Yingluck: Amnesty Will Restore Peace In Thailand

[jdinasia]

She is going to run into the same pitfalls that tripped up her brother and also many, many other successful business people that try to go into politics. Namely unrelenting criticism that you are unused to receiving and having every word you utter picked apart.

Wonder how long it will be before she shows up at a news conference with a buzzer and little sign with "X" on it to avoid answering questions she doesn't like.

TH

Similar to Ross Perot when he ran for president. He was an astute, well qualified business man, but knew little about politics or world events. Interesting to see however, most of his predictions came to be, especially about NAFTA. That little debacle with Bill Clintons nod of approval, sent many jobs outside of the country. NAFTA is the main reason why when you pick up the phone to talk to your insurance company, your talking to someone in New Delhi. If he could have run on the Republican ticket instead of the Independant ticket, I believe he would have won.

India is now in North America? ..... gads has this gone way off topic from Yingluck's purpose in life being an amnesty for her brother/surrogate father!

[FOODLOVER]

She is going to run into the same pitfalls that tripped up her brother and also many, many other successful business people that try to go into politics. Namely unrelenting criticism that you are unused to receiving and having every word you utter picked apart.

Wonder how long it will be before she shows up at a news conference with a buzzer and little sign with "X" on it to avoid answering questions she doesn't like.

TH

Similar to Ross Perot when he ran for president. He was an astute, well qualified business man, but knew little about politics or world events. Interesting to see however, most of his predictions came to be, especially about NAFTA. That little debacle with Bill Clintons nod of approval, sent many jobs outside of the country. NAFTA is the main reason why when you pick up the phone to talk to your insurance company, your talking to someone in New Delhi. If he could have run on the Republican ticket instead of the Independant ticket, I believe he would have won.

India is now in North America? ..... gads has this gone way off topic from Yingluck's purpose in life being an amnesty for her brother/surrogate father!

The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and theUnited States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America.

India?, Ross Perot was crazier than a bull with a bumble bee in his ass but was quite entertaining as well.

[geriatrickid]

you need some new material

maybe consult the thaksin playbook on how to deal with hecklers.......

Certainly better than the government's playbook which apparently includes snipers firing at unarmed combatants and journalists.

[geriatrickid]

She is going to run into the same pitfalls that tripped up her brother and also many, many other successful business people that try to go into politics. Namely unrelenting criticism that you are unused to receiving and having every word you utter picked apart.

Wonder how long it will be before she shows up at a news conference with a buzzer and little sign with "X" on it to avoid answering questions she doesn't like.

TH

Similar to Ross Perot when he ran for president. He was an astute, well qualified business man, but knew little about politics or world events. Interesting to see however, most of his predictions came to be, especially about NAFTA. That little debacle with Bill Clintons nod of approval, sent many jobs outside of the country. NAFTA is the main reason why when you pick up the phone to talk to your insurance company, your talking to someone in New Delhi. If he could have run on the Republican ticket instead of the Independant ticket, I believe he would have won.

Unfortunately for you, the loss of jobs never materialized and there was no trade diversion. Overall, the NAFTA agreement benefited all of the signatories. Although the US lost some manufacturing jobs, those jobs most likely would have bled to Asia anyway. In return, the USA helped stabilize the Mexican economy which in turn acted to dampen the flow of economic migrants from Mexico. More importantly, the agreement ensured energy security. Under NAFTA energy supply to the USA from its largest energy supplier Canada was assured and access to Mexican energy supply was stabilized. Without energy supply, no economy can survive. The lessons for Thailand are significant. If there was economic opportunity in Cambodia and Burma, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of economic migrants pouring over the border. None of the doom and gloom prophecies materialized, although the USA was able to eliminate some agricultural subsidies which in turn benefited the US taxpayer.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Scott

[letitbe]

I suggested around the time of the protest last year that Abhisit would be well advised to reach out to the rural communities and build a relationship..........it would appear this is the current agenda of Yingluck............

I guess Abhisit was just too busy running the country.........

Abhisit was too busy dealing with the murderous Reds attempted revolution to go swanning around shaking hands with the farmers

Yunglick won't have any trouble in Chang Mai will she ?

how likely is it that she is going to run into a contingent of yellow shirts or Thakin haters there?

if anyone dared to protest, what do you think would be the outcome?

come on, be honest Reds, you know any protestors would risk death by doing so

violence and intimidation is a tool of your trade and you know you would strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy your fellow red brothers..

i would like to see Yunglick go to the ''restive south'' and try to find some support there for her cloned Thaksin self and her murderous brothers policies

maybe meet the families of the people who died during her brothers reign,

maybe say she is there to bring peace and resolution to the area and as her brothers clone will follow his policy of peaceful resolution by suffocation

maybe drop some paper birds in advance of her trip.

it may help remind people of exactly what she represents.....................

Same old song......time you guys learnt to move on......

My understanding is there are a few TVisa Thaksin haters living in Chiang Mai...........but I guess we won't see them posting during the Yingluck visit......they will all be out making their feelings known.......

because if they did i doubt they would live long such is red democracy

[473geo]

I suggested around the time of the protest last year that Abhisit would be well advised to reach out to the rural communities and build a relationship..........it would appear this is the current agenda of Yingluck............

I guess Abhisit was just too busy running the country.........

Abhisit was too busy dealing with the murderous Reds attempted revolution to go swanning around shaking hands with the farmers

Yunglick won't have any trouble in Chang Mai will she ?

how likely is it that she is going to run into a contingent of yellow shirts or Thakin haters there?

if anyone dared to protest, what do you think would be the outcome?

come on, be honest Reds, you know any protestors would risk death by doing so

violence and intimidation is a tool of your trade and you know you would strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy your fellow red brothers..

i would like to see Yunglick go to the ''restive south'' and try to find some support there for her cloned Thaksin self and her murderous brothers policies

maybe meet the families of the people who died during her brothers reign,

maybe say she is there to bring peace and resolution to the area and as her brothers clone will follow his policy of peaceful resolution by suffocation

maybe drop some paper birds in advance of her trip.

it may help remind people of exactly what she represents.....................

Same old song......time you guys learnt to move on......

My understanding is there are a few TVisa Thaksin haters living in Chiang Mai...........but I guess we won't see them posting during the Yingluck visit......they will all be out making their feelings known.......

because if they did i doubt they would live long such is red democracy

Pure conjecture......although I have seen farangs protesting with the red shirts thrown in Jail have I not?

[Buchholz]

Those fine examples of Red Shirts... really lovely chaps

British anarchist caught urging Red Shirts to burn and loot mall

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23836533-british-anarchist-caught-urging-red-shirts-to-burn-and-loot-mall.do

Edited May 21, 2011 by Buchholz

[473geo]

Yes that would be an example of people standing up for their beliefs..........perhaps not a good idea for the average man in the street!

So somebody was saying the Thaksin haters would be at risk if they attended the Yingluck meetings.........beliefs not that strong then?

[Buchholz]

Yes that would be an example of people standing up for their beliefs

and sometimes laying down for their beliefs

[473geo]

Very amusing Buchholtz........

You see the reason it looks a little strange is that this is not really their business............Thai politics should be left to the Thai people........

reconciliation should be managed and implemented the Thai way.....by Thai people.........because as foreigners we are impotent.........

and that is the way it should be........

However I am sure Thai people would welcome positive input delivered in the correct manner........a way forward......not forever looking back and re opening old wounds

To me that is the endearing quality of Thailand.....:jap: :jap:

Edited May 21, 2011 by 473geo

[Buchholz]

Very amusing Buchholtz........

Thank you

[whybother]

...

However I am sure Thai people would welcome positive input delivered in the correct manner........a way forward......not forever looking back and re opening old wounds

To me that is the endearing quality of Thailand.....:jap: :jap:

Quite a few Thais seem to want to look back and open old wounds with Thaksin. I don't find that very endearing.

[timekeeper]

you need some new material

maybe consult the thaksin playbook on how to deal with hecklers.......

Certainly better than the government's playbook which apparently includes snipers firing at unarmed combatants and journalists.

its off topic and its repeated so often its lost its shock value and its become really boring ...........

[Scott]

Personal exchanges should be limited to PMs rather than in the open forum. Further exchanges will be deleted.

[biloutte]

one thing is sure it will be not better and if this wonderfull country got problem again, it will be terrible

because Thai people will fight more

this for me and blind people is the biggest mistake they did

TO BE CONTINUED

[sirchai]

Big Brother IS watching you.

Premier Thaksin Shinawatra, said the only reason her party can be called a clone of Thanksin is because there are similarities between herself and her brother.

Thaksin's clown sounds pretty funny to me. :jap:

Edited May 22, 2011 by sirchai

[sirchai]

Yes that would be an example of people standing up for their beliefs

and sometimes laying down for their beliefs

Love this one.......:jap:

Edited May 22, 2011 by sirchai

[Pi Sek]

I haven't replied to your post in detail because we've been around this course so many times already.I hope you accept it's not a lack of courtesy.

Just a few points

1.I think it's beyond dispute that Thaksin was the legal PM when deposed by the coup makers in 2006.I'm not sure the caretaker status is really relevant

2.I think it would with time and patience have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically.The military cheerleaders simply deny this but without ever explaining why.Thaksin's influence was on the wane and the polls sowed this.

3.You repeat the view, voiced by some other apologists for the old order that country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites.I think I know what is meant here but it doesn't alter the facts of life in Thailand relating to the Bangkok based dominance of a powerful elite network.Everything else is subsidiary.Read Duncan McCargo's masterful analysis for background.

The reason why I refer to the poster in third person is that he has me on "ignore", so somewhat absurdly he only reacts when he sees me in quotes.

1. Disagree very much - he was illegally prime minister when deposed, and that's the best legal justification for the coup. I don't think it was the main reason, but it was the best reason.

2. Agree very much - this is the natural progression of democracy. I think that, after those who voted for Thaksin finally realised he was keeping them poor (years, decades, centuries?), he would have been voted out. The only question is how long would the country have to wait until the clueless became clued up (especially with a prime minister to whom democractic ideals such as education and transparency are no more than a nuisance)? Democracies that have been around for centuries can't even get it right, what hope is there for Thailand (or Egypt, etc)? I'm no fan of democracy for exactly this reason.

3. I'll repeat the view that "country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites". However, I'll add that the top end of this feudalism ends up in Bangkok... although they are not the "same powerful elite network" as the traditional one to which you're referring.

Hi Pi Sek

Could you remind me why Thaksin was illegally Prime Minister when he was deposed? I asked more or less the same question of jdinasia yesterday but he didn't bother replying and I know you can do better.

I honestly would like to know.

Cheers.

I know you are an honest guy, even if you're one of "them" I'm going to give you a laminer's answer, but I know there is more to it - I also doubt my understanding is any better than yours!

On purely legal grounds, his 2006 snap election did not produce a outright winner (because not enough of the Thai electorate was represented, due to the Democrat boycott) and, since the House had to be dissolved pre-election, there was not a Prime Minister in place. Thaksin could not be a legal Prime Minister afterwards as the election did not fulfil the necessary criteria to install another one. Therefore Thailand was without a Prime Minister, so Thaksin decided it was best if he became "caretaker" for however long "was necessary". This time was starting to drag on without any sign of Thaksin relinquishing his power - as all his critics had predicted, and amongst various "reasons" for him to increase his power such as assassination plots - so the army moved in.

[whybother]

I know you are an honest guy, even if you're one of "them" I'm going to give you a laminer's answer, but I know there is more to it - I also doubt my understanding is any better than yours!

On purely legal grounds, his 2006 snap election did not produce a outright winner (because not enough of the Thai electorate was represented, due to the Democrat boycott) and, since the House had to be dissolved pre-election, there was not a Prime Minister in place. Thaksin could not be a legal Prime Minister afterwards as the election did not fulfil the necessary criteria to install another one. Therefore Thailand was without a Prime Minister, so Thaksin decided it was best if he became "caretaker" for however long "was necessary". This time was starting to drag on without any sign of Thaksin relinquishing his power - as all his critics had predicted, and amongst various "reasons" for him to increase his power such as assassination plots - so the army moved in.

I think the PM automatically becomes care-taker PM when parliament is dissolved. Some one still needs to run the country, but they're not allowed to change any laws while in care-taker mode.

Shortly after the April 2006 election, Thaksin appointed his deputy (not sure who) as care-taker PM. http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2235

[ballpoint]

I know you are an honest guy, even if you're one of "them" I'm going to give you a laminer's answer, but I know there is more to it - I also doubt my understanding is any better than yours!

On purely legal grounds, his 2006 snap election did not produce a outright winner (because not enough of the Thai electorate was represented, due to the Democrat boycott) and, since the House had to be dissolved pre-election, there was not a Prime Minister in place. Thaksin could not be a legal Prime Minister afterwards as the election did not fulfil the necessary criteria to install another one. Therefore Thailand was without a Prime Minister, so Thaksin decided it was best if he became "caretaker" for however long "was necessary". This time was starting to drag on without any sign of Thaksin relinquishing his power - as all his critics had predicted, and amongst various "reasons" for him to increase his power such as assassination plots - so the army moved in.

I think the PM automatically becomes care-taker PM when parliament is dissolved. Some one still needs to run the country, but they're not allowed to change any laws while in care-taker mode.

Shortly after the April 2006 election, Thaksin appointed his deputy (not sure who) as care-taker PM. http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/2235

Not to forget that he also formally resigned to HM the King, but went back on his word and declared himself caretaker PM for however long it took to rig new elections. That puts the time line at:

Called early elections in an attempt to get a mandate following the mysterious sale of ShinCorp to Temasek (mysterious in that Temasek bought ShinCorp a few days after the law was changed to allow foreign ownership - either no due diligence was done, or they had inside knowledge. Not to mention the lack of tax paid, and the flurry of one baht shares "sold" to family members prior to the sale).

The elections were boycotted as a sham by a number of parties, including fellow coalition members CTP.

TRT did not get a clear mandate in the elections, despite later being found to have cheated by the Election Commission.

Thaksin anounces he's through, and formally resigns as PM of Thailand.

Thaksin anounces he's back as self appointed caretaker PM. Going back on his word to the people of Thailand and HM the King.

Thaksin continues loading the upper echelons of the police and army with family members.

The coup takes place. Thaksin announces he's through.

Thaksin stirs up trouble.

Thaksin announces he's through.

Thaksin stirs up trouble.

Thaksin announces he's through.

Thaksin stirs up trouble.........

[jdinasia]

I haven't replied to your post in detail because we've been around this course so many times already.I hope you accept it's not a lack of courtesy.

Just a few points

1.I think it's beyond dispute that Thaksin was the legal PM when deposed by the coup makers in 2006.I'm not sure the caretaker status is really relevant

2.I think it would with time and patience have been possible to eject Thaksin democratically.The military cheerleaders simply deny this but without ever explaining why.Thaksin's influence was on the wane and the polls sowed this.

3.You repeat the view, voiced by some other apologists for the old order that country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites.I think I know what is meant here but it doesn't alter the facts of life in Thailand relating to the Bangkok based dominance of a powerful elite network.Everything else is subsidiary.Read Duncan McCargo's masterful analysis for background.

The reason why I refer to the poster in third person is that he has me on "ignore", so somewhat absurdly he only reacts when he sees me in quotes.

1. Disagree very much - he was illegally prime minister when deposed, and that's the best legal justification for the coup. I don't think it was the main reason, but it was the best reason.

2. Agree very much - this is the natural progression of democracy. I think that, after those who voted for Thaksin finally realised he was keeping them poor (years, decades, centuries?), he would have been voted out. The only question is how long would the country have to wait until the clueless became clued up (especially with a prime minister to whom democractic ideals such as education and transparency are no more than a nuisance)? Democracies that have been around for centuries can't even get it right, what hope is there for Thailand (or Egypt, etc)? I'm no fan of democracy for exactly this reason.

3. I'll repeat the view that "country people are oppressed by locally based feudal elites". However, I'll add that the top end of this feudalism ends up in Bangkok... although they are not the "same powerful elite network" as the traditional one to which you're referring.

Hi Pi Sek

Could you remind me why Thaksin was illegally Prime Minister when he was deposed? I asked more or less the same question of jdinasia yesterday but he didn't bother replying and I know you can do better.

I honestly would like to know.

Cheers.

I know you are an honest guy, even if you're one of "them" I'm going to give you a laminer's answer, but I know there is more to it - I also doubt my understanding is any better than yours!

On purely legal grounds, his 2006 snap election did not produce a outright winner (because not enough of the Thai electorate was represented, due to the Democrat boycott) and, since the House had to be dissolved pre-election, there was not a Prime Minister in place. Thaksin could not be a legal Prime Minister afterwards as the election did not fulfil the necessary criteria to install another one. Therefore Thailand was without a Prime Minister, so Thaksin decided it was best if he became "caretaker" for however long "was necessary". This time was starting to drag on without any sign of Thaksin relinquishing his power - as all his critics had predicted, and amongst various "reasons" for him to increase his power such as assassination plots - so the army moved in.

I didn't notice his question ....

Note --- I didn't use the word "illegal", I used the word extra-constitutional. That statement holds true on at least 2 grounds ....

1) He publicly resigned the post.

2) The time allowed under the 1997 constitution to hold elections (successful ones by default) had elapsed and there was no ground rules under the constitution of the time to allow for a care-taker PM (who had already resigned once) to step back in and stay on as caretaker .... It was a constitutional failure/not an eventuality covered by the constitution.

[jdinasia]

Just as a simple reminder for some people ......

Thaksin wasn't legally elected anything when he was deposed ...... adding "I think" doesn't change that one.

http://www.economist.com/node/6767105

Thaksin quits

Thailand’s prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will be replaced by his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya. The dramatic move comes a few days after Mr Thaksin won a strong but reduced mandate in a snap election that the main opposition boycotted. But political certainty is not yet assured

In his resignation speech, he said he would remain as caretaker prime minister until parliament was convened, within 30 days. However, his ever-suspicious opponents objected to this, and by Wednesday he had announced that his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya—another former policeman—would immediately take over as acting prime minister.

I think The economist is probably legitimate enough for most people You can find the same story all over.

[jayboy]

Just as a simple reminder for some people ......

Thaksin wasn't legally elected anything when he was deposed ...... adding "I think" doesn't change that one.

http://www.economist.com/node/6767105

Thaksin quits

Thailand’s prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will be replaced by his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya. The dramatic move comes a few days after Mr Thaksin won a strong but reduced mandate in a snap election that the main opposition boycotted. But political certainty is not yet assured

In his resignation speech, he said he would remain as caretaker prime minister until parliament was convened, within 30 days. However, his ever-suspicious opponents objected to this, and by Wednesday he had announced that his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya—another former policeman—would immediately take over as acting prime minister.

I think The economist is probably legitimate enough for most people You can find the same story all over.

The usual special pleading from the military cheerleader faction, trying to excuse the criminals who launched the 2006 coup on the grounds Thaksin was a caretaker PM.

If we are quoting The Economist , which I agree is reliable on Thai politics, let's see what it said at the time of the coup itself

http://www.economist.com/node/7942244

From which it is quite clear see that the military gangsters launched their coup against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin.

Edited May 24, 2011 by jayboy

[whybother]

The usual special pleading from the military cheerleader faction, trying to excuse the criminals who launched the 2006 coup on the grounds Thaksin was a caretaker PM.

If we are quoting The Economist , which I agree is reliable on Thai politics, let's see what it said at the time of the coup itself

http://www.economist.com/node/7942244

From which it is quite clear see that the military gangsters launched their coup against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin.

You'll need to point out the section that makes it "quite clear" that the coup was "against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin".

All I could find was these:

He won again in 2005, and would presumably have won a third time, in the snap election he called in April 2006, had the opposition not boycotted the poll, in effect invalidating the vote.

Long poorly governed, Thailand has been adrift since the failed April election.

Mr Thaksin returned to the prime minister's office to run the country as caretaker until a fresh election could be held.

[Pi Sek]

The usual special pleading from the military cheerleader faction, trying to excuse the criminals who launched the 2006 coup on the grounds Thaksin was a caretaker PM.

If we are quoting The Economist , which I agree is reliable on Thai politics, let's see what it said at the time of the coup itself

http://www.economist.com/node/7942244

From which it is quite clear see that the military gangsters launched their coup against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin.

I was actually quite surprised that jdinasia would quote The Economist, given the Sam Moon connection linking the publication to Thaksin.

[samurai]

I was actually quite surprised that jdinasia would quote The Economist, given the Sam Moon connection linking the publication to Thaksin.

The Sam Moon conspiracy ...

[jdinasia]

The usual special pleading from the military cheerleader faction, trying to excuse the criminals who launched the 2006 coup on the grounds Thaksin was a caretaker PM.

If we are quoting The Economist , which I agree is reliable on Thai politics, let's see what it said at the time of the coup itself

http://www.economist.com/node/7942244

From which it is quite clear see that the military gangsters launched their coup against the elected Prime Minister, Thaksin.

I was actually quite surprised that jdinasia would quote The Economist, given the Sam Moon connection linking the publication to Thaksin.

I love Jayboy's article --- clearly notes all the things that DIDN'T happen after the coup .... whilst noting that nobody outside of Thailand seemed to care. It was knee-jerk to the extreme but none of the doomsday predictions came to be ... The article glosses over that Thaksin stepped down (mentions it but not that coming back was totally a Thaksin thing and wasn't covered by the 1997 constitution) ... but that's minimal stuff. I still suggest that people read the article from the same time period from AT Online by Rodney Tasker on Oct 19th 2006

I read every source available (even New Mandala), Rodney Tasker's stuff along with Shawn Crispin -- Their article "Thailand Incorporated" was great. If you want to see what people who think somewhat differently than I do, still hit the nail on the head when they suggested what the possible issues would be with Thaksin at the helm the Thai government. "Old Boy's Reunion" (again by Crispin) was spot on too .. predicted so much of what was to come about. It gives great info on Thaksin's allies --- and discusses the "patronage system" that those allies are still using ...

Trasker's December 22nd 2006 article in the AT Online gives a lot of background information about the coup and what happened afterwards.

It all boils down to a simple fact for many people .. you don't get to resign (publicly) and step back into the role you quit when you think you have things lined back up your own way. Thaksin did that and was shown the door. Was the coup legal? Not until after it happened. Were Thaksin's maneuverings legal? Not under the 1997 constitution that got tossed out with Thaksin.

Edited May 24, 2011 by jdinasia

[Crushdepth]

I read every source available (even New Mandala)

Now that is scraping the bottom of the barrel, comrade

[jdinasia]

I read every source available (even New Mandala)

Now that is scraping the bottom of the barrel, comrade

Hey .... NOT reading it would be silly. It tells how people that think of themselves as liberal --- but who are so extreme that they support people involved in terroristic acts and insurrections --- umm (the word is a stretch, I know) think.

[Time Traveller]

<post deleted>

Edited May 24, 2011 by Time Traveller