Thaksin Boasts Tremendous Successes During Five-year Rule

[george]

Thaksin boasts tremendous successes during five-year rule

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Thursday vowed to remain in office, citing his achievements during the past five years to justify his decisions.

He blamed critics for making hasty judgements on him despite what he claimed be great successes his government.

Thaksin outlined his achievements to the National Economic and Social Advisory Council. His achievements included the expansion of the economy from Bt4.9 trillion to Bt7.1 trillion.

--The Nation 2006-02-09

[The Dan Sai Kid]

Thaksin boasts tremendous successes during five-year rule

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Thursday vowed to remain in office, citing his achievements during the past five years to justify his decisions.

He blamed critics for making hasty judgements on him despite what he claimed be great successes his government.

Thaksin outlined his achievements to the National Economic and Social Advisory Council. His achievements included the expansion of the economy from Bt4.9 trillion to Bt7.1 trillion.

--The Nation 2006-02-09

I want to be like Mr T when I grow up

[Tywais]

Thaksin boasts tremendous successes during five-year rule

His achievements included the expansion of the economy from Bt4.9 trillion to Bt7.1 trillion.

And of course his personal windfall of Bt73 billion.

[penzman]

Out of the extensive list of things he's promised to "fix" since the beginning of his political carreer, he has named but a very few today... .

[penzman]

Thaksin boasts tremendous successes during five-year rule

BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra Thursday vowed to remain in office, citing his achievements during the past five years to justify his decisions.

He blamed critics for making hasty judgements on him despite what he claimed be great successes his government.

Thaksin outlined his achievements to the National Economic and Social Advisory Council. His achievements included the expansion of the economy from Bt4.9 trillion to Bt7.1 trillion.

--The Nation 2006-02-09

I want to be like Mr T when I grow up

Some kids have dreams, others have bad dreams.

You just can't miss with this book kid!

[chownah]

Out of the extensive list of things he's promised to "fix" since the beginning of his political carreer, he has named but a very few today... .

Can you list some/all of them? The article only mentioned one.

Edited February 10, 2006 by chownah

[zzap]

Wasn't he the guy who claimed he could solve Bangkok's trffic congestion in 3 months?

No comment necessary...

In 2003 he declared Thailand would be drug-free at the end of the year.

Result: around 2000 killed without arrest or trial, prices have gone up dramatically. I do believe there are less illegal drugs consumed in LOS now, though I haven't come across any figures or stats at all...

These are just the most annoying claims I remember.

[thedude]

Out of the extensive list of things he's promised to "fix" since the beginning of his political carreer, he has named but a very few today... .

Can you list some/all of them? The article only mentioned one.

that's because the article was taken from The Nation, the most anti-Thaksin english newspaper.

here is another article released from agence france presse. note how the petulant editorial at The Nation use words like "Boasts" and "Rule", as if to ridicule him, while a more objective newspaper would use a more neutral sounding headline.

Thai PM Thaksin defends record after 5 years in power

BANGKOK : Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra defended his political record on the fifth anniversary of coming to power, as he faced a second mass protest calling for his resignation.

Thaksin laid out his economic achievements since his landslide 2001 election victory, but sidestepped the current furore triggered by his family's 1.9-billion dollar sale of telecoms giant Shin Corp.

The billionaire-turned-politician said his administration had successfully hauled Thailand out of the difficulties of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which felled regional economies.

"When I first assumed office, Thailand was in debt by 46 billion dollars. But now we have a surplus of 2.0 billion dollars and Thailand is a creditor, with more overseas deposits than borrowings," he said in a speech.

Thaksin said that under his watch, the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had risen to 7.1 trillion baht (180 billion dollars) at the end of last year compared to 4.9 trillion baht in 2001.

He said the middle classes had prospered while the amount of wealth held by the elite had dropped to 48.4 percent from 57.8 percent.

The number of those living in poverty plunged from 12.8 million to 7.5 million and the national unemployment rate was now at 1.8 percent, which is considered full employment, he said.

Thaksin said capitalisation of Thailand's stock exchange had soared to 5.37 trillion baht from 1.57 trillion baht during his tenure, which has seen extensive pump-priming of the economy.

But the premier did not mention last weekend's mass rally which drew 50,000 people, and plans for another protest on Saturday by an alliance which takes in teachers, rights activists, free-trade opponents and many others.

However, he did make a small concession to his critics, saying he would reluctantly consider their requests for constitutional change to amend the rules governing political parties.

"We have changed so many constitutions because of so-called opinion leaders but we are still not satisfied with the current constitution, which we once cherished as as a 'people's constitution'," he said.

The government on Wednesday caved in to the protest alliance's insistence on again holding the rally at a royal square in the capital Bangkok, back-pedalling on a ban announced earlier in the week.

The protests have been triggered by the sale of Shin Corp., which Thaksin founded before entering politics, to Singapore's investment company Temasek.

Critics allege that the sale puts sensitive Thai telecommunications infrastructure into the hands of foreigners, and are unhappy that it avoided a 30 percent capital-gains tax.

Thaksin said he would travel to the Muslim-majority south on Friday, where two years of violent attacks have left some 1,100 people dead.

Government officials said the premier would return on Saturday afternoon. The protest is scheduled to begin around that time. - AFP/de

Edited February 10, 2006 by thedude

[ilyushin]

The billionaire-turned-politician said his administration had successfully hauled Thailand out of the difficulties of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which felled regional economies.

REALLY?

[thedude]

The billionaire-turned-politician said his administration had successfully hauled Thailand out of the difficulties of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which felled regional economies.

REALLY?

under this administration, the IMF loans were fully repaid by July 2003. 2 years ahead of schedule.

this officially end the "crisis" and paved the way for ratings upgrades and opened up the financial sector to start lending to businesses again. as ridiculous as it sounds, yes, this administration did a big part in hauling the country out of the crisis. some people are so hel_l-bent on putting down the government, they fail to see the positive things they did.

[tettyan]

under this administration, the IMF loans were fully repaid by July 2003. 2 years ahead of schedule.

this officially end the "crisis" and paved the way for ratings upgrades and opened up the financial sector to start lending to businesses again. as ridiculous as it sounds, yes, this administration did a big part in hauling the country out of the crisis. some people are so hel_l-bent on putting down the government, they fail to see the positive things they did.

And this recovery had abosolutely NOTHING to do with the reforms enacted by the previous administration. Right?

[thedude]

under this administration, the IMF loans were fully repaid by July 2003. 2 years ahead of schedule.

this officially end the "crisis" and paved the way for ratings upgrades and opened up the financial sector to start lending to businesses again. as ridiculous as it sounds, yes, this administration did a big part in hauling the country out of the crisis. some people are so hel_l-bent on putting down the government, they fail to see the positive things they did.

And this recovery had abosolutely NOTHING to do with the reforms enacted by the previous administration. Right?

which reforms are you refering to specifically? chuan was a good man, but he was shackled by his coalition, and ultimately undone by it.

something this administration did well was to generate fiscal surplus between 2001 and 2003 that enabled the IMF loan repayments to be fast tracked. how the surplus was achieved in the first place was due in no small part to the lack coalition interests.

[tettyan]

under this administration, the IMF loans were fully repaid by July 2003. 2 years ahead of schedule.

this officially end the "crisis" and paved the way for ratings upgrades and opened up the financial sector to start lending to businesses again. as ridiculous as it sounds, yes, this administration did a big part in hauling the country out of the crisis. some people are so hel_l-bent on putting down the government, they fail to see the positive things they did.

And this recovery had abosolutely NOTHING to do with the reforms enacted by the previous administration. Right?

which reforms are you refering to specifically? chuan was a good man, but he was shackled by his coalition, and ultimately undone by it.

something this administration did well was to generate fiscal surplus between 2001 and 2003 that enabled the IMF loan repayments to be fast tracked. how the surplus was achieved in the first place was due in no small part to the lack coalition interests.

Let me see: the bankruptcy law, the master plan for privatization of state enterprises, recapitalization of the banks, etc. I could go on. Chuan and his finance minister received much criticism for "focusing too much on banks" and "ignoring the poor" but NPLs were at the root of problem. He also managed to bring spending under control making it possible for them to end the country's dependence on the IMF's line of credit early. This paid no small role in enabling Thaksin to pay back the IMF "early", but of course you won't hear it from his mouth.

So what accounts for the recovery and the surplus? Well, an export boom driven by strong demand played a big role. Was Thaksin responsible for this. Also, a low-interest rate environment in international financial markets prompted by the Fed's expansionary policy to help the US economy recover from 9-11 and recesion played no small role. This made Thaksin's easy-credit policies possible and also made cleaning up NPL's a hel_l of a lot easier. Even so, I recall S&P recently noted that although NPLs are down, a lot of structural problems remain that could cause them to shoot up again should the international conditions become less favorable.

The prolific use of off-budget accounting (a la Japanese-style) also helps account for part of the "surplus."

Well, I will give Thaksin credit for one thing. The government's aggessive approach to tax collection is one thing that made the surplus possible. At least, until recently, I gave credit to him for that. Apparently, the government is slightly less aggressive when it comes to collecting taxes from the Shinawatra family. Sure, a case can be made that they made used of legal loopholes. But compare to the case when the gov't tried to think up of ways to make Oishi foods pay more taxes since their profits were so high. Why has the Rev Dept suddenly got cold feet?

[haha]

my 2 cents...

it is good that pm thaksin sold a minority share (49%) of his company to singapore.

it shows to the world the state of paranoia that some thais have about quote, "being conquered or controlled by foreigners."

yes, you heard me right. this is a paranoia to a high level proportion.

like they think some foreigner is going to come into their country and dig up the land, and drive it back to their home country. yeah. right.

I know a lot of thais are not going to like what I am saying here. but it needs to be addressed.

as a foreigner, I would like to know that my money is safe when I invest it in some condo here in thailand. I don't want somebody telling me later that they don't want me here anymore - especially when I have invested my life savings here. f##k that!

as it is, I hope all foreign investors put their plans to invest here on hold until they get some answers to this concern.

if thais don't like foreign investors, fine. let us know it now so you can't cheat us out of our money later on - like by creating a new law saying "foreigners can't own ANYTHING here anymore."

...it happened before in the past in china, malaysia, and it could happen here.

I know, I know... some of you guys in the back are saying quote, "who gives a f##k about your condo!!!!".

I want to hear all of it.

all of us foreign investors want to know the truth.

[haha]

oops!!! I think I might have put my previous posting in the wrong thread.

well, what did you expect? with all these threads on thaksin, it is easy to make a mistake. sorry just the same.

[lanny]

It may be true that the Thakxin government has accomplished a number of things; Thais may be better off than they were when he came to power. Personally, I have my doubts about the degree of responsibility that really applies, though. As another poster points out, much of the ground work was laid by the Chuan government.

But, what really concerns me is the heavy accent on economic and monetary achievements. What about civil rights? His heavy hand with the media and his quick trigger on libel suits suggests some underlying problems.

Most people reading this will be too young to remember -- I remember because I grew up in the aftermath of WWII. But, to the point: Under Mussolini, Italy was famous for its economy. It was widely commented that "Under Mussolini, the trains run on time."

Hitler and his government performed economic miracles in Germany. The country was prosperous when most of the world was mired in the biggest depression in history. Germany was the pioneer in modern highway construction -- they devised the limited access, high speed highways (the autobahns) that most of the world calls freeways or expressways. But look at the pirce!!!!

[ColPyat]

Wasn't he the guy who claimed he could solve Bangkok's trffic congestion in 3 months?

No comment necessary...

In 2003 he declared Thailand would be drug-free at the end of the year.

Result: around 2000 killed without arrest or trial, prices have gone up dramatically. I do believe there are less illegal drugs consumed in LOS now, though I haven't come across any figures or stats at all...

These are just the most annoying claims I remember.

There were far more killed than 2000, the government only stopped giving out numbers after the 1st month. the killings went on for a bit more than one more month untlil the national human rights commission started making a big stink.

The drugs, especially amphetamines are back again. Not as bad as before, but give it time. You can get them almost anywhere again. During the height of the drugwar a pill went up from around 40 to 50 baht to almost 400 baht in Bangkok, up to a 1000 upcountry. Now the street price per pill is about 200 baht, upcountry between 300 and 500 baht.

Additionally the last three years since the drug war Thailand has seen a tremendous rise in violent crime. In most industrial suburbs of Bangkok gang violence is out of hand.

Cost of basic necessities such as food has almost doubled since Thaksins rule, which somehow relativises alleged rise of income.

Per household debt has increased from 20 000 baht to 100 000 baht (according to the statistics i have read). A recent study in 20 something changwats out of 76 in Thailand has shown that 54 percent of the people who took advantage the easy loans can not pay them back. In none of the loan schemes sound economical advice was given before handing out the loan, neither did farmers have to present a proper business plan.

Thaksin has changed the law that landowners with sor por kor 401 papers (originally reserved for the poor, depending on area, but generally maximum of 50 rai per person. Well, as long as you are not a well connected politician/businessman, then you can hold 10 000s of rai) can now use their land as collateral for loans. Expect to see as a future result massive reposession of land.

Large scale agricultural schemes such as the rubber scheme in the north have failed, or are in the process to fail. Thaksin has promised that theat the moment high rubber prices will not fall, which is a blatant lie as rubber is a world market commodity, and momentary high prices are because of the demand in china. It is well known that at the moment cash rich china is buying more than it can consume. And china's economical future is far from certain. Also many areas in the north where rubber planting is heavily promoted simply do not have enough water. Other than Thaksin's promises there is nothing that protects especially small scale farmers from the losses in case of failure.

See more of that with the cow scheme...

Just another form of bubble economy - massive short term gains for a few, huge long term losses that the next after-crises government has to deal with.

[cclub75]

See more of that with the cow scheme...

Just another form of bubble economy - massive short term gains for a few, huge long term losses that the next after-crises government has to deal with.

Right.

And we can add a few items to his huge list :

-rice subsidies (lead to over production, because the price of gvt is too incentive, and meanwhile the competition on the world market because india and vietnam is increasing = huge stock pile in thailand)

-gasoline subsidy : you remember... they stopped this crazy idea last july. After a hole of 100 billions THB.

But it was convenient... just for the general elections. Sabai sabai.

-sugar subsidy : since many years the price of sugar is blocked. Why, how ? Because it's "cultural" (for the famous thai food). Ah ah ah ah Too keep the good mama thai quiet.

Again, the situation is completly disconnected from the reality of the market.

So what happen ? Producers sell the sugar at export ! so we have a shortage in Thailand, a producing country.

And it goes on and on.

You can add also : a weak currency. Very good for export ! Indeed. The minister can dream about his +20 % per year. But it becomes difficult when price of commodities go up like oil = burden on imports. Mai pen rai.

You can add : interest policy too low (well the BOT starts to increase but if you considere inflation, then we still have interest rate negative). This situation leads to oversupply of liquidity and loans : "buy the beautifull house for 3000 THB per month".... Yeah.

-> bubble market too.

And the list goes on....

The Thaksinomics are completly bull shit. There is absolutly no miracle. It's a short term policy, with only one aim : keep people sleepy and put gasoline into the machine so they can enjoy "consumption" (mobile, pick up, the 2 new breast feed of the country)

But for how long ?

Someone will have to pay. Cash.

[ColPyat]

You can add : interest policy too low (well the BOT starts to increase but if you considere inflation, then we still have interest rate negative). This situation leads to oversupply of liquidity and loans : "buy the beautifull house for 3000 THB per month".... Yeah.

-> bubble market too.

And the list goes on....

Right...I forgot the U-Athorn schemes.

Such as the U-Athorn taxis - everybody with a driving license can buy a taxi in Bangkok on installments without making a down payment. And now we are having already 100 000 plus taxis on the roads. So who's gonna pay for the ones who can't generate enough income and default on the loans?

[thedude]

there are a million ways to look at the issues.

but our understanding of the underlying intent goes a long way. if you trust them, you continue to see good, but if you see them as evil, then you continue to see bad.

as a non-thai observer, i have seen a government try very hard to pursue programs which follow from some very positive policy objectives. i agree many of the programs were badly conceived and even more badly managed, and some may have had hidden agendas, but most of them conformed to the broader policy objectives and so to me, were consistent with their good intentions.

they paid back the IMF loans early because it would free the country from the shackles of international debt and enable it to recover faster. what is so hard to understand about that?

they could have squandered the money, but no, it was under their charge and during their 3rd year in office, they made the final IMF payment. i don't think this could have happened under any coalition government because there'd be no money left after they finish lobbying everyone to pay the loan off. chuan's involvement to me is but a footnote since he was no longer incharge when this happened. there are some things that require a majority government to achieve.

typical of a business-minded government, they took a hard-eyed look at managing tax revenue so that public debt is under control. they recognised early that they dont have effective control of the economy if they cant control the money. a large part of the problem was that a large part of the economy remained underground, controlled by druglords, influential figures, underground lotteries, and etc. to me, this explained many of their programs such as those against drugs and influential figures, which by simple reasoning, were also good for society even though the cynical were saying that it just wanted to gain absolute power. they were missing the point, it was about gaining absolute government revenue. i do agree however that the execution (pardon the pun) of the drug war could have been better controlled. extra-judicial killings can never be condoned. but countless doses of drugs failed to reach kids these past few years, many families were saved too.

the administration also made fighting poverty a major issue, although some of their policies belied an underlying intention to win over the masses. did money reach the hands of the poor? yes. did they spend it wisely? some did, while others squandered the money. would it bring sustainable wealth? no. did it kick start the economy after the IMF payoff? yes. did it lead to a proliferation of consumer debt? yes. did the BOT clamp down on consumer credit? yes. has overall poverty decreased? yes, but not necessarily due to these policies. it has to be remembered that Thaksinomics was not initially a dirty word but something economists used to describe a rather brilliant way of winning votes and at the same time creating economic growth. these days people only talk about non-sustainability and waste. things are never black and white. also, you can't begrudge a politician for being in the business of winning votes through populist policies, unless of course, you dont like that politician.

the administration also looked at building self-sufficiency. many of the policies are geared towards increasing competitiveness, like all those hub initiatives, most of which are hair-brained, but a few actually underscore good strategic thinking. such as the logistics hub idea (if ever executed correctly) which hits the productivity nail on the head. the air-cargo hub idea exploiting Chiang Mai's location was also good and deserves further attention. OTOP falls under this category of creating self-sufficiency, i have argued elsewhere that if nothing else, OTOP does formally create the channels and opens access to funding and as a program to champion indigenous products, shouldn't be judged by short term profitability. OTOP can be better managed, but it is a policy built on good intentions.

i'm sorry but for most arguments against, i can see an equal argument for, and for most accusations of incompetence i see good intent and consistent underlying policy. i think thaksin has a rather conservative thai-chinese way of seeing himself. he truly believes himself to be good and honourable, that is why he is so indignant and defiant and arrogant against those who oppose him. he is not the most enlightened leader by far, like a typical entrepreneur, he will try 100 things and pick the few that do well, as long as they conform to his objectives. this method may be good for running a company under a quick-growth strategy, but it creates a lot of anger and misunderstanding by running a country in this way, people question his true objectives. he really should change his style, listen more, talk less, and implement policies with more planning. since he has won by a landslide 1 year ago, and has a clear mandate, i do not distrust him and therefore do not see the harm in him staying for the next 3 years.

[ColPyat]

there are a million ways to look at the issues.

but our understanding of the underlying intent goes a long way. if you trust them, you continue to see good, but if you see them as evil, then you continue to see bad.

Good intend does not help when the results are disastrous. Especially if it is highly questionable if there ever was.

What actually was "Thaksinomics"? From what i can gather it was based on economical rise by increased consumer spending, with all sorts of incentitives such as easy access to loans. A dangerous path even in a modern economy, uncontrollable in a economy such as Thailand where more than 50 percent of the population are directly depending on agriculture, most of them highly under educated.

Only, this increased consumer spending has not really saved the Thai economy - it was an increase in exports, for which Thaksin was not responsible. He has benefitted from the ground work layed by the Chuan government and an improved global economy. Someone economically more savy please correct me if i made some blunder here.

You mentioned that Thaksin promoted "self-sufficency". Really?

Why is that he promotes upcountry large scale agricultural schemes reminescent of the completely failed green revolution of the 70s and 80s. Schemes that even if successful (remore chance) will only benefit the exporters, and not the farmers itself. If they fail (most likely) they will destroy Thailands small scale farmers, but exporters will not be damaged as the financing comes from government loans.

Many of those schemes promoted to small scale farmers will benefit mainly CP group due to high intensity chemical fertilisation even though it is not economically feasable for small scale farmers to operate that way in the highly volatile monsoon climate.

Opposing that there are well researched programs available for small scale farmers that are only not widely promoted. Too few incentitives are given for example to farmers to switch to the royally sponsored "sittakit por pueang" self-sufficiency sythem.

Self-sufficiency on a larger scale? Really?

Regardless that even the master of selfreliance - India - has given up its economical isolation policy because it just does't work in todays globalised world, Thaksin and his cronies have shifted Thailands economy towards China, the earth's biggest bubble economy. CP group has invested so heavily in China that in case China's bubble bursts it will not survive. That at a time when many global businesses shift to India's far more stable and regulated economy.

Thaksin's drugwar was purely populist. As a former police officer himself he knew the dangers of its execution. He knew that many police officers themselves have been involved in the trade, have then killed their own small scale dealers, to survive. Which they did. One of the most murderous officers i know of, the whole police force knows of as well, is still in the force, still sells large quantities of his "confiscated" drugs. He also knew that the fastly established black lists by all sort of officials, often without any law enforcement background, such as puyaibans, will not hold up to scrutinity.

Recent PR stunt in At-Samart is a perfect example of populism. At-Samart is not a particularly poor mu ban. At-Samart's main problem were debts, mainly generated by his own policies. But he pulled it off: while right wing middle classes in Bangkok demonstrate in Bangkok, people upcountry wait until Thaksin comes to their own villagesand spreads a few thousand Baht around. They honestly believe that he does something against poverty. Only though because nobody else has came to their villages other than H.M. the King while he was still in good health.

If you look at Thaksin' personal history you will get a better picture of the situation.

He enjoys promoting himself as some sort of rags to riches smart businessman. That is a very clever invention. He comes from a very powerful chinese family that has seddled in the north. His uncles have been high ranked military, politicians and businessmen. He joined the police force, has married the daughter of an extremely influental police general. Therefore combined relationships to the most powerful institutions in Thailand.

His first businesses have completely failed, until he played his strong card - his family connections. He became rich by the corruption riddled telecom privatisation, not really the place of business entrepeneurs here in Thailand, but corrupt pigs.

Basically, after the crony sythem led to the '97 crises he and some other Thai-Chinese large businesses got together and formed TRT, including some former student activists for show (most have already left) in order to keep on working the old sythem of cronyism.

Do you honestly think such a man suddenly turns benevolent? I believe recent sale of shin corp has proven this idea wrong. The shin corp that has nearly quadripled in worth since Thaksin took over as PM, that has benefitted tremendously from a few hush hush law amendments under his rule.

[tettyan]

there are a million ways to look at the issues.

but our understanding of the underlying intent goes a long way. if you trust them, you continue to see good, but if you see them as evil, then you continue to see bad.

Really? I guess you're never heard the saying that "the road to hel_l is paved with good intentions."

as a non-thai observer, i have seen a government try very hard to pursue programs which follow from some very positive policy objectives. i agree many of the programs were badly conceived and even more badly managed, and some may have had hidden agendas, but most of them conformed to the broader policy objectives and so to me, were consistent with their good intentions.

Refer to what I said above. Remember, Hitler thought that by killing all Jews he was actually doing the world a favor! So no, being consistent with "good intentions" is no excuse for policies with hideous consequences.

they paid back the IMF loans early because it would free the country from the shackles of international debt and enable it to recover faster. what is so hard to understand about that?

they could have squandered the money, but no, it was under their charge and during their 3rd year in office, they made the final IMF payment. i don't think this could have happened under any coalition government because there'd be no money left after they finish lobbying everyone to pay the loan off. chuan's involvement to me is but a footnote since he was no longer incharge when this happened. there are some things that require a majority government to achieve.

Right... And Al Gore REALLY did invent the internet, right? By the time Thaksin had come to power, Chuan already had stopped drawing off the IMF's line of credit, EARLY. If Thaksin wern't so fortunate, the debt couldn't have been paid off early. Your arguments really betrays a rather simplistic understanding of politics and economics. I will ask this again. Does it require a majority gov't in Thailand to generate breakneck economic growth in China that drives a Thai export boom? Is a majority gov't in Thailand necessary to create low interest rates in international markets?

typical of a business-minded government, they took a hard-eyed look at managing tax revenue so that public debt is under control. they recognised early that they dont have effective control of the economy if they cant control the money. a large part of the problem was that a large part of the economy remained underground, controlled by druglords, influential figures, underground lotteries, and etc. to me, this explained many of their programs such as those against drugs and influential figures, which by simple reasoning, were also good for society even though the cynical were saying that it just wanted to gain absolute power. they were missing the point, it was about gaining absolute government revenue. i do agree however that the execution (pardon the pun) of the drug war could have been better controlled. extra-judicial killings can never be condoned. but countless doses of drugs failed to reach kids these past few years, many families were saved too.

Again, you betray your naivete. Some of these "influential figures" you talk about serve in this government! Sure, those wrongdoers w/o political connections can count on a harsh fate. And those who are connected fill in the void. Let me repeat what I said on another forum, borrowing your words this time. [corrupt politicians] can never be condoned. [but countless amonts of wasted taxpayer funds] were saved too. So maybe the NCCC should have denied Thaksin the right to appeal corruption case to the Constitution Court back in 2001.

he truly believes himself to be good and honourable, that is why he is so indignant and defiant and arrogant against those who oppose him.

Really? How do you know this? Are you his friend? Do you know him personally? Did you manage to "get a sense of his soul" (the same way GW Bush describe Putin after their first mtg)?

he is not the most enlightened leader by far, like a typical entrepreneur, he will try 100 things and pick the few that do well, as long as they conform to his objectives.

That may be a way to run a business when you've got a bank run by your father-in-law that's willing to lend you all the money you want. But it's no way to run a country! Running a country is NOT like running a company.

Edited February 15, 2006 by tettyan

[thedude]

No need to get your knickers in a twist Tettyan.

Its really bad form to be attacking me personally for my opinions. I have no influence over the fate of this government, really, i swear.

I really shouldn't be encouraging you but i couldn't help responding to some of your puerile statements.

there are a million ways to look at the issues.

but our understanding of the underlying intent goes a long way. if you trust them, you continue to see good, but if you see them as evil, then you continue to see bad.

Really? I guess you're never heard the saying that "the road to hel_l is paved with good intentions."

Actually I have, but I suppose you've failed to realise that the phrase is used to describe how some genuinely good intentions lead to wrong places. Does this mean that the intentions were bad? No. And besides, what you are saying precisely reinforces what i said, if you don't trust them, so you see evil in their intentions.

as a non-thai observer, i have seen a government try very hard to pursue programs which follow from some very positive policy objectives. i agree many of the programs were badly conceived and even more badly managed, and some may have had hidden agendas, but most of them conformed to the broader policy objectives and so to me, were consistent with their good intentions.

Refer to what I said above. Remember, Hitler thought that by killing all Jews he was actually doing the world a favor! So no, being consistent with "good intentions" is no excuse for policies with hideous consequences.

Okay let me see....killing of Jews, self-sufficiency, paying down of debt, 30 baht healthcare scheme, yes, i can really see how they are all evil evil concepts. I venture that your hatred for this government has really clouded your basic judgement for what is good policy, what is bad policy, versus what is simply evil. You really want so bad for them to be bad, its sad.

they paid back the IMF loans early because it would free the country from the shackles of international debt and enable it to recover faster. what is so hard to understand about that?

they could have squandered the money, but no, it was under their charge and during their 3rd year in office, they made the final IMF payment. i don't think this could have happened under any coalition government because there'd be no money left after they finish lobbying everyone to pay the loan off. chuan's involvement to me is but a footnote since he was no longer incharge when this happened. there are some things that require a majority government to achieve.

Right... And Al Gore REALLY did invent the internet, right? By the time Thaksin had come to power, Chuan already had stopped drawing off the IMF's line of credit, EARLY. If Thaksin wern't so fortunate, the debt couldn't have been paid off early. Your arguments really betrays a rather simplistic understanding of politics and economics. I will ask this again. Does it require a majority gov't in Thailand to generate breakneck economic growth in China that drives a Thai export boom? Is a majority gov't in Thailand necessary to create low interest rates in international markets?

Firstly, i am talking about the loan repayment which was made 2 years early by this government, and you are talking about the loan drawdown made by Chuan's coalition. Frankly, i don't think any asian government wanted to drawdown the full IMF allocated loan facility, and indeed many of them didn't, because it was such a bitter pill, they stopped drawing down as soon as they could. there was nothing heroic about that. i merely made a statement of fact, and you are grasping at straws to distort that fact. Secondly, i recognise that export growth was largely due to the china boom, i never suggested otherwise. i made the point that the populist pump priming programs kick-started the economic recovery by driving consumption spending. this is a fact too. and who are you to judge my economic understanding, you don't even know me.

typical of a business-minded government, they took a hard-eyed look at managing tax revenue so that public debt is under control. they recognised early that they dont have effective control of the economy if they cant control the money. a large part of the problem was that a large part of the economy remained underground, controlled by druglords, influential figures, underground lotteries, and etc. to me, this explained many of their programs such as those against drugs and influential figures, which by simple reasoning, were also good for society even though the cynical were saying that it just wanted to gain absolute power. they were missing the point, it was about gaining absolute government revenue. i do agree however that the execution (pardon the pun) of the drug war could have been better controlled. extra-judicial killings can never be condoned. but countless doses of drugs failed to reach kids these past few years, many families were saved too.

Again, you betray your naivete. Some of these "influential figures" you talk about serve in this government! Sure, those wrongdoers w/o political connections can count on a harsh fate. And those who are connected fill in the void. Let me repeat what I said on another forum, borrowing your words this time. [corrupt politicians] can never be condoned. [but countless amonts of wasted taxpayer funds] were saved too. So maybe the NCCC should have denied Thaksin the right to appeal corruption case to the Constitution Court back in 2001.

Influential figures in his government? Really? Surely this cant be true! Tsk tsk, what did i say about grasping at straws?

he truly believes himself to be good and honourable, that is why he is so indignant and defiant and arrogant against those who oppose him.

Really? How do you know this? Are you his friend? Do you know him personally? Did you manage to "get a sense of his soul" (the same way GW Bush describe Putin after their first mtg)?

Actually i don't know him, i'm openly speculating on his personality, just like how you do as well.

he is not the most enlightened leader by far, like a typical entrepreneur, he will try 100 things and pick the few that do well, as long as they conform to his objectives.

That may be a way to run a business when you've got a bank run by your father-in-law that's willing to lend you all the money you want. But it's no way to run a country! Running a country is NOT like running a company.

You are repeating what i said here. That he runs the country like a company is why i think he has caused so much unhappiness. I am not pro-thaksin, i'm just not emotionally against him like so many people are. i don't think his intentions are bad, but it doesn't mean that i think his methods are good either. nonetheless i see more good in the status quo for the next 3 years than overthrowing him, which will be bad for thailand.

[Plus]

I can't read so much, sorry if I missed something

Re. Chuan and IMF - the loans and conditions were negotiated before Chuan, by the government that included Taksin, Tanong and lots of others who are in power now.

Chuan was in power for most of the time before repayment, why all the credit to Taksin? His first year saw growth of only 1.8% comparing to 4% in last eyar of Chuan. Taksin's early repayment was mostly a political move - perfect photo op infront of a huge Thai flag banner. The amounts were tiny,and the money could have been spent on anything else.

..killing of Jews, self-sufficiency, paying down of debt, 30 baht healthcare scheme, yes, i can really see how they are all evil evil concepts.

I don't understand it - what self sufficiency? What paying down of debt? Taksin has created debts for nearly everyone in this country. Forget the IMF for a moment - people's debts has increased significantly under Taksin. Or you mean NPLs? Those were not repaid, and won't be repaid, ever. 30 baht scheme IS evil - it gives aspirin today and will deliver for nothing tomorrow. People deserve far better health care, especially in a long run.

[Plus]

Taksin should have boasted how his own business value grew 300% comparing to measly 40% for the rest of the country. And even that - what did we get in telecommunications, as customers. SMS - 3 baht, MMS - 10 baht, nor interconnection charge, no number mobility, no 3G, not even on the horison. Tremendous success he calls it.

[thedude]

I can't read so much, sorry if I missed something

Re. Chuan and IMF - the loans and conditions were negotiated before Chuan, by the government that included Taksin, Tanong and lots of others who are in power now.

Chuan was in power for most of the time before repayment, why all the credit to Taksin? His first year saw growth of only 1.8% comparing to 4% in last eyar of Chuan. Taksin's early repayment was mostly a political move - perfect photo op infront of a huge Thai flag banner. The amounts were tiny,and the money could have been spent on anything else.

..killing of Jews, self-sufficiency, paying down of debt, 30 baht healthcare scheme, yes, i can really see how they are all evil evil concepts.

I don't understand it - what self sufficiency? What paying down of debt? Taksin has created debts for nearly everyone in this country. Forget the IMF for a moment - people's debts has increased significantly under Taksin. Or you mean NPLs? Those were not repaid, and won't be repaid, ever. 30 baht scheme IS evil - it gives aspirin today and will deliver for nothing tomorrow. People deserve far better health care, especially in a long run.

the IMF facility was made available for drawdown over something like 3 years starting from august 97, so yes, chuan was in power for much of the drawdown phase. but thaksin's government oversaw most of the repayment from jan 2001 to july 2003. repayments were originally scheduled to be complete by 2004. sound economic management leads to great photo ops for political use, so yes, your statement is not entirely wrong.

and to quote the IMF's statement made in july 2003....

"Thailand's ability to repay the IMF ahead of schedule reflects a strong macroeconomic and balance of payments performance over the past few years. This success has been underpinned by a sound policy framework, for which the government and the Bank of Thailand should be congratulated."

and for your other points, i think you will understand if you have read my earlier posts in more detail. i did make the point that consumer debt did climb substantially, and subsequently the BOT did clamp down on bank credit. you cannot look at the pump priming policies in isolation without recognising that there is a social/economic trade-off. the savings level prior to that was extremely high, some would say unhealthyly so for a developing economy. you could argue that making consumer credit available to farmers is bad thing, you could also argue that farmers have no right to own a pick-up and t.v. because they wouldnt know how to pay for it. these are not issues i'm ready to argue because there will be no end to it. but nonetheless, lets just agree that one of the downsides of this kind of stimulus is a fast climbing debt rate which ultimately hits the banking system. nothing can be done about farmers who cant repay, they hardly have anything to lose, but a banking system saddled with vast consumer debt is heading for trouble, which is why the BOT did a good job to restrict bank lending. more importantly from my perspective, all this helped to get the economy going at first. what about the almost full employment rate we now enjoy? doesn't this help to address some of the concerns about expanding debt? in economics, you cant have your cake and eat it too. to highlight one problem is to ignore other areas where we have gained. the overall bottom line is 6.3% growth in the year the IMF loans were repaid, which as i've explained elsewhere, led to the re-entry of institutional funds, as well as open up the banking system for commercial loans, which in turn enabled export production (ie supply side growth to meet chinese demand).

[Plus]

True, but everytime I read about it, private investment is not catcing up with the consumption growth. Everybody has been talking about investment picking up but it hasn't really happened. It's consumption led growth, and as consumption is slowing the government doesn't have any solutions apart from spending more money, on mega projects this time. So much for sound economic policy.

Restriction on bank lending you mentioned don't apply to governement schemes, like Small Medim Large Village Funds, or whatever they dream up. You should have noticed that most solutions offerent by Taksin during At Samat poverty show was rescheduling/restructuring people's loans. Don't forget last year KTB fiasco that was quietly swept under the carpet.

I also wonder if they adjust inflation and GDP. I suspect that they are happy with 6% inflation that helps GDP to grow while eating away at people's lifestyles.

[tettyan]

No need to get your knickers in a twist Tettyan.

Its really bad form to be attacking me personally for my opinions. I have no influence over the fate of this government, really, i swear.

Where did I ever attack you personally for your opinions? Yes, I attack your logic, reasoning and bases of your arguments, but what have I said about you personally? I don't even know you! And I have NOT ONCE suggested that you have an ulterior motive for defending Thaksin or his policies.

Actually I have, but I suppose you've failed to realise that the phrase is used to describe how some genuinely good intentions lead to wrong places. Does this mean that the intentions were bad? No. And besides, what you are saying precisely reinforces what i said, if you don't trust them, so you see evil in their intentions.

You were suggesting I take a look at the intentions of the policy. I was pointing out that I don't go by that - I prefer to look at the RESULTS. And I don't like what I see. I could really care less as to who is carrying out the policy or what his "intentions" may be.

Okay let me see....killing of Jews, self-sufficiency, paying down of debt, 30 baht healthcare scheme, yes, i can really see how they are all evil evil concepts. I venture that your hatred for this government has really clouded your basic judgement for what is good policy, what is bad policy, versus what is simply evil. You really want so bad for them to be bad, its sad.

It's called exaggerating to make a point. I am not suggesting that Thaksin is equivalent to Hitler. But if you just want to go by "intentions", well, then....

they paid back the IMF loans early because it would free the country from the shackles of international debt and enable it to recover faster. what is so hard to understand about that?

they could have squandered the money, but no, it was under their charge and during their 3rd year in office, they made the final IMF payment. i don't think this could have happened under any coalition government because there'd be no money left after they finish lobbying everyone to pay the loan off. chuan's involvement to me is but a footnote since he was no longer incharge when this happened. there are some things that require a majority government to achieve.

Firstly, i am talking about the loan repayment which was made 2 years early by this government, and you are talking about the loan drawdown made by Chuan's coalition. Frankly, i don't think any asian government wanted to drawdown the full IMF allocated loan facility, and indeed many of them didn't, because it was such a bitter pill, they stopped drawing down as soon as they could. there was nothing heroic about that. i merely made a statement of fact, and you are grasping at straws to distort that fact. Secondly, i recognise that export growth was largely due to the china boom, i never suggested otherwise. i made the point that the populist pump priming programs kick-started the economic recovery by driving consumption spending. this is a fact too. and who are you to judge my economic understanding, you don't even know me.

The studies I have read show that domestic demand growth (consumer spending plus investment) played a minor part in the economic recovery. The overriding factor was export growth. Thaksin also didn't wave a magic wand to lower interest rates - low interest rates internationally really brought this about. Sure, if you want to argue "Thaksin didn't screw up macroeconomic policy in the face of favorable external conditions", I guess you could complement him for that. In my book though, that ain't a very big accomplishment.

Let me say something about coalition governments. It was fasionable in the mid-90s to think that coalition governments were the scourge of Thailand and that strong leadership was the panacea. Well, guess what? The problems of the past coalition governments - intra-governmental infighting, are still with us! The old parties have been subsumed into TRT, and now the infighting takes place among the intra-party factions. So we're back to square one. Have you ever wondered why under this government, not a single track for any new mass transit projects in the city has been laid (the subway that opened in '04 doesn't count, it was started in '99 by the PREVIOUS government)? They've had 5 years in power, and Bangkok traffic just keeps getting worse, but the Suriya and Pongsak factions can never seem to agree on a plan! Just today, the government missed an important deadline for delivering the TOR for the new lines that will be part of the "mega-projects". So much for "decisive leadership".

[cclub75]

Have you ever wondered why under this government, not a single track for any new mass transit projects in the city has been laid (the subway that opened in '04 doesn't count, it was started in '99 by the PREVIOUS government)? They've had 5 years in power, and Bangkok traffic just keeps getting worse, but the Suriya and Pongsak factions can never seem to agree on a plan! Just today, the government missed an important deadline for delivering the TOR for the new lines that will be part of the "mega-projects". So much for "decisive leadership".

You certainly have a point with the factions game... But there is another factor to explain this amazing standstill : no cash, no money.

That's the main issue : the gvt is unable to finance its grandiose "1500 billions THB" investment master plan to create "hundreds kilometers" of train, subway, skytrain lines...

The whole issue is flawed. And the deadline of april to get all the nice and sweet foreigns companies to present their projects is a non sense.

[lanny]

To my way of thinking, this government is attempting to establish a dictatorship -- with Thaksin as the Fuhrer.

Before moving to Thailand, I lived in Hawaii. I've seen the evils of a one-party system. The powers that be become entrenched and are no longer answerable to the public for their actions. That is exactly what I see now in Thailand.

The country may very well be better off economically, although the effects could prove to be illusory and short lived. In the long run, many of the programs TRT has installed give the impression of improving the lives of the poor, etc. However, most of these programs have provisions that, in the long run, will be detrimental to the economy. The loans to farmers under these programs have provisions that prevent repayment for up to 5 years, with only interest being payable now. Ultimately, these farmers will probably be unable to pay off the loans. Then where will they be?

A program to provide live stock to rural communities has some limitations that are not publicized. For example, most require that feed for the stock be purchased from one or two specified sources. (Controlled by influential people, of course.) If a cow has a calf, the calf belongs to the government, not to the farmer.

In an earlier post, I referred to comparisons with Hitler and Mussolini. Maybe Thaksin is not as evil as those two but his intentions are just as threatening. In the 5 years he has been in power, the rights of the people have been substantially curbed. He has limited the opening hours of businesses, not just the go-go bars -- look at the shopping centers which used to open until midnight. He has effectively muffled the press and media. How many editors, reporters, etc. have lost their jobs after upsetting Mr. Thaksin and his cronies or been sued for libel?

Benjamin Franklin once said that people who yield some of their rights to gain some security deserve neither. Some people applaud the puritanical measures imposed by this government without realizing that their pet projects could be next.