Thaksin: 'democracy Is Not My Goal'

[Jerrytheyoung]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

[Ricardo]

No they didn't. It had nothing to do with PAD's protests. (Aside from timing)

Democrats gained power through the formation of a coalition government following the lawful disbandment of TRT for electoral fraud.

Sorry to disagree, but the Democrat-led coalition came to power in December-2008, following the lawful disbandment of the PPP, who had failed to learn from the earlier-example of TRT, that party-executives plotting to rig elections was no-longer acceptable.

[Wolfie]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

Yeah cos the truth is very biased, right?

[Jingthing]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

Thaksin said these things. What is biased? Clear thinkers who watched Thaksin while he was in power know democracy is not his thing. Total power for him is his thing.

[animatic]

How can one reconcile the 67 million daily strivings for better status and social position,

within a infintely layered, kow tow, class system, centuries old and ingrained

in every individual Thai mentality, and arbitrarily call it Hi so and Low so.

Some have had more successes in that social field and ar agrogant and shouldn't be,

others have had limited success and somehow imagines demanding that the successful

be arbitrarilly bought down to their level will then raise them higher in status and money.

Sadly that just brings the well to do lower, and doesn't create opportunity for the poor,

only jobs and education and stopping over striving middle men for robbing them of

their hard earned work pay, will change this sycle.

[Moonrakers]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

[Ricardo]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

You mean Thaksin didn't used to say this sort of thing ? Is it factually wrong ? Or just that former-PM Thaksin has now seen the error of his (then) ways, not that he was wrong, we know he never is ?

A particular personal favourite, sorry I forget exactly when (perhaps the summer of 2006 ?), was when he told reporters not to bother asking the rest of his Cabinet anything, as only he made the decisions ! I recall being most impressed with his democratic understanding and credentials at-the-time !

[Jingthing]

Yep, he was a crazy BULLY while in power. Imagine what he will be like if he ever manages to re-take power after all the resistance he has had to deal with. It isn't pretty.

[yoshiwara]

The Thaksin apologists know precisely that democracy is not the goal of Thaksin.

It wasn't then and it isn't now.

Democracy is something for Thaksin to pick up and throw away if and when he chooses.

The question Thaksin always asks re a policy is whether that policy is perceived to be in his interests at the time of asking.

Always disposable.

Always.

No exceptions.

No principles.

Except his wealth and his power.

[mrtoad]

in any case, the initial post is 5 or 6 years old. it has been ressuscited for obvious propaganda reasons. It is fully biased.

Well, often the truth comes back to haunt hypocrites.

[junkofdavid2]

I'm amazed that as far back as then, the print news was so blatantly biased as Thaksin clearly said that democracy is not his ultimate goal, and never did he say it is "not his goal". He even (may have) been saying that democracy is a "vehicle" to reach happiness and progress for the people, if the article is read giving him the 'benefit of the doubt'.

He's no saint and I'll take Abhisit anytime, but for a "respectable" broadsheet to give a misleading headline like this is appalling.

[ballpoint]

I'm amazed that as far back as then, the print news was so blatantly biased as Thaksin clearly said that democracy is not his ultimate goal, and never did he say it is "not his goal". He even (may have) been saying that democracy is a "vehicle" to reach happiness and progress for the people, if the article is read giving him the 'benefit of the doubt'.

He's no saint and I'll take Abhisit anytime, but for a "respectable" broadsheet to give a misleading headline like this is appalling.

So that makes it better? "Democracy is not my ultimate goal". "I'll go along with the charade as long as it suits me, but my ultimate goal is not democracy, it's a dictatorship, with family members installed as head of the peoples' police and military, and me installed as dear leader. When the time sadly comes, and I move to that great sewer in the sky, little Oak shall take the reins and carry the dynasty on".

[animatic]

We can see from this that even in 2003 the faux construct that was TRT,

was really held together like any coalition by patronage of graft and power money = power politics.

This charter re-write attempt... sound familiar?... was being used as a shake down of Thaksin

in the INVERSE theme to what the SAME PLAYERS are using to shake down Abhisits coalition today.

The Silpa Archa show me the money theme.

Where anyone gets the idea TRT was such a breath of fresh air in Thai politics is unimaginable.

Oh, well if you listen to their PR pundits maybe. If not just same old same old, but more malignant

and repackaged for a newer fresher LOOK, but the taste and feel were just as squishy and over ripe as before.

Edited March 22, 2010 by animatic

[blackman]

given that the OP is George and that George is connected to The Nation via TV , is it not possible that the Nation be made aware of this early Thaksin rhetoric about his version of Democracy and that they give it a re-run too ?

Edited March 22, 2010 by blackman

[brahmburgers]

Apologies for dredging up a seven year old old thread, but I think its useful to reflect on just what Thaksin is actually fighting for, and where a lot of this sentiment has come from. Seven years is a long time, and its understandable if some people forget what he told he the world what he actually wants. It sure as heck is not Democracy. He does not give a hoot about democracy now, or when he was in power. Its all rhetoric. The only thing he cares about is regaining a strangle hold on the reins of power. Remember too how he also once said “my government will work for those who vote for me”. This is the guy many people on here want to see regain the seat of power in this country. Scary stuff.

I think it's good you dredged this old thread up. Some of the newer observers might need some historical perspective, and some others can use a refresher once in awhile to remind what T and the Shinawats represent.

It's also worth noting that while he was PM, whenever a report was published that put Thai political leaders (at the time, it was TRT) in an unfavorable light, Thaksin would immediately declare that whomever published the report was biased and misinformed and totally wrong. He did it with Amnesty International reports and Int'l Commission on Human Rights reports .....and others. Sort of like "The UN is not my father" mentality.

Of course, if the shoe was on the other foot, and an Int'l report came out which praised Thaksin, then that would elicit the opposite response, and he would publicly crow about it as proof of what a great leader he is. Some of that's just human nature, but it also reflects Thaksin's proclivity for only hearing praises, and wanting to shut up anyone/any organization that's not lavishing praises - as he did repeatedly with his penchant for slapping lawsuits on anyone who stepped out of line.

[321niti123]

What is it with these people and the word "PM" you guys keep saying "PM Thaksin" when he not a PM anymore, he is an fugitive from the thai government.

BTW...if he doesn't want to use democracy, the only other probable solution is dictatorship, sure dictatorship is orderly and get things done, but at what cost, at the lives of the people, at the freedom of the people, and all the while the fundamental problem still remains-the power is still held by a few to govern the majority, and isn't that what thaksin really wants to get rid of???

[lannarebirth]

I'm amazed that as far back as then, the print news was so blatantly biased as Thaksin clearly said that democracy is not his ultimate goal, and never did he say it is "not his goal". He even (may have) been saying that democracy is a "vehicle" to reach happiness and progress for the people, if the article is read giving him the 'benefit of the doubt'.

He's no saint and I'll take Abhisit anytime, but for a "respectable" broadsheet to give a misleading headline like this is appalling.

Here are a few other things he's said:

“Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?”

"The protesters are exerting mob rule over the rule of law, which I can't accept.”

“I will protect democracy with my life.”

“I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward, I want to rest now. It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses.”

[321niti123]

What is it with these people and the word "PM" you guys keep saying "PM Thaksin" when he not a PM anymore, he is an fugitive from the thai government.

BTW...if he doesn't want to use democracy, the only other probable solution is dictatorship, sure dictatorship is orderly and get things done, but at what cost, at the lives of the people, at the freedom of the people, and all the while the fundamental problem still remains-the power is still held by a few to govern the majority, and isn't that what thaksin really wants to get rid of???

Im sorry, i didnt realize that the topic was since 03, my apologies to those who were offended by my remarks, i'm not really in a good mood today, pissed by teacher comments- still in school.

And i do realize that i quoted myself, but i dont know how to remove the previous quote

Edited March 22, 2010 by 321niti123

[TAWP]

If anyone has the audioclips it would be appreciated.

[brahmburgers]

Here are a few other things he's said:

“Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?”

"The protesters are exerting mob rule over the rule of law, which I can't accept.”

“I will protect democracy with my life.”

“I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward, I want to rest now. It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses.”

He also said, right after the Krue Swe mosque killings (by Thai authorities during his watch), that from that point on, he would be completely in charge whenever such stand-offs happened in the future. I don't have the exact quote, but it included something like; '.....everybody has cell phones now, so it's not difficult to stay in direct contact.' Not long after the first incident, there was the Tak Bai incident, also in the troubled South, and also while Thaksin was PM. That one claimed over 70 young Muslim men's lives, all of whom were in gov't custody at the time. Needless to say, neither Thaksin nor any of the officials at the scene were ever held responsible.

He also said, while he was PM, that his wife was his top adviser. With all the bad decisions that came forth during his term as PM, it doesn't reflect well on Pojamin's judgements or indeed, the person who followed her advice (add vice?).

[Bagwan]

Here are a few other things he's said:

“Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?”

"The protesters are exerting mob rule over the rule of law, which I can't accept.”

“I will protect democracy with my life.”

“I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward, I want to rest now. It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses.”

He also said, right after the Krue Swe mosque killings (by Thai authorities during his watch), that from that point on, he would be completely in charge whenever such stand-offs happened in the future. I don't have the exact quote, but it included something like; '.....everybody has cell phones now, so it's not difficult to stay in direct contact.' Not long after the first incident, there was the Tak Bai incident, also in the troubled South, and also while Thaksin was PM. That one claimed over 70 young Muslim men's lives, all of whom were in gov't custody at the time. Needless to say, neither Thaksin nor any of the officials at the scene were ever held responsible.

He also said, while he was PM, that his wife was his top adviser. With all the bad decisions that came forth during his term as PM, it doesn't reflect well on Pojamin's judgements or indeed, the person who followed her advice (add vice?).

It does not follow that he followed her advice. I have always felt, without proof of course merely conjecture on my part, that she was the brains and shrewder of the pair; certainly she ended up with most of the money. Could it have been that the parting of their ways, if in fact that is the case and not a tactic to safeguard their selfish interests, came because she could see that the game was up and from there on in it was going to be all downhill? He, with overbearing arrogance sufficient to keep thousands off my Christmas card list, thought otherwise? Was his mantra 'And tomorrow, the World'? He was, remember, once touted as the leader of SE Asia. I wonder who kicked off that train of thought? No prizes to be won for a correct guess.

[siampolee]

Aha, petticoat government.

[Samuian]

Here are a few other things he's said:

“Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?”

"The protesters are exerting mob rule over the rule of law, which I can't accept.”

“I will protect democracy with my life.”

“I have decided that if I have to rest to let the country move forward, I want to rest now. It's not that I'm not willing to fight, but when I fight, the nation loses.”

He also said, right after the Krue Swe mosque killings (by Thai authorities during his watch), that from that point on, he would be completely in charge whenever such stand-offs happened in the future. I don't have the exact quote, but it included something like; '.....everybody has cell phones now, so it's not difficult to stay in direct contact.' Not long after the first incident, there was the Tak Bai incident, also in the troubled South, and also while Thaksin was PM. That one claimed over 70 young Muslim men's lives, all of whom were in gov't custody at the time. Needless to say, neither Thaksin nor any of the officials at the scene were ever held responsible.

He also said, while he was PM, that his wife was his top adviser. With all the bad decisions that came forth during his term as PM, it doesn't reflect well on Pojamin's judgements or indeed, the person who followed her advice (add vice?).

It does not follow that he followed her advice. I have always felt, without proof of course merely conjecture on my part, that she was the brains and shrewder of the pair; certainly she ended up with most of the money. Could it have been that the parting of their ways, if in fact that is the case and not a tactic to safeguard their selfish interests, came because she could see that the game was up and from there on in it was going to be all downhill? He, with overbearing arrogance sufficient to keep thousands off my Christmas card list, thought otherwise? Was his mantra 'And tomorrow, the World'? He was, remember, once touted as the leader of SE Asia. I wonder who kicked off that train of thought? No prizes to be won for a correct guess.

It's a self portraying, well known "secret"!

I wonder how far this "amazing couple" is ready to go...?

[metisdead]

What is it with these people and the word "PM" you guys keep saying "PM Thaksin" when he not a PM anymore, he is an fugitive from the thai government.

BTW...if he doesn't want to use democracy, the only other probable solution is dictatorship, sure dictatorship is orderly and get things done, but at what cost, at the lives of the people, at the freedom of the people, and all the while the fundamental problem still remains-the power is still held by a few to govern the majority, and isn't that what thaksin really wants to get rid of???

Im sorry, i didnt realize that the topic was since 03, my apologies to those who were offended by my remarks, i'm not really in a good mood today, pissed by teacher comments- still in school.

And i do realize that i quoted myself, but i dont know how to remove the previous quote

Go back to the post you wish to edit, there should be an edit button down on the bottom right, click that and select full edit or partial edit. When done click complete edit. Hope that helps.

[Wolfie]

Go back to the post you wish to edit, there should be an edit button down on the bottom right, click that and select full edit or partial edit. When done click complete edit. Hope that helps.

That's not always possible, the forum software removes that functionality after a set period of time (i am not sure of the exact time) - this is to prevent people from making a post then editing it the next day to say something completely different.

[PeaceBlondie]

"'Where in the world is a single-party government called a dictatorship? What's wrong with it when people have faith in me?'”

Mexico was under the rule of the PRI party for over 70 years. Widely known as the perfect dictatorship. There were regular elections, fraud, corruption, etc. Dr. Thaksin's doctoral dissertation was on government fraud.

[way2muchcoffee]

Mexico was under the rule of the PRI party for over 70 years. Widely known as the perfect dictatorship. There were regular elections, fraud, corruption, etc. Dr. Thaksin's doctoral dissertation was on government fraud.

Nah, he was just doing some policy research. Wanted to make sure he got it right. LOL