Analysis: Beginning Of The End Of Thaksin?

[ColPyat]

you don't like to hear the truth, right?

I beg your pardon?!

You gotta be joking. Are you child that by coincidence stumbled onto this web board, but hasn't learned yet the basic rules of engaging in conversation with adults?

I, and other posters, have numerous times pointed you to threads that you should read (which you obviously didn't), have brought up counter arguments to your rather naive theories (which you conveniently ignored).

So, read, and respond, don't just talk to yourself.

[thedude]

to make an accusation like that "general" did about thaksin "changing" the laws. well, it was basically slander. call it a lie - if you will.

I did actually spent a bit of time and thought into my posts hoping that you would afford me the same respect. I get more intelligent and informed respones when i have a chat with my dogs.

I am not anymore willing to keep engaging into this one-way conversation.

A hint: when people hold a discussion they do respond to the points the opponent brings up, and not just repeat their own points while completely ignoring the other's.

Thanks for wasting my time.

colpyat,

i think saying that Thaksin changed the laws to benefit from the sale of Shin is stretching the truth a fair bit. this contortion of the facts has also been repeated so much in the press for the benefit of the anti-thaksin movement.

the telecommunications industry is opening up to increased foreign holdings because of the need to modernise the industry here and keep up with the rest of the world. foreign players do not simply bring in capital, they bring in technology and knowhow. since they bring in the technology and knowhow, the foreign player would not be attracted to enter the market without being allowed a meaningful share in the venture. this is the hard reality of the telecommunications sector, and telco sectors in many other emerging markets have been deregulating over the past several years.

local companies that had benefitted under the previous generation of technology have to upgrade at heavy expense to the new wave of 3G and beyond. furthermore, since the experiece in other countries has shown that 3G is not especially profitable in the short term, many smaller players know that this will drain their resources and threaten their market share, local telcos are smart to dilute their interests, seek other strategies, or otherwise invite a foreign player in who could provide the capital and technology to bolster their chance of survival. as main owners of AIS, thaksin's family is aware of this just like other local telco owners are. their motivation to sell out was due to the strategic circumstances, and not because they suddenly want to cash up and expose their wealth (no business minded family wants to expose their wealth unnecessarily). furthermore, since so much additional capital is required to compete in the future, thaksin's family would have had to pump in additional investment into shin corp. wouldn't this appear to be more scandalous to the public?

as part of the government's larger plans for deregulation, an independent authority is set up to oversee the process and ensure fair play for other local telco players like samart or jasmine. a part of the deregulation roadmap entails the changing of the laws to enable foreign ownership to increase to 49%. this is an inevitable part of the entire plan. Thaksin did not enact the change in the law for the benefit of Shin. rather, he knew it was going to happen, and his family took advantage of its change at the first possible instance to make the exit.

i read that other telco players have welcomed the sale as it truly opens up the industry to fairer competition, albeit with the entry of foreign players. local telcos likewise have the opportunity to also upgrade and compete at the next level by inviting other foreign players in to take a significant share in their business.

Edited February 21, 2006 by thedude

[haha]

you don't like to hear the truth, right?

I beg your pardon?!

You gotta be joking. Are you child that by coincidence stumbled onto this web board, but hasn't learned yet the basic rules of engaging in conversation with adults?

I, and other posters, have numerous times pointed you to threads that you should read (which you obviously didn't), have brought up counter arguments to your rather naive theories (which you conveniently ignored).

So, read, and respond, don't just talk to yourself.

I read many of the posts that others suggested I read. and in most of the posts, all I saw were accusations with no proof confirming those accusations.

in my last post on this thread, I basically pointed out what I read on the bangkok post which basically proves my point that the "general" lied, and you come back with a bunch of insults.

note that I haven't insulted you yet. so, tell me who is acting like a adult?

[Heng]

to make an accusation like that "general" did about thaksin "changing" the laws. well, it was basically slander. call it a lie - if you will.

I did actually spent a bit of time and thought into my posts hoping that you would afford me the same respect. I get more intelligent and informed respones when i have a chat with my dogs.

I am not anymore willing to keep engaging into this one-way conversation.

A hint: when people hold a discussion they do respond to the points the opponent brings up, and not just repeat their own points while completely ignoring the other's.

Thanks for wasting my time.

colpyat,

i think saying that Thaksin changed the laws to benefit from the sale of Shin is stretching the truth a fair bit. this contortion of the facts has also been repeated so much in the press for the benefit of the anti-thaksin movement.

the telecommunications industry is opening up to increased foreign holdings because of the need to modernise the industry here and keep up with the rest of the world. foreign players do not simply bring in capital, they bring in technology and knowhow. since they bring in the technology and knowhow, the foreign player would not be attracted to enter the market without being allowed a meaningful share in the venture. this is the hard reality of the telecommunications sector, and telco sectors in many other emerging markets have been deregulating over the past several years.

local companies that had benefitted under the previous generation of technology have to upgrade at heavy expense to the new wave of 3G and beyond. furthermore, since the experiece in other countries has shown that 3G is not especially profitable in the short term, many smaller players know that this will drain their resources and threaten their market share, local telcos are smart to dilute their interests, seek other strategies, or otherwise invite a foreign player in who could provide the capital and technology to bolster their chance of survival. as main owners of AIS, thaksin's family is aware of this just like other local telco owners are. their motivation to sell out was due to the strategic circumstances, and not because they suddenly want to cash up and expose their wealth (no business minded family wants to expose their wealth unnecessarily).

as part of the government's larger plans for deregulation, an independent authority is set up to oversee the process and ensure fair play for other local telco players like samart or jasmine. a part of the deregulation roadmap entails the changing of the laws to enable foreign ownership to increase to 49%. this is an inevitable part of the entire plan. Thaksin did not enact the change in the law for the benefit of Shin. rather, he knew it was going to happen, and his family took advantage of its change at the first possible instance to make the exit.

i read that other telco players have welcomed the sale as it truly opens up the industry to fairer competition, albeit with the entry of foreign players. local telcos likewise have the opportunity to also upgrade and compete at the next level by inviting other foreign players in to take a significant share in their business.

Yeah, but have you read the rules about engaging in conversation with adults yet?

[ColPyat]

colpyat,

i think saying that Thaksin changed the laws to benefit from the sale of Shin is stretching the truth a fair bit. this contortion of the facts has also been repeated so much in the press for the benefit of the anti-thaksin movement.

I can definately understand your points.

And i have also certain serious problems with the vocal opposition (see my posts in the thread about the 11 feb demonstrations), mainly from the extreme nationalist corners, to mainly base their outrage at recent shin corp sale. IMO there are far more serious issues that do far more lasting harm to Thailand than the shin corp sale.

Only, a few points remain regarding the telecom issue.

1) the question of conflict of interest.

Being prime minister and telecom tycoon at the same time leaves the question what he was foremost. One thing that was consistent so far under his rule are his own conflicting statements and actions over his policies regarding economics. Remember - he did campaign on a nationalist banner, accusing the opposition of "selling out" Thailand to foreigners. Basically, what he just did now. As a pure business man he cannot be accused of anything, really. Though as a nationalist/populist prime minister...

2) the initial aqcuisition of his wealth.

Very detailed in the books by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker. The whole history of the phenomenon "Thaksin", from his beginnings, to his initial involvement in politics, until recent sale of shin corp leaves few other conclusions than that he is primarily a monopolist business man that uses every trick in the box to further his own wealth, and not a politician responsible for the well being of his people.

His populist policies aimed at getting votes (or "fighting poverty") so far have not mostly failed miserably, but have initiated lasting damage to Thailand (see my posts about the rubber scheme in the thread "Thaksin boasts...").

Supporters of Thaksin here defend the legalities of the shin corp sale, though ignore far larger issues. Given the extremely complicated build up of his businesses, i personally am somewhat lost already concerning legalities. I guess i will have to wait for Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker's next book. So far though the arguments of the Democrats sound to me far more plausible than Thaksin's rather emotional excuses mainly aimed at bringing villagers even more on his side. Which also increases the already huge gap between rural poor and urban middle class.

But concerning the summary execution of several thousand Thais i am not lost. There is no provision in the Thai law that allows this.

Neither am i blind to the devastating effects of the loan schemes that brought the poor into even further debt, and the large agricultural schemes that are implemented completely ignoring the socio-economic situation upcountry.

Thaksin has to be judged by his achievments as a prime minister, and not just as a shrewd businessman. And those achievemnts are almost nil.

[tettyan]

as part of the government's larger plans for deregulation, an independent authority is set up to oversee the process and ensure fair play for other local telco players like samart or jasmine. a part of the deregulation roadmap entails the changing of the laws to enable foreign ownership to increase to 49%. this is an inevitable part of the entire plan. Thaksin did not enact the change in the law for the benefit of Shin. rather, he knew it was going to happen, and his family took advantage of its change at the first possible instance to make the exit.

It's not quite that simple. When Thaksin first came to power, the limit on foreign ownership in the telecom industry was already 49%. At the TRT government's behest, this limit was reduced to 25% early in Thaksin's first term. Coincidentally, around the same time, Telenor was contemplating taking a larger stake in AIS archrival DTAC. Needless to say, this change put an end to that move. A very convenient coincidence for AIS, if you ask me.

A year or two after the law was first changed, the gov't proposed to raise the foreign ownership back to 49%. This passed the House with TRT support, but was rejected by the Senate the first time around. The government strongly urged the Senate to reconsider, and the change was approved, to be effective last month, just before the Shin sale. Yet another convenient conincidence.

You can argue all you want that the changes in the laws since Thaksin came to power that happened to benefit his businesses were very, very convenient coincidences. But in Thailand, you must understand the deep degree to which politics and big business is intertwined. I suggest you review your Thai economic history. Only the truly naive believe that businessmen here do not enter politics in order to manipulate the playing field to their advantage.

Again, let me suggest Pasuk and Baker's book - it's not perfect, but it's not a bad place to start if you're trying to understand the interplay between politics and business here.

[ColPyat]

I read many of the posts that others suggested I read. and in most of the posts, all I saw were accusations with no proof confirming those accusations.

Then elaborate and substantiate, please.

Give us your position on the large scale agricultural schemes, such as the rubber scheme.

Give us your position on the drugwar, but please more discerning arguments than "rather believing the police". Explain how you come to the conclusion that there were no summary executions, which somehow is in conflict with the National Human Rights commision, the UN Human Rights commision, the international media and the local media.

Give us your position on the changes in the sor por kor 401 law.

Give us your position on the effects of the easy loan scemes.

So far you have failed to explain your position in any of those issues. That leaves me no choice other than coming to the conclusion that you have not informed yourself sufficiently. I will not continue trying to reason with you as long as you don't stop evading those issues. This is becoming absurd.

Take it or leave it.

[penzman]

And let's please keep the replies polite, no slapping !

[sriracha john]

Thaksin's promise is void

(TNA) - Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has barred his ruling Thai Rak Thai (TRT) Party members from joining the opposition's move to secure a censure debate against him, saying a challenge he made during a television talk show was misinterpreted, said the government spokesman on Tuesday.

According to the government spokesman, Dr. Surapong Seubwonglee, the prime minister told the cabinet that the opposition recalled a promise he made in the TV interview that TRT party members could support the opposition's move to grill him.

''In the promise, the prime minister said if TRT won 400 seats, he would allow its members to help the opposition to secure a censure debate. But TRT has got 374 seats; so the promise is then void,'' he said.

[sriracha john]

High school students join anti-PM camp

Students from an elite state high school have become the latest to demand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra resign, citing his loss of moral authority, dictatorial style and arrogance. Calling themselves ''Students for Democracy'', the group outlined 14 reasons why Mr Thaksin has lost his legitimacy to govern.

Group leaders Yos Tansakul, Siwawut Sitthivej and Pattaranan Lim-udomporn, all from the prestigious Triam Udom Suksa school, yesterday read a statement at the October 14 Memorial on Ratchadamnoen Avenue urging Mr Thaksin to quit.

The statement said Mr Thaksin's has failed to push ahead with education reform, promote democracy or deliver on promises to eradicate poverty and corruption.

The students said the prime minister often resorted to using force to solve problems such as the southern unrest. His administration was filled with people only concerned with their own interests.

They also accused Mr Thaksin of having no respect for human rights, evidenced by the many alleged extra-judicial killings in the government's war on drugs.

''The prime minister must not be just an able person but must have ethics, morality and honesty,'' said Mr Siwawut.

''For these reasons, we no longer trust the man named Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister.''

The students called Mr Thaksin ''a satan in the disguise of a saint'' because so many problems had been caused by him and his policies.

Mr Yos said the student group will gather signatures from their peers, not for the petition seeking Mr Thaksin's impeachment, since most of them have not reached the legal age of 18, but to vent their frustration.

Mr Pattaranan said more than 100 students from about 30 schools have shown an interest in joining them.

Also yesterday, Somkiat Pongpaiboon, chairman of the council of lecturers and officials of 40 Rajabhat universities nationwide, said 50 council members would today meet at Rajabhat Phra Nakhon University and declare the council's stand against Mr Thaksin.

[penzman]

[sriracha john]

nice shirt

someone inform the Fashion Police!

[dr_Pat_Pong]

nice shirt

someone inform the Fashion Police!

It was a bit wasn't it

[sriracha john]

‘Time for Thaksin to exit politics forever’

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra must resign and leave politics permanently, academics from two universities said yesterday.

Dissolving Parliament and calling an election would not end the crisis, they said.

Some 26 academics from Burapha University in Chon Buri said the public had lost all trust in the premier’s statements and believed he would buy his way back into office if he faced another election.

The lecturers said the public was disappointed in Thaksin’s ethics and believed he would further damage the country if he was allowed to continue as prime minister.

Their announcement was made as students at the university were due to issue an anti-Thaksin statement. The students plan to join Sunday’s anti-Thaksin rally.

In Hat Yai, the council at Prince of Songkhla University vowed to oust Thaksin. “We shall pursue all peaceful means ... if the House is dissolved, we lecturers will continue to purge [Thaksin].”

If Thaksin was allowed to contest an election again, he was likely to use his vast wealth to buy his way back to power, the council said.

The best solution, it said, would be to permanently bar Thaksin from politics and set up a special assembly to amend the constitution to close loopholes used by the premier for personal gain.

It urged the public to be confident a capable and honest replacement for Thaksin would be found.

Thaksin’s proposal for a special joint session of the House and Senate was dismissed as a delay tactic.

Thammasat University law lecturer Prinya Thevanarumitkul said Thaksin was the problem.

As the anti-Thaksin mood intensifies, members of his party are beginning to express discontent. Wuthipong Chaisaeng, a Thai Rak Thai MP from Chachoengsao province, admitted that Thaksin’s position was becoming increasingly difficult and dissent was on the rise.

[thedude]

hi colpyat, i have responded to your points below.

colpyat,

i think saying that Thaksin changed the laws to benefit from the sale of Shin is stretching the truth a fair bit. this contortion of the facts has also been repeated so much in the press for the benefit of the anti-thaksin movement.

I can definately understand your points.

And i have also certain serious problems with the vocal opposition (see my posts in the thread about the 11 feb demonstrations), mainly from the extreme nationalist corners, to mainly base their outrage at recent shin corp sale. IMO there are far more serious issues that do far more lasting harm to Thailand than the shin corp sale.

Only, a few points remain regarding the telecom issue.

1) the question of conflict of interest.

Being prime minister and telecom tycoon at the same time leaves the question what he was foremost. One thing that was consistent so far under his rule are his own conflicting statements and actions over his policies regarding economics. Remember - he did campaign on a nationalist banner, accusing the opposition of "selling out" Thailand to foreigners. Basically, what he just did now. As a pure business man he cannot be accused of anything, really. Though as a nationalist/populist prime minister...

I agree. I was trying to explain the bigger picture of change happening in the telco sector, and how it necessitated the kind of regulatory changes irrespective of whether Thaksin the politician helped to influence its specific timing (i do not dissagree that he might have influenced the specific timing of the rule changes to suit himself first). I was addressing the specific accusation that he changed the rules in order to sell his stake in Shin Corp. I wouldn't be arguing if the accusation was that he influenced the timing of the rule changes so that he would be the first amongst his rivals to exit the business. And having said that, as pointed out earlier, if other telco players aren't complaining (and in fact welcome the sale), wouldn't this be a more objective measure than uninformed public opinion?

If he were really so powerful and unconscionable, wouldn't logic suggest that he could just as easily have kept the door closed and further move to monopolise the telco sector and get rid of all existing competition? If he were really such a dictator, why should he care if Thailand forever flounders under 1.5G while the rest of the world moves to 4G. It is more logical to see that he was letting the industry develop freely and reacting to environmental changes by selling out.

Regarding his nationalist stance, i think we should see politicians for what they really are, they will play the nationalist card to win votes, but business reality means that they have to open up to FDIs or suffer a shrinking economy under their charge. A good politician would recognise the dichotomy and try to address the real concerns of nationalism (employment, ownership, wealth, freedom, security) while keeping the economy on a growth path.

2) the initial aqcuisition of his wealth.

Very detailed in the books by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker. The whole history of the phenomenon "Thaksin", from his beginnings, to his initial involvement in politics, until recent sale of shin corp leaves few other conclusions than that he is primarily a monopolist business man that uses every trick in the box to further his own wealth, and not a politician responsible for the well being of his people.

Please see my above comments. Who would blame a business person for their desire to monopolise. As a politician, I see his policies as being consistently pro-business, pro-liberalisation, pro-competition.

His populist policies aimed at getting votes (or "fighting poverty") so far have not mostly failed miserably, but have initiated lasting damage to Thailand (see my posts about the rubber scheme in the thread "Thaksin boasts...").

Supporters of Thaksin here defend the legalities of the shin corp sale, though ignore far larger issues. Given the extremely complicated build up of his businesses, i personally am somewhat lost already concerning legalities. I guess i will have to wait for Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker's next book. So far though the arguments of the Democrats sound to me far more plausible than Thaksin's rather emotional excuses mainly aimed at bringing villagers even more on his side. Which also increases the already huge gap between rural poor and urban middle class.

But concerning the summary execution of several thousand Thais i am not lost. There is no provision in the Thai law that allows this.

Neither am i blind to the devastating effects of the loan schemes that brought the poor into even further debt, and the large agricultural schemes that are implemented completely ignoring the socio-economic situation upcountry.

I have also presented my point of view in response in other threads and will not go further here.

Thaksin has to be judged by his achievments as a prime minister, and not just as a shrewd businessman. And those achievemnts are almost nil.

This sounds slightly emotive, i think there are clear failures, but there have also been achievements, which we have argued over in other threads.

[dan10400]

as part of the government's larger plans for deregulation, an independent authority is set up to oversee the process and ensure fair play for other local telco players like samart or jasmine. a part of the deregulation roadmap entails the changing of the laws to enable foreign ownership to increase to 49%. this is an inevitable part of the entire plan. Thaksin did not enact the change in the law for the benefit of Shin. rather, he knew it was going to happen, and his family took advantage of its change at the first possible instance to make the exit.

It's not quite that simple. When Thaksin first came to power, the limit on foreign ownership in the telecom industry was already 49%. At the TRT government's behest, this limit was reduced to 25% early in Thaksin's first term. Coincidentally, around the same time, Telenor was contemplating taking a larger stake in AIS archrival DTAC. Needless to say, this change put an end to that move. A very convenient coincidence for AIS, if you ask me.

A year or two after the law was first changed, the gov't proposed to raise the foreign ownership back to 49%. This passed the House with TRT support, but was rejected by the Senate the first time around. The government strongly urged the Senate to reconsider, and the change was approved, to be effective last month, just before the Shin sale. Yet another convenient conincidence.

You can argue all you want that the changes in the laws since Thaksin came to power that happened to benefit his businesses were very, very convenient coincidences. But in Thailand, you must understand the deep degree to which politics and big business is intertwined. I suggest you review your Thai economic history. Only the truly naive believe that businessmen here do not enter politics in order to manipulate the playing field to their advantage.

I believe the above explanation by K. Tettyan was very well put but would like to

emphasize the implications as they maybe are not clear.

The first legislative move to limit foreign investment effectively stiffled competition

and ehanced the competitive position and pricing power of AIS. The only beneficiary

here was AIS as it was able to charge quasi-monopoly profits. In essence, thai

people paid a 'tax' to AIS.

Even with higher rates, I choose AIS when I arrived in thailand about 4 years ago

because it had wider geographic coverage. limiting foreign competition pretty

much restricted competitors from building out their network to internally generated

funds. Then there were other issues regarding differing access charges for the

mobile networks, 'interoperatbility' problems that seemed to plague the competitors

to AIS, etc.

The recent change in foreign investment guidelines won't really help much alievate

the competitive issues as investment is not as attractive as it once was as the total

market growth has slowed due to saturation. invest into a lot of infrastructure and

watch your margins drop as competition heats up - whoopee!

so basically, the consequences of taxsins 'leadership' was that:

1. everyone enjoyed higher phone bills.

2. ais paid less taxes and access fees than competitors

3. the bulk of these gains accrued tax-free to taxsin.

[haha]

I read many of the posts that others suggested I read. and in most of the posts, all I saw were accusations with no proof confirming those accusations.

Then elaborate and substantiate, please.

Give us your position on the large scale agricultural schemes, such as the rubber scheme.

Give us your position on the drugwar, but please more discerning arguments than "rather believing the police". Explain how you come to the conclusion that there were no summary executions, which somehow is in conflict with the National Human Rights commision, the UN Human Rights commision, the international media and the local media.

Give us your position on the changes in the sor por kor 401 law.

Give us your position on the effects of the easy loan scemes.

So far you have failed to explain your position in any of those issues. That leaves me no choice other than coming to the conclusion that you have not informed yourself sufficiently. I will not continue trying to reason with you as long as you don't stop evading those issues. This is becoming absurd.

Take it or leave it.

first off, I really have no position with many of the points that you listed. it is not my place to side with either side since I am a foreigner.

my 2 cents...

what I see with thaksin is - a man who is trying to improve the country during his tenure. he is trying many different ways to achieve this goal.

there is no way anybody would know exactly what needs to be done. so, by trying, hopefully, you will find the solution. this is what I see thaksin trying to do.

on the other side, I see these anti-thaksin people trying to tear thaksin down for everything he does. they don't provide any constructive feedback to thaksin on his attempts to improve the country, they just complain.

these anti-thaksin people should work with thaksin on correcting problems with any projects that were attempted. but instead, they waste his time by just complaining.

my guess is that these same people will do the same with the next leader who comes along in the future.

colpyat: you have a list of items that I guess you find have problems. have you tried to contact the appropriate people involved with those projects to provide them with feedback as to what the problems are in the spirit of correcting the problems?

last but not least...

colpyat: you assume that I made "a conclusion that no summary executions were made" - which I did not.

I just pointed out to you that you were not there, so, how can you assume that summary executions were made?

in my country, you are innocent before proven guilty.

on this subject of the drug war, you have already judged thaksin guilty on all points without even presenting any proof other then mostly heresay. that is what I don't feel comfortable with.

this is mob mentality. vigilante rules.

could it be... that maybe independent police officers are taking the laws within their own hands? have you heard of rogue police? it happens.

fact of the matter, many of these anti-thaksin people are just making accusations without any proof.

many of these accusations could be considered examples of slander.

my constructive criticism to the anti-thaksin crowd...

if you have issues with projects implemented by thaksin and the government, list them, and present them to the appropriate authorities for review. and suggest possible ways to improve on the projects. by working as a team, solutions can be found.

..as it is, people are just complaining. so, nothing will get done. I hear from the nation newspaper that thaksin is spending a lot of time away from his job now to deal with these complainers.

what a waste of time.

[Jai Dee]

TRT spikes MPs bid for Thaksin to quit

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra receives an enthusiastic welcome from a crowd of supporters as he arrives at Government House yesterday to attend a Cabinet meeting.

The call yesterday by four Thai Rak Thai lawmakers with links to Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to resign while a caretaker government oversees constitutional changes was immediately dismissed as impractical as political analysts focused on the prospect of an imminent dissolution of Parliament.

“Thaksin’s least desirable option is to resign,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. “All roads are leading toward a House dissolution…Thaksin has to dissolve the House urgently because the longer he waits the less attractive dissolution becomes. His popularity will continue to plummet and the factions will start to run amok.”

Though a resignation seems unlikely at this point, yesterday’s comments by the former Palang Dharma party members mark the first time that ruling party MPs have called for Thaksin to step down. Their comments add weight to growing pressure on the premier to either voluntarily leave office or call new elections.

“If the prime minister dissolves Parliament right now it won’t correct the situation,” said Colonel Winai Sompong, one of the Thai Rak Thai lawmakers who called on Thaksin to resign. “We should change the prime minister, amend the Constitution and then have new elections.”

Winai – who was joined by fellow party members Suphol Fongngam, Suthichai Janarakham and Salit Santimetaneedol – said Thaksin should resign “to avoid harm to society,” but continue to serve as Thai Rak Thai leader. Afterward, the TRT-dominated Parliament could choose a nominee prime minister to oversee changes to the Constitution, particularly concerning independent bodies and the 90-day rule, and then dissolve Parliament and call for new elections, he said.

The veteran lawmaker fears, as do some political commentators, that a snap election would lock current Thai Rak Thai members dissatisfied with the party into place, and delay or prevent any movement for real Constitutional reform.

The Constitution stipulates that those wishing to run for Parliament must be a member of a political party for at least 90 days, which means that lawmakers who leave the ruling party will be ineligible to run for office if Thaksin decides to hold an election in 60 days.

“A lot of lawmakers want to speak out, but they dare not due to the 90-day rule,” Winai said, adding that he did not expect to be on the party list if another election is held. “I kept my mouth shut for a year, but I believe the current situation is very bad and will be destructive to society.”

Though the rift in the Thai Rak Thai party is notable, analysts likened the renegade MPs to members of Sanoh Thienthong’s Wang Nam Yen faction. Two Cabinet ministers from the footloose bloc, including Sanoh’s wife, resigned in the run-up to Sondhi Limthongkul’s political rally at the Royal Plaza on February 4.

“Winai is like a foreigner within Thai Rak Thai,” said Kanin Boonsuwan, who helped draft the Constitution. “We cannot rely on the opinions of those people.”

Indeed, former Palang Dharma member Sutham Saengprathum told reporters yesterday that he thought Winai’s concerns should have been discussed at a party meeting.

“Colonel Winai himself had lots of problems within the Palang Dharma party,” Sutham said.

Other Thai Rak Thai members echoed Sutham’s sentiments yesterday. Jatuporn Promphan, a deputy party spokesman, said in an interview that he was “surprised” the lawmakers went public with their views.

“In the democratic system, it is only natural that MPs in the same party have different ideas and points of view,” he said. “The party is not in a position to gag members from making public comments on any issue. But once the party reaches a final decision on any matter, it’s necessary that the party members toe the line.”

Thaksin is trying to solve the current political crisis by working through Parliament, Jatuporn said. In a show of force, the party has also scheduled a political rally in Sanam Luang on March 3, and will try to follow up with similar rallies in other provinces in the future.

Most Thai Rak Thai lawmakers don’t think Thaksin should resign, and say he should only dissolve Parliament as a last resort.

“If the premier decides to dissolve Parliament, most existing Thai Rak Thai MPs would still seek re-election under the Thak Rak Thai banner, provided that it is impossible for them to switch to other parties to be eligible [due to the 90-day rule],” Jatuporn said.

Source: ThaiDay - 22 February 2006

[ColPyat]

first off, I really have no position with many of the points that you listed. it is not my place to side with either side since I am a foreigner.

I give up.

Sorry, but i just can't take it anymore.

Just out of interest - have you ever been in Thailand?

[haha]

first off, I really have no position with many of the points that you listed. it is not my place to side with either side since I am a foreigner.

I give up.

Sorry, but i just can't take it anymore.

Just out of interest - have you ever been in Thailand?

I have been living here for over 7 years. I love thailand, and because I do, I feel obligated to speak up if I think people are unjustly criticizing the government through the use of lies.

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I know. but I try to be honest, and fair.

[ColPyat]

I have been living here for over 7 years. I love thailand, and because I do, I feel obligated to speak up if I think people are unjustly criticizing the government through the use of lies.

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I know. but I try to be honest, and fair.

Sorry, my apologies. I do not try to be an arrogant prick, which i am at times.

Try to understand my position please. The points i have raised are all points that i had to deal with in my personal life here. I think that i have pointed out to you that my wife was in immediate proximity to one drugwar execution, approximately 5 meters away. My wife could have easily been killed. So, apart from all legalities, this drugwar was a personal thread to me and my family. And this i tell you in all honesty. So be fair, please, accept that some things might not be part of your personal experience, but are nevertheless true, and others have experienced it.

The same counts to all the other points i have raised - they not just have an devastating effect on the country - they have endangered the lifes of my family.

I do not want to destroy your love for Thailand. But mate, as nice of a personal life here we can create for ourselves, that does not mean that Thailand is a paradise. Far from it. Blocking out, rejecting everything that might derail you from loving Thailand does not serve any useful purpose.

Thailand is a real country, with real problems. I personally do my best to change things for the better. Not only out of some mistaken altruism, but also simply because i will have an easier time if my family is doing alright. And those efforts do bring me more often than not in direct conflict with the government.

For example the loan schemes: I had initially a hard time explaining my family that taking up the easy loan offers would lead to their utter ruin, as they would not have had the slightest chance to pay back the loans. And that was at a time when government officials came every month to them trying to pressurize them into taking up the loan offers, trying to mob them, blackmail them, any dirty trick you can imagine.

The agricultural schemes were similar: officials tried to apply pressure so that we change our selfsufficient farm (according the roayally sponsored "sittakit por pueang" sythem), into a worldmarket oriented sythem, that was simply not economically feasable.

I believe that i have pissed off many TRT members in the area by refusing to take part in their schemes. The only thing though that i care about is that my family prospers, and i don't need to support them. Most others though who took part in the schemes do everything else than prosper.

Do you understand where i am coming from? I am not a "foreigner" on the sidelines barking up the tree. TRT rule has made my and my family's life very difficult, and i have 5 years of defensive battling behind me. I dream of the days under Chuan, where things went slow, but steady. And i pray that we can have a return to those far more peaceful and enjoyable days without any further bloodshed.

[Plus]

Speaking about telecoms. Foreign investment is one thing, but the current situation is worrysome - AIS is now Singapore owned, Dtac is essentially Norwegian, only Orange left, and it has about 80 bil baht in debts, which is about the same size as Taksin's share in Shin.

What we have is market practically owned by foreigners with no locals left (Orange's share is only about 15%).

Thais usually don't allow foreign domination in essential markets, like banking. Telecoms are slipping through their fingers as we speak.

[sriracha john]

POLITICAL CRISIS

Party heavies urge Thaksin to step down

Sources say PM prefers dissolving the House; Chaturon, Bhokin seen as possible successors

Pressure is growing for the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to stand down – even from inside the ruling party.

Certain figures in the Thai Rak Thai Party have advised the premier to step down as a way out of the ongoing political crisis, a source in the TRT said yesterday.

The TRT figures believe that with the premier resigning, the governing party would be able to maintain most of the status quo, while placating the anti-Thaksin campaigners focused on bringing him down because of the Shin Corp sell-off scandal, according to a source.

These figures agreed that with the ruling party remaining in power, it would play an important role in efforts to amend the Constitution, the source said.

Earlier, the premier ruled out resigning, arguing that he would not upset people who voted for his party and wanted him to serve a full four-year term. He also made it clear he wanted to keep the top job by offering compromise deals to critics and opponents.

Public pressure is growing for Thaksin to resign in the wake of the Shin scandal and wealth concealment allegations against him, and the decision by the Constitution Court to reject a petition by 27 senators to investigate the charges. The anti-Thaksin campaign has gained momentum with the participation of many groups.

The TRT source said that if forced to choose, Thaksin would favour House dissolution rather than resignation.

That Rak Thai MP Chalermchai Ulankul said yesterday that dissolving the House without first amending the charter would leave many problematic issues unsettled.

“If the TRT returns to power, the same problems will exist and the same disputes won’t go away,” he said.

The government MP called on Thaksin to give clear explanations about allegations against him at the general parliamentary debate, expected to take place from Monday week (March 6). “If he fails to answer the questions, discontent will grow,” he said.

Gothom Arya, chairman of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council, suggested yesterday that Thaksin should step down to make way for amending certain “problematic clauses” in the Constitution.

“This way, the government can do the caretaker job while Parliament can continue with its work,” he said.

Student leaders yesterday echoed the calls for Thaksin to resign.

Kotchawan Chaiyabutr, secretary general of the Students Federation of Thailand, said it was time for the prime minister to go.

“He should not dissolve the House. The problem involves his personal matters. If he does so, Thai politics will remain in the same old cycle. If he resigns, he will let the political reform process to begin, which will benefit the country more,” she said.

Student leaders from five universities in Nakhon Ratchasima agreed at their meeting yesterday they no longer trust Thaksin to lead the country, said Samak Sopha, from Suranaree University of Technology.

If Thaksin opts to resign, there is a limited list of possible successors. The Constitution requires that the prime minister must be an elected member of Parliament, so one of TRT’s top 10 party-list MPs is likely to replace Thaksin.

Political pundits said possible candidates were Deputy PM and Industry Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, who is No 2 on the list, Education Minister Chaturon Chaisaeng, fourth on the list, and House Speaker Bhokin Bhalakula, ninth on the list.

They said while Suriya is the first candidate, he is the worse possible choice. Suriya leads the Wang Nam Yom faction, which has more than 100 MPs, making it the second biggest faction in the ruling party. Thaksin has realised that Suriya’s faction is too big to control.

Thaksin knows that once Suriya tastes life as premier it would hard to bring him down, one of the pundits said.

Moreover, Suriya is still scarred by the CTX scanner scandal. It was unlikely the public believed the government investigation, which found no evidence of corruption at the new airport.

Chaturon seems to be the most likely choice, they said. With his character of compromise they thought Chaturon would receive support from TRT MPs. They also pointed out that with Chaturon’s clean image – he is seen as one of the good politicians – the public might easily accept him.

A few years ago, Asiaweek magazine hailed Chaturon as an up-and-coming young politician with the potential to become prime minister. However, his weak point is he lacks leadership experience, so the public would be uncertain whether he could be really free from Thaksin or might be considered his puppet.

Bhokin is the second likely choice. He is now House Speaker and senior enough to replace Thaksin, they said. Moreover, Thaksin trusts Bhokin and he could serve Thaksin in every way. But the weakness for Bhokin is that he has no political clout, so TRT MPs are hardly likely to accept him.

Unfortunately, two of Thaksin’s close aides, Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Somkid Jatusripitak and Agriculture Minister Sudarat Keyuraphan cannot occupy the post because they are not MPs.

-TN

[asd]

What disturbs people the most is the way Thaksin has gone about the deal. It was the way he was almost gloating ... It's the gloating and the double standards.

[sriracha john]

Graftbuster lays charge against Thaksin, sister Yaowapa

Leading graftbuster Veera Somkwamkid yesterday filed a police complaint with the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yaowapa Wongsawat, alleging they sought to render favours to a judge during the wealth concealment trial involving Mr Thaksin in 2001. Mr Veera, secretary-general of the People's Network Against Corruption, met CSD commander Pol Maj-Gen Vinai Thongsong, to bring charges against Mr Thaksin and Ms Yaowapa, who is a Thai Rak Thai deputy leader.

In the concealment trial, the Constitution Court voted 8-7 to acquit Mr Thaksin. Mr Veera said some newspapers later published testimony by a witness, Bundit Siripant, saying a favour was sought from a judge in exchange for a job proposition for his son.

If Mr Bundit's testimony had been false, Mr Thaksin, Ms Yaowapa and the judge in question would surely have sued Mr Bundit to clear their names, he said.

None of them had done so.

Mr Veera said the testimony serves as a basis for lodging the police complaint.

Copies of a news column in the Thai Post newspaper, dated Oct 14, 2003, were presented as evidence.

-----------------------------------------------

Yaowapa Wongsawat, Thaksin's sister.

From her bio:

Doctor of Philosophy, "Honorary PhD" bestowed by School of Law, Newport University, USA

From the school's website:

Newport University was developed as an alternative to the traditional institutions of higher education for those persons who have been unable to experience college-level learning for various reasons.

Newport University does not require formal, on-campus residence or classroom attendance.

Another great quote from "her" school:

Newport University is not accredited by any agency recognized by the United States Department of Education.

Another "Dr." in the family...

Edited February 23, 2006 by sriracha john

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Pretty little thing isn't she ?

[sriracha john]

Pretty little thing isn't she ?

What a fluke... !!

You, coincidentally, put the photo up of her husband's face when he wakes up every morning next to her:

AND...

at the same time, put the photo of her personal trainer's face when he's been told, "Here's your paycheck." :

What are the odds of this happening???

[chownah]

What disturbs people the most is the way Thaksin has gone about the deal. It was the way he was almost gloating ... It's the gloating and the double standards.

:cheesy:

Pretty little thing isn't she ?

Great reply...you have shown your true wit and wisdom here by choosing such an important topic to comment on and doing it in such a clever and insightful way.

[sriracha john]

What disturbs people the most is the way Thaksin has gone about the deal. It was the way he was almost gloating ... It's the gloating and the double standards.

:cheesy:

Pretty little thing isn't she ?

Great reply...you have shown your true wit and wisdom here by choosing such an important topic to comment on and doing it in such a clever and insightful way.

Lighten up... we needed a brief respite. We can all get right back to all the seriousness of the issue in a sec.

All work and no play makes for a dull boy.

In all humble deference to your Northern roots, I apologize, but for the general levity, in the meantime, feast your eyes on another shot of the Chiang Mai Cutie... another gaze at the Shinawatra Stunner >>>

Yaowapa Wongsawat, (the vision of loveliness is in the purple dress)

-----------------------------

we will all now try to be adult-ish and return to serious discussion...

Edited February 23, 2006 by sriracha john

[penzman]

What disturbs people the most is the way Thaksin has gone about the deal. It was the way he was almost gloating ... It's the gloating and the double standards.

Don't they look like lottery winners?