aware. Maybe we aren't the students of history we used to be?

[animatic]

Aristotle: Causes of revolution in politics

REVOLUTIONS arise from inequalities, numerical or qualitative--

from a numerical mass claiming an equality denied them, or from a minority claiming a superiority denied them.

A revolution may result either in a complete change of polity, or only in a modification of the existing one.

An oligarchy is less permanent than a democracy, owing to factions within the oligarchical body.

In all revolutions, the conditions which leads up to them is the desire of the many for equality,

and the desire of the minority for effective superiority.

The purposes with which they are set on foot are profit, honour, or avoidance of loss or dishonour.

The inciting occasions are many;

jealousy of those who have wealth and honour,

official arrogance,

fear of the law or of its abuse, personal rivalries,

failure of the middle class to maintain a balance,

race antagonisms,

antagonism of localities, and others.

In democracies, revolutions are due mainly to

demagogic attacks on wealth, leading the wealthy of combine,

and they result in the establishment of an oligarchy or of a tyranny,

a 'popular' military chief seizing the power for himself;

or sometimes in replacing a moderate by an extreme democracy.

In oligarchies they spring from the oppressive conduct of the oligarchy,

or from dissensions among the oligarchical body--e.g.

exclusion of those who think themselves entitled to membership;

attraction of the role of demagogue for individual members of the oligarchy;

employment of mercenary troops, whose captain seizes power.

IN aristocracies they arise from

the jealousy of those excluded from power,

personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth.

In these, and in constitutional governments--the most stable of all--

the main cause is the incomplete fusion of the three criteria, wealth, numbers and merit.

The comparative stability of constitutions comes from the greater relative weight of numbers.

They are, however, more liable to be revolutionised by external pressure.

Equality in proportion to merit and security of rights are the true conditions of permanence.

For the preservation of polities, minor illegalities must be particularly guarded against:

in oligarchies,

personal rivalries,

abuse of power by individuals (making short tenures of office advisable),

insolence of privilege,

tricks to deceive the masses;

in oligarchies and constitutional states,

excessive concentration of power in individuals or classes;

oppression of the wealthy minority in democracies,

and of the poor majority in oligarchies.

Of monarchy, the two types are the regal and the tyrannic.

The king is the protector of the wealthy against spoliation,

of the poor against arrogance.

His own or his family's virtues or services have given him the kingship;

his aim is excellence, and his authority is maintained by a citizen bodyguard.

The tyrant is not a protector; his aim is his personal gratification.

Under monarchies,

injustice and arrogance are the causes of insurrection,

or fear, or contempt for incompetence, coupled with ambition.

Tyrannies are overthrown by collision with external forces, or by private intrigues in the tyrant's entourage,

and generally in the same sort of way as extreme oligarchies or extreme democracies.

Kingships are endangered by intrigues in the royal family, by the King's personal incompetence,

or by his developing tyrannical attributes.

Hereditary monarchies are in particular danger from incompetents succeeding.

But in a complex society, kingship proper is all but impossible.

A kingship is maintained by the royal self-restraint. T

he tyrant relies on the material and moral degradation,

incapacity and lack of mutual confidence among his subjects,

which he fosters by espionage, executions, taxation and the encouragement of licence.

Occasionally, the tyrant will seek to secure his position by playing the part

and assuming the attributes of a king proper.

The shrewd tyrant sees to it that he has the favour of the rich or of the poor.

Neither tyrannies nor oligarchies have proved long-lived.

[khunjamespittman]

This is not a bad idea. Ask Mr. T if he loves his people so much to give all the funds held by the courts to be used to help the rural people. Make schools and hospitals use the money truly to help the people who he took it from. If Mr. T said yes to this I would forgive him on all accounts. Now I would never forget what he has done and the lives lost. But we could all move on and save what is left of our nation.

Since you have this great desire to have someone give up their life's earning, I think it is only fair fair for you to also give up your life's earning and while we are at it why not go all the way and have all of the politicians (either appointed, bought or elected) give up the life's earnings. What's fair for one is surely fair for all. Just a wild guess but I think you would want to make sure that you are given an exemption to such a policy, thus continuing the unequal policy that exists today.

Regards. Maybe you might think about changing your views. You might be surprised and quite unhappy if your suggested policy would apply to you. Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

Would it be OK with you if we just included those politicians that were convicted of gaining the money illegally? If, on 26 Feb the courts find for the defendant (who is STILL a convicted felon what is on the run) I will happily accept the sentence and say "move on". However, if they say the evidence supports keeping some or all of Thaksin's money I will say that I accept it and "Move On". If the return any of his money I would LOVE to see him be required to claim it in person, sadly I doubt that what I want is legal It would solve the little problem of him being on the run from justice though!

I rest my case. You have now defined a set of exemptions from your previous. I am not surprised. Your post seems to show more a hatred of Mr. Thaksin and not any desire to provide for the poor people. I agree your desires probably have no basis in law.

Get over it. Whatever happens will work out in the 10-20 years and history will give us a view unclouded by the hatred that frequently shows up in current times.

[hammered]

Interesting watching the propaganda being produced on here. Now apparently Thai people or others for that matter cant be neither yellow nor red. Maybe they arent allowed to think for themselves anymore.

Interesting how certain phrases are also used conspicuously too for PR/propagnda reasons. Not as sophisitcated as has been used elsewhere but interestibng to watch.

Wopnder if the thread will make it back to some vestiuge of reality and away from condescending and supercilious comments suggesting people cannot think for themselves.

Interesting point you make. Quoting u directly hammered, "....Thai people....cant be either yellow or red....."

I have difficulty understanding those who make statements of nuetrality between the electoral minority PAD and the electoral majority Red Shirt Democracy Movement. I charge many of these so-called political parties in Thailand as being just political groups. When I think of a 'political party' I think of clearly defined ideology. Some of these so-called parties are devoid of ideology and that is why the military or whomever, was able to re-arrange these groups so easily in Parliament, and voila...Abhisit is PM who never came close to winning an election, ever.

But I dont think that is the case for the PAD/NPP and the Red Shirt Democracy Movement. If not ideology, they have a definite political POV, and can be defined in political terms. It would also be very difficult to move politicians around between the two groups as there is a definite ideological chasm to cross.

So for someone to say they do not agree with either of them, than what do they believe. Have some political convictions and do not be afraid to defend them. If they voted for one on any given day, they couldn't vote for the other the next...if they did, it would be political naivete at its' greatest. Not that these apply in this instance, but for discussion sake, ya cannot be a Socialist one day. and the opposite the next day.

Try mixing with the people and you find as in every country quite a few who care little about politcs or those involved. There are also lots of different players and not just red or yellow.

By the way, conservative parties in democraies are often identiifed as not having ideology in leftist analysis. They still operate as effective poltical parties.

There are no socialists in any Thai politcal party and no Thai party has any socialist ideology. PTP are a capitalist pro-globalisation party as are the Democrats. The NPP or whatever the tiny yellow party is called may have some Leninist economic polices and be anti-globalisation but their social polices are ultra- nationalistic. The rest of the parties are regional parties that also basically accept capitalist pro-globalisation economics too.

[jdinasia]

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

This is dishonest and ignorant nonsense I'm afraid.There's no doubt that there were many positive aspects in Thaksin's efforts to improve rural Thailand's position.It is for that reason that the present Government has retained and in some cases even enhanced benefits provided under the Thaksin Government.Note for the naive: politicians all over the world implement policies to induce voters to lend support.Having said that some of Thaksin's supporters have overstated their case, and the actual results were sometimes surprisingly marginal.But to talk of a dependency cycle manafactured to buy votes is so childish it's not even worth discussing.

For the more serious there's actually quite a lot of evidence now on the impact of Thaksin's populist policies, none of it particularly supporting either side of the political divide.The subject is complex but when demonstrable error surfaces I think it's important to identify it promptly.

Are you claiming that the poor were better off as a result of Thaksin? (financially?) Are you disputing the loss of land suffered by some farmers as a direct result of the loans?

Hmmmm I didn't originate the ideas that you don't like

Professor Borwornsak then argued that the populist policies of Thaksin’s administrations worsened the disparity between the poor and the rich. Income growth, he claimed, was concentrated on export-oriented businesses, while small and medium enterprises gained little. Thaksin’s populist policies, he claimed, while having the virtue of making the poor realise for the first time that their votes mattered, kept the poor “dependent on and even addicted to” Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party. This, Professor Borwornsak argued, enhanced the granter-receiver relationship that is central to the “patronage system”. Moreover, Professor Borwornsak argued that Thaksin’s populist policies had “no longer-term impact on the economy” and would be unsustainable since they “required spending future money”.

Then Professor Borwornsak went on to narrate that Thai people failed to keep their elected government in check. The “civil society sector”, he claimed, was weak, which allowed Thaksin’s government to interfere with independent checks and balances and the media. It is not clear whether he meant these to be elaborations of the harm of populism.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2...-event-part-ii/

Both parts are worth reading (and New Mandala is known to be pretty anti-yellow)

The distribution of wealth formula seems to bear this out .. that under Thaksin it actually got worse for the people he was claiming to help. The fact that he also claimed credit for some other things that proved popular but were in fact financial disasters for the country is funny and sad at the same time. You will find that the MoH was already gearing up for the 30 baht health scheme etc.

kjp --- actually my post kinda sides with the COURTS Get convicted then suffer the consequences. Yes I would like to see Thaksin who happens to be a convicted felon, serve his time.

Edited February 8, 2010 by jdinasia

[monkfish]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

That is the best idea I have heard! Social programs for the poor with Thaksin's money. How novel, now the Democracy backers of an elected goverment, have nothing to complain about. The money will go to the poor where it belongs!

Cheers:

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

So I guess you have family members who got hurt by these "populist policies"?

Half my family are Rice farmers and they did not get hurt by the "populist policies" but may be you know someone that did?

So the question is How do you know?

Edited February 8, 2010 by monkfish

[Dap]

Absolutely numbing. Time to do something consructive ... like read a good book. Have at it and maybe I'll wake up to find you have all come to an agreement and all is well, NOT!

[jdinasia]

The government should distribute the Thaksin Asset to the poor people of the North East so it will keep peace and make everyone happy

That is the best idea I have heard! Social programs for the poor with Thaksin's money. How novel, now the Democracy backers of an elected goverment, have nothing to complain about. The money will go to the poor where it belongs!

Cheers:

The fact that Thaksin's populist policies actually hurt the poor is not in doubt amongst people that have looked into things. The loans created debt that could not be serviced and has cost farmers their land etc. The goal was to set up a dependancy cycle to keep buying the votes. It worked. Sadly the guy wasn't happy with that and had to cheat on top of his wins to try and be above censure. That helped cause his downfall.

Blame it on 'the elites' (of which Thaksin must surely be numbered) or on Thaksin's hubris, but Thaksinomics and the CEO style failed

So I guess you have family members who got hurt by these "populist policies"?

Half my family are Rice farmers and they did not get hurt by the "populist policies" but may be you know someone that did?

So the question is How do you know?

Actually I have 'family' that benefited from Thaksin's populist policies (no need for quotation marks). They bought land that came for sale due to people being unable to pay their debts incurred under the loans. The former land owning farmers are now tenant farmers and paying for the privilege of living on and farming land that they used to own. (I really ought to like Thaksin .. huh? If it weren't for Thaksin's statements that democracy wasn't his goal .. well .. no not even then would I have been for him!

[Hugh Jarse]

Most of the government's initiatives with regards to the UDD would make a good TV series. They could call it "Fear Factor."

Or what about 'far East Enders'?

[monkfish]

Actually I have 'family' that benefited from Thaksin's populist policies (no need for quotation marks). They bought land that came for sale due to people being unable to pay their debts incurred under the loans. The former land owning farmers are now tenant farmers and paying for the privilege of living on and farming land that they used to own. (I really ought to like Thaksin .. huh? If it weren't for Thaksin's statements that democracy wasn't his goal .. well .. no not even then would I have been for him!

So I guess your family are not farmers?

As it stands at the moment if a rice farmer does not have the ready cash to buy his yearly rice seeds for planting new crops he has to borrow money from loan sharks at 10% per month. go work that one out, 120% per year!

May be a few did get carried away with the loans but not all.

Edited February 8, 2010 by monkfish

[Jonathanpattaya]

Security centers? What good would that be? They won't have any authority or any sane reason to do anything; that is if they can stay awake.

Exactly!