Bangkok Police Chief Hits The Thaksin Iceberg

[ramrod711]

I like the iceberg analogy.......you only see so much of it and the danger lies beneath.

As icebergs break up they cause calving......and this calving can be fatal as it is so unpredictable and random.

Khamronwit hit the iceberg........but the iceberg has already spun off dozens of hidden dangers. There will be more casualties.

And the ship that was the Democratic party captained by Mr. Abhisit was the Titanic?

Guess which political bigwigs dressed up as women in order to get into the lifeboats?

The next time you reprimand another poster for bringing up Thaksin, claiming that they are off topic, I hope you remember this post

[khunken]

Has this government ever made an appointment to a high-profile post based on merit? Do they know what merit is?

It's no wonder that the Thaksin apologists can rarely, if ever, defend these boot-lickers other than the usual 'But Abhisit/Dems' off-topic posts.

[jayboy]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

If we are weighing up the merits of who we prefer lurking the shadows, pulling the strings, i'm not sure how much better off we are with a criminal fugitive who has been banned from politics and who is on the run and living overseas, albeit a criminal fugitive who does have some popularity, than with a member of the military or aristocracy, who lives legally within the country, also with a following albeit a smaller and less vocal one.

At the end of the day, neither have been elected, and neither from a democratic stand-point - or any other stand-point for that matter - appeal. Can it really be argued that one is better than the other?

Seems like a poke in the eye over a kick between the legs type of argument to me.

Yes it can be argued and I do argue it.Thaksin will eventually be gone.He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

[khunken]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

If we are weighing up the merits of who we prefer lurking the shadows, pulling the strings, i'm not sure how much better off we are with a criminal fugitive who has been banned from politics and who is on the run and living overseas, albeit a criminal fugitive who does have some popularity, than with a member of the military or aristocracy, who lives legally within the country, also with a following albeit a smaller and less vocal one.

At the end of the day, neither have been elected, and neither from a democratic stand-point - or any other stand-point for that matter - appeal. Can it really be argued that one is better than the other?

Seems like a poke in the eye over a kick between the legs type of argument to me.

Yes it can be argued and I do argue it.Thaksin will eventually be gone.He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

Thaksin was no more a catalyst for democracy than the Thai army. He should have been prevented from taking the reins of power when lying (an 'honest' mistake) about his assets & having his mate Sanoh & his wife interfere in the result of the scrutiny.

When in power, he set about emasculating most of the checks & balances that are an important part of democracy elsewhere. Just like his red shirt henchmen tried to do with the CC recently.

I wouldn't have a problem with Yingluck if she was really a PM capable of making decisions. In reality, she avoids them & allows her brother to appoint people to the government & important positions (such as in the police) based on loyalty to Thaksin and/or willingness to boost corruption.

If you lived in Thailand during Thaksin's 'reign' you would have seen that his goal was (& probably still is) just as feudal as any other group - i.e. quasi-dictatorship based on the Lee Kwan Yu model.

[rixalex]

He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.

He changed the way political parties think and switched them on to how populist policies and slick campaigning really can pay off, but as for doing something for democracy, too many abuses of power, too many human rights issues, too much nepotism, too much corruption, too much interference with the media, the courts, erosion of checks and balances... and the list goes on... to really i think say it was anything more than one step forward, two steps back. The current ineptitude and gross incompetence of the current administration rather confirms this i would say.

That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.

Deary me. If Thaksin was in such high demand and so many were keen for his return, he wouldn't be dithering over a year after he effectively took power, to simply get on his private jet and fly back. The overwhelming outpouring of public joy upon his arrival would surely embolden him... give him the courage... seems not.

Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

Yingluck did win a commanding mandate... which would be great if she was actually the one with the power to use that mandate.

When did i make a case "for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists"? The opinion i expressed was that either having the country ran by militarists and feudalists or having the country ran by an overseas on the run, banned from politics, criminal, didn't really make an awful lot of difference.

[jayboy]

He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.

He changed the way political parties think and switched them on to how populist policies and slick campaigning really can pay off, but as for doing something for democracy, too many abuses of power, too many human rights issues, too much nepotism, too much corruption, too much interference with the media, the courts, erosion of checks and balances... and the list goes on... to really i think say it was anything more than one step forward, two steps back. The current ineptitude and gross incompetence of the current administration rather confirms this i would say.

That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.

Deary me. If Thaksin was in such high demand and so many were keen for his return, he wouldn't be dithering over a year after he effectively took power, to simply get on his private jet and fly back. The overwhelming outpouring of public joy upon his arrival would surely embolden him... give him the courage... seems not.

Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

Yingluck did win a commanding mandate... which would be great if she was actually the one with the power to use that mandate.

When did i make a case "for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists"? The opinion i expressed was that either having the country ran by militarists and feudalists or having the country ran by an overseas on the run, banned from politics, criminal, didn't really make an awful lot of difference.

I said Thaksin was a catalyst for democracy.I agree he represented no kind of model for democracy in practice.However since his involvement in Thai politics there can be no going back and to use that rather hackneyed phrase the genie is out of the bottle.The Thai majority can no longer be browbeaten or told their inferior position is the natural order of things.Whether Thaksin was responsible for this change or whether he exploited a social current that was already underway could be the subject for an interesting discussion - but of course that is too much like thinking hard and reading widely for the usual suspects.

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.The unelected elites loathe him not for his lack of ethics but because they feel theatened (rightly so) by his immense popularity and influence.The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

I'm sorry but your post did indicate a moral equivalence between a democratic government and a disccredited band of military anf feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

You don't seem to be a knucklehead.Don't you ever do any serious reading about Thai politics?

[jayboy]

I said Thaksin was a catalyst for democracy.I agree he represented no kind of model for democracy in practice.However since his involvement in Thai politics there can be no going back and to use that rather hackneyed phrase the genie is out of the bottle.The Thai majority can no longer be browbeaten or told their inferior position is the natural order of things.Whether Thaksin was responsible for this change or whether he exploited a social current that was already underway could be the subject for an interesting discussion - but of course that is too much like thinking hard and reading widely for the usual suspects.

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.The unelected elites loathe him not for his lack of ethics (their own are often disgusting) but because they feel theatened (rightly so) by his immense popularity and influence.The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

There is no moral equivalence between a democratic government and a discredited band of military and feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

Edited September 9, 2012 by jayboy

[rubl]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

"unsatisfactory, but at least" followed by all the party political expressions which are used to indicate one's worthiness and learnedness. 'unelected feudalist' might be something like all those 'puyai' upcountry who still control 'their electorate' as if they are serfs. 'party associated with Thaksin' the mandated non-elite billionair.

Carry on people, nothing to see here

[jayboy]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

"unsatisfactory, but at least" followed by all the party political expressions which are used to indicate one's worthiness and learnedness. 'unelected feudalist' might be something like all those 'puyai' upcountry who still control 'their electorate' as if they are serfs. 'party associated with Thaksin' the mandated non-elite billionair.

Carry on people, nothing to see here

Frankly rather incoherent.However picking through the dross he seems to be suggesting that the Yingluck/PTP election victory is associated with regional powerbrokers rather than a genuine reflection of opinion (just serfs one must understand).One can only sigh and suggest a litle more time spent on reading.Nobody is suggesting this government is brilliant or that there aren't plenty of better alternatives.But please give us a rest from these tired old cliches.

[bigbamboo]

This is all getting very silly! In fact even Monthy Python would find it difficult to lampoon Thai politicians.

They all seem to be going around pretending they can't see that a supposed convicted criminal is running the country meeting with government ministers at will and knowing full well if he showed up in Bangkok tomorrow morning every official with the power to arrest him would suddenly become inactive and he would be dining in Government House and broadcasting to the nation before lunchtime.

[rubl]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

"unsatisfactory, but at least" followed by all the party political expressions which are used to indicate one's worthiness and learnedness. 'unelected feudalist' might be something like all those 'puyai' upcountry who still control 'their electorate' as if they are serfs. 'party associated with Thaksin' the mandated non-elite billionair.

Carry on people, nothing to see here

Frankly rather incoherent.However picking through the dross he seems to be suggesting that the Yingluck/PTP election victory is associated with regional powerbrokers rather than a genuine reflection of opinion (just serfs one must understand).One can only sigh and suggest a litle more time spent on reading.Nobody is suggesting this government is brilliant or that there aren't plenty of better alternatives.But please give us a rest from these tired old cliches.

Please give us a rest from these tired old cliches.

[whybother]

<snip>

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.

<snip>

while 80.3 percent said former-PM Thaksin Shinawatra should be allowed to return to Thailand to fight all his cases.

[Throatwobbler]

And with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra admitting she had talked to her brother from time to time

Why does she feel the need to deceptively obfuscate?

Thaksin has already admitted that he speaks to her in phone-calls daily.

Why does she try to conceal or spin that into something less?

Is that her way of trying to get people to actually buy in to the silly notion that she's the one actually running the show? yeah, right...

Sorry, but that rings up a "no sale".

.

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

I'm sorry but this party is very feudalist as well. How else do you think they keep their support in the North East. Create schemes where the local feudal lords get rich and they then will deliver the people when they are needed.

[khunken]

I said Thaksin was a catalyst for democracy.I agree he represented no kind of model for democracy in practice.However since his involvement in Thai politics there can be no going back and to use that rather hackneyed phrase the genie is out of the bottle.The Thai majority can no longer be browbeaten or told their inferior position is the natural order of things.Whether Thaksin was responsible for this change or whether he exploited a social current that was already underway could be the subject for an interesting discussion - but of course that is too much like thinking hard and reading widely for the usual suspects.

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.The unelected elites loathe him not for his lack of ethics (their own are often disgusting) but because they feel theatened (rightly so) by his immense popularity and influence.The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

There is no moral equivalence between a democratic government and a discredited band of military and feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

All you're doing is repeating your opinion about Thaksin. Where is the proof that he was a catalyst for democracy? After his assets lie, he got sufficient of the votes to form a coalition government. Massive vote buying occurred then. This was no different to previous elections (Chavalit, Banharn etc). It seems that he was, in reality, just a catalyst for 'same old corrupt election conduct'.

If you are referring to the red shirts as an example of 'the genie out of the bottle', you are sadly mistaken. You have a group of red-shirt leaders, paid by Thaksin, organising all sorts of demonstrations by paying the up-country 'supporters' to attend, brainwashing them by loud, continuous & anti-anything-they-don't-like verbal diahorrea, setting up red-shirt villages & on it goes. This is not democracy - it is the exact opposite.

What ABAC poll showed an overwhelming majority wanting Thaksin back? There have been many polls on this issue & any I've seen are split around 50-50 for & against. What you seem to lack is any real knowledge of what an elite is here, who has power & how money talks. If you could get away from the red-shirt propaganda for a minute, you would realise that Thaksin is very much an elite person - one of many powerful businessmen who wield immense influence here. Have you never heard of an 'influential person' corrupting justice in some way? That's who Thaksin is (not the only one, mind).

No one said that there is equivalence between an elected government & 'a discredited band of feudal........'. The point was (& is): what is the difference between a criminal running the government & the army or so-called elite? I agree with Rivalex - there is none. Don't twist arguments to suit your point.

[americaninbangkok]

The usual farangs have their knickers in a knot. Meanwhile, the majority of foreigners and everyday Thais get on with their lives and don't give a sh*t.

Isn't that the problem here? Nobody in Thailand wants to address underlying problems/issues, but would rather just say "sabai sabai // where's my free car? // do you know who my father is?" It's been 2 years since the political unrest, and I don't hear the word "reconciliation" much at all in the national dialogue.

As for "the Thai political impasse, which has infected much of the world"... this is giving too much weight to the actual importance of Thailand in the grand scheme of things. There's a difference between others laughing along with Thailand's politicial insanity and laughing at Thailand's politicial insanity.

[americaninbangkok]

Deary me. If Thaksin was in such high demand and so many were keen for his return, he wouldn't be dithering over a year after he effectively took power, to simply get on his private jet and fly back. The overwhelming outpouring of public joy upon his arrival would surely embolden him... give him the courage... seems not.

The usual challenge: saving face. What IF Thaksin got on his plane and just flew his ass in to Don Mueang? What would happen? Outpouring of support? Or possible red-facedness on part of YS and her coterie? She can't be taken seriously by the rest of the world AND by her own followers at the same time. Usually, when someone is forced to sing 2 different tunes to keep everyone happy, that person is being disingenuous.

[ramrod711]

<snip>

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.

<snip>

while 80.3 percent said former-PM Thaksin Shinawatra should be allowed to return to Thailand to fight all his cases.

thaksin can come back and fight the cases against him anytime he wants, nobody is stopping him, only his own cowardice.

[OzMick]

While Thaksin's conviction can be argued to be political, he has outstanding corruption charges to face which cannot be dismissed as easily.

But a Police commissioner can ignore them.

[Mitker]

In Thailand politics there is always someone or a group of people who run the show or exert massive influence from behind the scene.Nobody except the wilfully blind seriously think that Abhisit was not "controlled"? In the case of Yingluck the situation is obviously unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.But at least she and the party associated with Thaksin have a legitimate mandate, as opposed to the unelected feudalists and generals that sought to control the previous government.

If we are weighing up the merits of who we prefer lurking the shadows, pulling the strings, i'm not sure how much better off we are with a criminal fugitive who has been banned from politics and who is on the run and living overseas, albeit a criminal fugitive who does have some popularity, than with a member of the military or aristocracy, who lives legally within the country, also with a following albeit a smaller and less vocal one.

At the end of the day, neither have been elected, and neither from a democratic stand-point - or any other stand-point for that matter - appeal. Can it really be argued that one is better than the other?

Seems like a poke in the eye over a kick between the legs type of argument to me.

Yes it can be argued and I do argue it.Thaksin will eventually be gone.He is not an admirable person but he was a catalyst for democracy.That is why a recent ABAC poll showed that not only is he very popular but that also that most Thais would like him back.Yingluch won a commanding mandate from the Thai electorate and yet you are trying to make a case for the influence behind the stairs of militarists and feudalists.When have they offered themselves for the approval of the Thai people?

Thaksin was no more a catalyst for democracy than the Thai army. He should have been prevented from taking the reins of power when lying (an 'honest' mistake) about his assets & having his mate Sanoh & his wife interfere in the result of the scrutiny.

When in power, he set about emasculating most of the checks & balances that are an important part of democracy elsewhere. Just like his red shirt henchmen tried to do with the CC recently.

I wouldn't have a problem with Yingluck if she was really a PM capable of making decisions. In reality, she avoids them & allows her brother to appoint people to the government & important positions (such as in the police) based on loyalty to Thaksin and/or willingness to boost corruption.

If you lived in Thailand during Thaksin's 'reign' you would have seen that his goal was (& probably still is) just as feudal as any other group - i.e. quasi-dictatorship based on the Lee Kwan Yu model.

+1

[Nickymaster]

The usual farangs have their knickers in a knot. Meanwhile, the majority of foreigners and everyday Thais get on with their lives and don't give a sh*t.

Says the guy who again has NOTHING to add to the topic.

So why don't you go on with your... uuhh.. life instead of being a hypocrite!

This could be amusing, who is going to be first to break the circle by admitting posting something like the above 'riposte' also adds nothing to the topic whereas the "accused" has already made his point in a previous post?

and yes I am well aware that this post adds nothing to the topic but it could stop more unnecessary posts..................

What is your problem?

[rixalex]

Who said anything about Thaksin's courage or judgement? I simply quoted the ABAC poll findings which showed an overwhelming majority of Thais wanted him back.

Is this the poll that asked, do you think Thaksin should be allowed back to fight his cases? Are you seriously extrapolating from the answers of a question like that the meaning as being: an overwhelming majority of Thais want him back. You are surely not serious?

The wiser heads among them know that a deal must be done with him, which is one reason he has already had a significant part of his confiscated wealth returned to him.

One reason perhaps, but i think the overwhelming one was to do with how far he has shown himself ready to go in terms of funding mayhem and anarchy. This is a man for whom it can not be said throws his toys from the pram. He rather topples the pram over.

I'm sorry but your post did indicate a moral equivalence between a democratic government and a disccredited band of military anf feudal reactionaries.The two cannot be compared.

As khunken has said, this wasn't the comparison that was being made. We were comparing the people in the shadows of Abhisit and Yingluck governments, and whilst i would agree it would be far easier to make the case that the "shadow" in Yingluck's case could garner more public support than the "shadow" in Abhisit's case, that doesn't mean a great deal as a person is either democratically elected or they are not.

Added against the argument that Thaksin is the better shadow to have, is the factor of level of influence exerted. Few would dispute that Thaksin has a hand in virtually every major decision this government makes, whether it be who gets what job, what projects get started, what statement gets made, who gets promoted, who gets sidelined etc. I don't think anyone believed Abhisit's "shadow" interfered on such a wholesale scale.