Are Red-Shirts Battling For Thaksin's Bt76 Bn Or Democracy?

[cdmtdm]

Thaksin's total wealth is about on par of Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey. He's wealthy, no argument there. But his wealth does not amount to anywhere near 1% of the wealth of the right-wing royalists who oppose him. Follow the money. We can't discuss it under the current Abhisit censorship mandates.

the Pm if clever enough , could distribute the Billions in question amongst the rural poor families immediately , PM a hero ..... Thaksins money back to the people who need it , protesters no longer being paid to turn up at rallies .... peace at last ( or was i dreaming ha ha )

[MellowYellow]

Thaksin's total wealth is about on par of Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey. He's wealthy, no argument there. But his wealth does not amount to anywhere near 1% of the wealth of the right-wing royalists who oppose him. Follow the money. We can't discuss it under the current Abhisit censorship mandates.

the Pm if clever enough , could distribute the Billions in question amongst the rural poor families immediately , PM a hero ..... Thaksins money back to the people who need it , protesters no longer being paid to turn up at rallies .... peace at last ( or was i dreaming ha ha )

I would support such an idea.

Why not take all the seized money and create charter schools and new, modern hospitals in all the major Northern/Issan provinces.

Specifically sell it as taking the tainted money and putting it to good work in the home areas of those who feel disenfranchised.

I'd guess that the money was already eaten up in the budget before it was even ruled officially seized though.

Generals must have their new toys.

Fat cat politicians of all flavors MUST have their pork.

[eggomaniac]

I believe that the majority of the rank and file Reds are, or certainly believe they are, fighting for a better life (and the few hundred a day promised by those nice people on stage).

A better country? Well the country would certainly be better for them if they had more money but they certainly don't care for the country as a whole.

Democracy? What's that? Another western concept that don't put food on the table. They believe in feudal democracy where they support the local lord who drops off a few sack of food a day as he's passing by in his Merc.

If the Reds win the day wacth out for words like Mulethan, <insert date> people [or new people] and Angkar or their Thai equivalents.

The people are being manipulated and Thaksin ain't the only puppet master.

EGGsactly, folks read and reread this PH's Post if facts intererest, and read it again.

in history monarchs were replaced by imperialists and proletarians. [maybe oh hippie communes, until they actually got money, and Israeli kibutzes has the world ever seen

'even distribution of wealth' not in Cuba, China, or the Ussr.

There is NO red movement, it candy apple red, purple, pinko, blush and so on.

There IS enough 'true' pro democracy folks, I have met them, that are unstoppable even if Thaksin died of a heart attack or something.

Thais have to STOP the crocodile fighting and drain the swamp.

If They took all of the good ideals of the real domocrats and all of the good ideas cultural elite, instead of clashing on their rersepective bad ideas, and Institutionalised them, Thailand would back up in the same sentences with Japan, S Korea, and Taiwan, like they were some years back.

Both sides have great and compatible ideas but, both, have, mainly, the same same downside, corrupt leadership in a corrupt vehicle.

A win by either side and Thailand, STILL, loses; they have to drain the swamp.

The Joseph Solution has the excavation equipment to do just that, but there is the Delusionment Law which makes discussion of the cure impossible.

47 countries issuing Travel Warnings, impending Martial Law, and nobody is allowed to say what the symptoms, causes and cures are!?

[MILT]

I think the Thais are battling for the right-wing royalist army's trillions or at least trying to get them to stop bleeding the country dry. Thaksin's billions don't really amount to crap when you compare it against the golden camouflage glow than controls the wealth and lives of all Thais. Just a thought.

Please collaborate or better yet elaborate your statement. I believe you will find that what controls any and all wealth in this world has nothing to do with a Golden Camouflage Glow. But Hey I always say "Let sort it out

[MILT]

Based on last nights agreement with the military not to turn off PTV again and their actions late last night truning it off again, they just made it much more difficult to reach any kind of compromise. What good would it do if you can't trust the government to keep its word?

If you are able to reach an agreement will last night's actions be repeated?

There has to be a legitimate trust demonstrated. Machine guns aren't exactly a good way to do that.

Can you speak or understand thai language? I do both. And the crap that they spew out defy's one imagination. The only mistake was giving them the freedom to have a say because instead of using the tools to get their message out it was one blatant BS propaganda after another. Last night people lost their live's For what? Democracy is a fairy tale folks. People dream of a fair and peaceful world? They got off on the wrong planet, as for me well It just saddens me that people lost their lives for no good reason! So my ? is how would any of you TV readers view this BS if it was your loved ones who lost their lives?

[MILT]

Thaksin's total wealth is about on par of Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey. He's wealthy, no argument there. But his wealth does not amount to anywhere near 1% of the wealth of the right-wing royalists who oppose him. Follow the money. We can't discuss it under the current Abhisit censorship mandates.

It is not important who has how much of what now, it is who stands to gain what from a Red victory.

One thing for sure is that their leadership doen't give a toss for the plight of the poor Issan rice farmer. The only way the rice farmet ends up better off is if people pay him more to grow rice, which means people have to pay more for their rice, which means they charge more for their services. Then the rice farmer has no option that to mechanise and improve productivity meaning he need less poor labourers and so the circle widens.

Thailand has missed the boat on industrialisation, there are cheaper and better alternative countries now, and the new technologies aren't mass employers.

Sure there could be a little bit fairer wealth distribution but this must apply also to the middle classes unless you believe in true Marxist equality - and that's failed miserably. So, in that case everyone gets a bit more and the pecking order remains, nobody is better off.

Thus Thailand is faced with a bleak choice: Maintaining the status quo and the peasant culture or mass unemployement.

And before you all scream about the first option go look in the mirror, you are only in Thailand because it is relatively cheap. It is only cheap because of the peasant culture.

Hand pounding on the table!

[BigC]

Ramble ramble ramble....

Thaksin bad.......

ramble ramble ramble....

Thaksin bad.....

War on terror....

America bad....

Bombs.....

Ramble ramble ramble...

Do they have editors at the Nation who, like, actually edit?

I read it twice and have no idea what his point was.

Let's make it easy, just answer yes or no to these question:

- Do you think it would be a good thing if Thaksin came back into power?

- Do you think Thaksin is the best option amongst the current politicians?

- Would you prefer that the Red Shirts clearly distanced themselves from Thaksin?

- Do you think that the top leaders in the Red Shirts are pro-democracy and will be anti-Thaksin if he comes into power and does not live up to the ideal?

Does "Let's make it easy" translate to "I can interrogate you" for you?

It sounds an aweful lot like that to me.

BTW all asked and answered already.

NO

NO

YES

maybe, maybe/no.

Now, when I ask you questions will you give me answers?

Or will you send in you propaganda dogs to spin lies and revisionist history.

Do you think it is a good thing that the military and elites have power now?

Do you think Generals and super rich meglomaniacs (Who aren't Thaksin) are the best option amongst politicians now?

Do you prefer if Abhisit distanced himself from his power brokers, the military and yellow elite?

Do you think the current government can claim any serious legitimacy in being pro democratic when they have reached power thru military, judicial and yellow mob action with a little bit of election thrown in?

Do you think the Democrats will ever go anti-Thaksin if he never divorces himself from military and elite backing?

the only thing i really care about is paying less tax and less politcal tension,. then that is from my oown prspective. i suppose if my brother got was inccocent and was shot by taksin's death squad in the so called war against drugs then i might be different.

i wouldn't mind de this new PM but i don't like all these increased taxes.

suppose if i could choose. between i good less corrupt but expensive PM or a bad corrupt but pumps loads of money into the ecomomy PM then iwoud choose taksin. maye i am being selfish but that is what politics is about.

in every country i harddly ear PM's winning 100 per cent of the votes. there is allways going to be someone unhappy but what can u do

[rogera]

QUOTE (JohnLeech @ 2010-04-11 00:46:04)

QUOTE (rogera @ 2010-04-10 22:15:41)

Finally, Anand Panyarachan set the standard of political behavior when he was PM twice in the 1990's. Abhisit has followed this standard, despite having unsavoury characters in his cabinet .....

In what possible way?

By being transparent in the way he is dealing with the redshirts problem

Apart from a similar education in England they have nothing in common whatsoever.

I do not agree. They come from very similar backgrounds, have had similar upbringings and have expressed similar views which indicates to me that they also have similar values.

Anand was a career diplomat and Ambassador before becoming a successful and respected businessman and being asked to form a government.

Abhisit has only ever been a politician and an MP, with no other experience in any area locally or internationally.

Given that Abhisit is many years younger than Anand, it is not surprising that he has not had the experience that Anand has had. Nor has had the freedom that Anand had, to choose members of his cabinet. Politics is the art of the possible and it inevitably involves some horse-trading.

Anand hand-picked his cabinet, despite presure from the military who had put him in office, to make it one of the most respected and capable Thailand has ever had.

Abhisit's cabinet is "unsavoury" at best, with input from Newin Chidchob controlling the swing vote despite being banned from politics and a foreign minister who advocated and led the yellow-shirted seizure of Suvarnhabumi airport and who is still the subject of an un-enforced arrest warrant.

Anand was very fortunate to have had the military over a barrel in which they had no choice but to accept meekly anything that he proposed. Abhisit has no such luxury.

With regard to Kaset, he did not lead the yellow shirts. He only appeared on stage at Suvarnaphumi to show his support for their ousting of Thaksin. You may not be aware that Kaset was the Thai ambassador to Washington when Thaksin was PM. Thaksin instructed him to buy a building in New York at a highly inflated price in which he wanted to house all the Thai government agencies, something that none of the agencies wanted. The highly inflated price for the building was far in excess of what the valuers hired by Kaset valued it. As a result, Kaset absolutely refused to do so since it was quite clear that the difference in value was going into Thaksin's pocket. The upshot was that Kaset was sacked but the purchase died an early death. This information comes from a completely reliable sourse, a source that I trust implicitly.

Kaset is well known as a very straightforward person with great integrity, something that many Thais lack, and it is this integrity and experience in international diplomacy which made him ideally suited to be Foreign Minister. Anand has similar integrity as I also believe that Abhisit has it too. You may disagree but that is your right so we will agree to disagree.

Anand introduced many reforms, including re-structuring the tax system, introducing VAT, and opening investment regulations locally and overseas.

Abhisit has done nothing wrong by doing nothing at all. His only successful policies, economically, in education, and in improving medical cover, are simply continuations of the opposition's existing policies, and the policy his government is most remembered for is labelling a dozen of Thailand's more popular herbs and spices as dangerous goods.

Anand had a compliant parliament in which to implement all these changes, Abhisit does not. However, you do agree that Abhisit has introduced reforms to the education system, enforced the environmental laws in Rayong and the north, has insisted in transparency in government dealings, witness the bus purchase scheme which the Transport ministry tried to push through, changed the purchasing procedures of the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation to make it more transparent, these among other things. He has concentrated on improving the internal workings of the government while Anand concentrated on improving the system to make it easier for foreign investment to take place. Two very different approaches.

Anand concentrated on improving relations with Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia and successfully established AFTA.

Abhisit has achieved nothing in the field of improving relations with any of Thailand's neighbours.

You are being very unfair here. Abhisit's efforts to improve relations with Cambodia in particular were shafted by the actions of Thaksin and Hun Sen. The chaos at the ASEAN Summit in Pattaya last year was, again shafted by Thaksin and his cronies. The fact that nothing has improved in this area is entirely due to the action of Thaksin and his thugs.

Anand's personal honesty and that of his government was never challenged in any way at the time or later.

Abhisit's government has had numerous accusations of corruption made against it, particularly concerning the more vulnerable such as subsistence farmers (sub-standard fertiliser) and school-children (tainted school milk). His own declared finances are questionable, as his declared assets and his salary are insufficient to cover even his sons' education at Eton and Winchester.

Again, you are being very unfair. Anand had no political opposition because he was asked by the King personally to lead the government. Noone dared to question his integrity. All the allegations about Abhisit's personal honesty have been raised by the red shirt leaders. One particular allegation about the sudden increase in wealth of 22 million baht which was proved a lie was the one where he inherited a house from his deceased grandmother. His own cousin, a member of Thaksin's government, verified this fact. All the other allegations are being contested in court and only time will tell if they are true or not. Politics, as you well know, is a dirty business and such allegations are levelled at politicians all the time.

After leaving the political stage Anand went on to be an ambassador for UNICEF and senior advisor to Kofi Annan and he remained popular and respected by all levels of Thai society. Somehow I cannot see Abhisit following his standards later any more than he does now - unfortunately he is all form but no substance and he is incapable of uniting the country.

Come on. Get real. Abhisit is only 44 years old and is still in politics. Anand became ambassador to UNICEF when he was well into his late sixties and after he left government. Your information here is simply gratuitous.

I am not an apologist for Abhisit or his government. I have been coming to Thailand since early 1971 and have lived and worked in Thailand for over 25 years. I have seen the sorry procession of corrupt and venal governments, the Anand administration excepted, not one, except Thaksin, has offered the rural poor any relief from their poverty. Thaksin did go a little way to help while at the same time plundering the Thai treasury to triple his wealth during the five years he was in power.

Thaksin had the opportunity to go down in Thai history as the best PM that the country ever had but he blew it through greed, arrogance and corruption. He is not, and never was, a democrat. He is an autocrat, a dictator and Thailand will have a very sad future if ever he comes back into power again. My prayer for the Thai people is that this never, ever, happens.

It might be useful if you compare apple to apples rather than apples to oranges.

[YouYouYou]

People are rallying for Thaksin but the UDD know it sounds silly to make the poor rally for a billionaire to wrap it up and sell it like democracy .

That's about it in a nutshell and it ain't about freedom or democracy IMHO.

[chantorn]

People are rallying for Thaksin but the UDD know it sounds silly to make the poor rally for a billionaire to wrap it up and sell it like democracy .

That's about it in a nutshell and it ain't about freedom or democracy IMHO.

It must have started that way, I am not sure.

However, I am sure that it has past the point of Thaksin now. It is all about a class war, IMHO.

[lannarebirth]

People are rallying for Thaksin but the UDD know it sounds silly to make the poor rally for a billionaire to wrap it up and sell it like democracy .

That's about it in a nutshell and it ain't about freedom or democracy IMHO.

It must have started that way, I am not sure.

However, I am sure that it has past the point of Thaksin now. It is all about a class war, IMHO.

I don't believe that's true but let's say it was. What then is the objective? I guess it would only be simple retribution as Abhisit is the only PM that has actually ever worked to closs the divide and he's had to make the effort through some pretty serious headwinds.

[chantorn]

QUOTE (JohnLeech @ 2010-04-11 00:46:04)

QUOTE (rogera @ 2010-04-10 22:15:41)

Finally, Anand Panyarachan set the standard of political behavior when he was PM twice in the 1990's. Abhisit has followed this standard, despite having unsavoury characters in his cabinet .....

In what possible way?

By being transparent in the way he is dealing with the redshirts problem

Apart from a similar education in England they have nothing in common whatsoever.

I do not agree. They come from very similar backgrounds, have had similar upbringings and have expressed similar views which indicates to me that they also have similar values.

Anand was a career diplomat and Ambassador before becoming a successful and respected businessman and being asked to form a government.

Abhisit has only ever been a politician and an MP, with no other experience in any area locally or internationally.

Given that Abhisit is many years younger than Anand, it is not surprising that he has not had the experience that Anand has had. Nor has had the freedom that Anand had, to choose members of his cabinet. Politics is the art of the possible and it inevitably involves some horse-trading.

Anand hand-picked his cabinet, despite presure from the military who had put him in office, to make it one of the most respected and capable Thailand has ever had.

Abhisit's cabinet is "unsavoury" at best, with input from Newin Chidchob controlling the swing vote despite being banned from politics and a foreign minister who advocated and led the yellow-shirted seizure of Suvarnhabumi airport and who is still the subject of an un-enforced arrest warrant.

Anand was very fortunate to have had the military over a barrel in which they had no choice but to accept meekly anything that he proposed. Abhisit has no such luxury.

With regard to Kaset, he did not lead the yellow shirts. He only appeared on stage at Suvarnaphumi to show his support for their ousting of Thaksin. You may not be aware that Kaset was the Thai ambassador to Washington when Thaksin was PM. Thaksin instructed him to buy a building in New York at a highly inflated price in which he wanted to house all the Thai government agencies, something that none of the agencies wanted. The highly inflated price for the building was far in excess of what the valuers hired by Kaset valued it. As a result, Kaset absolutely refused to do so since it was quite clear that the difference in value was going into Thaksin's pocket. The upshot was that Kaset was sacked but the purchase died an early death. This information comes from a completely reliable sourse, a source that I trust implicitly.

Kaset is well known as a very straightforward person with great integrity, something that many Thais lack, and it is this integrity and experience in international diplomacy which made him ideally suited to be Foreign Minister. Anand has similar integrity as I also believe that Abhisit has it too. You may disagree but that is your right so we will agree to disagree.

Anand introduced many reforms, including re-structuring the tax system, introducing VAT, and opening investment regulations locally and overseas.

Abhisit has done nothing wrong by doing nothing at all. His only successful policies, economically, in education, and in improving medical cover, are simply continuations of the opposition's existing policies, and the policy his government is most remembered for is labelling a dozen of Thailand's more popular herbs and spices as dangerous goods.

Anand had a compliant parliament in which to implement all these changes, Abhisit does not. However, you do agree that Abhisit has introduced reforms to the education system, enforced the environmental laws in Rayong and the north, has insisted in transparency in government dealings, witness the bus purchase scheme which the Transport ministry tried to push through, changed the purchasing procedures of the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation to make it more transparent, these among other things. He has concentrated on improving the internal workings of the government while Anand concentrated on improving the system to make it easier for foreign investment to take place. Two very different approaches.

Anand concentrated on improving relations with Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia and successfully established AFTA.

Abhisit has achieved nothing in the field of improving relations with any of Thailand's neighbours.

You are being very unfair here. Abhisit's efforts to improve relations with Cambodia in particular were shafted by the actions of Thaksin and Hun Sen. The chaos at the ASEAN Summit in Pattaya last year was, again shafted by Thaksin and his cronies. The fact that nothing has improved in this area is entirely due to the action of Thaksin and his thugs.

Anand's personal honesty and that of his government was never challenged in any way at the time or later.

Abhisit's government has had numerous accusations of corruption made against it, particularly concerning the more vulnerable such as subsistence farmers (sub-standard fertiliser) and school-children (tainted school milk). His own declared finances are questionable, as his declared assets and his salary are insufficient to cover even his sons' education at Eton and Winchester.

Again, you are being very unfair. Anand had no political opposition because he was asked by the King personally to lead the government. Noone dared to question his integrity. All the allegations about Abhisit's personal honesty have been raised by the red shirt leaders. One particular allegation about the sudden increase in wealth of 22 million baht which was proved a lie was the one where he inherited a house from his deceased grandmother. His own cousin, a member of Thaksin's government, verified this fact. All the other allegations are being contested in court and only time will tell if they are true or not. Politics, as you well know, is a dirty business and such allegations are levelled at politicians all the time.

After leaving the political stage Anand went on to be an ambassador for UNICEF and senior advisor to Kofi Annan and he remained popular and respected by all levels of Thai society. Somehow I cannot see Abhisit following his standards later any more than he does now - unfortunately he is all form but no substance and he is incapable of uniting the country.

Come on. Get real. Abhisit is only 44 years old and is still in politics. Anand became ambassador to UNICEF when he was well into his late sixties and after he left government. Your information here is simply gratuitous.

I am not an apologist for Abhisit or his government. I have been coming to Thailand since early 1971 and have lived and worked in Thailand for over 25 years. I have seen the sorry procession of corrupt and venal governments, the Anand administration excepted, not one, except Thaksin, has offered the rural poor any relief from their poverty. Thaksin did go a little way to help while at the same time plundering the Thai treasury to triple his wealth during the five years he was in power.

Thaksin had the opportunity to go down in Thai history as the best PM that the country ever had but he blew it through greed, arrogance and corruption. He is not, and never was, a democrat. He is an autocrat, a dictator and Thailand will have a very sad future if ever he comes back into power again. My prayer for the Thai people is that this never, ever, happens.

It might be useful if you compare apple to apples rather than apples to oranges.

"This information comes from a completely reliable sourse, a source that I trust implicitly".

I don't know about you; but everytime I made something up, I use exactly the same statement.

[rogera]

Quote:

"This information comes from a completely reliable sourse, a source that I trust implicitly".

I don't know about you; but everytime I made something up, I use exactly the same statement.

Unquote.

Then you must be an unmitigated liar.

I only use this statement when I believe it to be true.