Thaksin Campaigns For Pheu Thai Party

[whybother]

I'm not in any way defending the man, but here is something, to me, that makes zero sense.

1) He was convicted of corruption for "abuse of power" by signing a legal document that, BY THAI LAW, he is REQUIRED to sign if his wife (at the time) was buying property.

2) So, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED, as her husband, to sign it.

3) BUT the court then says he "abused his power" by signing it since he was PM at the time. Can anyone explain that to me in a rational manner?

4) The courts have since ruled that the land purchase was "Null and Void" which, in legal terms, means IT NEVER HAPPENED. The wife (ex now) had to give the land back, and she got her money back, plus interest.

5) So, therefore, if the courts ruled the deal was "Null & Void", and never legally happened, that means any documents he signed, in accordance with Thai law, are also "Null & Void", and therefore he cannot be guilty of "abuse of power".

Perhaps someone on here knows Thai law much better than I do, but as I stated earlier, this make zero sense to me. Unless, of course, you consider that TIT, where making sense of things is a totally alien concept to them.

<snip>

Not sure about 1-3, but in regards to 4 and 5, just because the transaction was made null and void does not mean that the crime suddenly vanishes.

If someone commits fraud and embezzlement, do they suddenly become innocent of the crime after they're caught if they pay back the money?

If you hit someone and break their nose, are you innocent when the nose heals and there is no evidence of the crime?

[rubl]

I'm not in any way defending the man, but here is something, to me, that makes zero sense.

1) He was convicted of corruption for "abuse of power" by signing a legal document that, BY THAI LAW, he is REQUIRED to sign if his wife (at the time) was buying property.

2) So, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED, as her husband, to sign it.

3) BUT the court then says he "abused his power" by signing it since he was PM at the time. Can anyone explain that to me in a rational manner?

4) The courts have since ruled that the land purchase was "Null and Void" which, in legal terms, means IT NEVER HAPPENED. The wife (ex now) had to give the land back, and she got her money back, plus interest.

5) So, therefore, if the courts ruled the deal was "Null & Void", and never legally happened, that means any documents he signed, in accordance with Thai law, are also "Null & Void", and therefore he cannot be guilty of "abuse of power".

Perhaps someone on here knows Thai law much better than I do, but as I stated earlier, this make zero sense to me. Unless, of course, you consider that TIT, where making sense of things is a totally alien concept to them.

As most of this post is a repeat of the 11th of Dec 2010 I just post the link with replies. Lazy me, I know

[Robby nz]

The KK uni has just released the results of a poll done over 2,354 people in 20 provinces of the Northeast from April 28 to May 3, thats an average of less than 15 people per province.

It concluded 63.9% would vote for Pheu Thai, 20.7 per cent for the Democrats and 9.1 per cent for Bhumjaithai.

Must be the airport for private jets that swayed them, after all Thaksin has promised to make them all rich in 6 months and the farmers can put their private jet on their new credit card.

Don Muang will be busy.

[hardy1943]

I'm not in any way defending the man, but here is something, to me, that makes zero sense.

1) He was convicted of corruption for "abuse of power" by signing a legal document that, BY THAI LAW, he is REQUIRED to sign if his wife (at the time) was buying property.

2) So, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED, as her husband, to sign it.

3) BUT the court then says he "abused his power" by signing it since he was PM at the time. Can anyone explain that to me in a rational manner?

4) The courts have since ruled that the land purchase was "Null and Void" which, in legal terms, means IT NEVER HAPPENED. The wife (ex now) had to give the land back, and she got her money back, plus interest.

5) So, therefore, if the courts ruled the deal was "Null & Void", and never legally happened, that means any documents he signed, in accordance with Thai law, are also "Null & Void", and therefore he cannot be guilty of "abuse of power".

Perhaps someone on here knows Thai law much better than I do, but as I stated earlier, this make zero sense to me. Unless, of course, you consider that TIT, where making sense of things is a totally alien concept to them.

Oh, and I also noticed someone said Thaksin's Goverment was the "most corrupt". I find that somewhat amusing, since Transparency International now rates Thailand as MORE corrupt than it was during the time when Thaksin was PM.

I have been here for 8 years and corruption is a way of life here. Put all those politicians in a bag pull them out and they all look the same.I myself find more corruption now and harassment especially from the police.

[whybother]

The KK uni has just released the results of a poll done over 2,354 people in 20 provinces of the Northeast from April 28 to May 3, thats an average of less than 15 people per province.

It concluded 63.9% would vote for Pheu Thai, 20.7 per cent for the Democrats and 9.1 per cent for Bhumjaithai.

Must be the airport for private jets that swayed them, after all Thaksin has promised to make them all rich in 6 months and the farmers can put their private jet on their new credit card.

Don Muang will be busy.

117 people per province.

[Robby nz]

You are correct sorry my typo.

Must learn to better check what I write.

[ramsesxix]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

That's right mate and for all that "free government" your going to pay for it. Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America. Sweden is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. I don't know what fantasy land others live in but the cost of things in Sweden are 20, 30, 40, 50% higher at least, Taxes both sales and personal are outrageous (all to pay for the social welfare system, which has it's major problems depite the propaganda) Swedish people in general are actually quite cold and rude (push past you, knock you down walking down the street) some people mistake being able to speak fluent english for helpfulness. The Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch (especially) are far more friendly. Things are fairly efficent but then it's also not a big country and has been industrialised for centuries so it's hardly surprising but the country does live on it's faded glory. Also don't be taken in by the great myth of a land of beautiful people or blond viking gods and godesses that's just plain wrong. Finland is actually the most expensive with Norway close on its heels. Reykjavik is one of the most expensive cities in the world, with Oslo as a close second.

I hope you are referring to Don Regan, the USSoT, not R. Reagan, the president. Either way, Regan served for Reagan, and did indeed lower personal income tax. This did increase tax revenue as well, not because of increased economic activity, but increased participation in the taxing system. Depending on too many factors to get into detail here, lowering the tax may increase or decrease tax revenue. You can take a look here if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why. It is myopic at best, and pandering at worst to proclaim that a tax reduction will increase tax revenue. Is it possible? Absolutely, especially in a society that is taxed to the hilt, as the US was when Jimmy Carter left office. And I am not saying that in theory, the 'lowering taxes' idea is not valid. Simply the degree to which I am familiar with tax scheme here (and who does and does not pay- and so on), its not a cut and dry matter- not to the overwhelming majority of the Thai population, and even less to us who pay taxes here, yet have no voice.

My - somewhat skeptical - concern is that with the number of hands in the Thai cookie jar, a reduction of tax could be devastating to the economy. I doubt any politician, or government employee who takes a cut of the tax revenue (I know such corrupt things do not happen here) is willing to take a pay cut. So if you lower the tax rate, then on a percentage basis a larger amount goes into the coffers of those 'corrupt' Thai officials we love to bash on the TV boards. As I pay less tax here than I did when I worked in the states at a comparable salary, it is hard for me to imagine cutting taxes would be a boon to this economy, especially given my tendency to think that a,) not all revenue is reported b.) lower taxes won't make any report previously unreported income and c) not all the revenue collected arrives at its intended destination.

Edited May 5, 2011 by ramsesxix

[neilf]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

You forgot to mention Ireland with its low company tax etc....maybe Khun Thaksin does not read the same press/media as you and I do

You forget about o' thaksins origins beejaysus

[Just1Voice]

I'm not in any way defending the man, but here is something, to me, that makes zero sense.

1) He was convicted of corruption for "abuse of power" by signing a legal document that, BY THAI LAW, he is REQUIRED to sign if his wife (at the time) was buying property.

2) So, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED, as her husband, to sign it.

3) BUT the court then says he "abused his power" by signing it since he was PM at the time. Can anyone explain that to me in a rational manner?

4) The courts have since ruled that the land purchase was "Null and Void" which, in legal terms, means IT NEVER HAPPENED. The wife (ex now) had to give the land back, and she got her money back, plus interest.

5) So, therefore, if the courts ruled the deal was "Null & Void", and never legally happened, that means any documents he signed, in accordance with Thai law, are also "Null & Void", and therefore he cannot be guilty of "abuse of power".

Perhaps someone on here knows Thai law much better than I do, but as I stated earlier, this make zero sense to me. Unless, of course, you consider that TIT, where making sense of things is a totally alien concept to them.

<snip>

Not sure about 1-3, but in regards to 4 and 5, just because the transaction was made null and void does not mean that the crime suddenly vanishes.

If someone commits fraud and embezzlement, do they suddenly become innocent of the crime after they're caught if they pay back the money?

If you hit someone and break their nose, are you innocent when the nose heals and there is no evidence of the crime?

Do some research and you'll find 1 & 3 are absolutely correct.

As for 4 & 5 - legally if the deal was ruled Null and Void, that means IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Therefore, legally, anything connect to that transaction is also Null & Void. The two comparisons you use about fraud/embezzlement and breaking someone's nose are not the same thing.

[whybother]

Do some research and you'll find 1 & 3 are absolutely correct.

As for 4 & 5 - legally if the deal was ruled Null and Void, that means IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Therefore, legally, anything connect to that transaction is also Null & Void. The two comparisons you use about fraud/embezzlement and breaking someone's nose are not the same thing.

It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it was reversed. It was still illegal to do it in the first place. That doesn't disappear.

[ramsesxix]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America.

Hmmm, maybe we don't remember the same Reagan.

Under Carter the the USA had a positive balance and Reagan presided over the largest budget deficit build up in American history. It would be more accurate to say that Reagan's Trickle-down economics has been proved to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

Governments need revenues to meet their responsibilities. For that the best solution is a fair tax code. That means one that is not regressive (as is the current tax code in the USA). Then the government does need to meet its responsibilities to invest in the country and the people : education, health & infrastructure. Thaskin did invest in health care for Thais. As for infrastructure, today there is no reason for any government not to invest heavily in renewable energies and focus on good environmental policies in infrastructure. This has been already proved to make good economic sense as well as being good for the planet, and it will be the wave of the future.

Thaskins' idea of building a city in the gulf of Thailand is a horrible idea for the environment, and (IMO) Thailand should not take its cue from Middle East countries who don't give a hoot about protecting the environment.

Regards,

Tom

I am sure he was correct with what he said, referencing Don Regan, the Sec. of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. He is also correct in saying the tax-cut in question resulted in a windfall of tax revenue. Beyond that he did not mention Reaganomics. The largest deficit you refer to (which is now dwarfed by the deficit on Obama's watch) was a result of spending. The deficit under Reagan was gone by the time Bill Clinton ran for for re-election in 1996 (8ish years). Any further discussion of US tax codes gets a bit too involved to delve into on TV boards... that coupled with my having better things to do

[SanSaiExPat]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America.

Under Reagan the US's deficit grew drastically.

And the late 80's saw the savings and loan crisis.

The long-term effects of Reagan's policies weren't good.

Amazing revisionist history. You couldn't be more wrong. Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and just as important, the creation of nearly 35 million jobs. The joint (Democrat and Republican) committee of the US Congress documented in the chart below the United States longest and strongest expansions in our history came under President Reagan. And to your first point the deficit in the United States actually fell as a percentage of GDP from 6% in 1983 to 3.2% in 1987

The foundation and ground work for the S&L Crisis was actually created decades before Reagan was elected when the government expanded the FDIC default insurance to the Savings and Loan Industry. Originally the FDIC only covered banks. Then in 1979 it was the decision by the chairman of the Fed, Paul Volker to restrict the growth of the money supply that caused interest rates to skyrocket. I know because I purchased my first home in California in 1981 and had a 30 year mortagage at 14% interest and considered myself lucky. Many were locked in at interest rates of 17% or more. Reagan came to the rescue in 1980-1981.

Edited May 5, 2011 by SanSaiExPat

[SanSaiExPat]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

That's right mate and for all that "free government" your going to pay for it. Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America. Sweden is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. I don't know what fantasy land others live in but the cost of things in Sweden are 20, 30, 40, 50% higher at least, Taxes both sales and personal are outrageous (all to pay for the social welfare system, which has it's major problems depite the propaganda) Swedish people in general are actually quite cold and rude (push past you, knock you down walking down the street) some people mistake being able to speak fluent english for helpfulness. The Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch (especially) are far more friendly. Things are fairly efficent but then it's also not a big country and has been industrialised for centuries so it's hardly surprising but the country does live on it's faded glory. Also don't be taken in by the great myth of a land of beautiful people or blond viking gods and godesses that's just plain wrong. Finland is actually the most expensive with Norway close on its heels. Reykjavik is one of the most expensive cities in the world, with Oslo as a close second.

I hope you are referring to Don Regan, the USSoT, not R. Reagan, the president. Either way, Regan served for Reagan, and did indeed lower personal income tax. This did increase tax revenue as well, not because of increased economic activity, but increased participation in the taxing system. Depending on too many factors to get into detail here, lowering the tax may increase or decrease tax revenue. You can take a look here if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why. It is myopic at best, and pandering at worst to proclaim that a tax reduction will increase tax revenue. Is it possible? Absolutely, especially in a society that is taxed to the hilt, as the US was when Jimmy Carter left office. And I am not saying that in theory, the 'lowering taxes' idea is not valid. Simply the degree to which I am familiar with tax scheme here (and who does and does not pay- and so on), its not a cut and dry matter- not to the overwhelming majority of the Thai population, and even less to us who pay taxes here, yet have no voice.

My - somewhat skeptical - concern is that with the number of hands in the Thai cookie jar, a reduction of tax could be devastating to the economy. I doubt any politician, or government employee who takes a cut of the tax revenue (I know such corrupt things do not happen here) is willing to take a pay cut. So if you lower the tax rate, then on a percentage basis a larger amount goes into the coffers of those 'corrupt' Thai officials we love to bash on the TV boards. As I pay less tax here than I did when I worked in the states at a comparable salary, it is hard for me to imagine cutting taxes would be a boon to this economy, especially given my tendency to think that a,) not all revenue is reported b.) lower taxes won't make any report previously unreported income and c) not all the revenue collected arrives at its intended destination.

Thanks for pointing out my misspelling of President Reagan's name. I've done that many times. I seem to have a preprogrammed tendency to do that. And yes, one could, I suppose, get confused and assume I was talking about Donald Regan. Anything's possible with Thai Visa members. However, your statement that the increase in revenue to the US Treasury was not due to increased economic activity but rather was attributable, in large part, to an increased in the number of people paying taxes is disingenuous and simply not true. Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. You might want to check here for more information. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676 These same policies could easily apply to Thailand as Thaksin has proposed.

[JockG]

At least Thatcher kidded us on she was for the country/people. This guy has been found out, tried and convicted yet so many of the peolpe continue to "support" him. They need to actaully look at what this guy has made for himself, stole for himself and taken from the Thai people!<BR><BR>Most Red Shirts were piad to be there, would not have been there had they known the violence that was coming and will not come back.<BR><BR>Why is a comited criminal given a voice? Can we not do a Bin Laden and get rid of this mouth piece of death?

[JockG]

At least Thatcher kidded us on she was for the country/people. This guy has been found out, tried and convicted yet so many of the peolpe continue to "support" him. They need to actaully look at what this guy has made for himself, stole for himself and taken from the Thai people!<BR><BR>Most Red Shirts were piad to be there, would not have been there had they known the violence that was coming and will not come back.<BR><BR>Why is a comited criminal given a voice? Can we not do a Bin Laden and get rid of this mouth piece of death?

Sorry about the spelling, anger and beer are a bad combination!!

[rubl]

Thanks for pointing out my misspelling of President Reagan's name. I've done that many times. I seem to have a preprogrammed tendency to do that. And yes, one could, I suppose, get confused and assume I was talking about Donald Regan. Anything's possible with Thai Visa members. However, your statement that the increase in revenue to the US Treasury was not due to increased economic activity but rather was attributable, in large part, to an increased in the number of people paying taxes is disingenuous and simply not true. Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. You might want to check here for more information. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676 These same policies could easily apply to Thailand as Thaksin has proposed.

AS economical situation, industrial base, tax population, etc., etc. are so very different between the USA and Thailand it is a bit presumptuous to say USA measures can 'easily' be applied in Thailand.

Wiki on Reaganomics says

"The effect was primarily a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments, with comparatively small effect on overall tax revenue: the changes "reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989," a 1% reduction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

With Thailand having a major 'no tax paying' population, trying to get foreign companies to invest with 'tax reduction' incentives and trying to convince the rich to start paying tax, other measures seem necessary

[hyperdimension]

The KK uni has just released the results of a poll done over 2,354 people in 20 provinces of the Northeast from April 28 to May 3

The 20 North-Eastern provinces is only around 30% of the total population in Thailand.

It concluded 63.9% would vote for Pheu Thai

If we assume that the sample of 2,354 respondents is representative of the population of those 20 provinces, then we can extrapolate.

63.9% of 30% of the total population is 16% of the total population. So would-be Pheu Thai voters in the 20 North-Eastern provinces only make up around 20% of the total population.

I wonder how much more support Pheu Thai would get outside of those North-Eastern provinces this time around.

Edited May 5, 2011 by hyperdimension

[ramsesxix]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

That's right mate and for all that "free government" your going to pay for it. Thaksin is right about lowering taxes. Lowering taxes always raises revenue to the government through increased economic activity. Regan proved that in America. Sweden is VERY VERY EXPENSIVE. I don't know what fantasy land others live in but the cost of things in Sweden are 20, 30, 40, 50% higher at least, Taxes both sales and personal are outrageous (all to pay for the social welfare system, which has it's major problems depite the propaganda) Swedish people in general are actually quite cold and rude (push past you, knock you down walking down the street) some people mistake being able to speak fluent english for helpfulness. The Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Dutch (especially) are far more friendly. Things are fairly efficent but then it's also not a big country and has been industrialised for centuries so it's hardly surprising but the country does live on it's faded glory. Also don't be taken in by the great myth of a land of beautiful people or blond viking gods and godesses that's just plain wrong. Finland is actually the most expensive with Norway close on its heels. Reykjavik is one of the most expensive cities in the world, with Oslo as a close second.

I hope you are referring to Don Regan, the USSoT, not R. Reagan, the president. Either way, Regan served for Reagan, and did indeed lower personal income tax. This did increase tax revenue as well, not because of increased economic activity, but increased participation in the taxing system. Depending on too many factors to get into detail here, lowering the tax may increase or decrease tax revenue. You can take a look here if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why. It is myopic at best, and pandering at worst to proclaim that a tax reduction will increase tax revenue. Is it possible? Absolutely, especially in a society that is taxed to the hilt, as the US was when Jimmy Carter left office. And I am not saying that in theory, the 'lowering taxes' idea is not valid. Simply the degree to which I am familiar with tax scheme here (and who does and does not pay- and so on), its not a cut and dry matter- not to the overwhelming majority of the Thai population, and even less to us who pay taxes here, yet have no voice.

My - somewhat skeptical - concern is that with the number of hands in the Thai cookie jar, a reduction of tax could be devastating to the economy. I doubt any politician, or government employee who takes a cut of the tax revenue (I know such corrupt things do not happen here) is willing to take a pay cut. So if you lower the tax rate, then on a percentage basis a larger amount goes into the coffers of those 'corrupt' Thai officials we love to bash on the TV boards. As I pay less tax here than I did when I worked in the states at a comparable salary, it is hard for me to imagine cutting taxes would be a boon to this economy, especially given my tendency to think that a,) not all revenue is reported b.) lower taxes won't make any report previously unreported income and c) not all the revenue collected arrives at its intended destination.

Thanks for pointing out my misspelling of President Reagan's name. I've done that many times. I seem to have a preprogrammed tendency to do that. And yes, one could, I suppose, get confused and assume I was talking about Donald Regan. Anything's possible with Thai Visa members. However, your statement that the increase in revenue to the US Treasury was not due to increased economic activity but rather was attributable, in large part, to an increased in the number of people paying taxes is disingenuous and simply not true. Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. You might want to check here for more information. http://www.mackinac....cle.aspx?ID=676 These same policies could easily apply to Thailand as Thaksin has proposed.

As for Regan vs Reagan, it is easy to mix them up, and they will be forever linked. If memory serves correct, Regan and James Baker swapped roles in the white house in 85 (part of Reagan's 2 term administration shake-up). Regan then took the fall for the Iran-Contra arms deals, and resigned before Reagan's 2nd term was up.

I'll try to keep my reply short, and still convey the appropriate response to your post. When tax cuts produce gains to tax revenue, it is due to a larger tax base. Whether the tax base grows because more people start businesses, or because more people file their personal income taxes or both (for sake of argument, I will say the tax base grows - meaning those participating by paying taxes grows at a somewhat congruent pace - as a result an increase in business activities). The benefit is 2-fold, new companies start paying tax, and the labor required to drive the new companies are compelled to file taxes as well, thus significantly increasing the tax base. It should be noted that in the US a very high percent of companies fail within the first few years. So, some of the economic gains are shed within a couple years of a tax-cut. If the tax cut was was not ill-conceived, then the continued overall economic growth 'absorbs' the excess work force. I am pretty sure, you get the drift (I hope), Incidentally, I had hoped Martin Feldstein would replace Greenspan, but alas the FRB answers to Bernanke. Feldstein is a dynamic lecturer, and far and away (light years) a brighter guy than myself, but I can't help but think that his statements regarding the Clinton tax hikes were anything but partisan comments. To my (limited) knowledge most economists agreed (including A. Greenspan) that the taxes were to the left of the apex on the Laffer curve when the Clinton tax hike took effect.

The policies could apply to Thailand, sure, but as I mentioned before, I am somewhat doubtful that a tax cut would encourage participation. I understand why on the supply-side this works, I'm just skeptical that it would work here - then again I'm not a Thai economist. If the current PM suggested it, I would be the first to say he is playing politics, but that this is a card played by Thaksin, it makes the idea at the very least interesting.

[spongeman]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

You forgot to mention Ireland with its low company tax etc....maybe Khun Thaksin does not read the same press/media as you and I do

Yeah but we are totally banjaxed.

[Theoutsider]

The KK uni has just released the results of a poll done over 2,354 people in 20 provinces of the Northeast from April 28 to May 3

The 20 North-Eastern provinces is only around 30% of the total population in Thailand.

It concluded 63.9% would vote for Pheu Thai

If we assume that the sample of 2,354 respondents is representative of the population of those 20 provinces, then we can extrapolate.

63.9% of 30% of the total population is 16% of the total population. So would-be Pheu Thai voters in the 20 North-Eastern provinces only make up around 20% of the total population.

I wonder how much more support Pheu Thai would get outside of those North-Eastern provinces this time around.

i think they might get a lot in the north.

:jap:

[sbk]

Off topic post and response to that post deleted.

[anterian]

I find it entertaining that when Thaksin comes up with Ideas, his supporters and detractors immediately clash head on. Abhisit's ideas never get the same treatment, possibly because has has so very few, a nod at corruption and education seems to be the best he can manage.

[trainman34014]

Make Don Mueang an airport hub for private jets

That is the funniest comment from Taksin , how many private jets are coming to Thailand ? He tried to attract wealthy people in here with his Elite card , a total flop ... There is nothing in Thailand to attract wealthy people , specially those who owns private jets , they prefer to go to Mediterranean in summer and Caribbean in winter. Its normal to promise the moon during campaign , Taksin isa good at it .

No; you don't get it, the idea is to make it a hub for HIS private jet !

[timekeeper]

Thaksin Campaigns For Pheu Thai Party

The connection is being openly promoted...

Men atop a truck travel past an election campaign poster showing a candidate for the opposition Puea Thai party posing with ousted former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand's Surin province April 26, 2011.

REUTERS

http://news.yahoo.co...1875257843.jpg/

^ A nice encapsulation of all three

Thaksin = PTP = Red Shirts

in one photo.

pay attention EC............

[Buchholz]

I'm not in any way defending the man, but here is something, to me, that makes zero sense.

1) He was convicted of corruption for "abuse of power" by signing a legal document that, BY THAI LAW, he is REQUIRED to sign if his wife (at the time) was buying property.

2) So, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED, as her husband, to sign it.

3) BUT the court then says he "abused his power" by signing it since he was PM at the time. Can anyone explain that to me in a rational manner?

4) The courts have since ruled that the land purchase was "Null and Void" which, in legal terms, means IT NEVER HAPPENED. The wife (ex now) had to give the land back, and she got her money back, plus interest.

5) So, therefore, if the courts ruled the deal was "Null & Void", and never legally happened, that means any documents he signed, in accordance with Thai law, are also "Null & Void", and therefore he cannot be guilty of "abuse of power".

Perhaps someone on here knows Thai law much better than I do, but as I stated earlier, this make zero sense to me. Unless, of course, you consider that TIT, where making sense of things is a totally alien concept to them.

As most of this post is a repeat of the 11th of Dec 2010 I just post the link with replies. Lazy me, I know

excellent catch...

It's deja vu all over again from rehashing done 5 months ago...

It's a good thing he's not "in any way defending the man"...

[Gonsalviz]

Thaksin to me sounds like a smart man. I don't know the details about his "conviction".....could it be that he was railroaded?

Training workers, raise min wage, more rail, crack down on corruption....who can argue against that?

Anyone that seriously goes after corruption won't live long. But that is the #1 thing they need to do to get rid of their third-world status. It is a shame more Thais don't get a chance to see how civilized countries conduct business !

He is a smart man. That is why he is trying to BS people into believing he can fix things so fast. That is why he got caught taking that 30% bribe that he speaks about. He's a regular genius.

He also has abandoned the red shirts that he incited into violence.

[Robby nz]

Isnt there supposed to be a size limit on election posters?

Wasnt that what PT were attacking the Dems over?

[NanaFoods]

Training workers, raise min wage, more rail, crack down on corruption....who can argue against that?

I and many others, I am sure, could argue against at least some of that.

I would agree to:

1. Training workers - Good if can be funded.

2. More rail - good if they do it before the they purposefully degrade the baht. A strong baht means projects like this could be done more efficiently as imports of steel would be more economical.

3. crackdown on corruption - good if this could be believable coming from this man.

However:

Raising Min. Wage - very bad move. This would diminishing Thai competitiveness in the manufacture-for-export market, not to mention cause inflation for domestic consumption. Jobs would bleed to other more competitive countries, just as the high min wage in the US contributed to destroying its manufacturing base and competitiveness.

Edited May 6, 2011 by NanaFoods

[hanssna]

I remember the times that he was still ruling the country with Thai Rak Thai.

From hindsight, it wasn't that bad...

He did a lot for the rural people from E-saan.

With him, tourists still had 30 day visa entries..

And quite a few other things.

Sure, not all was sunshine eather,

But lets see anyway what happens when he's back.

Can't be much worse then what we have now!

[riceman09]

Some interesting ideas though sounding a bit far fetched to me. I love the way Thaksin speaks with the assurance and confidence of an economic guru that seems contemptuous of the world's best (are other countries really struggling because of high taxes - Sweden, Denmark, Norway for example, with the highest standard's of living in the world).

You forgot to mention Ireland with its low company tax etc....maybe Khun Thaksin does not read the same press/media as you and I do

that's why ireland has been bailed out