The Americans Debate Thailand's Thaksin

[Jingthing]

Thaksin is Obama. Oy vey. Happily, the American committee isn't falling for any absurd simplifications like that rubbish.

[ding]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

An uninformed idiot, or propagandist? This dolt is hereby discredited.

[animatic]

Dalpino was more blunt in her response. Thaksin's return would restart it all over again, she said. In her opinion, there was no middle-class prejudice or conspiracy against Thaksin. She noted that when Thaksin first arrived on the political scene, he was very popular among the middle class because he was seen as a sophisticated "globalisation" flag-bearer whose family visits to Starbucks were considered "cool".

She forgot the part that came next. Thaksin deigned to help the lower classes and well, that was that.

Why would the middle class care if he helped the lower classes (if indeed he did, which is rather debatable)? The middle class deserted him in droves when his corruption and brutality became too much even by the normally low standards Thais hold their PMs too. Most his main advisers and co-party foudners, his deputy prime minister, and his key cabinet ministers - resigned and departed.

What he brought to certain rural areas was pure pork barrel at best. The Abhisit administration has maintained and in some cases extended Thaksin's economic and social welfare policies, yet the so-called lower classes seem to adhere to the man. Why? Because their overlords keep the cult of personality alive.

why? fear of "redistribution of wealth". Same as with the tea party in the U.S. The Democrats/PAD are essentially Thai tea partiers and Thaksin is their Obama. It's an old, and rather obvious rerun of history, actually.

ROTFLOL

Thaksin is their Obama,.. WILDLY imaginative.

They don't fear redistribution of their wealth to the poor,

it's fear of it ALL going whole hog to the OTHER almost as rich...

Elite on elite financial carnage.

They feared Thaksin's clique getting so powerful, and arrogant, it could rob them blind

and then shoot them in the back of the head if they objected too loudly... (shipping Moo)

Collateral damage, and a cowed and emasculated press wouldn't be able to report it.

Tell that porkie about Thaksin being Obama to Mr. Monson

who Thaksin financially raped and had thrown in jail on false charges for complaining loudly.

All to get Monson's share of the TV systems Monson set up, after partnering with Thaksin

and so not have to pay the percentage Monson SHOULD have gotten ....

Edited July 27, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

An uninformed idiot, or propagandist? This dolt is hereby discredited.

I wonder what philanthropist endowed Jackson's chair at the Nitze School...?

Thaksinomics anyone?

[AZBill]

We should be focusing on getting our own crooks out of Congress and in the White House ( a full time job) and leaving the matter to Thailand. Its just another big jerk off session with Congress. What esle can they do except express moral support for Thailand? We certainly aren't going to get activley involved nor should we so what's the point. Typical Congressional hearing though. Not even 1 Thai testified - just a bunch of so-called academics! What a joke!

[Shotime]

Thaksin is Obama. Oy vey. Happily, the American committee isn't falling for any absurd simplifications like that rubbish.

Really. That's one of the more ridiculous things so far.

Don't forget the seizure of that plane in Thailand with all those weapons bound for who knows where. The US has a serious interest in what goes on in Thailand.

[zzaa09]

The crooks on Capital Hill discuss a crook - is there something wrong with this picture?

How many times have we seen the American Congress hold hearings on other countries with witnesses telling tearful, often heart-wrenching stories, only for these to be discovered later to be a pack of lies! Too many interested parties, including some representatives, use these purely for selfish PR purposes.

I'm sure current Thai affairs might make for an ongoing and stimulating university course in the States, but not in a Senate sub-committee discussion, which presents itself as theories of possible intervention. It's not the Americans business.

[siampolee]

By virtue of the facts laid out in this particular topic I suppose we are all capable of judging the ability of the technician who services our cars or the ability y and the talent of the chap who empties our rubbish bins, ah the list is endless. We can all be experts by observation and hearsay.

America or any other nation doesn't really have the right to interfere in another sovereign states domestic affairs or make judgements based on hearsay. Perhaps if we view the track record of America regarding its role here in South East Asia we might come to understand and hopefully the American government would too that possibly American judgement could be considered a trifle flawed.

If one looks at the latest revelations via Wikileak it certainly does not in my eyes add credibility to the American comments on the situation here in Thailand or elsewhere. The political scientist is full of theory but lacking in reality.

Investigations powered by vested interests are not aimed at improving the lot of the common man or woman but at feathering the nests of the business entities and the politicians with somewhat biased agendas.

No America. Please keep your ideas and solutions to yourself we do not need another civil war sponsored by the arms manufacturers here, you have done enough damage cost enough lives around all the theatres of influence you have been involved in over the years since W.W.2.

Stop trying to create a new empire, the days of the imperial power have long since gone, perhaps if you America looked inward at your own problems, the deceit of your bankers, the arms industry drive for profit at any cost, the destruction of your economy, your own social injustices the world, and indeed America, may well become a better place in the not too distant future.

Put your own house in order before you comment on another's house.

Edited July 27, 2010 by siampolee

[mazeltov]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

Prof. Jackson should lose his tenure for espousing this kind of propagandist nonsense.

"Seng Sae Khu [Thaksin's Chinese grandfather] made his fortune through tax farming. The Khu/Shinawatra family later founded Shinawatra Silks and then moved into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop and several businesses, and grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district. By the time Thaksin was born, the extended Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential in Chiang Mai." At age 16, Thaksin helped run one of his father's cinemas. source - Wikipedia

I don't know too many cinema owners in Thailand who are wearing rags.

I agree 100%, complete <deleted> from a man who should know better..

The <deleted> and the attempt to make propaganda of it comes from you. Maybe there were a few orange trees more on the shin family farm and the Prof. didn't use wikipedia for his argument, but from 'rags to riches' is just an expression that should not be taken too literally.

I think its certain that the Prof. didn't had propaganda in mind and wanted to tell a slumdog fairy tale. And who knows if The Nation/Tulsathit quoted that professor accurate. And to answer the question why one of the richest Thai is so popular amongst the poor to mention that Thaksin wasn't born ultra rich, but is rather a self-made man and that let them to perceive Thaksin as one of themselves. Thai people don't hate rich people like the white nonworking class on the dole. To be rich is a dream for many, looking at Thaksin may give the poorer hope its also possible for them. the capitalist dream. motivation, hard work and a knack for it and success belongs to you. That is the way how Thaksin is seen by more than a few Thai people.

Unlike Abhisit who comes really from another planet for most Thais, and is not really perceived as one of them and probably never will. he is rich too, but he isn't a role model for success and advancement. and when asked where all his wealth comes from he can only say: I didn't do anything, its family inheritance.

Wikipedia lists under /Rags_to_riches also Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Is that a fact or should wikipedia downgraded to be known as the cheap source of knowledge for the pseudo educated?

Sorry but Wikipedia is a NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate reference.

More so in the political sphere.

Precisely because it can be edited and re-edited by ANYONE.

One day it can say one thing and another the next.

There are politically biased cyber-teams doing JUST THAT daily.

Sorry this means nothing.

What you wrote, that I rebutted, was patently incorrect.

There is nothing more to say, it was not right,

and you have now just explained why your information was incorrect.

[hoaker]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

Prof. Jackson should lose his tenure for espousing this kind of propagandist nonsense.

"Seng Sae Khu [Thaksin's Chinese grandfather] made his fortune through tax farming. The Khu/Shinawatra family later founded Shinawatra Silks and then moved into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop and several businesses, and grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district. By the time Thaksin was born, the extended Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential in Chiang Mai." At age 16, Thaksin helped run one of his father's cinemas. source - Wikipedia

I don't know too many cinema owners in Thailand who are wearing rags.

I agree 100%, complete <deleted> from a man who should know better..

What outsiders don't know is there were weapon trafficking through the northern part of the country that only those patrolling the borders would see brought in by the so spoken family.....not really rag to riches..more like rich to greed at the cost of our own people..

[rubl]

The <deleted> and the attempt to make propaganda of it comes from you. Maybe there were a few orange trees more on the shin family farm and the Prof. didn't use wikipedia for his argument, but from 'rags to riches' is just an expression that should not be taken too literally.

I think its certain that the Prof. didn't had propaganda in mind and wanted to tell a slumdog fairy tale. And who knows if The Nation/Tulsathit quoted that professor accurate. And to answer the question why one of the richest Thai is so popular amongst the poor to mention that Thaksin wasn't born ultra rich, but is rather a self-made man and that let them to perceive Thaksin as one of themselves. Thai people don't hate rich people like the white nonworking class on the dole. To be rich is a dream for many, looking at Thaksin may give the poorer hope its also possible for them. the capitalist dream. motivation, hard work and a knack for it and success belongs to you. That is the way how Thaksin is seen by more than a few Thai people.

Unlike Abhisit who comes really from another planet for most Thais, and is not really perceived as one of them and probably never will. he is rich too, but he isn't a role model for success and advancement. and when asked where all his wealth comes from he can only say: I didn't do anything, its family inheritance.

While I agree with some of this, I think there are lots of Thai who like K. Thaksin as he continued the patronage system which keeps people occupied, with a bit of money and no need to think for themselves. some may admire him for his money, but would be reluctant to put in the 'hard work'. When the communist states were in upheaval people felt lost, for years the state had thought for them, dictate what to do, how to vote, etc. All of a sudden they had to do their own thinking. There are still many Thai going through this process, with 'elite' from all sides reluctant to let go. Education is the key.

[SomTumTiger]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

Prof. Jackson should lose his tenure for espousing this kind of propagandist nonsense.

"Seng Sae Khu [Thaksin's Chinese grandfather] made his fortune through tax farming. The Khu/Shinawatra family later founded Shinawatra Silks and then moved into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop and several businesses, and grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district. By the time Thaksin was born, the extended Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential in Chiang Mai." At age 16, Thaksin helped run one of his father's cinemas. source - Wikipedia

I don't know too many cinema owners in Thailand who are wearing rags.

I was struck by this comment, and zaphod's response. I emailed Prof. Jackson (googled him), and asked him to compare his comments to the wikipedia history reference. This was his reply -

So far as I know I never ever said anything about a sleeping place. To my knowledge the overall shinawatra family was very wealthy but Thaksin's father was not and by the time he died there was virtually no direct inheritance.

Thaksin helped in his father's coffee shop and theater. When thakin as a student in the US he supposedly worked at the local KFC and so did his wife.

How much of this is self reported myth is another question as it is for most populist politicians. Myth making and politics arr sometimes one and the same.

Karl

[MaxRobespierre]

Hahahah.....the Americans are so "concerned" about democracy......Hahahhaha

Pretty-please-won't-you-lift-the-state-of-emergency is just hot air and fluff for the cameras.

Current Thai regime is performing their proscribed role set by the masters in Washington very well thank you.

American and Multinational investments are being protected. Democracy is an afterthought.

Heck of a job there ab-lette, er whateveryrnameis. Now can I get on down to K street for my 5 o'clocker?

[LomSak27]

Piengrudee posted

Please keep the debate there, and don't bring it over.

You are reading it right? Ok, THE NATION has most definitely brought it over here.

On a better note, this debate ranks somewhere between continuing corn subsidies in the lower Midwest, and regulations regarding salmon farming in the north-western states in the US. So only you and other Nation readers are going to get worked up about it, for the rest of the United States and the world zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..

[Jingthing]

Oh, heck. Thailand and America have been friends for dog's years, forgetting the Japanese period. It is totally appropriate and very desirable that America is paying attention to the political crisis in Thailand and trying to understand it. It is complicated. It can't be understood on 10 second sound bites on CNN. Some of you are just paranoid and transparently anti-American. Pay attention, the world power to be afraid of these days that is starting to act like a big bully is -- CHINA.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Jingthing

[scorecard]

Karl Jackson, professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, was far more sympathetic towards Thaksin. He said poor Thai people could easily identify themselves with a man who went from rags to riches, whose family barely had a warm place to sleep after Thaksin's father died. The evolution of a grass-roots political movement, empowered somewhat b Thaksin but not necessarily needing his support to function, was for real, Jackson insisted.

Prof. Jackson should lose his tenure for espousing this kind of propagandist nonsense.

"Seng Sae Khu [Thaksin's Chinese grandfather] made his fortune through tax farming. The Khu/Shinawatra family later founded Shinawatra Silks and then moved into finance, construction and property development. Lert Shinawatra opened a coffee shop and several businesses, and grew oranges and flowers in Chiang Mai's San Kamphaeng district. By the time Thaksin was born, the extended Shinawatra family was one of the richest and most influential in Chiang Mai." At age 16, Thaksin helped run one of his father's cinemas. source - Wikipedia

I don't know too many cinema owners in Thailand who are wearing rags.

I was struck by this comment, and zaphod's response. I emailed Prof. Jackson (googled him), and asked him to compare his comments to the wikipedia history reference. This was his reply -

So far as I know I never ever said anything about a sleeping place. To my knowledge the overall shinawatra family was very wealthy but Thaksin's father was not and by the time he died there was virtually no direct inheritance.

Thaksin helped in his father's coffee shop and theater. When thakin as a student in the US he supposedly worked at the local KFC and so did his wife.

How much of this is self reported myth is another question as it is for most populist politicians. Myth making and politics arr sometimes one and the same.

Karl

So what!

He's a very corrupt emglomaniac with no ethics or morals, and no concern whatever for the human rights of his fellow Thais.

Who cares whether his father / uncle / grandfather / next door neighbor were rich or whatever?

[SpoliaOpima]

Dalpino was more blunt in her response. Thaksin's return would restart it all over again, she said. In her opinion, there was no middle-class prejudice or conspiracy against Thaksin. She noted that when Thaksin first arrived on the political scene, he was very popular among the middle class because he was seen as a sophisticated "globalisation" flag-bearer whose family visits to Starbucks were considered "cool".

She forgot the part that came next. Thaksin deigned to help the lower classes and well, that was that.

Why would the middle class care if he helped the lower classes (if indeed he did, which is rather debatable)? The middle class deserted him in droves when his corruption and brutality became too much even by the normally low standards Thais hold their PMs too. Most his main advisers and co-party foudners, his deputy prime minister, and his key cabinet ministers - resigned and departed.

What he brought to certain rural areas was pure pork barrel at best. The Abhisit administration has maintained and in some cases extended Thaksin's economic and social welfare policies, yet the so-called lower classes seem to adhere to the man. Why? Because their overlords keep the cult of personality alive.

why? fear of "redistribution of wealth". Same as with the tea party in the U.S. The Democrats/PAD are essentially Thai tea partiers and Thaksin is their Obama. It's an old, and rather obvious rerun of history, actually.

You must have made a typo. It's the Reds that are the Teabaggers in Thailand.

[LaoPo]

Oh, heck. Thailand and America have been friends for dog's years, forgetting the Japanese period. It is totally appropriate and very desirable that America is paying attention to the political crisis in Thailand and trying to understand it. It is complicated. It can't be understood on 10 second sound bites on CNN.

Some of you are just paranoid and transparently anti-American.

Pay attention, the world power to be afraid of these days that is starting to act like a big bully is -- CHINA.

And who is paranoid and transparently anti-China these days ?

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

If a country is acting like a bully and you call them a bully, it is not paranoia. It is speaking the truth.

[Jingthing]

To wit --

"China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that's just a fact," he said, staring directly at Singapore's foreign minister, George Yeo, according to several participants at the meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072906416.html

[jazzbo]

What Professor K. Jackson really meant to say was that Thaksin S. was born in a log cabin and split wooden rails for the RTRR as a young boy...

[rreddin]

hahaha, wow just mention America and watch all the anti- American misfits come out of the woodwork! It's so predictable! hahaha:lol:

Indeed. Like clockwork. I'm expecting many more anti-America posts on this thread.

No, not anti-American; but, perhaps you can explain to us non-Americans just what right a committe of the US Congress thinks it has to involve itself in the affairs of another sovereign nation and to summon foreign nationals who are not in the USA to appear before it to give evidence under oath?

[Jingthing]

hahaha, wow just mention America and watch all the anti- American misfits come out of the woodwork! It's so predictable! hahaha:lol:

Indeed. Like clockwork. I'm expecting many more anti-America posts on this thread.

No, not anti-American; but, perhaps you can explain to us non-Americans just what right a committe of the US Congress thinks it has to involve itself in the affairs of another sovereign nation and to summon foreign nationals who are not in the USA to appear before it to give evidence under oath?

Here is the reason for the hearing; it was in the OP. What are you talking about, summoning foreign nationals for evidence? Didn't catch that part. Lots of countries involve themselves with other countries, no nation stands alone these days, even North Korea. Cheers.

The hearing by the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment preceded the US House of Representatives' vote that was almost unanimously in favour of peaceful solutions for the Thai crisis and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's reconciliation road map. Congressman Eni FH Faleomavaega, the subcommittee chairman, set the tone for the hearing by emphasising the long-term, solid relationship between the United States and its close friend and ally and every panellist stuck with that tone throughout the session, despite diversified opinions on causes and ways out.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Jingthing