Will Arroyos Do A Thaksin Shinawatra Or A Joseph Estrada?

[webfact]

Will Arroyos do a Thaksin Shinawatra or a Joseph Estrada?

Gil C. Cabacungan Jr.

Philippine Daily Inquirer

With the possibility raised that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband could be in jail on nonbailable charges by Christmas, some lawmakers are wondering whether the couple will do "a Thaksin" or "an Erap," (Joseph Estrada).

"They may likely do a Thaksin," said Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao.

"The possibility [of seeking political asylum] is strong considering that the charges against them, ranging from plunder to electoral sabotage, are nonbailable offenses," he said.

Aggabao was referring to Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, who went into exile in 2009 after being convicted under his successor's administration.

To gain political asylum, Arroyo will claim that she and her family are victims of "political persecution," Aggabao said.

"The United States will be a safe bet [for asylum]. Surely they have friends at the US State Department developed over the years she was President," he said.

But Rep. Rodel Batocabe of the party-list group Ako Bicol reckoned that Arroyo would tread the path taken by ousted President Joseph "Erap" Estrada, who faced charges even if it meant being detained for years.

Estrada, who was deposed in 2001, was eventually convicted of plunder and immediately pardoned by Arroyo. He ranked second in the 2010 presidential election.

"I don't think they will seek asylum. As former President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is cognizant of her place in history," Batocabe said.

-- ANN 2011-10-08

[TAWP]

who went into exile in 2009 after being convicted under his successor's administration

One day the Thaksin media PR spin might be counteracted by the truth - he was sentenced under his own proxy parties regime. PPP was in power - no-one else.

(And he went AWOL in 2008.)

[onionluke]

The Thai media should be asking , " Will Thaksin do an Aroyo ?"

ie; sieze power illegally through popular demonstration , military backing and cronyism .

[rixalex]

who went into exile in 2009 after being convicted under his successor's administration

One day the Thaksin media PR spin might be counteracted by the truth - he was sentenced under his own proxy parties regime. PPP was in power - no-one else.

(And he went AWOL in 2008.)

I'd usually agree with you TAWP, but i think in this case, the term successor simply means those that succeeded him.

It is i agree though important to point out (as this story did not) that those who did, were indeed affiliated to him, and therefore weakens the case of there being political motivations behind the conviction.

[animatic]

who went into exile in 2009 after being convicted under his successor's administration

One day the Thaksin media PR spin might be counteracted by the truth - he was sentenced under his own proxy parties regime. PPP was in power - no-one else.

(And he went AWOL in 2008.)

I'd usually agree with you TAWP, but i think in this case, the term successor simply means those that succeeded him.

It is i agree though important to point out (as this story did not) that those who did, were indeed affiliated to him, and therefore weakens the case of there being political motivations behind the conviction.

I have to disagree, a term doesn't change just by misuse.

His successor was the Army government.

Later, he was convicted under his own proxy government,

which was not his successor, but 2 governments later.

If they said by a succeeding government I could buy that.

In any case the Philippine lawyer speaking is wrong on most points except exile. 'Thaksin went into self-imposed exile in 2008,

after being convicted by the courts under his own parties government.'

Oh so unfair that he couldn't leverage his own party power

to keep his ass out of stir and his face un-lost. ( <insert irony smilie )

Will Arroyo do a runner. Well if she looks at the last convicted head of state he did jail and came out to be number 2 candidate and still viable politically, he took the honorable path and it worked for him. And her legacy will be better served than his was if she stays.

Edited October 8, 2011 by animatic

[rixalex]

I'd usually agree with you TAWP, but i think in this case, the term successor simply means those that succeeded him.

It is i agree though important to point out (as this story did not) that those who did, were indeed affiliated to him, and therefore weakens the case of there being political motivations behind the conviction.

I have to disagree.

His successor was the Army government.

Later, he was convicted under his own proxy government,

which was not his successor, but 2 governments later.

OK. The error is then in that successor implies the administration that directly followed him, which was, as you say, not the case. The error that TAWP was identifying was about it being his own proxy party, not an opposition party. I don't think the term successor implies anything with regards to that.

[MaiChai]

All these countries have the problem where one person can remain in power for too long. This makes them entrenched, less accountable for their actions and more temped by corruption. Once they go down the path of extreme abuse of power and corruption, they cannot give up the position, because the next administration will discover their abuses.

The American system seems to work where a person can only be in power for two terms. Mind you in countries like Thailand this type of system can be derailed by a puppet/proxy being put inplace to continue the same administration and maintain the same control and abuses of power. The people of America would not tolerate this blatant abuse of the system, however, see through the shenanigans, and not let it happen. Some would argue that the Bush senior/junior was a bit close for comfort, but at least quite a few governments had come and gone between the two being in power.

A true democracy would be where the people bring in some balance to previous abuses, rather than being brainwashed by what some regard as a semi-god, which seems the case in Thailand.

Edited October 8, 2011 by MaiChai

[animatic]

All these countries have the problem where one person can remain in power for too long. This makes them entrenched, less accountable for their actions and more temped by corruption. Once they go down the path of extreme abuse of power and corruption, they cannot give up the position, because the next administration will discover their abuses. The American system seems to work where a person can only be in power for two terms. Mind you in countries like Thailand this type of system can be derailed by a puppet/proxy being put inplace to continue the same administration.

Some would say this is the case in USA also....

[MaiChai]

I just added that You got to my post too quickly

[animatic]

Interesting that within ASEAN 'Thaksin' has be come a verb,

with negative connotations.

Now THAT is a legacy!

"Do a Thaksin".

Seems to even have displaced 'Make like Marcos'.

So anyone ever count Potjamin's shoes?

Edited October 8, 2011 by animatic

[TAWP]

I'd usually agree with you TAWP, but i think in this case, the term successor simply means those that succeeded him.

It is i agree though important to point out (as this story did not) that those who did, were indeed affiliated to him, and therefore weakens the case of there being political motivations behind the conviction.

I have to disagree.

His successor was the Army government.

Later, he was convicted under his own proxy government,

which was not his successor, but 2 governments later.

OK. The error is then in that successor implies the administration that directly followed him, which was, as you say, not the case. The error that TAWP was identifying was about it being his own proxy party, not an opposition party. I don't think the term successor implies anything with regards to that.

You are both right and wrong - the term, after a coup, indicates the directly succeeding group in power. That would be the military. If you asked anyone not familiar with the details, after reading that sentence, about who was in power during the sentencing...then I think most would get it wrong.

And Thaksin was sentenced, and left, in 2008, not 2009. In 2009 the democrats took over midyear through. You see why I think the reporter might have had the wrong impression himself?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

All these countries have the problem where one person can remain in power for too long. This makes them entrenched, less accountable for their actions and more temped by corruption. Once they go down the path of extreme abuse of power and corruption, they cannot give up the position, because the next administration will discover their abuses.

The American system seems to work where a person can only be in power for two terms. Mind you in countries like Thailand this type of system can be derailed by a puppet/proxy being put inplace to continue the same administration and maintain the same control and abuses of power. The people of America would not tolerate this blatant abuse of the system, however, see through the shenanigans, and not let it happen. Some would argue that the Bush senior/junior was a bit close for comfort, but at least quite a few governments had come and gone between the two being in power.

A true democracy would be where the people bring in some balance to previous abuses, rather than being brainwashed by what some regard as a semi-god, which seems the case in Thailand.

In the Philippines, they're brainwashed by what 99% of the country regard as a God. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time.

The mean intelligence levels in Thailand are incomparable with the suffering over there. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time.

They have dynasty problems over there that are incomparable with the Thai / UK model. People have been reduced to a state of simplicity so acute, that they will vote for the first name on the ballot they recognise. It makes sense, on account of their being so happy. Which is a lovely thing really, to be so happy when you have so little.

Unless you're little, I guess. Then it's a wonderful thing for those that reduce people to that state. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time. And they are professionals. They've had some practice. And the formula they can offer, is a proven winning one. They've been winning for 2000 years. I don't know why those in the market for religion, consider their competitiors at all.

In the US, I think they just kill off their dynasties. Are there any Kennedys left?

The Bushes won't be back, ever. Americans demanded change. That's what Americans do when they've been exploited. Demand. They won't stop demanding, until they get it.

Or until they're distracted. Whichever comes first.

[khaowong1]

All these countries have the problem where one person can remain in power for too long. This makes them entrenched, less accountable for their actions and more temped by corruption. Once they go down the path of extreme abuse of power and corruption, they cannot give up the position, because the next administration will discover their abuses.

The American system seems to work where a person can only be in power for two terms. Mind you in countries like Thailand this type of system can be derailed by a puppet/proxy being put inplace to continue the same administration and maintain the same control and abuses of power. The people of America would not tolerate this blatant abuse of the system, however, see through the shenanigans, and not let it happen. Some would argue that the Bush senior/junior was a bit close for comfort, but at least quite a few governments had come and gone between the two being in power.

A true democracy would be where the people bring in some balance to previous abuses, rather than being brainwashed by what some regard as a semi-god, which seems the case in Thailand.

In the Philippines, they're brainwashed by what 99% of the country regard as a God. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time.

The mean intelligence levels in Thailand are incomparable with the suffering over there. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time.

They have dynasty problems over there that are incomparable with the Thai / UK model. People have been reduced to a state of simplicity so acute, that they will vote for the first name on the ballot they recognise. It makes sense, on account of their being so happy. Which is a lovely thing really, to be so happy when you have so little.

Unless you're little, I guess. Then it's a wonderful thing for those that reduce people to that state. But then the Vatican have been drinking that well dry for the longest time. And they are professionals. They've had some practice. And the formula they can offer, is a proven winning one. They've been winning for 2000 years. I don't know why those in the market for religion, consider their competitiors at all.

In the US, I think they just kill off their dynasties. Are there any Kennedys left?

The Bushes won't be back, ever. Americans demanded change. That's what Americans do when they've been exploited. Demand. They won't stop demanding, until they get it.

Or until they're distracted. Whichever comes first.

Yeah, they were distracted in the last election. Hopefully they will wake up before the next election. But don't count on it.

[Buchholz]

Interesting that within ASEAN 'Thaksin' has be come a verb,

with negative connotations.

Now THAT is a legacy!

"Do a Thaksin".

Seems to even have displaced 'Make like Marcos'.

So anyone ever count Potjamin's shoes?

They'll soon be exporting:

Weng-ing

[bristolgeoff]

i,am sure they will if are going to be inside for awhile.if they have the millions like Thaksin.they be gone

[mca]

Isn't Joseph Estrada that guy from the '70s Highway Patrol show CHiPS?

[OzMick]

Isn't Joseph Estrada that guy from the '70s Highway Patrol show CHiPS?

That was Erik Estrada. They were both actors though, neither with much talent.