Thaksin: A Continuing Menace

[Emptyset]

thaksin did more for thailand than anyone past or present.

Thaksin did some good stuff, and he did some not so good stuff - and he also did some awful stuff - actually the awful stuff is ongoing... but as far as him doing more for Thailand than anyone else, past or present, i can only think that to make such a statement, you must be completely unaware that Thailand has a King, a King who has been on the throne over sixty years, a King who has done more for Thailand than all of the politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected.

Sadly this claim cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And I was taught not to believe anything unless I could first scrutinize the claim carefully, with freedom and access to the full facts. I mean, I'd hardly believe a North Korean if they told me that Kim Jong-Il had done more for the country than any of the "politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected", even though it may well be true, I wouldn't believe that opinion because the North Korean that believes it hasn't been able to ever consider the claim with freedom and the full set of facts (or different sources of information) in front of him. So how could he possibly prove such a claim?

No more than blind faith, which is quite possibly what you have in common with the Pope! Not that I have a problem with people that believe in deities and other such fairy tales, it's their right to do so. But let's not pretend that there's any proof that these things exist in reality. You either believe or you don't. There's no reason, evidence or facts involved in the process.

Edit: I'm not trying to directly compare the monarchy with Kim Yong-Il, of course! I'm just saying why I cannot believe your claim without the full facts available to me, even though your claim might well be true.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

Eventually the "status quo" may no longer hold. Everyone dies. Thaksin wants to fill the vacuum. The fight for "democracy" is only being used as a tool to achieve his real goals (power and money). The news article

Arab revolts 're-energise' Thailand's Red Shirts states that Nattawut said:

Our aim is to prevail over the elite in Thailand

People who are protesting for democracy (and not for Thaksin) need to realize that they have been misled and should stop protesting with the UDD.

You make a valid point. And it's certainly one I've heard from a few Thais that don't support the red shirts. They argue things will change naturally anyway, it's inevitable, so why make a fuss now?

Of course, there's no way of proving that things will change naturally, and since the process has already started, perhaps it's not possible to stop it just like that. Like the UDD, or not, and I'm skeptical, their events do open space for dissent and challenge elite notions about the supposed apolitical "mai pen rai" attitude of the Thai working class or peasantry. True democratic activists can attend the UDD rally and influence them, passing on information or running workshops on democracy, like Sombat's Red Sunday group do. I noticed on Facebook that these leftist/progressive types are starting to call themselves "autonomous red shirts", to make it clear they're not under the UDD banner. It's one thing to look at what's said on stage, but it's perhaps more important for the longterm future of the red shirt to look at what's being said and done off the stage.

I was interested to see that Daeng Siam has their own smaller stage during the UDD rally, obviously it attracts far less people, but without the UDD rally there wouldn't be such a stage.

Incidentally, 112 is the lesse majeste law.

That's luuk thung singer Tom Dundee on the Daeng Siam stage. They seem to have regular rallies, even more regular than the UDD rallies. Obviously they don't attract that many people, seems to be a few hundred to a 1000 at the most.

I found these public albums on Facebook. At this rally the main speakers seem to be Jakrapob Penkair, Tom Dundee and a ladyboy: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=195607233803463&id=145047748859412&aid=46926

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=47041&id=145047748859412

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=100001132837917&aid=37377

[Buchholz]

Let the red-bandwidth, lower frequency, flames start up.

First, surely it was the EC that failed to run the election properly, not Thaksin?

Second, the coup was planned at least since February, which is before all the stuff you cite as a reason for the coup even happened. Sondhi reckons they (the elite) began making preparations for it at least year before: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae01.html

I'll have to remember now that in your eyes, Sondhi is someone who you consider trustworthy and factual in pronouncements.

I had not seen that previously in your posts that you consider him so reputable as to make such definitive declarations based on his say-so.

Fourth, just because you've heard nothing about those involved in the alleged car bomb plot doesn't mean "we" as a whole haven't. Three of the suspects received a jail sentence in 2009, although not for the assassination attempt itself (google: Jail terms in Thaksin 'car bomb' case), although the one who confessed wasn't jailed, he was spared for giving good evidence. Make of that what you will.

They weren't jailed for attempting to murder the Prime Minister because the court felt that there was no real attempt. The bomb and purported plan was so haphazard and unbelievable that he faced no real threat at all. They were convicted and sentenced to a few years in prison because of the potential bomb-making materials they possessed were illegal. A small penance for sacrificial lambs to try and lend credence to the whole hoax.

Also, there's plausible information in the Wikileaks released on Thailand that there was an assassination plot against Thaksin. I don't see why there wouldn't be, certainly there were and still are people that hate him enough to do it (especially as many see him as the root of all evil etc).

The wikileaks issue is all based upon hearsay and without any specificity with an extra helping of conjecture and innuendo.

And then there's the who leaked it to wikileaks aspect?

Hardly the basis for any sort of conspiracy to be seriously based upon.

.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

thaksin did more for thailand than anyone past or present.

Thaksin did some good stuff, and he did some not so good stuff - and he also did some awful stuff - actually the awful stuff is ongoing... but as far as him doing more for Thailand than anyone else, past or present, i can only think that to make such a statement, you must be completely unaware that Thailand has a King, a King who has been on the throne over sixty years, a King who has done more for Thailand than all of the politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected.

Sadly this claim cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And I was taught not to believe anything unless I could first scrutinize the claim carefully, with freedom and access to the full facts.

If you were to reserve passing judgment as to good or bad, or refuse to be drawn on forming opinion, until privy to all the facts on a given topic, you would simply forever be in a state of "undecided", because all the facts are rarely ever available, no matter what the subject matter might be, and even if they were, how would you possibly know?

[jayboy]

The wikileaks issue is all based upon hearsay and without any specificity with an extra helping of conjecture and innuendo.

And then there's the who leaked it to wikileaks aspect?

Hardly the basis for any sort of conspiracy to be seriously based upon.

No the Wikileaks information on Thailand is far from being conjecture and innuendo.That's your province.

The whole point about Wikileaks is that the reporters involved (in this instance the US Ambassador) was making his comments to the State Department, and had no reason to lie or dissemble.

In other words unless there is powerful evidence to the contrary, and there has been none yet, one must assume that the Wikileaks reports on Thailand are true and accurate.

[jayboy]

thaksin did more for thailand than anyone past or present.

Thaksin did some good stuff, and he did some not so good stuff - and he also did some awful stuff - actually the awful stuff is ongoing... but as far as him doing more for Thailand than anyone else, past or present, i can only think that to make such a statement, you must be completely unaware that Thailand has a King, a King who has been on the throne over sixty years, a King who has done more for Thailand than all of the politicians past and present put together who have ever been elected.

Sadly this claim cannot be subjected to critical scrutiny. And I was taught not to believe anything unless I could first scrutinize the claim carefully, with freedom and access to the full facts.

If you were to reserve passing judgment as to good or bad, or refuse to be drawn on forming opinion, until privy to all the facts on a given topic, you would simply forever be in a state of "undecided", because all the facts are rarely ever available, no matter what the subject matter might be, and even if they were, how would you possibly know?

One would look carefully at the evidence available, (ignore any hysteria, propaganda and fairy tales) and draw what seemed to be rational conclusions.

[Buchholz]

I was interested to see that Daeng Siam has their own smaller stage during the UDD rally, obviously it attracts far less people, but without the UDD rally there wouldn't be such a stage.

Incidentally, 112 is the lesse majeste law.

A group of Daeng Siam getting autographs on small photos of apparent idol Sae Daeng :

btw, it's easy to understand why Daeng Siam is against 112.

Their people, like Surachai (above right in the top photo), keep breaking the law and getting busted.

.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

The wikileaks issue is all based upon hearsay and without any specificity with an extra helping of conjecture and innuendo.

And then there's the who leaked it to wikileaks aspect?

Hardly the basis for any sort of conspiracy to be seriously based upon.

No the Wikileaks information on Thailand is far from being conjecture and innuendo.

So a specific declarative statement was made to assassinate Thaksin is in wikileaks?

That's one I've missed then.

The whole point about Wikileaks is that the reporters involved (in this instance the US Ambassador) was making his comments to the State Department, and had no reason to lie or dissemble.

It's known as the aforementioned hearsay. The alleged cables are what he's allegedly saying that someone else is allegedly saying.

You also have absolutely no knowledge of any of the Ambassador's motivations for any of the purported wikileak cables.

[jayboy]

You also have absolutely no knowledge of any of the Ambassador's motivations for any of the purported wikileak cables.

Do you have any inkling of how crazy this makes you sound?

An ambassador, particularly of a first tier country like the USA, reports the truth as he sees it.

[animatic]

The other parts continually forgotten for political convenience sake is that :

Thaksin was only care taker Prime Minister his last several months in office, after he had dissolved parliament,

His only mandate was removed, by his own action,

except to minimally steer the country as caretaker

and primarily responsible to run the coming election properly.

And specifically WITHIN the time frame the constitution mandates.

Thaksin had not run the election properly, and then his mandate as care taker PM had expired.

He had gone to the palace, apparently received no confidence there and publicly resigned / stepped down as Care Taker Prime Minister.

Thaksin resigns china daily 2006-04-05 08:52

His Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Vanasatidya was named Caretaker Prime Minister for a new period.

April 7, 2006

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the resignation of Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra would make no difference to relations between the neighbouring countries.

Thaksin, who resigned Tuesday after months of demonstrations, has appointed his deputy Chidchai Vanasatidya to replace him as caretaker prime minister.

Thaksin resigns, Asia Tribune

Thaksin then a week or so later he decided unilaterally, on his own, to take back the Care Taker Prime ministers job.

Thaksin Resigns.....Or Does He? by The Editor on Fri 07 Apr 2006 03:07 PM PDT

He had not gone back to the palace to be signed off on for a replacement term as CTPM by HRM, so he was no longer legally CTPM.

Then his side engineered the sham bomb attack on him by lackies in Pimalopes security bureau and tried to use that as an excuse to take full control via a State of Emergency. Anyone see anything further about that patsy lieutenant who was in the car? Thought not. He has quietly gone about his business, no word on him being in jail serving his term for trying to 'assassinate the PM' as Team Thaksin would have had us believe. It and the patsy all were swept under the table and into the past.

At this point the army had had enough of him.

Waited till he was enough out of touch to not react quickly, and was also doing something unconstitutional; attempting to speak at the UN as if her were the Prime Minister of Thailand and not a Caretaker.

They pulled the plug. So yes there was a coup to remove an illegally serving, extra-constitutional, FORMER PM, who had tried to wrest absolute control of the country via a sham assassination attempt, when he didn't even hold the current mandate fro the job under the '97 constitutional rules.

.

Ah, but this is all about Democracy, is it?

Democracy is not his aim, only a tool.

Let the red-bandwidth, lower frequency, flames start up.

First, surely it was the EC that failed to run the election properly, not Thaksin?

Second, the coup was planned at least since February, which is before all the stuff you cite as a reason for the coup even happened. Sondhi reckons they (the elite) began making preparations for it at least year before: http://www.atimes.co...a/ID27Ae01.html

Third, an election was scheduled before the coup happened. Thaksin would've definitely held one and won it. I don't understand this "caretaker" argument people are making. Yes, it's technically true, but it makes it sound like Thaksin wanted to avoid an election. Thaksin was never afraid of elections, unlike certain other parties. He was afraid of public scrutiny and debate but not of elections!

Of course, elections aren't all there is to a democracy, and I won't argue that Thaksin was 'democratic', even though he was democratically elected.

Fourth, just because you've heard nothing about those involved in the alleged car bomb plot doesn't mean "we" as a whole haven't. Three of the suspects received a jail sentence in 2009, although not for the assassination attempt itself (google: Jail terms in Thaksin 'car bomb' case), although the one who confessed wasn't jailed, he was spared for giving good evidence. Make of that what you will.

Thaksin's mentioned the plot at least once since then, probably more.

Also, there's plausible information in the Wikileaks released on Thailand that there was an assassination plot against Thaksin. I don't see why there wouldn't be, certainly there were and still are people that hate him enough to do it (especially as many see him as the root of all evil etc).

Oh quick, hindsight damage control.

It's not working, you do realize this?

Guess not. Domage.

Technically true means it IS true.

As Caretaker PM he is suposed to make sure the EC does it's job.

That is one of the few of his responsibilities as care taker PM.

Be there if things really need to be dealt with, but make no major moves and make sure the election comes off properly.

Edited March 17, 2011 by animatic

[zzaa09]

One would look carefully at the evidence available, (ignore any hysteria, propaganda and fairy tales) and draw what seemed to be rational conclusions.

Subliminally rhetorical. Examining the evidence available will not always guarantee any such "rational" conclusions. Access to unavailable evidence and info would be even more helpful in determining a more realistic and truer conclusion. Remembering that information and sources thereof will naturally be subjective and difficult to attain. Research, per se, will always be under the scrutiny of the subjectivity.....absolutes need not apply.

[teetersb]

One would look carefully at the evidence available, (ignore any hysteria, propaganda and fairy tales) and draw what seemed to be rational conclusions.

Subliminally rhetorical. Examining the evidence available will not always guarantee any such "rational" conclusions. Access to unavailable evidence and info would be even more helpful in determining a more realistic and truer conclusion. Remembering that information and sources thereof will naturally be subjective and difficult to attain. Research, per se, will always be under the scrutiny of the subjectivity.....absolutes need not apply.

Exactly! Recently (2005), while attending university in the U.S., several of my professors gave a few directives for students to follow. 1. All evidence must be verifiable and put into our bibliography. 2. Wikipidea sources will not be allowed and students will be reprimanded for their use. 3. Students that use Wikipedia sources after a reprimanded will receive a 0 on any further works submitted with Wiki sources.

[Panhandler007]

Taksin was elected `fairly`. It seems the only problem is that the BKK elite think that the rural poor DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. They are basically saying that the poor are too stupid to make an informed choice! <deleted>!

My girl in BKK says the SAME THING! I thought Thailand was a democratic nation!

[Oberkommando]

Until people realise that it is the military interference in politics (among other things) that is holding Thailand back, and not Thaksin, as odious as he is, we won't be getting anywhere in the near future.

A little bit of fortune telling for you, Thaksin's proxies will win an election, maybe not this one but they will win again eventually, and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

Until the military and their cronies are brought to task by a strong civilian government then unrest will continue, and probably worsen into civil disturbance and even conflict as we saw last year at Rajaprasong.

You're busy blaming the wrong people for Thailand's ills I'm afraid.

[gregb]

Until people realise that it is the military interference in politics (among other things) that is holding Thailand back, and not Thaksin, as odious as he is, we won't be getting anywhere in the near future.

A little bit of fortune telling for you, Thaksin's proxies will win an election, maybe not this one but they will win again eventually, and the whole cycle will repeat itself.

Until the military and their cronies are brought to task by a strong civilian government then unrest will continue, and probably worsen into civil disturbance and even conflict as we saw last year at Rajaprasong.

You're busy blaming the wrong people for Thailand's ills I'm afraid.

I'm not blaming the wrong person for Thailand's ills. The military is an institution. They have their own agenda for sure, but any institution is just a piece on the political board. Blaming the military is like blaming the judiciary. They are simply an unelected part of Thai government that must be viewed in context. You may agree with their agenda or disagree, but they aren't going anywhere, and they aren't trying to be all powerful. Stay out of their sandbox, and they stay out of yours.

Thaksin is a single individual, whose sole purpose was to usurp the democratic freedoms being slowly gained by the Thai people and install himself as dictator, similar to what Hun Sen has done in Cambodia. His megalomania knows no bounds, and there is no limit to his thirst for power.

The military influence is tolerable. There are checks and balances against them.

The tyranny of Thaksin is not.

Edit:

It does seem that Amsterdam is turning up the heat on this forum. It goes in spurts. It was quite nice for a while. I suppose Thaksin must have authorized another amount to be spent on lobbying ahead of the upcoming elections.

Edited March 19, 2011 by gregb

[zzaa09]

Taksin was elected `fairly`. It seems the only problem is that the BKK elite think that the rural poor DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. They are basically saying that the poor are too stupid to make an informed choice! <deleted>!

My girl in BKK says the SAME THING! I thought Thailand was a democratic nation!

Yes. These ideals are Thai-style Democracy. Don't tow the elite's line......a coup is in order.

[jayboy]

Blaming the military is like blaming the judiciary. They are simply an unelected part of Thai government that must be viewed in context. You may agree with their agenda or disagree, but they aren't going anywhere, and they aren't trying to be all powerful. Stay out of their sandbox, and they stay out of yours.

The military influence is tolerable. There are checks and balances against them.

Many many well informed people would completely disagree with you.The military is out of control in Thailand.They don't take orders from anyone (not a criticism one could levy against the judiciary)

What are these checks and balances you speak of anyway?

[ib1b4]

A viewpoint that very few have made in the past, Thaksin was removed because HE did not share the corruption pie out evenly as was always the case by former PMs .and this is why HE cannot be allowed to re enter Thailands political scene.

[zzaa09]

[sic].... the democratic freedoms being slowly gained by the Thai people....

And when have they garnered any such precious democratic freedoms over the years or decades?

Edited March 20, 2011 by zzaa09

[zzaa09]

The military influence is tolerable.

Yes. If that's all you know.

[rixalex]

The military is out of control in Thailand.

Actually the military is very well controlled in Thailand, it's just that it is not controlled by corrupt politicians. Perhaps the day when politicians actually start acting responsibly and on behalf of their fellow countrymen who voted them in, and not just for themselves, their mates and their family, the military might take a step back and allow democracy to freely function without interference.

Until then, their interference will be by many well informed people, not only accepted, but applauded, as the military is all that stands in Thailand between politicians and the totalitarian state so many of them hunger.

[jayboy]

The military is out of control in Thailand.

Actually the military is very well controlled in Thailand, it's just that it is not controlled by corrupt politicians. Perhaps the day when politicians actually start acting responsibly and on behalf of their fellow countrymen who voted them in, and not just for themselves, their mates and their family, the military might take a step back and allow democracy to freely function without interference.

Until then, their interference will be by many well informed people, not only accepted, but applauded, as the military is all that stands in Thailand between politicians and the totalitarian state so many of them hunger.

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

[rixalex]

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

[warfie]

"I promise that I will make all Thai people rich within six months."

This comes from the mouth of someone who promised to solve Bangkok's traffic problems within 6/9/12 Months, I don't remember. But anyway, it was a lie like everything from this mouth.

It could be done... just kill-off all the poor, then "all Thai people are rich"

You know... "war-on-drugs" style

[jayboy]

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

Actually what you say doesn't make much sense.There's no real evidence that Thaksin would have sought to diminish the military's position.He would rather have sought to increase his control over it, and there's lots of evidence to support that including the promotion of his allies and relatives.The challenge in Thailand is to clip the wings of the military so that it cannot be exploited politically by powerful interests, whether Thaksin or the current oligarchy.This is separate of course from the need to cut away at the military's greed, corruption, lack of accountability and cruelty.The appalling generals who run the military claim they are motivated by love of country.This is patently a lie.They are motivated by business interests, greed and support for reaction.

Some of their disgusting behaviour would be bearable if they were at least competent, but this is hardly ever the case whether in the South or elsewhere.

[animatic]

Right the evidence points to Thaksin wanting to take control of the military, because he tried to take control of pretty much everything he could. To imagine a 'civilian' megalomaniac controlling the army is better than professional soldiers, but not megalomaniacs, with some semblance of discipline, in Thailand is just not cutting the mustard logically.

This is not a utopia will do situation.

Rixalex was asking a question by the way.

Q.

"Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here... and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end?"

A.

No.

Thaksin in total control of the military is the largest menace for Thailand imaginable. A military lead has to listen to subordinates and DEMAND feedback and accurate information from them. This is one of Thaksins weakest points.

[ Thaksin stated after, I believe, Somkid Jatusripitak quit his cabinet:

"It doesn't matter if any of them quit, I am the only one doing and work here anyway."

Edited March 20, 2011 by animatic

[rixalex]

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

Actually what you say doesn't make much sense.There's no real evidence that Thaksin would have sought to diminish the military's position.He would rather have sought to increase his control over it, and there's lots of evidence to support that including the promotion of his allies and relatives.The challenge in Thailand is to clip the wings of the military so that it cannot be exploited politically by powerful interests, whether Thaksin or the current oligarchy.This is separate of course from the need to cut away at the military's greed, corruption, lack of accountability and cruelty.The appalling generals who run the military claim they are motivated by love of country.This is patently a lie.They are motivated by business interests, greed and support for reaction.

Some of their disgusting behaviour would be bearable if they were at least competent, but this is hardly ever the case whether in the South or elsewhere.

To me, installing all your civilian chums and assorted family members in positions of power amounts effectively to the same as the sweeping aside you spoke of earlier.

[Buchholz]

You just parrot the tired rhetoric of military controlled banana republics.They were swept away elsewhere and eventually will be in Thailand.

Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here (to your great satisfaction) and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end? You clearly think so. Anyone who doesn't, you promptly label.

Actually what you say doesn't make much sense.There's no real evidence that Thaksin would have sought to diminish the military's position.He would rather have sought to increase his control over it, and there's lots of evidence to support that including the promotion of his allies and relatives.The challenge in Thailand is to clip the wings of the military so that it cannot be exploited politically by powerful interests, whether Thaksin or the current oligarchy.This is separate of course from the need to cut away at the military's greed, corruption, lack of accountability and cruelty.The appalling generals who run the military claim they are motivated by love of country.This is patently a lie.They are motivated by business interests, greed and support for reaction.

Some of their disgusting behaviour would be bearable if they were at least competent, but this is hardly ever the case whether in the South or elsewhere.

To me, installing all your civilian chums and assorted family members in positions of power amounts effectively to the same as the sweeping aside you spoke of earlier.

And they were the worst of the incompetents in the Army that jayboy mentioned.

It was all a matter of solidifying all aspects of the House, military, the supposedly non-partisan Senate, and every bureaucratic entity and branch of the country imaginable to solidify his promise of a 20 year-long reign for his Thai Rak Thai.

All of which is what Marcos did in the Philippines in order to solidify his 20 year-long reign.

They were very similar in a number of regards, not excluding their mutual extravagant wives in poofed-up hairdo's and a brood of brats.

.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

I'm not blaming the wrong person for Thailand's ills. The military is an institution. They have their own agenda for sure, but any institution is just a piece on the political board. Blaming the military is like blaming the judiciary. They are simply an unelected part of Thai government that must be viewed in context. You may agree with their agenda or disagree, but they aren't going anywhere, and they aren't trying to be all powerful. Stay out of their sandbox, and they stay out of yours.

Umm... so what "sandbox" were the military in in 2008 when they refused to take orders from a civilian government, instead calling on that government to step down in a TV broadcast? What sandbox were the in when they brokered the deal between Newin & the Democrats?

Thaksin had interfered with the military during his premiership (but why should an elected government not have power over the military?), including appointing his idiot cousin Chaiyasit as army commander at one point. But in the end, he was still forced to appoint Sonthi as army commander in 2005, which is what lead to his downfall. Thaksin's main mistake was upsetting Prem and the "amaat" network. That's the real reason for the 2006 coup. When Thaksin let Prem have his choice of promotions and initially kept Surayud on as army chief, he could only say positive things about Thaksin.

The army isn't monolithic and it doesn't act alone. Successful coups since 1973 have always been backed by the amaat (except possibly the Suchinda coup and definitely the Kriengsak coup). I would argue the army hasn't been a powerful autonomous political agent since 1973 when it's credibility was destroyed by the 14th October killings. In general, after that point it's actions have always been on behalf of - or supported by - a powerbase that was not primarily located within the military. Suchinda was perhaps the exception, but when he tried to become PM based on his support in the military, well... look what happened. So it's difficult to discuss the military without also discussing other institutions.

Thaksin is a single individual, whose sole purpose was to usurp the democratic freedoms being slowly gained by the Thai people and install himself as dictator, similar to what Hun Sen has done in Cambodia. His megalomania knows no bounds, and there is no limit to his thirst for power.

The military influence is tolerable. There are checks and balances against them.

The tyranny of Thaksin is not.

Surely his "sole purpose" wasn't to destroy democratic freedoms. That sounds a bit silly. I'm sure he had other purposes too. In any case, when he'd lost the support of the amaat, he was out pretty quickly. That shows how powerful he was. Of course if he hadn't lost the support of the middle class then the coup might not have been possible. Of course, he lost the support of the middle class primarily because of issues regards the Shin Corp sale and taxation, rather than much to do with democratic freedoms. Although some people that opposed him definitely were motivated by these concerns, I'd think a minority though, as he had strong support in Bangkok during & after the war on drugs & his policy disasters in the South. Those are what I consider by far his worst crimes.

The problem is Thailand needs to build strong, democratic, independent institutions, including parliament and judiciary, and support civil society and an independent media as checks and balances. Not rely on the military or unelected elites to act as the guardians of the country, however good you might consider them to be. That road only leads to more trouble in the long run. If it's not Thaksin it'll be someone else. And as I pointed out before, Thaksin had the support of these institutions during his worst actions and his biggest betrayals of democracy and the rule of law.

Edit:

It does seem that Amsterdam is turning up the heat on this forum. It goes in spurts. It was quite nice for a while. I suppose Thaksin must have authorized another amount to be spent on lobbying ahead of the upcoming elections.

So it's "nice" when there's a cosy consensus, but if someone dares to argue, then it's not "nice"? What's the point in taking part in a discussion forum if you take that view? Surely the best discussion forums encourage different perspectives and debate, even if some posters positions are ridiculous or hard to comprehend? Or would you rather just read 20 posts saying pretty much the same thing because you find it "nice"? Because there's only one correct way to understand the situation and it's just impossible to understand how anyone can take a different point of view unless they're being paid? I just don't know why you'd say this, especially as the person you're replying to joined the board well before Amsterdam came on the scene.

It might be surprising to you, but people were taking anti-military, anti-elite positions before Amsterdam started to represent Thaksin. Some of the most respected academics in Thai studies have also criticized the military for the coup and come to the conclusion Thaksin isn't the only problem, or even that he's not the real problem at all. I just find it so bizarre that people think anyone who takes an anti-military, anti-elite line must be paid by Amsterdam and that Amsterdam invented this whole line of argument. After reading some of his posts, a lot of it seems to be just clippings from academics or other writers, and much of what Amsterdam writes himself isn't really anything that's not been discussed before.*

But even if the arguments do come from Amsterdam, why does it matter if that person believes it? Surely you could just refute the argument without caring whether people of has swallowed propaganda or had received financial recompense? It doesn't mean their argument is wrong if they got paid. I mean I don't really have a problem with people being paid, as long as they believe in what they're saying. In fact even if they don't believe what they're saying, I'd try to deal with the argument and not worry about what their motivations are. I just find posts that point out someone's assumed motivations without dealing with the argument really irritating. There's actually a red shirt blog that I stopped reading because it seems to do this a lot (it's called Thai Political Prisoners).

I've heard the same argument about paid propagandists from some red shirts, suggesting that anyone that disagrees with them must have a vested interest in propping up the amaat regime. It's just ridiculous. Maybe a handful of those taking part in the argument do have a vested interest, but most don't.

*But after skimming some of the white paper, I'd certainly agree that it's mostly fantasy intended to propagandize, but then it's obvious he's not going to be objective.

[Emptyset]

Q.

"Had Thaksin had his way, he would have swept them aside here... and would that have led to a greater, fairer and stronger democracy in the end?"

A.

No.

Thaksin in total control of the military is the largest menace for Thailand imaginable. A military lead has to listen to subordinates and DEMAND feedback and accurate information from them. This is one of Thaksins weakest points.

[ Thaksin stated after, I believe, Somkid Jatusripitak quit his cabinet:

"It doesn't matter if any of them quit, I am the only one doing and work here anyway."

You're right about the feedback part. This was one of the problems in the Deep South. Thaksin took advice from his selected advisers who had no real knowledge of what was happening on the ground, whilst ignoring those who had deep knowledge and contacts because he decided he couldn't trust them as he suspected they were close to the Democrat party or the amaat. Added to the fact that Thaksin only tends to skim documents and make snap decisions, rather than reading deeply & widely to gain understanding & perspective... well, recipe for disaster, really. He'd completely misunderstood the situation.

Didn't Jakrapob say that in the cabinet meetings no one would criticize Thaksin or offer advice unless he specifically asked for it?