Thaksin Passes The Point Of No Return : Anand

[ratcatcher]

Do agree with most of the analysis concerning Thaksin. however it is a dynamic situation which may evolve as the Pandora box is open... going to tough days....

one thing is for sure. with no taksin the country will get more poor and taxes will go up.

One thing's for sure, with no Thaksin, the country might actually do better. After all he purloined billions for himself.

The poor may have a chance to keep some of the money they make, particularly the Isaan farmers, who are skimmed by the local wealthy rice barons (firm Thaksin supporters of course).

Abhisit is trying to make sure that the farmers get a better deal on their produce. He's not trying to buy them.

Getting their trust will take years if it ever happens.

And I do believe Finance minister Korn is working on a plan to tax the wealthy landholders, ( Kind of like taxin the rich) which of course won't sit too well with the elites. So, yes, taxes will go up.

Just IMHO of course.

Edited March 24, 2010 by ratcatcher

[eggomaniac]

the government model suggested by Khun Moresomeki would do little to sooth the red shirts belief that the government is made up of elites - or have I missed a US president in the last 50 years who was not a millionaire? and I only draw the line at 50 because I'm not sure about Eisenhower.

Yes i agree most of the US president were whealthy but few were billionaires , unlike Thaksin which the red shirts follow .

So its not a question of PM rich or not

If they removed Thaksin of it all I would be supportive of their (redshirt) cause , except the class war bullshit which has

been suggested to them by T anyway .

Now what i said is on the stability of governement question , any PM needs that to do a proper job to

help them . Now of course it depends if the PM is good or not but then chance are that if he is elected

by 40 millions ppl rather then 40,000 he would be more capable . And kind of hard to bribe 20 millions voters

by the way

The root of the problem as you know is that they elect a MP , who often pays them for that , and once

elected the MP dont give a dam_n about them . Those MP choose among themselves who will be the PM as i understand it .

And currently with the coalition system PM are shortly in power more often then not

Its a self sustaining mess

Some of moresomekl's ideas coincide with The Joseph Solution which I have been proposing. The supporters I talked like the architecture, because it ensures fair elections and stable 4 year term. They liked The Joseph Solution, even though it included an element of 'oversight' which we are not allowed to discuss. I discussed it with them, and they were agreeable to this 'aspect' of The Joseph Solution.

If I could get 3 or 4 Thais of stature, a few academics and perhaps Chuan Leekpai to examine The Joseph Solution and then carry out The Joseph Plan, Thailand would have Stability, Peace and Proserity by the end of this year!

[eggomaniac]

ATol: On whether a royal pardon for Thaksin would bring about national reconciliation:

AP: Whatever the King does, whatever he says is within his constitutional rights. His Majesty observes the constitutional provisions very strictly. And, of course, being king or queen would have three prerogatives: One, to be consulted; secondly, to encourage; and thirdly, to warn.

-------------

There is a 5 letter word in AP's reply which gives us, A., a real glimpse into the future and, also, B., an explanation of Thakin's biggest mistake.

[boy you been a messin, where you shouldn't be messin] these boots are made for walking

[rametindallas]

the government model suggested by Khun Moresomeki would do little to sooth the red shirts belief that the government is made up of elites - or have I missed a US president in the last 50 years who was not a millionaire? and I only draw the line at 50 because I'm not sure about Eisenhower.

What about Jimmy Carter? 1977 to 1981. He was a peanut farmer and former US Navy officer... Actually it does say wealthy peanut farmer... Whatever that means. Eisenhower was an Ex US Army General, his father was a mechanic and manager, his mother a deeply religious pacifist, so probably not rich..

neither Nixon nor Clinton were rich. Bush worth not a lot and surely Obama isn't rich.

[moresomekl]

Although Anand is a nice and sensible man, we should not forget that he has been appointed two times by the establishment after a coup to be an interim prime minister. It is therefore understandable that Anand do not seem to understand how the majority of Thai people think about Thaksin. Anand is part of the establishment and as such biased.

So your saying that 'because he was appointed two times he therefore doesn't understand how the majority of Thai people think about thaksin'.

What total rubbish. Where's the specific logic in this? There isn't any!

'Majority' - I'll never agree with that.

I'll say again, many people would could consider chalerm, chavalit and even jatuporn as elite / establishment. So, to extend your logic, one would assume you are saying that jatuporn, chavalit, and chalerm don't understand why some people like thaksin.

I say again your post is total rubbish.

Ask a few people about Khun Anand's attitude to the very large numbers of employees inside the company he was associated with for many years, as a senior executive.

They will tell you he was always concerned for employees welfare, he regularly talked with all staff at all levels, and listened to them, and he displayed again and again that he well understood their concerns / their background, their lack of opportunities, etc.

My dear scorecard

I would wish that in this thread as in others even if ppl have different views then this or that poster , they would remain polite and not accuse others of speaking rubish , just because they do not agree . After all we are civilised people and should remain respectul of the views of others even if we dont agree . And remain humble

Having say that on the substance of what you say on Khun Anand I do concurr with you .

Edited March 25, 2010 by moresomekl

[moresomekl]

In any case if a PM is a business-man and mix it with the search for political power its catastrophic as the case of Mr T has prooven

Its a case of confused loyalties . either you serve the ppl or you serve your business [/size][/sup]

I was here in Thailand when Anand was the PM (twice) and i was here for many years before that.

I can confirm, Anand and his other appointed minters of the various ministries worked very hard, very focused and they tried hard to attend to the items which desperately needed attention and were factors which were important to improve quality of life etc across the board, and set the stage for the future.

Here's some other points:

- Many of the other ministers in Anand's cabinet were astute high achieving businessmen, and some others. They took off their business hats completely and focused on the needs of Thailand. None of them have even been accused of doing even the slighest thing that was smelly.

- There are many capable, sincere, and honest people in Thailand today and there always has been, and many of them are very sincere and want to contribute to the development of Thailand. But the unfortunate downside is that they will not allow themselves (for obvious reasons) to be associated with the leeches and thugs (read thieves) who make up the majority of the parties and have done for decades.

- In fact when Anand had to step down, after elections were held, he was asked why he didn't continue. His answer was very straight forward and was so direct that he shocked many people, he said something like 'I would need to be a member of a party and I simply do not wish to join the unsavoury gangs (my words) that we call political parties'.

- I can't agree that business men becoming politicians is (always) catestrophic. This statement is too black and white.

I concurr with your last statement , actually it is a matter of personalities . I oversimplified , sorry for that

[moresomekl]

Anand's administration proved a more hard-working one that those of his predecessors.^[10] The administration worked on its task of implementing a long list of much-needed reforms. Its emphasis on education, public health, exports, agriculture, industry, environment and improvement in living conditions, met with widespread approval. In a Bangkok poll in late July, 1991, 61 percent of respondents felt that the Anand government was more honest than previous administrations.^[17]

^{Wish they can find a PM like him . Problem is those top notch ppl are business ppl not at all interested in political power , (whats the salary of a PM compared to a CEO if the PM is honest ? ) and he was a reluctant PM .}

^{In any case if a PM is a business-man and mix it with the search for political power its catastrophic as the case of Mr T has prooven}

^{Its a case of confused loyalties . either you serve the ppl or you serve your business}

Well all your yelling succinctly makes the point

that Abhisit is the breath of fresh air long awaited for.

There is no such thing as a clean environment for ANY Thai PM

but putting a decent hard working and relatively honest one in,

and letting him juggle the chainsaws of personalities and interests

to the best possible conclusion for all Thais is the most we can generally hope for.

Anand was installed under even less propitious circumstances than Abhisit.

but his rep this far down the line from his term as PM seems well done and well thought of.

Abhisit minus the Thaksin Albatross would be a different ballgame altogether.

Abhisit should actually draw from K Anand who had the guts to go against the top brass. I remember as if it were yesterday, he cut down on military spending and placed them back into their role as they have chosen by oath first.

Abhisit is more a character of one step forward and two steps back and this continuously. He really feeds himself from what the top brass gives him and bows to any of their demands.

Yes i agree with your views . Mr Abhisit ideas are in my opinion good and he is honest , not corrupted , and wants the best for his country as well as help the poor people . In his case it is more a question of personality then one of ideals . There is a difference between having good ideas and putting them in practice . I am not sure if Mr Abhisit has the strength of personality and the charisma of a real stateman to do the latter as it will not be an easy task .

1) When the red shirts came to Bangkok , Mr Abhisit choosed to take refuge in military barracks . By doing so he gave the impression to many thais i suppose and foreign press as well , that the country is governed by the military reenforcing the impression that his political opponent wants to project that the PM is just a puppet of the miltary . He also shed a negative impression on his courage which is not exacly what a PM wants to be reminded for . Mr Abhisit would have been far more inspired to stay home and discuss with the red shirts or at the very least with their representative when they did show up . A light cordon of police around his residence , since he is the PM , would have let pass those representatives for discussion .

2) That is of course debatable but Mr Abhisit lacked basic foresight by not asking for a general election BEFORE the venue of the red shirts even though he knew that by not doing so there would be disorder and protests . Granted he did not have too BUT it would have shown statemanship if he had . Now even if he asks for election he will be seen as reacting to events rather then leading them .

Am sure K Anand would had acted very differently and there would have been either no protests and disruption or by now everyone would be home .

Edited March 25, 2010 by moresomekl

[animatic]

Although Anand is a nice and sensible man, we should not forget that he has been appointed two times by the establishment after a coup to be an interim prime minister. It is therefore understandable that Anand do not seem to understand how the majority of Thai people think about Thaksin. Anand is part of the establishment and as such biased.

So your saying that 'because he was appointed two times he therefore doesn't understand how the majority of Thai people think about thaksin'.

What total rubbish. Where's the specific logic in this? There isn't any!

'Majority' - I'll never agree with that.

I'll say again, many people would could consider chalerm, chavalit and even jatuporn as elite / establishment. So, to extend your logic, one would assume you are saying that jatuporn, chavalit, and chalerm don't understand why some people like thaksin.

I say again your post is total rubbish.

Ask a few people about Khun Anand's attitude to the very large numbers of employees inside the company he was associated with for many years, as a senior executive.

They will tell you he was always concerned for employees welfare, he regularly talked with all staff at all levels, and listened to them, and he displayed again and again that he well understood their concerns / their background, their lack of opportunities, etc.

My dear scorecard

I would wish that in this thread as in others even if ppl have different views then this or that poster , they would remain polite and not accuse others of speaking rubish , just because they do not agree . After all we are civilised people and should remain respectul of the views of others even if we dont agree . And remain humble

Having say that on the substance of what you say on Khun Anand I do concurr with you .

Rub·bish –noun

1.

worthless, unwanted material that is rejected or thrown out; debris; litter; trash.

2.

nonsense, as in writing or art: sentimental rubbish.

Origin:

1350–1400; ME rubbes, rob(b)ous < ?; cf. rubble

—Synonyms = rot, balderdash, drivel, bosh.

*********************************************

He wasn't saying Mythbuster is full of rubbish, as some here might,

but that IF mythbuster was saying that, then it is a rubbish idea.

Rubbish; as in, an idea worth throwing out on face value.

Because it contains nothing of value, but takes up useful space.

Being appointed TWICE to the PMs job does not automatically prevent you

from understanding poor people, or middle class people, or workers doing their jobs.

As scorecard said on one thread he has MET Kuhn Anand personally

and seen him interact with people of 'less exalted offices'

and that he was a true warm hearted gentleman.

So I think having met the man he is in a better position to determine if

mythbusters concept is rubbish or not.

Edited March 25, 2010 by animatic

[thaihome]

... [boy you been a messin, where you shouldn't be messin] these boots are made for walking

I see someone else caught that little slip.

TH

[moresomekl]

My dear scorecard

I would wish that in this thread as in others even if ppl have different views then this or that poster , they would remain polite and not accuse others of speaking rubish , just because they do not agree . After all we are civilised people and should remain respectul of the views of others even if we dont agree . And remain humble

Having say that on the substance of what you say on Khun Anand I do concurr with you .

He wasn't saying Mythbuster is full of rubbish, as some here might,

but that if mythbuster was saying that, then it is a rubbish idea.

Rubbish; as in, an idea worth throwing out on face value.

Because it contains nothing of value, but takes up useful space.

Being appointed TWICE to the PMs job does not automatically prevent you

from understanding poor people, or middle class people, or workers doing their jobs.

As scorecard said on one thread he has MET Kuhn Anand personally

and seen him interact with people of 'less exalted offices'

and that he was a true warm hearted gentleman.

So I think having met the man he is in a better position to determine if

mythbusters concept is rubbish or not.

**********************************

Yes , i must have misunderstood . Am oversensitive in this case perhaps . Yes i 100% agree with scorecard on the substance of what he said

[moresomekl]

Well it's true that many people, by some criteria, could be considered elite. Some consider chalerm, jatuporn, chavalit and other red shirt sympathizers, as elite by some criteria.

Some years ago I was standing very close to Khun Anand when he was making a presentation at a quite large gathering at the Hyatt hotel.

The microphone / loud speakers started to play up. He quickly left the stage and walked over to two young technicians standing at the side and politely asked them to try to resolve the problem.

After a couple of minutes he sat on the floor with the tehnicians and asked them politely "do you do need any other equipment etc.?"

After a couple of minutes more he walked over to a buffet table and got two glasses of Pepsi and gave it to the young technicians.

A few minutes later it was all resolved. The young technicians tried to disappear but he wouldn't let them go. He said to the crowd, "I'd like to introduce my new friends who have saved the day", then he asked them to introduce themselves to the crowd, he stepped back and by hand gestures made them speak, and then he politely thanked them for taking care of the problem and waied to them. The crowd loved it.

I have also met Khun Anand in other circumstances. He is a wise, sincere, humble, and very balanced man. When he speaks the room goes silent, people listen. He also encourages others to talk, regardless of their 'rank', he listens well and asks further valid and valuable questions and listens.

Thailand (any country) could do with more leaders like this.

*****************************

Yes your experience corresponds to my read of K Anand .

And sorry for my post on the "rubbish" issue , did not mean to offend

[moresomekl]

the government model suggested by Khun Moresomeki would do little to sooth the red shirts belief that the government is made up of elites - or have I missed a US president in the last 50 years who was not a millionaire? and I only draw the line at 50 because I'm not sure about Eisenhower.

Yes i agree most of the US president were whealthy but few were billionaires , unlike Thaksin which the red shirts follow .

So its not a question of PM rich or not

If they removed Thaksin of it all I would be supportive of their (redshirt) cause , except the class war bullshit which has

been suggested to them by T anyway .

Now what i said is on the stability of governement question , any PM needs that to do a proper job to

help them . Now of course it depends if the PM is good or not but then chance are that if he is elected

by 40 millions ppl rather then 40,000 he would be more capable . And kind of hard to bribe 20 millions voters

by the way

The root of the problem as you know is that they elect a MP , who often pays them for that , and once

elected the MP dont give a dam_n about them . Those MP choose among themselves who will be the PM as i understand it .

And currently with the coalition system PM are shortly in power more often then not

Its a self sustaining mess

Some of moresomekl's ideas coincide with The Joseph Solution which I have been proposing. The supporters I talked like the architecture, because it ensures fair elections and stable 4 year term. They liked The Joseph Solution, even though it included an element of 'oversight' which we are not allowed to discuss. I discussed it with them, and they were agreeable to this 'aspect' of The Joseph Solution.

If I could get 3 or 4 Thais of stature, a few academics and perhaps Chuan Leekpai to examine The Joseph Solution and then carry out The Joseph Plan, Thailand would have Stability, Peace and Proserity by the end of this year!

Thank you .

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

[animatic]

Well all your yelling succinctly makes the point

that Abhisit is the breath of fresh air long awaited for.

There is no such thing as a clean environment for ANY Thai PM

but putting a decent hard working and relatively honest one in,

and letting him juggle the chainsaws of personalities and interests

to the best possible conclusion for all Thais is the most we can generally hope for.

Anand was installed under even less propitious circumstances than Abhisit.

but his rep this far down the line from his term as PM seems well done and well thought of.

Abhisit minus the Thaksin Albatross would be a different ballgame altogether.

Abhisit should actually draw from K Anand who had the guts to go against the top brass. I remember as if it were yesterday, he cut down on military spending and placed them back into their role as they have chosen by oath first.

Abhisit is more a character of one step forward and two steps back and this continuously. He really feeds himself from what the top brass gives him and bows to any of their demands.

Yes i agree with your views . Mr Abhisit ideas are in my opinion good and he is honest , not corrupted , and wants the best for his country as well as help the poor people . In his case it is more a question of personality then one of ideals . There is a difference between having good ideas and putting them in practice . I am not sure if Mr Abhisit has the strength of personality and the charisma of a real stateman to do the latter as it will not be an easy task .

1) When the red shirts came to Bangkok , Mr Abhisit choosed to take refuge in military barracks . By doing so he gave the impression to many thais i suppose and foreign press as well , that the country is governed by the military reenforcing the impression that his political opponent wants to project that the PM is just a puppet of the miltary . He also shed a negative impression on his courage which is not exacly what a PM wants to be reminded for . Mr Abhisit would have been far more inspired to stay home and discuss with the red shirts or at the very least with their representative when they did show up . A light cordon of police around his residence , since he is the PM , would have let pass those representatives for discussion .

2) That is of course debatable but Mr Abhisit lacked basic foresight by not asking for a general election BEFORE the venue of the red shirts even though he knew that by not doing so there would be disorder and protests . Granted he did not have too BUT it would have shown statemanship if he had . Now even if he asks for election he will be seen as reacting to events rather then leading them .

Am sure K Anand would had acted very differently and there would have been either no protests and disruption or by now everyone would be home .

1 ) And impression you suppose.... ooh that is very anecdotal and hardly considered empirical evidence.

As likel it means he doesn't trust the police to protect him from M79 grenades, and the likely threats on his life.

I wouldn't EITHER, the police are pissed at him for taking on their 'positions for pay schemes'...

would you want the Thai police watching YOUR back in such as scenario.. not likely.

If I had to choose between ; some pissed off Police generals who want me out,

or the calm considered Anupong to watch my back in a life or death situation

I'd pick Anupong in a minute

It ALSO means he is better position to exert authority OVER the army if he is safely in a secured base.

There is no indication whatsoever that he was prevented from deciding anything nor acting as he chose

nor detained in any way. This is only ONLY your suppositions.

He also had meetings with coalition partners and others.

He was in a safe place during a time of uncertainty.

If USA Secret Service were uncertain of the safety of Obmama or Bush or Clinton

they would take them into military controlled safe locations.

Because that WOULD be the safest choice to make.

2) "Lack of foresight", for not giving into Thaksins street protest demands for his resignation

IN ADVANCE? Ludicrus idea. Dare I say; rubbish?

If he does that then any government can be brought down by the THREAT of a big rally.

Sorry, but 0.139% of the public in the streets doesn't qualify as reason to resign. Let alone the threat of such.

He knew long in advance that Thaksin would go ballistic depending on the court case,

and no doubt his moving the family and preparing a proper communication center

in a secure location was part of his FORESIGHT. Giving in to Thaksins demands is not foresight,

and it surely isn't proper national leadership.

Please remember Anands time in office was bookending MUCH worse street events than even Black Songkran.

[ozzieman05]

Thaskins greatest enemy is Time

Time for people to think

Time for people to learn

Time for people to change their minds

My Thai wife 3 years ago was 110% behind Thaskin and If I said the wrong thing the roof would come off

3 years later she thinks the whole thing is stupid, Thaskin should just go away and die and people from her village must work and become a better place, only they can do it themselves

My what a difference 3 years can make

An educated Thai lady is the best propoganda machine you can have on your side, as she talks to all her school friends all the time, and states her opinions

[way2muchcoffee]

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

I agree that a 2-party system would eliminate the need for coalitions, and that may well be what is needed for Thailand at this time. On the other hand I don't believe that this is the best system. Consider the case of the US. There are a large number of people who feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually support their interest. Many feel that they are two sides of the same coin and are frustrated that their views are not being represent by anyone in government. A system with multiple parties, in theory, allows for a wider variety of party platforms so that all views of the electorate may be represented in government in a proportional way. This, to my thinking, seems the most equitable and true to democratic ideals.

[moresomekl]

Well all your yelling succinctly makes the point

that Abhisit is the breath of fresh air long awaited for.

There is no such thing as a clean environment for ANY Thai PM

but putting a decent hard working and relatively honest one in,

and letting him juggle the chainsaws of personalities and interests

to the best possible conclusion for all Thais is the most we can generally hope for.

Anand was installed under even less propitious circumstances than Abhisit.

but his rep this far down the line from his term as PM seems well done and well thought of.

Abhisit minus the Thaksin Albatross would be a different ballgame altogether.

Abhisit should actually draw from K Anand who had the guts to go against the top brass. I remember as if it were yesterday, he cut down on military spending and placed them back into their role as they have chosen by oath first.

Abhisit is more a character of one step forward and two steps back and this continuously. He really feeds himself from what the top brass gives him and bows to any of their demands.

Yes i agree with your views . Mr Abhisit ideas are in my opinion good and he is honest , not corrupted , and wants the best for his country as well as help the poor people . In his case it is more a question of personality then one of ideals . There is a difference between having good ideas and putting them in practice . I am not sure if Mr Abhisit has the strength of personality and the charisma of a real stateman to do the latter as it will not be an easy task .

1) When the red shirts came to Bangkok , Mr Abhisit choosed to take refuge in military barracks . By doing so he gave the impression to many thais i suppose and foreign press as well , that the country is governed by the military reenforcing the impression that his political opponent wants to project that the PM is just a puppet of the miltary . He also shed a negative impression on his courage which is not exacly what a PM wants to be reminded for . Mr Abhisit would have been far more inspired to stay home and discuss with the red shirts or at the very least with their representative when they did show up . A light cordon of police around his residence , since he is the PM , would have let pass those representatives for discussion .

2) That is of course debatable but Mr Abhisit lacked basic foresight by not asking for a general election BEFORE the venue of the red shirts even though he knew that by not doing so there would be disorder and protests . Granted he did not have too BUT it would have shown statemanship if he had . Now even if he asks for election he will be seen as reacting to events rather then leading them .

Am sure K Anand would had acted very differently and there would have been either no protests and disruption or by now everyone would be home .

1 ) And impression you suppose.... ooh that is very anecdotal and hardly considered empirical evidence.

As likel it means he doesn't trust the police to protect him from M79 grenades, and the likely threats on his life.

I wouldn't EITHER, the police are pissed at him for taking on their 'positions for pay schemes'...

would you want the Thai police watching YOUR back in such as scenario.. not likely.

If I had to choose between ; some pissed off Police generals who want me out,

or the calm considered Anupong to watch my back in a life or death situation

I'd pick Anupong in a minute

It ALSO means he is better position to exert authority OVER the army if he is safely in a secured base.

There is no indication whatsoever that he was prevented from deciding anything nor acting as he chose

nor detained in any way. This is only ONLY your suppositions.

He also had meetings with coalition partners and others.

He was in a safe place during a time of uncertainty.

If USA Secret Service were uncertain of the safety of Obmama or Bush or Clinton

they would take them into military controlled safe locations.

Because that WOULD be the safest choice to make.

2) "Lack of foresight", for not giving into Thaksins street protest demands for his resignation

IN ADVANCE? Ludicrus idea. Dare I say; rubbish?

If he does that then any government can be brought down by the THREAT of a big rally.

Sorry, but 0.139% of the public in the streets doesn't qualify as reason to resign. Let alone the threat of such.

He knew long in advance that Thaksin would go ballistic depending on the court case,

and no doubt his moving the family and preparing a proper communication center

in a secure location was part of his FORESIGHT. Giving in to Thaksins demands is not foresight,

and it surely isn't proper national leadership.

Please remember Anands time in office was bookending MUCH worse street events than even Black Songkran.

I believe that great leaders overrule their security service when the interest of the country is at stake .

Besides the red shirts do not appear to me as beeing violent people , even though Mr T has been heard inciting

violence . If they were violent there would have been many deads by now .

I know about K Anand time in office and agree with you .

Well the result of Mr Abhisit "foresight" is plain for all to see , I have nothing much to add . Do not underestimate the determination and arguably popular support that the red shirts have in the county as a whole . While they may be the minority its certainly is a far larger one then 0.139% .

We obviously are of different opinion which i respect

Edited March 25, 2010 by moresomekl

[moresomekl]

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

I agree that a 2-party system would eliminate the need for coalitions, and that may well be what is needed for Thailand at this time. On the other hand I don't believe that this is the best system. Consider the case of the US. There are a large number of people who feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually support their interest. Many feel that they are two sides of the same coin and are frustrated that their views are not being represent by anyone in government. A system with multiple parties, in theory, allows for a wider variety of party platforms so that all views of the electorate may be represented in government in a proportional way. This, to my thinking, seems the most equitable and true to democratic ideals.

Oh yes fully agree its not the most equitable and truely democratic system . I think many in Thailand as in USA would be unhappy about that and in the case of Thailand , protest in the street ... probably . hahaha

dam_n why is it so difficult to have a stable , while equitable system LOL ?

[animatic]

Thaskins greatest enemy is Time

Time for people to think

Time for people to learn

Time for people to change their minds

My Thai wife 3 years ago was 110% behind Thaskin and If I said the wrong thing the roof would come off

3 years later she thinks the whole thing is stupid, Thaskin should just go away and die and people from her village must work and become a better place, only they can do it themselves

My what a difference 3 years can make

An educated Thai lady is the best propoganda machine you can have on your side, as she talks to all her school friends all the time, and states her opinions

Which is, I think, one of the reason for the hardcore PR push in Thaivisa to alter Farang minds about Thaksin.

1 ) international perceptions must be controlled.

Just like the false flag info floating around the blogs in Montenegro.

Counter the expected bad perception BEFORE it arrives.

but also

2 ) if you change the minds of Farang husbands/boyfriends,

then those Thai Ladies mated with them, can't get re-educated on actual truths...

AKA known to red agitprops as 'counter Red Shirt propaganda theory'

And so are not voices of reason in the wilderness.

And thoughtful voices of reason in the village, are the last things a propagandist wants.

There is a reason it is called Truth Today,

because they want people to think their party line is THE ONLY TRUTH.

Farangs in the mix in Issan are a direct threat to the over arching mind control schemes of Thaksins PR teams.

So it does make sense there are some here on TVF

clearly trying to turn our minds from actual Truth to Thaksins Truth.

And several who have bought the gambit hook line and sinker.

Edited March 25, 2010 by animatic

[TAWP]

Do agree with most of the analysis concerning Thaksin. however it is a dynamic situation which may evolve as the Pandora box is open... going to tough days....

one thing is for sure. with no taksin the country will get more poor and taxes will go up.

If any Reds are expecting handouts the taxes will *have* to go up.

[TAWP]

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

I agree that a 2-party system would eliminate the need for coalitions, and that may well be what is needed for Thailand at this time. On the other hand I don't believe that this is the best system. Consider the case of the US. There are a large number of people who feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually support their interest. Many feel that they are two sides of the same coin and are frustrated that their views are not being represent by anyone in government. A system with multiple parties, in theory, allows for a wider variety of party platforms so that all views of the electorate may be represented in government in a proportional way. This, to my thinking, seems the most equitable and true to democratic ideals.

Coalitions is the only strength of democracy.

2-party systems are the perverted last station before it becomes a dictatorship ala several failed 1-party states.

To advocate a reduction of power of different peoples voices is not in the best interest of democracy or the people in general. (Avoiding the edge-case with a benevolent dictatorship as it rarely ever happens)

[janderton]

...

An educated Thai lady is the best propoganda machine you can have on your side, as she talks to all her school friends all the time, and states her opinions

opinions?! talks?! oh yes...

this kind of talks: how to become mia-noi's of a (doesn't matter if old-fat-bald-sweating-bad breathed) RICH sino-thai, made him pay the rent of your riverview condo, your clothes, shoes, golden necklaces-bracelets-earings-ring, blackberry, mini cooper (and/or yamaha fino)... [vulgar language removed]

....

2 ) if you change the minds of Farang husbands/boyfriends,

then those Thai Ladies mated with them, can't get re-educated on actual truths...

...

as thai doesn't trust farangs, this strategy could bring the opposite result!

my falang AT oops.... boyflend says mr.T is evil because blablabla blablabla....

i told him i believe in his speech, now he's glad and stopped talk about it, but actually i don't believe a single word he spoke

p.s. "actual truths"....

Edited March 25, 2010 by sabaijai

[ozzieman05]

Sadly you have been hanging around beer bars and prostitutes to long

My wife, brought her talents and education with her from Thailand to Australia, set up her own business and now owns offices in location, she makes more money than I do, and puts 50% of the house expenses in from her business.

She bought land in Issan and is building a home all from her own money.

After 3 years being together she still buys me gifts all the time

Yes she tells other Thai girls to meet a good Farang, not to rip him off but to get a chance to work and work hard

[moresomekl]

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

I agree that a 2-party system would eliminate the need for coalitions, and that may well be what is needed for Thailand at this time. On the other hand I don't believe that this is the best system. Consider the case of the US. There are a large number of people who feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually support their interest. Many feel that they are two sides of the same coin and are frustrated that their views are not being represent by anyone in government. A system with multiple parties, in theory, allows for a wider variety of party platforms so that all views of the electorate may be represented in government in a proportional way. This, to my thinking, seems the most equitable and true to democratic ideals.

Coalitions is the only strength of democracy.

2-party systems are the perverted last station before it becomes a dictatorship ala several failed 1-party states.

To advocate a reduction of power of different peoples voices is not in the best interest of democracy or the people in general. (Avoiding the edge-case with a benevolent dictatorship as it rarely ever happens)

Wel yes it was not my original proposal actually .

[moresomekl]

Of course another solution with the present structure would be to limit the number of parties in the parliament to 2 .

So that there be always a party in charge preventing revolving coalitions . But that would be wholly undemocratic , would it not ?

I agree that a 2-party system would eliminate the need for coalitions, and that may well be what is needed for Thailand at this time. On the other hand I don't believe that this is the best system. Consider the case of the US. There are a large number of people who feel that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually support their interest. Many feel that they are two sides of the same coin and are frustrated that their views are not being represent by anyone in government. A system with multiple parties, in theory, allows for a wider variety of party platforms so that all views of the electorate may be represented in government in a proportional way. This, to my thinking, seems the most equitable and true to democratic ideals.

I meant Thailand not USA in my previous post . US have it already , of course LOL.

Well this protest is showing no sign of subsiding , when i think that some ppl here said it will be over at the end of the week end that started it . In a few weeks it might still be on .

[scorecard]

"......I believe that great leaders overrule their security service when the interest of the country is at stake .

Besides the red shirts do not appear to me as beeing violent people , even though Mr T has been heard inciting

violence . If they were violent there would have been many deads by now .

I know about K. Anand time in office and agree with you.

Well the result of Mr Abhisit "foresight" is plain for all to see, I have nothing much to add . Do not underestimate the determination and arguably popular support that the red shirts have in the county as a whole . While they may be the minority its certainly is a far larger one then 0.139% . "

Quote: "......I believe that great leaders overrule their security service when the interest of the country is at stake."

My comment: Nice theory, but totally lacking recognition of the actual on the ground severe realities and long-term (many decades) of diverse and nasty history of the whole situation. I'm sure PM Abhisit would like to be sitting in a whole different scenario and therefore be able to take a whole different approach, but he's not.

Quote: "......Besides the red shirts do not appear to me as being violent people , even though Mr T has been heard inciting violence . If they were violent there would have been many deads by now .

My Comment: Burned buses in the streets, parked a gas tanker in a high volume residential area and threaten to blow it up, tried to pull Abhisit out of his car, actually severely beat up Abhisit's driver, sent visiting respected dignitaries from other Asean countries running for their lives, threaten to assassinate the PM and his family, encourage people to bring petrol bombs to Bkk, hundreds of speeches of very severe hatred against the PM and many others, CM group beat up monks at prayer, CM group have roughed up numerous other people, various country red shirt based groups (Udon, Ubon, etc.) threatened severe violence and severely intimated many people, refuse to allow anybody other than red shirts to speak publicly, and have beat people up. And more...

You say non violent, non threatening, peaceful rational people, supporting freedom of speech, supporting democratic principles. What Television do you watch?

Quote: "....Do not underestimate the determination and arguably popular support that the red shirts have in the county as a whole . While they may be the minority its certainly is a far larger one then 0.139% . "

My comment: Yes there is a need for change, to ensure that everything is more fair and more equitable for all Thais, all Thais share the wealth, all Thais have better opportunities in life and equal justice regardless of family name and affiliations. And nothing will change until there is a credible force to push for these changes. And the key word is credible! And the current people (I hesitate to say politicians) who make up the PT party and others (mostly incapable thieves) will work hard to stop any such changes, because it would prevent them from further rampant feeding from the trough (the budget cash).

But the red shirts (as a whole group) have no credibility under any measure as a valid logical structured focused knowledgeable movement (they charge their war-cry and their demands every 5 minutes) and none of the current leaders have any credibility whatever and have painted themselves as not much more than thugs and liars, they want a convicted highly corrupt man pardoned, a man who should be behind bars for crimes against humanity) and they want a return to a constitution which makes vote buying easy.

Edited March 25, 2010 by scorecard

[Publicus]

A great many people, by some criteria, could be considered elite. Some consider chalerm, jatuporn, chavalit and other red shirt sympathizers, as elite by some criteria.

Some years ago I was standing very close to Khun Anand when he was making a presentation at a quite large gathering at the Hyatt hotel.

The microphone / loud speakers started to play up. He quickly left the stage and walked over to two young technicians standing at the side and politely asked them to try to resolve the problem.

After a couple of minutes he sat on the floor with the tehnicians and asked them politely "do you do need any other equipment etc.?"

After a couple of minutes more he walked over to a buffet table and got two glasses of Pepsi and gave it to the young technicians.

A few minutes later it was all resolved. The young technicians tried to disappear but he wouldn't let them go. He said to the crowd, "I'd like to introduce my new friends who have saved the day", then he asked them to introduce themselves to the crowd, he stepped back and by hand gestures made them speak, and then he politely thanked them for taking care of the problem and waied to them. The crowd loved it.

I have also met Khun Anand in other circumstances. He is a wise, sincere, humble, and very balanced man. When he speaks the room goes silent, people listen. He also encourages others to talk, regardless of their 'rank', he listens well and asks further valid and valuable questions and listens.

Thailand (any country) could do with more leaders like this.

Most of the the thread thus far has been a referendum, if you will, on Kuhn Anand and has drifted away from the content of his analytical and wise statements, tho the latter have received some attention.

I have great respect for Kuhn Anand to include his long term commitment to the UN and its mission. Kuhn Anand has the opposite view of the UN than Dr Thaksin whose high handed statement "The UN is not my father" is well known and rightfully is viewed negatively by so many of us.

Kuhn Anand is not with out flaws or weaknesses but he is head and shoulders above the class of political clowns that have populated and controlled politics and government during the post WW 2 era. While Kuhn Anand is not a Mandella or a Suu Kyi et al he is the rare and outstanding exception to the common and run of the mill class of jerks and idiots I refer to.

So I'd like to see a good biographer do a thorough and comprehensive reserch project for publication as to how Kuhn Anand has always distinguished himself so clearly and so sharply from the class of political clowns that always have surrounded him and have always dominated politics and government.

I'd like to see a first rate study of Kuhn Anand which is both socioeconomic and sociopolitical, a discussion and analysis of this exceptional person so that we can find, identify and define the qualities which separate him so sharply and exceptionally from the fools and morons who are the products of the same society, culture and civilization.

Most immediately and visibly, we see the new caliber of Thai such as Abhisit and Korn, to name the most prominent, but they remain the exception and moreover have to deal with and try to resolve conflicts Kuhn Anand (nor anyone else of his time as PM) ever could have imagined. None the less, perhaps in a serious study of Kuhn Anand we could find some qualities of character, integrity and intelligence in this otherwise lunatic place and its class of idiot leaders that could be instructive and which in the context of being Thai could salvage the country from its present hopeless and helpless condition and circumstance.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Well, while history looks at Anand's time as PM favorably I think that's primarily because it was compared to the horrendous governments before him. For all his aristocratic and gentlemanly qualities, I'm not sure he's a democrat-at-heart. That's all fine so far, but the lack of a strong democracy in this country guarantees a very bumpy ride ahead. And we're out of time to establish a strong democracy, where elected government can rule without worrying about coups from the military or the judiciary.

[Publicus]

Well, while history looks at Anand's time as PM favorably I think that's primarily because it was compared to the horrendous governments before him. For all his aristocratic and gentlemanly qualities, I'm not sure he's a democrat-at-heart. That's all fine so far, but the lack of a strong democracy in this country guarantees a very bumpy ride ahead. And we're out of time to establish a strong democracy, where elected government can rule without worrying about coups from the military or the judiciary.

That Anand is not a career politician would limit any serious research of his qualities, yes, but he is a product of the culture, society and civilization and may offer some characteristics and traits that might be held as something as an example or model, at least to some extent, to others who might be searching for a semi-decent role model in public affairs, international diplomacy and domestic tranquility.

[anotherpeter]

Well, while history looks at Anand's time as PM favorably I think that's primarily because it was compared to the horrendous governments before him. For all his aristocratic and gentlemanly qualities, I'm not sure he's a democrat-at-heart. That's all fine so far, but the lack of a strong democracy in this country guarantees a very bumpy ride ahead. And we're out of time to establish a strong democracy, where elected government can rule without worrying about coups from the military or the judiciary.

I don't think we are out of time yet. There is still a lot to do, but these things don't happen overnight.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Well, while history looks at Anand's time as PM favorably I think that's primarily because it was compared to the horrendous governments before him. For all his aristocratic and gentlemanly qualities, I'm not sure he's a democrat-at-heart. That's all fine so far, but the lack of a strong democracy in this country guarantees a very bumpy ride ahead. And we're out of time to establish a strong democracy, where elected government can rule without worrying about coups from the military or the judiciary.

I don't think we are out of time yet. There is still a lot to do, but these things don't happen overnight.

I hope and pray that we're not out of time. With big changes ahead, I fear that only a very solid and strong democracy can weather those changes. A weak and corrupt system on the other hand is a recipe for disaster, and there's really no telling how far Thailand can fall.

To be honest the system probably never was that strong to begin with, just the absence of coups and a democratically drafted constitution painted a nice picture. In the end though that meant nothing. I now think the coup was a symptom of Thailand not being a strong democracy to begin with, more than a cause.