Red Shirts Plan To Paralyse Bangkok, Topple Thai Government

[WAERTH]

Fact is though ... you do not need 100.000 people to make things go violent. All you need is a 1000 dedicated troublemakers!

[waza]

Judging on the pictures the crowd is not that dense .....

W

Hmmm pun intended?

[mca]

I never claimed to be mature. So yah boo sucks to you with knobs on!

I have no idea what the above means. I will assume it was an admission followed by a compliment!

This emoticon sums it up nicely.

BTW I like a man who can take a joke. Hats off to you sir!

[kurtgruen]

Have Arisiman's 20,000 monks arrived yet as he promised they would?

Just a lot of BS to try and give the movement and himself more credibility in the media and to dupe people into joining the demo.

Not sure what the actual numbers are, Abhisit gave a figure of 100,000 a few hours ago. 100,000 people is a a lot, but certainly nowhere near the 1,000,000 that keeps being repeated. At this point, it would appear that 900,000 people didn't buy it.

At a poplulation of 65,998,436 people, that would make it one out of every 659 people. A 100,000 people is impressive, but considering, that the organizers where offering people, who wanted to attend, the resources to get to Bangkok, plus they were actively recruiting people, one in 659 isn't exactly a huge part of the population. Even at a million people, it would one have been one out of every 65 people.

Now, if this would have been only about helping the plight of the poor, rather than trying to bring back Thaskin, maybe more people would have shown up. Then again, maybe not

A lot of people, we talked to, near our place, in Northern Thailand, just don't believe that anything will change. They believe that one is as corrupt as the next and that they will always be poor. I can't say, that I blame them, because politics and corruption seem to go hand in hand, in Thailand and in most other Nations around the world.

[ding]

Source: Reuters, by Jason Szep; Editing by Jerry Norton

(the vast majority of column inches are like this. I posted this in GD but felt people here would like to see how this is reported to the west. Reuters is propaganda.)

BANGKOK (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of protesters converged in Bangkok on Sunday to give Thailand's military-backed government an ultimatum: either call elections or face crippling demonstrations across the capital in coming days.

"This government angers me. I never cared much about politics until a few years ago when it becomes so clear they are trying to hold onto power at the expense of people like us," said Teerachai Sukpitak, a farmer from northeast Leoi province.

The protesters chafe at what they say is an "unelected elite" preventing allies of twice-elected Thaksin from returning to power through a vote. Adding to their anger, Thailand's top court seized $1.4 billion of his assets last month, saying it was accrued through abuse of power.

"We are here to ask for justice and for rule of law to be applied to all," one protest leader, Weng Torirajkan, told cheering supporters. "The government cannot do it because it's too busy serving the elite."

Reuters, Yahoo!

(And here is the the balance, the total Yellow Shirt side is one line. It makes them look like whiners)

His critics accuse him of authoritarianism, corruption and undermining the monarchy.

Edited March 14, 2010 by ding

[jdinasia]

Ding -- the Reuter's article is far more balanced than you suggest. It is reporting about the current crisis and not history and adds enoug to both sides for the casual reader to get a basic understanding. It fails in leaving out the fact that the emerging middle class in Thailand were the 'feet on the street' for the PAD and in equating the Democrats with the PAD so strongly. (There are definite links of association but one certainly does not equal the other.

[siampolee]

I HAVE TAKEN THIS POST FROM A RELIABLE THAI SITE

It's the Red Shirts' move - March 14, 2010

For some time the Red Shirts have been insisting that a coup is imminent and is the only way out for a discredited government that cannot maintain control. They they have been hoping for this to widen their protests and open demands for a new charter and pardons for all. Some of the public might also believe that if a large group holds Bangkok "hostage" that the military would need a coup to restore order.

Today on his weekly broadcast, PM Abhisit again stressed "no need for a coup" to address this perception.

Much of the Red Shirt rhetoric has been trying to provoke fear that would lead the military to intervene--this is what is behind the anti-royal rhetoric and threats to burn Bangkok to the ground.

As the day progresses, it is coming to a time where everyone will be looking to see what the Red Shirts have in store. It will be their move. Can they really hold the city "hostage?" Would this disruption naturally lead to a house dissolution? Or a coup?

It is also worth noting that the military is already in complete control on the ground--soldiers are standing guard in critical junctures in Bangkok and in adjacent provinces. The PM himself is under military guard at the 11th Infantry Regiment. This sort of military control never even happens during an actual coup.

The military are quite happy to call the shots behind the scenes and let the government take the heat. A coup would not change any conditions on the ground and would give the Red Shirts a victory without them have to take action to do anything provocative.

It is also clear to us that the real activity is happening behind the scenes. This includes attempts to get government coalition partners to pull out of the government. Any real victory will come from these political machinations.

It seems certain that the Red Shirts must have a well-timed and provocative plan of action, perhaps with a diversionary aspect. One should never underestimate Thaksin.

However, if the Red Shirts seem to be stalling (such as remaining in place), it might indicate their plans are faltering.

[ding]

Ding -- the Reuter's article is far more balanced than you suggest. It is reporting about the current crisis and not history and adds enoug to both sides for the casual reader to get a basic understanding. It fails in leaving out the fact that the emerging middle class in Thailand were the 'feet on the street' for the PAD and in equating the Democrats with the PAD so strongly. (There are definite links of association but one certainly does not equal the other.

Well I guess I have to disagree. Column inches are a clear measure of the thrust of an article's point. An oft used tactic is to use 'man on the street' commentary as a vehicle to catapult the writer's propaganda. This is shockingly one-sided, and blatant.

It gives the reader zero background on the much loved King, the nature of Thaksin's grip on the levers of power. Not to mention his corruption of record. Not to mention, the seizure of Thaksin's assets triggered this astro-turf "protest".

[anotherpeter]

Ding -- the Reuter's article is far more balanced than you suggest. It is reporting about the current crisis and not history and adds enoug to both sides for the casual reader to get a basic understanding. It fails in leaving out the fact that the emerging middle class in Thailand were the 'feet on the street' for the PAD and in equating the Democrats with the PAD so strongly. (There are definite links of association but one certainly does not equal the other.

Well I guess I have to disagree. Column inches are a clear measure of the thrust of an article's point. An oft used tactic is to use 'man on the street' commentary as a vehicle to catapult the writer's propaganda. This is shockingly one-sided, and blatant.

It gives the reader zero background on the much loved King, the nature of Thaksin's grip on the levers of power. Not to mention his corruption of record. Not to mention, the seizure of Thaksin's assets triggered this astro-turf "protest".

It's not a history piece. It's an article that describes the current events that people are protesting and why they are protesting.

[anotherpeter]

I HAVE TAKEN THIS POST FROM A RELIABLE THAI SITE

It's the Red Shirts' move - March 14, 2010

<snip - too long - see post #667

That's a good analysis. Leaves lots of open questions for comment and discussion.

[yoshiwara]

I HAVE TAKEN THIS POST FROM A RELIABLE THAI SITE

It's the Red Shirts' move - March 14, 2010

For some time the Red Shirts have been insisting that a coup is imminent and is the only way out for a discredited government that cannot maintain control. They they have been hoping for this to widen their protests and open demands for a new charter and pardons for all. Some of the public might also believe that if a large group holds Bangkok "hostage" that the military would need a coup to restore order.

Today on his weekly broadcast, PM Abhisit again stressed "no need for a coup" to address this perception.

Much of the Red Shirt rhetoric has been trying to provoke fear that would lead the military to intervene--this is what is behind the anti-royal rhetoric and threats to burn Bangkok to the ground.

As the day progresses, it is coming to a time where everyone will be looking to see what the Red Shirts have in store. It will be their move. Can they really hold the city "hostage?" Would this disruption naturally lead to a house dissolution? Or a coup?

It is also worth noting that the military is already in complete control on the ground--soldiers are standing guard in critical junctures in Bangkok and in adjacent provinces. The PM himself is under military guard at the 11th Infantry Regiment. This sort of military control never even happens during an actual coup.

The military are quite happy to call the shots behind the scenes and let the government take the heat. A coup would not change any conditions on the ground and would give the Red Shirts a victory without them have to take action to do anything provocative.

It is also clear to us that the real activity is happening behind the scenes. This includes attempts to get government coalition partners to pull out of the government. Any real victory will come from these political machinations.

It seems certain that the Red Shirts must have a well-timed and provocative plan of action, perhaps with a diversionary aspect. One should never underestimate Thaksin.

However, if the Red Shirts seem to be stalling (such as remaining in place), it might indicate their plans are faltering.

An interesting report. Some in the red camp deluded themselves that today was going to be a pushover. Like Thaksin over-confident and too arrogant to properly reflect.

Edited March 14, 2010 by yoshiwara

[animatic]

Have Arisiman's 20,000 monks arrived yet as he promised they would?

Just a lot of BS to try and give the movement and himself more credibility in the media and to dupe people into joining the demo.

Not sure what the actual numbers are, Abhisit gave a figure of 100,000 a few hours ago. 100,000 people is a a lot, but certainly nowhere near the 1,000,000 that keeps being repeated. At this point, it would appear that 900,000 people didn't buy it.

100,000

or only 0.149 % of the Thai people.

Not exactly a resounding mandate...

Even if you only said voters

it would still be only 0.357 % of voters.

[animatic]

Judging on the pictures the crowd is not that dense .....

W

Hmmm pun intended?

Not dense on the ground, but generally pretty thick?

[termad]

Yes, there was another thread here yesterday or so showing what the payments were. Something like 300B per person and a decent amount for the truck driver. No way they would get a large crowd if there was no money involved.

It's becoming a true circus...almost fun to read now. Except I need to visit Bangkok Saturday! May have to cancel that trip....

One girl said to me it was the easiest 500 Baht she ever earned. That it was a party with food, frivolity and drink thrown in. Democracy ends as you exit the poll booth. This is 'The Bribery of the Innocents'

Same old unsubstantiated tosh we've had before. All Thai politians give out largesse to electors in a bid to gain popularity but whether those people vote for them nobody knows as you can't look over their shoulder when they vote.

[hammered]

I think there is starting to be a panic build over the siz eof the crowd which is apparently growing all the time. The government have to be careful Maybe a disolution is the best way now

[sjaak327]

He WAS the Prime Minister of Thailand, he never got voted out of power the people who voted for him -

Apparently you do not know your modern Thai history. He WAS the PM. He (nobody else) dissolved parliament. The next elections failed to seat a government. The constitution did not allow for there to be a caretaker government for the total time there was one -- so the caretaker government was extra-constitutional. The military stepped in and took the reins and installed a government and created a new constitution (arguably less democratic than the 1997 constitution but with all the checks and balances needed to run a democracy in place) The junta installed government then called new elections.

Thaksin's party was disbanded for electoral fraud. Samak was tossed out but could have returned even with the BKK charges hanging over him. Somchai was knocked out when PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The current government was elected by the same MP's that elected Samak (Thaksin crony) and Somchai (Thaksin's brother-in-law).

Now -- your claim that nobody but those in Isaan or Northern Thailand know anything about Thailand is just silly. Then again I am posting from Chiang Mai and not England

You left out why the elections failed to seat a government, a pretty important detail mind you.

More or less the same people that now run the current government were responsible for that elections going amiss. The reason why was clear to anyone, if you can't win elections by going to the polls, you sabotage them and hope the militairy steps in..

Running in an election is not mandatory is it? No it's not.

Cheating to make a 20% minimum limit vs a lower winner take all

is a proper thing to do to make sure you win is it? No it's not.

The election didn't go amiss because the Democrats didn't participate,

but because the EC was rigged and TRT cheated.

So you have the Democrats boycotting a sham election to white wash Thaksins sale of national assets to Singapore,

and you have his TRT cheating because the reality was they did NOT expect to win 20% of voters in enough

constituencies to take control again.

So who cheated here.

The ones who broke no rules at all with a boycot,

or the ones who got caught on film purchasing minor parties to get around

the 20% rule they were not able to get around by the love of the voters.

No one gets voted out of power, they just don't get voted back into power.

Thaksin dissolved the parliament himslef. He essentially topple TRT's mandate all on his own.

And then they screwed the pooch while trying to buy it back.

The Dems broke no laws or election rules by not participating.

And there were THREE governments in between that time and when they

were voted in as coalition leader before they took power.

Your arguments are really illogically based,

more emotional bias than any logical process to get there.

There is no bias whatsoever, I was probably just as anti Thaksin as the next guy. A political party not participating in elections is just plain wrong.

Militairy executing a coup just moments before a general elections is equally wrong. Abolishing a constitution and replacing it without due political process is also wrong.

This doesn't make Thaksin a saint, but I believe that it is good to point these things out notheless.

[elcent]

Bilingual updates at CAPO http://www.capothai.org/

[elcent]

It's a lot of fun to see how certain people adjust their conversational tactics after things happened/not happened.

Suggestion: Wait and see.

[hammered]

It's a lot of fun to see how certain people adjust their conversational tactics after things happened/not happened.

Suggestion: Wait and see.

Wait and see is all any of us can do, and hope.

I just had a look around for an idea of numbers and estimates are anything form 50K to 500K. Even basic info like that is unbaavailable. There si also all the stuff going on behind the scenes whihc we know nothing about but which can affect everything. We only debate the surface the rest is invisible.

[anotherpeter]

There is no bias whatsoever, I was probably just as anti Thaksin as the next guy. A political party not participating in elections is just plain wrong.

Militairy executing a coup just moments before a general elections is equally wrong. Abolishing a constitution and replacing it without due political process is also wrong.

This doesn't make Thaksin a saint, but I believe that it is good to point these things out notheless.

How is it wrong for a political party to not participate? There are certainly plenty of elections in Australia where political parties choose not to field candidates, and I'm sure it also happens in the UK. The Democrats just chose not to field any candidates through out the country. Their democratic right.

EDIT: The new constitution was also voted for in a referendum with 56% voting for it, 41% against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_constitu...eferendum,_2007

Edited March 14, 2010 by anotherpeter

[sjaak327]

There is no bias whatsoever, I was probably just as anti Thaksin as the next guy. A political party not participating in elections is just plain wrong.

Militairy executing a coup just moments before a general elections is equally wrong. Abolishing a constitution and replacing it without due political process is also wrong.

This doesn't make Thaksin a saint, but I believe that it is good to point these things out notheless.

How is it wrong for a political party to not participate? There are certainly plenty of elections in Australia where political parties choose not to field candidates, and I'm sure it also happens in the UK. The Democrats just chose not to field any candidates through out the country. Their democratic right.

The democrats (and some other opposition parties) choose to not participate in the elections in an (successfull) attempt to avoid TRT to take office once again. Legally they did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that what they did is right though. I personally believe they dealt democracy a serious blow with their actions.

edit I see you edited your post, you are being serious about the constitution being voted for ? I was talking about due political process, abolishing a constitution by militairy force, and then letting people vote in a new one some time later isn't a due political process.

Edited March 14, 2010 by sjaak327

[rixalex]

The democrats (and some other opposition parties) choose to not participate in the elections in an (successfull) attempt to avoid TRT to take office once again. Legally they did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that what they did is right though. I personally believe they dealt democracy a serious blow with their actions.

The blow to democracy was Thaksin trying to use the polls as a way of absolving himself of any wrongdoing concerning the Temasek deal.

[jdinasia]

Apparently you do not know your modern Thai history. He WAS the PM. He (nobody else) dissolved parliament. The next elections failed to seat a government. The constitution did not allow for there to be a caretaker government for the total time there was one -- so the caretaker government was extra-constitutional. The military stepped in and took the reins and installed a government and created a new constitution (arguably less democratic than the 1997 constitution but with all the checks and balances needed to run a democracy in place) The junta installed government then called new elections.

Thaksin's party was disbanded for electoral fraud. Samak was tossed out but could have returned even with the BKK charges hanging over him. Somchai was knocked out when PPP was disbanded for electoral fraud. The current government was elected by the same MP's that elected Samak (Thaksin crony) and Somchai (Thaksin's brother-in-law).

Now -- your claim that nobody but those in Isaan or Northern Thailand know anything about Thailand is just silly. Then again I am posting from Chiang Mai and not England

You left out why the elections failed to seat a government, a pretty important detail mind you.

More or less the same people that now run the current government were responsible for that elections going amiss. The reason why was clear to anyone, if you can't win elections by going to the polls, you sabotage them and hope the militairy steps in..

Running in an election is not mandatory is it? No it's not.

Cheating to make a 20% minimum limit vs a lower winner take all

is a proper thing to do to make sure you win is it? No it's not.

The election didn't go amiss because the Democrats didn't participate,

but because the EC was rigged and TRT cheated.

So you have the Democrats boycotting a sham election to white wash Thaksins sale of national assets to Singapore,

and you have his TRT cheating because the reality was they did NOT expect to win 20% of voters in enough

constituencies to take control again.

So who cheated here.

The ones who broke no rules at all with a boycot,

or the ones who got caught on film purchasing minor parties to get around

the 20% rule they were not able to get around by the love of the voters.

No one gets voted out of power, they just don't get voted back into power.

Thaksin dissolved the parliament himslef. He essentially topple TRT's mandate all on his own.

And then they screwed the pooch while trying to buy it back.

The Dems broke no laws or election rules by not participating.

And there were THREE governments in between that time and when they

were voted in as coalition leader before they took power.

Your arguments are really illogically based,

more emotional bias than any logical process to get there.

There is no bias whatsoever, I was probably just as anti Thaksin as the next guy. A political party not participating in elections is just plain wrong.

Militairy executing a coup just moments before a general elections is equally wrong. Abolishing a constitution and replacing it without due political process is also wrong.

This doesn't make Thaksin a saint, but I believe that it is good to point these things out notheless.

Sorry but choosing not to field a candidate isn't wrong. In fact, it is common practice not to run a candidate at times in some places (usually not because your candidate would win, but because they would have no chance to win). The Dems legally did it as a protest. Choosing not to play in a rigged game is the smart option every time. That TRT got caught (again) committing elctoral fraud is as sad as it is funny. Basically Thaksin didn't have to call those elections. His position in parliament had him where he could not be censured by the opposition. He did it to try and rig the game even further, the dems played a bit dirty but fully legally by running a "no vote" campaign. (The electorate were encouraged to go to the polls and vote for no candidate.)

A coup to remove a government that is not covered by the constitution is arguably less wrong than allowing a crook to keep stealing from the country. Abolishing a constitution that failed is arguably wrong. Replacing it with a constitution that was passed by referendum is not wrong, but there are points that can be argued about not having any choice. It has been stated by many political scientists that the new constitution is "less democratic" in that there was no real option on some articles included in it, but more powerful in adding the checks and balances needed by democracies to survive. All in all it (the new constitution) is currently a "wash". It certainly needs some revision by the population.

[termad]

I think their protests will change something ... it will bring the plight of the poor to the forefront of the Thai's minds. So, the government have to make sure they do right by the poor. They have got another 18 months to show that they are doing this.

Ok the gov't can do some things, but governments are basically a group of people. There is another group of people, about equal in numbers to gov't management folks, who form the well-to-do business clique in Thailand.

There is a culture of extreme selfishness that infects all businesspeople here. Thaksin, his family and friends are just shining examples of that, but selfishness crosses all political lines. That selfishness is exemplified by the mindset of "I make as much money as I possible can, and give as little away (in taxes and/or donations to the less advantaged) as possible."

Just on the tax issue: Taxes on rural homes and properties are practically nil in Thailand (I don't know what they are in urban areas). Taxes on business earnings are high, but there are a number of ways in which crafty business people can skirt around paying that. The Shinawats are prime examples of that also. Most of the richest 2% in Thailand have vast rural holdings, and I wouldn't be surprised if they pay zero in taxes for those holdings (some of which have no title, therefore no taxes). Plus, often they're tying up those properties so local village folks can't use them for farms and residences.

Then, taxes collected need to be spent in a decent manner, but that's a subject all in itself - yet it very much relates to the struggles of the poor.

But even more important than applying and paying a fair amount of taxes, is peoples' attitudes. The gov't can't make rich people more compassionate toward the poor. Those types of attitudes usually get instilled when a person is young. That too is a big subject just on its own. Briefly though, parents and teachers should do all they can, not just with words, but with actions, to impress upon youngsters the qualities of being generous towards others who are disadvantaged. I sense a little bit of that in Thailand (usually to benefit direct family members or donations to the Sangha), but there's a lot of room for improvement.

One of the main reasons I disliked (and still dislike) Thaksin is he was a prominent example to youngsters of how not to be. He had such a bunch of distasteful habits, that I was jubilant when he was thrown out by the coup, and doubly so when he emphatically stated several times; "that's it, I'm through with politics." Yet, (surprise!) they were just more lies in a long, long string of lies that have come out of that man.

Are you saying that 2% of the richest people in Thailand are business people like Thaksin? What do you base that statement on?

I worked in Kuwait for a while and one of my colleagues was a Thai from Isaan. He was the only one of his family who went to school and because of the help of a very generous uncle was able to go on to university. The uncle spent his life savings to achieve this. In 1991 when he took leave to go home to Sisaket to get married a group of us went with him and stayed in a hotel in Sisaket town and made visits to his village. I remember one conversation in the village when he acted as translator as we talked to his father and grandfather. The grandfather told us that during his time running the small farm they had no running water, no electricity and no radio. They also had no access to doctors or dentists or in fact any medical treatment at all except from the monks if they were able to give it.

Some only had the rudiments of reading and writing so they were very easy to trick or cheat. The grandfather told us that when the rice and other crops were brought in a Chinese/Thai agent of the local elite family would bring trucks to the village to buy the crops. There was no bargaining the crops were simply loaded onto the trucks and the grandfather would be given a roll of banknotes and some boxes of tinned food. That was it, take it or leave it. (The father told us that things hadn't change that much by the time he took over the farm). The crops were then sold for huge profits which is one of the ways, maybe the main way, in which the Amartaya became so rich.

You talk of vast rural land holdings these belong in the main to the Elite familes who as most Thais will tell you also control the Civil Service and have great influence in the Judiciary.

Perhaps you could also make a list of the outstanding corruption charges against the Abhisit Government but considering that Abhisit was installed in power using Elite/Military money not money from business people perhaps you don't want to do this. As to being an example to youngsters the examples set by the Amartaya have been drummed into the Rural Poor over generations.

[jdinasia]

The democrats (and some other opposition parties) choose to not participate in the elections in an (successfull) attempt to avoid TRT to take office once again. Legally they did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that what they did is right though. I personally believe they dealt democracy a serious blow with their actions.

The blow to democracy was Thaksin trying to use the polls as a way of absolving himself of any wrongdoing concerning the Temasek deal.

I just don't get how someone can cry about Democracy being dealt a blow and not be weeping eternally for the damage Thaksin did with those elections, the electoral fraud before those elections and during them, changing laws to benefit himself personally when he was in a position that he could not be censured etc etc etc. Nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing!) damages democracy more than a leader that sanctions the ultimate in human rights abuses, the extra-judicial killings of 1000's of people!

I am thinking I need to change my signature ............

[anotherpeter]

The democrats (and some other opposition parties) choose to not participate in the elections in an (successfull) attempt to avoid TRT to take office once again. Legally they did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that what they did is right though. I personally believe they dealt democracy a serious blow with their actions.

you are being serious about the constitution being voted for ? I was talking about due political process, abolishing a constitution by militairy force, and then letting people vote in a new one some time later isn't a due political process.

OK. I accept no due political process - ie not enough discussion about what should/shouldn't be in it.

If you don't think the elections can be fair, why should you participate?

[sjaak327]

The democrats (and some other opposition parties) choose to not participate in the elections in an (successfull) attempt to avoid TRT to take office once again. Legally they did nothing wrong, that doesn't mean that what they did is right though. I personally believe they dealt democracy a serious blow with their actions.

The blow to democracy was Thaksin trying to use the polls as a way of absolving himself of any wrongdoing concerning the Temasek deal.

I just don't get how someone can cry about Democracy being dealt a blow and not be weeping eternally for the damage Thaksin did with those elections, the electoral fraud before those elections and during them, changing laws to benefit himself personally when he was in a position that he could not be censured etc etc etc. Nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing!) damages democracy more than a leader that sanctions the ultimate in human rights abuses, the extra-judicial killings of 1000's of people!

I am thinking I need to change my signature ............

Nowhere do I state that I support Thaksin, nor that I approve of his methods. I just make the observation that his opponents aren't without flaws.

[ballpoint]

I worked in Kuwait for a while and one of my colleagues was a Thai from Isaan. He was the only one of his family who went to school and because of the help of a very generous uncle was able to go on to university. The uncle spent his life savings to achieve this. In 1991 when he took leave to go home to Sisaket to get married a group of us went with him and stayed in a hotel in Sisaket town and made visits to his village. I remember one conversation in the village when he acted as translator as we talked to his father and grandfather. The grandfather told us that during his time running the small farm they had no running water, no electricity and no radio. They also had no access to doctors or dentists or in fact any medical treatment at all except from the monks if they were able to give it.

Some only had the rudiments of reading and writing so they were very easy to trick or cheat. The grandfather told us that when the rice and other crops were brought in a Chinese/Thai agent of the local elite family would bring trucks to the village to buy the crops. There was no bargaining the crops were simply loaded onto the trucks and the grandfather would be given a roll of banknotes and some boxes of tinned food. That was it, take it or leave it. (The father told us that things hadn't change that much by the time he took over the farm). The crops were then sold for huge profits which is one of the ways, maybe the main way, in which the Amartaya became so rich.

You talk of vast rural land holdings these belong in the main to the Elite familes who as most Thais will tell you also control the Civil Service and have great influence in the Judiciary.

What's your point? When I first visited the village I now live in, which was around that time, it too had no running water, no electricity, no paved road within 20 km, no tractors and very few motorbikes. Long before Thaksin was PM we had all those things, but we still don't have a phone line, despite his promises. We did have access to a government hospital in the local district office, and a small clinic in the local tambon, however. The fact is that the Northeast has been growing very fast since 1970. From the World Bank's Thailand report for 2005: "During the last 35 years, the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average per capita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income countries. Its economy is three times as large now than in 1970: GDP per capita in 2004, measured in 1988 prices, amounted to Bt34,000, compared to only Bt11,000 in 1970. With economic growth came change in the composition of output. Agriculture accounts for just under one fifth of GDP, compared to close to two fifths in 1970. Industry increased from the early 1990s onwards and contributes now as much to GDP as agriculture. And the service sector recorded the largest gains: it provides today over three fifths of GDP, compared to over two fifths three and a half decades ago.

With value-added per person growing three-fold in the Northeast in the last 35 years, household living standards improved dramatically. The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth, the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in 2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988. Almost all families own a television today, relative to only just over one in three in the late 1980s". The reason wasn't Thaksin, he just made out that when change reached places it was due to him. Interestingly, the same report also says (and remember, this is 2005, after 4 years of Thaksin): "The Northeast receives fewer public resources than any other region. Regional economic development depends, among other factors, on how key sectors are funded with public resources. Channeling public resources to disadvantaged regions, if done well, can be a powerful way of promoting convergence in living standards. The expenditure gap between the Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years. The Northeast obtained in FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2003".

I'm surprised that with these facts freely available for anyone to see there are still dupes and stooges trying to spread the lies about his achievements. I have seen these facts with my own eyes over the past two decades. Thaksin did nothing to stop the rice barons, he did nothing to increase expenditure on the Northeast, he did nothing to make a long lasting attempt to improve their education and increase their standard of living. What he did do was short term, populist stuff. If you want further proof, and don't want to take my word for it, then ask yourself why did he link up with the same corrupt old politicians who have been keeping Isaan in its place for decades? Was it because all he wanted were their votes, and who controls the political cabals of the Northeast controls those? He had no desire to improve their education, he had them right where he wanted them. Educating them to question their place in life was the last thing he wanted. Somehow his dirty little tactics make his legacy far worse. There's always something wrong about a thief, but a thief who pretends he's helping you, ingratiating himself into your friends and family, before stealing what is yours, is also a backstabber, a traitor and a lying scumbag. And, with the help of his odius little supporters, he's still doing it to some.

Edited March 14, 2010 by ballpoint

[elcent]

Nameserver trace for bangkokpost.com:

• Looking for who is responsible for root zone and followed c.root-servers.net.
  
• Looking for who is responsible for com and followed d.gtld-servers.net.
  
• Looking for who is responsible for bangkokpost.com and followed ns3.tcc-technology.com.
  

Nameservers for bangkokpost.com:

• ns3.tcc-technology.com
  
• ns4.tcc-technology.com
  

The servers listed are working, but something else might have gone wrong.

[elcent]

MCOT: Thaksin urges supporters: Don't give up, 'I'm a symbol of injustice'; Red Shirt fight no longer personal but public interest, true democracy

He said the truth, he's indeed the symbol of injustice and has even bothered a great working team while in office.