Thaksin Supporters

[rixalex]

Thankfully, Aussies, Americans, Canadians or others cannot vote for a UK government and vice-versa.

What about if they have been living, working and raising a family in the UK for the last ten, twenty, thirty years?

But, then they would be British citizens to be able to vote. So a bit out of context

It's not out of context. You were making the point that you found it strange how foreigners got so heated up about Thai politics and how at the end of the day it was a matter for Thai people and Thai people alone. You were forgetting the fact that a lot of us here on this forum have been living and working here for many many years. Some of us have our own businesses. Some of us have our own families. Some of us have permanent residency. Some of us even have citizenship. Why then would you think it stange for us to have strong feelings on these matters? And why would you be thankful for the fact that a lot of us don't have the right to vote? A lot of foreigners in Thailand for bureaucratic reasons will never have that right, but that doesn't mean they are not deserving of it.

[Samuian]

It is a strange thing that only the politically oriented farangs and the Thai elite Thaksin haters have a problem with the "drug war". The vast majority of Thais have no problem with how it was handled. Murders? No doubt there were some, but the Thais think that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Sorry, sir I think you got a problem with your view of justice and what is right and wrong!

And being critical, voicing an opposing opinion has nothing to do with "bashing" it's implying cheap argumentation!

Some simple questions:

Has the death penalty in ANY of the countries prevented crimes like murder?

Has the "elimination" of the assumed drug peddlers rooted out the drug problem in Thailand?

Has even the premier of a country follow the rules - yes/no?

Edited February 15, 2010 by Samuian

[jdinasia]

Then there are the "one-liners" ... one quick line of something that sounds bright but contains no facts

Sometimes "bright sounding" one liners contain more truth than page after page after page of so-called "facts".

Sometimes? OK .. I will give you sometimes !

Mostly they are facile little oneliners that exhibit no understanding of deeper issues and are spouted off to avoid risking 'losing face'. I mean really .... If you spout off a one liner with no substantial content then nothing can be replied to. Making it 'risk free' for the poster.

[jdinasia]

Gosh JD, I haven't been banned or suspended yet, I'm trying though Perhaps if I make naughty suggestions as to the use of a papaya in bed....

Please do not confuse those of us with a strong dislike of army and other entrenched interest group's interference in the civil affairs of Thailand with being "pro-Thaksin". Had Mr. Thaksin cut certain people in for a bigger share of the pie I have no doubt the army and its cronies would not have seized the civil apparatus. No one claims Mr. Thaksin was a saint.

Unfortunately, 20-20 hindsight is easier than having to deal with a situation as it unfolds. You keep going back to the loss of life during the "drug war". Well then, why do you have such a hard time in accepting reality. This wasn't a struggle with the good guys and the bad guys easily identifiable. The drug war took place because for all intents and purposes there was an insurrection underway. The reach of the cartels was all encompassing. Honest police officials and members of the judiciary were being intimidated and killed off. I put it to you that a great many of the mysterious deaths were carried out by the drug cartels corrupt police officers or by people posing as the police. The same scenario has occurred in Peru, Bolivia and Columbia. Why should Thailand have been any different? In Iraq, terrorists often dress up as police officers before they enter a secured compound and blow themselves up. The end result is that people are wary of the police and blame the police for the events.

The extra judiciary killings as you term them (I call them criminal murders and sabotage) would never have taken place had the army and other entrenched powers assisted the government at the time. You have ignored the fact that the drugs were flowing across the Burmese border. How pray tell did that happen? Wasn't the army that responsible for the border?I put it to you that the army could have slowed the drug trade had it made the effort. It was in the interest of the cartels and their business allies that the war on drugs fail and become mired in scandal and that was precisely what it did with the leaks, the lack of co-operation and the murders. If you want to play the blame game, then please go the full distance and wag your finger at the assorted army generals that I believe were implicated in this. Better yet, why not have a full public inquiry into the matter.

Ask yourself why there has been no public inquiry. After all, Mr. Thaksin could be blamed for the deaths very easily just as you are doing. Do you think it is possible that such an inquiry might reveal some disturbing relationships and that the military command along with some members of the elite would be most uncomfortable? Corruption makes for some strange bedfellows and the people implicated and alleged to have profited either directly or indirectly is alleged to read like a who's who listing of the elite.

You forget, Jan 24, 2008 The military-appointed government, under Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, was praised for promising a proper investigation into the 2003 anti-narcotics crackdown in which over 2,500 people were killed. Thaksin could be tried for war crimes, since the ousted premier and senior government officials had approved a policy that gave the police a ''license to kill'' in going after suspected drug dealers.

Yet any hope of bringing those responsible for excesses in the anti-drug campaign were dashed by a statement made by Surayud, days before handing over power to a new government elected in the late December polls. The independent panel appointed by the post-coup administration to inquire into the killings has unearthed little evidence to punish the perpetrators

''Due to lack of evidence, as many witnesses have refused to come forward to provide vital information to the investigators, this panel couldn't hold anyone responsible,'' Surayud was quoted

Ah .....

Here we go ... again you justify 2600+ extra-judicial killings on the part of Thaksin by laying it off on the people you don't like. You let the police off the hook with "This wasn't a struggle with the good guys and the bad guys easily identifiable." If you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy, perhaps you shouldn't be shooting people. Then again, you shouldn't be shooting people anyways. You blame the military for not protecting a permeable border etc etc.

You use a quote at the end in what appears to be an attempt to white wash the whole thing after having just given reasons to believe that your 'entrenched interest groups' might have reason to cover things up.

Very clearly we have Thaksin and some of his top aids organizing and ordering extra-judicial murders. I honestly don't know how conspiracy laws work in Thailand but it obviously was a conspiracy to deprive people of their right to a trial.

Your "cartel" and "insurrection" remarks are pretty much specious and just give carte blanche to these killings.

All in all you appear to be justifying secret police kill lists ..... totally unacceptable behaviour by a police OR military on its own civilian population.

Surayad's statement aside ---- there is no reason that this case could not be reopened. I will have to look back on the 19 or 20 outstanding cases against Thaksin that are being investigated to see if any of them relate to this.

[Samuian]

Gosh JD, I haven't been banned or suspended yet, I'm trying though Perhaps if I make naughty suggestions as to the use of a papaya in bed....

Please do not confuse those of us with a strong dislike of army and other entrenched interest group's interference in the civil affairs of Thailand with being "pro-Thaksin". Had Mr. Thaksin cut certain people in for a bigger share of the pie I have no doubt the army and its cronies would not have seized the civil apparatus. No one claims Mr. Thaksin was a saint.

Unfortunately, 20-20 hindsight is easier than having to deal with a situation as it unfolds. You keep going back to the loss of life during the "drug war". Well then, why do you have such a hard time in accepting reality. This wasn't a struggle with the good guys and the bad guys easily identifiable. The drug war took place because for all intents and purposes there was an insurrection underway. The reach of the cartels was all encompassing. Honest police officials and members of the judiciary were being intimidated and killed off. I put it to you that a great many of the mysterious deaths were carried out by the drug cartels corrupt police officers or by people posing as the police. The same scenario has occurred in Peru, Bolivia and Columbia. Why should Thailand have been any different? In Iraq, terrorists often dress up as police officers before they enter a secured compound and blow themselves up. The end result is that people are wary of the police and blame the police for the events.

The extra judiciary killings as you term them (I call them criminal murders and sabotage) would never have taken place had the army and other entrenched powers assisted the government at the time. You have ignored the fact that the drugs were flowing across the Burmese border. How pray tell did that happen? Wasn't the army that responsible for the border?I put it to you that the army could have slowed the drug trade had it made the effort. It was in the interest of the cartels and their business allies that the war on drugs fail and become mired in scandal and that was precisely what it did with the leaks, the lack of co-operation and the murders. If you want to play the blame game, then please go the full distance and wag your finger at the assorted army generals that I believe were implicated in this. Better yet, why not have a full public inquiry into the matter.

Ask yourself why there has been no public inquiry. After all, Mr. Thaksin could be blamed for the deaths very easily just as you are doing. Do you think it is possible that such an inquiry might reveal some disturbing relationships and that the military command along with some members of the elite would be most uncomfortable? Corruption makes for some strange bedfellows and the people implicated and alleged to have profited either directly or indirectly is alleged to read like a who's who listing of the elite.

As you wrote: "Nobody claims he was a saint" ... the question unfolds: "What are you trying to defend or whom are you trying to blame instead?

Strange argumentation, even stranger defense, because it's so obvious, sir!

"He wasn't a saint...but...."

"those who outed him and his DEFUNCT government never claimed to be saints either! So what?

Mr.Thaksin simply lost his high stakes game, he lost - like in a soccer game, there is only one team that will win - he gambled high and he lost high!

And the ever occurring argument that there "...is no one better... they ALL are corrupt" what does this supposed to suggest, what logic is supposedly reflect in there?

"Ahhh' well, keep on driving, it's only one flat Tyre!" ?

How we know that there is "no one better" isn't it a very flat, far fetched assumption, to cover the deeds of Mr.Thaksin and his Cabinet of self serving so called politicians?

How about Chuan, how about Abhisit, Chamlong - maybe some people in this country are simply fed up with this seemingly forever ongoing soap opera?!

If the Police force, the judiciary is entirely infiltrated by corrupted individuals, who is left to return a country to law and order - and yes, most important of all: who is the chief of it all, after all? .... ah' well' guess we aren't allowed to even mention....?

[geriatrickid]

You forget, Jan 24, 2008 The military-appointed government, under Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, was praised for promising a proper investigation into the 2003 anti-narcotics crackdown in which over 2,500 people were killed. Thaksin could be tried for war crimes, since the ousted premier and senior government officials had approved a policy that gave the police a ''license to kill'' in going after suspected drug dealers.

Yet any hope of bringing those responsible for excesses in the anti-drug campaign were dashed by a statement made by Surayud, days before handing over power to a new government elected in the late December polls. The independent panel appointed by the post-coup administration to inquire into the killings has unearthed little evidence to punish the perpetrators

''Due to lack of evidence, as many witnesses have refused to come forward to provide vital information to the investigators, this panel couldn't hold anyone responsible,'' Surayud was quoted

Are you serious? The military that's implicated in the drug trade has an "investigation"" and the General then says there is a lack of evidence to proceed further. Think about what you just posted.

Either;

1. The General was telling the truth, in which case there insufficient evidence with which to allow any of the great experts of Thai Visa to accuse Mr. Thaksin and that the accusations made are indeed blood libel, or

2. It was in the military's interest to be able to say to the incoming government, look see, there's no evidence, no need to go further.

I will stick with my belief that a great many of these murders were carried out by corrupt police officials in league with the drug cartels, or were carried out by the drug cartels themselves or were the result of asking untrained police officials to undertake a task that required training and police skills. And more importantly, I do continue to believe that various ranking officers in the military were implicated in the drug trade. The Burmese military junta is alleged to be heavily involved in the drug trade. Prior to the overthrow of the former South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments, the military was heavily involved in the trafficing of drugs and other illegal contraband. Is it then unreasonable to expect that the Thai army would have been touched?

[h90]

I'm sorry mate but you are in a completely blinkered enviroment. I hav lived these so called 'stupid, uneducated poor' as you call them for many years and have seeen the improvements that came about whilst he was P.M. Cheap loans to get them away from the loan sharks, minimal hospital fees, better roads, computers in classrooms, the list goes on and on.

I agree Thaksin was no saint, the reason they got rid of him in an illegal coup whilst he was out of the Country was the the powers that be feared that he was encroaching on their power base. He was no more corrupt than any other Thai politician, witness the 'fire brigade' debacle, now the so called 'bomb detectors' etc. etc.

They rural power base that he has has many. many intelligent well educated members. You have been listening far to long the the Bangkok urban residents who think all Issan people are khwai.

The cheap loans, brought many in debts. The motorbike taxi guy in our Soi is from Isaan and very grateful to Thaksin. Thanks to the loans there is much farmland to sell now and he could buy a complete farm for just 50.000 Baht. The former owner could not pay back the loan from Thaksin.

The hospital 30 Baht system is from the Democrats. They planned that a long time, but could not implement it because Chavalit crashed the economic in 1997. The way Thaksin did it, was a disaster. It didn't work at all and Surajud repaired it. The Democrats always had a much better program for education but Thaksin bought computer from his company to cash some corruption.

No more corrupt than any other Thai politicans???? Chuan wasn't corrupt, Abhisit isn't corrupt......

[Ricardo]

I haven't seen any "fanatically pro-Thaksin" posters at all on here at all - just a few who think that he is not the bogeyman and pretty much like all the other Thai politicians before him. Actually, I think that you just proved my point.

I'm thinking here of departed-posters such as 'Koo', for example, as appearing to be unable to accept that Thaksin was anything other-than a saint.

I'm hard-put, to think of someone at the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who would actually want to 'black-wash' him, if there is such a word, regardless of the facts ?

In between are simply a wide range of views, some of which I agree with or can learn from, and some I don't agree with, but very few who are "full of s___".

[tooninthai]

Thankfully, Aussies, Americans, Canadians or others cannot vote for a UK government and vice-versa.

What about if they have been living, working and raising a family in the UK for the last ten, twenty, thirty years?

But, then they would be British citizens to be able to vote. So a bit out of context

It's not out of context. You were making the point that you found it strange how foreigners got so heated up about Thai politics and how at the end of the day it was a matter for Thai people and Thai people alone. You were forgetting the fact that a lot of us here on this forum have been living and working here for many many years. Some of us have our own businesses. Some of us have our own families. Some of us have permanent residency. Some of us even have citizenship. Why then would you think it stange for us to have strong feelings on these matters? And why would you be thankful for the fact that a lot of us don't have the right to vote? A lot of foreigners in Thailand for bureaucratic reasons will never have that right, but that doesn't mean they are not deserving of it.

Those who have permanent residence are a different kettle of fish but they are few and far between. And I would class them as Thai. The same as a person in the UK from another country who is now a British National. But a foreigner can talk all he likes but that does not change the fact it is someone else's country.

As for those who are simply working here in one context or another, no matter how many years, they can talk all they like but it is those who are eligible to vote that count. Is that clearer?

For me, I doubt I will ever become a permanent resident, so for me it is up to those who are eligible to vote to change the system as many of us and our ancestors have in our own countries, or to have a revolution and change things that way. The USA, France and the UK did that as others did too. Not that it necessarily changed things for the better. Yet that is only my personal opinion.

[samran]

Thankfully, Aussies, Americans, Canadians or others cannot vote for a UK government and vice-versa.

What about if they have been living, working and raising a family in the UK for the last ten, twenty, thirty years?

But, then they would be British citizens to be able to vote. So a bit out of context

It's not out of context. You were making the point that you found it strange how foreigners got so heated up about Thai politics and how at the end of the day it was a matter for Thai people and Thai people alone. You were forgetting the fact that a lot of us here on this forum have been living and working here for many many years. Some of us have our own businesses. Some of us have our own families. Some of us have permanent residency. Some of us even have citizenship. Why then would you think it stange for us to have strong feelings on these matters? And why would you be thankful for the fact that a lot of us don't have the right to vote? A lot of foreigners in Thailand for bureaucratic reasons will never have that right, but that doesn't mean they are not deserving of it.

Unfortunately, toon in thai is technically wrong. All Commonwealth nationals in the UK are eligble to vote in all UK elections if they are living there. As an Australian I've voted in national and council elections in the UK. So did my wife, a NZ national. Of course, I've voted in every Australian state and federal election, given it is compulsory for Australians to vote.

Holding a Thai passport I've also voted in Thai elections as well, which I assume makes me unique being one of the few people to have voted in Thai, UK and Australian elections.

Without going into a long winded diatribe, I've been a Thaksin hater since his days at Palang Dharma where he was just a tryhard politician trying to get into the big leagues. It was clear that he would sell his soul to get into power, which is why I never liked him.

People were impressed with him in 2000...and I told relatives, "you watch...he's in this for himself, more than anyone has ever seen. He'll be bad for the country'. But he won.

I also worked for his government in the economic area between 2001 and 2004. All I can say is, he was a useless as an economic reformer (something which Thailand badly needs) and things only ever got done when it was in his personal interest to do so. PTT privatisation and airline de-regulation are two key areas which I worked on, and know first hand how and why he did those things.

He also stymied the free press here in Thailand after having it flourish back in the late 1990's. By the time Thaksin was in and putting the screws on free speech, even the Journalists Association of Thailand building in Soi Ari of Pahloyothin in BKK was festooned with TRT posters and banners at election time. He was dangerous for free speech in Thailand. It was clear he hated it.

I originally supported the coup as I was happy to see the back of him. He was stalling new elections - which he would have lost I think - but the coup made him a martyr (sp?) instead...which is a shame. People forget that the population were actually quite sick of him back just before the coup, and his sale of shincorp to foreginers managed to even piss off his rural base.

Edited February 15, 2010 by samran

[h90]

I haven't seen any "fanatically pro-Thaksin" posters at all on here at all - just a few who think that he is not the bogeyman and pretty much like all the other Thai politicians before him. Actually, I think that you just proved my point.

I'm thinking here of departed-posters such as 'Koo', for example, as appearing to be unable to accept that Thaksin was anything other-than a saint.

I'm hard-put, to think of someone at the opposite end of the spectrum, someone who would actually want to 'black-wash' him, if there is such a word, regardless of the facts ?

In between are simply a wide range of views, some of which I agree with or can learn from, and some I don't agree with, but very few who are "full of s___".

I miss Koo! She really believed what she wrote and tried to argue it.

Now there are many poster which seem to be rented.....just posting the same nonsense again and again (Abhisit not democratic, installed from the government etc etc)

[WinnieTheKhwai]

It's called an opinion, and voicing it. Not appreciated in some quarters.

[jdinasia]

Unfortunately, toon in thai is technically wrong. All Commonwealth nationals in the UK are eligble to vote in all UK elections if they are living there. As an Australian I've voted in national and council elections in the UK. So did my wife, a NZ national. Of course, I've voted in every Australian state and federal election, given it is compulsory for Australians to vote.

Holding a Thai passport I've also voted in Thai elections as well, which I assume makes me unique being one of the few people to have voted in Thai, UK and Australian elections.

Without going into a long winded diatribe, I've been a Thaksin hater since his days at Palang Dharma where he was just a tryhard politician trying to get into the big leagues. It was clear that he would sell his soul to get into power, which is why I never liked him.

People were impressed with him in 2000...and I told relatives, "you watch...he's in this for himself, more than anyone has ever seen. He'll be bad for the country'. But he won.

I also worked for his government in the economic area between 2001 and 2004. All I can say is, he was a useless as an economic reformer (something which Thailand badly needs) and things only ever got done when it was in his personal interest to do so. PTT privatisation and airline de-regulation are two key areas which I worked on, and know first hand how and why he did those things.

He also stymied the free press here in Thailand after having it flourish back in the late 1990's. By the time Thaksin was in and putting the screws on free speech, even the Journalists Association of Thailand building in Soi Ari of Pahloyothin in BKK was festooned with TRT posters and banners at election time. He was dangerous for free speech in Thailand. It was clear he hated it.

I originally supported the coup as I was happy to see the back of him. He was stalling new elections - which he would have lost I think - but the coup made him a martyr (sp?) instead...which is a shame. People forget that the population were actually quite sick of him back just before the coup, and his sale of shincorp to foreginers managed to even piss off his rural base.

We differ in only one thing --- I liked Thaksin in his first go round --- until the extra-judicial murders in HIS "war on drugs".

[rixalex]

As for those who are simply working here in one context or another, no matter how many years, they can talk all they like but it is those who are eligible to vote that count. Is that clearer?

I appreciate what you are saying but just because the laws of the land you happen to live in declare that your opinion doesn't count doesn't mean that you suddenly switch off thinking about such matters and it doesn't deny you the right to express your opinion with others who care to listen; and nor does it stop you getting agitated when you see wrong-doing. Why you find that strange i'm not sure.

[SpoliaOpima]

It is a strange thing that only the politically oriented farangs and the Thai elite Thaksin haters have a problem with the "drug war". The vast majority of Thais have no problem with how it was handled. Murders? No doubt there were some, but the Thais think that where there is smoke, there is fire.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with majoritarian democracy. You don't have to do what's right, as long as the mob approves.

[hawthorne]

I am just baffled how a deocratically elected official can be over thrown by one party and this is legal? Regardless if anyone thinks Thaksin was a saint or not the laws are in place to deal with such matters. So if Thaksin plays the game better than the other team does it make him no longer the choice of the people and therefore not able to carry out his term? The yellow shirts are even more immoral than the redshirts. A coup wow!

Now you have a monority elected government and no different than Apartied (sp) in South Africa which was condeemed by so many.

A politician that does not increase his or her wealth from being in office does not exist in any country. Wake up. Obviously a lot of people think they benefitted from Thaksin and therefore would win another popular election if was able to run again.

Why is the majority denied what they want? Is it fair for foreigners who think they are smarter than the uneducated people of Thailand to incite such rebellion?

The true Stateman does not exist at the top of an elected group. These people are too honest to make it to the top because unfortunately you do have to bribe yourself to get there. Yes every politician buys votes in some manner. You promise to help the poor by improving subsidies, cheaper loans, bringing industry to there towns, creating price ceilings, whatever...supporting unions the list is so long. People say and do whatever it takes to get votes. So how can anyone expect the ruler of a country to be pure of thought when they had to be a whore to get there?

I see no point in this thread or any other Thaksin thread.

I am not a Thaksin supporter...I think his wealth and all of his families weatlh that was wrongly achieved by ill means be confiscated and given to his voters in propotion how the region voted for the man. The ones who kicked him out of power should not benifit from an illegal act!!!!!!!!!! Profiteering same as what Thaksin is being accused of

[jdinasia]

I think I will let someone else explain parliamentary democracy and show Hawthorne the election results from 2007

[citizen33]

Is it just me or have the terms of this debate changed over the past few years? It doesn’t seem yesterday that the anti-Thaksin faction was suggesting that the rise of TRT was about vote buying pure and simple and that, post-coup, everything would revert to ‘politics as usual’ as the provincial poo yai told the peasants to settle down. When a few of us suggested that the genie was ‘out of the bottle’ in the NE, and that ideology (i.e. calculations of interest based on policies) as opposed to money politics was becoming a significant force, we were howled down. However, today these same people face the problem of explaining the ‘irrational’ opinions of a rural poor who retain an attachment to Thaksin. Let us be clear that voting because one receives a cash payment is different from voting, even irrationally, because one believes the candidate’s policies will be beneficial. Does this mean that most TV posters have conceded the point that ideology does play a role in Isaan?

For the record, my own view is that Thaksin represents a rather unattractive form of globalised capitalism and a similar level of corruption to most other Thai politicians of the modern era. His CEO approach to governance is not so different from the version pushed by money men in the west, but did throw a few crumbs in the direction of the rural poor – mainly a UC healthcare system. I’d say that it is going to take a lot to get the people of Isaan to lie down and believe the Democrats love them. The latter know this and will delay an election as long as possible.

[Ricardo]

I miss Koo! She really believed what she wrote and tried to argue it.

Me too. I didn't agree with her much, but that's democracy for you.

[Huey]

"Gullible guppies"..... Does that include human rights organisations such as amnesty international?

Amnesty International often protects the world's villians at the expense of countries that are doing their best to improve the world. They are hypocrites. Calling them "Gullible guppies" is way too nice for them.

Amnesty International Protecting the world's Villains? Like who? I didn't know they supported Taxsin.

All we have to do is look at your signature and we know where you're coming from. I have no doubt that you LOVE Amnesty International.

As a matter of fact I do. Made some donations even. That being said, I asked what Villains do you think Amnesty International Supports?

[Ulysses G.]

Hamas, Hezbollah, Cuba, The former Soviet Union and a long list of others. All the obvious ones.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[SomTumTiger]

Abhisit has done more in one year to secure Thailand economically, start to improve the education system, and to reform the land and property tax system to see real sustainable development at the regional level, then Thaksin did in his whole tenure. In 3 years, T will just be another stain on a the well-used bedsheet in Patters.

[jdinasia]

Hamas, Hezbollah, Cuba, The former Soviet Union and a long list of others. All the obvious ones.

Way off topic ..... but still stuck in the one liners I see

I don't remember AI supporting Bush, Blair etc .....

[Ulysses G.]

I asked what Villains do you think Amnesty International Supports?

This is the question I am answering. It only merits one line.

[Huey]

I asked what Villains do you think Amnesty International Supports?

This is the question I am answering. It only merits one line.

LOL those are villains?!?! Wow ok, everyone is entitled to their opinions. They are simply 2 political parties and a defunct communist country. A villain would be someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, or Gen. Custer.

Heck back on topic, Taxsin is a selfish, criminal, jerk off but not what I would classify as a true villain. But fair enough I did ask you for your comical opinion and I got it LoL!

[Ulysses G.]

To be accurate, two terrorist organizations and two countries that are renowned for committing human rights abuses that Amnesty International usually ignored.

[SpoliaOpima]

Abhisit has done more in one year to secure Thailand economically, start to improve the education system, and to reform the land and property tax system to see real sustainable development at the regional level, then Thaksin did in his whole tenure. In 3 years, T will just be another stain on a the well-used bedsheet in Patters.

Agreed. You'll never convince the Thaksin fetishists however.

[thaihome]

I'm sorry mate but you are in a completely blinkered enviroment. I hav lived these so called 'stupid, uneducated poor' as you call them for many years and have seeen the improvements that came about whilst he was P.M. Cheap loans to get them away from the loan sharks, minimal hospital fees, better roads, computers in classrooms, the list goes on and on.

I agree Thaksin was no saint, the reason they got rid of him in an illegal coup whilst he was out of the Country was the the powers that be feared that he was encroaching on their power base. He was no more corrupt than any other Thai politician, witness the 'fire brigade' debacle, now the so called 'bomb detectors' etc. etc.

They rural power base that he has has many. many intelligent well educated members. You have been listening far to long the the Bangkok urban residents who think all Issan people are khwai.

The cheap loans, brought many in debts. The motorbike taxi guy in our Soi is from Isaan and very grateful to Thaksin. Thanks to the loans there is much farmland to sell now and he could buy a complete farm for just 50.000 Baht. The former owner could not pay back the loan from Thaksin.

The hospital 30 Baht system is from the Democrats. They planned that a long time, but could not implement it because Chavalit crashed the economic in 1997. The way Thaksin did it, was a disaster. It didn't work at all and Surajud repaired it. The Democrats always had a much better program for education but Thaksin bought computer from his company to cash some corruption.

No more corrupt than any other Thai politicans???? Chuan wasn't corrupt, Abhisit isn't corrupt......

People never seem to question who paid for all the “minimal hospital fees, better roads, computers in classrooms,” etc that were part of the TRT populist programs.

How much of that hard earned tax paid by normal middle class people (and not just from Bangkok) went into the pockets of the local faction that supported the TRT and got it elected in the first place? Most estimates range from 15-30% was skimmed off. Do you honestly think these were done for the good of the people?

TH

[Ulysses G.]

That is not the point. They got some help that no one else had ever given them. They could care less less about anything else.

[jdinasia]

That is not the point. They got some help that no one else had ever given them. They could care less less about anything else.

Never has a truer word been spoken! They don't care about Democracy. They don't care about their country. They don't care that by the end of Thaksin's tenure that their neighbors were losing their farms because they couldn't repay the loans they had gotten from the populist schemes. They don't care that Thaksin claimed the 30 baht scheme for healthcare that was already put forward by others.

They just want Thaksin back for the money!