Thaksin Offers Easy Credit, Credit Cards For Taxi Drivers

[sirchai]

We do not need any more taxis in Phuket, thank you very much!

All guys in my wife's village will buy cabs then and will come to Phuket, because they have heard there's good money to make without a Meter on.....:jap:

[anotheruser]

I hope this deal extends to needy tuk tuk drivers in Phuket as well.

[jayboy]

Thaksin was a legally elected PM taken out by force by the army. Then he was "banned". No offense, but given the circumstances, he is perfectly within his rights to continue campaigning. He didn't give up and he ought to get some credit for that.

He was caretaker PM at the time of his ousting and following that he was found to have broken the law during his time in office. Had he not eroded away all the checks and balances, the judiciary would have brought his time in power to an end long before the coup. The army pushed the restart button. Unfortunate it had to come to that. Thank Thaksin that it did.

You ignore the reality that the cure was worse than the disease, and has brought Thailand to its current divided state.Thaksin could have been voted out by the Thai people: his inadequacies were widely known and this was reflected in electoral performance.Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people, not by a bunch of military criminals and their highly placed supporters in the elite..It is the Thai army that needs the reset button pushed but the damage it has done is irreparable.

[MILT]

Addressing the problem of drivers being unable to get loans to buy taxis as they could not find a guarantor, Thaksin said his policies would allow fellow taxi drivers to cross guarantee for the loans, even though they were all borrowers.

I just love the thought that was put into this. Borrowers guarantying borrowers. This is awesome stuff unless of course one person fails to make the payment and defaults on the loan, so then by theory would this not cause a domino effect. Crazy stuff!

[whybother]

You ignore the reality that the cure was worse than the disease, and has brought Thailand to its current divided state.Thaksin could have been voted out by the Thai people: his inadequacies were widely known and this was reflected in electoral performance.Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people, not by a bunch of military criminals and their highly placed supporters in the elite..It is the Thai army that needs the reset button pushed but the damage it has done is irreparable.

Thailand was divided because of Thaksin, not because of the coup.

The problem with voting Thaksin out was that Thaksin had control of the everything. He wanted to rule for 20 years, and he was well on the way to making sure that happened.

[theanimaster]

Thaksin should also promise higher pay for farang teachers. Hey, we can't vote, but we can shut up and go with the rest of the mules that'll vote for him.

It's Thailand's loss, afterall.

[MILT]

Thaksin was a legally elected PM taken out by force by the army. Then he was "banned". No offense, but given the circumstances, he is perfectly within his rights to continue campaigning. He didn't give up and he ought to get some credit for that.

He was caretaker PM at the time of his ousting and following that he was found to have broken the law during his time in office. Had he not eroded away all the checks and balances, the judiciary would have brought his time in power to an end long before the coup. The army pushed the restart button. Unfortunate it had to come to that. Thank Thaksin that it did.

You ignore the reality that the cure was worse than the disease, and has brought Thailand to its current divided state.Thaksin could have been voted out by the Thai people: his inadequacies were widely known and this was reflected in electoral performance.Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people, not by a bunch of military criminals and their highly placed supporters in the elite..It is the Thai army that needs the reset button pushed but the damage it has done is irreparable.

Hind sight is 20/20 I have always said that people need to go all the way back to when Thaskin ran for PM, the first time. He barely won the pm seat due to his questionable hiding assets. He was working in the shadows from day one and if one really thinks about it his motivation to get into politics was to fill his coffers, which he did very well and now you can see the rest of the story unfold. It is just to bad that Thaskin is a lier and a con artist because he could have been a great man. Greed and (me first mentality) does not work in todays politics successfully.

[Maseratimartin]

Thaksin has some unfinished business...he couldn't finish it to drive the country in the complete ruin!

His strategy is clearly based on the lot of uneducated people in Thailand. These people think only one step at a time....don't see consequences!

Sorry, but this is the truth!

You tell a farmer that he will get twice the money for his cow and he will kiss your ass...same with taxi drivers and credit card. How many criminals already make use of the weak taxi driver ....I'm sure that at least 80% of taxi driver ow money to some private credit shark.

And how inteligent is it to give credit cards to taxi driver...?

Next I would give credit cards to all the prostitutes...the bigger the boops the higher the credit.... Common?

Look that they get other jobs....the streets are crowded enough....invest in public transportation!

But to realize this all you must first bring the school system to an acceptable level! No certificate issued in Thailand is only the paper worth...

Thailand needs a complete clean up...

[jayboy]

Thailand was divided because of Thaksin, not because of the coup.

The problem with voting Thaksin out was that Thaksin had control of the everything. He wanted to rule for 20 years, and he was well on the way to making sure that happened.

In a way your first sentence is correct, namely that Thaksin politicised the rural majority which began the process of ending traditional Thai deference.To that extent Thailand became fully aware of its divisions. But the unity shattered was a false one based on a hierachy of selfishness and greed.I'm not suggesting there was much high minded here on Thaksin's part, just a politician who saw an opportunity.

As to second sentence, I have heard this before from Thai friends.But I have never understood why Thaksin could not have been voted out.Most of the arguments have heard are based on action that he might have taken.Can you be a bit more precise.I'm open to reason on this one.

[Buchholz]

"Farmers will be getting credit cards, now taxi drivers should get them, too," Thaksin said. The credit card would be for fuel costs, Thaksin said, adding that he did not want to give out details for fear that rival parties would copy the policies.

Another 'I have a bright idea, but can't tell you details yet'

"I have this project in my mind but I am not going to speak about it now because this government is a copy cat and is equipped with state budget for advertisement. They have even copied my first home project. So I will announce this project during the last corner in the run-up to the election,'' he said.

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[metisdead]

A post with reference to HM the King have been removed. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

[jayboy]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

[whybother]

Thailand was divided because of Thaksin, not because of the coup.

The problem with voting Thaksin out was that Thaksin had control of the everything. He wanted to rule for 20 years, and he was well on the way to making sure that happened.

In a way your first sentence is correct, namely that Thaksin politicised the rural majority which began the process of ending traditional Thai deference.To that extent Thailand became fully aware of its divisions. But the unity shattered was a false one based on a hierachy of selfishness and greed.I'm not suggesting there was much high minded here on Thaksin's part, just a politician who saw an opportunity.

As to second sentence, I have heard this before from Thai friends.But I have never understood why Thaksin could not have been voted out.Most of the arguments have heard are based on action that he might have taken.Can you be a bit more precise.I'm open to reason on this one.

There are many references to "appointing relatives and friends to civil service and independent commissions", but I haven't found any specifics yet.

Also, this

Thus between 2002 and 2003, Thaksin named to key positions of the army more than 35 of his relatives and friends, the majority coming from “class 10”, from which he himself had emerged.

Still investigating.

[scorecard]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Thai army: well which one is worse:

Current govt pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services (as you claim), or promoting numerous members of your family into high ranking positions totally ignoring and trampling on established protocols, in many cases shinawatra family members jumping several ranks in one promotion, result expected being army controlled by the shinatwra clan.

So which one is worse?

Edited May 8, 2011 by scorecard

[whybother]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Maybe they were at greater cost because Thaksin didn't actually fund them ... the 30-baht card being a good example.

It's easy to say "It won't cost you anything", but if it's not funded by someone then the service just falls into a heap.

The Democrats reduced the 30-baht card to nothing (because it cost more to administer than the amount they collected), and funded the hospitals so that they could provide some service to the extra people using the hospitals.

[jayboy]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Thai army: well which one is worse:

Current govt pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services (as you claim), or promoting numerous members of your family into high ranking positions totally ignoring and trampling on established protocols, in many cases shinawatra family members jumping several ranks in one promotion, result expected being army controlled by the shinatwra clan.

So which one is worse?

The abuses of the Thai army of course.The question of promotions, cliques and graduation class solidarity is worth studying.Thaksin was also in hock to the Thai armed forces, though not quite in the trussed bound up way of the present government.

[jayboy]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Maybe they were at greater cost because Thaksin didn't actually fund them ... the 30-baht card being a good example.

It's easy to say "It won't cost you anything", but if it's not funded by someone then the service just falls into a heap.

The Democrats reduced the 30-baht card to nothing (because it cost more to administer than the amount they collected), and funded the hospitals so that they could provide some service to the extra people using the hospitals.

Sorry this doesn't address the point.In the context of populist spending and promises by the present government, the 30 baht card scheme is neither here nor there.Thaksin's expenditure on populist measures is dwarfed by what is now proposed.

[sirchai]

The credit card would be for fuel costs, Thaksin said, adding that he did not want to give out details for fear that rival parties would copy the policies.

What a patriot! If it's that great an idea and it's good for the people, how sleazy is it that he refused to share it? If he really cared wouldn't he want his great idea implemented by any party in power? Strange politics here indeed. Also raises doubts, do these supposed "details" even exist or if they do would they expose what a horrible idea it really is?

How can a guy like Thaksin make such promises? The scary thing is that most people will believe him, as they did a long time ago.

I don't even want to use my imagination how it would be when he'd come back in power. :jap:

[Buchholz]

He is coming up with a staggering amount of "won't discuss this yet, but it's brillant".

Perhaps from the recent time he's spent in Zimbabwe, he's decided on a project for wealth redistribution that mirrors the way Mugabe did it.

But he's right of course that the current government has copied his populist policies, though at a hugely greater cost (and that of course doesn't include the pandering at astronomic expense to the Thai armed services).

Gosh, I'm surprised they haven't copied all of his brilliant policies and incentives...

Thaksin told his supporters, “we must give the Pheu Thai Party a land slide victory in the next election so I can return to Thailand to solve the economic problems. I promise that I will make all Thai people rich within six months.”

He specifically told Udon candidates: "Any district that can win an election will see me spending the night there as a gesture to pay back political debt. Make sure, Udon, that you don't miss even one seat. Next time, make a clean sweep," he instructed.

He's a hyped-up drama queen because that's what appeals to his constituents, eg. can't reveal who the PTP candidate is for PM, can't reveal economic policies, etc. He fancies himself as some sort of jet-setting James Bond-type full of mystery and intrigue.... when he's actually just full of something else.

meanwhile, back in Mugabe-land...

Thaksin appeared at last Saturday’s red shirt rally via video conference, saying that he is currently living in an African country.

.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Buchholz

[jayboy]

There are many references to "appointing relatives and friends to civil service and independent commissions", but I haven't found any specifics yet.

Also, this

Thus between 2002 and 2003, Thaksin named to key positions of the army more than 35 of his relatives and friends, the majority coming from “class 10”, from which he himself had emerged.

Still investigating.

To save you time googling I accept your premise, namely that in the military Thaksin pushed his own people/relatives.

Incidentally this might be the time that I don't believe it's always necessary to provide "links" in discussing Thai politics.In the first place on many subjects there are no "links" other than commentaries, and these in the nature of things are subjective.In the second place my experience on the forum is that those who angrily demand "links" are those who have just lost an argument, and in some cases seem to experience difficult in a constructive dialogue.In the third place "links" are often seen to be a substitute for hard thought and analysis - which they are not.In the fourth place I quite often just can't be bothered given the unwillingness of some my interlocutors to give and take, or even admit they might have got something wrong.

However if the discussion is intelligent and civilised - preferably with good humour - I will always do my best to provide background information.

[whybother]

To save you time googling I accept your premise, namely that in the military Thaksin pushed his own people/relatives.

...

However if the discussion is intelligent and civilised - preferably with good humour - I will always do my best to provide background information.

In my search I found this (http://www.thailandguru.com/thaksin-shinawatra-military-coup.html) which I think gives quite a balanced view of Thaksin and the coup.

A couple of notable quotes:

Then there were things like the notorious quick auctioning of government property to his wife whereby she was allegedly the only serious bidder, and it was prime location property for an allegedly very low price. This also wantonly violated the law as regards government employees' families' participation in buying auctioned government property. The way he rigged that was so overt yet the anticorruption checks and balances system wasn't dealing with the issue because it had allegedly already been hijacked.

Other countries have had a leader hijack democracy and become essentially a dictatorship, too. The process was the same, the hijacking of the judiciary and checks & balances system. So many leaders have said they will step down at crisis points, but later not actually do so, or at least try their best to circumvent stepping down.

[jayboy]

In my search I found this (http://www.thailandguru.com/thaksin-shinawatra-military-coup.html) which I think gives quite a balanced view of Thaksin and the coup.

A couple of notable quotes:

Then there were things like the notorious quick auctioning of government property to his wife whereby she was allegedly the only serious bidder, and it was prime location property for an allegedly very low price. This also wantonly violated the law as regards government employees' families' participation in buying auctioned government property. The way he rigged that was so overt yet the anticorruption checks and balances system wasn't dealing with the issue because it had allegedly already been hijacked.

Other countries have had a leader hijack democracy and become essentially a dictatorship, too. The process was the same, the hijacking of the judiciary and checks & balances system. So many leaders have said they will step down at crisis points, but later not actually do so, or at least try their best to circumvent stepping down.

It's not a bad article at all and as you say quite balanced.It doesn't actually say much about the coup,nor why the elite was and remains so obsessively hostile to Thaksin.

Incidentally when future historians write the account of these times, there will certainly be discussion of how the judiciary was hijacked (and I don't think Thaksin will be other than a footnote in that process)

[whybother]

It's not a bad article at all and as you say quite balanced. It doesn't actually say much about the coup,nor why the elite was and remains so obsessively hostile to Thaksin.

...

Possibly because that's not the case.

[jayboy]

It's not a bad article at all and as you say quite balanced. It doesn't actually say much about the coup,nor why the elite was and remains so obsessively hostile to Thaksin.

...

Possibly because that's not the case.

Show me a link immediately then to prove it. Just kidding!!

Subjective matter I agree, but my opinion is that the elite found Thaksin so threatening from so many points of view that compromise is impossible.

And yet there is that puzzling report from Shawn Crispin that a compromise may already being negotiated.Go figure.

[rubl]

And yet there is that puzzling report from Shawn Crispin that a compromise may already being negotiated.Go figure.

Can't be, I was personally promised a coup

[Thaifever]

If Thaksin really wants to make a difference for the poor and for his country's betterment he should look at Argentina's RGT system: http://www3.plala.or.jp/mig/rgt-uk.html

Most people know by now that usury, or interest, was created for no other purpose than to keep the power of any nation under the control of the banks. If we have no interest on money loaned, we have no debt and everyone can prosper. John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were assassinated for defying the powers that be, and making an interest free system of currency. The world's economic system is crumbling at the moment and this is solely due to the fact that interest is applied to every loan, by every bank which exists. <br>America's dollar index just hit a three year low, and after the QE2 is implemented, we're going to see new all time lows as the dollar heads down to the bottom. There is no saving the dollar at this point. Goodbye America

Edited May 8, 2011 by Thaifever

[rubl]

Thaksin was a legally elected PM taken out by force by the army. Then he was "banned". No offense, but given the circumstances, he is perfectly within his rights to continue campaigning. He didn't give up and he ought to get some credit for that.

He was caretaker PM at the time of his ousting and following that he was found to have broken the law during his time in office. Had he not eroded away all the checks and balances, the judiciary would have brought his time in power to an end long before the coup. The army pushed the restart button. Unfortunate it had to come to that. Thank Thaksin that it did.

You ignore the reality that the cure was worse than the disease, and has brought Thailand to its current divided state.Thaksin could have been voted out by the Thai people: his inadequacies were widely known and this was reflected in electoral performance.Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people, not by a bunch of military criminals and their highly placed supporters in the elite..It is the Thai army that needs the reset button pushed but the damage it has done is irreparable.

"Eventually he would have been ousted by the Thai people", 'his inadequacies were widely known'. K. Thaksin's "we'll rule for 20 years' also. Why wait for the country to be ruined, the ousting of a (too much care) taking PM via a coup and new elections after a year seems to have worked. Of course the problem with polarization has two sides. Did you already read the HRW report ?

Edited May 8, 2011 by rubl

[Buchholz]

And yet there is that puzzling report from Shawn Crispin that a compromise may already being negotiated.Go figure.

Can't be, I was personally promised a coup

whether it's coup predictions or future history book contents...

so many prognosticators, so little time.

[rixalex]

Thailand was divided because of Thaksin, not because of the coup.

The problem with voting Thaksin out was that Thaksin had control of the everything. He wanted to rule for 20 years, and he was well on the way to making sure that happened.

In a way your first sentence is correct, namely that Thaksin politicised the rural majority which began the process of ending traditional Thai deference.To that extent Thailand became fully aware of its divisions. But the unity shattered was a false one based on a hierachy of selfishness and greed.I'm not suggesting there was much high minded here on Thaksin's part, just a politician who saw an opportunity.

Whybother is indeed correct, Thaksin had divided the nation before the coup came along, but i think there is a difference of opinion on what it was he did that led to this disunity. Some believe that it was the upper classes or elite, or whatever you want to call it, reacting against the rural classes being enlightened and educated, and finding a voice. Essentially a fight of the upper classes trying to keep the lower classes oppressed and ignored, and the lower classes battling against this and trying to improve their lives.

Whilst there may have been an element of this going on in some people's minds, i don't think it was the main cause of the division at all. The vast vast majority of all Thais, i believe, whatever their place in society, sincerely did and do wish for a better life, a better education, better health for all their fellow citizens, and have no interest in keeping people down and in poverty and hardship. Had Thaksin been genuinely moving towards achieving this, i think the country would have been rejoicefully and totally united. Problem was, he wasn't.

With the exception of a few policies, the majority was all very short-sighted and ultimately unsustainable, and really nothing more than a long term vote buying strategy to entrench Thaksin's position and give him a complete stranglehold on power (much like this new brainwave of his to hand out credit cards). At the same time as this was going on, we had million baht law suits being slapped on anyone who spoke out against him, we had legal cases against him being swipped to one side, we had Shinawatra relatives and close friends being suddenly appointed and/or promoted to positions of power in just about all government departments and bodies, and even worse, supposedly independant agencies, and of course not forgetting the military. Basically all positions in power in society that can help check a prime minister from going beyond his or her remit were gradually taken within his envelope of power leaving us with virtually nobody who could or who was willing to question what he was doing. He built for himself a free reign to do as he pleased.. and he did.

What else was there? Well there was the killing thousand of innocents without trial business, otherwise known as the war on drugs, then there was the corruption that the auditor general stated had taken corruption to a whole new level, the blatant favouritism in government policy to Thaksin's own businesses, deals being done like a government loan being made to a neighbouring country so it could afford to invest in Thaksin's business interests, suspicious unsolved cases like that concerning the missing lawyer Somchai, and then finally, and what really pushed things over the edge, the selling of Thaksin's business interests to Temasek with all the dodgy share-dealing and blatant tax evasion that went with it - not to mention laws that were specially changed by him and for him, to make it all possible.

It was all of that stuff, all of those abuses, that led to a large portion of Thai society becoming sufficiently frustrated and angry with him and in turn with those citizens who were either ignoring or turning a blind eye to his damage (or some perhaps simply unaware), that really opened the divide and put two groups of society at odds with each other... and they have been apart since.

[whybother]

...

Subjective matter I agree, but my opinion is that the elite found Thaksin so threatening from so many points of view that compromise is impossible.

And yet there is that puzzling report from Shawn Crispin that a compromise may already being negotiated.Go figure.

I think it was more than "the elite" that found Thaksin threatening. The elite and the army can't just act by themselves. They still need the support of the people. And they have a lot of support. Not necessarily support to run roughshod over the country, but enough support that there wasn't a popular uprising over the coup, or over the protest deaths last year.

Thaksin got the support of the poor in the North and North East, partly though also getting support of the rich in the North and North East. He didn't get the support of the poor in the south, and didn't get the support of a lot of middle class throughout Thailand.

The country is divided, but there are a huge amount of people in the middle that don't want the "elite" and army to control their lives, but also don't want Thaksin back because that's also what he would do if he was allowed back. These people are sick of the corruption from both sides, but they are also just getting along with their daily lives.

I don't really see how there could be a compromise. Thaksin wants power. There is no middle ground to compromise.