Thaksin Supporters

[rixalex]

It's convenient to blame Mr. Thaksin for the unfortunate events associated with the drug war that was undertaken.

Convenient because it happens to be true.

It was his brain-child to kill suspects without trial. That's what he himself told us at the time. Now all of a sudden his supporters try to distance him from it. You can't. He alone had the power to authorise such a plan, and he alone had the power to prevent it - that's the privilege and responsibility of being a leader.

When government policy works and is successful, the leader takes the credit. When government policy results in the deaths of innocents, as each and every one of those people were thanks to the absense of trials, well then the leader has to take the blame and be held accountable. The buck has to stop somewhere. That might sound harsh to you, but i doubt it does to the families of those who lost loved ones.

It's blood libel to try and create the impression that Mr. Thaksin was a mass murderer who went into the streets killing innocent people. He did not.

That's true. Thaksin himself didn't go into the streets killing innocent people. All he did was give the order for others to do that for him. Thaksin is quite obviously the victim in all of this.

[jdinasia]

Sorry Duncan -- but you did get one fact wrong.

Thaksin had been elected (democratically is up for argument) in the past, but when the coup happened in 2006 he was NOT the democratically elected anything. Thaksin had dissolved parliament and held a snap election to try and cover his shady Temesak dealings and to try and prevent TRT from being disbanded. Those elections did not produce a government.

There was no 'elected' government in Thailand for some time before the coup

[rixalex]

I do not think a farang will ever really understand Thai politics.

I disagree. A large proportion of the regular contributers to the political threads of this forum (and i include reds, yellows, pinks and blues), in my opinion have not only a better understanding, but also (and importantly) a greater interest in Thai politics than a lot (not all) of Thais i meet on a daily basis, many of whom really find nothing more boring than a discussion like this one.

By the way, what nationality are you Dunc? I assume you are not a foreigner (farang as you call it), because if you were, why were you bothering to post your opinion of something you yourself tell us you have no understanding of?

[jdinasia]

He alone had the power to authorise such a plan, and he alone had the power to prevent it - that's the privilege and responsibility of being a leader.

When government policy works and is successful, the leader takes the credit.

Particularly in Thaksin's (quite undemocratic in nature) CEO model of governance.

[eggomaniac]

He was no more corrupt than any other Thai politician,

I am no Thaksin supporter, I think the man is an egomaniac but social forces have been unleashed in Thai society which are far more powerful than mere hero-worship or dumbness.

Glad to hear comments similar to ones I've been making. I have been thinking starting a Topic 'Thaksin is NOT the swamp, he's just another one of the crocodiles.'

Also, I believe the 'movement' is bigger that Thaksin and will go ahead with or without him. It sounds like, from one Yellow supporter's Post about some unchecked misbehavior, that they already have the day in Chiang Mai. There IS lots of support in the South, as well.

It will be terrible for Thailand if the Reds take over and maybe slightly better than now and in the past. <<< Get it?

At least there could be some stability, something which Thailand has not seen in about 80 years.

[rixalex]

It will be terrible for Thailand if the Reds take over and maybe slightly better than now and in the past. <<< Get it?

Not really, no... just sounds liked muddled self-contradicting nonsense. Still, your target audience has a keen appetite for this sort of stuff.

[Moonrakers]

"

It's convenient to blame Mr. Thaksin for the unfortunate events associated with the drug war that was undertaken. Unfortunately, it was a real war. It took place as drug cartels and syndicates were close to usurping power at a national level and had already taken control of large parts of the drug plagued regions. You have conveniently ignored the fact that the murders were going on long before the response. The money that flowed from the drug trade had turned key elements of the government including the judiciary, policy, military and bureaucracy. Those that refused, were being killed off. Mr. Thaksin had no other option but to employ a tough stand. I put it to you that if Mr. Abhisit had been in the same position he would have done similar. That's how serious the crisis was. Thailand was fast on the road to becoming taken over by the narco trade just as Panama was taken over and just as Columbia saw the coca lords try to take over a nation.

It's easy to blame Mr. Thaksin for the excesses, be wasn't the one doing the killings was he? He had to work with what was there. Is it his fault he the military did not have discipline and refused to accept the authority of an elected government? Is it his fault that the police force was untrained? Was it his fault the judiciary was screwed up? Those problems were there long before he arrived and they are still there today. Mr. Thaksin had the military and the elites breathing down his neck starting as soon as he took office. They went out of their way to sabotage everthing he tried to do. It's blood libel to try and create the impression that Mr. Thaksin was a mass murderer who went into the streets killing innocent people. He did not. Save the drama for the rest of the gullible guppies that need to find conspiracies and complex plans when there were none.

Even though I often disagree with you on these issues I still take on board what you have to say as you are clearly an intelligent person.

However, to try to excuse him for the small scale genocide that took place is appalling and demonstrates just how biased your thoughts really are. "Gullible guppies"..... Does that include human rights organisations such as amnesty international?

[jdinasia]

It will be terrible for Thailand if the Reds take over and maybe slightly better than now and in the past. <<< Get it?

Not really, no... just sounds liked muddled self-contradicting nonsense. Still, your target audience has a keen appetite for this sort of stuff.

Eggo --- I know that over there in far off Canada it may be difficult to really spend time with people in Thailand from ALL walks of life .. but for those of us here with our feet in the "swamp" we KNOW that Thaksin is neither the swamp nor the crocodile. In this situation Thaksin is the developer that is trying to sell swampland as if it were prime rice growing land! On top of that that land developer is digging out the soil from surrounding land to sell and creating even more swampland.

[Samuian]

There are poor people in the south as well you know!

I though only in "Ban Nomone-y" around Udon and KK...

Well, most have been very smart suggestions and promises which where icecold lies....

loads of PR did and does make the simple minded believe it that he was/is good.. he knew that

and exploited it to the utmost!

s every coin has two sides - sorry I just had a look on to the other side... of that same coin,

which has always been flipped very cleverly that ONLY one side, the shiny one is up!

And the tricksters are still roaming the country to "flip the coin", shiny side up!

[ballpoint]

It's convenient to blame Mr. Thaksin for the unfortunate events associated with the drug war that was undertaken. Unfortunately, it was a real war. It took place as drug cartels and syndicates were close to usurping power at a national level and had already taken control of large parts of the drug plagued regions. You have conveniently ignored the fact that the murders were going on long before the response. The money that flowed from the drug trade had turned key elements of the government including the judiciary, policy, military and bureaucracy. Those that refused, were being killed off. Mr. Thaksin had no other option but to employ a tough stand. I put it to you that if Mr. Abhisit had been in the same position he would have done similar. That's how serious the crisis was. Thailand was fast on the road to becoming taken over by the narco trade just as Panama was taken over and just as Columbia saw the coca lords try to take over a nation.

Your theory would ring a little truer if Thaksin had actually gone after the drug cartels and syndicates, rather than the small fry dealers (not that many got the chance to defend themselves against these allegations). The war on drugs followed the typical Thaksin scenario of talking loud, making a big splash, and ultimately doing more harm than good to many.

[jdinasia]

Ballpoint --- you left out "and killing people that were in no way associated with the drug trade"

[Insight]

Whereas Thaksin was no saint.. the 'uneducated' did benefit to and extent. Also, their right to choose a leader democratically, not just the once, was taken away by a cowardice movement when they couldn't do it democratically. Whether or not we believe in his policies or actions is irrelevant. The people of Isaan had a voice, and as usual the rich who control the country didn't like that.

Problem is Totster, around that time there were a very significant number of people demanding Thaksin resign from politics owing to his AIS shenanigans. He absolutely refused to do so, and instead called a snap election which nobody had time to prepare for, hence the lack of participation and massive protest vote along with some very dirty tricks in the poll booths. Don't suppose anybody remembers the orders to rearrange they layout of the booths? It wasn't that long ago.

Democracy is only as good as its participants. For the red shirts, no matter how pure their intentions might be, having Thaksin as a role model for democracy utterly dashes their credibility.

Looks like Bangkok is heading for another reminder of Thaksin's democratic methods.

[Ulysses G.]

"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.

[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.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

International human rights organizations have been increasingly critical of Thailand pretty much since the coup onwards. You don't always read about it because the main-steam English press prefers to print a pretty picture. But it's there for anyone who cares enough to Google.

Edited February 13, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[jdinasia]

International human rights organizations have been increasingly critical of Thailand pretty much since the coup onwards. You don't always read about it because the main-steam English press prefers to print a pretty picture. But it's there for anyone who cares enough to Google.

The picture you seem to be painting suggests that they were not as critical or more so during Thaksin's reign and before ....

[Pakboong]

When will the anti Thaksin farangs open their eyes and take an honest look. They seem to think there is an alternative, There is NO alternative. All the elite Thai politicians are corrupt. Was Thaksin crooked, of course he was. Are the rest of them better? Of course not.

He is perceived to be better for the majority and that is pretty much what democracy is about. Other leaders and candidates for leadership have had their opportunities to impress the electorate without much success. Thailand doesn't seem to mind that it has a few less demonstrators and a few less perceived drug warriors. If the majority of the electorate are ok with it, I must be ok with it as well otherwise, I must go home. My guy killed a few innocent Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Afganis last week but who is counting.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Pakboong

[Moonrakers]

When will the anti Thaksin farangs open their eyes and take an honest look. They seem to think there is an alternative, There is NO alternative. All the elite Thai politicians are corrupt. Was Thaksin crooked, of course he was. Are the rest of them better? Of course not.

He is perceived to be better for the majority and that is pretty much what democracy is about. Other leaders and candidates for leadership have had their opportunities to impress the electorate without much success. Thailand doesn't seem to mind that it has a few less demonstrators and a few less perceived drug warriors. If the majority of the electorate are ok with it, I must be ok with it as well otherwise, I must go home.

And so why did the majority of the electorate not vote for his PPP party in the last election then?

[Ulysses G.]

"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.

[Moonrakers]

And so now even human rights organisations are in on the conspiracy.

[Ulysses G.]

Amnesty International is rather well known for it's radical political agenda.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[waza]

"

It's convenient to blame Mr. Thaksin for the unfortunate events associated with the drug war that was undertaken. Unfortunately, it was a real war. It took place as drug cartels and syndicates were close to usurping power at a national level and had already taken control of large parts of the drug plagued regions. You have conveniently ignored the fact that the murders were going on long before the response. The money that flowed from the drug trade had turned key elements of the government including the judiciary, policy, military and bureaucracy. Those that refused, were being killed off. Mr. Thaksin had no other option but to employ a tough stand. I put it to you that if Mr. Abhisit had been in the same position he would have done similar. That's how serious the crisis was. Thailand was fast on the road to becoming taken over by the narco trade just as Panama was taken over and just as Columbia saw the coca lords try to take over a nation.

It's easy to blame Mr. Thaksin for the excesses, be wasn't the one doing the killings was he? He had to work with what was there. Is it his fault he the military did not have discipline and refused to accept the authority of an elected government? Is it his fault that the police force was untrained? Was it his fault the judiciary was screwed up? Those problems were there long before he arrived and they are still there today. Mr. Thaksin had the military and the elites breathing down his neck starting as soon as he took office. They went out of their way to sabotage everthing he tried to do. It's blood libel to try and create the impression that Mr. Thaksin was a mass murderer who went into the streets killing innocent people. He did not. Save the drama for the rest of the gullible guppies that need to find conspiracies and complex plans when there were none.

Yes I blame Thaskin.....Prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a former police official and rich businessman elected in 2001, has applied corporate management principles to the crackdown on the methamphetamine or 'yaa baa' trade. Thailand's 75 provinces are given targets for arrests and seizures with the police involved rewarded with a bounty per pill found and a percentage of the assets seized. Failure to reach these targets is not an option and officials are faced with dismissal or demotion if they do not meet their regional quotas. As a result, meeting targets has become more important than the rule of law. A lot of victims have been on secret but official 'black lists' and when the government told dealers that they should 'surrender or die', the killings started right on cue.

[rixalex]

And so now even human rights organisations are in on the conspiracy.

Next we'll be hearing how the two and a half thousand odd innocent victims of the war on drugs were tied up in this dastardly plot, all to make Thaksin look the bad guy.

Can't you people see the man's a victim?

[geriatrickid]

There is no disagreement from me that any death of a non implicated party was a tragedy and wrong. Nor do I dismiss it. Unfortunately, waging a drug war is a messy business with significant collateral damage and the loss of life. Again, I wish to impress upon some pundits that Mr. Thaksin had to use the resources available to him. These were untrained officials. In many cases the local police stations were corrupt and often infiltrated by drug trade allies. It was in the interest of these corrupt forces to create havoc, to sabotage. Nothing brings an effort into disrepute than gross error. It was a common event to have false targets provided by "informants", to tip off targets and to generally try and to disrupt the policing initiative. Alot of this sabotage was caused by the very people that were supposed to be enforcing the laws.

Who was Mr. Thaksin supposed to ask for help? The military was not forthcoming. Keep in mind that alot of the drugs at the time were coming in from the the Burma border area. It was the military's responsibility to keep that border secure, but the army failed in that task. Was that failure intentional or just incompetence? I believe it was intentional and that if and when Thailand ever reaches a period of time when there is internal peace, the truth will come out that some members of the army leadership were implicated in the drug trade. That's a serious allegation, but it puts into perspective the entrenched forces that were at work doing everything possible to disrupt the Thaksin effort.

However, to try to excuse him for the small scale genocide that took place is appalling and demonstrates just how biased your thoughts really are. "Gullible guppies"..... Does that include human rights organisations such as amnesty international?

The term genocide is inappropriate. There was no targeting of a religious, or ethnic group. No groups were targeted for ethnic cleansing.Genocide is what happened in Europe, Rwanda, Cambodia and the Darfur. Yes, there were instances of human rights of abuse. It was inexcusable. Unfortunately, the concept of human rights is not inherent to the local culture. That's the reality. Human rights, habeas corpus, the right to be confronted by one's accuser, a fair and impartial judicial treatment etc. are all products of a Judeo-Christian culture, particularly one of western europe and the countries that it settled. You are approaching the drug war of Thailand from that perspective. If you approach the event from the historical and cultural aspects of the SE Asian region, the Thai effort was significantly more peaceful and fair than other events. Pick up a history book and look at what happened elsewhere when there were similar activities undertaken. The Japanese never had a problem with mass executions of those that opposed its regimes. Nor did the Chinese. Ok, sure you'll say, but hey we're in the 20th century. Ok, but so is Burma and North Korea and China and Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia etc. Compared to its neighbors, Thailand was an enlightened nation. It fails to measure up to western standards, but compared to its regional peers, Thailand and Mr. Thaksin dealt with the problem "peacefully".

Yes I blame Thaskin.....Prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a former police official and rich businessman elected in 2001, has applied corporate management principles to the crackdown on the methamphetamine or 'yaa baa' trade. Thailand's 75 provinces are given targets for arrests and seizures with the police involved rewarded with a bounty per pill found and a percentage of the assets seized. Failure to reach these targets is not an option and officials are faced with dismissal or demotion if they do not meet their regional quotas. As a result, meeting targets has become more important than the rule of law. A lot of victims have been on secret but official 'black lists' and when the government told dealers that they should 'surrender or die', the killings started right on cue.

Some of what you write is taken out of context and twisted. Yes there were objectives set. Every campaign has an objective. Local traffic police officers in Darwin, London, Milan etc. are all expected to write a certain number of tickets. The current push by Nato and the Afghanistan National Police & Army has publicly stated objectives. The intent is to send a message to the taliban to cease and desist and to warn the public that an operation is underway. When there is a vaccination program, goals and objectives are set. It's how success is measured. What's your point?

Black lists continue today and are everywhere, even in the most liberal of nations. Ever hear of the UN's no fly list? Ever hear of Thailand's list of undesirables? Today, in Thailand, if a farang is picked up by the police on a serious crime accusation that farang will most likely not have access to any of the "rights" extended in a western country. It is disturbing, but that is Thailand. Local police forces in major cities around the world have large comprehensive lists of gang members complete with photgraphs, known associates, and detailed personal information. In a perfect world it would be unacceptable, but that's the reality when you are fighting people that wish to spread disease, violence and fear. What's your point?

There was a lot of rhetoric used at the time. In western eyes and to western ears, it is unsettling. However, such statements are typical of what political leaders in this region have always said and done. If you want to "judge" Mr. Thaksin, judge him within the context of working in a hostile environment with a great many people in positions of power trying to stop him from carrying out this action.

[jdinasia]

Yes, there were instances of human rights of abuse

Yeah 2600+ of them ...... and to make ANY excuse for extra-judicial murders certainly is quite telling.

There is no disagreement from me that any death of a non implicated party was a tragedy and wrong. Nor do I dismiss it. Unfortunately, waging a drug war is a messy business with significant collateral damage and the loss of life.

I would think that a day in court would be a bit mandatory particularly from someone that cares about democracy.

Edited February 13, 2010 by jdinasia

[monkfish]

Yes, there were instances of human rights of abuse

Yeah 2600+ of them ...... and to make ANY excuse for extra-judicial murders certainly is quite telling.

There is no disagreement from me that any death of a non implicated party was a tragedy and wrong. Nor do I dismiss it. Unfortunately, waging a drug war is a messy business with significant collateral damage and the loss of life.

I would think that a day in court would be a bit mandatory particularly from someone that cares about democracy.

I wasn't in Thailand at the time so its hard for me to judge what was going on.

Were you here? if so what was the general impression you got from Thai people at the time, did they support it or were they against it?

What do the Thai people you know think about it?

[jdinasia]

Yes, there were instances of human rights of abuse

Yeah 2600+ of them ...... and to make ANY excuse for extra-judicial murders certainly is quite telling.

There is no disagreement from me that any death of a non implicated party was a tragedy and wrong. Nor do I dismiss it. Unfortunately, waging a drug war is a messy business with significant collateral damage and the loss of life.

I would think that a day in court would be a bit mandatory particularly from someone that cares about democracy.

I wasn't in Thailand at the time so its hard for me to judge what was going on.

Were you here? if so what was the general impression you got from Thai people at the time, did they support it or were they against it?

What do the Thai people you know think about it?

I was here. Not too much was said by leadership about it at the time. Educated people that care about Democracy and Human rights were outraged by it. Nobody I know thinks that killing people without a trial is acceptable. Most would not choose to voice opinions like that publicly. There was plenty of discussion on here and other places about it.

Now ---- why does that matter? How is the extra-judicial murder of over 2600 people excusable to anyone with a conscience? How is it acceptable that your self-styled CEO leader not only approved of it but set it in motion. Part of the basics of democracy includes a court sytem to protect against the abuse of power like this.

BTW -- the notion that untrained people carried out this mass murder is ludicrous.

Sadly --- not much will likely ever be done about this as it would likely implicate far too many people that knew too much about it before and during Thaksin's "War on Drugs". It has been documented that many people that were in no way involved in ANY facet of the drug trade died in this (ouch) publicity stunt. Want to know more? Read up on ThaiVisa and other sources from the time period.

[waza]

Really what bits were taken out of contex and twisted?

Despite his rhetorical commitment to humane responses to Thailand’s drug problem, Thaksin’s anti-drug campaign quickly evolved into a violent and murderous “war on drugs.” Beginning in February 2003, the Thaksin government instructed police and local officials that persons charged with drug offenses should be considered “security threats” and dealt with in a “ruthless” and “severe” manner. The result of the initial three-month phase of this campaign was some 2,275 extrajudicial killings

[monkfish]

Sorry I can not pass judgment like yourself without more information.

If he is responsible as you say then why doesn't the Government make this priority Nr. 1 charge against him?

With a Murder conviction every country in the World would serve him to Abhisit on a plate!

Whats the problem?? Why don't they do it? Me thinks there is a lot lot lot more to this than meets the eye.

I agree those responsible should be brought to justice, but who is the question??

Instead they seem only interested in his money

Edited February 13, 2010 by monkfish

[jdinasia]

Sorry I can not pass judgment like yourself without more information.

If he is responsible as you say then why doesn't the Government make this priority Nr. 1 charge against him?

With a Murder conviction every country in the World would serve him to Abhisit on a plate!

Whats the problem?? Why don't they do it? Me thinks there is a lot lot lot more to this than meets the eye.

I agree those responsible should be brought to justice, but who is the question??

Instead they seem only interested in his money

The information is available to you if you look for it.

The government has only been in place for a year, who knows where much of the evidence is from 2003. Remember Thaksin had a few years after to do spin control and help muddy the waters.

You also need to remember that things move at th pace they move .. never faster or slower.

People seem to wonder why they went after the rachada land case first -- the answer is that it was a 'no-brainer' -- Get the first conviction then go after the more difficult cases. People are crying about him being prosecuted now, just think what it would have been like if the case they had prosecuted first had been lost! They went for the easy one first. .

The assets case should be pretty much a no-brainer too I think. Many of the smaller cases like the scanners etc may be more difficult to prove but if they already have him in jail and convicted of a few cases then they can afford to lose one